Related articles and links |  1 of 9

When a reporter for the Jewish Telegraphic Agency (JTA) wrote a story about me in August of 1997, she portrayed me as "a conflicted man." Our conversation had been fairly cordial. She knew I had drawn some criticism for cosponsoring a conference at Fuller Theological Seminary with the American Jewish Committee. The conference focused on the ways in which religious people attempt to influence public life, which should have been a fairly tame topic. But in arranging the conference, the Jewish planners made it clear they were nervous about the presence of a sizable group of messianic Jews at Fuller. I had insisted that these Jewish converts to Christianity be encouraged to attend our sessions—otherwise there could be no conference.

My Jewish friends reluctantly agreed, but they weren't the only ones who were nervous about the arrangement. Messianic Jews have long resented the ways in which they are shunned by the Jewish community, and many of them worried that I had forged an unhealthy compromise. It looked to them like they were being allowed into the discussion only under the assumption that they would be willing to be a part of a bland "dialogue," in which important issues between traditional Jews and Jewish followers of Christ would be set aside as irrelevant, thus giving the impression that Fuller was backing off from a commitment to Jewish evangelism. Ironically, some constituents of the American Jewish Committee had the opposite worry: They feared that by agreeing to meet on a seminary campus known for its commitment to Jews for Jesus and similar groups, the Jewish community would implicitly endorse the legitimacy of Jewish evangelism.

When I talked with the reporter from the JTA, I told her I was willing to live with these tensions. We evangelicals are indeed committed to Jewish evangelism. But we also need to be in dialogue with the larger Jewish community about important matters of common interest. This is why she portrayed me as "a conflicted man" on the subject of evangelical-Jewish relations. The president of Fuller, she wrote, is "torn between fealty to his faith, which requires him to proselytize 'the Jew first,' and his desire to respect all religious people."

To reinforce her point, she quoted a well-known rabbi with whom I have worked on several projects dealing with religion in public life. Acknowledging our friendship, the rabbi offered the opinion that I was caught up in "the irreconcilable tension that is so much a part of evangelical-Jewish relations, and between his faith commitment and his commitment toward Jews and society." But he also told the reporter that there was hope for me. I am, he said, "a religious pilgrim" who may eventually come to a more consistent position on the subject.

These Jewish commentators have me pretty much figured out. I am indeed firmly committed to Jewish evangelism—a fact they understandably find disturbing. I do also have a deep respect for the Jewish people. And there is indeed a kind of "irreconcilable tension" in trying to hold this all together. I hope the rabbi is right—that someday I will hold a more consistent position on the subject. In the meantime, I have chosen to live with the tension.

Actually, the tension I experience in this area is rooted in some continuing theological puzzles I regularly think about. How are we as New Testament Christians to understand the theological status of Jewishness in our present context?

For a while in my life, I tried hard to get rid of the puzzle by trying out—indeed, by defending in some of my writings—what seemed to me a straightforward theological position, a fairly standard one for Reformed Christians, especially as they attempt to provide a coherent alternative to dispensationalist teaching. The position rests on this basic theological move: to treat God's special attitude of favor toward Israel in the Old Testament as now being completely transferred to the New Testament church.

next page... |  1 of 9

March 5 2001, Vol. 45, No. 4