sign in sign up
<<
Home , Christianity and Judaism, Jews for Jesus, Moishe Rosen

1

Liberated Woman, Fulfilled : Gender and for in the 1970s

Ivy Johnson

Advisor: Kimberly Sims, History University Honors in History Spring 2013

2

Abstract

The evangelical organization began in 1970 and grew parallel to the feminist movement. My research examines how the women of Jews for Jesus did and did not benefit from the gains of the feminist movement, due to the influences of evangelical and traditional that underline this syncretic movement. This research relies on Jews for Jesus literature from the 1970s and interviews with two founding members. Overall, I argue that the women of the organization during the 1970s had opportunities for leadership and freedom in their personal lives that was unusual for a conservative religious organization at the time, but they did so not under the name of feminism but rather out of practicality, for they were solely focused on the goal of .

Acknowledgements

My research couldn’t have been completed without the cooperation of Alicia Murphy and Susan Perlman at the Jews for Jesus headquarters who offered me access to their archives. In addition, this paper would fall flat if Susan and Lyn Bond had not graciously agreed to share their experiences and insights with me. Finally, a big thank you to my advisor, Professor Sims, for guiding me through all 20 different of this thesis and calmly answering all my panicky emails.

3

Do you feel there should be more to a woman’s life than the drudgery of dishes and dirt and diapers, pounding a typewriter, dull sales jobs, waiting tables for grouchy customers, being looked upon as a brainless sex object? Do you think women are overworked, unappreciated, underpaid, and physically exploited? You could burn your bra, burn your typewriter ribbon, stuff your marriage license down the drain…Then you could find something meaningful, exciting, well paid to do—like becoming a famous doctor, building bridges, or flying a plane.... You might be successful, appreciated, acclaimed, even rich, but you still wouldn’t be really free—because everyone (man or woman) is a slave to []… Jesus suffered the judgment and punishment for all our shortcomings that we might be set free. The woman who has given her life to God through Jesus is free from worrying that her role in life is unimportant; is free to enjoy being herself whether her job is feeding the baby or making a speech at the UN; is free to enjoy the loving protection of a husband or stay single and independent; is free and liberated in the truest sense of the word. Ask Jesus to liberate you and God will give you his strength and the power to live a new, different and better life. Then you will be free to be your very best self.1

This 1972 evangelistic broadside distributed by Jews for Jesus is entitled “The Liberated

Woman”. The message here is that the women’s liberation movement, although not inherently wrong or inconsistent with the author’s religious views, is meaningless without God. This perspective, while telling, is obviously simplified to fit the constraints of the broadside format: a quick, pithy, attention-grabbing pamphlet to be passed out en masse on the street. Far from a firm declaration of the organization’s stand on women’s rights, for the purposes of this broadside, feminism was little more than the latest pop culture fad used to grab readers’ attention the way similar broadsides used King Kong, Star Wars, or Jesus Superstar. There is, however, much more to the story of women and Jews for Jesus, and my research seeks to shed light on this largely overlooked intersection of religion and gender.

Jews for Jesus is an evangelical organization which seeks to “make the Messiahship of

Jesus an unavoidable issue to Jewish people worldwide”.2 Armed with this unapologetic mission, the group has known controversy since its inception. (Elie Wiesel’s characterization of the Jews for Jesus as “hypocrites” who “don't even have the courage to declare frankly that they have

1Ceil Rosen, “The Liberated Woman” (Hineni Ministries, 1972). 2 Lyn Bond, interview by author, telephone, 7 March 2013. 4 decided to repudiate their people and its memories” is but one voice in the protests of the Jewish community.3) But before it reached such fame—and notoriety—Jews for Jesus began in 1970 as the branch of the American Board of Missions to the Jews, a Hebrew organization. The branch split from its parent in 1973 as its leader and his young, mostly Jewish staff took a more radical approach to evangelism that emphasized confrontation, visibility, and creativity and was designed to appeal to young people, in contrast with the ABMJ’s concern with maintaining a respectable reputation and treading lightly around the Jewish community and the Protestant churches on which it relied for financial support. The independent and controversial direction of the San Francisco branch, combined with internal politics, led the ABMJ to terminate Rosen’s position in August 1973. The staff stayed on, and

Jews for Jesus officially formed as an independent corporation.4 The majority of these first members were women.5,6,7

I argue that due to a combination of factors, including its pragmatic approach, a lack of prescribed doctrine, and the youth of the founding members, the women of Jews for Jesus were highly involved in every aspect of the group from the very beginning. The syncretic nature of the group’s values and practices allowed it to embrace the spiritual limitations on women’s liberation

(as articulated by the aforementioned broadside) without being as constrained by the practical limitations seen in many branches of Christianity, Judaism, and the Jesus Movement. However, while the organization’s practices in many ways transcended gender-based restrictions, it did so within the boundaries of a socially conservative worldview and not out of any interest in the

3 Ariel Yaakov, Evangelizing the Chosen People: Missions to the Jews in America, 1880-2000 (University of North Carolina Press, 2000): 249-50. 4 For a balanced, concise history of the organization’s formation, see Yaakov, 233-44. 5Moishe Rosen and William Proctor, Jews for Jesus (Revell, 1974): 77-80. 6 Yaakov, 244. 7 Juliene G. Lipson, Jews for Jesus: An Anthropological Study, Revised (Ams Pr Inc, 1990): 28. 5 women’s liberation movement. Considering the body of scholarship addressing the historical relationship between feminism and religion, I seek to complicate this understanding with a descriptive analysis of the way Jews for Jesus exercised relatively progressive roles for women without embracing an ideologically feminist mindset. In the course of my research, I mined Jews for Jesus literature (including historical accounts), contemporary broadsides, newsletters, and newspaper and magazine articles for notes about the women members during the early days. I also conducted interviews with two founding members, Susan Perlman and Lyn Bond, who shared their recollections and impressions as women at the center of the movement. In the end, I found that the various sets of values and traditions that Jews for Jesus members brought to the table created a far more complex relationship than the majority of historiographical literature on religion and feminism would predict.

In 1968, radical feminist Mary Daly published The and the Second Sex, which proposed reforms to Catholicism to address the contradictions she described between the subjugated role of women in the Church and the Christian teachings on equality and dignity for all. Religion and feminism were at odds but, she suggested, not permanently so. Over the next few years, however, Daly grew disenchanted with the church and in 1973 published Beyond : Toward a Philosophy of Women’s Liberation in which she abandoned hope for reforming Christianity; the male-centered teachings, she argued, were too central to be eradicated, and the patriarchal tradition could only be dismissed as inherently oppressive.8

This extreme perspective on feminism and religion, argues American religious history scholar Ann Braude, has come to be viewed as the norm in scholarship about second-wave feminism. The predominant historical narratives rarely mention religion except to emphasize a feminist rejection of religion and a religious rejection of feminism. However, Braude suggests,

8Ann Braude, Jon Butler, and Harry S. Stout, Women and American Religion (, 2000): 112-5. 6 this understanding is the product of a polarized atmosphere in which “many leaders (and future historians) of women’s liberation emerged out of a youthful avant-garde of the New Left who often saw religion as part of the established order they hoped to overturn” and overlooks a significant historical relationship between feminism and religion. Examining the intersection of these two enormously important—and often divisive—cultural forces, she hopes, can help

“dispel the idea that faith and feminism are necessarily antithetical”.9 I seek to add to the conversation that Braude calls for, but avoid the trap of oversimplifying the issue by creating two camps: religious communities that embraced feminism, and religious communities that opposed feminism. Instead, I hope to emphasize the complexities of this relationship by examining the role of women in a group that occupied a very specific niche in the religious community, the evangelical organization Jews for Jesus.

In order to create a clear portrait of the factors influencing how the members of Jews for

Jesus viewed gender, we must first understand Messianic Judaism, Hebrew Christianity, and how

Jewish believers in Christ have historically fit into . Dan Sherbok-Cohn, a Reform and theologian, traces this history in great detail and finds that up until the birth of the Hebrew Christian movement in the early 19th century in Great Britain, Jews who professed faith in Christ generally assimilated and were considered Christian converts. Members of the

Hebrew Christian movement, however, sought to preserve a certain separateness as Jews; the extent of this distinction was a matter of continual debate within the movement. But by the 1960s and 70s, increased awareness of Jewish identity, sparked first by and then growing international prominence of the state of , spawned the shift to Messianic Judaism, which

9 Ann Braude, “A Religious Feminist--Who Can Find Her? Historiographical Challenges from the National Organization for Women” The Journal of Religion 84, no. 4 (October 2004): 555–572. 7 emphasized Jewish believers’ Jewishness, incorporated Jewish traditions and symbols into

Christian beliefs, and called for separate houses of worship.10

For Sherbok-Cohn, the split between Jews for Jesus and its parent American Board of

Missions to the Jews exemplifies the growing pains of this transition, and he portrays Moishe

Rosen as at the forefront of the shift from Hebrew Christianity to Messianic Judaism. Historian

Ariel Yaakov, however, provides a more in-depth analysis of the early days of Jews For Jesus and argues that the split was over evangelistic techniques and image, not doctrine, and claims

Rosen’s stance mirrored that of the Hebrew Christian Alliance up until it became clear that

Messianic Judaism’s appeal to Jewish symbols and traditions was a more effective tactic. Yaakov also argues that Jews for Jesus’s growth was heavily influenced by the counterculture of the day, as well as by changing Jewish identities and evangelical Christian attitudes due to the growing prominence of the state of Israel.11

None of the existing literature offers more than a passing mention of the historical role of women in Messianic Judaism and Jews for Jesus. Ariel notes the prominence of women and the high number of women in leadership positions as an indication of Jews for

Jesus’s distinction from its more conservative parent organization but claims explicitly that “this did not reflect any commitment to feminism” but rather was a practical matter of reaching out to

“a new generation in which women had equal access to education and increased expectations”.12

The only other significant scholarship on Jews for Jesus in the seventies comes from a contemporary anthropology study undertaken by Juliene Lipson from 1972-4, who offers some analysis on the relations between men and women in the organization. Lipson argues that women

10Dan Cohn-Sherbok. 2000. Messianic Judaism. ; New York: Cassell. 11Yaakov, 200-205. 12Yaakov, 244. 8 were “encouraged to be strong, assertive, and responsible in the work, yet submissive to their husbands in marriage.”13

There are a few studies available on the position of women in contemporary Messianic

Judaism, and although they are from the 1990s and 2000s their conclusions can be understood in relation to the 1970s, as many of the same factors were at play. Schiffman’s 1996 study notes that there were no women pastors in the Messianic congregations surveyed, though women are frequently found in other leadership positions, and observes that “the role of women in

Messianic Judaism is in a state of flux”.14 Kollontai’s study in 2009 elaborates on this point, arguing that “the predominant view of women held in Messianic Jewish communities combines elements of , (a woman's principal role as wife and mother) and Evangelical

Christianity, (a woman is under the headship of her husband)” but “allows for a certain level of women's visibility in the spiritual work of the community, e.g. evangelism, teaching, and contributing to study, not often seen in traditional Judaism and Christianity.”15 Similarly,

Feher’s 1992-5 anthropological study at a Messianic congregation finds that “in the public sphere, Messianic men…are officially in charge…Although it is acknowledged that women can, and sometimes do, have a ‘gift’ as a pastor or teacher, they cannot hold the office…this rule is not about women being better or worse than men, but about maintaining roles and thus returning to God’s simplicity.”16 Jews for Jesus, it is important to note, is not a congregation or worship group with official doctrine or the power to ordain ministers, but rather an evangelical organization aimed at bringing in new Jewish believers. However, the ambivalent attitude toward

13 Lipson, 14. 14Cited by Sherbok-Cohn, 83. 15Pauline Kollontai, “Women as Leaders: Contemporary Perspectives on the Roles of Women in Messianic Judaism” Women in Judaism: A Multidisciplinary Journal 6, no. 1 (2009): 13. 16 Shoshanah Feher, Passing Over Easter: Constructing the Boundaries of Messianic Judaism (Altamira Press, 1998) 122. 9 women in leadership in contemporary Messianic congregations described by these studies provides some insight into the religious influences that shaped Jews for Jesus during its formative years, which I explore in greater detail.

From the beginning, women were crucial to the growth of Jews for Jesus. The group’s dynamic leader, executive director Moishe Rosen (1932-2010), hand-picked the small, close-knit staff, and his decision to appoint a number of women to a variety of leadership roles did not go unnoticed. The first leadership council of senior strategy-makers for the group consisted of seven people, three women and four men.17 Some even suggested that Rosen was more adept at relating to women than men. Founding member Susan Perlman acknowledges that to some extent he “did better with women than with men…part of that is because Moishe was such a sensitive, verbal person.” However, she argues that this phenomenon is perhaps overstated because women faced marginalization in other groups; she notes that Rosen

had a high regard for women that a lot of women, particularly in evangelical circles don’t feel [from other male leaders]. That was a very enabling thing that men didn’t need from him. If I look at other Jewish missions and other missions back in those days, the idea of having women leading teams or being chief advisors was not very common. Moishe just looked at people. Their gender and their age weren’t the issue. If they had something to contribute, he gave them opportunities. And I think that he had a lot of brainy women around…because he gave them opportunities that they weren’t getting elsewhere.18

Indeed, unlike many of the Jesus Movement groups forming during this same time period, which often adhered to rigid gender roles19, Jews for Jesus early made a point of “inter-training” all members for a variety of tasks and aimed for “equality of men and women in work roles”.20

One of the most influential people in the movement, Susan Perlman has held a variety of roles over the years, including information officer, editor of publications, first assistant to the

17 Susan Perlman, interview by author, telephone, 11 March 2013. 18Ruth Tucker, Not Ashamed: The Story of Jews for Jesus (Random House, 2011): 242. Brackets added by Tucker 19Citation 20Lipson, 84. 10 director, and today the Associate Executive Director and Director of Communications. Before joining Jews for Jesus, Perlman “was never a hippie, but then she wasn't quite straight either” according to Rosen's 1974 book.21 In college she became involved with the anti-war movement as well as other activist causes, including fighting for fair wages with the then-burgeoning women's movement, volunteering for political campaigns, and participating in the kind of guerilla theater that Jews for Jesus would later employ. During these years, Perlman explains, “I liked my life as a cause-motivated, action-oriented independent woman.”22 In the anti-war movement, however, Perlman found—as did many other women—that “there was a lot of male domination, and activist women, with the exception of maybe a folksinger or someone who had a high celebrity cache...really didn’t have as much say as men did.”23 After becoming a believer in

Christ, one of things that drew her to Jews for Jesus was the presence of “strong women in the movement, in decision making positions.”24

These included women like Amy Rabinovitz, who served as the office manager, and

Steffi Geiser, who worked as the art director and communications strategist. According to Rosen,

It’s not unusual for [Rabinovitz] to spend twelve to sixteen hours a day doing secretarial work and then attending Bible studies, demonstrations, and singing performances by members of the group. Amy is also a kind of substitute mother for me. I have to have somebody organize my daily schedule…she is one of the most effective organizers I’ve ever met.25

Geiser, who Rosen described in '74 as his “prime advisor” who played “a key role in making policy for our group”, was responsible for illustrating and writing the broadside tracts that were

21 Moishe Rosen and William Proctor, Jews for Jesus (Revell, 1974): 81. 22 Ruth Rosen, Jesus for Jews: If Jesus Is the at All, Then He Is the Messiah for All (Messianic Jewish Perspective, 1989): 195.

23 Perlman, interview by author. 24 Ibid. 25 Rosen and Proctor, 79. 11 central to the group's early missions. Regarding Rosen’s leadership style in relation to his young staff, Perlman recalls:

[Moishe] first designed our broadside gospel tracts and one of our other staff members Steffi who was our first artist, she ended up writing those tracts herself after a while. And Moishe would say, I don’t know how I’m supposed to feel because I created this whole idea of writing these broadsides and now Steffi does them better than I did! He kinda felt good about that because it was a testament to us moving beyond him, and it wasn’t about him, it was about us coming up with the best product.26

This attitude toward his young staff allowed women members to excel, because it dismissed rigid leader—follower roles that might have relegated women to the background.

Among the women at the center of the group from the beginning were Rosen’s family— his daughters Lyn and Ruth and his wife, Ceil. Lyn Bond, their eldest daughter, was involved with Jews for Jesus before the organization officially existed, including passing out broadsides with her father in Greenwich Village as a teenager in the late 1960s. After college, where she earned a degree in speech and drama with an education minor, Bond moved out to and helped establish the organization’s drama ministry in 1973. This group performed street theater—also known as guerilla theater: “We went out on street corners and college campuses…we would put on a play, a very short, punchy play out in a public place to draw a crowd.”27 In 1974 she married her college sweetheart, who was also part of the drama team which traveled around the country doing presentations at churches and colleges. Bond came on staff 1975—there were very few paid positions before then, and most members volunteered their time while working other jobs—and still works as a missionary for Jews for Jesus today.

In Ruth Tucker's history of the group, she describes Ceil Rosen (née Starr) as “shy and reserved with strangers, and nothing in her youth or early adult years could have prepared her to be married to a zealot like Moishe, a self-described fanatic when it comes to promoting the

26 Perlman. interview by author. 27 Bond, interview by author. 12 gospel of Jesus.”28 Ceil did not share her husband's passion for evangelizing, and after trying street preaching and passing out broadsides exactly one time, she “decided those activities were not for her, she never did them again. She did not make excuses for her absence; none were necessary.”29 Ceil's distaste for visibility and confrontation, however, should not be misunderstood as lack of influence. Indeed, 15 years before Moishe passed out his first broadside, Ceil announced her faith in Christ to her adamantly secular Jewish husband, much to his chagrin. Returning home one day to find his wife discussing a Bible lesson on the phone with

Hannah Wago, the Hebrew Christian missionary who had brought her to faith, Moishe ripped the telephone out of the wall. Ceil was clear with him: “I love you, but please don’t make me choose between Jesus and you.” 30

Eventually, however, ridiculing his wife's new faith led Moishe to question his own beliefs, and soon after, he too professed faith. Ceil's willingness to stand up to her husband on this issue was the catalyst that started him down the path that led to San Francisco. In addition, during the early years while Jews for Jesus was establishing itself as an independent organization, Ceil “took a part-time job in a law office, and for several months, hers was the only paycheck that came in” for the Rosen family.31 In light of the fairly conservative views toward marriage roles attributed to Messianic Jewish believers outlined above, this situation shows a remarkable flexibility. Indeed, the family’s involvement in Jews for Jesus changed Ceil’s position dramatically: whereas in the 50s she, like many women her age, had stayed home and kept house, by the 70s, she had attended Bible college and was helping with the organization and

28Tucker, 12. 29Ibid. 30Rosen and Proctor, 26. 31Ruth Rosen, Called to Controversy: The Unlikely Story of Moishe Rosen and the Founding of Jews for Jesus (Thomas Nelson Inc., 2012): 211. 13 earning money. In this way, Jews for Jesus was an empowering force and one that seemed to parallel the advances of feminism.

While almost all positions in Jews for Jesus were initially on a volunteer basis, and most members, like Ceil, often had to work other jobs in order to support themselves, once it became firmly established and supported in the evangelical community, full time salaries were offered to staff. Once this practice was in effect, the merit-based pay scale—as opposed to salaries based on family needs, a common practice in evangelical organizations—quietly and without fanfare offered women “equal pay for equal work” at a time when the women's movement was taking this rallying cry to the streets.32,33

The equal pay example seems to suggest a sympathy with feminism, which, as I will explain further, was not quite the case. Before this analysis, however, it is important to note several ways in which women's roles were indeed limited in Jews for Jesus. In a 1994 interview,

Reverend John A. MacDonald, a Baptist minister who served Jews for Jesus for several years as a member of the board as well as chaplain, notes that the by-laws prescribe that the executive director must be a Jewish man, noting specifically that “Susan can't succeed to the leadership although she is as powerful and effective as any of our leaders.” He explains further:

We do not distinguish between men and women in terms of their abilities, their value to God, we believe in equality, but in terms of authority, there is a distinction and it's a male authority system that's set up, at the top...but that's the only limitation that I know, because I think Susan Perlman has as much authority as any of the other men outside of Moishe Rosen; she's the central nervous system of the organization.34

Perlman, for her part, argues that these by-laws—which are no longer in place—were outdated, the product of a period when selecting Rosen's successor was not a salient issue: “We were also

32Bond, interview by author.

33 Tucker 226. 34John A. MacDonald, interview by Paul Ericksen, Billy Graham Center Archives, Wheaton, IL, 11 March 1994. 14 kind of figuring Jesus would return any day now, and Moishe was the obvious leader from the group. So there wasn’t anything other than his position that wasn’t open—but it wasn’t open to other guys either at that point, because he wasn’t looking to step down. It was kind of moot back then.”35 Despite Perlman’s willingness to dismiss the implications of this restriction, it is an important reminder that some of the more conservative trends from evangelistic Christianity and traditional Judaism did carry over into the social makeup of Jews for Jesus.

Another, more subtle trend that shaped the involvement of women in Jews for Jesus was found in the way labor was divided. Women like Geiser, Rabinovitz, and Perlman were generally in charge of office work, organizing, planning, and writing. According to Rosen: “Steffi, Amy, and Susan might be called my staff officers because they are primarily involved in planning our activities and helping me coordinate strategy. But when the action starts on the streets, a different group takes over—our tribal group leaders who control demonstrations and other confrontations.”36 These leaders were men like Tuvya Zaretsky, Baruch Goldstein, and Jh’an

Moskowitz. This is not to say that there were rigid restrictions, for women like Geiser, Perlman,

Bond were certainly involved with passing out broadsides, and many of these broadsides were also written by men. Rather, this overall trend reflected an underlying understanding of inherent male and female preferences: the idea that women “generally do better at being still” where men are more inclined toward active pursuits.37 Again, the early Jews for Jesus staff was characterized by a certain flexibility of roles, and members often had a wide variety of roles depending upon the needs of the organization. These male and female spheres, then, were permeable. These divisions were not overt or strictly enforced but instead the result of a latent perception of innate differences between men and women.

35Perlman, interview by author. 36 Rosen and Proctor, 81. 37 Bond, interview by author. 15

Another realm which saw a certain level of distinction between men and women was the representation of Jews for Jesus in the media. Here too, women played a big role behind the scenes, as exemplified by Perlman, the main media liaison for the group:

Susan usually charms the city-desk editor or news director into covering a story or interviewing one of the Jews for Jesus. I would have thought that the media would tire of our demonstrations and pro-Jesus statements a long time ago, but Susan has managed to keep them interested in the strange notion (to some folks it is strange, anyway) that Jews can believe in Jesus and still remain Jews…When we plan a demonstration of participate in a protest with other members of the Jewish community, we notify the media to give them pertinent details and quotable statements. Susan follows up with a briefing bulletin and news release on the events.38

In the stories that appear in newspapers and magazines during the 1970s, however, the overwhelming majority of quotes and photographs come from male members. Based on a sample of eighteen articles highlighting Jews for Jesus from the 1970s, mostly from newspapers but including a few Christian periodicals, I found that fifteen exclusively quoted men. All three pieces that included women’s voices were stories about the music team, the Liberated Wailing

Wall. This indicates that while women were generally less visible, the music and drama ministries served as an equalizer and provided opportunities for its female members to be the face of the movement. 39

In addition to the professional roles discussed above, gender had an important impact on members’ personal lives. For many members, young people whose peers where embracing the newfound freedoms of the 1960s, making a Christian commitment meant a dramatic shift from their sexually active past, particularly for those who had come to Jews for Jesus by way of the hippie counterculture. These new expectations about the roles and behavior of men and women created tension at times. Rosen recounts an incident where a young man complained about a woman wearing a short skirt at a group Bible study, alleging that he was “trying to develop some

38 Rosen and Proctor, 81. 39 For a complete list of all 18 articles, see Bibliography A. 16 self-control and discipline, and it doesn’t help to have a girl come into our group and parade around like that.” Most of the women, Rosen explains, would “wear long dresses when they are at a Jews for Jesus gathering so that the guys, many of whom come from rather raunchy, sexually promiscuous backgrounds, won’t be tempted to revert to their old ways.”40 This portrayal of women’s sexuality as a temptation to be resisted by discerning men is mirrored in the group’s demonstrations at “nudie go-go bars”, wearing “Jesus Made Me Kosher” jackets and holding picket signs with slogans like “God’s Love Lasts” and “Love Not Lust”.41

The newfound restrictions on and attitudes toward sexuality had a strong impact on members’ interactions. As one member explained,

One of the heaviest problems of the Christian dating situation is that the moment you ask a girl out, you inevitably get on the road that ends in marriage, which puts a tremendous amount of responsibility on the success or failure of a situation…The basic Christian attitude is that casual dating is frowned upon.42

This emphasis on marriage comes from both Jewish and Christian influences. The largely accepted idea of “male headship in marriage” coexisted with the prevalence of women in leadership.43 Indeed, the weddings of Jews for Jesus members included vows specifically written by Rosen for each couple, spelling out “the groom’s role as the head of the family” and the bride’s “vows to love and honor her husband and to submit to his authority, a basic fundamentalist precept that is often unacceptable to generational peers.”44 This embrace of common conservative Scriptural interpretations regarding women’s roles reflected, to some extent, a compartmentalization of personal and professional life. Lipson notes this contrast: “the

40 Rosen and Proctor, 111. 41 Ibid., 1. 42 Unnamed member quoted in Lipson, 105. 43 Perlman, interview by author. 44 Ibid., 114. 17 role conflict [in new marriages] is especially acute for the women, who are encouraged to be strong, assertive, and responsible in the work, yet submissive to their husbands in marriage.”45

However, this social conservatism was not as far reaching as may be expected. Socially, men and women were not segregated, and even living arrangements were co-ed in some instances: at one point, eight young men and women lived in a vacant parsonage. According to

Rosen, “At least one married couple always lives with the group. I believe such arrangements are healthy because the guys behave better when the girls are around and vice versa. This enhances the social development of the tribe.”46 The fact that intermingling was encouraged demonstrates a less rigid gender division in free time than that seen in many contemporary religious groups.47

In addition, Perlman’s success as a single woman is noteworthy. As Tucker explains,

Susan’s achievements have not come without a willingness to make sacrifices in other areas of her life. She has chosen to forgo marriage and children, though she concedes, “Marriage is a very Jewish thing.” And she is well aware that her “singleness hasn’t always been understood.” Yet, she can confidently say, “I feel quite complete,” and she encourages other women to consider their options: “It is important that Christian women realize they have a choice. To me, being married would mean being less of what I can be for God. I hope that won’t be misinterpreted. But being single, I am also more available. I can pick up and go when needed. I usually keep a suitcase packed.”48

While, overall, the expectations of gender roles within the personal lives of Jews for Jesus members comply with the patriarchal traditions of conservative Christianity and Judaism, women like Perlman illustrate that there is a degree of flexibility.

With this portrait of the wide-ranging realities faced by the women of Jews of Jesus in the

70s, we must now examine the factors that facilitated the development of views that permitted and encouraged women in leadership positions, merit-based pay, and aimed for equality of the sexes, even amidst the heavy influences of patriarchal evangelical Christianity. One such factor

45 Lipson, 108. 46 Rosen and Proctor, 77. 47 See for example Mary Harder, “Sex Roles in the Jesus Movement” Social Compass 21, no. 3 (1974): 345–353. 48 Tucker, 225. 18 was the youth of the staff, and of the organization itself. “Because our organization began in the

70s,” Perlman hypothesizes, “we didn’t have to take baggage along with us that came from another generation before. And there were so many women in the early days of Jews for

Jesus…we helped build the kind of atmosphere for women to thrive. The organization in its roots…was very both women and youth friendly.”49 Most of the staff and volunteers during the early years were in their 20s, many of whom were involved in social activism causes, like

Perlman, and/or the hippie counterculture; all of whom were coming out of a generation that was eager to distinguish itself from their parents’ old-fashioned ways and traditions. Rosen, who was

38 when he began the San Francisco mission in 1970, did his best to avoid such a generation gap between himself and the younger members: “He always looked at us as more inexperienced on our journey but not because we weren’t wise or smart or able to grasp things.”50 In fact, the director made an effort to understand the youth mindset, rather than condemn it; this was key to his own outreach to hippies that led to the creation of Jews for Jesus in the very beginning.51 This willingness to embrace youth values created an open-mindedness that allowed for more flexibility when it came to the values that had shaped the status quo “in the church and the , [where] women just have not had the same opportunities and have had to work harder to get those opportunities that they do have.”52

Another important factor was the way that Scripture was interpreted regarding gender roles. As mentioned previously, Jews for Jesus is an outreach organization and not a denomination with any set doctrine or established theological stances aside from the Messiahship of Jesus, leaving members free to determine their own views on a variety of potentially

49 Perlman, interview by author. 50 Ibid. 51 Rosen and Proctor, 64. 52 Perlman, interview by author. 19 controversial topics. For example, Bond’s understanding of Biblically-ordained gender roles stems from the idea that “men and women both are human kind and we fall short before God.

Men are bad, women are bad. Only God is good. So we’re all in the same boat together. And I think that that helps.”53 For Perlman, stories contain affirmation of Christianity’s egalitarianism: “From my perspective and understanding of Christianity, Jesus was far more liberating for women than , or traditional Judaism. He spoke with women, he gave women very public respect, and those that had the honor of seeing him in his resurrected body first were women.”54 The creation story in Genesis, where the serpent convinces Eve to disobey God and

Eve, in turn, convinces Adam to disobey God, contains God’s curse upon women: “Your desire will be for your husband, and he will rule over you”55 which has often been interpreted as justifying subservient roles for women. Bond, however, argues that

That is part of the curse. And any man who uses that verse to rule over women is living under the curse. And I am so grateful for the men who love Jesus Christ, who love the Messiah, who realize that when we come before the Lord, we, men and women, are on equal footing. I guess that’s my feminist view in a sense.56

This freedom and willingness to interpret Scripture as uplifting women rather than restricting them allowed individual members to draw their own conclusions on the subject.

In addition, the inherent syncretism of Messianic Jewish beliefs means that attitudes are generally shaped by both Christian and Jewish influences. Drawing from both traditions allows

Jewish believers to diverge from both, to a certain extent; because they are creating their own set of beliefs, they have a certain amount of flexibility. The depth of influence also varies depending on the religious and cultural background:

53 Bond, interview by author. 54 Perlman, interview by author. 55 Genesis 3:16, New International Version. 56 Bond, interview by author. 20

A lot of it depends on the individual because just like the church isn’t a monolith neither is the Jewish cultural background of our staff. You have Jews who come out of a strict religious background, others who…had different models that they looked at when they were growing up. I think the culture certainly if you’re looking at the 70s in particular, you have a lot of, the majority of the cultural experience is within the framework of the Jewish community more so than the church.57

Regarding the heavy Jewish influence on many members’ views, Bond points out that there are

“many different expressions of Judaism…I think it goes congregation by congregation. There are

[Messianic] Jewish congregations where women are not allowed to teach. And I think that might be a throwback to , where women were not encouraged to even learn to read and write.”58 Both Christianity and Judaism can be considered the source of traditional limitations on women; however, because the women of Jews for Jesus were creating an identity that at once incorporated elements of both of these while in a sense remaining separate from them, they were able to choose to leave behind many of the more conservative views.

Both Perlman and Bond emphasized that their career and faith journey were in no way hindered because of their gender. For Bond, the debate over women in ministry was not a personal concern: “I don’t feel personally like I would ever be a pastor. I would never be in charge of a whole church. I feel like my role as a leader is secondary to someone else…I feel like that’s not my place. My place is as an evangelist.59 Similarly, Perlman asserts that she finds that

having influence was just as important as particularly being in the top leadership role and I always felt that my ideas were heard and put into action, and I always felt that I could invest in others as well and things would be carried out that way. I’m a pragmatic person, I’m more interested in seeing things happen than getting credit for them, I don’t need that for my self-esteem. So I really feel like I’ve had a major role in the shaping of this ministry over the years and I don’t feel I’ve been held back in any way.60

57 Perlman, interview by author. 58 Bond, interview by author. 59 Ibid. 60 Perlman, interview by author. 21

Both women assert that they were able to pursue their own personal preferences in terms of professional development; their goals didn’t extend to the more controversial areas of women’s involvement.

The idea of pragmatism that Perlman mentions is crucial to understanding the role that gender played in the organization in the 70s. There was no loyalty to women’s liberation in principle, no intentional effort to subvert oppression or make a statement about equality; rather, the practices that reflected the parallel gains being made by the feminist movement were a matter of practicality, of getting the mission work done most efficiently:

Because we all were working at building something together, people didn’t think about it that way….If you look at the halutzim [pioneers]…when they all came over to Israel, and they were building a new nation and they were working in the fields or they were in the army, whatever they were doing they were working shoulder to shoulder, I don’t know that the men assigned different roles to women or the women assigned different roles to men. I think that people just worked together…Our main goal is to do the work that God has put out here for us.61

Because Jews for Jesus is a “single issue group”, the men and women of the organization were united in their goals; this left little room for other ideological agendas (like feminism), but it also made gender discrimination highly impractical. Bond explains this philosophy quite simply:

“God has called me to do something and if some man is standing in my way well, I’ll just move on. I’m answering to God. And He has called me to do this. It was just practical.”62

The women of Jews for Jesus during its early years played crucial roles in the development and growth of the group. First of all, historian Ariel Yaakov notes that the organization

was catering to a new generation in which women had equal access to education and increased expectations…women of the new generation took their equal share among those seeking new religious affiliation. Since the group wanted to approach women— who, from the evangelical point of view, were equally in need of conversion and of

61 Bond, interview by author. 62 Ibid. 22

having their spiritual needs met—it needed women evangelists who could present the message and provide an example.63

Yaakov claims, as I do, that Jews for Jesus held no ideological commitment to feminism, and the relatively progressive reality of women’s involvement reflected instead an interest in the most effective way to spread their message to the most people. Young women ministering to other young women created a peer relationship and facilitated dialogue for many potential converts.64

Pragmatism also helped assemble a staff with overall positive attitudes toward women’s involvement, for those who were uncomfortable with being under a woman’s authority—for example, a new missionary going through training—“wouldn’t be able to stay with us for very long”. As Perlman explains, “it wouldn’t be just theoretical, it would be very practical in terms of their experience that they would end up having to deal with that.”65 Thus, by normalizing women in leadership, Jews for Jesus created a cycle that reinforced the selection and advancement of staff who were comfortable with this situation. Therefore, while there were diverse views on the topic, they fell within these parameters. However, for some there was a distinction between missionary work and leading congregations: “There are those on our staff that would probably feel that only a man could be a pastor of a church or a Messianic rabbi of a congregation.”66 This caveat is a reminder that there was a limit to how far Jews for Jesus pushed the envelope, and that the ideology outlined in these pages is not feminism.

Jews for Jesus offered an environment wherein women were able to succeed and took on the same responsibilities as men, but it was clear that this situation reflected a means to an end, rather than sympathy with the concurrent feminist movement. These women’s religious identity

63 Yaakov, 244. 64 Bond, interview by author. 65 Perlman, interview by author. 66 Ibid. 23 as Messianic Jews was simply a much more potent factor in their lives than their gender; the quest for equal rights was not a priority and, for Bond, not a deeply felt personal cause:

This is not something that women can really fight for…Men have to take up the call. In order for there to be equality, men have to fight for the women. Because the men who need to be convinced are not gonna listen to us…It’s not just women fighting for rights…It’s not something that I can fight very much about. And it’s not the focus of what I’m doing.67

This mindset clearly lies outside the realm of feminist thought, yet Bond’s career as a woman in a once male-dominated sphere illustrates her disregard for the barriers that a more conservative view might proscribe.

This position—neither actively supporting women’s liberation nor fighting against it— was not unique among religious communities during the 1970s. For example, in 1972, after years of unequal treatment in rabbinical school, Sally Priesand became the first American woman to become an ordained rabbi. Priesand distanced herself from feminism; while acknowledging it as

“a very important movement,” she claimed that she “didn’t go into the rabbinate to break down barriers” but simply as a sincere expression of her devotion to God and commitment to

Judaism.68 Equality with men was not a political agenda but simply a requirement for women to be fulfilled and complete in their relationship with God.

This perspective, however, was also central to the Jewish and evangelical feminist movements, which proclaimed the religious basis for their feminism and touted fulfillment through equality:

We did not become feminists and then try to fit our Christianity into feminist ideology. We became feminists because we were …we heralded the feminist movement because we were convinced that the church had strayed from a correct understanding of

67 Bond, interview by author. 68 Paula E. Hyman, “ Faces the American Women’s Movement: Convergence and Divergence,” in American Jewish Women’s History: A Reader, ed. Pamela Nadell (New York University Press, 2003): 409. 24

God’s will for women.”69

So many Jewish feminist activists have declared, in one way or another, “Feminism enables me to be a Jew” or “Feminism has brought me back to my Jewishness.”70

In these sentiments there is an unexpected resemblance to the Jews for Jesus, who find that their faith in Jesus has made them “more Jewish” or “completed Jews”.71 But these women—like

Sally Priesand and many other religious women—held their own understandings of the biblically ordained roles of women and pursued equality as a means of fully expressing their relationship with God, without identifying or joining forces with the women’s liberation movement or fully cleaving to all of its ideals. Gallagher’s 2004 survey of evangelicals concluded that “for most evangelicals, feminism is neither a significant subcultural religious boundary nor a focus of political mobilization or action”72; this finding can easily be applied retroactively to understand the middle ground occupied by women like those in Jews for Jesus in the 70s.

In conclusion, the women of Jews for Jesus demonstrate the complex nature of the intersection of feminism and religion. While in some ways, the organization’s practices during the 1970s reflected the causes being championed by the women’s liberation movement during the same period—including equal pay, equal access to leadership roles, and freedom from discrimination and disrespect—it was also heavily influenced by evangelical Christianity’s conservatism which put a ceiling on the growth of progressive practices. In this way, Jews for

Jesus illustrates one of many grey areas of the relationship between religion and feminism that has often been overlooked by scholarship.

69 Sally K. Gallagher, “The Marginalization of Evangelical Feminism,” Sociology of Religion 65, no. 3 (September 21, 2004): 226. 70 Hyman, 308. 71 Rosen and Proctor, 80. 72 Sally K. Gallagher, “Where Are the Antifeminist Evangelicals? Evangelical Identity, Subcultural Location, and Attitudes toward Feminism,” Gender and Society 18, no. 4 (August 2004): 451. 25

Bibliography A: Media representation (see p12-13)

Arnett, Earl. “‘Liberated Wailing Wall’ tries to bring Jews to Jesus.” The Sun. Baltimore, Md., United States, August 31, 1973.

Cheetham, Jack and Betty. “Jews for Jesus.” National Courier, February 20, 1976.

Culver, Virginia. “Length of Hair Bans Singers.” The Denver Post, March 28, 1973.

Culver, Virginia. “Jews for Jesus ‘Added Dimension’.” The Denver Post, February 14, 1975.

Dugan, George. “Jews for Jesus Stay Jewish.” Houston Chronicle¸ September 9, 1972.

Hodenfield, Jay. “Jesus Freaks Rock the Forum.” New York Post, September 5, 1972.

“Jews for Jesus Experience Messianic Joy.” Iowa Bystander. Des Moines, Iowa, August 2, 1978.

“’Jews for Jesus’ Picket Opening.” Los Angeles Times, July 25, 1972.

Loeb, Margie. “’Wailing Wall’ sings on the Jewish Jesus.” The Tulane Hullabaloo, February 27, 1976.

Miller, Lindsay. “Jews as ‘Jesus Freaks’.” New York Post, September 2, 1972.

Olmstead, Bob. “’Jews for Jesus’ meeting runs a little bit scared.” Sun Times, February 24, 1973.

Palms, Roger. “Jews for Jesus.” HM (January 1973), 7-9.

Perlman, Susan. “The Liberated Wailing Wall.” Christianity Today (March-April 1975), 26-7.

Robison, James. “Folk-rock group looks for converts.” Chicago Tribune. Chicago, Ill., United States, September 29, 1974.

Rosen, Moishe. “Urges Xmas For All—Letter to the Editor.” Ocean County Daily Times, December 29, 1972.

Rosen, Moishe. “’Jews for Jesus’ Wants Less Name-Calling.” Ind. Journal, January 19, 1973.

Rosen, Moishe. “We have been wronged.” Catholic Herald, September 7, 1978.

Bibliography B: Other primary sources

Dauermann, Stuart. “Star Wars”. Hineni Ministries, 1977. 26

Davis, Brent. “Lord of All Things”. Hineni Ministries, 1978.

“Display Ad 10 -- No Title.” Los Angeles Times. Los Angeles, Calif., United States, January 25, 1972, sec. Part I.

Forbes, Cheryl. “Jesus Joy Revisited.” Christianity Today, September 29, 1972.

Gregg, Steve. “Jews for Jesus Comic Book”. International, 1973.

Harder, Mary. “Sex Roles in the Jesus Movement.” Social Compass 21, no. 3 (1974): 345–353.

“Jesus in Berkeley”. Christian World Liberation Front, 1969. http://content.cdlib.org/ark:/13030/kt8h4nf4bb/.

“‘Jews for Jesus’ Picket Opening.” Los Angeles Times. Los Angeles, Calif., United States, July 25, 1972, sec. PART IV.

“Jews for Jesus: Under New Management.” Christianity Today 17 (September 28, 1973): 43–43.

“Kosheral Revolution.” Christianity Today 23 (October 5, 1979): 57–57.

Lipson, Juliene G. Jews for Jesus: An Anthropological Study. Revised. Ams Pr Inc, 1990.

“Mary Hartman, Mary Hartman and Sue Perlman, Sue Perlman.” Christianity Today 20 (May 7, 1976): 43–43.

Proctor, W. “Manhattan Movers.” Christianity Today 19 (October 25, 1974): 50–50.

Rosen, Ceil. “The Liberated Woman”. Hineni Ministries, 1972.

Rosen, Martin Meyer. “Jesus’ Kids Turn On Others.” Christian Life, April 1971.

Rosen, Moishe. “Black Is Beautiful”. Herald Press, 1972.

———. How to Witness Simply and Effectively to the Jews. Jews for Jesus, 1970.

Rosen, Moishe, and William Proctor. Jews for Jesus. Revell, 1974.

Rosen, Moishe, and Ceil Rosen. Share the New Life with a Jew. Moody Press, 1976.

Rosen, Ruth. Jesus for Jews: If Jesus Is the Messiah at All, Then He Is the Messiah for All. Messianic Jewish Perspective, 1989.

Scanzoni, Letha Dawson, and Nancy A. Hardesty. All We’re Meant to Be: Biblical Feminism for Today. 3 Rev Sub. Eerdmans Pub Co, 1992. 27

Schaible, C. “Hot and Humorous.” Louis Kaplan and Jews for Jesus Movement 17 (July 6, 1973): 51– 51.

Streiker, Lowell D. The Jesus Trip; Advent of the Jesus Freaks. Nashville: Abingdon Press, 1971.

“Yeshua Is the Messiah.” Time 110 (July 4, 1977): 76.

Bibliography C: Secondary sources consulted

Ariel, Yaakov. “Jews and New Religious Movements: An Introductory Essay.” Nova Religio 15, no. 1 (August 2011): 5–21.

Ariel, Yaakov Shalom. Evangelizing the Chosen People: Missions to the Jews in America, 1880-2000. Univ of North Carolina Press, 2000.

Berger, Leigh Paula. Messianic Judaism: Searching the Spirit. University of South Florida, 2000.

Braude, Ann. “A Religious Feminist--Who Can Find Her? Historiographical Challenges from the National Organization for Women.” The Journal of Religion 84, no. 4 (October 2004): 555–572.

Braude, Ann, Jon Butler, and Harry S. Stout. Women and American Religion: Oxford University Press, 2000.

Cochran, Pamela. Evangelical Feminism: A History. New York: New York University Press, 2005.

Cohn-Sherbok, Dan. Messianic Judaism: A Critical Anthology. Continuum International Publishing Group, 2001.

Diner, Hasia R., and Beryl Lieff Benderly. Her Works Praise Her: A History of Jewish Women in America from Colonial Times to the Present. Basic Books, 2002.

Eskridge, Larry. “‘One Way’: Billy Graham, the Jesus Generation, and the Idea of an Evangelical Youth Culture.” Church History: Studies in Christianity and Culture 67, no. 01 (1998): 83–106.

Feher, Shoshanah. Passing Over Easter: Constructing the Boundaries of Messianic Judaism. Rowman Altamira, 1998.

Fishman, Samuel. Jewish Students and the Jesus Movement: A Campus Perspective. Washington, DC: B’nai B’right Hillel Foundations, 1973.

Friedman, Norman L. “Social Movement Legacies: The American Jewish Counterculture, 1973- 1988.” Jewish Social Studies 50, no. 3–4 (1988): 127–146.

28

Gallagher, Sally K. “The Marginalization of Evangelical Feminism.” Sociology of Religion 65, no. 3 (September 21, 2004): 215–237.

Glanz, . “An Interpretation of the Jewish Counterculture.” Jewish Social Studies 39, no. 1–2 (1977): 117–128.

Kaplan, Dana, and Scott Langston. “American and the Southern Baptist Convention: Responses to Social Trends.” Shofar 24, no. 3 (Spring 2006): 1–36.

Kaufman, Debra Renee. “Women Who Return to Orthodox Judaism: A Feminist Analysis.” Journal of Marriage and the Family 47, no. 3 (August 1985): 543.

Kollontai, Pauline. “Messianic Jews and Jewish Identity.” Journal of Modern 3, no. 2 (2004): 195–205.

Kollontai, Pauline. “Women as Leaders: Contemporary Perspectives on the Roles of Women in Messianic Judaism.” Women in Judaism: A Multidisciplinary Journal 6, no. 1 (2009). https://jps.library.utoronto.ca/index.php/wjudaism/article/view/15799.

Nadell, Pamela Susan. American Jewish Women’s History: A Reader. New York University Press, 2003.

Rausch, D. “The Messianic Jewish Congregational Movement.” The Christian Century 99, no. 28 (1982): 15–22.

Roof, Wade Clark, and Christopher Kirk Hadaway. “Denominational Switching in the Seventies: Going Beyond Stark and Glock.” Journal for the Scientific Study of Religion 18, no. 4 (December 1979): 363.

Rosen, Ruth. Called to Controversy: The Unlikely Story of Moishe Rosen and the Founding of Jews for Jesus. Thomas Nelson Inc, 2012.

Samuelson, Francine K. “Messianic Judaism: Church, Denomination, Sect, or Cult?” Journal of Ecumenical Studies 37, no. 2 (Spring 2000): 161–186.

Staub, Michael E. The Jewish 1960s: An American Sourcebook. Brandeis University Press, 2004.

Streiker, Lowell D., and Gerald S. Strober (Joint Author). Religion and the New Majority: Billy Graham, Middle America, and the Politics of the 70S [By] Lowell D. Streiker and Gerald S. Strober, 1972.

Tipton, Steven M. Getting Saved from the Sixties: Moral Meaning in Conversion and Cultural Change. University of California Press, 1984.

Tucker, Ruth. Not Ashamed: The Story of Jews for Jesus. Random House Digital, Inc., 2011.