Tensions in Jewish-Christian Relations
Workshop Presentation at the ICCJ Conference in Chicago, 24-27 July 2005
Hans Ucko
Approaching a topic such as ‘tensions in Jewish-Christian relations’
is problematic and difficult. In dealing with such a topic the
presenter can easily be misconstrued or misunderstood and anyone
addressing it may be perceived as disruptive and confrontational and as
someone attacking the counterpart. It is therefore with a certain
feeling of uneasiness that I have accepted to share with you some of my
reflections on the topic chosen for this workshop: tensions in
Jewish-Christian relations, although I do ask myself whether we are
mature enough to handle the topic. Will we not only become defensive?
Is there enough trust between us to deal with tensions in
Jewish-Christian relations? The topic is fraught with the potential of
emotions running high, that we open ourselves up for mutual accusations
and even condemnations, etc. Should one at all speak about tensions
considering that the friendship between Jews and Christians is hardly
fifty years old? It is a friendship, which must have been so difficult
to build, given the history of so much suffering, so much fear, so much
arrogance and so much intimidation. Throughout the last fifty years,
Jews and Christians have gained so much; we have made enormous
progress. Rabbi Jim Rudin called the positive relationship between Jews
and Christians a miracle of the 20th century. Should we jeopardise all
this now, this new found friendship, which was so hard to come by?
But at the same time, do we not in other contexts often state that
friends should be able to be honest with each other? And that it is
only in openness and sincerity that friendship can grow. Does this
apply also here? As Jews and Christians involved in dialogue, we do
want something more than exchanging niceties, something more than tea
and sympathy. We want more than only carrying the labels or accepting
the categories of being Jews and Christians. Can we address each other
in a way that is non-threatening?
At the outset of this workshop, let me make clear that the following
reflections are just that, reflections, which in no way carries any
official weight. This is not an official statement by the World Council
of Churches (WCC). I am speaking as someone, who after some decades of
involvement in the Jewish-Christian dialogue both from within and
outside the context of the WCC has had some experiences, which I now in
this workshop would like to share with you. Things I have noticed,
things I have heard, things I think we need to discuss to make
Jewish-Christian relations more transparent, more sincere, less of
posturing or playing for the galleries. I would like Jewish-Christian
relations to be a relationship of Jews and Christians, each committed
to their religious traditions and community, grateful to God for having
brought them together to discover each other and the possibilities of
working together for the betterment of the world we inhabit.
The Israeli-Palestinian conflict and the charge of antisemitism
The issue of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict and its relation to
antisemitism or the charge of antisemitism represents today a difficult
tension between Jews and Christians. There are perceptions in both
communities, which may, if we do not address them, lead us astray or
alienate us from each other. When addressing it and we must do so, even
if it hurts, we need to pledge from the outset that we refuse to be
separated from each other.
We have been living under the illusion that we could exclude
politics from the dialogue. We have, and not only in the International
Council of Christians and Jews (ICCJ), said many times that we would
not deal with politics in the Jewish-Christian dialogue. This is and
has always been an illusion. Being silent about political issues is not
at all being apolitical. Politics is present also in our silence. The
presence of politics has in our polarized world become even more
obvious, also in interreligious dialogue. We must acknowledge this
reality. Harvey Cox says, “We as religious thinkers must stop simply
making nice about this age of ecumenism, interfaith dialogue and fuzzy
feelings among priests, imams and rabbis. We need to take a step toward
candour. In response to a secularized intelligentsia, at least in the
West, we have tried too hard to put a positive face on religion, when
the truth is we know that all religions have their demonic underside.
We quote Isaiah, not Joel. We talk about Rabbi Abraham Joshua Heschel,
not Rabbi Meir Kahane. We favour St. Francis and his birds, not
Torquemada and his racks. Alas, however, they are all part of the
story.”1 While Cox rightly speaks of
religion as being as ambiguous as anything else is, the issue before us
now is that we cannot hold our dialogue in a “chambre
séparée” cut off from politics. Jewish-Christian dialogue
is part of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, whether we like or not.
Even if we don’t say anything about the conflict, our silence speaks
volumes.
We need to acknowledge the complexities in which we do
interreligious dialogue. The question of politics plays into the issue
of antisemitism. Watchfulness is needed because antisemitism is still
there. But it has changed. It is today more than ever using the
situation in the Middle East as a spring board. What is needed in the
struggle against antisemitism is however not only to focus on
antisemitism in itself and see it only with the glasses of the
experiences of antisemitism in the 19th century or in the days of the
Third Reich. If we do so, we will go wrong in our attempts to address
it. What today to a large extent fosters antisemitism (notwithstanding
that the old forms of antisemitism are both latent and obvious) is,
whether we like it or not, how people perceive the politics of the
State of Israel in relation to the Palestinian people. While it is true
that suicide bombings terrorise Israel, the building of the wall or
security fence, the settlements, collective punishment, the
checkpoints, the protracted occupation itself breeds frustration and
intense opposition among Palestinians and many people throughout the
world sympathise with this occupied people. The frustration goes beyond
the geographical location of the conflict. The anger seeks out Jews in
Germany or France, who are blamed for what is going on in
Israel-Palestine. It is being fed through incitement in media in the
Middle East to amalgamate Jews and Israel. And it finds resonance in
the frustrations and the powerlessness of people in face of this
protracted occupation, spilling over in attacks on synagogues and
Jewish cemeteries in Europe. While we can sympathize with the
frustrations, we can of course not condone antisemitism. When
addressing it, we should however not only cry out against antisemitism
but see our response to it in relation to the Israeli-Palestinian
problem.
The problem is that people involved in the Jewish-Christian dialogue
and people involved in addressing the questions related to the conflict
in Israel-Palestine are most often not the same people. It would be a
good if they were.
The situation today is often that people in the Jewish-Christian
dialogue in different ways try avoid confronting the thorny issue of
the occupation. But Christian participants in the Jewish-Christian
dialogue cannot run away from the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. Their
silence will be interpreted as a vocal support of Israeli positions in
the conflict. Christians involved in the dialogue may even be perceived
as supporting far more than they may actually give their backing, they
might, if you allow me the overstatement, in some cases even be held
responsible for the ongoing occupation. I remember how much Christian
statements usually from more evangelical US churches praising Israel as
God’s own country and people were taken by Middle East Christians as
adding to the Palestinian burden of occupation. “Not only are we
occupied by Israel and suffering its hardship”, they said, “We are also
to hear that this occupation is God-willed, sanctioned by God”.
Although one should not necessarily equate Evangelical Christians with
Christians involved in the Jewish-Christian dialogue, the latter are
often seen to be in the same company or crowd, uncritical supporters of
Israel in the conflict. It is wrong but it shows something of the
climate we today are living in.
And then we have the other side, said to be the spokespersons for
peace and justice, as if Christians involved in the Jewish-Christian
dialogue were not at all aware of these values. Those, who for good
reasons want to express their solidarity with the Palestinian
situation, might find it difficult to be involved in the
Jewish-Christian dialogue, which they perceive to be “on the other
side”, the one supporting Israeli politics. This perception might blind
them from seeing and being sensitive to the exemplary strides that have
been achieved in the Jewish-Christian dialogue. Instead, a traditional
theology of supercession or replacement might come in handy in trying
to speak out against Israel; the teaching of contempt can be a very
useful instrument when denouncing Israel and classical anti-Semitic
slogans can be helpful. The quotation ‘an eye for an eye’ is taken as
evidence of Jews as vindictive and unforgiving.
This polarization puts people into dilemmas, which the following
story might illustrate. There was at a session of our governing bodies
in the WCC a discussion on how the WCC should address the building of
the security wall in Israel-Palestine. Someone said, “I don’t feel
comfortable saying anything at all. The minute I say anything, I will
be labelled as an anti-Semite at home.” There is a problem when one is
aligning all critique of Israel with a critique of Judaism, when one
makes it impossible to utter criticism of Israel without the
concomitant accusation of antisemitism. Serious and well-meaning people
are afraid to say anything against Israel because criticism of Israel
seems to be understood only as a new suit of clothing, a more
acceptable or fashionable form of expression of antisemitism.2 Is criticism of the political Israel necessarily
a subterfuge for the criticism of Judaism? It isn’t. The very fact that
WCC in 1992 felt obliged to make a statement on the perception that
critique of Israel can be wrongly interpreted is indicative of the
sensitivities involved. It said, “… we assume that criticism of the
policies of the Israeli government is not in itself anti-Jewish. For
the pursuit of justice invariably involves criticism of states and
political movements, which does not imply denigration of peoples and
much less of faith communities. Expressions of concern regarding
Israel's actions are not statements regarding the Jewish people or
Judaism, but are a legitimate part of the public debate."3 We must take care not to diffuse the real
meaning of antisemitism at the expense of conceptual clarity thus
disarming ourselves in our struggle against antisemitism. I am not
alone in saying that the term “anti-Semitism” may be in danger of
becoming less meaningful when its boundaries are made to encompass ever
increasing territories. Alan Sussman, professor at Bard College, where
he teaches Constitutional Law and Ethics, says about those who
sometimes too easily bring forth the charge of antisemitism, that this
“permits widening the frame of the accusation in order to distort and
taint the argument of the accused. Given the obvious power of
post-Holocaust victimhood, it grants the anti-anti-Semite the ability
to raise the unapproachable and unanswerable image of Jewish extinction
in an effort to silence what may not even qualify as anti-Jewish
sentiment.”4
Although the document referred to is now more than 10 years old, it
still has its validity. The WCC received after having issued the
“Minute on economic measures for peace in Israel/Palestine” many
letters from both Jewish and Christian so called friends of Israel, who
saved no venom and who were ready to categorize the WCC as one of the
anti-Semitic factors in the world.5 This is
one among many letters and it is not among the worst: “As
representative of a faith which for last 2000 years has set as one of
its goals the humiliation and persecution of Jews (which lead directly
to the murder of many millions of the Jewish people) for the sole
reason that they wished to practice their own own religion, I am very
curious where you find the nerve to criticize anything which Israel
does. I can understand that at a personal level you may not agree with
everything done by Israel, straight thinking leads inevitably to the
conclusion that your entire energies should be spent begging
forgiveness from those you have wronged. And instead of make selective
quotes from the Gospels why don't you also quote those sections which
accuse Jews of being the children of the Devil and the Jewish people
incapable of forgiveness for all generations? If there are criticisms
to be made then I suggest you leave it to others who are less tainted
than yourselves. Criticisms should come from those who have the moral
right to criticize. I do not wish or expect to receive your reply- just
think about it.”
Such letters and other reactions flagging antisemitism should not
only be understood as someone just shooting from the hip. I think there
are reasons to discuss this particular tension for the following
reasons:
- Is there a risk of “banalising”6 the reality of antisemitism, of using it in a way that is wrong to the victims of antisemitism? It seems to me that the proper task of combating antisemitism is best conducted by avoiding the broad-brush approach and paying attention to distinctions.
- Is there a problem when the accusation of antisemitism is used to silence people, when the accusation is used as a weapon?
- Are there ulterior motives behind when people attempt to conflate finding fault with Israel with hatred of Jews?
- Does the Jewish-Christian dialogue contain an inbuilt condition: support of the Israeli positions in the conflict and very circumscribed possibilities to voice critique? Can one be critical of the politics of the State of Israel without risking to be called anti-Semitic? When does one cross the line?
Is the Jewish-Christian dialogue a one-way-street?
The second tension is maybe not really a tension but a feeling of
possible uneasiness regarding the way the Jewish-Christian dialogue is
heading, something that could lead to a fatigue in recruitment of new
Christian disciples to the Jewish-Christian dialogue. I may see all of
this from a European perspective and I may be wrong in my
interpretation but I have the feeling that the Jewish-Christian
dialogue in Europe does not easily get new followers among Christians.
I am willing to stand corrected and the situation may be completely
different in the US. The Jewish-Christian dialogue sees however
dwindling groups in many countries in Europe, where mostly elderly
people are active. Young people do not seem attracted. I can be wrong.
It is only a perception.
Some of those involved in Jewish-Christian dialogue may themselves
when push comes to shove express uneasiness. There are those who would
say that the Jewish-Christian dialogue has so far taken place mostly on
the Jewish turf, that it wasn’t really a dialogue but a monologue,
where Christians learned about living Judaism. I recently met with a
Swiss scholar very much involved in Jewish-Christian dialogue, who
talked about the dialogue as “Etikettenschwindel” (fraudulent
labelling) and the Jewish-Christian dialogue as a one-way-street.
I fully understand that in the beginning of the dialogue, there was
a need to begin building trust, to begin the discovery of the other.
Maybe this is only to be reckoned with. The church needed to discover
living Judaism because it had so long operated with dead Judaism; the
term “Spät-Judentum” says it all. The conversion of the church
from having built a theology on the death of Judaism necessitated many
years of listening to living Judaism, learning about feasts and
holidays, when one lived with the erroneous concepts of Jews having
lost their Temple and thus their way of celebrating God, learning about
the delight in the Torah, when one for so long had lived with the
erroneous prejudice that Jews suffocated under the yoke of the Law,
learning about Jewish affirmation of life, when one for so long had
lived with the notion of Jews sadly trying to please God through petty
merits and thus gain the salvation otherwise offered gratis to those
who believed in Christ. The Jewish-Christian dialogue had an in-built
listening, unlearning and learning phase at least as far as Christian
participation was concerned. Needless to say that Christians need to
continue working on an education, which does away with the teaching of
contempt. We have a responsibility to communicate our findings to
theological teachers, seminaries and catechists. There should be no
space for anti-Jewish teaching of any kind in Christian teaching.
But is this all there is to say? The Jewish-Christian dialogue has
been characterized as being in principle asymmetric; Christians would
for their self-understanding need a dialogue with Jews. Jews would not
for the same reason need dialogue with Christians. Jews engage in
dialogue, or so it has been said, to bring about a commitment among
Christians to stand up against antisemitism, to reconsider mission to
Jews and to understand the linkage between Jews and the Land of Israel.
All of this is certainly legitimate but do Jews need dialogue for their
self-understanding? It depends of course on how one understands
self-understanding. It is obvious that there is a difference in how
both communities look upon the other. There are reasons to look upon
the Jewish-Christian dialogue as being more of a necessity for
Christians than for Jews. It is a fact that Christian declarations and
documents, confessional and ecumenical, are in various ways
articulating that “the covenant of God with the Jewish people continues
and that Christians are to thank God for the spiritual treasures which
we share with the Jewish people.” 7 Some
of these statements have found or are finding their way into preambles
of the constitution of many churches throughout the oikoumene. One
example is the North Elbian Evangelical-Lutheran Church, which
“testifies to the faithfulness of God, who remains true to the covenant
with his people Israel. In listening to God's instruction and in hope
for the fulfilment of God's rule, the church is linked with the people
of Israel.”8
The Jewish-Christian dialogue has here and there contributed to a
Jewish reconsideration of Christians. The Christian, so it has been
said, is not only “a persecutor of the past” and there is among some
Jews a realization that “Judaism will have to face the meaning of Jesus
… invested with a mission to the world, to bring God and humanity
together.”9 But such reflections are few.
Although Jewish reflections on Christianity are less frequent than the
other way around, one could as an illustration refer to the statement
and project Dabru Emet, which tries to encourage "Jews to reflect on
what Judaism may now say about Christianity".10
From a Jewish perspective, it affirms the intrinsic relationship
between Jews and Christians, saying that Jews and Christians worship
the same God, they both seek authority from the same book, and they
accept the moral principles of Torah.
But the Dabru Emet seems not to have gained much support, although
such a development would almost be a sine qua non if the dialogue is to
oxygenize both communities. There is no need for immediate reciprocity.
There is no immediate reciprocity in any real relationship. But it
cannot be that one is perceived to be the permanent giver and the other
permanent receiver. The time for listening and learning from Judaism in
a one-way-direction should only be a phase and not a permanent
condition. It should be a phase for those who come new to the encounter
with living Judaism but there needs to be a possibility to continue
walking together to discover new vistas. Otherwise there is a risk that
the dialogue itself will become anaemic.
Conversion as an issue that can no longer be avoided
My final issue, which I think is still a point of tension, is the
question of conversion. It is an issue, which is almost taboo in the
Jewish-Christian dialogue. The only way it is present is in the way
Christians and Jews seem to have agreed that it should be repudiated.
Conversion is considered a danger and converts are considered persona
non grata. The reason for this is deeply rooted in history. Jews have
suffered from forced baptism, organized missionising and conversion
crusades all couched in derogatory theological concepts. And Jews are a
minority and conversion depletes the people. No wonder then that Jews
would prefer an atheistic Jew to a Jewish convert to Christianity and
that conversion is not on the table of dialogue. And yet, don’t we have
to go beyond this treading of water? Don’t we have to address the
issue? The fact that we don’t mention it or are embarrassed if there
are converts in the dialogue, shows that it is a tension that needs to
be addressed. I am not arguing for “Jews for Jesus” or for “mission to
the Jews” or any other targeting of Jews as objects for conversion. I
find any such enterprise arrogant and not worthy of how the church
should behave in relation to others, Jews included. But I am wondering
whether we need not in our Jewish-Christian relations address also this
tension? I think it would be important to recognize that although
dialogue has its own integrity and is not at all focused on conversion,
it happens, because of the dialogue, that Jews become Christians and
Christians become Jews. It was not the intention of the dialogue but it
happened. Are the Jewish-Christian relations not strong enough that
they should be able to cope also with this human right that people may
in fact change religion? And should the definition of convert
necessarily be one of the renegade or the traitor? Is this the only
thing that can be said? I think it is a stereotype. We should try to
take stock of how many Jews, converts to Christianity, have not
actually been the ones who brought about the conversion of the church
in relation to the Jewish people. In this year of celebration of Nostra
Aetate, where would this document be were it not for people like John
Oesterreicher, Bruno Hussar, Gregory Baum etc. Has not Cardinal
Lustiger in many ways supported the French Bishops in their work on
changing the teachings of the church in relation to the Jewish people?
It is difficult to address the issue of conversion. It seems to
challenge the very heart of the religion the convert is leaving. But
does conversion a priori suggest that accepting one religion means
rejecting another religion? We need to discuss this in the
Jewish-Christian dialogue and in fact in any interreligious dialogue.
I have briefly indicated some of the tensions that I think need to
be addressed in order to make the Jewish-Christian relationship less
fearful and more safe and secure.
Notes
- Harvey Cox, Religion and the War Against Evil .
- Jacqueline Rose, The Question of Zion. Princeton University Press, 2005.
- “Christian-Jewish dialogue beyond Canberra '91”
- Tikkun vol.20, No.4, 30.
- GEN/PUB 5 Second report of the Public Issues committee
- I am looking for a word in English, which expresses the French word “banaliser”, meaning “makes banal, trivialises, reduces to the common place”.
- “Christian-Jewish dialogue beyond Canberra '91”
- Declaration of the Synod of the North Elbian Evangelical Lutheran Church, Rendsburg, 22 September 2001
- Leon Klenicki & Geoffrey Wigoder, ed. A Dictionary of the Jewish-Christian Dialogue, New York: Stimulus Books, 1984, 107.
- Dabru Emet, A Jewish Statement on Christians and Christianity