Thread: Purgatory: Is anti semitism alive and well in the church? Board: Limbo / Ship of Fools.
To visit this thread, use this URL:
http://forum.ship-of-fools.com/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=11;t=000748
Posted by Saul the Apostle (# 13808) on
:
I was reading The Times and Christpher Hitchen' review of the book: ''Globalising Hatred' by Dennis MacShane.
http://entertainment.timesonline.co.uk/tol/arts_and_entertainment/the_tls/article5186954.ece
I realise its a contentious subject, but, do people in the UK church still see the Jews as ''Christ Killers''? Can we (I say this as a Christian) really 'hate' Jewish people because of such faulty theology?
Should we be embracing the Jewish people or is the church still, in part in the UK, too anti-semitic?
Hitchens touches on the idea in the book that criticises the Jews for super human powers they do not have (eg the Israeli Mossad arranged for all the Jewish workers to not be in the twin towers on 9/11 - myth by the way).
I just wonder what shipmates think?
Saul of Littlehampton
[ 06. May 2010, 19:10: Message edited by: Barnabas62 ]
Posted by ken (# 2460) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Saul the Apostle:
do people in the UK church still see the Jews as ''Christ Killers''?
I have never once heard such a thing said in my life, other than in a historical context. Its always "once upon a time Some Christians did these nasty things, but not any more, and not Our Sort of Christians, and it was a long time ago..." And its usually Roman Catholics who are blamed for it. British evangelicals perhaps have a tendency tend to see themselves as on the whole pro-Jewish, and locate anti-semitism amongst Catholics.
Certainly my own early experiences of evangelicalism, back in the late 1960s or the 1970s, were of a satyle of Christianity that tended to see Christianity as continuous with Judaism - there would be Bible studies on the exact layout of the Tabernacle and the Temple and their symbolic significance, and descriptions of Jewish festivals and rituals (showing us some matzos and other foods things to explain the Passover or whatever). A bit later there was a fashion for making songs out of Psalms or other bits of scripture with rather deliberately Jewish-sounding tunes. And later a fashion for Jewish styles of dancing - that was going on only about four or five years ago. And never any doubt as to the Jewishness of Jesus and the disciples, and the importance of seeing them in a Jewish context to be able to understand the New Testament.
So no, not anti-Semitic. If anything the people we said nasty things about were Roman Catholics and liberal Christians, not Jews. And one of the things we thought was bad about them was that they might be anti-Semitic - unlike us. All a bit self-congratulatory perhaps...
With my left-wing hat on, I got the same thing from a different angle. We, being left-wing, were by definition anti-racists. Racism was something those nasty conservatives did. The worst people there ever were were the Nazis and other fascists who of course persecuted Jews. So thought of ourselves as inherently on the same side as Jews in opposition anti-Semitism. And also on the same side as blacks in opposition to other kinds of racism, and the same side as women in opposition to sexism, and on the same saide as underpaid workers, and refugees, and oppressed people in general of course - which sort of works as a stance until you find oppressed people oppressing other people. On the other hand its a lot better than siding with the bosses and the rich and the powerful by default.
But, I have my own prejudices, and any political or religious idea that comes with the name "Hitchens" on the tin makes me want to reach for a gun...
Posted by Eliab (# 9153) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Saul the Apostle:
is the church still, in part in the UK, too anti-semitic?
I don't think that any church I have ever been involved in has been at all anti-semitic. Some Christians view Jewish spirituality and scholarship as something we can learn from, others view it as completely irrelevant to us. I don't know any who are positively 'anti'.
It's much the same in the secular world - I work in London, as a lawyer, where Jews are heavily represented. No gentile I know thinks that matters in the slightest. None of my Jewish clients (including some very orthodox types) appear to have been worried about any anti-semitism from me or from the system generally.
It's a deeply unfashionable prejudice to hold, as far as I can see.
Posted by Saul the Apostle (# 13808) on
:
Interesting replies.
2 things.
One is the idea of Jewish people as possessing 'super natural' powers eg the twin towers myth; Hitchens seems to have picked up on something here from the book, that is unlike other despised minorities; they (the jews) are endowed with tags of say, being all being rich and highly scheming/influential (when patently some maybe and many are not). So its like the opposite of despising minorities for the normal 'dirty, thick, unwashed, inferior', reasons.
Then of course is the Jewish - Israel link and of course thats complicated. The base line of reasonableness seems to be that Israel can be criticised (like any other nation eg say Italy and Berlesconi etc etc etc), but one supports Israel's right to exist - if one is reasonable. An anti semite would both vehemently criticise Israel and deny its right to exist.
I still hear anti jewish comments both in the church and in wider society. Not regularly but occasionally.
Just interested to hear what other folk think both in the UK and beyond.
Saul of Tarsus...whoops I mean Littlehampton ![[Smile]](smile.gif)
Posted by Yerevan (# 10383) on
:
quote:
I realise its a contentious subject, but, do people in the UK church still see the Jews as ''Christ Killers''? Can we (I say this as a Christian) really 'hate' Jewish people because of such faulty theology?
Should we be embracing the Jewish people or is the church still, in part in the UK, too anti-semitic?
Its not something I've ever come across at all and I'm very sympathetic to Judaism. Maybe I'm just lucky. The only two places where I've encountered anything approaching anti-Semitism were on the hard left and amongst the Muslim community in my Irish hometown (to hair-raising degree!).
PS Though apparently there are still Jews in the UK who won't fill in their religion on the census.
[ 07. December 2009, 16:57: Message edited by: Yerevan ]
Posted by Baptist Trainfan (# 15128) on
:
My background is secular Mittel-European Judaism (my parents being non-practising Jews who arrived in Britain just before the War and brought me up as an Anglican Christian). My Germanic name has sometimes led to me being "targeted" by the Hebrew Christian people, who have mostly seemed to me to be at the nuttier end of the Christian spectrum, I'm afraid.
I do not identify strongly with modern-day Israel - in fact, though seeing wrong on both sides, my sympathies are much more aligned with the injustices perpetrated on the Palestinians since 1948, and I mentioned this quite forcefully in yesterday's sermon. This has led to me being called "anti-semitic" at least once by someone who could not see that I could be sympathetic to Judaism while antipathetic to Israeli government policies.
It is my perception that Evangelical Christians have been uncritically pro-Israel in the past, seeing it as the fulfilment of OT prophecy, while more liberal Christians have taken the Arab position, as one of injustice seeking rectification. I don't know if Evangelical opinion has moved more recently, though.
Some years ago I was involved in leading an Ecumenical Maundy Thursday service with a Methodist colleague and he was absolutely adamant that we must remove from the service any hint that "the Jews" (any Jews!) had killed Jesus, so sensitive was he to the idea that Christians might be seen as anti-Semitic. I have not encountered anyone else with such strong sensitivities.
[ 07. December 2009, 17:09: Message edited by: Baptist Trainfan ]
Posted by Stetson (# 9597) on
:
quote:
Certainly my own early experiences of evangelicalism, back in the late 1960s or the 1970s, were of a satyle of Christianity that tended to see Christianity as continuous with Judaism - there would be Bible studies on the exact layout of the Tabernacle and the Temple and their symbolic significance, and descriptions of Jewish festivals and rituals (showing us some matzos and other foods things to explain the Passover or whatever). A bit later there was a fashion for making songs out of Psalms or other bits of scripture with rather deliberately Jewish-sounding tunes. And later a fashion for Jewish styles of dancing - that was going on only about four or five years ago. And never any doubt as to the Jewishness of Jesus and the disciples, and the importance of seeing them in a Jewish context to be able to understand the New Testament.
Well, there's also what I've heard referred to as "philo-semitism" among some protestant fundamentalists, where one likes Jews, and celebrates the Jewish roots of Christianity, the catch being that to be truly Jewish, Jews must convert to Christianity, and the ones who don't will suffer some pretty severe agony after Armageddon.
You can see this view most starkly on display in some of the pro-Israeli Jack Chick comics, especially the ones from the 1970s. The Jews in Israel are often portrayed with some of the classic anti-semitic caricatures, but the ones who decide to convert are drawn in a more flattering manner.
Posted by Spike (# 36) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Yerevan:
PS Though apparently there are still Jews in the UK who won't fill in their religion on the census.
That may be because they are not religious. I know a lot of Secular Jews who never set foot inside a Synagogue.
Posted by Saul the Apostle (# 13808) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Stetson:
quote:
Certainly my own early experiences of evangelicalism, back in the late 1960s or the 1970s, were of a satyle of Christianity that tended to see Christianity as continuous with Judaism - there would be Bible studies on the exact layout of the Tabernacle and the Temple and their symbolic significance, and descriptions of Jewish festivals and rituals (showing us some matzos and other foods things to explain the Passover or whatever). A bit later there was a fashion for making songs out of Psalms or other bits of scripture with rather deliberately Jewish-sounding tunes. And later a fashion for Jewish styles of dancing - that was going on only about four or five years ago. And never any doubt as to the Jewishness of Jesus and the disciples, and the importance of seeing them in a Jewish context to be able to understand the New Testament.
Well, there's also what I've heard referred to as "philo-semitism" among some protestant fundamentalists, where one likes Jews, and celebrates the Jewish roots of Christianity, the catch being that to be truly Jewish, Jews must convert to Christianity, and the ones who don't will suffer some pretty severe agony after Armageddon.
You can see this view most starkly on display in some of the pro-Israeli Jack Chick comics, especially the ones from the 1970s. The Jews in Israel are often portrayed with some of the classic anti-semitic caricatures, but the ones who decide to convert are drawn in a more flattering manner.
Its quite interesting that some Christians seem not to know, or maybe choose not to think about it, that much of the early church was in fact Jewish indeed St Paul most famously was trained as a PHarisee (I think?). Indeed, the archetypal Sunday School picture of Jesus on the flannelgraph was quite Nordic looking mainly (I thought he was anyway! and do YOU remember flannelgraphs too !!!! ).
I am of the support Israel, but support means that like any other state it makes serious whoppers from time to time, just like our beloved homeland (the UK) has on many occasions. Like I said I have heard ''anti jewish'' comments but more probably from ignorance than say virulent anti semitism that was evident in say middle europe in the 1930s. Many folk near where I live have seldom met anyone who is jewish; therefore some views are a bit ''off the wall''.
Like some have just said there are some really really nutty whacky pro Israel Christians around, who seem more jewish than...well the jewish people themselves. But many do really love Israel in a much more sane way; i came across a young woman recently who is not Jewish at all, but she is going to go and live in Israel and she really is into the culture/life/nation and everything and she is an evangelical christian.
Saul of Tarus...whoops...I keep doinf that...of Littlehampton!!!!
Posted by daisymay (# 1480) on
:
Similar to Baptist Trainfan, people in our family have had problems because of names, Sephardic Judaism, one lot who were probably forced several hundred years ago to become RC, but later chose Anglican, later still Baptist. The others, in Cape Town, still really Jewish, were badly prejudiced against, particularly when in the army as men were forced to be during thet time of anti-black South Africans, when racism was very strong "legally".
Both kinds of "church" have been prejudiced, just as England used to be but IMO is not so much atm.
Posted by Spike (# 36) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Saul the Apostle:
Saul of Tarus...whoops...I keep doinf that...of Littlehampton!!!!
I think we've got the joke now
Posted by Stetson (# 9597) on
:
quote:
do YOU remember flannelgraphs too !!!! ).
Well, I actually had to do a google on that, and the images that came up, plus the wikipedia decription, seemed VAGUELY familiar. Not sure if they were a big part of my education back in the day.
Wiki said they were closely associated with evangelical Sunday Schools. I went to pretty secularized Catholic schools in Canada, so I don't know how prominent they would have been, if at all. Like I say, it rings a vague sort of bell.
quote:
Like I said I have heard ''anti jewish'' comments but more probably from ignorance than say virulent anti semitism that was evident in say middle europe in the 1930s. Many folk near where I live have seldom met anyone who is jewish; therefore some views are a bit ''off the wall''.
Totally unscientific on my part here, but I'd say that most of the anti-semitism I've encountered has been not directly religious, but more just along the lines of "Oh you know those Jews, they're tight-fisted, sharp businessmen etc". BUT I will also say that most of the time, these comments seemed to be coming from people who, while not practicing Christians, had Christianity in their immediate background. Like, they were lapsed Catholics who still identified culturally as Catholic, that sort of thing.
Posted by LutheranChik (# 9826) on
:
I heard some overtly anti-Semitic messages straight from the pulpit, growing up in a small rural Lutheran Church Missouri Synod congregation -- things like how the Holocaust was God's punishment of the Jews for rejecting Jesus. (An idea I rejected as soon as I heard it -- just one of many coffin nails that sealed the end of my relationship with that particular church body while I was still in college.) Lutheranism's sad history of anti-Semitism makes me particularly conscious of anti-Semitic subtexts, so when I hear fundamentalists going on about their love of the Jewish people in one breath while in the next breath condemning them to hell if they don't get with the Christian program, my crap detector starts swinging into red alert territory.
Posted by MerlintheMad (# 12279) on
:
I can't speak for anti-semitism vis-a-vis being denominational. I also see it as a very despised prejudice, definitely not politically correct.
However, I wonder if we are not seeing a morphing of public opinion toward Israel's Jews, if not those Jews living amongst us. I don't see the State of Israel as a positive thing for the Jewish people lately. If things continue to develop as they are, and Islamist fundamentalism grows powerful enough in the world generally, I worry that Israel will become the rock upon which the whole Jewish "race" will be broken: this can only happen, of course, if the USA and other friends of Israel back off, out of fear, and let the Islamists attack Israel: no matter how strong Israel is, they cannot hope to survive a general world antipathy....
Posted by Alogon (# 5513) on
:
On another forum, after describing how I had attended a Friday evening synagogue service with a friend when we were both visiting New York, an American evangelical or fundamentalist correspondent chastised me for not shunning a "false religion." My own impression is that anti-Semitism is not dead among them, but only dormant, just like anti-Catholicism, for reasons of expediency. Those with any pre-millennial notions at all are very happy with Jews as long as they are in Israel, because of a belief that this is a sign of the end times. As far as Roman Catholicism is concerned, they find common cause in politicizing a couple issues of "sexual morality" of which we are all aware.
The only time I ever heard the term "Christ-killing Jews" was in a speech from the leader of the U.S. Nazi party ca. 1969. Anti-Semitism can exist without going that far. It seems to me that if one denies the continuing validity of their religion, which our faith does not require us to do, then the essential ingredient of anti-Semitism is in place.
Posted by Ricardus (# 8757) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Eliab:
It's much the same in the secular world - I work in London, as a lawyer, where Jews are heavily represented. No gentile I know thinks that matters in the slightest. None of my Jewish clients (including some very orthodox types) appear to have been worried about any anti-semitism from me or from the system generally.
It's a deeply unfashionable prejudice to hold, as far as I can see.
As even Nick Griffin seems to have decided, if Wikipedia's quoted speech to BNP activists is genuine: quote:
If we were to attack some other ethnic group—some people say we should attack the Jews... But ... we've got to get to power. And if that was an issue we chose to bang on about when the press don't talk about it ... the public would just think we were barking mad. They'd just think oh, you're attacking Jews just because you want to attack Jews. You're attacking this group of powerful Zionists just because you want to take poor Manny Cohen the tailor and shove him in a gas chamber. That's what the public would think. It wouldn't get us anywhere other than stepping backwards. It would lock us in a little box; the public would think "extremist crank lunatics, nothing to do with me." And we wouldn't get power.
Posted by Saul the Apostle (# 13808) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by LutheranChik:
I heard some overtly anti-Semitic messages straight from the pulpit, growing up in a small rural Lutheran Church Missouri Synod congregation -- things like how the Holocaust was God's punishment of the Jews for rejecting Jesus. (An idea I rejected as soon as I heard it -- just one of many coffin nails that sealed the end of my relationship with that particular church body while I was still in college.) Lutheranism's sad history of anti-Semitism makes me particularly conscious of anti-Semitic subtexts, so when I hear fundamentalists going on about their love of the Jewish people in one breath while in the next breath condemning them to hell if they don't get with the Christian program, my crap detector starts swinging into red alert territory.
The Lutheran aspect is interesting. Have Lutheran views moderated now I wonder?
Also, with the extreme philo-semitism, that too can be suffocating and done to purely confirm ones own views eg end time programme/last days etc.
I wonder if any Roman Catholics on SOF have had any experiences of anti semitism in their church? I understand that in certain parts of Europe (like Poland and maybe pther middle european nations) there was a very strong anti jewish feeling; based on the ''Christ killer'' libel.
I have certainly come across some evangelicals who were seriously barking (loco) over the jewish people and Israel, but equally there are some who have a genuine and sincere love for both individuals and also the whole race of Jewish people.
Saul
Posted by Johnny S (# 12581) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Stetson:
Well, there's also what I've heard referred to as "philo-semitism" among some protestant fundamentalists, where one likes Jews, and celebrates the Jewish roots of Christianity, the catch being that to be truly Jewish, Jews must convert to Christianity, and the ones who don't will suffer some pretty severe agony after Armageddon.
This is the issue isn't it?
i.e. is it anti-semitic, in and of itself, simply to proselytise Jews?
Posted by multipara (# 2918) on
:
RC speaking here:
No, not at all.
I grew up at a time when the horrors of the Holocaust were publicised for anyone who wanted to be made aware. I have a strong recollection of the trial of Eichmann when aged 9. William Shirer's work "The rise and Fall of the Third Reich" was on the history reading list when I left school in 1969. I might add that in Oz there was not a strong anti-Semitic bias; by the time I was a teenagers Oxz was accustomed to the "reffos" of the 1930s who got out before 1939. The big shock came 40 years later with the revelation that some of the D(isplaced ) P(ersons) post 1945 from Poland ,Ukraine and Hungary) were being hunted down by Wiesenthal and his mob.
Who has the answer? I don't know. Is the vileness of the current israeli management toward the Palestinians justified? I think not.
What I do think is that the (supposed;y) Joannine views of the like of Mel Gibson, SSPX and other neo-con nasties are not representative of average (lay) RCC viewpoints.
m
Posted by ken (# 2460) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Johnny S:
... is it anti-semitic, in and of itself, simply to proselytise Jews?
Jesus and the apostles did. The first Christians were Jews. I can;t see how we could rule it out of order without turning our back on them.
Posted by Johnny S (# 12581) on
:
Ssshhh Ken, people might hear you.
Posted by Rosa Winkel (# 11424) on
:
I've never experienced a anti-semitism pseudo-theology in a church, and I'm someone whose ears are quite open to hearing anti-semitism.
I'm fortunate in having a former Priest who was strong on Judaism and educated his Parish to the faith.
The only anti-semitism I've heard by Christians is of a non-theology basis, where Jews are accused of doing their own 'final solution' with Palestinians. That's not been said from pulpits, though.
Posted by Alaric the Goth (# 511) on
:
We have a Jewish Christian in our church. He is actually a shipmate, but hasn’t posted much! He maintains his Jewish identity (e.g. a yarmulke on his head most of the time) and works as an evangelist amongst Jews in the UK. He preached last Sunday morning, and is always entertaining and thought-provoking when he does so.
He did encounter anti-Semitism at a Christian festival, I think in this summer, being pointed at and overhearing some comments as to him having come to the ‘wrong place’, presuming by his appearance that he was ‘still’ Jewish (which he is of course) and therefore ‘not Christian’.
Posted by ken (# 2460) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Alaric the Goth:
We have a Jewish Christian in our church. .
Have been in just about every church I've ever been associated with, including my current church. They persuaded me (by example, not argument) that the popular fake seder thing in Holy Week is not just rather naff and embarrassing (which I have thought ever since I first came across it decades ago) but also not a good idea. I think we should talk about and teach about Jewish festivals but not pretend to be what we're not.
Posted by Ender's Shadow (# 2272) on
:
To charge in with my hob nail boots where you angels are fearing to tread...
I think we need to engage with the material in the New Testament that suggests that the destruction of Jerusalem in AD 70 was the judgement of God on the Jews for their rejection of Jesus, and that the calling down of a curse on themselves of the crowd at Jesus' trial did have real significance. BUT - and it is a vital point - that is no excuse for us to act in judgement against the Jews any more than we claim the right to act in judgement against any other sinner. The problem is that this is a hard line to hold, and it's easier to ignore the material, especially when the concept of God acting in judgement at all is deeply unfashionable, let alone in New Testament times...
At the risk of proof texting consider:
quote:
26As they led him away, they seized Simon from Cyrene, who was on his way in from the country, and put the cross on him and made him carry it behind Jesus. 27A large number of people followed him, including women who mourned and wailed for him. 28Jesus turned and said to them, "Daughters of Jerusalem, do not weep for me; weep for yourselves and for your children. 29For the time will come when you will say, 'Blessed are the barren women, the wombs that never bore and the breasts that never nursed!' 30Then
" 'they will say to the mountains, "Fall on us!"
and to the hills, "Cover us!" '[d] 31For if men do these things when the tree is green, what will happen when it is dry?"
Lk 23:26-31
and
quote:
Then Herod went from Judea to Caesarea and stayed there a while. 20He had been quarreling with the people of Tyre and Sidon; they now joined together and sought an audience with him. Having secured the support of Blastus, a trusted personal servant of the king, they asked for peace, because they depended on the king's country for their food supply.
21On the appointed day Herod, wearing his royal robes, sat on his throne and delivered a public address to the people. 22They shouted, "This is the voice of a god, not of a man." 23Immediately, because Herod did not give praise to God, an angel of the Lord struck him down, and he was eaten by worms and died.
Acts 12:19b-23
Posted by fletcher christian (# 13919) on
:
quote:
Have been in just about every church I've ever been associated with, including my current church. They persuaded me (by example, not argument) that the popular fake seder thing in Holy Week is not just rather naff and embarrassing (which I have thought ever since I first came across it decades ago) but also not a good idea. I think we should talk about and teach about Jewish festivals but not pretend to be what we're not.
I wonder who exactly finds it naff and embarrassing? In my experience, the church doesn't know what to do with Jews who happen to be Christians. They exist in an odd limbo, they are generally not encouraged to express their Jewishness (cos we aren't Jews you know). Many churches are so embarrassed by their Jewish heritage that they would rather see it presented like it's some sort of museum piece from an archaic past rather than develop it into a living tradition that feeds into the long and rich Christian heritage. Many Jews who are also Christians never tell their friends or congregations, and if they do, they are very likely to have an experience of being treated like they are a bit 'naff' and slightly odd (possibly confused about their true identity). So before you pronounce a judgement you might want to consider why you feel it is embarrassing and naff. I know there are very evangelical groups that do verge on this, but at least they don't pretend that the last 2000 years of bitter persecution, separation and divorce didn't happen, and we can all now get along fine so long as they don't start acting all Jewish.
Posted by LutheranChik (# 9826) on
:
A couple of comments:
In response to Saul's question regarding Lutherans and anti-Semitism: The Lutheran World Federation, the German Evangelical Church, the ELCA's predecessor bodies and I think many other Lutheran church bodies have all, in the last 40 years or so, come out with public apologies for the anti-Semitic rantings of Luther's old age and for all the overt and covert anti-Semitism our tradition has tolerated or even encouraged over the centuries. The EKD has renounced trying to proselytize among the Jewish community. One of our ELCA universities here in the States is home to a well-regarded Institute of Jewish-Christian Relations. Our seminaries have also, in recent years, stepped up giving seminarians a better, more objective understanding of Jewish theology and practice, instead of intepreting it all through a Pauline lens.
That's the good news. The bad news is that I'm not quite sure how much of this has filtered down to the average pew-sitter in Middle America who tends to carry a lot of inherited cultural bigotry toward Jews. And the more conservative Lutheran church bodies in the U.S., like the one in which I was raised, seem to be loathe to get on the bandwagon of greater Lutheranism's repudiation of anti-Semitism, apparently if only because teh librul heretics started it. ![[Devil]](graemlins/devil.gif)
And -- they truly believe that the Jews are going to hell if they do not convert, period, so I suppose they don't want to be seen as abandoning evangelism to the Jewish people.
What's interesting to me as a Lutheran Christian is how our enhanced understanding of/appreciation for Jewish theology is going to in the long run affect our centuries-old meme of the Law = onerous, oppressive barrier to relationship with God. Not that works-righteousness in our sense of the word doesn't rear its head in contemporary Judaism -- not too long ago I heard a very funny radio essay by a former yeshiva student about the mental gymnastics demanded of his teachers in learning how to say proper blessings over meals (class tests included a story problem of how to bless a casserole) -- but that's really not reflective of thoughtful Jewish understanding of the Law or of Jewish praxis.
As far as the "naffness" (love that term) of pseudo-seders and the like: I think a distinction needs to be made between Christians with a Jewish cultural heritage who want to maintain their family/cultural customs while embracing Christianity and non-Jewish Christians who want to better understand Judaism intellectually or want to somehow get closer to Jesus on an experiential level by sharing in what they think are practices he participated in. I understand the former; to the latter folks I'd gently suggest that instead of borrowing/bowlderizing Jewish rituals, they reach out, as faith communities and individuals, to their Jewish neighbors and learn about Judaism from them.
Posted by Stetson (# 9597) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by ken:
quote:
Originally posted by Johnny S:
... is it anti-semitic, in and of itself, simply to proselytise Jews?
Jesus and the apostles did. The first Christians were Jews. I can;t see how we could rule it out of order without turning our back on them.
I would assume that Christians think Jews should be proselytized just the same as anyone else. Where it gets a bit dodgy is when some Christians(again, mostly your pre-millenial end-timers) think that there is an urgent obligation to target Jews specifically, as if Jews more than anyone else were duty-bound to accept Christ.
And of course, with these end-timers in on the act, it can likely be difficult for the saner elements of the Christian community to do outreach toward Jews. Since a lot of Jews might assume that any Christian trying to preach to them is doing so simply because he wants them all to either convert or gather in the Holy Land to be zapped by a giant thundebolt after the apocalypse.
Posted by Stetson (# 9597) on
:
quote:
We have a Jewish Christian in our church. He is actually a shipmate, but hasn’t posted much! He maintains his Jewish identity (e.g. a yarmulke on his head most of the time) and works as an evangelist amongst Jews in the UK.
A friend of mine back in Canada is a "messianic Jew", which as far as I can tell, is basically just a bunch of gentile evangelical Christians who have styled themselves as Jews.
Obviously, people should be free to declare themselves anything that they want. But something does grate a little about the way he describes his group as being just another bunch of Jews, as legitimate as any other. For example, he'll say stuff like "Well, there are two types of Jews, the type that I am, and then the ones who haven't accepted Christ". As if you could open up the Encyclopedia Britannica and see Messianic Jews discussed in the paragraph immediately following Reform Judaism in the relevant entry.
That said, it's no more goofier than Wiccans who talk about how "we" were tortured and burned during the Inquisition, or, for that matter, Christians of any stripe who use the same pronoun when describing the victims of Nero's persecutions.
Posted by Stetson (# 9597) on
:
Oh and to be clear, my above post was not meant to imply the same thing about the Jewish Christian mentioned in the post I was replying to.
Posted by leo (# 1458) on
:
Most anti-semitism is unconscious in Christian churches here, like the assumptions behind hymn lyrics siuch as the Jews, 'deeply wailing shall the true messiah see' and ''Sometimes they strew his way....hosannas, then crucify....'
Also holding Christian 'seders' as if Judaism is a museum piece.
I'd add the term 'OLD Testament'.
Posted by Baptist Trainfan (# 15128) on
:
quote:
Most anti-semitism is unconscious in Christian churches here, like the assumptions behind hymn lyrics siuch as the Jews, 'deeply wailing shall the true messiah see' and ''Sometimes they strew his way....hosannas, then crucify....'
I can't agree that this is even unconscious anti-Semitism. If that's the case, then St. Paul, whose "heart's desire" was for Israel to be saved and who certainly believed that all people needed to believe in Christ for salvation - was an anti-Semite. And I don't think he was - even though many of his contemporaries presumably felt that he had become a traitor.
If we, as Christians, say that we understand Jesus to be the fulfilment of Jewish prophecy about the Messiah, and that we are saddened that many Jews do not accept him as such, does that immediately make us anti-Semitic? Leo's point of view seems to say that it does.
Christianity - whether we like it or not - is a conversionist and exclusivist religion at heart, and so similar sentiments will apply to adherents of all other religions. Does that make us anti-Muslim or anti-Hindu? I hope not, though I accept that some Christians do say crass, uninformed and highly objectionable comments about other faiths and their followers.
Posted by Saul the Apostle (# 13808) on
:
Lutheran Chik said: quote:
The Lutheran World Federation, the German Evangelical Church, the ELCA's predecessor bodies and I think many other Lutheran church bodies have all, in the last 40 years or so, come out with public apologies for the anti-Semitic rantings of Luther's old age and for all the overt and covert anti-Semitism our tradition has tolerated or even encouraged over the centuries. The EKD has renounced trying to proselytize among the Jewish community. One of our ELCA universities here in the States is home to a well-regarded Institute of Jewish-Christian Relations. Our seminaries have also, in recent years, stepped up giving seminarians a better, more objective understanding of Jewish theology and practice, instead of intepreting it all through a Pauline lens.
Strangely enough it sounds bit like Philip Yancey's journey too. He was born in the southern USA and was a young man in the civil rights era. He had an amazing journey starting of as a southern racist and made a number of startling discoveries in his journey about his own ''bigotedness'' (poor grammar!). A very fascinating journey (I recommend Yancy's books by the way).
Yancy's journey has a parallel with my own as I was a Liverpool Brethren and our church was just about opposed to most things that didn't square with a small minded narrow church. I viewed Catholics as the devil's spawn ( I hasten to add I now love them as dear brothers and sisters in Christ)............... but I understand bigotry and prejudice and the journey to ''unlearn'' things can take a lifetime.
Saul
Posted by Eliab (# 9153) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by LutheranChik:
As far as the "naffness" (love that term) of pseudo-seders and the like: I think a distinction needs to be made between Christians with a Jewish cultural heritage who want to maintain their family/cultural customs while embracing Christianity and non-Jewish Christians who want to better understand Judaism intellectually or want to somehow get closer to Jesus on an experiential level by sharing in what they think are practices he participated in.
Why?
I understand the point about practices being "naff and embarrassing" - but that's hardly an argument against them. Most social events are naff and embarrassing to someone.
I'm sure that there are Scots who would find in naff and embarrassing to hear me (an Englishman) sing "Auld Lang Syne" on New Year's Eve, and they are fully entitled to their view, but I don't see why that should bother me. I've never been to any Christian seder, but I can't see any reason to object to them. People who find them naff have a perfect remedy - they can stay away. I don't see that it's anti-semitic in the slightest.
Posted by fletcher christian (# 13919) on
:
Eliab, i think it has to do with a number of things:
The idea that it sits slightly uneasily with Christianity - partly because it also is still so deeply divorced from it's own roots.
Because in some places it is done badly, and can have negative overtones, or appear butchered to fit a theology it was never intended to convey
Because the self-righteous brigade see fit to be able to dictate what other christians can and can't do. The same self righteous brigade spread their new brand of anti-semtism wherever they go, labelling all Jewish Christians with the same stupid stereotypes of Messianic loons and odd ball people.
If Jewish Christians practice the law they are labelled as religious nuts. If they continue to practice their own traditions, they face insult (see Leo's post above), because sadly, some morons think it's always acceptable to get in the face of other people and tell them what to do, and no matter how many times you explain your position, they refuse to even have an inkling of understanding about where these people are coming from. But of course they are so well educated on the topic, they know better than Jewish Christians themselves ![[Mad]](angryfire.gif)
Posted by Jessie Phillips (# 13048) on
:
If I may barge in ...
Saul the Apostle says:
quote:
Then of course is the Jewish - Israel link and of course thats complicated. The base line of reasonableness seems to be that Israel can be criticised (like any other nation eg say Italy and Berlesconi etc etc etc), but one supports Israel's right to exist - if one is reasonable.
The trouble with that argument is that it begs the question about the right to exist of any nation state.
But in order to nail that one down, you need to be able to define "nation state", which means you need to be able to distinguish a "nation state" from other types of corporate entity, such as businesses, partnerships, government departments, charities, religions, social clubs, families, and street gangs.
Does North Korea have the Right to Exist? Does the United Kingdom have the Right to Exist? Does Enron have the Right to Exist? What about Goldman Sachs, or News International, or Scientology, the British National Party, the European Union, the United Nations, the Taliban, or al-Qaeda? Do all of these entities have an equivalent "right to exist"? If not, why not? And how exactly do you define a corporate entity's "right to exist"?
Since the concept of "right to existence" seems to be so loosely defined, it seems equally loose to use it to define whether or not someone is "anti-semitic".
Alogon says
quote:
Those with any pre-millennial notions at all are very happy with Jews as long as they are in Israel, because of a belief that this is a sign of the end times.
I'm sure you're aware that "pre-millenial" does not necessarily mean "Christian Zionist". Girolama Savonarola was a pre-tribulation pre-millenialist in 15th century Florence, but the Protestant Reformation hadn't even happened by then, never mind Zionism.
Baptist Trainfan says
quote:
If we, as Christians, say that we understand Jesus to be the fulfilment of Jewish prophecy about the Messiah, and that we are saddened that many Jews do not accept him as such, does that immediately make us anti-Semitic? Leo's point of view seems to say that it does.
I don't think it makes us anti-Semitic - however, I'd question whether it's technically accurate to describe the prophesies as "Jewish", since a number of the prophesies that Jesus is said to have fulfilled depended on the Hebrew Bible being translated into Greek - such as Isaiah 7:14 being about virgins.
The single most important prophesy that Jesus fulfilled, in my humble opinion, is Daniel 12:1-3 - which Jesus fulfilled in his resurrection. Every other prophesy that Jesus is supposed to have fulfilled is secondary to that, in my opinion. However, whilst the book of Daniel is considered "prophesy" in the Christian Old Testament, it's not considered prophesy in the Hebrew Bible.
If Christians and Jews saw Jewish prophesy in the same way, then modern Christian translations of the Old Testament would be identical to modern Jewish translations of the Hebrew Bible. But they're not. Even Calvinists and Protestants who reject the scriptural authority of the Apocrypha still use an Old Testament that's markedly different to a Jewish Hebrew Bible. So whilst it might not be anti-Semitic to ignore that fact, it does seem to reflect a lack of detailed understanding of rabbinical Jewish culture. So I can understand that it's something that Jews probably hear over and over again, and maybe some of them tire of it.
quote:
Christianity - whether we like it or not - is a conversionist and exclusivist religion at heart, and so similar sentiments will apply to adherents of all other religions. Does that make us anti-Muslim or anti-Hindu? I hope not, though I accept that some Christians do say crass, uninformed and highly objectionable comments about other faiths and their followers.
I suppose the question we really have to ask, then, is whether it bothers us or not to be considered anti-Semitic. I suspect that the charge of "anti-Semitism" is frequently flung in polemical arguments about which, when the dust has settled, no-one actually gives a toss. But that's a far cry from rounding people up and stuffing them into a gas chamber. So I think we need to try to keep it in perspective.
[ 08. December 2009, 17:57: Message edited by: Jessie Phillips ]
Posted by ken (# 2460) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by fletcher christian:
I wonder who exactly finds it naff and embarrassing?
Me. As I said.
quote:
In my experience, the church doesn't know what to do with Jews who happen to be Christians. They exist in an odd limbo, they are generally not encouraged to express their Jewishness (cos we aren't Jews you know).
On my experience the exact opposite is true. They end up getting treated as the authority on all things Jewish, including large chunks of the Bible.
Posted by ken (# 2460) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by fletcher christian:
I know there are very evangelical groups that do verge on this, but at least they don't pretend that the last 2000 years of bitter persecution, separation and divorce didn't happen, and we can all now get along fine so long as they don't start acting all Jewish.
Who is pretending all that?
Posted by LutheranChik (# 9826) on
:
Saul: And just to perhaps add some perspective to the p.o.v. of the church body in which I was raised: I don't think that their institutional (as opposed to personal) anti-Semitism is apparent to them. I think they're persons who understand themselves to have a "high" view of Scripture, who see the Jewish people being punished for various corporate sins over and over again in the Bible, and who think not only that the Holocaust was just one more historical manifestation of divine displeasure but that Christians who reject this interpretation must not embue Scripture with the same authority and respect that they themselves do.
That, again, is an institutional understanding. On the individual level -- my own Old Country relatives, and people in my childhood church, were quite happy to think of Jews as villainous Christ-killers and financial predators of "good Christians" who got what they deserved in various Inquisitions, pogroms and other persecutions.
And I'm sorry to note that I've even encountered that attitude in the ELCA. In my lay ministry training program -- ironically, during a session where we were tasked with creating and impromptu children's sermon, and given a text from John's Gospel to render into a multi-age kid-friendly message -- one of the older students responded to the question "What is a Jew?" (intended to remind us that you can't assume children or even adults in the congregation have a grasp on even common Bible-ese) with "Those were the people who killed Jesus." There was an audible collective gasp in the room, and the instructor had to stop everything and try to explain to this 70-year-old aspiring lay minister why what he said was so wrong. And the sad thing is...I don't think he got it, even after the explanation.
[ 08. December 2009, 18:11: Message edited by: LutheranChik ]
Posted by ken (# 2460) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by LutheranChik:
... to the latter folks I'd gently suggest that instead of borrowing/bowlderizing Jewish rituals, they reach out, as faith communities and individuals, to their Jewish neighbors and learn about Judaism from them.
Exactly the point I was making. Why make a fake when the real thing is around?
Posted by JoannaP (# 4493) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Stetson:
A friend of mine back in Canada is a "messianic Jew", which as far as I can tell, is basically just a bunch of gentile evangelical Christians who have styled themselves as Jews.
How odd. AIUI, a "messianic Jew" is a Jew who accepts that Jesus is the Messiah foretold in the OT but who does not want to abandon their Jewish identity. I have certainly never come across the phrase being used by some-one who was not born and brought up a Jew.
Posted by Stetson (# 9597) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by JoannaP:
quote:
Originally posted by Stetson:
A friend of mine back in Canada is a "messianic Jew", which as far as I can tell, is basically just a bunch of gentile evangelical Christians who have styled themselves as Jews.
How odd. AIUI, a "messianic Jew" is a Jew who accepts that Jesus is the Messiah foretold in the OT but who does not want to abandon their Jewish identity. I have certainly never come across the phrase being used by some-one who was not born and brought up a Jew.
Well, now that I think about it, I could have been wrong in implying that the "messianic Jews" are mostly born-gentile. I know for a fact that the person I'm thinking of is, though.
I'd always had the idea that the group "Jews For Jesus" was made up of Jews, born and raised, who had converted to Christianity, but that this wasn't the case with everyone calling themselves messianic Jews. Maybe I'll do some more research into this.
Posted by Stetson (# 9597) on
:
Hmm. According to this article, there is a messianic congregation in Dayton, consisting of 30 members, only five of whom are of Jewish lineage. Not sure how this would compare to the movement as a whole.
Posted by JoannaP (# 4493) on
:
Perhaps it's a pond difference?
Posted by Ender's Shadow (# 2272) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Stetson:
quote:
Originally posted by JoannaP:
AIUI, a "messianic Jew" is a Jew who accepts that Jesus is the Messiah foretold in the OT but who does not want to abandon their Jewish identity. I have certainly never come across the phrase being used by some-one who was not born and brought up a Jew.
Well, now that I think about it, I could have been wrong in implying that the "messianic Jews" are mostly born-gentile. I know for a fact that the person I'm thinking of is, though.
Are you sure? The correct definition of a Jew for this purpose is matrilinear descent from a Jewish woman. The rabbis have chosen to exclude Christians by definition - though not Buddhist, Atheist or Hindu Jews - on the grounds of our treatment of them. But for all you know, he may have a Jewish maternal grandmother...
Posted by Saul the Apostle (# 13808) on
:
Lutheran Chik said: quote:
On the individual level -- my own Old Country relatives, and people in my childhood church, were quite happy to think of Jews as villainous Christ-killers and financial predators of "good Christians" who got what they deserved in various Inquisitions, pogroms and other persecutions.
I think that sort of comment is what I was interested in when i first posted. Maybe the resonance from those attitudes still persists in certain corners of the church today?
Despite what some feel maybe prejudice is more prevalent than we care to admit; I know that from a personal view, I have wrestled with prejudices that i was given in my early days and I have had to actively try and turn my back on my prejudices.
The Messianic Jewish debate is I think another (equally valid) thread.
I understand that some Jewish people who come to know Jesus as the Messiah or Christ, choose to worship in a variet of ways, some may choose to keep some of the festivals etc etc. some may not. There are a mix of folk in Messianic Jewish circles, some are gentiles who are attracted to Judaism/ Israel etc etc etc.
Saul
Posted by the Pookah (# 9186) on
:
Being Jewish, I'd say I really feel it in Europe. Modern anti-semitism comes from the Left & is tied to being anti-Israel. I can't tell you how many articles I read that started with a critique of Israel (fine) and segued to 'the Jews.' The vibe I got was it's personal & it's a topic that never stops, with the teachers boycott etc, I think 'why do they
hate me?'
In Dublin I'd go to a local Libyan market, really nice people who knew we were Jewish & I'd read the hair-raising local Islamic paper filled with hate, stereotypes etc. No one did anything.My Italian Jewish friend who lives in Budapest is worried too ; the Hungarian Right.
I don't find any anti-semitism from churches, I have lots of Christian friends, but I find the Left in the Church have the same endless obsession.
the Pookah
Posted by Evangeline (# 7002) on
:
quote:
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by Yerevan:
PS Though apparently there are still Jews in the UK who won't fill in their religion on the census.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
That may be because they are not religious. I know a lot of Secular Jews who never set foot inside a Synagogue.
In most cases, it's about the potential of the records to be used against the population. In countries occupied by the Nazis in WWII, those who had "good" records of their population had much higher death rates of Jewish (and others that the Nazis didn't like) people than those whose records were chaotic or non-existant. IN some countries (maybe Holland? I can't remember now) the Nazis rocked up to city Hall and the records told them whose doors to bash down.
Posted by Yerevan (# 10383) on
:
quote:
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by Yerevan:
PS Though apparently there are still Jews in the UK who won't fill in their religion on the census.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
That may be because they are not religious. I know a lot of Secular Jews who never set foot inside a Synagogue.
According to a Jewish friend of mine its fear of being identified as Jewish on official records....a little paranoid I know, but understandable given the history.
Posted by Yerevan (# 10383) on
:
quote:
I'd add the term 'OLD Testament'.
Its more complicated then that. The 'Old Testament' thing just reflects the fact that Judaism and Christianity aren't in agreement on some fairly important issues. Rightly or wrongly Christians believe that Jesus is the Jewish messiah. Rightly or wrongly Jews believe that he isn't. There's an inevitable conflict of opinion there and it isn't anti-Semitic or anti-Christian to come down on one side or the other.
Posted by Eliab (# 9153) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by fletcher christian:
Eliab, i think it has to do with a number of things:
The idea that it sits slightly uneasily with Christianity - partly because it also is still so deeply divorced from it's own roots.
Because in some places it is done badly, and can have negative overtones, or appear butchered to fit a theology it was never intended to convey
SFW? All of that could (with some justice) be said of the singing of Psalms in my church, which I frequently find naff and embarrassing. Doesn't make it wrong.
quote:
Because the self-righteous brigade see fit to be able to dictate what other christians can and can't do. The same self righteous brigade spread their new brand of anti-semtism wherever they go, labelling all Jewish Christians with the same stupid stereotypes of Messianic loons and odd ball people.
Who are these people?
There's only side of the discussion that comes anywhere near to "dictating what other christians can and can't do" and that's the one represented by ken and LutheranChik. And as they are not so much "dictating" as expressing their view as to what we ‘should' (rather than ‘can') do, and as neither of them are remotely self-righteous or inclined to stereotypes, you can't mean them. Who do you mean?
I really don't see what the objection is to cultural borrowings. I don't care in the least if my secularist neighbour wants to put up a Christmas tree. If I want to perform a haka or write a haiku then I do no injury to the ethnic groups from which those forms originated. I see no reason why white singers shouldn't rap, or black singers do opera. These things aren't anyone's private property. To say that if you're a Christians whose grandparents were Jews, you are allowed to eat a meal in a certain style, but if they were gentiles then you ought not to is, IMO, basically objectionable. It is fundamentally wrong to say to someone that they can't do something because they are (or are not) in a particular ethnic group. Let people do whatever the hell harmless, naff and embarrassing things they like, as far as I'm concerned.
[ 09. December 2009, 09:43: Message edited by: Eliab ]
Posted by Enoch (# 14322) on
:
The Pookah has a very important point. A lot of the left's instinctive identification with the Palestinians is because it gives them an excuse to be anti-semitic without having to admit it to themselves.
The same goes for church leaders who identify with Palestinians generally rather than specifically with Palestinian Christians who we do have a duty to stick up for, against discrimination from Moslems as much as from Israelis.
Posted by ken (# 2460) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Enoch:
The Pookah has a very important point. A lot of the left's instinctive identification with the Palestinians is because it gives them an excuse to be anti-semitic without having to admit it to themselves.
I'm sorry that is complete nonsense. Well for the British Left anyway, might be different in other countries. There is no "instinctive identification with the Palestinians" its something that grew slowly during the 1970s and 1980s. I saw it happening. And it is by no means all the Left, or possibly even most of it. And most of the people who take that line are not anti-semitic. And on the whole, in Britain, left-wingers are far less anti-semitic than right-wingers.
Posted by Saul the Apostle (# 13808) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Yerevan:
quote:
I'd add the term 'OLD Testament'.
Its more complicated then that. The 'Old Testament' thing just reflects the fact that Judaism and Christianity aren't in agreement on some fairly important issues. Rightly or wrongly Christians believe that Jesus is the Jewish messiah. Rightly or wrongly Jews believe that he isn't. There's an inevitable conflict of opinion there and it isn't anti-Semitic or anti-Christian to come down on one side or the other.
Abslolutely. The ''old'' testament is God's first revelation and if you like the ''new'' testament is God's next and final revelation to the world both jewish and gentile.
Sadly, I can understand many Jewish people not filling in their census forms on and decline to give their religion.....given the apalling virulent German anti semitism of 1933 to 1945.
Yes, Yerevan, ultimately you're right, either Jeus is (as C.S. Lewis puts it) Lord, liar or lunatic. His claim is clear as God's Messiah; all people need to choose him as Messiah if they so wish, Jewish or Gentile. Much of the rest of the following arguments (about jewish festivals is in a sense ''window dressing'' IMO. That is we should have freedom in Messiah/Christ to follow him as our consciences dictate.
Saul
Posted by Yerevan (# 10383) on
:
quote:
I find the Left in the Church have the same endless obsession.
Its just an example of the extent to which the Christian left is derivative of the secular left. Israel-Palestine is, to put it bluntly, fashionable...more fashionable then Burma or Tibet, much more fashionable (as a rule) then ethnic conflict in Africa or the Caucasus. This is not to say it isn't important. It is. I'm just not sure the ill-treatment of Palestinians is more important then the ill-treatment of non-Han Chinese or Indian Muslims or Christians or women in Saudi Arabia. IMO its fashionable on the 'hard' left because Israel-Palestine involves a largely white people with strong European links and US support oppressing a non-white people, and therefore fits very well with a broader hard left narratives of colonialism, imperialism etc etc, not to mention attacking the Great Satan (the US), which is always fun...
[ 09. December 2009, 15:27: Message edited by: Yerevan ]
Posted by Yerevan (# 10383) on
:
PS As an afterthought, it might be worth noting that if we're going to ostracise Israel over Palestine then we should really ostracise China over Tibet or Russia over Chechnya too. Its the inconsistency of singling out Israel as The Worst Country Ever for doing things lots of other countries do too that makes people suspect anti-Semitism.
Posted by fletcher christian (# 13919) on
:
quote:
Much of the rest of the following arguments (about jewish festivals is in a sense ''window dressing'' IMO. That is we should have freedom in Messiah/Christ to follow him as our consciences dictate.
Except that some feel they can't, or at least, they feel that they are encouraged not to. That was part of the original point I made about the church not knowing what to do with or about Jewish Christians. It's a very complicated issue that effects the whole of the church from the charismatics, to the evangelicals, to the anglo caths and the liberals. No matter what 'branch' of the church Jewish Christians find themselves in there are always going to be problems and various obstacles; from those who consider Jewish Christians practicing religious observance who hoping it could be a part of Christian heritage that has vitality and meaning trying to explain their situation to Christians who feel deeply uncomfortable with this. Now my question is, why do these things raise the heckles to the point that Christians consider them naff and embarrassing? I think in answering that question one might uncover a latent and unquestioned anti-semitism that has been absorbed from Christianity in its present state, or uncover the uncomfortable truth of the separation of Judaism and Christianity. Jewish Christians are in the unfortunate position of bringing these two things to mind (there are other issues too, obviously), with the result that, generally speaking, the church is happy to have them so long as they don't appear to be overtly Jewish. It's very messy when they are overtly Jewish, and there is even the possibility of great offence being generated through their actions. They offend both Jews and Christians precisely because they are an uncomfortable reminder of a deeply unpleasant past.
So the question of the OP was , is anti-semitism alive and well in the church? I think it is, and often in small and hidden ways. Often in ways that many Christians don't even see, or in some cases, don't even understand. But it's still there.
Posted by leo (# 1458) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Baptist Trainfan:
quote:
Most anti-semitism is unconscious in Christian churches here, like the assumptions behind hymn lyrics siuch as the Jews, 'deeply wailing shall the true messiah see' and ''Sometimes they strew his way....hosannas, then crucify....'
I can't agree that this is even unconscious anti-Semitism. If that's the case, then St. Paul, whose "heart's desire" was for Israel to be saved and who certainly believed that all people needed to believe in Christ for salvation - was an anti-Semite. And I don't think he was - even though many of his contemporaries presumably felt that he had become a traitor.
If we, as Christians, say that we understand Jesus to be the fulfilment of Jewish prophecy about the Messiah, and that we are saddened that many Jews do not accept him as such, does that immediately make us anti-Semitic? Leo's point of view seems to say that it does.
Christianity - whether we like it or not - is a conversionist and exclusivist religion at heart, and so similar sentiments will apply to adherents of all other religions. Does that make us anti-Muslim or anti-Hindu? I hope not, though I accept that some Christians do say crass, uninformed and highly objectionable comments about other faiths and their followers.
The assumption behind your post is that there is only one covenant and that God's has switched it from the Jews to the Christians. That is not how Paul saw it and the Roman Catholic church's Nostra Aetate specifically addresses this.
Otherwise, it is the job of the Christian to try to convert Jews. Jews see this as more of a threat than Hitler. Thus they deem it as anti-Semitic.
Posted by Chesterbelloc (# 3128) on
:
leo, the Roman Catholic Church not only welcomes but positively prays for the conversion of the Jewish people to Christ. Just like Paul did.
[ 09. December 2009, 16:05: Message edited by: Chesterbelloc ]
Posted by Ender's Shadow (# 2272) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Chesterbelloc:
leo, the Roman Catholic Church not only welcomes but positively prays for the conversion of the Jewish people to Christ. Just like Paul did.
Well, let's say that the Rome, like the CofE, is confused about this. There remains a theoretical commitment to do so, but the list of Presidents of the Council of Christians and Jews includes the Archbishop of Westminster (or rather the retired one, presumably the site is out of date). Membership of the council is dependent on a willing to commit to NOT evangelising...
Meanwhile back in the CofE, CMJ remains a missionary society dedicated to 'To encourage Jewish people to come to faith in Yeshua (Jesus) as their Messiah, to support them in serving him as Lord in the light of God's purpose for them, and to equip the church to be involved in this mission'
Posted by Ricardus (# 8757) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by leo:
The assumption behind your post is that there is only one covenant and that God's has switched it from the Jews to the Christians.
I don't see that assumption at all. The way I see it there was an Old Covenant which was fulfilled in Christ. Now Christ has come, we are on to the new covenant.
The Old Covenant was not restricted to Jews as an ethnic group. This is the point of the book of Jonah, and (according to Jesus) why Elijah healed a widow's son in Phoenecia rather than Israel. Jews actively proselytised for quite a large part of their history. So if the Old Covenant is still active, does that not mean that an atheist or Buddhist who sees the truth effectively has an open choice as to which covenant to sign up to? quote:
Otherwise, it is the job of the Christian to try to convert Jews. Jews see this as more of a threat than Hitler. Thus they deem it as anti-Semitic.
Jews see Christian missionaries as more of a threat than gas chambers? Christian missionaries to Jews are worse than Nazis? Or is this just ridiculous hyperbole?
![[Ultra confused]](graemlins/confused2.gif)
Posted by Ender's Shadow (# 2272) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Ricardus:
quote:
Originally posted by leo:
The assumption behind your post is that there is only one covenant and that God's has switched it from the Jews to the Christians.
I don't see that assumption at all. The way I see it there was an Old Covenant which was fulfilled in Christ. Now Christ has come, we are on to the new covenant.
The Old Covenant was not restricted to Jews as an ethnic group. This is the point of the book of Jonah, and (according to Jesus) why Elijah healed a widow's son in Phoenecia rather than Israel. Jews actively proselytised for quite a large part of their history. So if the Old Covenant is still active, does that not mean that an atheist or Buddhist who sees the truth effectively has an open choice as to which covenant to sign up to?
It think you are confusing two different issues here; the fact that God was at work outside the context of the Old Covenant at the time of the events of the OT is most clearly demonstrated by the stories of Melchizadek and Balaam who is a prophet of God in contradistinction to Moses. Note also that the people of Nineveh are not encouraged to become Jews, merely to 'repent'. In modern Jewish theology, there is a clear role for the Gentiles to live appropriately before God without becoming Jews...
quote:
quote:
Otherwise, it is the job of the Christian to try to convert Jews. Jews see this as more of a threat than Hitler. Thus they deem it as anti-Semitic.
Jews see Christian missionaries as more of a threat than gas chambers? Christian missionaries to Jews are worse than Nazis? Or is this just ridiculous hyperbole?
Seeing it from their point of view: to become a Christian is to stop being a Jew. Therefore if the Church was to achieve its target of converting all Jews, they would cease to exist as a people, thereby finishing off what the Holocaust was designed to do.
Posted by Ricardus (# 8757) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Ender's Shadow:
The fact that God was at work outside the context of the Old Covenant at the time of the events of the OT is most clearly demonstrated by the stories of Melchizadek and Balaam who is a prophet of God in contradistinction to Moses. Note also that the people of Nineveh are not encouraged to become Jews, merely to 'repent'.
God is able to work outside both the Old and the New Covenants. The point I am making is that people who were not ethnically Jewish were welcomed into the Old Covenant. Explicit examples being Ruth, Rahab and Naaman.
(It is true that Jonah does not explicitly say the Ninevites became Jewish, but he doesn't say they didn't either.)
If Gentiles can convert to Judaism, and the Old Covenant is still active, then does that not mean an atheist who sees the light effectively has a choice of covenants?
Posted by Stetson (# 9597) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Ender's Shadow:
quote:
Originally posted by Stetson:
quote:
Originally posted by JoannaP:
AIUI, a "messianic Jew" is a Jew who accepts that Jesus is the Messiah foretold in the OT but who does not want to abandon their Jewish identity. I have certainly never come across the phrase being used by some-one who was not born and brought up a Jew.
Well, now that I think about it, I could have been wrong in implying that the "messianic Jews" are mostly born-gentile. I know for a fact that the person I'm thinking of is, though.
Are you sure? The correct definition of a Jew for this purpose is matrilinear descent from a Jewish woman. The rabbis have chosen to exclude Christians by definition - though not Buddhist, Atheist or Hindu Jews - on the grounds of our treatment of them. But for all you know, he may have a Jewish maternal grandmother...
Well remember, this is self-styled Jews we're talking about, so they might not follow the rules laid out by the more traditional Jews.
But I dunno. MAYBE this guy just considers himself a Christian who worships with messianic Jews at a synagogue, but I know he wears a necklace with some sort of Star Of David worked into the design, and I know I've heard other people who know him(and aren't as theologically savvy as me) describe him as being Jewish, so I'm assuming that that's how he talks about himself to them.
And I know for a fact that he doesn't have a maternal Jewish grandmother.
Posted by Saul the Apostle (# 13808) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by fletcher christian:
quote:
Much of the rest of the following arguments (about jewish festivals is in a sense ''window dressing'' IMO. That is we should have freedom in Messiah/Christ to follow him as our consciences dictate.
Except that some feel they can't, or at least, they feel that they are encouraged not to. That was part of the original point I made about the church not knowing what to do with or about Jewish Christians. It's a very complicated issue that effects the whole of the church from the charismatics, to the evangelicals, to the anglo caths and the liberals. No matter what 'branch' of the church Jewish Christians find themselves in there are always going to be problems and various obstacles; from those who consider Jewish Christians practicing religious observance who hoping it could be a part of Christian heritage that has vitality and meaning trying to explain their situation to Christians who feel deeply uncomfortable with this. Now my question is, why do these things raise the heckles to the point that Christians consider them naff and embarrassing? I think in answering that question one might uncover a latent and unquestioned anti-semitism that has been absorbed from Christianity in its present state, or uncover the uncomfortable truth of the separation of Judaism and Christianity. Jewish Christians are in the unfortunate position of bringing these two things to mind (there are other issues too, obviously), with the result that, generally speaking, the church is happy to have them so long as they don't appear to be overtly Jewish. It's very messy when they are overtly Jewish, and there is even the possibility of great offence being generated through their actions. They offend both Jews and Christians precisely because they are an uncomfortable reminder of a deeply unpleasant past.
So the question of the OP was , is anti-semitism alive and well in the church? I think it is, and often in small and hidden ways. Often in ways that many Christians don't even see, or in some cases, don't even understand. But it's still there.
fletcher christian
that is a very thoughtful post and I need to read it a couple of times to take it in!
But yes I think you're right, jewish christians can be seen as an anachronism in a predominantly gentile church and can raise all sorts of issues that some would rather not consider or sweep under the carpet.
I've tried to keep up with the other postings, thre is a lot of thoughtful postings here. I think it fair to summarise (IMO) there isn't overt anti semitism in the church rather a latent anti semitism which can rear up into full blown from time to time. Of course the whole issue of Israel and the ''fashionable left'' is a massive area of debate just in itself.
Mmmmmm, food for thought and quite a debate.
Saul.
Posted by Stetson (# 9597) on
:
quote:
PS As an afterthought, it might be worth noting that if we're going to ostracise Israel over Palestine then we should really ostracise China over Tibet or Russia over Chechnya too. Its the inconsistency of singling out Israel as The Worst Country Ever for doing things lots of other countries do too that makes people suspect anti-Semitism.
I'd like to read into the record that I do know a number of leftists who are as opposed to China's policies in Tibet as they are to Israel's in the Territories, and are in fact quite contemptuous of other leftists who insist on defending China on whatever grounds they do.
Granted, some of them are more active on the Palestinian issue than on Tibet, but I think this is somewhat understandable. I dislike anti-Americanism more than almost any other political posture. But I do understand why western leftists would get more worked up about western-backed agression than Chinese aggression. It's sort of like how I would feel more alarmed, and called to action, if I heard that my father was down at the local pub smashing beer bottles over the heads of innocent bystanders, rather than if I heard that someone else's father down the road was doing this.
Israel grew out of European colonialism, and is kept in business, as far as its own colonialism goes, by American backing. This makes it more of a direct issue for European and North American progressives than China or Russia's activites.
Posted by Jessie Phillips (# 13048) on
:
Ender's Shadow says ....
quote:
Seeing it from their point of view: to become a Christian is to stop being a Jew. Therefore if the Church was to achieve its target of converting all Jews, they would cease to exist as a people, thereby finishing off what the Holocaust was designed to do.
Are you sure about that?
The way I see it is that the idea that Jews are so obtuse that they equate having to put up with someone yabbering on about Jesus with being sent to the gas chamber, is itself a form of anti-Semitism.
Perhaps I misunderstand what you mean by "converting", though, because I struggle to conceive of how such a thing as a "forced conversion to Christianity" can actually exist.
Saul says quote:
I've tried to keep up with the other postings, thre is a lot of thoughtful postings here. I think it fair to summarise (IMO) there isn't overt anti semitism in the church rather a latent anti semitism which can rear up into full blown from time to time.
Agreed. But I think that part of it is cultural. Doesn't Romans speak of how there's no difference between "Jew" and "Greek" in God's eyes?
It's all very well to say that there's no difference in God's eyes - but the idea that anyone might have ever thought there was a difference is nonsensical if have no understanding of the comparative cultural history.
So it begs the question, why are we more concerned about anti-Semitism than we are about anti-Hellenism? Is anti-Hellenism any less dangerous? If not, why not?
Can any of the content of 1 Maccabees be considered anti-Hellenic? You see, it seems to me that if it's fair to describe some parts of the Christian Bible as "anti-Semitic", then it's equally fair to describe other parts of the Bible as "anti-Hellenic". Which is particularly problematic for Christians, given that most of the New Testament was written in Greek. Not to mention the effect of the work of Philo on early Christian theology.
Perhaps it's just as well that the Greek-Turkish conflict in Cyprus isn't as "fashionable" for the left.
I'm still sensing that there's a lot of touchiness about the subject of anti-Semitism, but I admit there's a possibility that it's all in my head.
Posted by Albertus (# 13356) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Stetson:
quote:
PS As an afterthought, it might be worth noting that if we're going to ostracise Israel over Palestine then we should really ostracise China over Tibet or Russia over Chechnya too. Its the inconsistency of singling out Israel as The Worst Country Ever for doing things lots of other countries do too that makes people suspect anti-Semitism.
I'd like to read into the record that I do know a number of leftists who are as opposed to China's policies in Tibet as they are to Israel's in the Territories, and are in fact quite contemptuous of other leftists who insist on defending China on whatever grounds they do.
Granted, some of them are more active on the Palestinian issue than on Tibet, but I think this is somewhat understandable. I dislike anti-Americanism more than almost any other political posture. But I do understand why western leftists would get more worked up about western-backed agression than Chinese aggression. It's sort of like how I would feel more alarmed, and called to action, if I heard that my father was down at the local pub smashing beer bottles over the heads of innocent bystanders, rather than if I heard that someone else's father down the road was doing this.
Israel grew out of European colonialism, and is kept in business, as far as its own colonialism goes, by American backing. This makes it more of a direct issue for European and North American progressives than China or Russia's activites.
And don't forget that at one time Israel did attract a lot of support on the left: in many ways it is or was a profoundly democratic and egalitarian country (well, if you're not an Arab Israeli, anyway) with a strong Labour party and a collectivist tradition. So I wonder if there is a sense of betrayal here.
On China, I have the impression that many of the (all too few) people who are critical of the occupation of Tibet and sundry other well-rooted unpleasantnesses do tend to be from the left. It's the capitalists who are most ardently sucking up to the regime.
[ 09. December 2009, 20:59: Message edited by: Albertus ]
Posted by Saul the Apostle (# 13808) on
:
Stetson said:
quote:
Israel grew out of European colonialism, and is kept in business, as far as its own colonialism goes, by American backing. This makes it more of a direct issue for European and North American progressives than China or Russia's activites.
Stetson, Mmmm, yes ...........and also no.
Israel also grew out of a genuine 'grass roots ' movement in eatern and western europe to actually leave persecuting european colonising nations (like Russia and the Austro/Hungarian Empire etc).
Israel ''kept in business' by Amercian backing? Well, it is supported by the USA, but they are at the moment having quite robust differences with the Obama Presidency on not building new settlements on W.Bank land. So whilst I generally agree with you, the Israel thing is complex and multi layered; if US support for Israel was withdrawn it would alter the equation, but Israel would still exist, IMO.
There is a degree of ''Irael obssession'' from the Anglo Saxon countries and W.Europe. But once again it varies from nation to nation, Germany for instance is very circumspect in its comments about the Jewish state; for obvious reasons.
This topic is going 'off message' a tad; but is still interesting nevertheless.
Saul.
Posted by Stetson (# 9597) on
:
Albertus wrote:
quote:
On China, I have the impression that many of the (all too few) people who are critical of the occupation of Tibet and sundry other well-rooted unpleasantnesses do tend to be from the left. It's the capitalists who are most ardently sucking up to the regime.
Opinion on China seems to cut four ways...
-right-wingers, mostly populists operating at a lower level within the system(eg. backbench MPs, Congressmen from backwater districts) who oppose the Chinese on a lot of issues because they think China is socialist.
-left-wingers who defend China because they think it's socialist, or at least is gonna provide some sort of effective counterbalance to American hegemony.
-right-wingers(more your "realist" wonk types, rather than your populists) who defend, or at least accomadate China, because they've figured out that it's an emerging capitalist power that would be useful to have on side.
-left-wingers who oppose China because they've realized the same things that the above-mentioned rightists have.
The first two groups are basically carrying over outdated postures from the middle Cold War, and acting as if Nixon never shook hands with Mao and there hasn't been a whole history of foreign-policy collusion between China and the west since then(Cambodia being just the most blatant example).
Saul wrote:
quote:
Israel ''kept in business' by Amercian backing? Well, it is supported by the USA, but they are at the moment having quite robust differences with the Obama Presidency on not building new settlements on W.Bank land. So whilst I generally agree with you, the Israel thing is complex and multi layered; if US support for Israel was withdrawn it would alter the equation, but Israel would still exist, IMO.
Yeah, I think we basically agree. Israel would still exist even without American backing, but in my view their policies re: the Palestinians would be considerably different. And yes, there is not a complete tandem between what the two countries want. I reject the idea, common in some left-wing circles, that Israel simply functions as a puppet of US interests in the region, because if the US were merely looking for a window into the middle east, they wouldn't pick a country that is as despised among its neighbors as Israel is. That's just not good politics.
Posted by Ricardus (# 8757) on
:
When I was at university you couldn't move for Free Tibet protests.
ISTM the real inconsistency over Tibet is why free only Tibet? No part of China has the right to self-determination, that's the point of being a dictatorship.
I have certainly encountered protests about Chechnya as well. Though more frequently a few years ago, when the Russians were shelling Groznyy.
Posted by Enoch (# 14322) on
:
I'm sorry that is complete nonsense. Well for the British Left anyway, might be different in other countries. There is no "instinctive identification with the Palestinians" its something that grew slowly during the 1970s and 1980s. I saw it happening. And it is by no means all the Left, or possibly even most of it. And most of the people who take that line are not anti-semitic. And on the whole, in Britain, left-wingers are far less anti-semitic than right-wingers.
Ken I don't agree with you. I agree that forty years ago, the left In Britain did largely sympathise with Israel. It identified with the suffering of the holocaust, and also with a country which looked rather like the Labour party. It was a smart thing to go and work on a kibbutz. But I don't think the left does now. And what I'm saying is not that the left is overtly anti-semitic, but that sympathy with the PLO and Hamas enables people to be anti-semitic in their hearts while thinking they are merely being leftist and anti-imperialist.
And I'm saying 'instinctive' because this is an emotional, subliminal, identification which is taking place below the level of self-awareness.
1945 is now over sixty years ago. It also concerns me that people - adults - who did not grow up in the aftermath of the second world war seem curiously unaware of what the issues were that our parents came to realise they were fighting for.
Posted by Ricardus (# 8757) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Albertus:
And don't forget that at one time Israel did attract a lot of support on the left: in many ways it is or was a profoundly democratic and egalitarian country (well, if you're not an Arab Israeli, anyway) with a strong Labour party and a collectivist tradition. So I wonder if there is a sense of betrayal here.
IIRC after the founding of the State of Israel the Eastern Bloc tried to bring the country over to their side. At some point Israel had a contract with Škoda to buy missiles from Czechoslovakia.
Posted by Ricardus (# 8757) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Enoch:
And I'm saying 'instinctive' because this is an emotional, subliminal, identification which is taking place below the level of self-awareness.
I wish I could see into the hearts of men like that.
Were you born with this ability, or did you teach yourself? Do you have to pledge your soul to Mephistopheles? Is there a Dummy's Guide to Telepathy I could try?
Posted by the Pookah (# 9186) on
:
there would be no Israel or need for it if Christians & Muslims could give up jew-hating.
Herzl was as secular as I am, he was just sick and tired and worried And thats why I and tons of secular Jews support Israel; we have a place to go, because anti-semitism is still around
anti-semitism is at the root of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.
As for proselytizing Jews, we find it profoundly offensive. And Christian converts who still wear yarmulkes and prayer shawls, symbols of Millenia old Jewish faith, are really loathed.
and thats the inside scoop
from the Pookah;-)
Posted by Saul the Apostle (# 13808) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by the Pookah:
there would be no Israel or need for it if Christians & Muslims could give up jew-hating.
Herzl was as secular as I am, he was just sick and tired and worried And thats why I and tons of secular Jews support Israel; we have a place to go, because anti-semitism is still around
anti-semitism is at the root of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.
As for proselytizing Jews, we find it profoundly offensive. And Christian converts who still wear yarmulkes and prayer shawls, symbols of Millenia old Jewish faith, are really loathed.
and thats the inside scoop
from the Pookah;-)
Pookah,
thanks for that. Yes, Israel is a Jewish State, and why shouldn't the Jewish people have a nation like most other people? I back the right of Israel to exist AND to prosper and live in peace with its neighbours. I don't see Israel as some militaristic, reactionary state hell bent on oppresing Palestinians. Such a view is left wing nonsense.
However, with people like Ahmijinadab of Iran still around, all of us need to be cauutious, as state sponsored anti semitism is still a threat as well as obnoxious church based relics of bad theology eg ''The Jews were/are Christ killers''. That shows (from a Christian point of view) bad thinking and it is plain incorrect. Who killed Christ? Well, in one sense all of us killed Christ (but thats another topic )
As far as Jewish Christians are concerned, why can't Jewish people accept Jesus as the Messiah? After all I have met secular, atheist, communist, bhuddist and many other Jewish people. In fact most of the early church was Jewish; Paul himself the great gentile missionary was in fact a highly trained Pharisee with an equivalnet Oxbridge triple first in theology etc etc. So i do beg to fiffer on that point.
Thanks for your post, good to have a Jewish point of view. Thanks.
Saul
[ 10. December 2009, 06:44: Message edited by: Saul the Apostle ]
Posted by kempis3 (# 9792) on
:
These opinions have been given from he pulpit of my CE church:
1 The difficulties that the Jews have had over the last 2 thousand years are because they have NOT accepted Jesus as Saviour.
2 The Jews are stubborn, stiff-necked, stone-hearted in NOT accepting the Gospel.
3 The Jews are legalistic, sticking to mere rules and rituals. We, however, have a relationship with God.
Are these opinions anti-semitic? I think so.
But you cannot tell the preacher what you think because their reply is, "I just tell it as it is".
And that from-the-pulpit-"truth" is their get-out clause.
Still anti-semitic though.
![[Frown]](frown.gif)
[ 10. December 2009, 07:17: Message edited by: kempis3 ]
Posted by Yerevan (# 10383) on
:
quote:
1 The difficulties that the Jews have had over the last 2 thousand years are because they have NOT accepted Jesus as Saviour.
Like accepting Jesus as Saviour was meant to get you OUT of difficulty? Someone should have told the 1st century church that.
Posted by fletcher christian (# 13919) on
:
quote:
As far as Jewish Christians are concerned, why can't Jewish people accept Jesus as the Messiah?
There was the thought, postulated by philosophers like Emil Fackenheim (and others), that after the holocaust the most important thing the Jews could do was to survive it. So certain things were seen as a threat to that survival - including the large amount of Jews who had converted to Roman Catholicism in Europe and to Lutheranism in America. Some of them did it in order to hide; others may have done it for religious reasons. But whatever the case they were generally viewed as adding to the problem of the holocaust in 'getting rid of the Jews' and contributing to the problem of survival after the event.
Posted by ken (# 2460) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Saul the Apostle:
As far as Jewish Christians are concerned, why can't Jewish people accept Jesus as the Messiah?
Well, some do of course. There are many Jewish Christians.
But lots of Jews and likely to see that as an attack on them as a people - an attempt by the majority to absorb them and make them be like everyone else and stop being Jewish.
And they will also remember that in the 18th and 19th centuries Germany and Austria probably had the most culturally assimilated Jewish population of any major European countries. And look what happened there.
Posted by Forthview (# 12376) on
:
Chesterbelloc - of course it is true that the Roman Catholic church would welcome those of the Jewish faith and would pray generally for their conversion to a faith in Jesus Christ,but this would be no different from the prayer of the Church for everyone to learn of Jesus and to acknowledge Him as their Saviour. however I do not believe that it is true that the Church wishes particularly to proselytise amongst members of the Jewish Community.
The specific parayer for the Jews which is recited on Good Friday is as follows :
'Let us pray for the Jewish people,the first to hear the Word of God,that they may continue to grow in the love of His name and in faithfulness to His covenant.
Almighty and eternal God,long ago you gave your promise to Abraham and his posterity.Listen to your Church as we pray that the people you first made your own may arrive at the fullness of redemption.
In a similar vein there is a prayer for 'those who do not believe in Christ' :
'Almighty and eternal God,enable those who do not know Christ to find the truth ,as they walk before you in sincerity of heart. ......'
Whilst indicating that Catholics believe that the fullness of truth comes through a knowledge of Christ ,I believe that both prayers here show respect for others.
In a general way I have to admit that there are many incidences of antisemitism which I have heard in Central Europe, certainly in the past,perhaps much less now.I haven't ever heard Jews (of today) as being referred to as Christ killers from the pulpit but ,yes, as insults I have heard this.
A friend of mine who was a teacher in a Catholic school here in Scotland,once explained the story of the crucifixion to the children in her class,mentioning the role of the 'Jews' as told in the scriptures. When the class dismissed she found a little girl crying in a corner of the class.She discovered that the girl was Jewish and had taken everything she said very much to heart. My friend was devastated and never forgot the incident until her dying day about 45 years later,constantly regretting her choice of words on that day.
Posted by leo (# 1458) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Ricardus:
Jews see Christian missionaries as more of a threat than gas chambers? Christian missionaries to Jews are worse than Nazis? Or is this just ridiculous hyperbole?
Not hyperbole: 'The conversion of Jews is therefore seen as "spiritual genocide," for if it succeeded on a large enough scale the Jewish people, as Jewish people, would cease to exist. On this reasoning, evangelistic efforts aimed at Jews are definitely antisemitic.' (Should Christians Attempt to Evangelize Jews?
by Allan R. Brockway)
Posted by Gwai (# 11076) on
:
I believe he thinks so, but I suspect most Jews would rather their fellows convert than die. I would certainly rather my fellow Christians did!
Posted by leo (# 1458) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Ricardus:
quote:
Originally posted by leo:
The assumption behind your post is that there is only one covenant and that God's has switched it from the Jews to the Christians.
I don't see that assumption at all. The way I see it there was an Old Covenant which was fulfilled in Christ. Now Christ has come, we are on to the new covenant.
The RCC follows Paul's teaching in Romans 11:28 that God's promises to Abraham are irrevocable.
Psalm 105 has a seven-fold affirmation of God's promises of Canaan to Abraham. This is an everlasting promise, as was Genesis 12:1-3.
Jeremiah 31:35-37 speaks of the everlasting nature of God's promises to and for Israel, the Jewish people, which is as sure as the sun that shines by day and the moon and stars that glow in the night.
Cardinal Kaspar in A Sacred Obligation says that Christians shouldn’t target Jews for conversion…renounce missionary efforts…welcome each bearing witness to respective experiences…neither can claim to possess knowledge of God entirely or exclusively.
In covenant references, the New Testament references to Israel clearly pertain to Israel, not the Church. Therefore, no promise to Israel and the Jewish people in the Bible is figurative, nor can they be relegated to the Church alone. The promises and covenants are literal, many of them are everlasting, and we Christians can participate in them as part of our rebirth, not in that we took them over to the exclusion of Israel. The New Testament speaks of the Church's relationship to Israel and her covenants as being "grafted in" (Rom. 11:17), "brought near" (Eph. 2:13), "Abraham's offspring (by faith)" (Rom. 4:16), and "partakers" (Rom. 15:27), NOT as usurpers of the covenant and a replacer of physical Israel. We Gentile Christians joined into what God had been doing in Israel, and God did not break His covenant promises with Israel (Rom. 11:29).
Posted by Ricardus (# 8757) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by leo:
In covenant references, the New Testament references to Israel clearly pertain to Israel, not the Church.
But they explicitly do not pertain to Israel as an ethnic group. Romans 9:6-8. quote:
The New Testament speaks of the Church's relationship to Israel and her covenants as being "grafted in" (Rom. 11:17), "brought near" (Eph. 2:13), "Abraham's offspring (by faith)" (Rom. 4:16), and "partakers" (Rom. 15:27), NOT as usurpers of the covenant and a replacer of physical Israel. We Gentile Christians joined into what God had been doing in Israel, and God did not break His covenant promises with Israel (Rom. 11:29).
Yes, that's what I'm saying. The Old Covenant has been fulfilled in Christ. Christianity therefore is founded on the fulfilment of a covenant with Abraham.
Maybe I'm misreading you. How do you see the Old Covenant as still being operative? You say the promises are literal - does that mean you believe ethnic Jews have a God-given right to both banks of the Jordan?
Posted by Ricardus (# 8757) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by leo:
Not hyperbole: 'The conversion of Jews is therefore seen as "spiritual genocide," for if it succeeded on a large enough scale the Jewish people, as Jewish people, would cease to exist. On this reasoning, evangelistic efforts aimed at Jews are definitely antisemitic.' (Should Christians Attempt to Evangelize Jews?
by Allan R. Brockway)
So do you regard Secular Jews as non-Jewish?
In any case, if trying to persuade those of a certain ethnicity to abandon what has historically been the religion of that ethnicity counts as spiritual genocide, then practically any form of proselytism is genocide.
The British have historically been Christian - does that mean attempts to convert us to Islam or atheism are genocide?
All this does is cheapen genocide as a concept.
[ 10. December 2009, 15:34: Message edited by: Ricardus ]
Posted by Gildas (# 525) on
:
I think, by and large, that part of the work of evangelism involves demonstrating Christ's love to the world (use words if necessary) and not indicating to people that we want them to join an ecclesiastical society of unpleasant monomaniacs.
I think that this is sufficient, given the Church's history of anti-semitism, to warrant a call for a massive degree of sensitivity when talking to our Jewish brothers and sisters; without thinking that if the earnest young woman who collared me at the bus stop recently and asked me if I had been saved would have been morally akin to a member of the Waffen SS had I been Jewish.
Posted by Ender's Shadow (# 2272) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by leo:
Cardinal Kaspar in A Sacred Obligation says that Christians shouldn’t target Jews for conversion…renounce missionary efforts…welcome each bearing witness to respective experiences…neither can claim to possess knowledge of God entirely or exclusively.
Sadly it seems that the good Cardinal has forgotten his church history - specifically the terms of the Council of Ephesus, and its list of people against whom it pronounces an anathema specifically:
quote:
If anyone does not confess that Emmanuel is God in truth, and therefore that the holy virgin is the mother of God (for she bore in a fleshly way the Word of God become flesh, let him be anathema.
Not very comfortable...
Posted by Ricardus (# 8757) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Gildas:
I think that this is sufficient, given the Church's history of anti-semitism, to warrant a call for a massive degree of sensitivity when talking to our Jewish brothers and sisters.
Fair comment.
Posted by leo (# 1458) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Ricardus:
quote:
Originally posted by leo:
Not hyperbole: 'The conversion of Jews is therefore seen as "spiritual genocide," for if it succeeded on a large enough scale the Jewish people, as Jewish people, would cease to exist. On this reasoning, evangelistic efforts aimed at Jews are definitely antisemitic.' (Should Christians Attempt to Evangelize Jews?
by Allan R. Brockway)
So do you regard Secular Jews as non-Jewish?
In any case, if trying to persuade those of a certain ethnicity to abandon what has historically been the religion of that ethnicity counts as spiritual genocide, then practically any form of proselytism is genocide.
The British have historically been Christian - does that mean attempts to convert us to Islam or atheism are genocide?
All this does is cheapen genocide as a concept.
I am simply stating what many/most Jews say.
Posted by leo (# 1458) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Ricardus:
. The Old Covenant has been fulfilled in Christ. Christianity therefore is founded on the fulfilment of a covenant with Abraham.
For Christians yes. For Jrws, no. While this is a wonderful inclusionary promise for Gentiles, this verse does not exclude the Jewish people from their original covenant, promise and blessing as the natural seed of Abraham. This verse simply joins us Gentile Christians to what God had already started with Israel.
Romans 4:13 can be used to to claim it will be the Church that inherits the world, not Israel. "For the promise that he should be the heir of the world was not to Abraham, or to his seed, through the law, but through the righteousness of faith." However, wWere does this verse exclude Abraham and His natural prodigy, the Jews? It simply says that through the law, they would not inherit the world, but this would be acquired through faith. This is also true of the Church.
FOR THE GIFTS AND CALLING OF GOD ARE IRREVOCABLE" (Rom. 11:25-29). There is nothing about what God said to Abraham to suggest that it weas temporary.
! "For I am the LORD, I change not; therefore ye sons of Jacob are not consumed" (Malachi 3:6).
You are basically stating 'Replacement theology' which is anti-Jewish.
Posted by Chesterbelloc (# 3128) on
:
leo, whatever Cardinal Kasper says (and much of what he says is a pastorally motivated attempt to avoid causing the offence that open evangelisation of the Jewish people can cause by "toning down" the Church's teaching) the Roman Catholic Church has always taught that Christ desires all to convert to explicit faith in Him.
Catholics preach the Gospel of salvation in Christ to the whole world - Jews, Greeks, Dundonians, the lot. The prayer quoted here by Forthview that the Jewish people may come to the "fullness of salvation" is an understatedly sensitive prayer that they may come to full faith in Christ. The old covenant is NOT "valid" in the sense that it is salvific - and the Catholic Church, along with most Christians historically, has always held that.
As for recruiting St. Paul to the cause of not preaching the Gospel to the Jewish people because they have their own Covenant - well, that's just weird...
Posted by Eliab (# 9153) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by the Pookah:
As for proselytizing Jews, we find it profoundly offensive. And Christian converts who still wear yarmulkes and prayer shawls, symbols of Millenia old Jewish faith, are really loathed.
So you object to attempts to convert Jews to Christianity because that threatens them with the loss of Jewish identity. AND you despise converts to Christianity who keep their Jewish identity.
You do realise that that's just mental, don't you?
Posted by leo (# 1458) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Chesterbelloc:
leo, whatever Cardinal Kasper says (and much of what he says is a pastorally motivated attempt to avoid causing the offence that open evangelisation of the Jewish people can cause by "toning down" the Church's teaching) the Roman Catholic Church has always taught that Christ desires all to convert to explicit faith in Him.
Catholics preach the Gospel of salvation in Christ to the whole world - Jews, Greeks, Dundonians, the lot. The prayer quoted here by Forthview that the Jewish people may come to the "fullness of salvation" is an understatedly sensitive prayer that they may come to full faith in Christ. The old covenant is NOT "valid" in the sense that it is salvific - and the Catholic Church, along with most Christians historically, has always held that.
As for recruiting St. Paul to the cause of not preaching the Gospel to the Jewish people because they have their own Covenant - well, that's just weird...
No it isn't. Paul gradually worked out his stance on Judaism and he shouldn't all be quoted in a flat way. There has been lots of work done recently on Paul and Judiaism, mainly to undo the damage done by W. D. Davies.
Posted by leo (# 1458) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Eliab:
quote:
Originally posted by the Pookah:
As for proselytizing Jews, we find it profoundly offensive. And Christian converts who still wear yarmulkes and prayer shawls, symbols of Millenia old Jewish faith, are really loathed.
So you object to attempts to convert Jews to Christianity because that threatens them with the loss of Jewish identity. AND you despise converts to Christianity who keep their Jewish identity.
You do realise that that's just mental, don't you?
If you say that, then you are saying that all; Jews are 'mental'.
Do you know any Jews? Have you spoken to them about this?
I do and I have and that is the standard view.
Posted by ken (# 2460) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by leo:
...the damage done by W. D. Davies.
Damage? What damage? Don't the "New Perspective" people reckon he was important in seeing Paul as Jewish and Pauline theology as a continuation of Judaism?
Posted by Saul the Apostle (# 13808) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by leo:
quote:
Originally posted by Eliab:
quote:
Originally posted by the Pookah:
As for proselytizing Jews, we find it profoundly offensive. And Christian converts who still wear yarmulkes and prayer shawls, symbols of Millenia old Jewish faith, are really loathed.
So you object to attempts to convert Jews to Christianity because that threatens them with the loss of Jewish identity. AND you despise converts to Christianity who keep their Jewish identity.
You do realise that that's just mental, don't you?
If you say that, then you are saying that all; Jews are 'mental'.
Do you know any Jews? Have you spoken to them about this?
I do and I have and that is the standard view.
A Jewish person accepting Jesus as Messiah is an offence to most other Jewish people. It is seen as the ultimate rejection of ones heritage and religion/race etc etc etc.
It is a very hot topic and many Jewish people are very guarded about Christians wishing to ''convert'' them. Many see it as a covert way of erasing their identity and resist such efforts strongly.
Having said there is a sizeable minority of folk in the UK who are Jewish Christians or Messianic Jews. I was reading a BBC article about the RC Bishop of Jerusalem who is of Jewish background.
But its a definitely contetious area ; hence the threads!
Saul
Posted by Forthview (# 12376) on
:
The previous rc archbishop of Paris - Cardinal Jean-Marie (Aaron) Lustiger was Jewish of Polish origin.He became a Christian during or just after WW2. He never denied his Jewishness,though as a Christian of a Jewish mother ,he was not always welcomed by other Jews.
Posted by Chesterbelloc (# 3128) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by leo:
quote:
Originally posted by Chesterbelloc:
As for recruiting St. Paul to the cause of not preaching the Gospel to the Jewish people because they have their own Covenant - well, that's just weird...
No it isn't. Paul gradually worked out his stance on Judaism and he shouldn't all be quoted in a flat way.
I didn't quote him - you did. And you quoted Romans 11, which made me wonder if you'd ever read Romans 10. Did Paul "gradually work out his stance" between chapters 10 and 11?
Posted by Eliab (# 9153) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by leo:
If you say that, then you are saying that all; Jews are 'mental'.
No. I'm saying the views expressed by the Pookah are mental. Because they are. If you think that it is 'wrong' for a Jew to abandon his or her Jewishness, or for someone else to encourage him to do so, then it is quite plainly mental also to take it as a personal affront when a Jew very deliberately does not abandon his or her Jewishness.
Interesting, though, that the Pookah can say openly and with apparent approval that certain (ethnically Jewish) people may be 'loathed' because of their choice of (Jewish) cultural identity, you suggest that I am the one who is insulting Jews by objecting to his (literally) hateful point of view.
I don't think it's OK to despise people because of their religion or culture - which is why I'm not anti-semitic. I think that people should be free to choose and express their identity in whatever innocent manner they wish. I don't think that people's rights to exercise this freedom is conditional on their ethnicity. When people like the Pookah dissent from this, the most charitable thing to be said about their opinions is that they are mental.
Posted by Ricardus (# 8757) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by leo:
However, wWere does this verse exclude Abraham and His natural prodigy, the Jews?
Where do I say they are excluded? The New Covenant is open to everyone, Jew or Gentile.
Again, I think we may be talking at cross-purposes. How do you think the Old Covenant worked, and in what way is it still operative?
Are you saying that being an ethnic Jew automatically gives one certain favours with God that makes accepting the Messiah superfluous?
Posted by Gildas (# 525) on
:
quote:
However, wWere does this verse exclude Abraham and His natural prodigy, the Jews?
Thanks for that leo. I now have a mental image of Keith Flint confronting the priests of Baal on Mount Carmel to the sound of 'Firestarter'.
Posted by kempis3 (# 9792) on
:
OP
The question asked is: is anti-semitism alive and well in the church?
I repeat my reply that YES IT IS. And the church does not want to face this historical fact.
Which is a shame.
The BBC series on the History of Christianity is excellent, and one small part of this confronted this difficult concern. About time the church did.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/dna/mbreligion/F2213240?thread=7142271
Posted by Saul the Apostle (# 13808) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Forthview:
The previous rc archbishop of Paris - Cardinal Jean-Marie (Aaron) Lustiger was Jewish of Polish origin.He became a Christian during or just after WW2. He never denied his Jewishness,though as a Christian of a Jewish mother ,he was not always welcomed by other Jews.
Forthview,
yes and a number of RC clergy were / are Jewish. I am not sure the figures for the C of E but I certainly know at least 2 or 3 Vicars who are/ were Jewish.
In terms of ''conversion'' this is a hot topic. But suffice it to mention that nearly all the early Church were Jewish, Paul himself being a well educated man, after his Damascus Road experience became the Jewish evangelist to the gentiles and the faith spread extremely quickly.
Today in Israel and across the world there are growing numbers of Jewish people who accept Jesus as their Messian (Christ). Some of these folk keep certain Jewish traditions, some do not. But whilst the figures of Jewish people converting to Christianity are not huge , there are more and more. Indeed the Jewish community has expressed concerns about this phenomenon.
Anti semitism in the church alive today in the church? Well I think it is in some quarters. But IMO it is a lot less than it was. But then again the casual racism of say 40 years ago is not usually tolerated; often balck people were referred to in very derogatory terms as were other minorities etc etc including Jewish people.
But the stereotypes and evil lies still persist (The Protocols of the Elders of Zion being one example which was belived by the gullible).
Saul
Posted by Ender's Shadow (# 2272) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Saul the Apostle:
But the stereotypes and evil lies still persist (The Protocols of the Elders of Zion being one example which was belived by the gullible).
This seems to provide evidence that the Protocols are being routinely used in the Arab world.
Posted by Saul the Apostle (# 13808) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by kempis3:
OP
The question asked is: is anti-semitism alive and well in the church?
I repeat my reply that YES IT IS. And the church does not want to face this historical fact.
Which is a shame.
The BBC series on the History of Christianity is excellent, and one small part of this confronted this difficult concern. About time the church did.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/dna/mbreligion/F2213240?thread=7142271
Kempis,
yes an excellent series. I think even if one disagrees with him on some things, this has been a tour de force.
Thanks for the link
Saul
Posted by Yerevan (# 10383) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by kempis3:
OP
The question asked is: is anti-semitism alive and well in the church?
I repeat my reply that YES IT IS. And the church does not want to face this historical fact.
Which is a shame...About time the church did.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/dna/mbreligion/F2213240?thread=7142271
Come on. Thats wildly OTT. It would be helpful if you first defined anti-Semitism and then offered some evidence that a) its alive and well in 'the church' b) 'the church' hasn't faced up to it.
Posted by kempis3 (# 9792) on
:
Yerevan
I gave evidence from my own experience above at 10 Dec 0815.
And the above link to the BBC series History of Christianity gives other evidence.
Posted by fletcher christian (# 13919) on
:
quote:
Come on. Thats wildly OTT. It would be helpful if you first defined anti-Semitism and then offered some evidence that a) its alive and well in 'the church' b) 'the church' hasn't faced up to it.
Ever read any post-holocaust theology? I wouldn't say it's OTT at all, yet it would make the same claim and point to the holocaust as a catalyst for response and action. Ten years ago it was a very minor field, but it's influence is growing all the time and today it's a major part of theological reflection.
Posted by PaulTH* (# 320) on
:
Anti-semitism has very deep roots in Christianity, going back to the New Testament itself. Matthew's "blood libel" (27.25), and the things Jesus and the disciples did "for fear of the Jews" in John hark back to the bitter split between Judaism and Christianity which occurred at the time of the Jewish uprising of 66AD, which culminated in the destruction of Jerusalem and the Temple in 70. Many "great" Christians such as John "The Golden Mouthed" Chrysostom, were foul-mouthed when it came to Jews. Luther wanted to burn the synagogues, destroy Jewish books, ban rabbis from preaching on pain of death and round up the Jews to keep them away from good Christian people (concentration camps?). Inquisitions, pogroms and the like cast a baneful shadow over Christian history.
Yet it wasn't all one sided. The Jews first banned Christians from the synagogues at the Council of Jamnia (Javneh) in 90AD. The Talmuds are full of anti-Christian polemic, even suggesting that Jesus "ben Pantera" was the illegitimate son of a Roman soldier. The rabbis rewrote Judaism in opposition to Christianity, airbrushing out of their history things like the Wisdom and Enoch traditions which were Scripture both to the early Church and to the Qumrum community, because important ideas such as the Messiah as a quasi divine figure appear therin. The medieval Jewish sages such as Maimonides condemn Christins as idolators. Where the Jews lost out was in the numbers game, Christians were far more numerous, and had the powerful Roman state and later the Catholic Church to enforce their anti-Jewish hatred. But the hatred itself was as powerful on both sides.
Generally, the Jews preferred the relative security of the Caliphates of North Africa, where they were overtaxed, but often left alone. To root anti-semitism out of the Church is near impossible in a religion whose Scripture is full of it and whose teaching is that Christ is the only way to God. There are two surviving descendents of the Judaism of Jesus' time. One is Christianity and the other, rabbinic Judaism. They are largely defined against each other. I don't see why a Jew of today, has any reason to feel that his covenant with God has been in any way changed or abrogated. He can, in good faith, claim a lineage back to Abraham.
Yet it would be a mistake for today's Jews to regard their faith as entirely consistent with the faith of Moses. In the Babylonian exile, the purges of Josiah and the post 70AD reconstruction, Judaism was radically reinvented. Much of the high priestly belief such as the Angel of God eternally begotten in the Holy of Holies, and the meaning of sacrifice were preserved in Christianity, but lost in Judaism. In am indebted to the Temple Theology books of Margaret Barker for an understanding of this point.
Posted by Yerevan (# 10383) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by kempis3:
Yerevan
I gave evidence from my own experience above at 10 Dec 0815.
And the above link to the BBC series History of Christianity gives other evidence.
No you didn't. You supplied an anecdote about your home church, which is only one of I don't how many thousands in the UK. I've never heard anything like that from the pulpit of any church and I've lived and travelled all over the place and worshipped regularly in churches of three different traditions (Catholic, Baptist and Methodist). Maybe you just need to find a new church? ![[Biased]](wink.gif)
Posted by Yerevan (# 10383) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by fletcher christian:
quote:
Come on. Thats wildly OTT. It would be helpful if you first defined anti-Semitism and then offered some evidence that a) its alive and well in 'the church' b) 'the church' hasn't faced up to it.
Ever read any post-holocaust theology? I wouldn't say it's OTT at all, yet it would make the same claim and point to the holocaust as a catalyst for response and action. Ten years ago it was a very minor field, but it's influence is growing all the time and today it's a major part of theological reflection.
Yes, but we're talking about the contemporary, post-Holocaust church. The very fact that post-Holocaust theology is influential would seem tp undermine the argument that the contemporary church is riddled with anti-Semitism. Over the past few decades we've seen the rise of inter-faith dialogue with Jews, a widespread feeling that Jews should not be evangelised, a strong Christian Zionist movement in the US and widespread repentance of wrongs done to the Jewish community in the past. The Roman Catholic Church's attitude has been transformed in the past century for example. If I'm reading him (her?) right, Kempis seems to be saying that church now is about as anti-Semitic as the church ten centuries ago.
Posted by pimple (# 10635) on
:
I wonder if an attitude of reluctance to admit the institutional anti-semitism on the past may not sometimes be an indication of incipient - or recidivist - anti-semitism just under the skin right now?
After all, a virulent Holocaust-denier is universally - I think - seen as a virulent anti-semite. Perhaps it's all a matter of degree.
[ 11. December 2009, 14:44: Message edited by: pimple ]
Posted by leo (# 1458) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Ricardus:
quote:
Originally posted by leo:
However, wWere does this verse exclude Abraham and His natural prodigy, the Jews?
Where do I say they are excluded? The New Covenant is open to everyone, Jew or Gentile.
Again, I think we may be talking at cross-purposes. How do you think the Old Covenant worked, and in what way is it still operative?
Are you saying that being an ethnic Jew automatically gives one certain favours with God that makes accepting the Messiah superfluous?
The old covenant has not been revoked, otherwise God would be breaking his promise to Abraham and his seed for ever.
Not favours. Responsibilities.
Posted by leo (# 1458) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by ken:
quote:
Originally posted by leo:
...the damage done by W. D. Davies.
Damage? What damage? Don't the "New Perspective" people reckon he was important in seeing Paul as Jewish and Pauline theology as a continuation of Judaism?
Yes, partly. However, Daniel Boyarin and others have had to redo his work because of its supercessionism.
Posted by leo (# 1458) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Chesterbelloc:
quote:
Originally posted by leo:
quote:
Originally posted by Chesterbelloc:
As for recruiting St. Paul to the cause of not preaching the Gospel to the Jewish people because they have their own Covenant - well, that's just weird...
No it isn't. Paul gradually worked out his stance on Judaism and he shouldn't all be quoted in a flat way.
I didn't quote him - you did. And you quoted Romans 11, which made me wonder if you'd ever read Romans 10. Did Paul "gradually work out his stance" between chapters 10 and 11?
Possibly - although Romans is his most systematic epistle, he clearly seems to be working things out as he dictates.
Most importantly, Paul did not think he was trying to convert people out of Judaism into some new religion later called Christianity.
Posted by Ender's Shadow (# 2272) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by leo:
The old covenant has not been revoked, otherwise God would be breaking his promise to Abraham and his seed for ever.
Not favours. Responsibilities.
Unfortunately, from certain perspectives, the old covenant does include some clear promises to the people of Israel about their ownership of the land. These clearly indicate that the land is given to them for ever - which implies that the Palestinians currently in residence are squatters, with no right to the land.
If it is not right for us to act in judgement upon people in other contexts - such as executing adulterers - then it is not right for us to act to fulfil God's judgement by preventing the Jews from reoccupying their land, as this is the only justification for them NOT being in occupation of their land... ![[Help]](graemlins/help.gif)
Posted by Chesterbelloc (# 3128) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by leo:
quote:
Originally posted by Chesterbelloc:
I didn't quote [St Paul] - you did. And you quoted Romans 11, which made me wonder if you'd ever read Romans 10. Did Paul "gradually work out his stance" between chapters 10 and 11?
Possibly - although Romans is his most systematic epistle, he clearly seems to be working things out as he dictates.
You can't be serious here, surely?
quote:
Originally posted by leo:
Most importantly, Paul did not think he was trying to convert people out of Judaism into some new religion later called Christianity.
a) Only in the sense that Paul preaches that Christ is the long-desired fulfillment of the old covenant. You misleadingly speak as if Paul says Christ's an optional extra really for the Gentiles, whom Jews can ignore and carry on with the old covenant!
b) Paul explicitly stresses (in ch. 10) the need to preach Christ to the Jews.
Posted by JoannaP (# 4493) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Ender's Shadow:
Unfortunately, from certain perspectives, the old covenant does include some clear promises to the people of Israel about their ownership of the land. These clearly indicate that the land is given to them for ever - which implies that the Palestinians currently in residence are squatters, with no right to the land.
Apparently (I have not read it yet), according to
this book, most Palestinians are the descendants of Jews who converted to Islam, so does that mean they are no longer Abraham's seed?
When Arabs conquered lands, they did not commit genocide, the conquered population remained but it was often politically and/or economically expedient for them to convert to Islam.
Posted by Ricardus (# 8757) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by leo:
The old covenant has not been revoked, otherwise God would be breaking his promise to Abraham and his seed for ever.
Not favours. Responsibilities.
That doesn't answer any of my questions at all. If you're going to accuse me of anti-Semitism, it might be polite to substantiate your comments.
Let's go back to the Old Testament. I can see three stages in the Old Covenant:
a. That Abraham and his descendents would inherit the whole country of Canaan. (Genesis 12:1-9)
b. On Sinai: keep the commandments and be blessed; break them and be cursed. (Deuteronomy 11:26-32)
c. That the Messiah would come (various prophets).
Now c. has been fulfilled in Christ, and the whole point of Romans is that it is not possible to keep the Law, and therefore the grace of Christ is necessary for salvation. So in what way do you see the Old Covenant as still active independent of Christianity? That Abraham's descendents have the God-given right to the land of Canaan?
Posted by leo (# 1458) on
:
Back to the OP: The Council of Christians and Jews did a study (based on 1,646 respondents and written up in Common Ground, Winter 2009) of levels of antisemitism in anglican churches. The overwhelming conclusion that nearly all of it is unconscious - based on sermons and hymns that people have imbibed fairly uncritically during their lives.
Older Anglicans tended to express the least tolerant attitudes to the Jews compared with younger.
More traditional and liberal Anglicans showed the most sensitivity and understanding towards Jew, compared with evangelicals.
Posted by leo (# 1458) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Chesterbelloc:
quote:
Originally posted by leo:
quote:
Originally posted by Chesterbelloc:
I didn't quote [St Paul] - you did. And you quoted Romans 11, which made me wonder if you'd ever read Romans 10. Did Paul "gradually work out his stance" between chapters 10 and 11?
Possibly - although Romans is his most systematic epistle, he clearly seems to be working things out as he dictates.
You can't be serious here, surely?
On Paul's inconsistency, I only have time for a few notes:
Sanders claims that Paul’s statement in Rom 2:27 that gentiles obey the Law and will judge Jews is not hypothetical, nor does it refer to gentile believers. Thus, Sanders concludes that Paul contradicts himself insofar as he allows for the possibility that a human being can be declared righteous by obedience to the Law. This theological inconsistency was the result of Paul’s careless use of traditional synagogue material that was at variance with his own theological views (Paul, the Law and the Jewish People [Philadelphia: Fortress, 1985] 123-35).
Similarly, H. Räisänen argues that Paul inconsistently says in Rom 2:14-15, 26-27 that gentiles can keep the Law and thereby make themselves righteous (Paul and the Law [Philadelphia: Fortress, 1986] 101-109).
Romans 9-11 may be compared to 2 Thessalonians 2:3-12. It seems that in the latter there is a somewhat pessimistic picture of events due to take place before Christ's return - life will get more difficult, a rebellion will take place and a 'lawless one' will be revealed (v. 2) who will engage in various wicked acts and deceptions (w. 9-10) before Christ destroys him (v. 8).
However, in Romans 9-11, there is a rather more optimistic picture of events before the parousia. There is a positive view of the number of people to receive salvation, and in particular Israel's rejection of her Messiah is not final, and indeed 'all Israel will be saved' (11:26).
in 1 Thessalonians 4:15-17 and 1 Corinthians 15:51-52, Paul expected the parousia to come quickly, so quickly that it would take place before his death. In 1 Thessalonians 4:15-1 7, Paul twice uses the expression, 'We who are alive, who are left until the coming of the Lord', which may be taken to mean 'we Christians who survive until the parousia'. A similar idea may be seen in 1 Corinthians 15:51f., where the 'we' that is emphasised in verse 52b ('we shall be changed') indicates that Paul placed himself among the survivors at the parousia.
However, in Paul's later epistles, it seems that he no longer expected to be alive at the second coming of Christ, but rather to die before it took place. Verses such as 2 Corinthians 4:12 ('death is at work in us, but life in you'), 5:1, 8 ('we know that if the earthly building we live in is destroyed ... we would rather be away from the body and at home with the Lord') are said to reflect this way of thinking, as well as Philippians 1:21, 23, where Paul speaks of dying as 'gain' and of his desire to 'depart and be with Christ which is far better'. So now the apostle considers death before the parousia to be a real possibility, a perspective he did not seem to have prior to 2 Corinthians, and he now thinks that the parousia will no longer take place in the proximate future.
in 1 Corinthians 15, it is clear that believers do not receive their resurrection bodies until Christ returns - see verses 22-26 (the order of the resurrection of the dead taking place is first Christ, then at his coming, those who belong to Christ - verse 23), and 5 1-52 (the dead will be raised imperishable at the last trumpet, i.e. at Christ's coming, and then receive the resurrection body) - compare also 1 Thessalonians 4:14ff.
However, in 2 Corinthians 5, verse 1 seems to say that it is at the moment of death that the heavenly body is received - there is no gap between death and the parousia during which the believer is disembodied. It is only by receiving the resurrection body at death that this state of nakedness will be avoided (v. 3). So for the individual Christian, it is at death that they will receive the building that God has provided, as soon as the present physical body is destroyed.
In his earlier epistles, Paul seems to have described this state as one of 'sleep', thus an unconscious intermediate state. Christ will return to raise sleeping, unconscious believers to life again. This appears to be reflected in verses such as 1 Thessalonians 4:13, 15 ('concerning those who have fallen asleep in Christ'); 5:10 ('whether we are awake or asleep') and 1 Corinthians 15:18, 20, 51.
However, two sets of verses in Paul's later letters seem to give rather a different picture of the apostle's view of the intermediate state: 2 Corinthians 5:6-8 ('away from the body and at home with the Lord') and Philippians 1:21-23 ('to die is gain ... to depart and to be with Christ'). These verses seem to indicate that when believers die, they go immediately into the presence of Christ without there being any state of unconsciousness or 'sleep' at all.
In 1 Thessalonians 5:1-10, it seems that the parousia will come suddenly and unexpectedly - like 'a thief in the night', whereas in 2 Thessalonians 2:1-12, it is clear that certain events have to take place before Christ returns (the rebellion, the appearance of the lawless one, etc).
the resurrection is a future event in 1 Corinthians 15:51-54; 1 Thessalonians 4:14-16 and Romans 6:4f. Colossians 3:1-4, however, seems to talk about resurrection as an event that has already taken place in the believers' lives ('you have been raised with Christ ... you have died and your life is hidden with Christ in God').
in 1 Corinthians 6:1-11, (written at an early stage in his Christian life), Paul has a comparatively negative view of the state, particularly the law courts and advises the Corinthians to have little to do with them (cf. vv. 1 and 2 - it is a mistake to take grievances to court before unbelievers); however, in Romans 13:1-7, representing a later stage in Paul's thinking, Paul is rather more positive in his evaluation of the state - all are to be subject to the governing authorities which have been instituted by God and are his servants - verses 1 and 4.
Campbell:Paul's inconsistency in ethical application, so that he is sometimes liberational and thus true to his gospel (as in Gal 3:28) and at other times more "rooted . . . in structures of creation than in the structures of redemption" (p. 113). When a "creation-based theology obstructs true theology" in Paul (e.g. gender codes [1 Cor 11:2-16], "unnatural" homosexual activity [1 Cor 6:9], slavery [Philemon]), the apostle's analysis "lacks theological authority," being "neither christologically derived, nor fundamentally scriptural"
In Rom 1:21, Paul speaks of pagans as knowing God, but in Gal 4:8 as not knowing him
it will be difficult to come up with a consistent "Pauline theology" if not all of Paul's letters attest to the same theology (e.g., In Gal 5.2 Paul says that circumcision is of no advantage while in Rom 3.1-2 Paul says that circumcision is of a great advantage)
the various letters by Paul do indeed betray different emphases on the law. The
critical question, however, is whether these differing emphases should be accounted for primarily by the varying circumstances Paul faced, or by substantial development in his own thinking, frequently traced across a mere five years of apostolic writing. To put the matter another way, would Paul have repudiated his epistle to the Galatians
by the time he wrote his epistle to the Romans, if he again faced the problem that had confronted him in Galatia?
the Law? (abolished in Ephesians, but not in Romans.)
Paul's flexibility extends even to the question of his submission (or lack of it!) to
Torah. Richardson essentially approves the judgment of Barrett, who writes, 'Paul was prepared to abandon [the law] alto~ether. It is mpossible to understand Paul if this fact is not grasped.' I By contrast, the situation in Gal. 2: 11-14 finds Paul in the
embarrassing position of not living up to his own stated position. In
Richardson's words: The issue, then, is this: if Paul views accommodation as a legitimate principle for himself, and if Peter in Antioch has already shown some
measure of adaptability as well, why does Paul reject so vehemently Peter's understanding of the need to adapt once more when some come from James?
Is Jesus returning soon? (1 Thess seems to say yes; 2 Thess seems to say no)
Are the leaders of the church important? (Galatians seems to disparage church leaders; 1 Tim (though probably not by Paul) teaches that bishops and deacons are important.)
Turning to Gal. 2.11-14, Richardson acknowledges a central difference between this passage and I Cor. 9.19-23. Although both passages bear on the question of table fellowship, only the Antioch episode is tied up with the place of circumcision. In Antioch the question turns not on the appropriateness of particular foods but on
the appropriateness of table fellowship with particular individuals, viz. uncircumcised Christians. Moreover, there can be in Paul's mind no question of 'weaker brothers' in the Antioch episode, since all attempts at identification of such weaker members is problematic. But quite apart from whether or not Paul 'won' in Antioch, the
difference between Paul's stated principle of conduct in I Cor. 9 and his failure to apply it to Peter in Gal. 2 is remarkable.
Richardson: Though it is incapable of proof, it may be that Paul's changed attitude
alluded to in 1.10 is a result of his changed practice referred to in 5.11. He used to urge circumcision, perhaps even as a Christian, but he views that at the time of writing Galatians as an attempt to please men. Since he has stopped that practice, because his understanding of the law in the new times after Christ has changed (2.15-4.31), he is no longer pleasing men. Thus, on the showing of Galatians, to require
circumcision is to attempt to please men. Those apostles who limit their table fellowship to circumcised brethren must be opposed as sharply as possible. No accommodation can be made.
Posted by Saul the Apostle (# 13808) on
:
The previous post is like a theological treatise
My understanding of Romans 9, 10 and 11, is simple. God still loves the jewish people. His salvation plan has in no way made them marginal from the love he has and the promises given to them.
I suspect some of the anti semitism in the church was a little like a parent who sees their recalcitrant child not doing what they want. So like Martin Luther, once Jewish people said no to Jesus Christ's justification by faith, they were 'beyond the pale' as it were, perhaps this is the origin of much Protestant anti semitism?
Catholic anti semitism seemed to focus around the jewish people as 'Christ killers' and much of the hatred seemed to stream from that theologically incorrect premise (we ALL killed Christ in one sense didn't we?).
The promises God made to the jewish people still stand IMO. By the way that also goes for the land of Israel too; I see God's prophetic destiny being worked out by the ingathering of the Jewish people (by the way that doesn't mean I see Israel through rose tinted spectacles - it does make mistakes like any sovereign nation state).
Casper
Posted by leo (# 1458) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by ken:
quote:
Originally posted by leo:
...the damage done by W. D. Davies.
Damage? What damage? Don't the "New Perspective" people reckon he was important in seeing Paul as Jewish and Pauline theology as a continuation of Judaism?
On W. D. Davies - Anti-Judaism in Christian Theology – C. Klein (SPCK 1978): To make clear what is meant by the ambivalent attitude only two more passages will be cited. These show that there is real struggle, even within one and the same author, to reconcile historical, objective knowledge of Pharisaism and the Gospel accounts. W. D. Davies offers such an instance. In his Invitation he does justice to the Pharisees as they appear in non-Christian sources. The Pharisees, he writes, ‘accepted as axiomatic that the divine will was revealed in the Law and that every aspect of human life is to be governed by the Law. But the Pharisees also recognized that no written document can cover every detail of life. Changing conditions demand not an immutable code but a living, adaptable one. The Pharisees, therefore, claimed that, in addition to the written Law, the Oral Law had authority. Moreover, they were in favour of adapting the Law more and more to make it relevant to their times . . . Within Judaism, the Pharisees were what we should call today “liberals”—men anxious to make religion living, vital, contemporary.”But when it comes to commenting on the Gospel itself, the attitude changes. Speaking of the healing of the man born blind (John 9), Professor Davies writes, ‘The Pharisees call good evil and evil good; they refuse to rejoice generously in the healing activity of Jesus. They consider him a commonplace fellow of unknown origin.’ In fairness one must mention that he alludes to the Church-Synagogue conflict of the late first century, the date of the editing of this Gospel. ‘John was writing at a time when the Christian Church was increasingly being estranged from the Synagogue.’
Posted by leo (# 1458) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Saul the Apostle:
like Martin Luther, once Jewish people said no to Jesus Christ's justification by faith, they were 'beyond the pale' as it were, perhaps this is the origin of much Protestant anti semitism?
Interesting train of thought that might be showing unconscious theology.
For a start, Jesus did not speak of justification by faith. As for Paul, it is easy to read Luther's ideas back into Paul. That results in contrasting 'faith' and 'law' and goes on to accuse Jews of legalism and lacking in grace.
Posted by Saul the Apostle (# 13808) on
:
Leo said: quote:
Interesting train of thought that might be showing unconscious theology.
Leo,
do I need to go to the Doctor about this (unconscious theology)?
Saul (concerned ) the Apostle
Posted by fletcher christian (# 13919) on
:
Leo, I think Saul was probably referring to Luther's pamphlet 'On The Jew's And Their Lies' which was reprinted twice by Hitler as propaganda for his 'cause'. In it he exhorts Christians and Christian rulers that when they come across Jews they are to act like a good doctor when they notice poisoned flesh, and cut it, saw it out and then burn it. He also recommends the burning of synagogue's
Posted by Chesterbelloc (# 3128) on
:
leo, my point was a really rather simple one. I expressed my bewilderment that you should claim Paul as an authority for not preaching Christ to the Jews.
Perhaps I missed something in your notes above, but I still don't see how that is a terribly defensible claim, given that Paul's explicitly call for Christ to, um, be preached to the Jews ("And how shall they hear without a preacher?"), and nowhere can I see that he repudiates or prevaricates upon such a call.
[ 13. December 2009, 20:58: Message edited by: Chesterbelloc ]
Posted by Saul the Apostle (# 13808) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Chesterbelloc:
leo, my point was a really rather simple one. I expressed my bewilderment that you should claim Paul as an authority for not preaching Christ to the Jews.
Perhaps I missed something in your notes above, but I still don't see how that is a terribly defensible claim, given that Paul's explicitly call for Christ to, um, be preached to the Jews ("And how shall they hear without a preacher?"), and nowhere can I see that he repudiates or prevaricates upon such a call.
My understanding is that Pauls' heart and passion was clearly to preach the gospel to all men and women, including his own Jewish people. Without going into Pauline theology, there is much to back such a view. Indeed there were a sizeable % of the Jewish race who did in fact accept the claims of Jesus as Messiah/ Christ, in the early years after Christ's death/ ressurection etc.
I understand that over the next few hundred years the church came to be predominantly gentile and in certain cases quite hostile to the very race that had helped spread the gospel of Jesus Christ so effectively and faithfully.
Saul.
Posted by leo (# 1458) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Saul the Apostle:
Leo said: quote:
Interesting train of thought that might be showing unconscious theology.
Leo,
do I need to go to the Doctor about this (unconscious theology)?
Saul (concerned ) the Apostle
Which doctor? Aquinas?
Posted by leo (# 1458) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Chesterbelloc:
leo, my point was a really rather simple one. I expressed my bewilderment that you should claim Paul as an authority for not preaching Christ to the Jews.
Perhaps I missed something in your notes above, but I still don't see how that is a terribly defensible claim, given that Paul's explicitly call for Christ to, um, be preached to the Jews ("And how shall they hear without a preacher?"), and nowhere can I see that he repudiates or prevaricates upon such a call.
He was mainly concerned with preaching to the Gentiles and with not wanting interference with Jewish converts who wanted Gentiles to keep Torah.
Posted by fletcher christian (# 13919) on
:
Was it not the case that the Gentiles were in fact the 'converts'?
Posted by Saul the Apostle (# 13808) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by leo:
quote:
Originally posted by Chesterbelloc:
leo, my point was a really rather simple one. I expressed my bewilderment that you should claim Paul as an authority for not preaching Christ to the Jews.
Perhaps I missed something in your notes above, but I still don't see how that is a terribly defensible claim, given that Paul's explicitly call for Christ to, um, be preached to the Jews ("And how shall they hear without a preacher?"), and nowhere can I see that he repudiates or prevaricates upon such a call.
He was mainly concerned with preaching to the Gentiles and with not wanting interference with Jewish converts who wanted Gentiles to keep Torah.
Was it not the case that some Jews were hellenised jews or jews of mixed marriages (like Timothy as an example)? The main threat was that some Jewish folk wanted the new gentile believers to follow the law completely as a Jewish person would? This could have made Christianity a jewish sect?
The way I read it is that Paul is an Apostle of freedom; if you want to keep the law (if you've been raised with it etc.) fine, if not don't get bogged down with it all, as you'll come under the dead hand of legalism. Not to say that the law per se is wrong, but as today the Rabbinic interpretations veered towards a dead legalism.
Saul
© Ship of Fools 2016
UBB.classicTM
6.5.0