Ship of Fools: Christian Bar Mitzvah

Thread: Christian Bar Mitzvah Board: Oblivion / Ship of Fools.

To visit this thread, use this URL:
http://forum.ship-of-fools.com/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=70;t=025224

Posted by Horseman Bree (# 5290) on :

Apparently, the latest in thing among certain American fundamentalists is the idea that they are no longer in hatred of the "Christ-killers", but actually Jewish, possibly even more Jewish than the Jews.

The article which describes this is "Oy Vey, Christian Soldiers" , written by a gal that isn't that sure. (I find the heading a bit repelling, with its overtones of militarily-forced Christianity and Imperialism)

The family event which triggered this was a reality-TV show, but the idea seems to be accepted with equanimity by people all the way up the food chain to John Hagee.

quote:
Their Jesus-fied version of the Jewish ritual is intended to celebrate both Trevor’s ethnic heritage through his father and, even more important, his spiritual identity through salvation. For, in the eyes of the Lewises and many fundamentalists like them, born-again Christians are in some sense more truly Jewish than actual Jews are.

Is this just the desperate wish for some sort of cultural grounding?

quote:
These days, though, mainline Protestants are borrowing from Jewish tradition. For example, Kevin Ibanez, a pastor at Sunrise Church in Rialto, Calif., started wondering along with his wife why there was no male equivalent to the quincineras thrown for girls in Hispanic families for their 15th birthdays. So they decided to give their son, Joshua, a Christian-inflected version of the bar mitzvah to help prepare him for adulthood. In the lead-up, Joshua studied Hebrew and the Scripture with a Messianic friend of the family’s. At the event, he wore a prayer shawl and sang the Sh’ma Yisrael.

Or is it part of the political need to support Israel at any cost, because of the Apocalypse?

quote:
Hagee fervently supports Israel, believes that the Jews must return there before Jesus will come again and claimed in a 1999 sermon that prophesies in the Old Testament proved that God enabled the Holocaust. “God allowed it to happen,” Hagee said. “God said, ‘My top priority to the Jewish people is to get them to come back to the land of Israel.’ ”

I find the whole idea rather disturbing, partly for the reason described:

quote:
The real problem is that, fundamentally, this fetishistic view of Judaism and the role of Israel in the advent of the end times sees Jews as a people to be herded together so that another group can achieve its eternal reward. To me that’s a troubling catechism. It’s ultimately not so far from the “Christ-killers” narrative of yore, just with an Israel-friendly varnish.

What are we to make of this? Is it even Christian at all?

Posted by CL (# 16145) on :

Modern-day Judaizers.

Posted by SvitlanaV2 (# 16967) on :

I can't see too much to complain about in 'fundamentalists' trying to come to terms with their Jewish heritage. One could even see it as a movement towards a post-fundamentalist world view that seeks to benefit from practices found in other religions. Adopting rituals from Islam could come next, perhaps in Europe, where Christian evangelicalism and Islam are likely to become the two dominant forms of religion.

Taking the specifically religious element out of it, I can see Christian Bar Mitzvahs as an attempt to create a coming of age ritual that's meaningful for the whole family can participate in. We sorely lack such rituals in Western culture. Young people create their own rituals by engaging in risky behaviour, but these are usually carried out in defiance of responsible adulthood rather than an acceptance of it.

Posted by fletcher christian (# 13919) on :

Wasn't there another thread on this topic a month ago? Memory may be deceiving me.

Posted by Stetson (# 9597) on :

quote:
Adopting rituals from Islam could come next, perhaps in Europe, where Christian evangelicalism and Islam are likely to become the two dominant forms of religion.

Except that Messsianic Jews(as I've always heard them called) situate their practices in the context of Christianity being a fulfilment of Judaism. It's not just that they're taking rituals from Judaism because they happen to exist in close proximity to Judaism(as would be the case with your Christians-adopting-Islamic-rituals scenario).

And yeah, I think there was a thread on this a while back, not sure when though. One of the things I might have mentioned on that thread is that, while obviously anyone has the legal right to call themselves anything they want, I do find it a tad annoying the way some Messianic Jews refer to themselves as Jewish in a completely matter-of-fact tone, as if their claims to being such is universally recognized.

Posted by SvitlanaV2 (# 16967) on :

Stetson

I appreciate what you say. We do seem to be more comfortable with clear boundaries between religions, even when those religions are closely related historically. People who breach those boundaries present us with a challenge.

However, in a postmodern world where people can believe or disbelieve all sorts of things and still claim the name Christian it seems like a lost cause to be too precious about these labels.

Posted by Stetson (# 9597) on :

quote:
However, in a postmodern world where people can believe or disbelieve all sorts of things and still claim the name Christian it seems like a lost cause to be too precious about these labels.

Yeah, I know, it's a bit of dilemna for me too. On the one hand, if a Christian who embaraces Messianic Judaism sincerely believes himself to be Jewish, then that is how he should define himself.

I guess where it kinda goes off the rails for me is in cases like one I remember, in which someone who possessed no special knowledge of religion had a conversation with a Messianic Jew, and came away with the impression that(direct quote here) "There are two types of Jews", those who accept Jesus as Messiah being one, and those who don't being the other.

At the very least, the MJ should have explained that the group's claims to being Jewish are controversial, and then made a case for why those claims should be taken as valid.

Posted by Porridge (# 15405) on :

quote:
Originally posted by fletcher christian:
Wasn't there another thread on this topic a month ago? Memory may be deceiving me.

Thinking back, I seem to recall one about Christian seders, but don't ask me to swear to it.

Christianity is essentially belief-based. Judaism is essentially practice-based. ISTM that if you're attracted to some other tradition's practices, and it's a practice-based tradition, you ought to consider converting, and the same for those attracted to the beliefs of the belief-based traditions.

Alternatively, take a page from Jews for Jesus, and found a Christians for Moses movement.

What I don't agree with is appropriating practices or beliefs which are essential to and characteristic of some tradition you're alien to, and trying to authenticate your own tradition with the trappings of the other, and claiming you're still a Jew or a Christian (or whatever you claim to be). You're not; you're inventing your own religion.

But of course, we knew that already.

Posted by Ad Orientem (# 17574) on :

Judaisers and Zionists. Both are heretical and un-Christian.

Posted by leo (# 1458) on :

If they want bar mitzvahs, they should have circumcision too.

Posted by Jon in the Nati (# 15849) on :

What Ad Orientam said.

In a liturgical/sacramental church (of Western tradition), confirmation and first communion could be able to serve as a coming-of-age ritual. At least it would, if infant communion were not so common (as it seems to be in most places in the Anglican Communion). I don't really have a huge problem with infant communion, and it is in any case tangential to this thread, but the practice has effectively destroyed confirmation/first communion as a coming-of-age rite among Anglicans.

Posted by Gramps49 (# 16378) on :

Many Christian rites and observances have Jewish roots. We have also borrowed from some pagan rituals and Christianized them--Christmas comes to mind.

This is nothing new.

I do think it is important we have rites of passage for our young people in the church. Our society certainly has such rites--getting a driver's license, becoming old enough to legally drink, the age of consent, come to mind.

As pointed out, that is why most liturgical churches have a confirmation rite.

On the other hand, I think requiring a gentile child to learn Hebrew and singing the Shema Israel is going a little overboard, to the point of becoming modern day Judaizers.

Oh, and, leo, I think if you checked, you would see a lot of gentile men circumcised, though not for religious purposes.

Posted by leo (# 1458) on :

But less so than in the past - even in the USA.

Posted by Ad Orientem (# 17574) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Jon in the Nati:
What Ad Orientam said.

In a liturgical/sacramental church (of Western tradition), confirmation and first communion could be able to serve as a coming-of-age ritual. At least it would, if infant communion were not so common (as it seems to be in most places in the Anglican Communion). I don't really have a huge problem with infant communion, and it is in any case tangential to this thread, but the practice has effectively destroyed confirmation/first communion as a coming-of-age rite among Anglicans.

I'd just like to say that if the practice in your communion is for all three sacraments to be given at the same time then that is praiseworthy indeed, whether that be in infancy or adulthood. The sacraments of Christian initiation (baptism,confirmation/chrismation and holy communion) were never meant to be separated.

Posted by Ad Orientem (# 17574) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Gramps49:
Oh, and, leo, I think if you checked, you would see a lot of gentile men circumcised, though not for religious purposes.

Indeed, and this is quite scandalous if you ask me, but that's a subject for a different thread.

Posted by Jon in the Nati (# 15849) on :

I knew you would say that, AO, since that is indeed the Orthodox position. I am inclined to defend the Western practice myself, but I don't consider it a hill to die on and in any case it is tangential to this thread.

Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on :

I think it boils down to nature abhorring a vacuum. Because most of these fundamentalist type groups don't have a formal liturgy nor a fully sacramental approach they fill the gap by inventing 'sacraments' and rites of passage of their own.

I've said here many times that charismatic evangelicals tend to 'sacralise' the 'worship-time' or the 'ministry-time' that can follow the preaching because they have a generally low view of the traditional sacraments.

Equally, more conservative evangelicals tend to sacralise the preaching of the word, Quakers to sacralise the 'gathered silence' and so on ...

So it's no surprise to find non or semi-liturgical churches adopting and developing their own liturgical and 'sacramental' forms.

As far as the Anglican thing goes, I've long thought that the confirmation issue within Anglicanism is a rite searching for a theological justification. The way its done in Orthodoxy makes a lot more sense to me than the way it is often regarded within Anglicanism - although I've seen some confirmations recently that have been pregnant with meaning and full of purpose.

Posted by Saul the Apostle (# 13808) on :

I would agree with Gamaliel here.

In addition I would add that strictly speaking Christianity is a natural development of Judaism. A sub sect which became the largest faith on the planet.

However, believers in Jesus are free to adopt or not adopt certain Jewish traditions (circumcision being one which is not expected of gentile converts). Simply this debate was key as the early church debates proves. Saint Paul is quite relaxed about what he does or does not do, as long as the key (gospel) core doctrines are maintained.

The main thing is not to go overboard in this understanding of Jewish life and tradition. WASPs have traditionally veered from an ultra over emphasis and unhealthy fixation with Jewish matters, to the other extreme of vitriolic anti semitism.

The (pre millennial approach to the) end times sees all sorts of things going on with Israel and Jewish folk being the leit motif. Some of the ideas are wacky and crazy.

Simply as a con evo I would welcome the massive Jewish contribution to faith and of course point Jewish friends to the Jewish Messiah; Jesus Christ of Nazareth.

An undue fascintation with Jewish ritual and life can become unhealthy. Balance is all.

Saul the Apostle

[ 24. March 2013, 19:03: Message edited by: Saul the Apostle ]

Posted by Ad Orientem (# 17574) on :

What are "WASPs"?

Posted by Arethosemyfeet (# 17047) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Jon in the Nati:
What Ad Orientam said.

In a liturgical/sacramental church (of Western tradition), confirmation and first communion could be able to serve as a coming-of-age ritual. At least it would, if infant communion were not so common (as it seems to be in most places in the Anglican Communion). I don't really have a huge problem with infant communion, and it is in any case tangential to this thread, but the practice has effectively destroyed confirmation/first communion as a coming-of-age rite among Anglicans.

Forgive my continuation of the tangent, but I've never encountered infant communion among Anglicans. My experience is limited to the British Isles but here there is a strong belief that communion should be received only by those old enough to understand its significance. Indeed, it's only recently that there has been a move to allow communion before confirmation in the CofE - when I was growing up it was expected that you would be confirmed around 10-12 and would first receive communion at that time.

Posted by Doublethink (# 1984) on :

White Anglo-Saxon Protestants (in the context american culture), I believe.

[ 24. March 2013, 19:17: Message edited by: Doublethink ]

Posted by Ad Orientem (# 17574) on :

Thank you.

Posted by SvitlanaV2 (# 16967) on :

In some ways it's problematic to see confirmation as the 'sensible' rite of passage for Christians. For a start, in the UK very few young people are now confirmed in the CofE (and in the Methodist Church, etc.). And even when this was more common, young people and their families often saw it as an appropriate time to reduce rather than to solidify their commitment to church life. This is a rite of passage of sorts, but maybe not the kind that benefits the church!

In the RCC confirmation happens at around seven - eight years old, which isn't really the threshold of adulthood. Interestingly, Pentecostals tend to baptise children at the same age, and I suspect that the 'Christian bar mitzvah' children were as well. When people are confirmed/baptised at an attentive but still a quite young age it's hardly surprising that they still have to go through the restless phase in early adolescence. Something else is needed at that point. The bar mitzvah may not be the most appropriate thing, but it's an attempt to tackle a current problem. Mainstream Christians ought to look for their own solution, because they don't really have one at the moment.

Posted by the giant cheeseburger (# 10942) on :

quote:
Originally posted by leo:
If they want bar mitzvahs, they should have circumcision too.

I agree, and they should follow Paul's advice to go all in and chop the whole thing off.

Posted by Spiffy (# 5267) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Horseman Bree:

quote:
These days, though, mainline Protestants are borrowing from Jewish tradition. For example, Kevin Ibanez, a pastor at Sunrise Church in Rialto, Calif., started wondering along with his wife why there was no male equivalent to the quincineras thrown for girls in Hispanic families for their 15th birthdays.

OH! OH! As a Hispanic person, I know the answer to this one! Because Quinceneras come from a culture and a time where the ceremony was basically putting your daughter on the market stating she is now of breeding capabilities and eligible for marriage, sell her off to the highest bidder!

Sweet Jesus on a Cracker. The man doesn't know spit about Judaism or Hispanics.

[ 25. March 2013, 01:01: Message edited by: Spiffy ]

Posted by Ad Orientem (# 17574) on :

quote:
Originally posted by SvitlanaV2:
In some ways it's problematic to see confirmation as the 'sensible' rite of passage for Christians. For a start, in the UK very few young people are now confirmed in the CofE (and in the Methodist Church, etc.). And even when this was more common, young people and their families often saw it as an appropriate time to reduce rather than to solidify their commitment to church life. This is a rite of passage of sorts, but maybe not the kind that benefits the church!

In the RCC confirmation happens at around seven - eight years old, which isn't really the threshold of adulthood. Interestingly, Pentecostals tend to baptise children at the same age, and I suspect that the 'Christian bar mitzvah' children were as well. When people are confirmed/baptised at an attentive but still a quite young age it's hardly surprising that they still have to go through the restless phase in early adolescence. Something else is needed at that point. The bar mitzvah may not be the most appropriate thing, but it's an attempt to tackle a current problem. Mainstream Christians ought to look for their own solution, because they don't really have one at the moment.

Sorry, but I've never understood this, but why on Earth do we a coming of age rite? It would seem much like just inventing a rite for the sake of it.

Posted by Amos (# 44) on :

quote:
Originally posted by the giant cheeseburger:

quote:
Originally posted by leo:
If they want bar mitzvahs, they should have circumcision too.
I agree, and they should follow Paul's advice to go all in and chop the whole thing off.

This.

Posted by Kaplan Corday (# 16119) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Horseman Bree:
Apparently, the latest in thing among certain American fundamentalists is the idea that they are no longer in hatred of the "Christ-killers"

When was it that American fundamentalists ever expressed hatred of Jews or referred to them as Christ-killers?

Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on :

I agree with Saul, in this, as in much else, people can swing from one extreme to another - either anti-semitism on the one hand or a form of Christian Zionism on the other.

I can see Ad Orientem's point about inventing a rite for the sake of it, but within Western Christianity in general - and not only among evangelicals with their conversionist emphasis - there is a widespread sense that there comes a time that one has to 'own' or acknowledge one's faith. You'll find this across the spectrum and it's not only articulated in an evangelical conversion type way.

With the Orthodox and most Roman Catholics, it seems to me, that there's an expectation of a seamless continuum from initial infant 'initiation' to active involvement as one of the 'faithful.' This doesn't always happen, of course, hence the issue with nominal Christianity that some of the more full-on Protestant groups have a problem with when it comes to the historic churches.

So, among the more 'sectarian' forms of Protestantism you'll find strategies embedded to encourage/elicit some kind of 'decision' or conscious acceptance of faith - generally around the traditional age that Anglicans considered appropriate for confirmation - from about 11 or 12 onwards. Hence, you'll find a good number of baptisms of teenagers in Pentecostal and Baptist churches or confirmations at that age in Anglican circles.

It's a question both of soteriology with some and of sociology in others ...ie socialising kids into the Kingdom as it were.

Posted by chris stiles (# 12641) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Saul the Apostle:

In addition I would add that strictly speaking Christianity is a natural development of Judaism. A sub sect which became the largest faith on the planet.

Strictly speaking both Christianity and Rabbinic Judaism are developments of Second Temple Judaism.

Posted by Amos (# 44) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Kaplan Corday:

quote:
Originally posted by Horseman Bree:
Apparently, the latest in thing among certain American fundamentalists is the idea that they are no longer in hatred of the "Christ-killers"
When was it that American fundamentalists ever expressed hatred of Jews or referred to them as Christ-killers?

American Christians, Protestant and Catholic alike, regularly expressed hatred of Jews and referred to them as 'Christ killers' when I was growing up in the '60s and '70s. I don't know about what was preached in churches, but it was certainly part of general American Christian culture on the playground, in the classroom, and in the neighbourhood. We were regularly called 'Christ-killers' when I was growing up. (And the great Lenny Bruce had something to say about it)

Posted by Leorning Cniht (# 17564) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Arethosemyfeet:
Forgive my continuation of the tangent, but I've never encountered infant communion among Anglicans. My experience is limited to the British Isles but here there is a strong belief that communion should be received only by those old enough to understand its significance.

In my ECUSA parish (which seems to be quite normal), there's a formal "first communion" typically for 8-year-olds, preceded by a set of age-appropriate classes to teach the children what communion is etc. This largely follows local RC practice, and features girls dressing up in mini-wedding dresses.

Most of the children in the first communion class, however, have been regular communicants for a while. I haven't seen anyone communicate an infant, but plenty of pre-schoolers receive around here. It largely seems a question of when can you rely on the child not to spit the Body of Christ on to the floor.

Divorcing confirmation from admission to communion means that confirmation can really fill the "entering adulthood affirmation of belief" slot, rather than being seen as getting your communion ticket punched. I don't think that change has fully happened yet, but I think it might.

Posted by Kaplan Corday (# 16119) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Amos:
American Christians, Protestant and Catholic alike, regularly expressed hatred of Jews and referred to them as 'Christ killers' when I was growing up in the '60s and '70s.

I find that very hard to believe.

There is certainly a deplorable thread of anti-Semitism in the history of all three major Christian traditions, Orthodox, Catholic and Protestant, but I suspect that any anti-Jewish comments in the 60s and 70s would have emanated from that popular, grass-roots anti-Semitism which can be found just below the surface in most societies, and that the fact that the speakers were "Christians" was incidental.

Certainly by the 60s and 70s liberal Protestantism contained no theology of "Christ-killers", and American fuindamentalism has been Zionist since its inception - indeed, in discussions of the origins of fundamentalism, dispensational premillenialism has been touted by some scholars as its central identifying motif.

Where are the quotes, or other evidence, of American fundamentalists expressing hatred of Jews as "Christ-killers"?

[ 25. March 2013, 14:37: Message edited by: Kaplan Corday ]

Posted by Gramps49 (# 16378) on :

Why is it that modern societies still have rites of passage?

All cultures that I am aware of have some type of rite or milestones related to maturing. Many rites happen around Puberty. Graduation at various points is another rite. But even retirement is a rite, and a funeral is a milestone.

It is a formal recognition that something has changed.

Being from a university town I have met many people who chose not to walk in graduation ceremonies. It is interesting how many of them wish they had walked five years out.

[ 25. March 2013, 15:01: Message edited by: Gramps49 ]

Posted by daisymay (# 1480) on :

And also, some Christians, RC people, killed lots of Jews hundreds of years ago, unless they agreed to become Christian. So that probably is a reminder among Jews as well as Christians. And my husband had one set of his hundreds of years ago Jewish parents, who were made to be Christians or be killed in Portugal - so they became RC and survived.

Posted by Gildas (# 525) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Kaplan Corday:

quote:
Originally posted by Amos:
American Christians, Protestant and Catholic alike, regularly expressed hatred of Jews and referred to them as 'Christ killers' when I was growing up in the '60s and '70s.
I find that very hard to believe.

There is certainly a deplorable thread of anti-Semitism in the history of all three major Christian traditions, Orthodox, Catholic and Protestant, but I suspect that any anti-Jewish comments in the 60s and 70s would have emanated from that popular, grass-roots anti-Semitism which can be found just below the surface in most societies, and that the fact that the speakers were "Christians" was incidental.

Certainly by the 60s and 70s liberal Protestantism contained no theology of "Christ-killers", and American fuindamentalism has been Zionist since its inception - indeed, in discussions of the origins of fundamentalism, dispensational premillenialism has been touted by some scholars as its central identifying motif.

Where are the quotes, or other evidence, of American fundamentalists expressing hatred of Jews as "Christ-killers"?

File under "who are you going to believe? Me or your lying eyes".

Technically, you are correct, of course, when you say that most denominations had abandoned the claims of deicide by the 1960s but it doesn't follow that this will have percolated from the seminary to the playground.

If you type the phrase "Jews Killed Jesus" into Google you will find a fundamentalist website which alleges exactly that. It's probably an outlier (I have no intention of digging very deeply under that particular stone) but given the rich diversity of lunacy within some parts of American Fundamentalism I would be surprised if it was otherwise non-existent.

Finally it doesn't follow at all that just because an organisation is Zionist that it is also in no way anti-Semitic.

Posted by teddybear (# 7842) on :

quote:
Originally posted by daisymay:
And also, some Christians, RC people, killed lots of Jews hundreds of years ago, unless they agreed to become Christian. So that probably is a reminder among Jews as well as Christians. And my husband had one set of his hundreds of years ago Jewish parents, who were made to be Christians or be killed in Portugal - so they became RC and survived.

Not just the RC's, don't forget the Russian/Ukrainian pogroms in the late 1880's-early 1900's. No one has clean hands where crimes against the Jews are concerned.

Posted by Crœsos (# 238) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Gildas:

quote:
Originally posted by Kaplan Corday:
I find that very hard to believe.

There is certainly a deplorable thread of anti-Semitism in the history of all three major Christian traditions, Orthodox, Catholic and Protestant, but I suspect that any anti-Jewish comments in the 60s and 70s would have emanated from that popular, grass-roots anti-Semitism which can be found just below the surface in most societies, and that the fact that the speakers were "Christians" was incidental.

Certainly by the 60s and 70s liberal Protestantism contained no theology of "Christ-killers", and American fundamentalism has been Zionist since its inception - indeed, in discussions of the origins of fundamentalism, dispensational premillenialism has been touted by some scholars as its central identifying motif.

Where are the quotes, or other evidence, of American fundamentalists expressing hatred of Jews as "Christ-killers"?
File under "who are you going to believe? Me or your lying eyes".

Or "who are you going be believe, me or this tape of Billy Graham ("America's Pastor") calling Jews "the synagogue of Satan" in a conversation with Richard Nixon". Of course, Billy Graham is just a "fringe figure" in American evangelicalism.

Posted by Mere Nick (# 11827) on :

I looked it up at wikipedia and found this:

quote:
Bar or Bat Mitzvah celebrations have become an occasion to give the celebrant a commemorative gift. Traditionally, common gifts include books with religious or educational value, religious items, writing implements, savings bonds (to be used for the child's college education), gift certificates, or money. Gifts of cash have become commonplace in recent times. As with charity and all other gifts, it has become common to give in multiples of 18, since the gematria, or numerical equivalent of the Hebrew word for "life", ("chai"), is the number 18. Monetary gifts in multiples of 18 are considered to be particularly auspicious and have become very common for Bar/Bat Mitzvahs. Many Bar/Bat Mitzvah also receive their first tallit (a Jewish prayer shawl) from their parents to be used for the occasion and tefillin where this is appropriate. Jewellery is a common gift for girls at a Bat Mitzvah celebration. Another meaningful gift for the Bat Mitzvah girl are Shabbat candlesticks because it is the duty and honour of the woman to light the candles

I'm a Christian but I'm willing to give it a try. I'll be 54 in July. 54 is divisible by 18, so that must be a sign. How about each member of the SOF sending me $54 in July and I report back a little later on anything that seems spiritually significant around that time? I'm not trying to offend anyone, just offering my services for the betterment of us all.

Posted by Porridge (# 15405) on :

Great. Where will Shipmates gather for your reading in Hebrew from a Torah scroll?

After all, that's part of the ritual marking your taking up of adult reponsbilities to your community of fellow-Jews (pray pardon my politically-incorrect and gender-specific use of the adjective "fellow," for which I can't immediately summon a gender-free substitute).

Posted by Arethosemyfeet (# 17047) on :

quote:
Originally posted by teddybear:
No one has clean hands where crimes against the Jews are concerned.

Actually, it's about the only area where Oliver Cromwell does have clean hands. [Razz]

Posted by Jon in the Nati (# 15849) on :

quote:
Indeed, it's only recently that there has been a move to allow communion before confirmation in the CofE - when I was growing up it was expected that you would be confirmed around 10-12 and would first receive communion at that time.

Interesting. My experience in ECUSA (and in my parish as well, though I try to gently discourage the practice) is that children communicate at a very young age. Leorning Cnhint mentions the same.

I have heard that the situation is much the same in Australia/NZ, and I assumed it was probably the same in the UK but I should not make such assumptions, I suppose.

Posted by Mere Nick (# 11827) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Porridge:
Great. Where will Shipmates gather for your reading in Hebrew from a Torah scroll?

After all, that's part of the ritual marking your taking up of adult reponsbilities to your community of fellow-Jews (pray pardon my politically-incorrect and gender-specific use of the adjective "fellow," for which I can't immediately summon a gender-free substitute).

That would be too much trouble for everyone so there would be no hard feelings if you just send money.

Posted by Huia (# 3473) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Jon in the Nati:

quote:
Indeed, it's only recently that there has been a move to allow communion before confirmation in the CofE - when I was growing up it was expected that you would be confirmed around 10-12 and would first receive communion at that time.
Interesting. My experience in ECUSA (and in my parish as well, though I try to gently discourage the practice) is that children communicate at a very young age. Leorning Cnhint mentions the same.

I have heard that the situation is much the same in Australia/NZ, and I assumed it was probably the same in the UK but I should not make such assumptions, I suppose.

I have administered the host to a toddler in her mother's arms one Christmas at Christchurch Cathedral. This family regularly brought their children for communion.

Huia

[ 26. March 2013, 03:31: Message edited by: Huia ]

Posted by Arethosemyfeet (# 17047) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Jon in the Nati:
[QUOTE] I have heard that the situation is much the same in Australia/NZ, and I assumed it was probably the same in the UK but I should not make such assumptions, I suppose.

Well, likewise. I'm terrible at assuming that the CofE is typical of Anglican practice worldwide, which I should know isn't true as even up here the SEC does things differently.

Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on :

I think that although there have been Zionist elements within Protestant fundamentalism from its earliest development, the more recent fixation with all things Jewish derives from popular Hal Lindsey style eschatological paperbacks from the late '60s onwards.

The key factor was the 1967 Arab-Israeli war when a lot of fundies picked up on what they saw as the fulfilment of prophecy or direct divine intervention on the Israeli side of that conflict.

It's always been something of a hot-potato and the restorationist 'new churches' here in the UK were often accused of anti-semitism or anti-Zionism because their end-times schema didn't play out in such an Israel-centric way.

The foundation of the state of Israel in 1948 and the subsequent recovery of Jerusalem in 1967 were all seen as fulfilments of prophecy and signs that the end of the age was approaching by many - but not all - evangelicals and charismatics.

Of course, you can trace it further back to the 'prophetic conferences' in 1830s Britain and to the Puritans to some extent - one of the reasons Cromwell allowed the Jews to return to the UK was because it was felt that they might be converted and so hasten the return of Christ.

'Until the conversion of the Jews,' is a trope used by Andrew Marvell in his poem 'To His Coy Mistress' to suggest a far off event accompanying the end of the world - in effect, 'Let's not wait so long that the end of the world comes upon us, let's get into the sack and make beautiful lu-u-u-rve here and now.'

I still have evangelicalism in my spiritual DNA but the eschatological obsessions of vast swathes of it leave me cold.

Posted by Kaplan Corday (# 16119) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Crœsos:
Or "who are you going be believe, me or this tape of Billy Graham ("America's Pastor") calling Jews "the synagogue of Satan" in a conversation with Richard Nixon". Of course, Billy Graham is just a "fringe figure" in American evangelicalism.

Gotcha!

Nice one Croesos, but this is not the first time this tape has been quoted on the Ship.

Graham’s comments were stupid and inexcusable, but they do not constitute an anti-Semitic attitude of “hatred” toward “Christ-killers”.

He just seems to have been buying into the belief that Jews are over-represented in American industries such as showbiz which, some conservatives believe, are propagating deleterious cultural propaganda.

He is also critical (as are Luke and Paul in the book of Acts, for that matter) of what he perceived to be attempts by some Jews to block the preaching of the gospel.

Even if Graham as an individual could be proved to be anti-Semitic, which I believe to be ludicrous, it does not follow that his eminence in the evangelical world (about which you are ponderously sarcastic) means that American fundamentalists are anti-Semitic.

I have never been a dispensationalist, but I have had plenty to do with them over the years, listening to their talks and reading their material (much of it from America).

There was never the remotest hint in their teachings that Jews were to be hated or vilified as “Christ-killers”.

On the contrary, there was a fascination with, and attraction toward them, and a sense of urgency in getting the gospel to them.

You might or might not think that that is a good idea, but you can’t force it into the Procrustean bed of anti-Semitism.

Posted by Horseman Bree (# 5290) on :

ISTM that there may not have been a lot of "Christ-killer" preachers, but there certainly was a huge bed of anti-Jewish feeling.

Why do you think that the comedy industry was populated with such a high proportion of Jews? It was the only safe place, one where the Jews themselves could make jokes about a disliked minority without offending anyone who mattered.

I don't know about the US Catholic church, which has had many of the marks of fundamentalism at various times. But the RC church of Quebec was firmly behind the activities of the Union Nationale, which was about as Fascist as anyone in North America.

And, in the words of the immigration official in Quebec when the steamer St. Louis, the boatload of Jewish refugees, arrived in Quebec in 1939, "None is too many". The ship was causing political grief all the way from Cuba to Canada, because no-one wanted Jews, thankyouverymuch, and was eventually sent back to France, where, not so many years later, the whole lot ended up in the gas chambers.

That attitude didn't come from a hearts-and-flowers happy emotion about "our dear friends of that other religion"

The experience of American GIs in Germany, esp. the death camps, helped to shift opinion after WW2, as did the Jewish part of building The Bomb, which led to the US support for a separate state of Israel ("This Land Is Mine", written by Pat Boone, and sung by Andy Williams says a lot about imperialism), but there may also have been an element of "Oh, great, let's keep them all somewhere else."

Posted by Bostonman (# 17108) on :

It's the supercessionism combined with things like the "synagogue of Satan" stuff that bothers me. The mailing list, for example, of an evangelical Christian fellowship at my university is called "True Israel Chat." Christians (or at least certain kinds of Christians) are, allegedly, the true Israel; the Jews are not. It is not Also a Part of Israel or something, but True Israel.

Now the "synagogue of Satan" business in Revelation 3:9 is about people who say that they are Jews and are not. If one believes that modern Christians are more truly members of the people of Israel than modern Jews, does it not follow that modern Jews are among those who "say that they are Jews and are not"?

Posted by Ad Orientem (# 17574) on :

But the Church has always believed herself to be the one Israel of God. I know this irritates some, just as dispensationalism irritates me, but this is not "replacement theology". This ancient faith of the Church goes not state the the Church had replaced Israel but rather that tve Church is the one true Israel of God since the beginning of the world, those whom God foreknew.

Posted by Laurelin (# 17211) on :

I’m an evangelical Christian who is sympathetic to Israel both theologically and politically, but I think that any Christian claiming to be ‘more Jewish than a Jewish person’ is being offensive. And borderline anti-Semitic. This can hardly aid the cause of dialogue. [Help]

'Rite of passage/initiation into the Christian faith community'
I was baptised by immersion at the age of 16, an experience I found very profound at the time and which I treasure deeply. That was my Christian initiation, period. It’s wonderfully rich symbolism – you are buried and brought back to life.

Twenty years ago I believed I wanted to be ordained as an Anglican priest. I wasn't selected (trust me, it was the right decision!) Anyway, I had to conform to Anglican rules and be confirmed. So I duly got confirmed. It was a nice service, but when the Bishop welcomed the newly confirmed into the family of faith, my brows furrowed. I had already been part of the family of faith for 15 years ...

Posted by Crœsos (# 238) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Kaplan Corday:
Graham’s comments were stupid and inexcusable, but they do not constitute an anti-Semitic attitude of “hatred” toward “Christ-killers”.

He just seems to have been buying into the belief that Jews are over-represented in American industries such as showbiz which, some conservatives believe, are propagating deleterious cultural propaganda.

He is also critical (as are Luke and Paul in the book of Acts, for that matter) of what he perceived to be attempts by some Jews to block the preaching of the gospel.

<snip>

There was never the remotest hint in their teachings that Jews were to be hated or vilified as “Christ-killers”.

Your argument seems to be that Graham regarded Jews as intransigent opponents of Christianity who were working to undermine all that was good in society, but that position doesn't qualify as "anti-semitism" because it doesn't specifically include an accusation of deicide. This seems a ridiculously narrow definition of anti-semitism.

Sticking with the Nixon theme, using your very narrow definition it could just as easily be argued that Richard Nixon identifying and moving and/or firing all the Jews he could find at the Bureau of Labor Statistics wasn't anti-semitic because Nixon was (ostensibly) worried about his electoral prospects rather than who killed Jesus.

[ 26. March 2013, 17:03: Message edited by: Crœsos ]

Posted by Mere Nick (# 11827) on :

It was Italians who killed Jesus, wasn't it?

Posted by Lamb Chopped (# 5528) on :

Nope, it was me.

Posted by cliffdweller (# 13338) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Crœsos:
]Or "who are you going be believe, me or this tape of Billy Graham ("America's Pastor") calling Jews "the synagogue of Satan" in a conversation with Richard Nixon". Of course, Billy Graham is just a "fringe figure" in American evangelicalism.

fwiw, Graham himself has expressed remorse for the remarks, which he suggests were a reflection of the seduction of power he fell into as a spiritual counselor to so many US presidents.

Posted by Kaplan Corday (# 16119) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Crœsos:
Your argument seems to be that Graham regarded Jews as intransigent opponents of Christianity who were working to undermine all that was good in society

Graham was (wrongly, IMO) critical of some Jews, not Jews as such.

So was Jesus, describing some of them as children of the devil (John 8:44), but no-one to the best of my knowledge has consequently described him as a self-hating Jew and anti-Semite like Karl Marx.

And whatever one might think about Graham, there is no reason to assume that his views are those of American fundamentalists - in fact, many see him as a traitor, regarding his post-WWII neo-evangelicalism as a sell-out to Catholics and liberals.

[ 27. March 2013, 00:35: Message edited by: Kaplan Corday ]

Posted by Bostonman (# 17108) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Kaplan Corday:
And whatever one might think about Graham, there is no reason to assume that his views are those of American fundamentalists - in fact, many see him as a traitor, regarding his post-WWII neo-evangelicalism as a sell-out to Catholics and liberals.

Sorry, so now the argument is that Graham is in fact more liberal than most fundamentalists, and that his possibly anti-Semitic views shouldn't be taken as representing them because they are...less liberal and therefore less anti-Semitic? What's the point you're trying to make?

[ 27. March 2013, 01:38: Message edited by: Bostonman ]

Posted by Kaplan Corday (# 16119) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Bostonman:
Sorry, so now the argument is that Graham is in fact more liberal than most fundamentalists,

Precisely.

Graham came out of a fundamentalist background but reacted against its extreme separatism which would have rendered his subsequent evangelistic career impossible.

quote:
his possibly anti-Semitic views

He is not anti-Semitic at all.

It was a hypothetical, not a possibility.

quote:
they are...less liberal and therefore less anti-Semitic?

They are less liberal and not anti-Semitic.

Posted by venbede (# 16669) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Laurelin:
So I duly got confirmed. It was a nice service, but when the Bishop welcomed the newly confirmed into the family of faith, my brows furrowed. I had already been part of the family of faith for 15 years ...

Eek. I'm a liturgical and sacramental Anglican and that puts my teeth of edge.

Posted by Ad Orientem (# 17574) on :

You only say that because confirmation has been separated from baptism which means confirmation makes little sense. The bishop, however, is right. The Holy Spirit is conferred through confirmation (the sign being annointing with oil, the seal of our baptism) not baptism (though, of course, the Holy Spirit does act in baptism).

Posted by venbede (# 16669) on :

On consideration I can charitably see what Laurelin's bishop my have meant.

Quite often nowadays (almost always at my last church) confirmation is not for teenagers but for adults baptized as babies and now committing themselves. For them, the bishop's comments would apply.

(I would be delighted to give a very high sacramental significance to confirmation, but the Holy Spirit is certainly given in baptism, although this is a controversial subject.)

Posted by venbede (# 16669) on :

Whoops. Tried to edit. Forget the Holy Spirit. Baptism incorporates into the Church, as Laurelin knew. The bishop was being sloppy if he meant otherwise.

Posted by la vie en rouge (# 10688) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Lamb Chopped:
Nope, it was me.

Quotes file [Smile]

Posted by Lamb Chopped (# 5528) on :

Stealing from my elders and betters. (Hello, Chesterton!)

Posted by Laurelin (# 17211) on :

quote:
Originally posted by venbede:
... Quite often nowadays (almost always at my last church) confirmation is not for teenagers but for adults baptized as babies and now committing themselves. For them, the bishop's comments would apply.

Yes, that was it. What the Bishop who confirmed me meant. [Smile]

quote:
Originally posted by Ad Orientem:
You only say that because confirmation has been separated from baptism which means confirmation makes little sense. The bishop, however, is right. The Holy Spirit is conferred through confirmation (the sign being annointing with oil, the seal of our baptism) not baptism (though, of course, the Holy Spirit does act in baptism).

I didn’t grow up in a sacramental tradition (although I greatly value the sacraments) and I do not believe in limiting the actions of the glorious Third Person of the Holy Trinity to a formal service only. The Spirit is active in drawing us to Christ in the first place, however we come to Him. It’s not like punching a ticket – get confirmed and the Holy Spirit ‘automatically’ descends. (Of course this is not to deny that confirmation can be - should be - a profound experience for folk who have come to faith.)

But to get back on topic ... the church is the redeemed people of God, to which both believing Jews and Gentiles belong. To quote our Lord, salvation is from the Jews. Israel was the original vine ... we Gentiles were grafted in.

What I don't have any truck with is the notion that a Jewish person has to STOP being Jewish in order to believe in Jesus as their Messiah.

UBB.classic^TM 6.5.0