Evangelizing the Jews: A Reply to Stan Guthrie

Stan Guthrie is an author I respect. He’s not afraid to showcase viewpoints other evangelicals do not necessarily welcome. His recent interview of Francis Collins, a prominent theistic evolutionist, is a case in point, as are his comments here.

In his March 2008 Christianity Today column (not yet available online, I’m afraid), he invites fellow Christians to continue “the good works of dialogue and practical ministries among our Jewish neighbors,” and renew “commitment to also sensitively but forthrightly persuade them to receive the Good News.” Stan might be thought to be simply reiterating that the church’s mandate to take the gospel to the whole human race remains in full force – Jews included, not excluded. But it turns out he also wants to criticize the approach to evangelism of people like Billy Graham and Bill Bright, who refrained from developing a mission emphasis with Jews in mind.

There are strengths and weaknesses in Guthrie’s position.

A fundamental strength of Stan’s position is his unwavering commitment to “active proselytizing,” – I deliberately use the loaded terminology. Evangelicals cease to be evangelicals when they no longer consider the last words of Jesus according to the gospel of Matthew to be central to their own identity: “Go therefore and make disciples of all nations . . . teaching them to observe everything I enjoined upon you” (Matt 28:19-20).

As Stan notes, Rabbi David Rosen recently asked evangelicals to “suspend your proselytizing and allow the Almighty to do whatever the Almighty thinks is the thing to do in his own time.” It is heartwarming to be asked by a Jew to be an old-style Calvinist of the kind that left everything, especially one’s own salvation and the salvation of others, in the hands of God. It is extremely healthy to do just that – I’m sure Stan would agree. But evangelicals will not do so by setting aside what for Christians is a first order mitzvah: that of sharing the gospel by word and deed to anyone they have come to know.

It really does not make sense to expect evangelicals to stop being evangelical. That’s akin to expecting Buddhists to stop constructing temples which house golden statues of Buddha, or expecting Jews to stop keeping the Sabbath. There is no getting around it: people of different religions, and Jews and Christians in particular, are subject to clashing mitzvot.

But, as I noted in an earlier post, it behooves the serious Christian to note that, as David Novak puts it, “Judaism requires Jews to die as martyrs rather than exchange Judaism for anything else, even something as similar to Judaism as Christianity” (“What to Seek and What to Avoid in Jewish-Christian Dialogue,” in Christianity in Jewish Terms [eds. Tikva Frymer-Kensky, David Novak, Peter Ochs, David Fox Sandmel, and Michael A. Signer, Boulder: Westview Press, 2000) 1-6; 4). Faced with clear and uncompromising commitment to that mitzvah, Christians do well to consider applying such passages as Luke 9:5 (“Wherever they do not welcome you, as you leave their town shake the dust off your feet as a warning to them”) and Acts 18:6 (“From now on, I will go to the Gentiles”).

If only proselytizing Christians would act on Luke 9:5 and Acts 18:6 more often, some Jews will say.

As a matter of fact, most of us who understand Jesus Christ to be the center of salvation history and invite others to draw all the necessary consequences know how to take a hint. But this happens on a one-on-one basis, and is bound to be a matter that is not considered settled once and for all, despite the New Testament passages just cited.

Another strength of Stan’s column is his frank recognition of “the church’s [history of] horrific anti-Semitism.” We have much to apologize for, Stan says. Including, I would add, coercive attempts at conversion.

The column, so far as I can see, has two major weaknesses. First of all, while I concur that a mission organization which focuses on evangelizing Jews – especially if it is an initiative of Hebrew Christians – cannot and should not be ruled out of court, it still strikes me that people like Billy Graham and John Bright showed wisdom in not following suit. It is important to be aware of the unintended consequences of one’s actions: Graham and Bright did better than most in this department.

It also needs to be admitted that the methods and motives of some people who evangelize Jews are tainted with ignorance and anti-Semitism. All of us have met people with unhealthy and counter-productive obsessions when it comes to mission. I’ve read my share of God-awful evangelistic tracts over the years. 

Secondly, Stan’s quotation of Romans 1:16 to the effect that the gospel “must be shared first with the Jews” reads that passage out of context. Those words must be interpreted in light of Acts 18:6 cited above, and Romans 11:25-29, in which the present time is understood as one in which “the full number of the Gentiles” has yet to come in, and in which, temporarily, “a hardening has come upon part of Israel.” Paul concludes his wrestling with the larger questions in Romans 9-11 by putting all things back into the hands of God, whose judgments are unsearchable and whose ways are inscrutable (11:33-36). It is possible to have an intense commitment to mission and ultimately recognize that what happens, or does not happen, is God’s work alone. Paul himself was perhaps the greatest missionary of all time. Better than most, however, he knew when to lay off when such served the larger cause.

For blog discussion of the Rosen – Kendall CT interview, see Helen Mildenhall’s posts here and here, Brad Greenberg here, and Ray Pritchard here.

I also recommend a recent post by Michael Pitkowsky, and another by Iyov.

Comments

[Iyov]

Ah, yet another reason not to engage in inter-religious dialog.

Why should we waste time with these modern writers though -- why not go back to the masters of sensitive religious evanglization of the Jews, such as Torquemada.

[JohnFH]

And someone like Huckabee shouldn't wonder if by speaking of a "Christian nation," he raises red flags. Religious people, once they accede to power, have a terrible track record of coercing their point of view.

Some historians claim that of all of Luther's theses, the one that caused the Curia the most concern was his assertion that the church should not be in the business of burning heretics. The psychology here is that it is fine and dandy for people, even the majority, to be lapsed Catholics (or Muslims, or Jews). A problem only arises if someone chooses something else. That sets an unacceptable example.

[Iyov]

Did I really write "dialog"? I can hardly believe it -- I am usually so careful to write "dialogue". I'm recovering from surgery, and it must be the after-effects.

[Helen]

Thanks for the mention, John.

Off The Map (which I volunteer with) teaches a different approach to evangelism which both Christians and those they want to share Jesus with (Jews or other people) generally like better than traditional approaches. We call it Doable Evangelism because it makes evangelism more doable for ordinary Christians.

[JohnFH]

That really sounds interesting, Helen. I've always liked the quote attributed to St. Francis: Preach at all times. If necessary, use words.

[Helen]

Thanks John - yes, that's a wonderful quote!

[Peter Kirk]

Your invocation of Luke 9:5 implies that it is actually true that Jews are especially unlikely to convert to Christianity. But I rather doubt if that is actually true, at least relative to secularised Westerners as well as to adherents of other major world religions. Where Jews are evangelised in culturally appropriate ways, by no means all refuse conversion, preferring martyrdom, and Messianic Jewish congregations are growing. Of course religious Jews don't like this, any more than they did in Jesus' time, but that is not a reason to stop.

[JohnFH]

You may be right, Peter, that Jews are more likely to convert to Christianity than some other demographics. I did not mean to make a judgment on that either way.

The reverse is certainly true: the number of Christians who convert to Judaism has been, and will continue to be, relatively high.

[Stan Guthrie]

Thank you for your thoughtful and fair-minded critique of my column.

As a Calvinist, I take comfort in knowing that who receives Christ is ultimately a matter of God's grace, but in no way do I think this absolves me of my responsibility to invite people to receive God's grace. As Robertson McQuilkin has said, we have to live in the center of biblical tension.

I meant no disrespect to Bright or Graham, actually. The fact that these great men did not focus their efforts on particular people groups doesn't mean that others shouldn't, either, or that they themselves should have. We all have different callings in our ministries. I just meant that we all should avoid concluding from the evangelistic strategies of these men that Jewish evangelism is unnecessary or unimportant. They did, after all, share the gospel with whoever attended their outreaches.

I don't think that Jews who receive Jesus as their Messiah give up their Jewishness, by the way. It seems odd to me that Jewish people today can believe in anything and everything and remain Jews in good standing--unless they decide to follow a certain Jewish rabbi from Nazareth.

[JohnFH]

Stan,

it's nice of you to stop by. One of the things I liked best about your column is the recognition that one can be committed to living out the great commission and, alongside of that, engage in other important things like dialogue and acts of solidarity, the focus of which is different.

Our lives are meant to have an overarching unity in the divine agape, but each of the three endeavors mentioned, rightly understood, has its own integrity as well, or otherwise loses its genuineness and sincerity.