2.5.1 Physical Arrangements
When one visits groups of the different types of the movement, the different ecclesiastical and synagogal physical arrangements are instantly obvious.
Differance is a mode of thinking that allows for the fact that there is only one way to be the same, while there are many ways to be dissimilar (Martin 1992: 138).
Drawing on terminology from Derrida, Martin explains that
[d]ifferance implies that meaning emerges from a process of deferral. Therefore, something is understood in a certain way because of what it (apparently) is not. Presence is understood, in part, by an analysis of what is absent (Martin 1992: 139).
Regarding the physical arrangements such view appeared
particularly useful for understanding variation within groups and revealing the ways contexts influence interpretations (Martin 1992: 141).
Relating the similarities and differences of the ecclesiastical and synagogal physical settings to another and to the Christian and Jewish context appeared to reveal their particular meanings.
Bible text calligraphy is a cultural artefact to be found on walls in worship rooms of all four types. Churches and synagogue apparently have them in common anyway. What distinguishes all four types of the movement, ℵ (aleph), ℶ (beth), ℷ (gimel) and ℸ (daleth), from churches and synagogues, is the display of the shema calligraphy at a dominant place combined with the use of the New Testament during services. With the combined display of the shema calligraphy and the use of the New Testament all four types of groups of the movement express their simultaneous affinity with Judaism and Christianity. The calligraphy refers to Judaism, the New Testament to Christianity.
The use of the shema calligraphy and the New Testament by all four types indicate a certain „symbolic ambiguity” (Martin 1992: 145-148) of both. A symbol appears ambiguous if its meaning is not explicated or can be interpreted in various ways, due to complex relationships to other elements (Martin 1992: 134). That appears to apply for both symbols. For the two ecclesiastic types, ℵ (aleph) and ℶ (beth), the shema calligraphy appears as a general reference to Judaism that does not imply acceptance of the Jewish-Orthodox life style. For the two synagogal types, ℷ (gimel) and ℸ (daleth), it appears as a reference to Judaism that accepts the Jewish-Orthodox life style, though with new interpretations and restrictions. This way, the calligraphy can serve as a symbol that bridges and unites the different groups across their considerable different cultures and life styles. The general assumption, that the shema stands for what binds all Jews together, appears sufficient and allows absence of precise definition.
The different meanings ascribed to the shema becomes more clear by the absence or presence of synagogal physical arrangements, which reflects different definitions of Judaism, which again lastingly nurture discussions in the wider Jewish society of what Judaism is and means (Sobel and Beit-Hallahmi 1991). The definition of Judaism appeared an issue about which „two Jews have three opinions” and „where angels fear to tread”. However, that groups of all four types display the shema, although they interpret it differently in its consequences, shows that they consider themselves Jewish and aspire to be publicly recognised as Jews. This in itself could suffice to qualify the movement as a Jewish one, at least in general terms. While secular Jews will more easily yield to this wish, Orthodox Jews find it difficult to impossible.
The use of the New Testament appears more obvious in the ecclesiastic types, ℵ (aleph) and ℶ (beth), and less obvious in the synagogal types, ℷ (gimel) and ℸ (daleth). In the worship services of both synagogal types the Torah Scroll takes the central and obvious place. The New Testament never found its way into the liturgy of Jewish orthodoxy. Accordingly, in groups that shape their worship after the Jewish-Orthodox pattern, its use can visually appear as additional or even nonessential, though in daily praxises it appears not so. However, the equality of value and authority of Old and New Testament has no means of expression in Orthodox Jewish tradition. Accordingly, discussions about the role of the New Testament and the relationship between it and the Old Testament persist. The ambiguity of the meaning of the New Testament, in relationship to the Old Testament, could be understood as follows. Within both ecclesiastic types, the New Testament gets used in a typical Christian way. It is a physical, visible part of the whole Bible.
Furthermore, Christians study and preach the New Testament much more than the Old Testament (Rodenberg 1979). This could be a consequence or result of the idea that the church has replaced Judaism. The synagogal type groups, in the opposite, believe that the church never replaced Judaism, and that as Jewish believers in Jesus they have to conduct their worship jewishly, synagogal, as also Jesus and Paul were used. Since in the synagogal service the Torah Scroll is still as central as it was two thousand years ago, the public use of the New Testament appears marginal to the eye. Among ecclesiastic type groups, who follow Christian traditions, the possession and use of the New Testament can accordingly appear as distinction from Judaism. Among synagogal type groups, who follow Jewish tradition, the New Testament appears „reclaimed” as a property of Judaism that reaffirms Torah and the Mosaic covenant. From that point of view one may conclude that the underlying difference between the ecclesiastical and synagogal type groups lays not even in the obvious use of the New Testament in itself, but in the role ascribed to Torah and the perception of its relationship to the New Testament (Rodenberg 1979, Stern 1991a: 125-187).
The obvious absence of any synagogal ritual items in type ℵ (aleph) and type ℶ (beth) congregations nonverbally displays that their Jewish identity is not based on Jewish religious tradition. Ecclesiastical congregations, charismatic or not, neglect or even reject rabbinical expression, interpreting it as worthless, its application as expression of one's own spiritual poverty that one needs to borrow from rabbinical tradition, or even as biblically wrong and objectionable. Still, circumcision of Jewish boys appears widely accepted, as are the Jewish feasts and holidays. Yet that praxis appears more as a national and less as a religious expression. The occasional use of the Siddur in an ecclesiastic service becomes thus an indication of a slow Judaisation (Weiner 1961). The occasional performance of a Jewish ritual in ecclesiastic groups, like lighting the Sabbath candles, appears less convincing than in synagogal groups. Yet ecclesiastic type congregations will also not display typical Christian physical arrangements in their worship rooms, like a cross or a painting of Jesus, as they would offend visiting Jews.
The obvious presence and use of synagogal ritual items in type ℷ (gimel) and ℸ (daleth) congregations nonverbally shows that they base their Jewish identity not only on nationality and descent, but also on Jewish religious tradition. This shows nonverbally the rejection of Christian replacement theologies, which infers that the Church would have taken over the spiritual place of Judaism. Accordingly, among synagogal groups the shema graphic takes on not only a general reference to Jewishness, but also a demonstrative affinity with Orthodox synagogal tradition and teaching, which naturally challenges Christian traditions and creeds. While the New Testament is also read and preached about in these groups, its use can occasionally appear almost profane, if compared to the ecclesiastic type groups.
In both synagogal type congregations’ synagogal physical arrangements and rituals appear richly imbued with meaning and related to Jesus' life and teaching. The use of synagogal physical arrangements distinguishes the synagogal type groups, ℷ (gimel) and ℸ (daleth), from the ecclesiastical type groups of the movement, ℵ (aleph) and ℶ (beth). The Siddur appears more prominent and central in services of synagogal non-charismatic type ℷ (gimel) congregations than in synagogal charismatic type ℸ (daleth) congregations. This infers that type ℷ (gimel) congregations lean even more towards Jewish orthodoxy than type ℸ (daleth) congregations. 37Yet at the same time it is exactly and apparently only a type ℷ (gimel) group that displays a cultural artefact with full human beings, diametral to Jewish Orthodox tradition (Leymarie 1981).) These differences between the four types become also visible in the different modes of interaction with the supernatural.