Chabad?

Private User re "New Relious Movement Founders.

Hi, Malka!

This is why I want to be exceptionally careful about the wording, so I'm glad you've raised this.

Being called a New Religious Movement does *not* mean that a movement is not accepted within the mainstream -- most NRMs *are*. Being labelled an NRM also does not mean a movement is controversial, bad, looked down upon, or anything else like that. In many cases, NRMs actually become integral parts of a religion, and you could obviously argue that's true of Chabad.

In this case, it just means it's a relatively new movement within or complementary to an existing one. It's a movement within a religion, and it was founded around the turn of the 19th century. Chabad is pretty much always listed as an NRM for those reasons; it's not something I've personally decided is one.

A separate example: Pentecostalism is completely accepted within Christianity -- in fact, it's the second-largest denomination, and is a vital part of Christianity today. But it's still considered an NRM because of its relatively young age and because it formed as a new movement within the broader umbrella of Christianity. Chabad is the same, just under a different umbrella.

Is that clearer? I want to try to find a way to word it so people don't confused or, even worse, offended if they see the term attached to their faith. I will keep working on refining the wording.

Malka Mysels, I've reworked the wording a bit. I've also pulled out the "please don't confuse this term with 'cult'" just in case that actually /causes/ confusion instead of helping to avoid it. Let me know if it reads better to you now. I do sincerely appreciate the feedback. This is a topic I care deeply about and I want to make sure it's communicated in a way that is accurate but sensitive.

Private User I love your topic, it is close to my heart too.

You do not have to pull out " please don't confuse this term with "cult", unless someone mentions it.

I will reread what you wrote: However, would it be possible to adjust your
lead sentence to something like:

"inspires a new bold enlightened approach" to an existing movement.

The big problem with this however would be that it is too wide a parameter and would then open the project to *Jewish Renewal, *Reform, *Reconstructionist and even *Conservative Judaism?

However, if you leave Chabad alone as is, w/o signifying it's continued ties to Hassidism in some way, it might look as if Chabad is not being considered as part of Judaism's traditional observant denominations, and that would be incorrect.

I hope we get more feedback on this subject to help you best design your parameters to achieve exactly what you are looking for.

======================

Chabad & Baal Shem Tov Connection:

1. The real innovator was the Baal Shem Tov.
2. The Maggid of Mezeritch was the successor of the founder of Hasidism, the Baal Shem Tov.
3. Shneur Zalman was a student of the Maggid and a disciple of Baal Shem Tov's Hassidic philosophy.

See: The Succession of Hasidic Dynasties:
http://www.jewishgen.org/rabbinic/journal/hasidic2_appendix.htm

Third Generation: Seventh down the list, *Shneur Zalman 1745-1812 of Liadi.

===========

However, you are right in that Chabad is the most innovative and dynamic of all the Hassidic movements and fits your parameters.

However, some homage to Baal Shem Tov, and the continued adherence to his philosophy ought to be mentioned in some way. , ie. Maybe the profile of the Baal Shem Tov, ought to be included in the project too, even if not Hassidism, which does not fit this project.

Private User Links to help.
Baal Shem Tov, Israel ben Eliezar Isserles, and Admor Shneur Zalman of Liadi Boruchovitch

>The usual working definition of "new" in religious history is any movement that has emerged from roughly 1800 C.E. forward and which is not considered to represent the mainstream, even if large and well-known.

>Re Chabad: However, since it is a movement that is not found in Reform or Conservative Judaism and also does not represent the entirety of Orthodoxy, it is still considered an NRM.

The second statement is incorrect. Only a small group of fundamentalist, radical insular groups do not accept Chabad as a completely Orthodox. Chabad's outreach to all irks them.

The controversy regarding the Lubavitcher Rebbe as Messiah is grossly misunderstood by many. It is in fact part of traditional Judaism, that every generation has a leader "worthy of being the Messiah" if only the Jewish people merited it. This does not make Chabad a break-away group in any way from mainstream observant Judaism.

There are fundamentalist Chabadniks who misinterpret the issue of the Rebbe living forever. That too is a very mystical cabalistic statement not to be taken literally.

Right...it shouldn't be reading as saying it's a breakaway group. NRM doesn't automatically mean a breakaway group; it isn't about schisms. It should be reading as being a movement within Judaism, just as Reform or Conservative would be branches within Judaism.

I'm afraid you're losing me a bit. Are you saying that the entirety of Orthodox is Chabad? And that Chabad is also found in, say, the Reform branch? Because that is not my understanding at all.

For what it's worth, I went and checked some reference books just to be certain, and Chabad was listed as a major NRM in four of five. The fifth was Christian-centric.

Sorry, I somehow only saw your most recent comment!

I think the concern I have is that you're going farther back in time, beyond what's usually considered NRM territory. I wonder if maybe a separate project on Chabad might be most appropriate?

Could the solution be as simple saying including a note saying "Chabad is a movement within Chasidism"? That way, it would still show the ties you mention?

I also hesitate to say anything about "bold, new, enlightened" approaches because that feels too partial to me -- I don't want to make judgment statements about religions. Could we maybe instead revise it to say that *adherents* are attracted to these movements because they find them to be bold, new, enlightened?

Again, I do sincerely appreciate the feedback and interest. I think we'll get this worked out. :)

The problem I think we have is one of miscommunication ie. we both have differing understanding of the meaning of the work orthodox.

Universally the term orthodox means adhering to the accepted or traditional and established faith, especially in religion.

However, the term "orthodox means something different when applied to Judaism. In Judaism the term only applies to "Orthodox Jews" who observe all the Mosaic Laws without ritual innovation.

So, Reform Judaism, though a denomination of Judaism does not fit the Jewish concept of the term "orthodox" because of the denomination's easing of the strict ritual observance signifying Orthodoxy in Judaism.

That does not mean that Reform is not fully part of Judaism, only that the term orthodox is retained for use as a clear foundation from from which you can always add where the new reforms and innovations fit in, but only the original is considered Orthodoxy.

So, Chabad who are all strictly observant of all the Mosaic Laws are considered orthodox, while Reform has made changes so they are not.

This is very complicated, and hopefully someone more knowledgable will be able to explain it better.

It is strange that you can find Chabad listed as a NRM. According to the
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_founders_of_religious_traditions New Religious Movements Hassidism is listed, but not Chabad which is simply an offshoot branch.

Wikipedia http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_founders_of_religious_traditions (500 ( 500 - 1800)
Baal Shem Tov
Hasidic Judaism
1698–1760
-------------------------

(Post 1800]
Rabbi Mordecai Kaplan , Reconstructionist Judaism

--------------------------------

Are you going to add,

Bahá'u'lláh
Bahá'í Faith
1817–1892

Sri Sri Ravi Shankar
Art of Living Foundation
1956 –

BTW, Jewish Science is listed in the Wikipedia list, but no Chabad.

However, if you for any reason have want to incorporate Chabad into the project, then it would be best to add it as an example of of the Baal Shem Tov's Hassidic Legacy, and add the profile for the Baal Shem Tov too.

If there is no special reason to add, Chabad, it would be better to replace it with Reconstructionist since that is listed on the Wikipedia list.

Bahá'u'lláh Mirza Husayn Ali Nuri ,Bahá'í Faith

Ravi Shankar , Art of Living Foundation

Thanks again for replying.

When I say Orthodox, with a capital "o," I am very specifically referring to the Reform/Conservative/Orthodox divide. I understand the terminology. Chabad is practiced within Orthodox alone. There are no Chabad adherents who would consider themselves part of Reform Judaism, for example, even though they all recognize and validate each other as Jews.

I really think about breakdown of understanding is over the separation issue. If I am reading it correct, you are taking it to mean that being a New Religious Movement is to be separate from the overall religion or unwelcome within it. That is not what it means. It simply means that it is a new approach within the larger framework. Chabad IS a vital and accepted part of Judaism. But it is an approach that has emerged recently and which not all adherents observe.

I also suspect you might be hearing the term as a pejorative, but I'm not sure if that's the case. I can assure you it's not. To be clear -- is part of your concern that inclusion on this list makes Chabad adherents seem unaccepted or cult-like?

The list you linked to on Wikipedia is an abbreviated version of the larger list, which is found at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_new_religious_movements and does include Chabad. (Not added by me, I promise. :)) One of the citations it uses is for George D. Chryssides' "The A-Z of New Religious Movements," which I own and which is basically one of the holy texts of studies in this field. Chabad is also listed in Irving Hexham's "Pocket Dictionary of New Religious Movements," the Oxford Handbook of New Religious Movements, and Hadden and Bromley's "Handbook of Cults and Sects in America." (Yes, they are listed as a sect and not a cult.)

>>"New Religious Movements Hassidism is listed, but not Chabad which is simply an offshoot branch."

That's actually exactly part of what makes it an NRM. :) It's an off-shoot branch that has emerged within something else.

It looks like you already added Bahá'u'lláh -- thank you! -- so I've put him on the master list. I will also add the Báb if he has a profile. I only know Ravi Shankar as a musician, so I'll have to do some reading. And thank you very much for creating a profile for Rabbi Alfred Geiger Moses.

I will go back to revising the wording to make it something more acceptable to you.

>>"I also suspect you might be hearing the term as a pejorative, but I'm not sure if that's the case. I can assure you it's not."

I should reword that. "I also suspect, but am not sure, that you might be hearing the term as a pejorative. I can assure you the term is not meant that way."

RE: Ravi Shankar:

There are two of them Ravi Shankar. The profile you found is for the musician; the Ravi Shankar you mention is http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ravi_Shankar_%28spiritual_leader%29 So we would need to build a new profile to include him.

Private User You hit the nail on the head.

>means that it is a new approach within the larger framework. Chabad IS a vital and accepted part of Judaism. But it is an approach that has emerged recently and which not all adherents observe.

This is where we have differing perceptions of Chabad.
Because, as I see it, Chabad is simply an integral long accepted branch of Hasidism, like all the other Hasidic Movements which are all Orthodox movements.

Maybe one difference with some of the Hasidic groups, is that with the passing of time, many other Hasidic movements became insular, while a couple continued in the welcoming outreach of the original founder, Baal Shem Tov.
eg. Bostoner Hasidim, the Twersky Family of Chernobyl, Skolye Hassidim, and Chabad, emphasize outreach to all Jews and a spiritual approach combined with scholarship.

There are probably close to a million Hasidic Jews worldwide.
Wikipedia List of Hasidic Dynasties:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Hasidic_dynasties

--------------------------
Background History of the Spiritual/Scholarship Controversy.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hasidic_Judaism

Israel ben Eliezer's disciples attracted many followers, who themselves established numerous Hasidic courts across Europe.
The Holy Fellowship, agreed to divide up the whole of Europe into different territories, and have each one charged with disseminating Hasidic teachings in his designated area.

However, traditional devotion to Jewish study and scholarship was not replaced, but the spirituality was focused on as a means of outreach to all to cleave to God. ie. Humility, benevolence and sincerity also was seen as an approach to come close to God.

Hasidism branched out into two main divisions: (1) in Ukraine and in Galicia (Central Europe) and (2) in Litta (Greater Lithuania from the time when it encompassed Belarus).

Many Lithuanian Hasidim followed Rabbi Shneur Zalman of Liadi, who founded Habad Hasidism. The intellectual Habad method of Schneur Zalman, developed the mind as well , in contrast to general Hasidism, as the fundamental route to Hasidic spirituality. This articulation can therefore fully incorporate it back to the more scholarly dimensions of Judaism, such as Jewish Philosophy and Rabbinic Judaism.

e.g. the Belarusian dynasty of Lubavitch (the intellectual branch of Hasidism founded by Schneur Zalman of Liadi) combined Hasidic spirituality with traditional Rabbinic emphasis of scholarship in Talmud.

This synthesis of mind/scholarship and meditation and soulful devekus (cleaving to God), as a direct path to spirituality helped dissolve much of the early opposition to Hasidism by the Rabbinic branch of Lithuanian Jewish .

I really think I am going to need to take some time to sit and think about how to communicate this, because I don't think anything I'm saying is coming across clearly enough. That's a failing I'll accept on my end, not yours. But I'm honestly struggling with a way to come up with any other way to articulate this, especially when it appears that you're still thinking a new religious movement is one that isn't accepted. I think that is where the disconnect is coming into play.

Am I correct that you are thinking a new religious movement is one that isn't accepted or that is uncommon?

Another question:

Would your objections be resolved if the topic were named Modern Religious Movement Founders? Is it an issue of stigma for you?

Private User (oops too many spelling errors - had to rewrite).

Please understand that I have absolutely no problem with the title, I certainly do not at all think that a new religious movement is one that isn't accepted or that common.

In fact, I am all for any religous or spiritual approach that enhances humanity's quest for unity and peace of all mankind.

In my mind all religious approaches are simply like spokes from a circle all directed at the same common benevolent center.

My objection is that I cannot understand why Chabad is being seen as anything different from the any of the other Hassidic Dynasties originated by the Baal Shem Tov. By singling it out, that integral connection all Hasdic sects have to the Baal Shem Tov is being diluted.

Shneur Zalman was a disciple of the Baal Shem Tov in every way. His synthesis of the mind & spirit approach was totally in line with the Baal Shem Tov. Any controversies amongsts the Misnagdim and Hasidim (both Orthodox approaches) were not condoned by the spiritual heads of the original founders.

The controveries I guess are a little like ball game competitiveness, but everyone is playing the very same game with the same rules.

Also, do not think for a moment that I have anything against innovation and new movements. The more, the merrier. But, as a daughter of a Hungarian Hasidic Rabbi who is a disciple of Chabad and all the Hasidic sects---I cannot see seperating Chabad from the rest.

I do hope others will join in this conversation and help illuminate the subject more.

Private User After much thought, I think my concerns would be eliminated by two simple edits.

1. If you could call Chabad by its fuller more descriptive name, ie. "Chabad-Lubavitch Hasidism"
See (http://judaism.about.com/od/denominationsofjudaism/a/habad.htm) that would eliminate my concern about the diluting of the philosophy of the founder and indicate Chabad's Hasidic approach.

Also, the following paragraph, if you could amend the name in the beginning, and then eliminate the second part. ie.

2. >Chabad-Lubavitch Hasidism for example, is an integral part of Judaism that is widely accepted.

(But then the following if eliminated would prevent the criteria from being too loose and applying to other groups, ie the Bostoner Hasidim, Jewish Renewal, etc.)

…."However, since it is a movement that is not found in Reform or Conservative Judaism and also does not represent the entirety of Orthodoxy, it is still considered an NRM."

There is no need to address why Chabad Lubavitch Hasidism has been included, since everyone considers "Hasidism" a NRM already.

Would this be o.k with you?

Chabad is actually extremely mainstream. Hasidism as a whole was an NRM several hundred years ago but of the Hasidic groups, Chabad has become one of the most ubiquitous and mainstream. They supported my family -- and we are mostly agnostics, atheists, and Conservative Jews -- with bikkur cholim, officiating at the funeral, and with observant minyanim during Shiva. They are highly respected by other Orthodox groups for the outreach that they do. They are in no way fringe.

I agree with Malka that it would be more historically correct to refer to Hasidism as an NRM. You could still include some of the charismatic founders/leaders of several of the Hasidic groups and the Baal Shem Tov.

I read the Wikipedia article and am concerned with religion being so divisive that if NRMs that you reference in the project are primarily today's "cults" and then two large, ubiquitous and nowadays accepted religious groups The Church of the Latter Day Saints and one branch of Hasidism, you risk being not taken seriously, as well as offending.

First, thanks for the patience in waiting for me to reply. I spent the evening and most of today in the hospital and am now getting back to things.

Malka, I think I have finally figured out what you were asking, and now it seems so obvious. I apologize for not fully getting you before. My intent was never to include Chabad alone -- other movements are of course welcome. I think my confusion was that I thought you were asking for all of Orthodoxy to be included, and that's where I got lost. Changing the name to say "Chabad-Lubavitch Hasidism" is a great solution, especially since it really helps to clarify what we're talking about. I'll make that change now.

The list I had included was not at all meant to be comprehensive; that's why I stressed it being incomplete. If there are other rabbis who should be added from other movements, please, by all means, add them in. I simply put in some names to remind myself of people I knew of who should be added.

Hatte, yes, I agree that Chabad is mainstream, just like Pentecostalism and others listed; I think we've discussed that above. I am going to completely remove the connection to the Wikipedia article because I think that is where a lot of the confusion/upset is coming from. The article is biased and is stressing the "cult" aspect too much, certainly more than any academic would. Being an NRM does *not* mean being a cult. I will say that I know of no one who does not consider the LDS to be an NRM, and even Mormon colleagues who publish on NRMs do not have a problem with that terminology. I've actually had discussions with several about that topic because I was raised in an NRM myself (it's in the project), one that is often compared to the LDS, and none of us have an issue with it. Maybe that's because we use the academic definition of the term. But that of course cannot account for everyone's personal views -- it's just a small sample.

I do feel the need to stress one major point, which is that this is not my definition or my list. This is an entire academic field of study that's been around for decades. I am getting the impression that this is still seen as "my" list, and it's not. I would be happy to provide a bibliography or reading list if that would help?

I'm also hesitant for us to start separating groups based on "favorable" and "unfavorable." I don't want to pull groups out because they're seen by some as cults, because then we're validating the idea that some groups are better than others. It works both ways -- someone might be upset to see themselves listed as a new movement, but someone else might be offended that they've been pushed off the list entirely for not being good enough. There's no way to do any religious list and make everyone happy. When you say that the majority of the groups listed are seen as cults, I'm just not seeing that. Pentecostals, JWs, Seventh-day Adventists, the A.M.E., Salvationists, etc. are all equally established compared to the LDS and Chabad, the two you're citing as the accepted ones. I'm not seeing them as standing out from the others. Are there particular groups you object to? Feel free to message me privately if you don't want to say it directly on the board.

I will say, and I believe I've said this to a few others now since being told there are discussions going on about this project elsewhere, that I'm deliberately avoiding any inclusion of groups like Peoples Temple, Heaven's Gate, etc. simply because they're obviously a separate issue. No one here is going to compare Joseph Smith to Jim Jones. I don't want anyone to be afraid of that. Aside from being flat-out wrong, that's just not the scope.

I appreciate that the two of you have dialogued directly with me on this. If anyone following but not participating is concerned, *please*, by all means, feel free to contact me. I fully understood when making this project that religion is a difficult topic and one that a lot of people feel ownership over, but I'm trying to balance perfectly understandable feelings vs. academic honesty, and I know we can do this together.

Hatte Blejer (absent until Nov 1) and Malka Mysels: Sorry, forgot to tag you both to alert you to the reply.

Could we agree to this very simple definition:

"New Religious Movements are those traditions, either independent religions or movements within existing religious frameworks, established from roughly 1800 C.E. forward. Some famous examples include the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, the Jehovah's Witnesses, Christian Science, Pentecostalism, Scientology, Wicca, the Baha'i Faith, Chabad-Lubavitch Hasidism, and Messianic Judaism."

Is less more? Does that help to resolve the concerns? I'll change it to that for the moment and then see if that helps.

Another thing that might help:

Would giving statistical data to show how large some of these movements are would help? I keep thinking back to the Pentecostals example, because there are about a quarter billion of them worldwide, so that shows clear widespread standing in Christianity.

Private User Thanks. I have been on an iPhone the last 4 days so haven't been able to read and comprehend in the project or the sources as well as I should.

I was primarily making the distinction between say Scientology which is clearly a new religious movement and not yet arrived as a widely accepted religion and movements like Hasidism and The Church of the Latter Day Saints that were NRMs 200 years ago but today are mainstream, at least in many people's opinions.

I agree that the Wikipedia article takes us into dangerous, very subjective, and potentially offensive areas.

No, thank you -- it's good to have lots of discussion on this. I want lots of discussion. I want to make sure we're doing it right. :)

It's the historical sense of "new." The working definition used by religious historians is any movement founded around or after 1800; it's often narrowed even more to say movements that gained prominence in the 1900s. The LDS and the Chasids certainly fit that definition. Hopefully by having the shorter description, it will make the dating scheme clearer right off the bat?

I'm with you that the article is subjective, so it's gone. I just don't want us also being subjective in a different way. I think the simplified description helps with that. I think that while we all have our opinions on controversial groups like Scientology, it's not appropriate for us to segregate them from others that are seen as more welcome in society. Especially considering the topic -- every group in this project has been or is sneered at in certain corners, and I don't want us to inadvertently add to that by segregating more than the field does.

And thank G-d it's not the geologic "new" -- then we'd be including every religion. ;)

@Ashley. I hope everyone is well, and that the hospital visit was tests and not something too serious. Please keep us posted.

Thank you so much for still finding the time to respond to our concerns.
Yes, you are absolutely right, "less is more" in the introduction.

You have hit on a fascinating topic that is generating interest. We are all going to learn alot from your project as well as the stimulating accompanying discussions.

Thank you for changing Chabad to "Chabad-Lubavitch Hasidism".
Now, if you could alter Schnuer Zalmen's "Chabad" to read the same way, then I have no further issues.

I look forward to following and learning alot, and will let you know if I find other founders of the fast expanding NRM's to add.

Malka Mysels: Fixed! Sorry for overlooking that instance.

I hope people find it to be an enjoyable project that helps us learn about varied traditions. :) Since we're all part of one global family, it's good to know what all of our very extended relatives believe. :)

While you're here...I've been trying to cull a list of Jewish NRMs from various encyclopedias and other reference books, since you encouraged adding others. Some of the ones I've found so far, other than what we have, are Gush Emunim, Reconstructionist Judaism, Humanistic Judaism, and the Havurot movement.

I certainly don't expect you to be an expert on each of these. :) But do you see anything there that might be worth discussion before I add them?

Private User I read your reply after starting a new discussion - http://www.geni.com/discussions/102609 - for additional NRM Suggestions:

Reconstructionist, and Humanistic Judaism certainly are great additions.
Gush Emunim, as far as I know, had no theological intent and was more a political/social movement.

The Havurot Movement is a general overarching-umbrella term to which "The Jewish Renewal Movement", a very popular movement, belongs and which would make a great addition to the project.

"The Jewish Renewal Movement" founded by Rabbi Zalman Schacter-Shalomi, who has inspired and guided the movement for an observant, deeply traditional Judaism that can connect with the psycho-eco-spiritual revolutions of our millennial age, and at the same time is warm, experientially based, gender-equal, environmentally aware, eco-kosher, nonhierarchical, and grounded in renewed liturgy and the neo-Hasidic writings of Martin Buber and Abraham Joshua Heschel.

The movement draws from the wellsprings of ecumenism, egalitarianism, personal prayer, ecological awareness, and Jewish mysticism.

*http://www.havurahshirhadash.org/rebzalmanarticles.html
*http://www.havurahshirhadash.org/rebzalman.html
*https://www.aleph.org/
*https://www.aleph.org/zalman.htm

I had wondered about Gush Emunim in particular, so I'm glad I got your feedback. It looks like they're usually listed as both a religious and political movement, but it seems they were really focused on the latter. I think that's a good one to leave off for now.

I have read this discussion with some interest. I am wondering if it might be an idea to split the list in the first paragraph of the project description into two lists.

From the first para, I understand that a NRM is defined as being either
(a) a new religion; or
(b) a new movement within an existing religion.

Then split out two lists of examples - one for (a) and one for (b).

Would that help?