1.2.2 An emic Messianic Jewish Typology

Already the first, loosely structured interviews, held in 1995, revealed outlines of an internal structure of the movement along four contradicting subcultures: non-charismatic versus charismatic and ecclesiastical versus synagogal. Sobel observed that the movement originated in Protestantism (Sobel 1974: 140) and regarded it as predominantly fundamentalistic (Sobel 1974: 54, 160). To me it appeared closely related to the evangelical movement, in Israel and abroad (J. D. Douglas 1990: 444-446, Kjær-Hansen 1995-1998). However, one Israeli leader defined himself explicitly as „fundamentalist”, and „non-charismatic”.

Evangelicalism appeared in the eighteenth century, Fundamentalism in the nineteenth century. Fundamentalism would rigidly stress the divine nature of Jesus and the Bible as verbally inspired, free of any error and contradiction, at the expense of the human character of the two. As God would reveal himself only through the Bible anymore, auditions and visions consequently would have an ungodly source. While evangelicals would share much with fundamentalists, they would flexibly admit also the consequences of a human nature and history of the Bible and Jesus, for example their Jewishness. For the sake of evangelization, evangelicals would cooperate with a local Council of Churches. Fundamentalists would unlikely do so, but regarded them, sciences and societies as governed by ungodly forces (Van Essen 1997: 22-33). I regard evangelicals as having more optimistic and open views on life and society.

Today, supernatural charismatic expression appears to have entered most parts of the evangelical movement. Even conservative Christian congregations use songbooks that originated in the charismatic movement. Still, to be charismatic or not remains a watershed among evangelicals and is reflected also in the movement. Charismatic and pentecostal individuals and groups embrace phenomena like speaking in tongues, auditions, visions, and faith healing. Here, I will not explicate charismatic and pentecostal phenomena, as others have done that before (Cucchiari 1990, Droogers 1990). Those who do not embrace such phenomena appear often to prefer to ward them and their holders off. This separates individuals and groups from another, but also bridges organizational structures.

The even more profound watershed within the movement is that its parts define themselves culturally in different degrees as Christian and Jewish. Some insist that they are Hebrew Christians, others that they are Messianic Jews. Some conduct their personal and collective worship ecclesiastically, Christian, like in a church, others, Orthodox Jewish, like in a synagogue. Since Messianic Jews regard these different attitudes and lifestyles not as merely optional, but as obligatory to at least some degree, these two different forms can cause considerable disagreement, reflected by very different visual expressions of personal and collective piety (Fruchtenbaum 1996).

Already this early observation of cultural „fragmentation” (Martin 1992: 141) questioned concepts like Schein's „shared, taken-for-granted” (Schein 1992: 15) culture as applicable in a study of the movement. Since the movement appears still young, also his theory of an aging culture appeared not applicable (Schein 1992: 331-332). Also Mintzberg's harmonious view of culture, in his „Missionary configuration” (Mintzberg 1983: 294-296), appeared insufficient to perceive and describe the movement. Morgan's „fragmented cultures” (Morgan 1992: 122) approached the observed phenomenon better. Martin's „nexus solution” (Martin 1992: 109-114) considers also the environmental context of organizations to „understand what goes on inside an organizational culture” (Martin 1992: 113). Her proposal parallels this study's intent of contextual interpretation. Martin proposes a combination of different views, to „more fully” (Martin 1992: 174) understand cultural context, and points out political implications of restricted views. Finally, Tennekes' explicit attention for the dynamic interaction between culture and power met what I found in the field (Tennekes 1995: 29-37, Meijers 1989: 13). Another limitation for the application of definitions of organizational culture derives from the fact that the movement comprises very different organizations on various organizational levels.

Along the two dichotomies, or maybe better spectra, of non-charismatic versus charismatic and ecclesiastical versus synagogal, an internal structure of the movement evolves. I depict a fourfold emic typology of social bodies within the movement. Emic refers to a view on the movement from within, using its own criteria, not etic, external, alien ones (Martin 1992: 106, Droogers 1993: 5). ⁶Later I found a similar distinction in literature of the movement (Stern 1991a: 199).) Typology refers here to Weber's ideal type as artificial construction of thought that stresses certain traces of a phenomenon as more characteristic than others. Being an exaggeration, an ideal type hardly occurs in reality, but can serve as sociological tool to come to know better a phenomenon it stands for (Jager and Mok 1989: 46, 343). When I set out with this fourfold typology to map the movement in Israel, I found a social cultural microcosm. This appears in line with Martin's premise and conclusion that „an organization is a microcosm of the surrounding societal culture” (Martin 1992: 111). Yet surrounding cultures differ in their impact on the movement. The predominantly influential surrounding cultures of the movement were evangelicalism and Jewish orthodoxy. The influence of for example legislation appeared small, but could also not be fully neglected. The fourfold typology helped to study and perceive particularities of individuals and groups of the movement. Since I became aware of this fourfold typology already at the very beginning of this study, I would not regard it as „the” conclusion. It became a guiding instrument for studying and describing the movement. The typology is thus not the conclusion, but a means for research, analysis and synthesis, to structure the „conclusion”, that is, the systematic social science description of the movement and its consideration. One important intent of this essay is the attempt to describe the movement in social science terms. Therefore, I would regard the description of the movement, making up the second part of this essay, which introduces the reader to many details necessary to perceive its appearance, also as „conclusion”. ⁷See the remark on pursuit of theory versus description in the preface.)

Messianic emic Typology
	non-charismatic	charismatic
ecclesiastical	Type ℵ (aleph)	Type ℶ (beth)
synagogal	Type ℷ (gimel)	Type ℸ (daleth)

The alphabetic sequence of the four types appears to follow roughly the sequence of their appearance in time. Bodies of type ℵ (aleph), non-charismatic ecclesiastical, can date back into the last century (Neill et al 1975: 234-236, 250-252). A considerable part of the movement appears still mainstream evangelical, with, if any at all, only a few visible religious Jewish traits. Their Jewishness appears national, secular, as some even reject decisively any rabbinic religious Jewish identity. With the rise of the pentecostal and the charismatic movement (Burkhardt, Geldbach and Heimbucher 1978: 104-105, 402-404), type ℶ (beth), charismatic ecclesiastical, appeared also in Israel. Here, I simplify and categorise both as charismatic. The various denominations and missions imported the great, sometimes even fierce tension between evangelical mainstream and the charismatic to Israel. As Sobel nearly foresaw, the second part of the seventies brought a considerable programmatic change. Hebrew Christians became Messianic Jews (Greene 1998). Consequent wings of the movement restored a Messianic Jewish synagogal expression (Shulam 1998), so creating type ℷ (gimel), non-charismatic synagogal, which another wing questions (Maoz 1997). If one considers induced charismatic expression and prescribed synagogal worship as unresolvable opposites, type ℸ (daleth), charismatic synagogal, should not even exist. Yet it does (Juster 1998). While I met only one group of this type, there existed more. After I ended data collection in Israel, I met various Israeli leaders of different groups of this type outside Israel.

I observed other emic criteria, but they appeared less promising to approach a study and description of the movement. The groups of the movement distinguish themselves also after whether they conduct their service in Ivrit, modern Hebrew, or in another language, or whether they supply translations (22/97). Another emic distinction is whether a group is „Jewish”, „Arab”, or „International”. A predominantly Jewish group could still be culturally more Christian or more Jewish. An Arab group would less likely be synagogal, but more likely Christian in appearance. Yet I cannot be sure of that. „International” appeared to refer to groups that at least officially concentrate on serving expatriates, only temporarily in Israel (4/97). These criteria supply interesting context information, but they appear dissatisfying to develop a comprehensive yet distinguished perception of the movement. While the fourfold typology sensitized me simultaneously to observe consensus and fragmentation within the movement, I still needed an instrument to explore and describe cultural and social-structural particularities of the religious movement. To the development of such an eclectic and theoretical instrument I will turn now.