2.5.4 External Social Structure

As for the external social structure the groups of all four types appear to have considerable different relationships, among themselves, with Christian and Jewish groups, and with the authorities. Groups of the movement of the same type will most likely have contact, interaction and cooperation among themselves, collectively and individually. The criteria for preferences of interaction are whether the other group is charismatic or not and synagogal or ecclesiastical. In spite of these two obvious watersheds, leaders of all four types will meet nationwide a few times a year, to share experiences, discuss and negotiate common concerns, and to coordinate common efforts, evangelistic and regarding social-welfare.

External pressure from Orthodox radicals even fosters the joining of forces between the differing types of groups, to meet the hostility and to act together for the common cause of evangelization. Leaders also change pulpits between the groups if a colleague is travelling, and as affiliations and friendships allow and recommend. Scepticism between leaders of the different kinds of groups remains, but seems less than in previous years. Hostility between leaders occurs only exceptionally and is rare. The relationship among all groups of the four different types appears predominantly cooperative, by which the abilities of the leaders seem to set the pace.

The ecclesiastic type groups maintain manifold cooperative relationships with various Christian groups and dominations, overall Protestant, within Israel and abroad. It appears obvious that non-charismatic Messianic Jewish groups will have more and stronger cooperative relationships with traditional Christian groups of their own liking, or origin, and likewise the charismatic with theirs. Synagogal type groups can experience harsh criticism from certain Christian groups, occasionally even obvious dishonest defamation, depending on how profoundly these Christian groups reject Jewish culture, appearance and affiliation with Jewish believers. Christian groups, that demand Jewish believers in Jesus to give up their Jewishness entirely and become like non-Jewish believers, find it especially difficult to be supportive towards synagogal type groups. The more explicit the religious Jewish appearance of a group will be, the more reserved or even hostile such Christian groups can be towards them. Charismatic Christians appear able to have good relationships with the two ecclesiastical types of groups and with charismatic synagogal type groups, yet naturally less with the non-charismatic synagogal type groups.

Representatives of all four types of groups criticise and ridicule unrealistic, apocalyptic Christian ideas and expectations about Israel, and plea for common sense, and pragmatic realism. They also criticise Christian aid as often poorly coordinated and not directed towards those who really need help. Also, they heavily criticise Christian groups who engage in social help for Jews but fail to contribute also to evangelize them. However, usually, many Christian groups are in favour of Messianic Jews and want to support them morally and monetary, socially and evangelistically. The relationship of the groups of all four types with Christian groups appears predominantly cooperative. Nevertheless, representatives of the non-charismatic synagogal type appear particularly critical towards Catholicism, though they maintain no observable relationship with the Catholic Church at all. That appears particularly remarkable considering the similarity of the physical arrangement and ritual between non-charismatic synagogal type groups and Catholic Church interior and ritual.

The paradox of identity always consists of the fact that difference, to be affirmed and lived as such, presupposes a certain equality and a degree of reciprocity (Melucci 1996: 74).

The smaller the difference appears the greater may become the need to stress the conscious difference.

The movement's relationship with Orthodox Judaism appears structurally conflicting, shaped even by fierce hostility, probably from the ultra-orthodox side. These „zealots” appear to refuse to distinguish between Christians and Messianic Jews, thus denying the latter their Jewish identity. To them, Christians and Messianic Jews make up „the mission” that should not be in the country at all. They want to get them out of Israel and to deny Jewish believers in Jesus the right of immigration and citizenship, which appears in contrast to the original intent that Israel would be a homeland to any Jew. It appears that political propaganda tries to use misinformation about and aggression against Messianic believers to strengthen particular positions for upcoming elections. However, ultra-orthodox aggression against the groups appears also dysfunctional. For it binds the effected groups stronger together, and evokes sympathy and help from Christians and Jews likewise, within Israel and abroad. From the hostility, the social cohesion within and between the differing groups becomes stronger, and moral and material help for all of them increases.

The police protect endangered believers, though it is also criticised for not seeking out the attackers and to only file the cases. In spite of the fierce hostility, especially type ℷ (gimel) groups appear to turn every stone to gain and to maintain good relationships with Orthodox individuals and groups. Increasingly the media appear to pay special attention to Messianic Jewish individuals and groups who get attacked. Ideologically bound media try to exploit such instances further to publish derogatory stories about them. Media that try to present the movement objectively present its representatives with opportunities to explain their case to the public. To the movement and its parts such attention becomes an unsought opportunity to present beliefs and to evangelize, in newspapers and on televison. At least type ℸ (daleth) groups maintain extraordinary, cooperative relationships with local authorities, who supply them with means for distribution among needy immigrants.