2.6.2 The Internal Social Structure -
Church versus Synagogue?

Type ℵ (aleph), the non-charismatic ecclesiastical type, appears at large as an evangelical church with some Jewish traits, as Hebrew Christian. Its pastors can, but need not, come and be funded from abroad. As in any church, and different from any synagogue, they must not necessarily be Jewish. Its services appear denominational Christian, held in Hebrew. Besides national Jewish feasts, also crucial Christian feasts may be, but need not be celebrated.

In Israel, Jewish identity appears to me national, cultural, not religious in the first place. However, also secular life appears imbued with elements of religious origin, including Hebrew, Tanakh, Sabbath and Jewish festivals. Christian Jews can call themselves Meshichi, „Messianic”, and interpret it as equivalent to „evangelical” (Maoz 1993: 124). While they disapprove of a synagogal expression of faith in Jesus, they also refuse calling themselves Notzri, „Nazarene”, the common but also derogatory Jewish term for Christian, „due to its very negative connotations” (Benhayim 1996: 53). Some regard the adoption of rabbinical ways to express faith in Jesus, as the synagogal types ℷ (gimel) and ℸ (daleth) do, as cultural poverty, others as nearly heretic deviation from Scripture, deserving to be treated accordingly. Some may fight Jewish religious expressions in their own ranks, but others may tolerate it partially. Type ℵ (aleph) groups treat their leader as pastor or missionary, a specialist in knowing the Scriptures and related issues. He can shape the services and congregational structure after his Christian tradition, insight and experience, even to a degree of „autocracy”. He can earn his income locally or be funded from abroad. Elders and deacons may help him with his ecclesiastic tasks. Women would not teach publicly, but privately they teach children and other women.

For type ℶ (beth), the charismatic ecclesiastical type, one can repeat what was said of type ℵ (aleph). In addition, one will find pentecostal and charismatic traces, which imply also participatory roles in worship services and organizational structure for both genders. Believers of type ℶ (beth) groups do not only perceive that the supernatural indwells all believers in the person of the Holy Spirit, as do also believers of type ℵ (aleph) groups. Believers of type ℶ (beth) groups also believe that the supernatural wishes to expresses itself through them continually in supernatural ways, for example by speaking in tongues. Accordingly, one will find an appropriate receptiveness for auditions, prophecies, visions and healings. The permission and demand to express and apply these phenomena in public services distinguishes type ℶ (beth) from type ℵ (aleph). Efforts, to achieve and maintain, personally and collectively, a particular emotional mood of excitement and receptivity, usually precede and accompany such „freedom for the Spirit”. Since they regard „the Spirit” to „indwell” both genders equally, the participation of women on various social structural levels appears more natural than in type ℵ (aleph), and type ℷ (gimel). Still, public teaching and spiritual leadership remains a male domain (Cucchiari 1990, Droogers 1990: 23-26). A particular trait of type ℶ (beth) may be to aspire a genuine group identity by celebrating services in Hebrew only to ward off foreigners. Translation in services can appear as disturbing and as derogative to enculturation. Being a Hebrew-speaking congregation appears as another distinctive mark in the attempt to build indigenous local Jewish groups, recognising language as the main culture carrier and barrier.

Type ℷ (gimel), the non-charismatic synagogal type, appeared later in Israel than the previous types, informally probably in the seventies, officially in the eighties. It still represents a relative minority within the movement (Benhayim 1996: 53). This type perceives Jesus, the Apostles and the New Testament religiously as Jewish and per definition not as denominationally Christian. In their eyes, Israel always played an important role and will become ever more important. The church did not replace Israel, instead, gentile believers will be „crafted” into the supernatural olive tree „Israel” (Romans 9-11). Jewish religiosity is the legitimate and appropriate Jewish way to believe in Jesus (Stern 1991b, Hoekendijk 1992: 74, Kjær-Hansen 1996). Messianic Jews are considered the remnant of Israel. Halakha, the religious way of Jewish life, as prescribed by the rabbinate, can be as vehemently rejected, as Protestants can reject Catholic tradition, as post-scriptural. Type ℷ (gimel) believers can sharply reject real or perceived Christian domination and denominationalism. The recognition of the Old and the New Testament as supernatural authority, and the assertion of Jewish religiosity, jewishly to express faith in Jesus, appears occasionally to require a sharp rejection of Christian values and norms. „Christians and the Arabs regard us as Jews. Jews regard us as Christians”. The rejection of both, Jewish and Christian post-scriptural traditions, requires considerable cerebration and academic effort to create a new „scriptural” culture, by terminology, praxis and artefacts. Individual and collective religious expression will be similar to Jewish orthodoxy. Obvious differences with the Jewish-Orthodox are, that Halakha in its present form and content are disputed, that man and women sit together in the service, and that a local songbook can contain traditional Christian songs, like O Sacred Head, Now wounded, by J. S. Bach. Within the ritualised synagogal service, the use of the New Testament appears profane, as it has not received its own ritual like among Messianic Jews in the USA (Fischer and Bronstein, 1988: 96). Like in an Orthodox synagogue, many males will visibly participate in public worship. The leader appears as rabbi, though nobody would call him such. He appears treated less formal, with a more colloquial tone than leaders in ecclesiastical groups, and as a peer. Deacons and elders help him. Individuals will obviously try to influence him to their advantage. In organizational matters women may play an active role, yet not in matters of doctrine and teaching.

Type ℸ (daleth), the charismatic synagogal type, in Israel probably the most recent of the four, may appear as a contradiction in termini. Nevertheless, the contradiction between a precisely prescribed synagogal liturgy and a free expression of charismatic phenomena appears reconciled in this type. Individual and collective religious expression appear Orthodox Jewish, as in ℷ (gimel), but maybe less consequently applied. Public worship services bear traces of an Orthodox Jewish and of a pentecostal or charismatic service. The range of charismatic expressions of type ℶ (beth) can be found here also. In relation to an Orthodox Jewish synagogue, the meeting room and worship service show the same similarities and differences as did the previous type ℷ (gimel). The distinguishing physical setting may here be the dance floor for worship. Type ℸ (daleth) reveals a well-organized social activity for new immigrants, regardless their world-view orientation. While pentecostal and charismatic groups and leaders were once criticised for not developing theologically, of type ℸ (daleth) this cannot be said anymore (Juster 1996). Nevertheless, social activity seems to prevail over academic activity, at least in comparison to type ℷ (gimel). The overall impression may be one of a Western Messianic Jewish synagogal designs. Messianic dance is probably the feature that most distinguishes this type from all the other three types.

It appears that ecclesiastical type groups consciously insist on the traditional Christian view, according to which Jews who believe in Jesus as Messiah should find to an ecclesiastical and not synagogal expression of their faith. Synagogal type groups on the opposite hold on to the relatively new Jewish view, according to which Jews who believe in Jesus as Messiah should find to a synagogal expression of their faith. Likewise appears the difference between non-charismatic and charismatic groups. Non-charismatic type groups attempt to avoid the entering of charismatic expression into their public congregational praxis. They can consider charismatic expression as unnecessary, doubtful or spiritually wrongly inspired, as only blurring the supernatural. Charismatic type groups, on the opposite, will insist on freedom for charismatic expression and appreciate opportunities to stimulate individuals and other groups in their mode of experience and expression. The polarity between church and synagogue is the obvious issue, as it gets expressed also by physical artefacts, though one must not underestimate the polarity between the non-charismatic and charismatic expression of faith. The weight of this difference becomes visible by the custom that the holders of both views have their own conference centre, and that those who use the one would not use the other as well. Viewing the movement as a whole, these issues appear ideologically not settled to the advantage of any view. While ideologically the issue „church versus synagogue” appears to persist, practically church and synagogue pursue common goals. The differences, never denied and sometimes even sharply expressed, appear not unsurpassable. Practical demands, external pressures, and surely even more important to themselves, supernatural similarities unite the different groups across the watersheds, thus constituting a small movement even in social science terms (Saperstein 1992, Duyvendak 1992).

In spite of the considerable cultural and social-structural differences, congregations of the various types have developed overarching institutions of interaction. First, leaders of congregations of all four types meet several times per year, for spiritual encouragement, exchange of information and coordination of action. Secondly, assigned individuals from varying groups form an evangelism committee to coordinate efforts, to avoid duplication and crossover of activities among and between groups of the various types. This coordination is also considered to reduce the potential of conflict between the differing groups. Thirdly, a committee for follow-up work attempts to coordinate efforts to guide interested individuals and converts to groups in their residential area. Recommendations of these three bodies are optional, because they have no formal authority over individuals or groups. Representatives in these committees can occasionally be suspected to try to pursue interests of foreign organizations more than the common cause of the movement in Israel. Fourthly, two mutually independent publishing houses supply the movement with the required printed matter, like tracts, booklets and books for evangelization, songbooks for worship and Bibles. Besides, they supply personal and national and foreign affiliated bodies with informative publications, as do most groups for themselves. Fifthly, two conference centres, one for charismatic and one for non-charismatic groups, allow larger meetings of parts of the movement, like for the youth and the education of members. The conference centres are used only by affiliated groups, according to whether they embrace charismatic phenomena or not. Finally, also students from abroad use the three local theological training institutes. Individuals with higher secular and ecclesiastical „aspirations” (De Gilder, Ellemers and Van den Heuvel 1997: 127-139) study abroad.

A pulpit exchange as institutional interaction takes place more likely, but not exclusively, within each of the four types. Opening the pulpit to the leader of another group is a public expression of recognition and trust. Several years ago a conflict between type ℵ (aleph) and ℷ (gimel) exponents caused a foreign Messianic Jewish body to intermediate. Though the conflict got settled formally, informally it appeared to linger. In spite of sometimes considerable differences in supernatural and ideological perceptions, and different internal and external social structures, all four types reveal a surprising ability to cooperate with each other for evangelization. This depicts evangelization as the one underlying value that can outwit most other differences in values and norms, culture and social structure. In the light of Saperstein's criteria, the movement appears as a genuine Jewish messianic movement, because its outspoken commitment to evangelization underscores its

expectation of bringing about a fundamental change in the current situation of Jewish life” (Saperstein 1992: 2). „A full messianic movement must therefore have some relationship not only to the achievement of redemption but to the active role of the Messiah” (Saperstein 1992: 4).

Saperstein might therefore classify the movement even as a Messiah movement, because it links its expectations to a „historic personage” (idem), Jesus of Nazareth.

Though especially leaders from ecclesiastical groups may deny it vividly, I observed a growing Judaisation among all types of the movement. Such progressive Judaisation appears most obvious within type ℵ (aleph) groups. The following I regard as indications for Judaisation. While only twenty-five years ago it was still an issue to circumcise boys and to worship on Sabbaths, this is no longer the case. Both became so normal that some even doubt that it should ever have been otherwise. A calligraphy of the Shema, the ancient affirmation of the core of Judaism, the oneness of God, replaced the obligatory Christian cross. Several hundred Messianic songs, many with also more Jewish sounding melodies (Yahav 1997), are used now, next to translated, traditional Christian songs and melodies. During my last stay I observed in one type ℵ (aleph) congregation a beginning use of the Siddur in a public service. Ivrit has become a means to ward off foreigners, to install a more genuine Israeli congregation.

Finally, I conclude that assimilation works in Israel the other way around. Outside Israel Jews are a cultural minority among a cultural majority. In the West this majority was often and long Christian. The pressure of the majority often led to assimilation, to the gradual loss of Jewish culture and identity and finally to the acceptance of Christianity. Halakha, as meticulously detailed prescribed way of life, the synagogue and the rabbinate as its guardians, had to ward off this pressure and threat of assimilation and to secure the survival of the Jews as a people by the means of their religiously defined Jewishness (Donin 1972:189-190, 1977: 3-6). In Israel the signs appear today reversed. Since the cultural majority is Jewish, it renders Christianity a cultural minority. Accordingly, it should not surprise if Christians in Israel reveal a tendency to become gradually more Jewish. The traces of Judaisation within the Israeli Messianic Jewish movement appear to affirm Weiner's thesis that Israel would cause a Judaisation of Christianity (Weiner 1961: 115). Nevertheless, in Israel the ancient Jewish fear of assimilation persists, at least among certain Orthodox circles, probably those who reject the modern Jewish nation as not given by God. Possibly a closer study of this tension could reveal that not a fear of assimilation, but a purist ideal is the source of conflict.