2.6 Consideration

Following the preceding description of the four types of groups of the movement, further consideration of their supernatural, internal and external social interaction appears possible. Already when giving the description, I considered the various differences and similarities of the four types. The meaning of their particularities became visible and perceivable through mutual comparison of the similarities and differences of the four types.

While Martin nobly proposes to consider difference without opposition (Martin 1992: 138-141), that appeared only very partially applicable for the movement. The importance of being and being not ecclesiastic or synagogal appears heightened by the existence and otherness of the other type. The same can be said for the charismatic and non-charismatic types. ⁴⁰Interestingly, after I had finished this paper, I found that one Israeli Messianic Jewish author explicated exactly on the same two differences in a fine, human manner. Treating „interpersonal holiness”, he called for „being a mentsh”, German „Mensch”, man (Stern 1991a: 191-194). )

A shifting emphasis on those four emic characteristics can increase or decrease the perceived and real differences. Non-charismatic ecclesiastic groups will face a double barrier towards charismatic synagogal groups. They may be unable to appreciate neither their synagogal nor their charismatic expression. Vice versa the same may be the case. Leaders of the movement object if foreigners say that these leaders and their groups would „always fight”. They seem right to object, as I saw also much mutual support and cooperation across the observed watersheds.

Nevertheless, differences exist and shape the social reality of these groups. The two dichotomies, ecclesiastic versus synagogal and non-charismatic versus charismatic, have their origin in perceptions about the supernatural and contribute to the shaping of the internal and external social structure, or organizational structure. To this issue I will turn first.