One of the most difficult tasks for a messianic believer is confronting replacement theology when it pops up. This does not have to be done in a hurtful or antagonistic way, but I do believe one must defend the truth when they are a believer, even if it’s with a kind word of correction.
It’s not always easy, though. Sometimes it comes at you from sources you don’t even expect it from. Case in point. I recently met with a long-time friend and we were talking about some of the movements and ideas active in Christianity that disturb us.
As a messianic, I’m a bit more on the outside looking in on that count; as a mainstream Christian, my friend is more of an insider critiquing the movement he’s a part of, at least in the larger sense. We agree on many things, though not on everything.
The topic turned to the messianic movement and some errors within my side of the fence. I’m fully willing to express as much concern about the movement I’m a part of as I am about mainstream Christianity; bad teaching ought to raise concerns, no matter what movement is the source of it. I mean, some folks get so theologically off-base, their sermons may as well be about Leptitrex as anything found in the Torah. And it can happen in any movement.
As the discussion evolved, I shared with my friend a lesson I’d been working on and a comment from one of the Sages relating to the absolute holiness of haShem and how liars and those who engage in evil speech (lashan hurrah) cannot even experience the Shekinah of the L-RD.
My friend, who studied Jewish roots before I ever became messianic and ought to know a bit better, looked up at me and said - innocently enough, mind you, “Well, remember, that’s an Old Testament thing.”
Simple reply? No, it’s not. But in that moment, I didn’t really have the right words - or even those words - at the ready. I let it slip by, I think, with a, “Not really…” and the conversation moved on. I could and should have done a bit better than that.
Tags: evil speech, Leptitrex, replacement theology
August 17th, 2008 at 11:59 am
Well, wish you had gone and explored the conversation a bit more. The “loss of the Holy Spirit” is an “Old testament” thing, now that is different then a loss of the felt presence, but not a removal of the Holy Spirit which was the case prior to pentecost. It is not replacement theology, or even close. It is recognizing the fact that we are the temple of the Holy Spirit, and while our sin can and does interfere, and can even have a loss of the felt presence, we don’t have a loss of the Holy Spirit. And also not that not all times of a loss of the felt presence is a matter of sin blocking but at times God holds back for times of testing. It is also possible since pentecoast that while having engaged in “evil speech” or been liars to feel the Shekinah, because again we are the temple of the presence. When others are around the temple but have the felt presence blocked, they can experience the overflow from other believers. So the comment, while seemingly coming off perhaps as replacement theology, could have been better fleshed out for a more awareness of the truth.
peacebringers last blog post..Life reflections: On memories