Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2008-10-23 Messianic Judaism

What's going on?
Dispute over the lede sentence away from "religious movement" to "Christian movement" desired by non-Messianic Jewish editors. Messianic and Christian editors want "religious movement" phrase to stay, or else "Jewish/Christian movement" since "Jewish/Christian movement" is consistent with cited source. It should be noted that "religious movement" has remained the lede for over a year.

What would you like to change about that?
Need a decision on which lede is best to achieve consensus.

Discussion
See Talk:Messianic Judaism


 * The header of this Cabal is not stated accurately. As a former evangelical pastor and seminary professor I can state with great experience that Christians do not view Messianics as some separate "religious movement."  They are absolutely seen to be Christians because of their belief in Jesus, the Trinity, and the New Testament.  At most it is seen as an ethnic group as much as Hispanic Christians or Russian Christians, and as any ethnic Christian movement they use terms or pronunciations more native to their ethnic languages and frames of reference.  But they are absolutely seen to be Christians and not a separate religious movement. SkyWriter (Tim) (talk) 05:18, 3 November 2008 (UTC)


 * In rebuttal, Messianic Jews do not subscribe to the Trinity, nor to the Marcion-term and concept of a "New Testament" apart from the Torah itself. The only thing shared with Christianity is their belief the Jesus (who they call Yeshua) is the Jewish Messiah. However it is argued that one can not accurately rule MJ as a Christian religious movement based on the logic alone that having a shared belief with another religion merits equity, since then certainly Christianity then is Judaism for it believes in the Torah, like Judaism does, too. Messianic Judaism is a religious movement, and let the differing views state their case in the article. Such a divisive, and POV intro "MJ is a Christian movement..." is unnecessary in an article that is painstakingly constructed to offer space for both viewpoints (that it's Christian, or Jewish, or neither), and the lede has remained unchallenged for months, if not years. inigmatus (talk) 18:46, 7 November 2008 (UTC)


 * The only tenet which all versions of (post 2nd century, anyway) Christianity agree with is the divinity of Jesus, and that he is the son of God and is the Messiah as defined in the Hebrew Bible (which has identical words with the Old Testament, but not identical interpretation). The Trinity is a more recent interpretation.  It might be the case that Messianic Judaism is a reconstruction of one of the early sects of Christianity; I don't think it is, but I can't prove it.  But that's more like a specific content dispute....
 * I ask, as have others, is there a self-proclaimed Christian sect or scholar which accepts Catholicism and Protestantism as Chrisitianity, which does not accept MJ as Christianity. If not, then I don't think there's any credible dispute that MJ is an example of Christianity.
 * I would consider "religous movement" in the lead, provided it's clear in the lead that almost everyone considers it "Christian", and a small minority, including most of the adherents, consider it "Jewish". — Arthur Rubin  (talk) 20:21, 7 November 2008 (UTC)


 * My problem with "religious movement" is that it is misleading. You hang something with a "Jewish" name as a "religious movement" and there is the krasis of the two for the reader as if this really does religiously represent Judaism. SkyWriter (Tim) (talk) 21:09, 7 November 2008 (UTC)


 * There are MJs who do not make the claim that Jesus is God, but is divine (HaShem). The problem with the article is that it needs to be inclusive of even those "fringe" groups - at least in the introduction, and only share that which is truly shared by all who claim to be "Messianic Jews" - namely that it's a religious movement whose adherents believe that Jesus is the Jewish Messiah. Let the individual sections then flesh out what is and is not believed by various groups with MJism. inigmatus (talk) 20:01, 10 November 2008 (UTC)


 * You've not yet given me any evidence that Messianics reject John 1:1's application to Jesus. All of my notable and reliable sources say they do. SkyWriter (Tim) (talk) 20:22, 10 November 2008 (UTC)


 * From an MJ viewpoint, the Word is HaShem. John 1:1 simply reaffirms the Torah's teaching on the matter concerning the Davar HaShem. inigmatus (talk) 20:37, 11 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Also, what does it mean "not God, but divine"? That's an oxymoron, unless they're talking about outright polytheism, in which case it certainly goes without saying that it's not Judaism in any way.


 * And no, Inigmatus, it does not need to be inclusive of such fringe groups. MJ is just barely notable itself.  You're trying to use it as a gateway to include fringe notions that most certainly are not notable.


 * Btw, I agree with Tim entirely that "religious group" would give the impression that it is a Jewish group in this context, and that the term should not be substituted in the lead. -LisaLiel (talk) 20:48, 10 November 2008 (UTC)


 * "Not God, but divine" is not an oxymoron when one chooses to limit their belief about God to exactly what scripture says, and no more. For example, it is written "Elohiem lo ish" - God is not a man, and it is written concerning the malak - the Angel that "my Name is in him," that is, the name of HaShem; it is therefore appropriate to conclude that the Angel, the Davar HaShem is called HaShem (divine), but that he is not Elohiem (God). There is no oxymoron, but a singular, linear, scripture-bound description of the Messiah within the Torah that all Messianics agree on, and some (that is the majority) make the unscriptural leap to conclude that the Messiah is God (as in all God's fullness and the essence of who God is). You mentioned that changing the lede from "Christian" to "religious movement" somehow associates the group with Judaism, and I find that assertion absolutely false. You would in essence be making a neutral term "religious" be a "weasel word" to mean "Judaism" when "Judaism" or "Jewish" is not used at all! This is preposterous, and is evidence that you truly see a need to post a WP:Disclaimer in the form of a "Christian" tag in the lede for the article in order for the article to not "dupe" readers into thinking that MJ is a form of Judaism; when such a lede is unjustified as applicable for all Messianic Jews - since I and others do not hold to some of the major tenets of Christianity, and if anything the only thing we have in common with them is our shared belief that Yeshua is the Jewish messiah. inigmatus (talk) 20:37, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

I don't know what you are -- but it's not Messianic. I appreciate that you grant that the majority of what you consider to be Messianics do believe Jesus is God. But that doesn't make you in the minority -- that makes you something else entirely. Belief in the Trinity and the Deity of Christ is essential to normative Messianism; so essential that they would call you a heretic to deny it and exclude you from the group. SkyWriter (Tim) (talk) 20:43, 11 November 2008 (UTC)


 * "But that doesn't make you in the minority -- that makes you something else entirely." I find that statement patently false. Upon what criteria are you defining Messianic Judaism? There are many more Messianics like me that hold that Messiah is the Word of HaShem and say no more in addition to that. There are many more Messianics like me that hold that HaShem is the Spirit of God, who dwells in the Word of God, who created the heavens and earth - and yet this isn't any different than normative Christianity when they slap the trinitarian label on it! Of course we as Messianics do not limit God to the trinitarian box, since it the Glory also filled the tabernacle, not the other "persons" of the godhead as Christianity and some in MJ would assume. I'm just making the point that what you define as Messianic Judaism, and what I define as Messianic Judaism, are two entirely different things and that this appears to be the source for our disagreement over the lede. You believe Messianic Judaism is a Christian religious movement because the Messianic Judaism you know (Jews for Jesus brand) seems to preach the Christian trinitarian man-god doctrine, when in fact there are countless other MJs who may reaffirm such for sake of unity with our Christian brothers, or refrain from doing so for sake of staying within the limits of scripture. I happen to be one of the second group, one that does their best to disassociate with J4J which seeks to turn Jews into Christians; whereas we seek to turn ourselves into Jews making teshuvah (repentance to the Torah). As such, I believe the MJ article needs to reflect the reality of the movement, in that multiple views are held, and yes - some groups DO in fact consider other MJ groups as heretical. It is by this proof of our disagreement alone that I am making this request for MEDCAB to seriously consider supporting the more neutral "religious movement" phrase in the lede (since slapping the "Christian" label on MJ is truly POV especially in light of what I've just written here), and stick to the time-honored solution of letting the individual sections flesh out differences. I hope we can come to at least a constructive agreement to give the lede as much of a neutral POV as possible, and I hope that you and the other editors, and MEDCAB can finally see now why I and others believe "religious movement" is the more neutral than "Christian movement" - and why it was never disputed for the months and years it has been there. inigmatus (talk) 16:41, 12 November 2008 (UTC)


 * I think you may be misunderstanding the purpose of Wikipedia. It is not to reflect my definition or your definition, but to express definitions found in notable, verifiable, and reliable sources.  All of the ones I have express Jesus as the Word-which-was-with-God-and-is-God-made-flesh, and they accept the New Testament as canon, including John 1:1-14.  I'm not familiar with any groups calling themselves Messianic who do not believe that the New Testament is canon.  Do the sources I have prefer "Messianic" to "Christian"?  Yes, in terms of evangelical contextualization.  But advocating Christian heresy is not their goal.  Stern has always been a staple source, and as this section is about SOURCES instead of your opinion or mine, I'd suggest we get back to that. SkyWriter (Tim) (talk) 20:54, 12 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Stern called his work the Messianic "Jewish" Manifesto. Then also according to Artscroll, Early Christianity = sect of Judaism; which you rightly reaffirm. Thus applying some simple logic here, when Messianic Judaism = Early Christianity, then Messianic Judaism = sect of Judaism according to the Artscroll siddur. This isn't a difficult claim to see since the "Judaism" part of "Messianic Judaism" is that which Stern calls accurately a "Judaism". So if we want to stick with sources, which is what I have been saying all along (since no source thus cited in the article says MJ is a Christian movement), then "Messianic Judaism is a sect of Judaism" is substantiated - and we can agree to disagree all we like, but that is the fact based on sources so far cited. Yet that is not what you want in the lede, and instead you changed it to say "Christian" without support except your own POV, and so then I offer an alternative in an effort at ending our disagreement over the matter and works toward achieving consensus: let's keep the mutually agreed well-tested, community pre-approved "Messianic Judaism is a religious movement" and let the article flesh out the details in their appropriate sections - and let's finally end this MEDCAB. inigmatus (talk) 04:28, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

Refocus
Please refrain from debating what constitutes "true" Messianic Judaism. This is simply not the place to do that. Such debates will not resolve the content dispute and only serve to worsen the editing climate. Every needs to work together with mutual respect if we are to reach an agreement. Some recommendations: Sources I would recommend for the editors of the article, both for general use and potential help in resolving this dispute:
 * Stay focused on the content, not the contributors. We should all treat each other with dignity and respect.
 * Avoid debating in favor your own views or advocating for a particular viewpoint.
 * In order to create well-written and properly representative articles, we will often need to fairly present "the opposition's" viewpoint.
 * All notable views must be presented in proper proportion. The subject's self-presentation is of value and should be clearly noted, but Wikipedia article should primarily refer to reliable independent sources.
 * Self-produced websites and other materials are generally discouraged, but permitted in some limited circumstances. Try to focus on the most reliable sources available whenever possible.
 * Not used in the article.
 * Listed as further reading in the article.
 * Listed as further reading in the article.
 * Listed as further reading in the article.
 * Not used in the article.
 * Listed as further reading in the article.
 * Not used in the article.

Ignoring any predetermined answers, how do reliable sources classify Messianic Judaism? Please provide some limited quotations and citation information for the source(s) consulted. Please avoid pamphlets, "About Us" statements and FAQs. Please emphasize texts by reputable scholars and publishers. Vassyana (talk) 21:06, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

"Messianic Judaism is a Religious Movement" Sources
 * ReligiousTolerance.org Messianic Judaism:
 * The Universal Church of Metaphysics:

The dispute I have with the current lede's phrase "MJ is a Christian movement" is that there is absolutely NO third-party (non Jewish, and non MJ, and non Christian) source that says such anywhere, and thus it needs to be challenged, and thus cited. So far, nothing is cited that says such. Until then, saying MJ is a Christian movement, is highly POV (for then I can find Jewish sources that say it is a Christian movement, Christian sources that may say the same thing, and MJ sources that say otherwise). inigmatus (talk) 19:20, 17 November 2008 (UTC)


 * No, it is not POV. First of all, there are precious view third-party sources that say anything about MJ, given your definition of third-party sources.  Second of all, why is "third-party" a criterion here?


 * I think you're really gaming here, Inigmatus. Of course MJ is Christian.  The sophistry and semantic hoops you have to jump through to say otherwise are far worse than the old "how many angels can dance on the head of a pin" questions, and this is Wikipedia; not a forum for theoretical theologies.  You pray to Jesus.  You're Christians.  You may not be the standard model, but no one denies that you're Christians except in the context of polemics.


 * Honestly, I think this MedCab should be ended right now. Inigmatus is wasting our time with tendentious claims that should not be taken seriously.  He should be happy that Wikipedia guidelines dictate that the article on MJ should call it "Messianic Judaism" when that in and of itself is a piece of misleading subterfuge.


 * Sheesh. -LisaLiel (talk) 20:46, 17 November 2008 (UTC)


 * "You pray to Jesus." You know, you really don't know anything about Messianic Jews, do you? We pray to HaShem, and HaShem alone. Where do you get that we "pray to Jesus?" Oy vey! If this is your criteria for calling us Christian, then you truly have missed the mark entirely, and your statement proves that MEDCAB is needed just to keep objectivity alive in this dispute. inigmatus (talk) 22:34, 17 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Inigmatus, Messianic Jews don't exist to convert gentiles to Judaism, but Jews to Christianity. You yourself used a footnote in artscroll about "early Christians" and applied it to modern Messianics!  Is that POV pushing on your part?  Less pushing and more corkscrewing.  The tortuous avenues you meander to hide any rational classification is completely unnecessary.  You believe in Jesus and the New Testament.  Great!  Be proud of it!  But please don't waste everyone's time with a cabal trying to hide your own faith. SkyWriter (Tim) (talk) 21:12, 17 November 2008 (UTC)


 * "MJs don't convert gentiles to Judaism." Excuse me? Gentiles are converted to Judaism through HaDerech all the time! Surely if you had asked what "early Christians" that Artscroll refers to, if they are converting gentiles to Judaism, they certainly wouldn't be saying they are converting someone to a new religion other than Judaism! Or have you forgotten that Yeshua didn't come to start a new religion, and neither did his immediate disciples?


 * I can't believe I forgot that. That's a tiyuvta.  Tim, do you remember where he tried using Artscroll like that?  I think that's flat out evidence that he considers MJ to be Christian, at least when it suits him, and that this is one big PR campaign he's trying to push. -LisaLiel (talk) 22:08, 17 November 2008 (UTC)


 * My emphasis was on the the Artscroll siddur's use of the term "sect of Judaism" in describing "early Christians" - a fact that seem to deny, especially when we claim to hold to their theology and practice. I mean, if you want to be totally honest with the Artscroll siddur source, you could change the lede to say "Messianic Judaism is a religious movement whose adherents claim to be following the theology and practice of the early Christians, considered in the 1st Century as a sect of Judaism." inigmatus (talk) 22:34, 17 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Well, Lisa, I could find it -- but he just did it again right here. I think he's trying to deny that Messianic Judaism is MODERN Christianity and is instead EARLY Christianity, while you and I are agreeing with him that it is "Christianity" and ignoring the time warp.  But, as he has admitted it again, I think the medcab can be closed now. SkyWriter (Tim) (talk) 22:53, 17 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Then you agree to change the lede to mention that Messianic Judaism, like early Christianity, is a "sect of Judaism?" inigmatus (talk) 00:11, 18 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Well, I wouldn't agree. It's a sect of Judaism in the same sense that Christianity is a sect of Judaism.  — Arthur Rubin  (talk) 00:25, 18 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Inigmatus, Wikipedia is not designed to promote deliberate falsehoods. Messianic Judaism is a modern Christian movement.  It sprang from Christianity and remains within Christianity (except for a few heretics who are neither religiously Christian NOR Jewish, but I'm talking about the normative representation instead of whatever you are trying to make us think you are). SkyWriter (Tim) (talk) 00:40, 18 November 2008 (UTC)


 * On the contrary, Christianity sprang from Messianic Judaism, or have you forgotten your history that Jesus is a Jew and all his early disciples are Jews? When Messianic Judaism = Early Christianity and Artscroll and other reliable sources say Early Christianity = sect of Judaism, then Messianic = sect of Judaism. In fact, one doesn't hold to being a follower of Messianic Judaism if they themselves don't believe they are following a sect of Judaism, hence the "Judaism" of Messianic "Judaism." WP is not designed to promote deliberate attempts at false disclaimers. The MJ article has already had several attempts by Jewish authors to post "Disclaimer: Messianic Judaism is not Judaism at all, but Christianity." Now your attempt is to force the very same language into the very lede itself, and one that is unsupported by sources at that (and there is a pending request for citation that you and Lisa both refuse to provide, and instead just blindly revert any requests for citation on this matter)! Saying "Messianic Judaism is a religious movement" is hardly the language of promoting a falsehood, but your unsupported claim that "Messianic Judaism is a Christian movement" is unsupported by any direct cite to the fact, and disregards many Messianics who reject the Christian label, and its man-god theologies; and quite frankly is seen as a POV push that destabilizes an article that has enjoyed an edit-war peace for years. inigmatus (talk) 04:43, 18 November 2008 (UTC)


 * See, that's the thing. You keep making ridiculous statements like MJ = Early Christianity.  Early Christianity morphed into later Christianity.  There's no continuity between MJ and Early Christianity.  MJ may aspire to mimic Early Christianity, just as modern Wicca aspires to mimic old world Paganism, but that's not the same thing.


 * Since your whole argument rests on the specious claim that MJ is Early Christianity, it fails. -LisaLiel (talk) 13:05, 18 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Inigmatus, you are using Artscroll's rejection of early Christianity to prove that Messianic Judaism is a sect of Judaism in this way:
 * Artscroll calls early Christianity a sect of Judaism.
 * Early Christianity was Messianic Judaism.
 * Therefore Messianic Judaism is not Christianity but a sect of Judaism.
 * It's a convoluted self-contradictory hodge-podge. You aren't making extraordinary claims, but rather self-contradictory claims.  You are assuming that early Christianity IS Messianic Judaism in order to prove that Messianic Judaims IS NOT Christianity!!! And then you are asking everyone else to refute you!  WHICH you do you want us to refute?  You have to agree with yourself long enough for us to have a target. SkyWriter (Tim) (talk) 13:16, 18 November 2008 (UTC)


 * You are inventing butter where there isn't. The point is if you are going to call MJ early Christianity, then you must also call it a sect of Judaism. I encourage the MEDCAL moderator to read [] for further proof as to why the lede should have the extremely SkyWriter POV "Christian movement" removed and re-replaced with a more balanced NPOV "religious movement." inigmatus (talk) 20:57, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

It isn't even early Christianity. It sprang from Protestant (actually Calvinistic) missions to Jews in the late 1830s. After a century and a half of faltering, it finally took off in the 1970s. I think "Christian movement" is as NPOV and tame as we can go. "Evangelical Protestant creation" is more accurate. SkyWriter (Tim) (talk) 21:06, 21 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Did Protestantism come from Catholicism? If so, then according to your logic would it be proper to say that Protestantism is a Catholic movement? If so, then why not change the lede for Protestant Reformation to "The Protestant Reformation was a Catholic reform movement..." ? I'll pick this up next week. Good shabbos. inigmatus (talk) 21:43, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

Stern
David Stern, Messianic Jewish Manifesto, pp. 24-25: "a Messianic Jew does not choose between being, say, 80% Christian and 20% Jewish as over against the reverse; rather, he can and should say that he is 100% Jewish and 100% Messianic, and then he should seek to express these truths in his life. But when I call myself both Jewish and Messianic, I am thereby identifying with both the Jewish community and the Church" (emphasis added).

To be fair to Inigmatus, Stern prefers the term "Messianic" to "Christian" for cultural reasons, pp. 19-20: "It remains only to compare the terms "Messianic" and "Christian." "Messianic" comes from the Hebrew mashiach, which means "anointed." "Christian" comes from Greek christos, which is the New Testament's translation of mashiach and means the same thing. Messianic Jews prefer the former for cultural reasons" (last emphasis added).

Stern goes on to argue that "Christian" is often used interchangeably with "Gentile" in the Jewish community and creates a cognitive dissonance for Messianic Jews, and he argues his preference for using the term Messianic for Jewish Christians who want to emphasize a Jewish lifestyle, and limiting the term "Christian" for those who live a non-Jewish lifestyle.

Inigmatus does have some points with Stern because Stern PREFERS Messianic to Christian. But that does not deny that Stern believes in the deity of Christ (I've already given these page numbers elsewhere), and that Stern regards himself as a member of the Church.

A short answer could be rendered: "Messianic Jews are Christian Jews who prefer to emphasize a Jewish lifestyle." SkyWriter (Tim) (talk) 00:42, 13 November 2008 (UTC) Also, Stern later


 * I'm not so sure. Messianic Judaism is a Christian movement which uses Hebrew terms and Jewish ritual as part of their Christian worship.  To say that they are "Christian Jews" implies that they are all Jewish, which I do not think is the case. -LisaLiel (talk) 01:21, 13 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the correction -- I got a bit myopic after digging through Stern. You're right, and even Stern grants that there are "Messianic Gentiles" who are basically Gentile Christians who prefer worshipping with Jewish overtones. SkyWriter (Tim) (talk) 01:30, 13 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Stern writes on page 20 of his "Messianic Jewish Manifesto," the following:


 * "'Messianic' comes from Hebrew 'mashiach', which means 'anointed.' 'Christian' comes from Greek 'christos' which is the New Testament's translation of 'maschiach' and means the same thing. Messianic Jews prefer the the former for cultural reasons: for most Jews the term 'Messianic' creates less cognitive dissonance than 'Christian.' But a more compelling reason is that in the New Testament the term 'Christian,' which appears only three times (Acts 11:26, 26:28, 1 Kefa (Peter) 4:16), apparently denotes being a Gentile believer in Yeshua; if this is so, 'Jewish Christian' is a contradiction in terms."


 * Elsewhere on page 24:


 * "The premise of this book is that there is no conflict whatever between being Messianic and being Jewish."


 * Also if you're open for another source, that of Michael L. Brown, author of "Answering Jewish Objections to Jesus" in Volume One on page 7 of 270 he writes:


 * "...Yeshua came... for his own Jewish people." "In time, there were so many Gentile believers in the Messiah...that it almost seemed as though Christianity was a new, foreign religion, something not for Jews at all. What made matters worse was that the emerging Rabbinic Jewish community began to disassociate itself from the many thousands of Jews who were followers of Jesus the Messiah. These Messianic Jews now found themselves between a rock (the increasingly Gentile church), and a hard place (the increasingly unfriendly rabbinic community). Over the course of the next thousand years, Gentile Christians began to welcome Jews into their midst only if they renounced all ties to their Jewishness, while the Rabbinic communities would only welcome them if they renounced all ties to Jesus."


 * Brown also states on page 10:


 * "Is it true that Jews who believe in Jesus call themselves Messianic Jews, Hebrew Christians, or Jews for Jesus because they don't want other Jews to now they are really Christians masquerading in Jewish garb? ... Of course not! We put our cards right on the table for everyone to see. We say that we are Jewish followers of Jesus the Messiah because that is who we are. We find being Jewish and believing in the Jewish Messiah to be compatible. As a result we make every effort to communicate this clearly."


 * And on page 12:


 * "While Christians frequently sing the same words from the Old Testament in English in their worship services, many Jewish believers enjoy singing them in Hebrew. One reason, among many, that Gentile Christians often form a large part of Messianic Jewish congregations is because they enjoy the Messianic Jewish style of worship."


 * It seems to me, from the references posted, that both Stern, and Brown, both state that a Christian is a Gentile believer in Yeshua, whereas a Messianic Jew is a Jewish believer in Messiah. The distinction is obvious, down to the very behaviors and expectations. Being Messianic Jewish is not related to Christianity (ie. a Gentile believer in Yeshua) as well - as Stern put it, a "Jewish Christian is a contradiction in terms," and as Brown puts it "Gentile Christians" vs "Messianic Jews" and "Jewish believers," the biggest proof of this usage, according to Stern, is the bible itself used to describe "Gentile believers" - and this only in a "derogatory sense." You will find this same sentiment universally applied by Messianic Jews worldwide. We are not Gentiles. We are not "Christian" - ie "Gentile believers in Yeshua."


 * Since this is ultimately a matter of POV to say that Messianic Jews are "Christian" according to any other definition (and trust me, defining "Christian" is certainly a matter of POV), at this point, I move that MEDCAB find "Christian" to be an overtly POV term describing Messianic Judaism since such a definition is not embraced nor used by the Messianic Jewish community to describe itself; and I therefore move that MEDCAB replace the term "Christian movement" with the more NPOV "religious movement" in the lede.


 * "Religious movement" is a true consensus since all parties have ultimately agreed to it at one time or another, and it existed as the lede for well over a year without dispute, and all parties agree that even when "Jewish sect" is offered up as the alternative, as Stern and Brown would assert (and the case from their writings and those of others can be made for it), "religious movement" becomes the more favored option. inigmatus (talk) 06:25, 25 November 2008 (UTC)