Recently Moishe Rosen stated on a public forum the following:
"Jews for Jesus has opposition who are unprincipled and are willing to adopt guises so that they appear to be other than what they are."
I'm not sure what Rev. Rosen is talking about, but it's interesting that JFJ would complain about dishonest tactics given the history of Jews for Jesus. JFJ is proud that they always are (supposedly) upfront and honest about who they are, but JFJ used to commonly practice something that proves this is not the case (I'm not sure if they still practice it). When JFJ musicians or street theatre groups would perform in public, they would commonly use "ringers" to attract attention from passers-by and thus generate a crowd of onlookers. This was especially prevalent during New York City summer "campaigns." These ringers would pretend to be regular spectators but in reality they were usually JFJ volunteers who were asked or told to watch the proceedings in a neutral role, without any identifying clothing such as a Jews for Jesus shirt or jacket.
I'm sure there are other more glaring examples of JFJ's dishonesty, but I never got close enough to the inner circle to discover these.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
11 comments:
That is rank hypocrisy. Moishe reveled in subversive activity.
His adoration for Saul Alinsky's Rules for Radicals bears that out.
JFJ routinely sends their missionaries to various synagogues for "observation" and gathering of contacts (focusing on Russians and other immigrants). Needless to say, they're not wearing their JFJ t-shirts or buttons. I have a feeling, had they done that, they'd be promptly thrown out of there.
Their website provides deliberately false information. They don't remove outdated articles that inflate the number of converts, and identify people that haven't considered themselves as Christians for a long time, not only as believers, but as their staff.
There was a huge controversy over here in Israel about eight or nine years ago. JfJ sent over a worker, but that worker never admitted to working with them. When he finally went public about his working for JfJ many of us felt betrayed. This was then compounded when that same worker infiltrated our congregations trolling for recruits.
This is a duplicitous group. Always has been, and unless true teshuvah happens, always will be.
honest? honestly, are you asking if jews for jesus is honest? the leadership at jfj deals in control and deception, making sure that if any employee starts to "see the light" of the dark dealings, they can act fast to get that person out.
you should take a look at whistleblower's entry on jews for jesus: above the truth? that blog addresses the value of honesty in this grouop.
I was just thinking today of JFJ's hypocracy. They use any angle to make themselves the innocent offended one, as now in their current lawsuit.
As someone who has been on many campaigns this is an out and out bald faced lie, about ringers. Your still at it.
I have also been on many a campaign, it's not a "bald-faced lie" - JFJ did use ringers.
Of course JFJ used ringers. It started on the first JFJ summer campaign in NYC. I played the ringer-role on several campaigns. My only question is when did it stop, if it did?
Is Jews for Jesus honest? They are as honest as the Ex-Jews for Jesus group.
I see no problem with ringers watching a theater/music. The point was to draw attention to the performance, and create an atmosphere where passersby would feel comfortable stopping and watching. While I saw bits and pieces of the ethical failures described at great length on these websites, I think its a real stretch to refer to the use of ringers as "deceptive."
(from a worker in a summer campaign from the '70s)
On campaigns, ringers were part of the set up and weren't just watching. They were the only ones who weren't wearing JFJ "colors". The ethical problem is that ringers went out to "act" like regular passersby and pretended as though they weren't believers. In my book, as enjoyable as it may have been, and regardless of the goals, it was still intrinsically deceitful.
Post a Comment