Tuesday, May 17, 2005


If Ex-Jews For Jesus is merely a group of disgruntled former employees, then why:

  • are there so many of us?

  • do more former staff arrive every year, telling stories of how the environment has not changed?

  • is there never any serious self-examination on the part of Jews for Jesus' leadership. Instead, there is only discrediting the aggreived as imbalanced or part of a "conspiracy."

  • do people over the span of four decades all share similar experiences of being publicly humiliated?





Anonymous said...


Also, your website is a fantastic idea. I will promote your blog. May you go from strength to strength.

Anonymous said...


* is there never any serious self-examination on the part of Jews for Jesus' leadership. Instead, there is only discrediting the aggreived (sic) as imbalanced or part of a "conspiracy."

- - -

I'll tell you why: Because this is how all authoritarian organizations behave and react to those who "break ranks" or "defect." Believe me, I know - we left a church that subsequently treated us and all who left (including those who had left before us) as the ones having the "problem." They gave lip-service to correction and inspection/introspection, and did precisely ... nothing.

Anonymous said...

Thank you for your comments. It is a sad and angering thing. I appreciate your stopping by.

Anonymous said...

Tommy Tarrants III, in his book, "Conversion of a Klansman," points out that radicalized organizations tend to craft simplistic scenarios to explain reality, and postulate conspiracies which they seek to counteract. They then view all data that comes their way as either evidence for their theories or as propaganda from the conspiring opposition. In other words, the danger is that high-demand hierarchical groups become unable to recognize the validity of criticisms of their preferred world-view.

This is especially dangerous when people equate their own worldview with that of God, as has been true in Jews for Jesus where service to the organization has been absolutely equated with service to God. This may have been modified in recent amendations of the Worker's Covenant which JFJ staffers all signed, but used to be explicitly the norm: that during their term of service they would acknowledge that the will of God was mediated to them through the authority of the organizational Executive Director. Thus, the equating of service to the organization with service to God was both explicit and implicit. This of course inhibits change, openness to criticism and radical organizational self-examination. I would be interested to know if the Worker's Covenant has been modified in this regard, and if so, what justification was offered at that time for the modification.

Anonymous said...

Several years ago David Brickner wrote an article for the Jews for Jesus newsletter that I would like to comment upon.

Here is the article: http://www.jfjonline.org/pub/newsletters/2000-05/irepentbutforwhat.htm

A remarkable thing about this piece is that Brickner makes an implied analogy. The first half of the article speaks of gentiles (not the perpetrators) who ask Jews (not the victims)
for forgiveness for the Holocaust. The second half of the article implies that this situation is analogous to an unnamed former JFJ staff member calling on Jews for Jesus to repent of past sins.

What bothers me most of all about this article is that Brickner seems to be evading responsibility. Responsibility for himself, for the things that he did that were wrong and abusive. Responsibility for not standing up to Moishe Rosen when events were manipulated, reality was distorted, and people were abused. And finally, corporate responsibility for belonging to an organization that was systemic in the pain that it inflicted on individuals and families.

And one more thing. Even if the former executive director was the primary person responsible for abusive behavior, and even if he is now "retired," he still sits on the Board of Trustees. There is still time to call him to repentance.

But instead, the myth lives on, fed and nurtured by Brickner's evasions and denials and by Ruth Tucker's unfortunate book.

Anonymous said...

"Disgruntled" is similar to "disaffected." The word "disaffected" was often used as a buzz word in JFJ to describe those who had turned against the Jews for Jesus organization. The Random
House dictionary defines disaffected as follows: "To cause to lose affection or loyalty." A second definition is: "Resentful and rebellious,
especially against authority."

I don't think there is anything wrong with losing affection for or loyalty to an organization. That is simply a reality for many people, whether they
work for JFJ or for another Christian organization or for any organization. It is not necessarily good or bad. It just happens sometimes.

On the other hand, resentment and rebellion *can* be bad, but not always. Take for example the American revolution. Most Americans think this
rebellion, which was caused by resentment toward unfair British practices, was a good thing. The British might have another viewpoint. I don't know
what the Canadians think. But you can see that it all depends on one's perspective.

Anonymous said...


Because the stories on this Blog are true. That is why there are so many of us.