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

Start
I'm not going to mediate this- as much as I'd like to, I think many would perceive me to have a bias. So I'm just going to offer some thoughts here: I would be interested in hearing responses from both "sides" on this. ~  L'Aquatique   [  talk  ] 20:40, 26 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Why is in necessary to specify what kind of religious movement it is, when the lede is followed by a detailed explanation of the controversy over this exact problem?
 * Wouldn't it be somewhat POV to put anything there? If you write Jewish, then it will make the article seem slanted to the Messianic POV, and if you write Christian it will make the article seem slanted towards the Jewish POV.
 * If a type of religious movement must be specified, Judeo-Christian or Abrahamic seem preferable to Jewish/Christian, which is rather awkward.
 * All of the three proposed above (religious movement unspecified, Judeo-Christian, or Abrahamic) seem preferable to Jewish or Christian because no matter what your POV, they are universally correct. Messianism is undeniably Judeo-Christian, it's undeniably Abrahamic, and it's certainly undeniably a religious movement of some sort. But there are arguments both ways that it is Jewish and there are arguments both ways that it is Christian.
 * The lede of an article is arguably the most important part of the article. Would not it be better to keep any amiguity or controversy out of the lede, which is generally just a summary and save it for where it belongs, a paragraph later?


 * I don't really agree with that analysis. There are no reliably sourced views that MJ isn't Christian.  Even most MJs think it's Christian.  The fact that we have two very vocal MJs here who say otherwise doesn't constitute a notable view.


 * The Christian-ness of MJ is not a matter of dispute. It is not at all POV to say that it is a Christian movement, because there's no notable view to the contrary.


 * The Jewishness of MJ, by contrast, is enormously a matter of dispute. All Jewish groups say that MJ is not Jewish.  Christian groups are divided on the question.


 * There are times when setting two opposing positions on an equal level isn't impartial, but rather the granting of unearned notability to a barely notable view. In my opinion, this is one of those instances.  To place a unanimous, reliably sourced view (MJ is Christian) on the same level as a highly contentious minority view (MJ is Jewish) is granting undue weight to one side.


 * Add to this the fact that MJ's putative Jewishness is more than simply a self-identification, but an aggressive methodology, and the difference between the two positions becomes even more pronounced. No one says that MJ is Christian for the purpose of making inroads into Christianity and trying to get Christians to accept things that they are diametrically opposed to.  But numerous Christian groups, along with MJ itself, do say that MJ is Jewish for the purpose of making inroads into Judaism and trying to get Jews to accept things that they are diametrically opposed to.


 * I don't think that Wikipedia should allow itself to be used as a propaganda tool in either direction. Dispassionately and encyclopedically, MJ is Christian by all accounts.  Dispassionately and encyclopedically, MJ claims to be Jewish, a claim which is rejected by all Jewish groups and many Christian groups.


 * Judeo-Christian is as inappropriate as Jewish/Christian, in my view. It's the same term.  And if using a source which refers to MJ as Jewish/Christian is going to serve as the source for demanding that the article lead say the same thing, then we'll simply have to remove that source.  Or we can simply say that there are parts of the source which are NPOV and parts that are not, such as "Jewish/Christian". -LisaLiel (talk) 21:30, 26 October 2008 (UTC)
 * But why is it necessary to pick one? What is wrong with simply saying it's a religious movement, then spending the next paragraph explaining why there is controversy on the subject? ~  L'Aquatique   [  talk  ] 21:34, 26 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Because it is a Christian movement. If it weren't for the controversy over its Jewishness, there would be no issue when it comes to stating that it's a Christian movement.  It's the essence of the thing.  If you go to the article on The Beatles, it starts off by saying, "The Beatles were a pop and rock band".  It doesn't just say, "The Beatles were a musical group".  Or "The Beatles were performers".  The article on Juice begins with "Juice is a liquid", and not merely "Juice is a food" or "Juice is a substance".  The only reason to refrain from saying that MJ is a Christian movement or Christian group is because one person (Inigmatus) believes that "Christian" means "only Christian".  Which is ridiculous.


 * The history of J4J and MJ and other such groups has been a deliberate attempt to blur definitions and take away clarity. Allowing Inigmatus to have his way here would be establishing Wikipedia as a tool in their toolbox.  Saying that it's a Christian group is the only non-controversial sourced statement that can be made. -LisaLiel (talk) 00:08, 27 October 2008 (UTC)
 * That's pretty borderline reasoning- no one out there would disagree that juice is a liquid. People who make juice think it's a liquid, people who drink juice think it's liquid, science says juice is a liquid, therefore, juice is a liquid. The same goes for the Beatles.
 * It is controversial to say that Messianic Judaism is a Christian group, and more importantly, it's unnecessary. I'll repeat: the paragraph that follows the lede contains a detailed explanation of the controversy regarding the Jewishness or non-Jewishness of Messianic Judaism. Therefore, there is no real reason that a controversial statement such as "Messianic Judaism is a Christian group" in the lede. In fact, it's somewhat confusing to have it that way. ~  L'Aquatique   [  talk  ] 00:19, 27 October 2008 (UTC)


 * That's just the thing. It is not controversial to say that MJ is a Christian group.  It doesn't become controversial simply because Inigmatus and NoTsuris say so.  Christians view it as Christian.  Jews view it as Christian.  Everyone views it as Christian.  It is utterly non-controversial.  The controversy is over whether it is Jewish as well.  That is a 100% separate issue.


 * You say "the paragraph that follows the lede contains a detailed explanation of the controversy regarding the Jewishness or non-Jewishness of Messianic Judaism". This is true.  But the Jewishness or non-Jewishness of MJ is one issue.  The Christianness or non-Christianness of MJ is a different one.  Yes, it's true that the reason all Jewish groups reject MJ as a form of Judaism is because it's Christian, and to Jews, you can't be both.  But that's a POV position.  It happens to be mine, btw, but it's still POV.  And it isn't relevant here.  The fact of the matter is that objectively and dispassionately, they are separate issues.  One is a matter of controversy (is MJ Jewish?) and one is not (is MJ Christian?). -LisaLiel (talk) 02:26, 27 October 2008 (UTC)
 * But it is controversial! If it wasn't, we wouldn't be having this conversation. Messianic Jews say they are Jewish not Christian, full stop. Therefore, not everyone believes Messianic Jews are Christians. ~  L'Aquatique   [  talk  ] 03:00, 27 October 2008 (UTC)


 * No, not really. Inigmatus and NoTsuris are editors.  Their contrarian views do not constitute a controversy.  They are not reliable sources; they are editors.  For something to be controversial, there must be reliable sources on each side. -LisaLiel (talk) 14:18, 27 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Just to add, I have yet to see a reliable source that Inigmatus' and NoTsuris' views on the issue are shared by MJs in general. I'm curious to know what your source is for the idea that MJs say they aren't Christian. -LisaLiel (talk) 15:14, 27 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Well, I'll be glad to post some sources. For starters:


 * from:
 * Since Messianic Judaism is Jewish, it deems all Jewish people as its siblings. Also, since Christianity professes the Jewish Messiah as their Savior, Messianic Judaism deems all faithful Gentiles as its siblings (and no longer to be pagan Gentiles). This does not mean Messianic Judaism agrees with all the doctrines, traditions, customs or practices of either traditional Judaism or Christianity. We believe it would be the best and is ultimately necessary for all Jewish people to know their Messiah Yeshua, but we do not believe that God has called any Jewish person to become Gentile or Western Christian in custom. Rather, we believe it would be best and is ultimately necessary for Christianity to remove its pagan influences and return to the roots of Judaism, that is, to return to the way of Yeshua as He walked by example and set forth in His entire Word. (emphasis mine)


 * This statement seems to state equivocation on the same level of relationship with Judaism and Christianity, but does not see MJ as literally one or the other, but rather are the "sibling" of both. "Religous movement" is a wonderful neutral stance for the lede, and it has stayed that way for years. I personally see no reason why if it isn't broken, to fix it with a "Christian" or "Jewish" or "Jewish/Christian" movement. As has been rightly stated, any labeling is POV by one group or another. Some Christians don't see MJ as Christianity, and some Jews see MJ (non-divine Messiah streams) as Jewish. Furthermore, MJs see themselves as Christians, or Jews, or neither; and sources can be found for all positions. Thus to avoid controversy, and to avoid the pushing of one POV over another (no matter how majority opinion or not), the lede has remained consistently "Messianic Judaism is a religious movement whose adherents believe..." The majority of editors involved in this dispute have participated in the MJ article for the months and years that that lede was there and they never changed it then, so why now? To keep NPOV balance, the lede must be NPOV, period - especially for this article which was designed that way. After all it is true regarding consensus and agreement that all groups and parties in this dispute DO IN FACT agree that MJ is a "religious movement" so let's keep using that since that is what we can agree on. inigmatus (talk) 22:43, 27 October 2008 (UTC)


 * No, it doesn't say what you think it says. That's just your personal interpretation.  If that's your source, then you have a problem of OR.  The passage claims that MJ is Jewish.  It does not claim that MJ is not Christian. -LisaLiel (talk) 23:39, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

No, we do NOT agree that it is an independent religious movement. It is a Christian movement. SkyWriter (Tim) (talk) 23:02, 27 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Agreed. -LisaLiel (talk) 23:39, 27 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Inigmatus -- look, I've done a good bit of research here to confirm that Messianics do not want to use Greek based terms, and internal and external reasons for them wanting to do so. I'm sympathetic to the internal reasons, and not to the external reasons -- but I'm that way about internal reasons in general.  They substitute Hebraic terms for Hellenic ones: Messianic instead of Christian, Messiah instead of Christ, Yeshua instead of Jesus, etc.  Do they NOT worship Jesus but worship Yeshua instead?  No.  Same person, different form of the name.  Do they NOT believe Jesus is the Christ because they think he's the Messiah instead?  Hardly.  The two terms are synonymous.  The same goes for Messianic versus Christian.  Are they NOT Christian because they ARE Messianic?  No.  They ARE Christian under a translated equivalent term. SkyWriter (Tim) (talk) 23:49, 27 October 2008 (UTC)


 * The Christian definition of "Christian" is that one accepts Jesus as one's personal savior. By that definition, MJs are Christian.  Whether they are Jewish is disputed, so putting them both in the lead is a clear NPOV violation.  — Arthur Rubin  (talk) 01:58, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

Tim's Two Cents
I made a separate thread here just in case someone else tries to edit the page at the same time.

Here's the rub, Messianism is a Christian movement that uses Jewish terms. It does so for external and internal reasons.

Internal
Christianity doesn't believe Jesus is the Christian Christ in a vacuum. Specifically, Christianity believes Jesus is the Jewish Messiah. Christians regard the original writers of the New Testament to have been Jewish, with the exception of Luke. Therefore, the use of Jewish terms is seen to be non-controversial. Although Christianity opposes Judaizing, that is not a rejection of using Jewish terms. It is merely a rejection of a requirement that Gentiles become Jewish before they can become Christian. Jewish Christians are considered to be Christians. They can observe the Jewish holidays, as long as they don't regard observance as a requirement for salvation. Gentile Christians may do the same.

Thus, using Jewish terms is perfectly consistent with the internal logic of Christianity, and Christians love inviting Messianics to come speak, and shows such as Zola Levitt are very popular. Many churches have seder presentations around Passover time to better understand the symbolism used in the New Testament.

A Christian who denies that Jesus is the Jewish Messiah is not a Christian -- by definition.

Messianics regard themselves as more authentically Christian than other movements which do not use Jewish terms and symbols.

External
Externally, Messianics see themselves as a mission both to Christians and Jews, to unite the two under their own banner. They don't want to change Christian beliefs, but to change Christian terms. They don't want to change Jewish terms, but Jewish beliefs.

NPOV Assessment
I'm very sympathetic to the logic of Messianism, and regard it to be a healthy movement for Christians. As a challenge to pagan baggage that's been "baptized" into Church practice, it creates a welcome internal dialogue for Christianity that helps them reassess their own roots.

However, to deny that Messianism is Christian is to deny the healthy internal aspect of the movement in favor of an external term switching tactic. Term switching is not an indicator of the identity of a movement, but instead a denial of it. An orthodox Jew could do the same, with something like: "since I'm waiting for the real Messiah, I represent true Christianity, and the Church which follows a false Messiah are fake Christians." Such a Jew could adopt all of the Christian terms and use them in Jewish ways. But it would not be a Christian movement; it would be a Jewish anti-missionary one.

Can we deny that Messianics are Christians? No.

Can we deny that Messianics use Jewish terms? No.

The lede should say something like: "Messianic Judaism is a Christian movement that rejects Greek based terminology in favor of Hebraic terms: Yeshua for Jesus, Messianic for Christian, Brit Chadashah for New Testament, etc."

The rest that follows stems from this core NPOV statement, which is well attested in the existing citations from all sources. They DO reject Greek based terminology (attested by Jews, Christians, and Messianics themselves). Christians/Messianics (who are internal to the paradigm) regard this rejection as seeking authenticity to Christian roots. Jews (who are external to the paradigm) regard this as a tactic. But my wording side steps the POV problem and states that they DO reject Greek based terms, while leaving their "reasons" for the bulk of the article.

SkyWriter (Tim) (talk) 15:33, 27 October 2008 (UTC)