1.4.5 Items of Attention During Data Collection

The items of attention were derived from the fourfold typology and from the modified framework. Appendix A1 contains the list with the questions that guided the study unobtrusively. The questions were operationalisations of these fields of attention for the study. To study, analyse and describe the four types of the typology I had to decide for each researched entity, individual and group, whether to regard it as ecclesiastical or synagogal, non-charismatic or charismatic. The decision became difficult at times, due to blurred boundary constructions. To Cohen,

the most striking feature of the symbolic construction of the community and its boundaries is its oppositional character. The boundaries are relational rather than absolute; they mark the community in relation to other communities (Cohen 1985: 58).

Groups and individuals appeared to constitute another as opposites. One is what one differs from another (Cohen 1985: 53). To be or not to be ecclesiastical or synagogal, non-charismatic or charismatic, was here the question.

The difficulties to categorize an entity as ecclesiastical or synagogal lays therein that various groups had at least some synagogal expressions. Schein's observation, that „visual environment - will vary from one organization to the next and may well reflect deeper values and assumptions held in the larger culture and by the key leaders” (Schein 1992: 118), appeared applicable to the movement. The display and use of particular physical arrangements unites and differentiate the different types of groups of the movement.

The physical layout not only has a symbolic function but is often used to guide and channel the behaviour of members or the organizations, thereby becoming a powerful builder and reinforcer of norms (Schein 1992: 118-119).

Finally I categorized groups and individuals as synagogal only if their worship room held the typical synagogal „ritual items” and if they conducted their worship after Siddur (Donin 1972: 193-194, Donin 1980). Groups that neither had such items nor conducted their worship after the Siddur I categorised as ecclesiastical. They followed instead some kind of Protestant worship patterns, with only an occasional synagogal expression, if any at all.

While groups appear to have obvious boundaries, members must not stick to them and can sympathise with and even practice what their leaders disapprove. Some individuals appeared mobile between the various types of groups, sometimes more than their leaders appreciated. Especially new and young believers appear mobile between various groups. This rarely finds the favour of group leaders. Understandably so, as such wanderers proclaim their latest misunderstandings about their last visited group as its core truth in the next group that they will visit. However, also faithful members of a synagogal group can still enjoy worshipping in an ecclesiastical group, and vice versa. If I became aware of a formal membership of an individual, I let it decide my categorisation. If I became not aware of one, I decided according to the individual's expressed perceptions and preferences.

Regarding the charismatic phenomena, the boundaries appeared even more open. I found charismatic individuals in non-charismatic groups and vice versa. A group I categorized as non-charismatic if it did not allow charismatic expressions in its public services. Individuals I regarded as non-charismatic either when they explicitly disapproved of charismatic phenomena or seemed not to practice any of them. I regarded a group as charismatic if it allowed in its public meetings expressions of charismatic phenomena, like speaking in tongues, sharing auditions and visions, and faith healing. Individuals I regarded as charismatic if I knew that they belonged to such a group, practised or sympathised with such phenomena (Kalab 1993).

For the relation with the supernatural I looked at what leaders, members and physical arrangements expressed about it. Christianity and Judaism have developed different views and practices related to God, Jesus, Holy Spirit, Trinity, Mosaic law and Bible. Shared symbols, words and artefacts, do not necessarily imply also shared meaning (Cohen 1985: 16). Accordingly I had to ask, for example, what the Siddur, the Jewish prayer book, and Halakha, the prescribed Jewish way of religious life, meant to a respondent. Also, I asked whether they related more actively or more passively to the supernatural, more revelatory or more exploratory. Ancient tensions between Christianity and Judaism involved different perceptions of the supernatural, and seemed to shape the movement's internal and external relationships.

Organizational structures I could regard as internal social-structural relationships. Groups that perceived the supernatural more evangelically revealed a church-like structure. I also needed to look at what was Christian about those who shaped their congregational life after synagogal patterns. The freedom for individual spiritual expression shed light on whether groups were organized more hierarchically or more participatory. Also the kind of relationships between and among leaders, specialists and members shed light on the internal social structure. The justification of inconsistencies and discrepancies could reveal areas of dissent. The roles of women were also interesting, as both, evangelicalism and Orthodox Judaism, often exclude them from official positions (Cucchiari 1990, De Vries 1968: 17, J. D. Douglas 1990: 32, Neill et al 1971: 157-158, Sered 1992: 16). Another issue was, how membership was gained and lost. This could contribute to understanding boundary construction towards the external world.

Twofold attention deserved the external social-structural relationships. First was interesting to see how the different groups of the movement related to another. In view of the movement as a whole, these were internal relationships. In view of the particular congregations, these were external relationships. Second was interesting how they related to their Christian and Jewish, national and international context. How and why the groups emerged, shed light on their contextual relations within and outside the movement. If and in how far ideological sources were Christian or Jewish explained dissent and commonality. Developed common organizational forms showed common needs and goals. Where members came from, could reveal something about the movement's external relationship and internal dynamic. Where the material, personnel and cultural support comes from, one may assume dependencies. Views on Christianity and Judaism, and from them on the movement shows the nature of these external relationships.