Import jQuery

Messianic Judaism Wiki

Here’s an interesting project: the Messianic Judaism Wiki.

A wiki dedicated to Messianic Jews, Hebrew Christians, Hebrew Roots and all who call Yeshua (Jesus) Lord. Contribute today!

Kind of like Wikipedia, only for Messianic topics. I’ve just burned an easy half hour browsing through the Random Page bit. Interesting stuff!

I’ve long said the Messianic movement needs a greater presence on the opened web. A wiki like this is a step in the right direction.

Just added a wiki page for Chavah Messianic Radio. </shamelessplug>

Follow them on Twitter: @mjwiki

32 comments:

  1. Oh dear. While this is super exciting, needed, useful, etc. - my first thought was all the editing battles that will take place. I'm going to hope for much enlightenment and little volatility. But yes, very very cool.

    ReplyDelete
  2. "Oh dear. While this is super exciting, needed, useful, etc. - my first thought was all the editing battles that will take place."

    For sure. If they truly wanted to make a useful contribution to "Messianic Judaism", they should have picked a particular angle instead of casting such a wide net (e.g. by throwing "Hebrew Roots" into the mix and all the other groups claiming to be "messianic", such as "Sacred Names", to name one.)

    ReplyDelete
  3. Ah, I'm glad they used the broad definition of Messianic, rather than the utterly exclusive Bilateral Ecclesiology-only definition.

    The latter actually excludes the vast majority of Jewish followers of Yeshua, not to mention the Judaically-minded gentiles who were drawn by God into this Messianic thing.

    So good on them. :-)

    ReplyDelete
  4. This comment has been removed by the author.

    ReplyDelete
  5. I'm thinking less about inclusion and exclusion of various factions and views and more about general theological disagreements. I mean, this whole project could quickly spiral out of control with entire articles being rewritten overnight by some (probably) well-meaning editor. How are contributors qualified in these types of things? I've never tried it myself. Edits, deletions and erroneous stubs could be extremely confusing to those less familiar with the predominant MJ viewpoints and topics, and in my experience it's the less familiar that most often make use of wiki pages.

    Judah, you're gonna have to watch this thing like a hawk! :^)

    ReplyDelete
  6. Hahah, i know what you mean. Still, it works for Wikipedia, where people and ideas of any imaginable persuasion mingle and ultimately live in harmony.

    ReplyDelete
  7. Inevitably, these types of free-for-all sites get taken over by a zealous majority. This is true in the case of the Messianic Judaism entry in Wikipedia where not-yet-Yeshua-believing Jews have frequently taken down or altered input they thought was objectionable to their views. I know - I've tried contributing to the MJ section of Wikipedia many times. So, I am not sure what "harmony" you speak of, Judah. It's the majority rules type of harmony.

    In the case of this new wiki site, Messianic Jews will once again find themselves and their views in the minority, and another majority, with their greater numbers and far more time on their hands than Messianic Jews can hope to muster, will once again speak to our Jewish people and the world about what constitutes "Messianic Judaism".

    ReplyDelete
  8. Sadly, my first thought was "I wonder if the Haredim will try to hack it and deface the site." It's early yet. I probably need more coffee.

    ReplyDelete
  9. People should not be taking wiki-anything at all seriously. To prove our point, let us all go to Wikipedia and make a few "important updates" on its entries for quantum mechanics and biochemical engineering!

    ReplyDelete
  10. >> People should not be taking wiki-anything at all seriously.

    That's what Encyclopedia Britannica thought. Now they're irrelevant and disappearing.

    Wikipedia is *the* place to go for information on a particular topic on the internet, for better or worse.

    At least with the MJ Wiki the admins are on our side. :-)

    ReplyDelete
  11. Wikipedia is *the* place to go for information on a particular topic on the internet, for better or worse.

    Despite the fact that both my daughter and my niece have university instructors who have said they will fail any student who uses Wikipedia as a source in any paper or other class project. I use Wikipedia when I need something "fast and dirty", but they aren't an original source.

    ReplyDelete
  12. That's common. Part of the reason is, it makes it too easy to write papers.

    I've known of students who then just grab the *citations* of the Wikipedia article, then used those for sources.

    Whether Wikipedia is generally reliable or not is another issue. The point remains that Wikipedia is *the* place to go on the internet for information on a topic, for better or worse.

    ReplyDelete
  13. "That's what Encyclopedia Britannica thought. Now they're irrelevant and disappearing."

    Wikipedia today has a major credibility problem. They should definitely do something about it. It has become embarrassing to quote Wikipedia as your source - a guarantee to make people's eyes roll.

    Personally, I don't care to use "other Wikis" and never used one for more than a few curious minutes. Most of the potential content on MJ wiki could and should just be posted on Wikipedia. This MJ Wiki will have a major bias throughout since it will be put together by folks pushing this or that theology. Watch me squabble with proponents of the Two-House fantasy!

    ReplyDelete
  14. >> Wikipedia today has a major credibility problem.

    Not in most people's eyes. In the academic world, perhaps, but people on the internet generally look to Wikipedia as the primary source of information a topic. That says something about how people perceive it.

    >> Watch me squabble with proponents of the Two-House

    Wikis that devolve into theological, political or other inflammatory battles end up getting locked by the admins. Around election times, for example, Wikipedia has to lock articles on political figures. Other times all edits must be approved by admins.

    The thing I *like* about Wikipedia, for all it's shortfalls, is that it democratizes information. No longer is it the self-proclaimed experts who tell us how it is, but it's the world at large shaping information, backed by cited sources.

    Overall, that's a good thing for humanity. If we always accepted what the experts said, all Christians would still be in the Roman Catholic Church, scientific advancement would have stalled, and humanity would generally have stagnated. Innovations, good and bad, come from regular people like you and me. Sometimes that requires bucking the so-called experts.

    ReplyDelete
  15. It occurred to me that those who argue *against* Wikipedia are of the same spirit of those who would have argued against political democracy.

    I can imagine an argument like this:

    "People should not be taking democracy seriously. To prove our point, let us all go to a democracy and vote a fool into office!"

    That fools get into office sometimes is a cost of the freedom of democracy. Nonetheless, I prefer a democracy over a "let the experts do it", which is essentially what the civilized world struggled with in monarchies and dictatorships for several hundred years.

    Likewise with Wikipedia: that articles sometimes are biased or contain misinformation is a cost of the freedom of information shaped by the masses.

    Wikipedia really is an experiment in information democracy. That's what makes it so fascinating.

    ReplyDelete
  16. "That fools get into office sometimes is a cost of the freedom of democracy. Nonetheless, I prefer a democracy over a "let the experts do it"

    Well, that is to say that America is a true democracy - which it is not (although it sure sounds nice to believe that it is!). Unites States of America is a republic run by "experts". People choose these "experts" (we call them senators, representatives, the electoral college, political parties that put forth their candidates, mayors, etc.), that is the people who the general populace looks up to and expects to make educated, informed and authoritative governmental decisions for them and in their best interest (again, "experts").

    Personally, I like Wikipedia - it's, "fast and dirty". However, the Jewish people have always relied on "experts" - our prophets, our sages, our rabbis, our leaders, our apostles.

    ReplyDelete
  17. >> Well, that is to say that America is a true democracy - which it is not

    Right, it's a republic, where the people shape the leaders, and the leaders vote according to the will of the people.

    Wikipedia has a similar model. People edit the wiki (democracy), but ultimately, that democracy is limited by the editors who can veto the will of the people. (Rollback edits, lock pages, require admin approval for edits, etc.)

    Anyways. I like Wikipedia. It's not entirely reliable, but that's ultimately OK. Critical thinking required.

    ReplyDelete
  18. Just another arena to continue the knock out drag down fighting of the falling apart "messianic Movement."

    ReplyDelete
  19. Oh, you guys are so negative! Relax. Arguments sometimes must be done to work out a proper understanding.

    Have you guys ever looked back at the old archives of the early days of the world wide web? People were fighting all the time about seeming minutia like, "should HTML include an IMG tag or an ICON tag"? Big, heated arguments about stuff that seemed small.

    But here we are, decades later, and those arguments were important for laying the foundation of the web that we know and enjoy today.

    The same will be for the Messianic movement.

    I'm optimistic! :-)

    ReplyDelete
  20. ""should HTML include an IMG tag or an ICON tag"? Big, heated arguments about stuff that seemed small."

    Thankfully, the IMG tag won the day, and if anyone were to still argue for the ICON tag today they would be thought a fool. Both ideas were not "right" and one single path had to be chosen to establish a standard. One hopes and prays that the same thing will happen in the Messianic Jewish Movement.

    ReplyDelete
  21. Truth be told, the web isn't that rosy. There are still multiple "standards", as any web developer will tell you! :-)

    Still, those debates early on were important and did sort out the good from the bad. The same will hold true for the Messianic movement.

    ReplyDelete
  22. Both ideas were not "right" and one single path had to be chosen to establish a standard. One hopes and prays that the same thing will happen in the Messianic Jewish Movement.

    Just look at every other major religious movement on earth. I don't see a single path for any of them, including Christianity and Judaism. Don't think we'll get our "single path" this side of the Messiah.

    ReplyDelete
  23. Judah, I'm with you on everything you've written. I started highlighting stuff and it was just too much. I'm optimistic as well and believe this will be a very good thing. Information about MJ (whether or not the BEs of the world agree with the content) at people's fingertips will always be a good thing. Even if it only starts those "early" discussions (that some can't handle)that build tomorrow's foundations.

    ReplyDelete
  24. "Just look at every other major religious movement on earth. I don't see a single path for any of them, including Christianity and Judaism. Don't think we'll get our "single path" this side of the Messiah."

    James, there are basic halachic standards in the mainstream (traditional) Judaism, and then there are customs, some very distinct, which vary from sect to sect. There may be some 30,000 Christian denominations around the world, but Judaism is a lot more consolidated and united than that. The Messianic Jewish Movement, however, doesn't not even have the basics pat, it's all over the place - anything goes - each congregation makes up its own "halacha".

    I am not complaining - I am ROOTING for the improvements. Yes, there have been attempts to establish some basic standards (MJRC) based on traditional Jewish halacha/Oral Torah and I am cheering those on, but those would hardly apply to most what is called "messianic" (e.g. the various Hebrew Roots congregations).

    ReplyDelete
  25. >> I'm with you on everything you've written.

    Hey, I like this guy! How come the rest of you aren't more like him?

    :-)

    ReplyDelete
  26. "whether or not the BEs of the world agree with the content"

    Luke, you forgot to add to the phrase "BEs of the world" the words "and their ilk" :)

    ReplyDelete
  27. The Messianic Jewish Movement, however, doesn't not even have the basics pat, it's all over the place - anything goes - each congregation makes up its own "halacha".

    OK, I have to agree with that point. There isn't a central "core" of standards that all of MJ in its various flavors adhere to (except that there is a God and Yeshua is the Messiah, but that's basic to Christianity as a whole as well) and I already wrote on my blog a few days ago, how lack of standardization is hurting MJ.

    However, I'm not so sure either Judaism or Christianity is so tightly woven together. Sure, there are a core set of standards in both, but there are plenty of issues that separate the different sects within each religion.

    For instance, even within wider Christianity, there is debate on whether or not a gay person can be in the ministry. A Gentile friend of my wife (married to a Jewish man) recently converted to Judaism in our local Reform shul, however, she's still not considered Jewish in the Chabad synagogue.

    Like I said, I don't think things will be all hunky-dorey among God's people until the Messiah comes and who knows, maybe we'll still need more work after he arrives.

    ReplyDelete
  28. "Luke, you forgot to add to the phrase "BEs of the world" the words "and their ilk".."

    No, it was intentionally omitted. The "ilk" of BE sounds like a really gross substance. :)

    And thanks Gene, very much for your comment on my post today. I wrote you back. I really do appreciate your time, Brother.

    James, you are on it! I, too, am of the persuasion that the theological wrinkles won't be ironed out by anyone but Messiah. But I chalk it up to folks (on both sides of the Body) spending more time arguing their views than praying over scripture.

    And lastly (but not leastly) Judah, if they were all like me Kineti would be super boring. Man, that sounds bad. No offense.

    ReplyDelete
  29. Great tip, Judah!

    One of the first things I see is that they are calling for you:

    "Messianic Judaism Wiki Needs You
    As you can probably tell, this wiki is new so there is a lot to do! If you're interested in helping us, create an account and start editing right away."

    Keep 'em straight.

    Yak

    ReplyDelete
  30. Judah Gabriel Himango said...
    "It occurred to me that those who argue *against* Wikipedia are of the same spirit of those who would have argued against political democracy."

    Yes - "against political democracy"! And pro 'YHWH's theocracy!"

    Yak

    ReplyDelete
  31. Democracy isn't God's plan for Israel. God's plan for Israel was (is?) a system of judges comprised of wise, respected elders from the community to decide matters.

    That said, democracy is better than monarchies and dictatorships. It's a terrible system, but it's the best we've come up with.

    Since God's system for Israel doesn't map to the opened internet, democracy -- which is essentially Wikipedia's model -- is a good choice.

    ReplyDelete
  32. Judah,

    Messianic Judaism Wiki aslo has a Facebook Fanpage: http://on.fb.me/myBChA.

    ReplyDelete

Appending "You might like" to each post.