The latest Chick publication and its thread reminded me of this thing (small PDF) that I encountered last month.
Washington, DC, 12 April. AC, a couple friends, and I went to the Cherry Blossom Parade. As we made our way from Federal Triangle Metro, through the courtyard at the Reagan Building, and down to Constitution, we encountered a Boy Scout handing out programs for the nearby Japanese Street Festival. Just past the Boy Scout was someone else, handing out these pamplets with the words “Identity Theft” on the cover. I shoved it into my pocket, figuring it was just an advisory to be careful of pickpockets or something. I didn’t really look at it until later.
Okay, that’s a weird way to warn people about identity theft.
That’s a bit better…that’s also when I skipped to the end.
Well, that certainly explained why the garbage can between the Boy Scout and Constitution was overflowing with these things. And they must know the vast majority of them are just going to be tossed! Read the very last line.
JfJ used to congregate in the park outside my college. I was never quite sure why, as there were several churches and a cathedral in the immediate vicinity, but the nearest temple was a couple of parks away. Maybe they figured all art students were secretly Jewish and even more secretly desired to learn His way? :rolleyes:
I think it’s been mentioned on this Board before that Jews for Jesus was not founded by Jews, not even by Jewish converts to Christianity, but by gentile Evangelical Protestants. Is that true? The Wiki article doesn’t say.
Here is some information from Jews on First about Jews for Jesus and Chosen People’s Ministries.
Here is some additional information about Jews for Jesus, with links, from Talk 2 Action. Yes, it’s a left-leaning site, but the author, dogemperor, is very, very good about backing up claims with citations. This isn’t the specific link I was looking for, but it will do.
(typing from memory; I’ll edit quickly if I got it wrong)
I know you’re joking, but the answer is: it depends. Your average evangelical? Probably not, if they recognized him. People like Jews for Jesus or other Dominionist groups? They probably would, whether they recognized him or not.
I like the fact that God happens to talk like a stereotypical Jewish parent. I hear him saying “What, you don’t read anymore?” in a Yiddish accent.
Also, I’m assuming BR-582 is an internal code for the document, but putting a copyright symbol in front of it makes it seem like a year, a year that doesn’t follow the Christian or Jewish calendars. Do the Jews For Jesus have their own calendar?
JFJ was founded by Martin/Moishe Rosen, an ethnic Jew who became a Christian & then became Messianic. Chosen People Ministries was originally the American Board of Missions to the Jews so it was at first AFAIK a Gentile ministry to Jews, probably a century ago, but is now Messianic-Jewish run.
And if JFJ & other Dominionist groups recognized JC, they would still evangelize Him? Ummm, OK…?
I didn’t see anything in either article tho that backs up the
I think that the vast majority of Jews think of these guys, when they think of 'em at all, as basically another Christian attempt to covert Jews, a project which appears oddly important to some Christian groups.
You are confusing my opinion in my response to Little Nemo with my answer to the question about Jews for Jesus. You also have to consider that I figure Jesus is coming back (if he comes back at all, being as I’m not a Christian and definitely not an End-Times Thealogist) as a left-handed black lesbian, that yeah. The sorts of people I’m thinking of would probably evangelize her.
The way these guys operate is to make a big deal of a real life issue: that one can be ethnically Jewish without being observant.
Judaism is odd in that it is both an ethnic identity and a religion (this isn’t as odd as it sounds, as most ethnicity is essentially a matter of choice, either one’s own or based on pretty arbitrary rules of society at large - one chooses to put emphasis on one aspect of one’s heratige over another - for example, in the US generally speaking any amount of African ancestry makes one presumptively “Black”; in the case of Jews, being born of a Jewish mom makes you presumptively “Jewish”).
What they fail to see is that the presumption of ethnicity is a rebuttable one - that is, you are only “Jewish” so long as you do not actively convert to another religion.
Thus, it is perfectly possible to be a nonpracticing Jew, or even an athiest Jew (Jews tend not to put as much stock in belief as in acts) - because you were born a Jew; it is not however possible to convert to Islam or Christianity and be a “Jew” - if you do, you are now considered a Muslim or Christian of Jewish ancestry.
Thus, the Jews for Jesus types take the first part - that you can be Jewish of ethnicity - without accepting the second part - that if you convert to Christianity, you are not a “Jew” any more; all in an attempt to convince Jews that converting isn’t a big deal or is the “natural” progression.
Myself, I have no problems with a religion forthrightly saying it is better than the others and people should convert, as most religions do this (an exception being Judaism itself). But this method looks more than a trifle underhanded (though I can’t imagine too many Jews going for it).
Just a note here- the definitions used in the above cite-
A term used by some social scientists and critics to describe a trend in Protestant Christian evangelicalism and fundamentalism that encourages political participation in civic society by Christians through appeals to their religious beliefs. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dominionism
A teaching in certain fundamentalist and pentecostal sects that teaches that the “saved” must take dominion over the earth for God. In variants linked to “deliverance ministry”, the “spiritual warfare” movement, and word-faith theology it is explicitly taught that God lost dominion over the earth due to the Fall of Man and that the “saved” must gain dominion back in all things; this variant is often termed “Kingdom Now Theology” (see below). See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dominion_Theology "
I would say the Dominion Theology definition is pretty accurate, though it leaves out the Reformed-based Christian Reconstructionist movement. The Dominionism definition however is so generic as to be meaningless. Basically, many of your cites use it as a scare word to mean any politically-active conservative Christian group or person. It would be as if I called any politically-active liberal Christain group or person “neo-Marxist Liberation Theologian”.