COMMENTARY Understanding Christianity Today Jewish Perspectives: Dabru Emet A Jewish Statement about Christianity Edward Kessler Dabru Emet: A Jewish Statement on Christians And Christianity, published on 10 September 2000 (http://www.icjs.org/what/njsp/ dabruemet.html) 10 September 2000 may be remembered as one of the most important dates in modern Jewish-Christian Relations, perhaps the most important since 28 October 1965 when the Catholic Church published a hugely significant document called Nostra Aetate (in our age), which called for a re-evaluation of Christian attitudes. 35 years later Dabru Emet (speak truth) was published this time consisting of a Jewish reassessment of Christians and Christianity. It is addressed to the Jewish community as is Christianity in Jewish Terms (Westview 2000), a book edited by the same authors and published to coincide with the issue of the Statement. A more accessible collection of essays addressed to both Jews and Christians David F. Sandmel, Rosann M. Catalano and Christopher M. Leighton (eds), Irreconcilable Differences: A Learning Resource for Jews and Christians (Westview 2001) has also been published. Like Nostra Aetate, the text of Dabru Emet is short and seemingly simple but each carefully crafted phrase carries meaning and significance. Although the Statement is addressed to the Jewish community, it has been produced with an awareness that another community is, as it were, looking over the Jewish shoulder to see whether it has been validly portrayed. Over 200 Jewish scholars, teachers and rabbis have signed this declaration, and the broad range of signatories, including Orthodox and Progressive Jews, religious and secular, underlines its importance. It is the first detailed modern cross-denominational state- Published by Blackwell Publishing Ltd, 108 Cowley Road, Oxford OX4 1JF, UK and 350 Main Street, Malden, MA 02148, USA.
480 Commentary ment published in the name of Jews and Judaism which reflects on what Judaism may now say about Christianity. The significance of Dabru Emet is highlighted by the lack of official Jewish statements about the Jewish understanding of Christianity and the imbalance between the number of writings, which consider Christian views of Judaism and those, which consider Jewish views of Christianity. Much more has been published on the former than the latter. Claude Montefiore s call for the creation of a Jewish theology of Christianity has remained unanswered for over 75 years. Even Montefiore, a pioneer in Jewish-Christian relations in the UK, did not attempt to write a Jewish theology of Christianity but limited himself to a number of studies on the New Testament as well as Jewish attitudes towards Christianity. Dabru Emet, therefore, represents a new stage in the Jewish-Christian relationship and has, for the most part, received widespread commendation from both Jews and Christians. For example, the US Bishops have urged Catholics throughout the United States to read [Dabru Emet] with care and loving respect, in a published letter of appreciation (31 October 2000). It has been welcomed by eminent Christians such as Cardinals Kasper and Keeler, the Protestant scholar Walter Bruegemann and Archbishop George Carey, not only as an historic document, but as ushering in a new era in Christian-Jewish relations. Why the excitement? Firstly, the statement recognizes that Christianity today is not the same as it was in the past; that Christianity is not only no longer principally a threat to Judaism, but in fact is substantially an ally. Secondly, it acknowledges a Jewish interest not only in a social and moral relationship with Christianity, but also in a theological relationship. In effect, Dabru Emet represents a Jewish willingness not to forget, but to put behind the tragic past that plagued the Jewish-Christian relationship and to look forward to a fruitful theological interaction in the future. The Statement considers questions such as: What was the purpose behind the creation of Christianity? Does the fact that Jesus was a Jew have any implications for Jews? What are the implications of the fact that the followers of Jesus the Jew today number approximately one billion people? Until now, the stimulus for Jewish-Christian dialogue has arisen, inevitably, from the Christian side. After the Second World War Christians re-awoke to the fact that Christianity arose out of Judaism, and at the same time, began to appreciate that Christian teaching made a significant contribution to Jewish suffering. Although a number of Christian scholars, for example James Parkes, acknowledged the existence of anti-jewish teaching earlier, it was only at the Seelisburg Conference in 1947 that the process of tackling the Christian anti-jewish heritage
Commentary 481 began to take place in a meaningful way. Initially, most Jews responded to the new Christian interest with suspicion a legacy of the consequences of the teaching of contempt. For the most part, there was little desire among Jews to engage in dialogue with Christians and Christianity. Three factors were necessary before attitudes could begin to change: The Consequences of the Enlightenment The Shoah The Creation of the State of Israel The first factor, which might be described as modern culture, disseminated the principles of equality and dignity of all people. It became harder to preach contempt for another people and treat its religion as inherently inferior without losing one s own credibility in a culture of universal human dignity. At the same time, there was the growing power of secularism, which was eroding all religious claims. Some spiritual leaders concluded that it was more important to form religious alliances to battle secularism and materialism than to fight and kill each other. The second factor arose out of the Second World War and the murder of six million Jews and five million non-jews (the Holocaust Shoah in Hebrew which means desolation or destruction ). The Shoah resulted in a general awareness of the immensity of the burden of guilt which the Church carried not only for its general silence, with some noble exceptions during 1933 45, but also because of the teaching of contempt towards Jews and Judaism which it carried on for so many centuries. As Jules Isaac showed immediately after the war, it was this that sowed the seeds of hatred and made it easy for Hitler to use antisemitism as a political weapon. Although no-one would deny that Nazism was opposed to Christianity, it is well-known that Hitler often justified his antisemitism with reference to the Church and Christian attitudes towards Judaism. The third factor consisted of the establishment of the State of Israel in 1948. There is little doubt that whilst the Church has for many years been grappling with issues related to Christian antisemitism, attitudes towards the Land and State of Israel have, from the theological perspective, proved more difficult to tackle. Simply put, it has been easier for Christians to condemn antisemitism as a misunderstanding of Christian teaching than to come to terms with the re-establishment of the Jewish State. Of these three factors, many Christians involved in dialogue point to the Shoah as the major cause of change. In their view, before a genuine dialogue could begin Christianity had to publicly acknowledge the history of the Church and its attitude towards the Jews. This involved a proper appraisal of Christian antisemitism, anti-judaism and the
482 Commentary significance of the Shoah. Most Christian institutions have, since then, issued declarations against the perpetuation of this teaching. Recent documents such as the Roman Catholic We Remember (1998) and The Church and Israel (2002) issued by the Leuenberg Church Fellowship (which consists of Reformed Churches in Europe) illustrate a willingness to tackle this subject. It is therefore interesting to note the paragraph in Dabru Emet which comments on the Shoah, assessing Christian guilt while separating Christianity from Nazism: Nazism was not a Christian phenomenon. Without the long history of Christian anti-judaism and Christian violence against Jews, Nazi ideology could not have taken hold nor could it have been carried out But Nazism itself was not an inevitable outcome of Christianity. This paragraph has caused controversy within the Jewish community. Some have criticized it for going too far and express concern that Christians might feel completely exonerated. James Rudin, who has worked for 30 years in Jewish-Christian Relations in the US, argues that the Statement failed to take into account Elie Wiesel s comment that not every victim of the Nazis was a Jew, but every Jew was a victim. Similarly, Jon Levenson from Harvard Divinity School, argues that the Statement assimilates Jews and Christians much too readily (Commentary, December 2001, p. 33). He is convinced that any move toward reconciliation with those Christians who have rethought their theology of Judaism is foolish. He is supported by those who hold the view that Christians have not forsworn their triumphalism and point to the targeted proselytism of Jews by the American Southern Baptists and other missionary Christian groups. On other hand, for some Christians it is new and troubling to some to learn that many Jews do view Nazism as the logical outcome of European Christian culture. As far as Israel is concerned, Christian statements have in recent years acknowledged the centrality of Israel to Jews and Judaism. Thus, the Pope stated in 1984 that for the Jewish people who live in the State of Israel, and who preserve in that land such precious testimonies to their history and their faith we must ask for the desired security and the due tranquillity that is the prerogative of every nation and condition of life and of progress for every society. The exchange of ambassadors between the Vatican and the State of Israel in 1994 and the papal pilgrimage in March 2000 are symbolic of changes in attitude. At the same time, Church statements such as the Leuenberg Church Fellowship s The Church and Israel, warns Christians to be careful to ensure that the Church remains in solidarity with Israel for historical and theological reasons. This applies particularly when churches wish to adopt a critical stand in the Arab-Israeli conflict. The churches must
Commentary 483 counteract all tendencies to denigrate the zionist movement, which led to the founding of the state of Israel or describe it as racist. It is therefore of little surprise to read in Dabru Emet: Christians can respect the claim of the Jewish people upon the land of Israel. The most important event for Jews since the Holocaust has been the reestablishment of a Jewish state in the Promised Land. As members of a biblically based religion, Christians appreciate that Israel was promised and given to Jews as the physical center of the covenant between them and God. The Statement, however, does not solely focus on Christian antisemitism and the Shoah and/or the creation of the State of Israel. Its breadth is particularly noticeable and it examines the relationship as a whole. Indeed, Dabru Emet implicitly acknowledges the dangers of Jewish-Christian relations being dependent upon responding either to Christian antisemitism and the Shoah or focusing on the significance of the State of Israel. For example, by focusing solely on the Holocaust Jews and Christians will gain a distorted view. A young Jew will construct a negative Jewish identity, which without the positive side of Judaism, will not be a value to be handed down over the generations. A young Christian will come away with an exclusive picture of the Jew as victim without an awareness of the positive aspects of Jewish culture. Jewish-Christian dialogue must proceed at different levels and whilst reaction to the Shoah is an important driving force, positive dialogue cannot be built solely on responses to antisemitism and Christian feelings of guilt. Indeed, no healthy and enduring relationship between people is built on guilt. There are also dangers with basing Jewish-Christian dialogue on Israel. For example, there is danger in arguing that what was once an interpretation about the nature of the biblical word and promise is now in the situation of Israel concretised in a contemporary event. An emphasis on fulfilment of biblical prophecy can be seen in the writings of some evangelical Christians as well as fundamentalist Jews for whom the present becomes transfused with biblical language and geography, leading to the danger of giving metaphysical meaning to geographical places. Thus, the fundamentalist interprets the ownership of the Land of Israel in terms of a divine gift. The dangers are also illustrated by those who, in the name of dialogue, move from a position of commitment to the well being of Israel to one of the belief that Israel can do no wrong. This is not conducive to dialogue for it is not an honest and sober conversation firmly related to present realities. Thus, it is especially welcome to see that Dabru Emet tackles a number of different issues in the Jewish-Christian relationship. It states unequivocally that Christians worship the God of Israel and legitimately draw on the Hebrew Bible their contradictions notwithstanding. The
484 Commentary authors have also had the courage to reject the assumption that dialogue results in increased assimilation and intermarriage. Finally, the statement acknowledges that there are differences between Judaism and Christianity, which will remain until the end of time. These differences might best be described as particularities of faith, which can be defined as referring to those points which Christians and Jews regard as being of fundamental significance and in a sense, non-negotiable elements of their relation to the divine. From a Jewish perspective they include, for example, an emphasis on Torah, the conviction that Israel s covenant with God remains and that the Jewish attachment to the Land of Israel has divine sanction. Dabru Emet acknowledges that Jewish-Christian dialogue cannot simply be limited to the areas of common ground, though these will always provide a bridge. It takes a high degree of maturity to let opposites co-exist without pretending that they can be made compatible. Thus Dabru Emet states: The humanly irreconcilable difference between Jews and Christians will not be settled until God redeems the entire world as promised in Scripture. Those of us who have been touched by the angel of dialogue know that dialogue serves to strengthen our faith and, as Nicholas de Lange from Cambridge has written about Dabru Emet, to contribute to overcoming age-old conflicts (Commentary, April 2002, p. 10). A small number of Jews who oppose theological dialogue will simply resist or ignore the declaration. Their residual Jewish memory triggers a knee-jerk reaction of fear and anger at Christianity and they refuse to go along with its findings because they carry the unhealed wounds of the past two millennia. However, the majority of Jews see it as one more sign of the remarkable transformation in understanding between Christianity and Judaism in recent times. Edward Kessler is the Director of the Centre for Jewish-Christian Relations, Cambridge, www.cjcr.cam.ac.uk Appendix Dabru Emet: A Jewish Statement on Christians And Christianity In recent years, there has been a dramatic and unprecedented shift in Jewish and Christian relations. Throughout the nearly two millennia of Jewish exile, Christians have tended to characterize Judaism as a failed religion or, at best, a religion that prepared the way for, and is completed in, Christianity. In the decades since the Holocaust, however, Christianity has changed dramatically. An increasing number of official Church bodies, both Roman Catholic and Protestant, have made public statements of their remorse about Christian mistreatment
Commentary 485 of Jews and Judaism. These statements have declared, furthermore, that Christian teaching and preaching can and must be reformed so that they acknowledge God s enduring covenant with the Jewish people and celebrate the contribution of Judaism to world civilization and to Christian faith itself. We believe these changes merit a thoughtful Jewish response. Speaking only for ourselves an interdenominational group of Jewish scholars we believe it is time for Jews to learn about the efforts of Christians to honor Judaism. We believe it is time for Jews to reflect on what Judaism may now say about Christianity. As a first step, we offer eight brief statements about how Jews and Christians may relate to one another. Jews and Christians worship the same God. Before the rise of Christianity, Jews were the only worshippers of the God of Israel. But Christians also worship the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob; creator of heaven and earth. While Christian worship is not a viable religious choice for Jews, as Jewish theologians we rejoice that, through Christianity, hundreds of millions of people have entered into relationship with the God of Israel. Jews and Christians seek authority from the same book the Bible (what Jews call Tanakh and Christians call the Old Testament ). Turning to it for religious orientation, spiritual enrichment, and communal education, we each take away similar lessons: God created and sustains the universe; God established a covenant with the people Israel, God s revealed word guides Israel to a life of righteousness; and God will ultimately redeem Israel and the whole world. Yet, Jews and Christians interpret the Bible differently on many points. Such differences must always be respected. Christians can respect the claim of the Jewish people upon the land of Israel. The most important event for Jews since the Holocaust has been the reestablishment of a Jewish state in the Promised Land. As members of a biblically based religion, Christians appreciate that Israel was promised and given to Jews as the physical centre of the covenant between them and God. Many Christians support the State of Israel for reasons far more profound than mere politics. As Jews, we applaud this support. We also recognize that Jewish tradition mandates justice for all non-jews who reside in a Jewish state. Jews and Christians accept the moral principles of Torah. Central to the moral principles of Torah is the inalienable sanctity and dignity of every human being. All of us were created in the image of God. This shared moral emphasis can be the basis of an improved relationship
486 Commentary between our two communities. It can also be the basis of a powerful witness to all humanity for improving the lives of our fellow human beings and for standing against the immoralities and idolatries that harm and degrade us. Such witness is especially needed after the unprecedented horrors of the past century. Nazism was not a Christian phenomenon. Without the long history of Christian anti-judaism and Christian violence against Jews, Nazi ideology could not have taken hold nor could it have been carried out. Too many Christians participated in, or were sympathetic to, Nazi atrocities against Jews. Other Christians did not protest sufficiently against these atrocities. But Nazism itself was not an inevitable outcome of Christianity. If the Nazi extermination of the Jews had been fully successful, it would have turned its murderous rage more directly to Christians. We recognize with gratitude those Christians who risked or sacrificed their lives to save Jews during the Nazi regime. With that in mind, we encourage the continuation of recent efforts in Christian theology to repudiate unequivocally contempt of Judaism and the Jewish people. We applaud those Christians who reject this teaching of contempt, and we do not blame them for the sins committed by their ancestors. The humanly irreconcilable difference between Jews and Christians will not be settled until God redeems the entire world as promised in Scripture. Christians know and serve God through Jesus Christ and the Christian tradition. Jews know and serve God through Torah and the Jewish tradition. That difference will not be settled by one community insisting that it has interpreted Scripture more accurately than the other; nor by exercising political power over the other. Jews can respect Christians faithfulness to their revelation just as we expect Christians to respect our faithfulness to our revelation. Neither Jew nor Christian should be pressed into affirming the teaching of the other community. A new relationship between Jews and Christians will not weaken Jewish practice. An improved relationship will not accelerate the cultural and religious assimilation that Jews rightly fear. It will not change traditional Jewish forms of worship, nor increase intermarriage between Jews and non-jews, nor persuade more Jews to convert to Christianity, nor create a false blending of Judaism and Christianity. We respect Christianity as a faith that originated within Judaism and that still has significant contacts with it. We do not see it as an extension of Judaism. Only if we cherish our own traditions can we pursue this relationship with integrity.
Commentary 487 Jews and Christians must work together for justice and peace. Jews and Christians, each in their own way, recognize the unredeemed state of the world as reflected in the persistence of persecution, poverty, and human degradation and misery. Although justice and peace are finally God s, our joint efforts, together with those of other faith communities, will help bring the kingdom of God for which we hope and long. Separately and together, we must work to bring justice and peace to our world. In this enterprise, we are guided by the vision of the prophets of Israel: It shall come to pass in the end of days that the mountain of the Lord s house shall be established at the top of the mountains and be exalted above the hills, and the nations shall flow unto it and many peoples shall go and say, Come ye and let us go up to the mountain of the Lord to the house of the God of Jacob and He will teach us of His ways and we will walk in his paths. (Isaiah 2:2 3)