These rays of light

In the years since the Second World War and the Holocaust, Jewish-Christian relations have been transformed in the West. Where do they go from here? Edward Kessler, director of the Centre for Jewish-Christian Relations in Cambridge, assesses the progress made and looks ahead. This is the first article in a three-part series.

IN the past 50 years or so, Jewish-Christian relations have been transformed. One most significant development has been a growing awareness among Christians of the Christian contribution to Jewish suffering. The beginnings of this process can be traced to 1948 when the World Council of Churches held its first meeting in the city of Anne Frank ? Amsterdam. In the introduction to its report it noted that the conference was taking place within five years of the extermination of six million Jews.

The report marked a new stage in Christian attitudes towards anti-Semitism, for now the World Council dissociated itself from previously held views which either denied the existence of religious anti-Semitism or, alternatively, blamed it on Jews. It was now acknowledged to exist and Christian involvement in it was accepted: The Churches in the past have helped to foster an image of the Jews as the sole enemies of Christ, which has contributed to anti-Semitism in the secular world. So not only was Christian history linked to the history of anti-Semitism, but Christianity was one of the causes. The World Council?s report called upon all Churches we represent to denounce anti-Semitism.

Since then, however, there has been little discussion at the top level of the World Council, the central committee. And herein lies the problem. The World Council is not only divided within itself but is deeply involved in the struggle of liberation groups in the Third World. This involved support for the Palestine Liberation Organisation in its early years. The strongly pro-Palestinian Middle East Council of Churches is a constituent body of the World Council and has influenced its attitudes beyond the political issues of the Middle East, while the World Council?s assembly, held every seven years, has regularly endorsed anti-Israel statements. The attitude to Israel underwent a certain thaw during the peace process but more recently has become hostile again.

Fortunately this is not typical of Jewish-Protestant relations elsewhere. The Lutheran World Federation, for example, has repudi-ated the anti-Semitic teachings of Martin Luther. The federation rejected Luther?s violent invective against the Jews and expressed deep and abiding sorrow. In particular, it deplored the appropriation of Luther?s words by modern anti-Semites and called for increasing co-operation between Lutherans and Jews.

The Roman Catholic Church in its turn has rejected the millennial teaching of contempt towards Jews and Judaism and has unequivocally asserted the Church?s debt to its Jewish heritage. The watershed was the Second Vatican Council, held in Rome from 1962 to 1965. The publication of the council?s declaration on the relationship of the Church to non-Christian religions, Nostra Aetate (In Our Time), marked the beginnings of a fresh approach. It ushered in a new era, fresh attitudes, a new language of discourse never previously heard in the Catholic Church concerning Jews. The concept of a dialogue now entered the relationship.

Thus, as far as anti-Semitism is concerned, the Protestant Churches and the Roman Catholic Church, from being part of the problem, have now become part of the solution.

Unfortunately, the same is not true of the encounter with the Orthodox Churches. The changes that have taken place in what may be described as the Western Churches find few parallels in the East. Despite a few interfaith meetings, and despite some bold statements by a few Orthodox leaders, there is simply no comparison with the current advance in the Roman Catholic and Protestant Churches. Much has to be done before Orthodox Christianity abandons its repository of anti-Jewish polemic.

How did Jews view this change? In the early stages, most responded with distrust ? a legacy of the consequences of the teaching of contempt. There was among the Jewish community no general desire to engage in dialogue with Christians and Christianity. This was the result not only of suspicion of Christian motives but also because of the mark which the anti-Jewish teaching had left on the Jewish psyche. Most Jews did not trust Christian intentions. But there was also another reason for Jewish distrust: Judaism itself reciprocated the Christian teaching of contempt. There is little evidence that it developed an anti-Christian tradition, but it dismissed Christianity as a religion practised by morally and culturally inferior gentiles, based on unbelievable claims which had degenerated into idolatry.

Jewish views have changed in very recent years. There is greater recognition that the Church has taken and continues to take a strong stand against anti-Semitism as well as Christian anti-Semitism. Pope John Paul II, for example, has firmly condemned it as a sin and called on the faithful to do teshuva (to repent) for misdeeds against Jews. This is illustrated by Christian attempts to tackle the Holocaust.

The Vatican statement We Remember: reflections on the Shoah was published in 1998. It stresses the evils of anti-Semitism, and expresses a wish to turn awareness of past sins into a firm resolve to build a new future in which there will be no more anti-Judaism among Christians or anti-Christian sentiment among Jews but rather a shared mutual respect. It incorporates much of Pope John Paul II?s forceful criticism of anti-Semitism. But its treatment of the Holocaust had many disappointing aspects for some Jews, especially those who were over-expectant. They had unrealistically hoped for a formal apology, on the lines of that issued by the French bishops who had admitted the primary role played by the consistently repeated anti-Jewish stereotypes wrongly perpetuated by the Christians in the historical process that led to the Holocaust. We Remember notes that some Christians helped the Jews and some failed to do so, but implies a balance between the two. It fails to give a plain statement on the role of Christian teachings and stereotypes in motivating those who behaved negatively.

Yet it is a highly significant document and should be recognised as such. It is directed to a Christian public and is, primarily, a sincere call for the renunciation of anti-Semitism. Statements such as We Remember reach not only Christians in Western Europe and North America, where dialogue has progressed, but also Christians in regions such as Eastern Europe, Africa, Asia and Latin America, where many have never encountered a Jew in their lives.

So where does that leave us? Do we concur with the Anglican priest James Parkes, a life-long student of anti-Semitism, who was once asked how long he thought such attitudes would last? He replied: 300 years. Should we agree with the central character of The Plague, the novel by Albert Camus?

As Rieux listened to the cries of joy rising from the town, he remembered that such joy could always be imperilled. He knew what those jubilant crowds did not know but could have learnt from books: that the plague bacillus never dies nor disappears for good; that it can lie dormant for years and years in furniture and linen chests; that it bides its time in bedrooms, cellars, trunks, and bookshelves; and that perhaps the day would come when it would rouse up its rats again, and send them forth to die in a happy city.

Or can we be more confident? I am rather more optimistic but have one major concern. There is great danger in building up a relationship on guilt ? a danger faced by both Jews and Christians. This seems to have been recognised by the Jewish scholars, teachers and rabbis who signed last year?s document Dabru Emet (Speak truth) reassessing Christians and Christianity. To allay Jewish mistrust, they sought to apportion responsibility fairly: 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. . . . We applaud those Christians who reject this teaching of contempt, and we do not blame them for the sins committed by their ancestors.

No healthy and enduring relationship between people is built on guilt. The sense of guilt is transient and does not pass to the next generation; moreover, it is unstable, inherently prone to sudden and drastic reversal. We need to move on to a more positive basis for relations.

After this first seismic shift, as Christians came to acknowledge the Christian contribution to Jewish suffering, a second revolution in Roman Catholic and Protestant attitudes towards Jews and Judaism has recently taken place. This time it consists of a reawakening among Christians to the Jewish origins of Christianity.

Christians have left behind many of the triumphalist doctrines of the past. Most significant of all has been the renunciation of the constant teaching that since the time of Jesus the Jewish people has been rejected by God. No longer is that view held. Instead, according to the Evangelical Church of the Rhineland: We believe in the permanent election of the Jewish people as the people of God.

The ramifications have been manifold. Christians were now reminded that Jesus, his family and his followers were Jewish. They were alerted to the richness of the Jewish background to Christianity as well as to the perils of relying on the literal text of the New Testament.

Christian ordinands began to be taught that the final text of the gospels was edited long after the events described. This was courageously admitted by the Vatican?s 1985 document on the teaching of Judaism, which stated forthrightly: It cannot be ruled out that some references hostile or less than favourable to the Jews have their historical context in conflicts between the nascent Church and the Jewish community. Certain controversies reflect Christian-Jewish relations long after the time of Jesus. To establish this is of capital importance if we wish to bring out the meaning of certain gospel texts for the Christians of today.

New matters for consideration were also broached. For example, whereas the traditional understanding of the relation between Jesus and the Pharisees was that there was out-and-out hostility between them, now it was recognised how close they were to each other. Previously, these new insights had been limited to scholars; now, however, ordinary Catholics learned that Jesus had very close relations with the Pharisees to whom he was very near. There was a realisation also that too often Christians had pictured the Jewish law, Torah, as a burden rather than as a delight.

Christians were reminded that Jesus was a faithful Jew and that from the Jewish people sprang the apostles. Christians became reacquainted with Judaism. There was an increased awareness that Jesus was born, lived and died a Jew; that the first Christians were Jews; that the New Testament is, for the most part, a Jewish work.

From the Jewish side, individuals such as Martin Buber and Claude Montefiore reminded Jews that Jesus was a fellow Jew (their great brother, as Martin Buber described him). But this view is rarely heard. Witness what Dabru Emet says and does not say about Jesus. It fails to mention the Jewishness of Jesus but simply states that Christians know and serve God through Jesus Christ and the Christian tradition.

It is true that Dabru Emet recognises that questions such as the divine purpose behind the creation of Christianity need to be considered. But the document does not consider whether the fact that Jesus was a Jew has any implications for Jews. We Jews are very proud of the Albert Einsteins, the Heinrich Heines and the Sigmund Freuds; yet Israel?s most famous son is generally ignored among us. Now, in a freer climate as far as Jewish- Christian relations are concerned, is it not time that there was a greater Jewish interest in the Jew, Jesus?

Western Christians, for their part, have come into a close relationship with the elder brother. They have laid aside their previous triumphalism, shifting from what was, for the most part, an inherent need to condemn Judaism to a new position where it is Christian anti-Judaism that is condemned. But how are these new teachings on each side to be filtered to the faith communities? This is the question with which we have all failed to deal adequately. I shall consider it next week.