National Jewish Scholars Project
Respect Christians As Christians
(Rabbis and Jewish Theologians on Christianity)by Stanislaw Krajewski
This article will appear in Dialogue and Universalism
(No. 11/2000), a Polish periodical published by Warsaw University (http://www.dialogue.uw.edu.pl).ABSTRACT
Dabru Emet is the first collective Jewish statement on Christianity of this character. It is a historic achieve-ment. It appeals to Jews to respect Christians as Christians, rather than despite their being Christian. Controversies exist around the thesis that "Nazism was not a Christian phenomenon," which is to critics too much of an absolution of the Church. Nevertheless, the author believes that Dabru Emet will play a role in sig-nificant Jewish circles similar to that of Nostra Aetate in the Catholic Church.
Is Dabru Emet: a Jewish Statement on Christians and Christianity, published on 10 September 2000 in the New York Times and other papers, a new word on the sub-ject? Yes, and no. No, because it contains no thought or approach that would be new to those who have been following the field of Christian-Jewish dialogue, specifi-cally the attitudes of those Jews who look positively at Christianity and appreciate the dramatic changes in the teaching about Judaism visible in the Church. Yes, because there is something new: For the first time this approach is declared in one voice by a sizable and sig-nificant group of rabbis and Jewish scholars. They come from North America and the United Kingdom (some for a long time have lived in Israel). In order to estimate the weight of their statement, we must analyze the con-tents as well as the problem of the representativeness of the signatories: Do they represent Jews in America? In the world?
The Statement is above all an appeal to Jews: "it is time for Jews to learn about the efforts of Christians to honor Judaism." Those efforts express an appreciation of Judaism as a living faith rather than a fossil, and a confirmation of the irrevocable covenant between the Creator and Israel, or, in other words, of the chosenness of the Jewish people. Moreover, in the last decades many Christians want to study Judaism in order to have a deeper understanding of Jesus and of the Jewish roots of the Church. This has been a revolutionary change of attitude, which is best seen in the fact that in the first official Catholic document introducing the new approach, the 1965 Declaration Nostra Aetate, there is no refer-ence to earlier Church documents. This was exceptional: In all other documents adopted by the second Vatican Council there were references to previous Vatican or pontifical statements.
More and more Christians and Jews know about those changes. Of course, not all Christians accept them, some Protestant churches reject part of them, and many Catholics pay only lip service. The trend is, however, very clear. This reality is ignored by very traditional Jews and by most Israelis, as they, by choice or due to cir-cumstances, have virtually no contacts with church representatives. Sadly, in Israeli schools these changes of the last decades are still not included in the text-books. To Israelis, the visit of John Paul II was a breakthrough: They were exposed to the new teaching of the Roman Catholic Church as well as to the pope himself, and his attitude of genuine respect to others.
The other essential point of the Statement's appeal to each and every Jew reads: "it is time for Jews to reflect on what Judaism may now say about Christianity." The authors propose eight points with which I fully agree. Indeed -- with one exception; see below -- they are rather obvious to all people seriously involved in Jewish-Christian dialogue. There are, however, few persons really involved. That is why I am delighted that they have been presented so strongly and spread so wide. The Hebrew title Dabru Emet means "Tell the truth." It is taken from the Prophet Zechariah (8:16): "Speak ye every man the truth to his neighbor…" This quote pro-vides the best explanation of the authors' intentions. They want to speak the truth about the positive sides of Christianity -- and, yes, positive from the Jewish per-spective. Also, they want to overcome the tradition of looking at Christianity to find only the Church's oppres-sion and "teaching of contempt." I believe that it is commendable that these well known negative elements remain virtually unmentioned in the Statement. The authors prove that it is possible to overcome the attitude determined by resentments. I feel that this is needed and useful, though of course the point is not to forget the black pages.
The Statement's first four theses about Christianity re-sult from common sources. They are as follows: the same God, the shared Hebrew Bible, the shared biblical assumption that man is created in God's image, and the biblically based understanding of Jewish rights to the Promised land, or the land of Israel. The deeply rooted affinity exists despite the differences. And the differ-ences are, of course, deep, in each of the above points: From the Jewish point of view it is impossible to accept the Trinitarian concept of God, the Christocentric inter-pretation of Scripture, the cult of holy icons (in Catholic and Orthodox churches) that brings to mind idolatrous practice. Still, the family affinity between the two faiths remains. And it means more than genetic ties. The principal Jewish categories, like the God of Abraham, the Torah and the Prophets, the Promised Land, the rejec-tion of idolatry -- all of them are well known to hundreds of millions, due to the Church, or rather -- the churches.
The next, fifth, thesis has been subject to controversy and caused some rabbis, who otherwise agree with the statement, to refuse their signatures. The thesis says that "Nazism was not a Christian phenomenon." The op-ponents agree, of course, that gratitude is due to the Christians who helped Jews then. They stress, however, that it was Christianity that prepared the soil for Nazism, so a connection exists. To this they hear that "Nazism itself was not an inevitable outcome of Christianity." The opponents maintain that one must speak about "real Christianity" that did lead to Nazism, rather than about some ideal Christianity radically divorced from those hor-rible phenomena. To this the authors of the Statement reply that the Nazis used Christianity for their own aims and were not part and parcel of authentic Christianity; for example, if the murder of Jews had been fully suc-cessful, Hitler "would have turned its murderous rage more directly to Christians."
To me, the above discussion shows a key problem: Either one sees mainly, or even exclusively, "real Chris-tianity" and the historical Church, or one perceives "authentic Christianity" and its necessarily idealized foundations. This has an impact on one's approach to the above thesis on Nazism and to other ones. Already in the Middle Ages some rabbis were saying: Christians venerate saints, but that is their specific form of relating to the true God. Others were less accepting: The cult of individual persons amounts to idolatry. The same behav-ior can be interpreted differently, depending on one's attitude. Similarly, diverging attitudes result in a contro-versy concerning the next point of Dabru Emet.
The sixth thesis is about the differences between the two traditions that will not be overcome until the end of this era, which will be marked by a dramatic change promised in the Scripture. This is not controversial. The statement causes the opposition of many Jews, that as much as Jews relate to God through the Torah, Chris-tians do this "through Jesus Christ." The very use of the term "Christ" is problematic in a Jewish text because "Christ" means "Messiah." If the use of the term were to be read as an approval of the messianic role of Jesus of Nazareth, it would contradict the basic assumption of Judaism. I must admit that at the first reading this term troubled me. I do not use it; it just doesn't fit. After reflection, I have come to see it as an accomplishment. Clearly, the authors used "Christ" to describe, and not to approve, the Christian belief. No doubt they consciously assumed that they had to describe Christianity in a way that would make real sense to its believers. That is, to describe it not just from the outside, but with an understanding of its inner sense and dynamics. Only then does it make sense to appeal to Jews to "respect Christians' faithfulness to their revelation." I think that that paragraph is an example of a deeply dialogical approach: The partner is treated seriously, not as a child who has not yet grown to understand the truth correctly.
This dialogical approach is also seen in the conclusion of the paragraph: Nobody may be forced to accept the teaching of the other side. This has always been clear from the Jewish standpoint, in which there is no place for active missionary activities, let alone conversion by force. However, the power of the statement in Dabru Emet goes beyond the traditional Jewish attitude. It results from the fact that the authors approach the two religions' mutual obligations symmetrically. Christians de-serve the same religious respect as Jews for serving God through their tradition. Not despite it, but because of it!
By coincidence, at about the same time, Cardinal Ratzinger released the declaration Dominus Iesus. Its language is completely different. It stresses that only the Catholic Church has complete truth. This is not news, and the proclamation, if interpreted suitably, would be probably repeated by traditionalists of all major religions. Yet the language of the Vatican statement is opposite to that of Dabru Emet. In the Catholic pro-nouncement it is stated that the way to redemption is only through Jesus, and there can be no parallel, equally valuable ways. This is contrary to Dabru Emet, which states that there are equally valuable ways -- the Jewish one through the Torah and Jewish tradition, and the Christian one through Jesus and the tradition of the Church. It must be added that at about the same time, John Paul II beatified the anti-ecumenical pope, Pius IX, which indicates that to the Vatican, forced conversions, though no longer practiced, do not discredit those re-sponsible for them. Jews remember that pope as the one responsible for kidnapping a seven-year-old Jewish boy secretly baptized by a maidservant. This is an extremely dramatic example of the violation of the rights of parents to raise children in their own spirit. The violation results directly from the conviction that the two traditions are not of equal value.
The seventh thesis is supposed to comfort Jews. The authors do see the threat of religious and cultural assimilation, but they stress that friendly relations with Christians will neither increase assimilation nor reduce Jewish religious practice. My knowledge and experience fully confirm this optimism. The respect for Christianity does not mean that Christianity provides a religious way for Jews. Christianity is not "an extension of Judaism." Jews have their own way.
I know as well as the authors that despite an incorrect picture, present on both sides, dialogue is not meant to bring "a false blending of Judaism and Christianity." The aim is to build on the kinship of the two communities, and, at the same time, to see clearly the "humanly irrec-oncilable" differences.
The last thesis of the Statement, on the need of cooperation between Jews, Christians, and other faith communities for the betterment of all, will cause no resistance even among Jewish traditionalists. Two char-acteristically Jewish phrases may feel alien to Christians: One is that we are to act together in "the unredeemed state" of the world; the other is that it "will help bring the kingdom of God." Yet we can interpret the lack of redemption differently, and everybody will surely accept the reference to the vision of messianic future envisaged by the prophets of Israel. The whole document, while directed to Jews, may be for everyone an example of "speaking truth."
The points made in the Statement are known, and even obvious, to Jews seriously involved in the process of dia-logue with Christians. And yet, the Statement is revolutionary. It is not because of the explicit public appreciation of the new Church teachings on Judaism. This much has been already said in public. For example, in March 2000, two American associations of Reform Rabbis and of Conservative Rabbis, together [comprising] three thousand members, expressed gratitude to John Paul II for teaching respect for Judaism, and for the confession of guilt and the plea for forgiveness. They asked their members "to engage in intensified dialogue and fellowship" with Roman Catholic neighbors. No state-ment was made, however, about the Christian faith. In Dabru Emet respect is shown to Christians not only because they are humans or they have expressed the wish to look with sympathy at Jews; the appeal is to respect Christians as Christians. For their faithfulness to the Christian revelation and traditions.
How many persons would subscribe to this and the rest of the Statement? For sure, the overwhelming majority of traditional Jews would not. Also, most of liberal Jews will not rush to endorse that new approach. Many traditional Jews operate within pre-modern thinking. This is especially true of Chassidic and other ultra-Orthodox Jews. Looking down at other religions is to them at least as natural as to Cardinal Ratzinger. From their point of view the attitude to Christianity should be the same as a hundred, or a thousand, years ago because the essence of the situation remains the same. Among modern Orthodox Jews, a familiarity with other religions is more common, but attitudes of respect for Christianity are rare. Also, the Jews who belong to liberal currents of Judaism, as the Conservative and Reform synagogues mentioned before, perceive Christianity primarily through the bad experiences of the past, and the threats posed by its expansiveness -- formerly, and today.
How many Jews do, then, share the attitude of the Statement? We know now that 170 scholars declared that in public. Many of them are Reform or Conservative rabbis, and there are a handful of Orthodox rabbis long involved in interfaith dialogue. Among these Orthodox ones there are: Irving Greenberg, the president of the Holocaust Museum in Washington; and David Rosen, the president of the International Council of Christians and Jews. Among non-Orthodox rabbis we find Rabbi Jerome Epstein, the director of the Association of Conservative Synagogues in the USA; and Rabbi Eric Joffe, the direc-tor of a similar Reform body. There are among them well known theologians like Rabbis Eugene B. Borowitz, Leon Klenicki, [and] Harold Kushner. The Statement was drafted by four American professors: Rabbi David Novak (University of Toronto), Peter Ochs (University of Vir-ginia), Rabbi Michael Signer (Notre Dame University), and the only woman, Tikva Frymer-Kensky (University of Chicago). The whole initiative is coordinated by Rabbi David F. Sandmel of the Institute for Christian & Jewish Studies in Baltimore. Among other signers there is a well-known philosopher, Hilary Putnam (Harvard University). He seems to be an exception; it seems to me that pro-fessors other than Jewish theologians were not sought. [By] the end of September 2000, the number of signers rose to 200, and it includes the present writer.
It is no coincidence that the collective Statement was created by American Jews. For at least a generation they have lived in an idyllic situation. Thus, Jews are re-spected and granted equal rights both as individuals and as community, interfaith relations are based on equality, and numerous universities, including Christian ones, have chairs of Jewish studies. All four co-authors of the text occupy such chairs. The example of North America is in-fluencing organized Jewish life and interfaith relations in the whole world. The original signers, as authors, teach-ers, and leaders, have influence also on Jews beyond the English-speaking world.
And still, this is only a group of individuals. Is anything more possible? One mustn't expect much more. There is no single organization that can speak on behalf of all Jews, or of all religious Jews, or even of all Jews be-longing to one of the major currents in Judaism. The 170 signers form a significant group. Moreover, I feel that they represent only a tip of an iceberg. I am sure that thousands of Jews think in a similar way. As much as the declaration Nostra Aetate both expressed the new teaching and began to influence attitudes of Christians, the statement Dabru Emet will help Jews to speak well of Christianity, and will enhance the evolution of many. This advertisement in the New York Times will, no doubt, be seen as a historic document.
Who We Are :: What We Do :: Events Calendar
Clergy and Educators :: Scholars' Corner :: Newsletter
Information Resources :: Get Involved :: Home
- The Institute for Christian & Jewish Studies
956 Dulaney Valley Road, Baltimore, MD 21204
410.494.7161 / fax: 410.494.7169
email: Info@icjs.org
