2.3.4 External Social-Structural Interaction

Like other congregational types, ℵ (aleph) and ℸ (daleth), also type ℷ (gimel) brought forth official institutions that support, expand and surpass the horizon and possibilities of a local congregation. These institutions allow the congregations to concentrate on their local tasks.

One type ℷ (gimel) institution was founded in 1981 as a registered nonprofit Israeli organization. It enjoys tax privileges and may receive and distribute financial means received from abroad. Recently it issued a commentary on the Jewish roots of the letter of Paul to the Romans, especially elaborating relation to Jewish writings (Glasser 1998: 16-22). This corresponds to the institution's first purpose, which is

the study and teaching of the Scriptures with an emphasis on the practices of the first century Church and the history of Israel in connection with the New Testament (5/96).

The goal is to bring forth an academic Jewish commentary on the New Testament. Its second purpose is to contribute to the improvement of the relationship between Christians and Jews. Finally, it wants to aid Messianic Jews in Israel and abroad, spiritually and materially, where possible. A wealth of different activities pursues these ends. They supply spiritual support and teaching on invitation in Israel and abroad. A quarterly journal treats issues of particular concern for Messianic Jews and interested Christians, and supplies news on current events in Israel. Participation in the Lausanne Committee for Jewish Evangelism contributes to discussions and efforts on a national and international level. They occasionally contribute essays for theological platforms, provide spiritual guidance for Messianic congregations in Israel and abroad, and even plant new congregations abroad. With all these, the institution hopes also to contribute to the reconciliation of the Christian church with its Jewish roots, and with Israel as a nation (5/97).

In 1993 the mentioned institute founded a Messianic Midrasha, which provides academic studies for the Messianic believers in Israel. They can study there the Scriptures from a type ℷ (gimel) point of view, in courses of two and three years. The Jewish origin of the New Testament, which was in their eyes neglected for almost two thousand years, and still causes many often to overlook the connection between Judaism and the New Testament, receive particular attention. The Midrasha aspires to present Scripture in its historical context in loyalty to the Gospel. It understands itself as independent Israeli institution, open to anyone who wants to study and deepen faith in Jesus and the Jewish heritage. The board has named a president, provost, academic dean and administrative officer. The teachers must hold at least a MA degree and be experts. Yet they do not have to be Messianic Jewish or Christian, which means the Midrasha is also open to Jewish and other scholars. Students need high school matriculation or equivalent and good command of Hebrew. Courses are only exceptionally in English. They are structured by departments of The Bible and Jewish Thought. It remained unclear to me how many students used this facility. In other countries with minor evangelical populations similar enterprises got not always enough students to survive. Some ambitious individuals will still prefer studying at institutes with more experience and international reputation, usually abroad. However, if the institution is also open for students from abroad, it might benefit from the extra that a study in Jerusalem promises.

The relationship between type ℷ (gimel) and Christian institutions appears ambivalent. Leaders of this type perceive that some Christian missions successfully separate and disperse Jewish believers. These leaders think the missionaries only want to maintain their Christian dominance and control over Jewish believers. These missions appear to know that denominationalism does not at all appeal to Jews. Still, they cling to their traditional approaches. Sobel described this thoroughly from a social science and Jewish viewpoint (Sobel 1974).

We want indigenous local independent Jewish congregations, not connected to any denomination. We don't believe that importing some denomination from abroad is going to bless Israel or bring the Gospel to the Jewish people. ... The salvation of Israel is the heart of the issue (5/96).

Type ℷ (gimel) institutions were set up and advertised to foster the relationship with Christianity. The leaders of these institutions regard it as the merit of the churches to have shaped and maintained a gentilised form of the Gospel through the ages and carried it to the peoples all over the world. Nevertheless, the churches appear dubious to them, because they have deprived the Gospel from its Jewishness. They perceive that this gentilisation brought forth and fostered antisemitism, more specific, anti-Judaism, by means of biblical misinterpretation. Antisemitism,

of course is a theological problem. And that is what a lot of people don't seem to understand. The problem of antisemitism is a misunderstanding, a misinterpretation of the Bible. It is a left over from the fourth century, is not anything new. And until the problem of better understanding and relating to the New Testament doesn't happen [to be solved, ed.] in the churches, antisemitism will continue to raise its head (5/96). ²⁹This point of view strikingly corresponds with Begov's 'Message' (Begov 1983). See Note 2.)

Christians who offer Jewish believers „a ham sandwich” (Stern 1988: 7-9) right after baptism, to make them prove that they are beyond Jewishness, illustrate such attitude. From here it becomes easily perceivable that they can see the churches in large as having failed to explain the Gospel to Jews jewishly. Accordingly, as its core failure appears the inability to understand that from a biblical point of view, Jews may and shall even express their faith jewishly (Stern 1991a: 73). Also from a missiological angle of contextualisation and enculturation, regarding Jews as a people like any other, that conclusion appears logical (Brinkman 1997). Yet for Messianic Jews it will not suffice to re-contextualise or re-enculturate the Gospel and the New Testament into current Judaism. To them, that would only be another violation and double over the problem. They do not aspire re-contextualisation and re-enculturation, but restoration (Stern 1988, 1991a).

In this context, an anecdote may explain what triggered the foundation of one synagogal congregation, and shed additional light on the ambivalent relationship with churches. A well known Messianic Jewish musician wished to participate in a worship service of a type ℵ (aleph) congregation. He was welcome at the condition to take of his skullcap in church. Apparently this drop made the bucket flow over. A group of Jewish believers decided that it was now enough. They decided that a Jew must have a place where he could go and worship as a Jew with his Jewish tradition, habit and culture (5/97).

In that light, the founding of at least one type ℷ (gimel) congregation may be a desperate reaction against the domination of a gentile church culture. It seems that Christian intolerance and structural disrespect for Jewish values and norms create exactly what it tries to prevent. Such congregation appears then simultaneously as a result and as an answer to a lasting cultural conflict, often expressed in theological argumentation (Maoz 1997). While this incident took place in the seventies, similar things continued to happen. Another type ℷ (gimel) congregation came into being during the late nineties because a mission tried to force European, national visual expressions of Christianity on an Israeli Jewish pastor. He finally quitted his service with the mission and started his own synagogue (27/97). Reacting on such repeated incidents, in another type ℷ (gimel) congregation one needs an explicit invitation to a service to be admitted at all (21/97).

After having dwelt at length on conflicts between type ℷ (gimel) groups and Christian bodies, I should also stress that various Christian churches and missions bear, understand, embrace and support these type groups. Missions help them in evangelization efforts and appreciate their particular need for security in an often hostile environment (6/95, 7/95). Jewish believers are welcome in churches and missions abroad, who take even pains to supply their guest a kosher dish. Christian groups and churches sometimes join to hear reports of Israeli representatives of type ℷ (gimel) congregations (5/96). Missions supply Jewish believers in Jesus with a wealth of Christian literature if they want it (13/96). Churches in many countries on four continents invite them to speak and to explain the Gospel and the Bible from a Jewish perspective (16/96, 17/96).

At least in one case, a popular and acknowledged evangelical university in the States supplied a guest professorship (Stern 1991a: cover back). They support the research for and publication of a Jewish commentary on Paul's letter to the Romans and other publications (21/97). Some ministers of type ℷ (gimel) groups still receive income at last partially from abroad (23/97, 27/97). While one can regard external supporting bodies as predominantly evangelical, Messianic Jews of type ℷ (gimel) enterprises receiving this support cannot simply be regarded as agents of their supporters and sponsors.

Partially, the relationship of type ℷ (gimel) groups with the other types of the emic fourfold typology parallels the relationship to Christian groups. Type ℷ (gimel) groups display considerable cohesion with another, due to their common cause: believing in Jesus as Orthodox Jews. The relationship with groups of the types ℵ (aleph) and ℶ (beth) depends on theses groups' attitude towards Orthodox Judaism and on the question in how far it remains valid for Jewish believers in Jesus. Those who respond positively will embrace or at least tolerate type ℷ (gimel) and its Jewish expressions. Those who respond negatively will try to avoid or even to fight types ℷ (gimel) and ℸ (daleth) groups because of their very Jewish expressions (8/95). A case of considerable disagreement between a particular type ℵ (aleph) and type ℷ (gimel) body once caused a well-known Messianic Jewish body from abroad to intervene (Maoz 1997). After they settled the case, one type ℵ (aleph) veteran leader invited the disputed type ℷ (gimel) leader to speak in his congregation (5/97). This was widely acknowledged as a considerable expression of trust and reconciliation, and a signal for others who still might feel insecure.

The relationship with type ℶ (beth) and ℸ (daleth) groups depends on the attitude of a type ℷ (gimel) group to the charismatic phenomenon and praxis. An anecdote may illustrate what is at stake here. To find out what the charismatic phenomenon is about, some type ℷ (gimel) friends visited a pentecostal meeting. At the end of the meeting the audience got invited to receive the Holy Spirit and „the gifts of the spirit”, particularly to speak in tongues. Now the type ℷ (gimel) visitors stood up, waved their hands over their heads and repeated over and again Yiddish „four letter words”. Seeing this, the Pentecostals shouted exited, „praise God, the Jewish brothers also got the Holy Spirit!” Yet the visitors concluded that „these Pentecostals may have had the gift of tongues. They certainly had not the gift of discernment”.

Type ℷ (gimel) believers appear rational and sceptical towards mystic occurrences. This corresponds with the intellectual, cognitive conversion already described. Yet it happens also that longstanding members change to another group that would allow charismatic expressions. The relationship with type ℸ (daleth) groups and individuals may depend on how intensively they are charismatic in the eyes of a type ℷ (gimel) individual or group. The aversion against an either supposed or displayed charismatic intensity can outweigh the synagogal affinity between these two types. In that respect type ℷ (gimel) groups can compare to type ℵ (aleph) groups, who also display and express aversions against types ℶ (beth) and ℸ (daleth) for their charismaticism.

Type ℷ (gimel) groups have structural organizational relationships with Christianity inside and outside Israel. I could not observe relationships of similar organizational and institutional intensity and quality with Orthodox Judaism. I could observe excellent individual personal relationships with Orthodox Jewish rabbis, and learned of incidental debate. At one occasion a type ℷ (gimel) leader brought a group of Orthodox Jews in his van to a Jewish settlement. He forgot that he had a box with evangelistic literature in the back of his car, where his Orthodox passengers sat. On the journey he saw in the driving-mirror that some of them had found the evangelistic material and read it. They were the last he had to drop. After a while they asked him who had written these things. When he told them that he had, they stated to believe the same. Such encounters can bring Orthodox Jewish believers in Jesus to type ℷ (gimel) groups (5/97). At other instances type ℷ (gimel) members pick up Orthodox people from Orthodox quarters to participate in their Messianic meetings (5/96). When an Orthodox rabbi became a believer, careless type ℵ (aleph) members revealed him to foreign press and caused him serious problems in Israel (5/97).

Good relationships with Orthodox rabbis and religious specialists allow obtaining important ritual items for synagogal, personal and collective spirituality. Messianic adepts could buy those anywhere, but good relationships make good prices. Messianic Jewish synagogues need handwritten Torah scrolls that meet carefully prescribed religious criteria. If they do not meet the criteria, they render the ritual worthless or even a sacrilege (De Vries 1968: 19-21). Since they are hand written, they are considerably expensive. Orthodox men are obliged to wear during their weekday morning prayers tefillin. These phylacteries are capsules made from leather that contain certain handwritten Torah texts. One is placed with leather straps on the forehead, the other on the upper left arm, close to the heart (Donin 1972: 144-152). The movement and congregations in Israel appear not yet to have their own scribes and craftsmen to produce these items. It might be interesting to know how American Messianic congregations handle this. Dependence on Orthodox specialists and good relationships with them provide also evangelistic opportunities.

The relationship with the Jewish orthodoxy at large appears dramatic and traumatic. Apparently some Orthodox „zealots” were always violent against Messianic Jewish and evangelical groups. The media outside Israel remain mostly silent about it. Within Israel the media cannot overlook the tension any longer. Assumingly also such extremists attempted to burn the building where the research centre, the Midrasha and one synagogue are housed. They broke a window and poured a container with fuel into the building and set it on fire. Because most of the fuel disappeared through the gully there was little damage. Nevertheless, the black traces of fire and smoke are still visible on the pink Jerusalem stones above the entrance (5/96). With a nearby Christian chapel the extremists were more successful. It completely burned down and the worshippers had to meet in a tent for several years, until foreign missions financed a new, nicer and larger building. ³⁰In March 1999 was a new attempt to burn the new building that fortunately failed. ) It seemed to me that the violence of extremists achieves mostly the opposite of what they apparently want.

Messianic believers mention more often particularly Yad Leachim, „the helping hand” or „hand of the brothers”, to trouble them in various ways. Respondents of all types of the typology said these activists misinformed the Israeli public, scare old people and threaten others (8/97). Such structural hostility forms a dilemma for congregations. On the one hand the meetings are open to anybody. On the other hand they can give no information about individuals to visitors who are not identifiable regarding their origin and spiritual home. This caution is not vain. It happened that I became the first to speak to a lady who just returned from an introductory meeting. She had responded to an advertisement in a newspaper and applied for a job. She got offered an unusually high and tempting salary for collecting information, names and details of Messianic groups and members. She was still in shock when she told me her experience. At another instance, a leading type ℷ (gimel) woman was sharply criticised by a male leader. She had passed on data about another woman to a third woman whose affiliation and congregational origin could not be verified. A person who is not willing or unable to identify his or her congregational home is for security reasons regarded a spy (5/97). One Messianic evangelist welcomes these „agents sent to spy on congregations”, because

...every time one of their guys comes to provoke us or infiltrates our congregations and is found out, he is causing even more young people to come and join us. We are becoming well known and people want to hear what we have to say... Every time [they] disturb us, more young people come to see and hear what the problem is and some who were anti-religious are becoming interested in our view. So let him go on doing us this favour. He is doing our work (Sorko-Ram 1998: 29).

One type ℷ (gimel) leader sought exchanges with the ultra-Orthodox to break the ice. How dangerous he regarded the encounter becomes perceivable by the following anecdote. To some ultra-Orthodox, Messianic Jews are deviants with subhuman status to be treated accordingly. Some Messianic Jews think that such a view could explain the assassination of Rabin. Anyway, while the leader met with an ultra-Orthodox rabbi, another member was close by and watched them carefully, with a camera ready to shoot any irregularity. Fortunately nothing happened (5/97). Yet not all ultra-Orthodox are hostile. Otherwise, Messianic Jews could not study at Orthodox Yeshivas.

The external social-structural relationships of type ℷ (gimel) towards the other types of the fourfold typology appear varied, and ambiguous towards churches and missions and Judaism. They can correspond to the personal history of the founder of a congregation, who played since many years a crucial role in the relationships to external bodies. Leaders can travel all over the world for speaking engagements. In one instance a board had to restrict personal travel allowance to grant sufficient care for the local and national ministry. Also members of synagogues maintain wide international networks. Abroad, members can hold guest professorships (19/96), frequently travel with their spouses to speak in churches abroad (16/96, 17/96), or travel worldwide to teach in other Messianic synagogues. I could not observe that type ℷ (gimel) groups and leaders would maintain similarly intense structural relationships with the non-Messianic Jewish community in Israel and abroad.