Ship of Fools: Christian Bar Mitzvah?

Thread: Christian Bar Mitzvah? Board: Oblivion / Ship of Fools.

To visit this thread, use this URL:
http://forum.ship-of-fools.com/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=70;t=024547

Posted by Anglican_Brat (# 12349) on :

I think this is blatant cultural expropriation:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/rabbi-jason-miller/sisterhoods-christian-bar-mitzvah-can-jewish-ritual-be-borrowed_b_2455527.ht ml

Anyone know of any other instances of Christians aping Bar Mitzvah ceremonies?

My limited understanding is that a Jewish Bar/Bat Mitzvah ceremony includes a boy or a girl reading Torah in the original Hebrew in order to demonstrate that he/she understands the basics of Judaism in order to teach it to future generations. As such it is tied to the Jewish faith and as such cannot be "borrowed" by Christians who have a different faith perspective.

Posted by SvitlanaV2 (# 16967) on :

Since the father in this case is of Jewish origin, perhaps this is more about trying to be accepting of one's own heritage rather than about trying to appropriate a ritual from someone else's religion. (In fact, I imagine that for some Jews, the bar mitzvah is more of a cultural celebration than a strictly religious one.)

I know of some converts to Christianity from Hinduism and Sikhism. They are also ordained ministers, yet they are both doubtful about the barriers some would set up between their former religious state and their current one. Their position could be characterised as quite a liberal one! I don't know if their sons have engaged in any non-Christian ceremonies, but I'm sure they wouldn't disapprove in theory, depending on what these ceremonies were meant to signify.

It's also the case that Christianity as currently practised normally lacks any kind of 'coming of age' ceremony. (Confirmation doesn't seem to serve this purpose successfully.) Some feel that this lack is a problem for Christianity, because churches are currently unable to help boys especially transition into feeling like responsible members of their faith community. They have to go and engage in risky and undesirable activities in order to feel like 'men', but these activities only serve to alientate them from the faith community. So perhaps it's a good idea for some Christians to look for ceremonies that will help with the transition. Since Jews and Christians seem so closely entwined in the USA, it's unsurprising that that the bar mitzvah mght be used over there.

Posted by fletcher christian (# 13919) on :

I think St Paul advocates that Jews should remain faithful to the law and traditions if they wish.

Posted by fletcher christian (# 13919) on :

Actually, reading that link again does raise some questions. The father was raised in a Jewish home, but was he adopted? Generally and traditionally the 'Jewishness' (for want of a better term) is considered to be carried on the mothers line - not the fathers.

Posted by Anglican_Brat (# 12349) on :

quote:
Originally posted by fletcher christian:
I think St Paul advocates that Jews should remain faithful to the law and traditions if they wish.

I do not object to Jews who believe in Jesus Christ, continuing to follow the cultural rituals that they grow up in. I know that official Judaism considers Jews who convert to Christianity as no longer Jewish.

What I object to however is trying to change a ritual from Judaism (the Bar/Bat Mitzvah) in order to conform to the precepts of Christianity. In the end, it short changes both faiths and creates a ritual that does not do full justice to either.

Posted by Porridge (# 15405) on :

I recall reading a few years back (can't link, sorry) of Christian churches holding community seders at the beginning of Passover, which frankly sounds more like cultural expropriation than this bar mitzvah does; after all, many cultures have traditionally celebrated the coming of age of their young people, though not necessarily with the same rituals.

Wouldn't thinks be simpler all around if the family simply dropped the Hebrew name for this rite-of-passage and called it what it is -- confirmation of the young man's induction into more adult responsibilities within his congregation?

As to holding Christian seder rituals, I'm agin it. Passover, whether or not it actually happened, celebrates a specifically Jewish liberation from alleged slavery in Egypt. The only Christian connection lies in the fact that the Last Supper was allegedly a seder, or Passover meal. (Maybe the Eucharist is the more appropriate place to adopt Jewish ritual.)

Happy to be corrected if I'm wrong, but I don't recall ritual elements of the seder being reported in the gospels.

Posted by fletcher christian (# 13919) on :

posted by Anglican Brat

quote:

What I object to however is trying to change a ritual from Judaism (the Bar/Bat Mitzvah) in order to conform to the precepts of Christianity. In the end, it short changes both faiths and creates a ritual that does not do full justice to either.

I agree, but I misread the item initially reading it as the father being Jewish

Posted by Porridge (# 15405) on :

I think the father was Jewish; the problem is that his son isn't. Traditionally, you're Jewish if your mother was. Your father's religious-cultural-racial-whatever identity is utterly irrelevant. There's nothing in the story to indicate that Tara, the mother, is or was Jewish.

[ 12. January 2013, 17:14: Message edited by: Porridge ]

Posted by fletcher christian (# 13919) on :

I know - I pointed that out above

Posted by cliffdweller (# 13338) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Porridge:

As to holding Christian seder rituals, I'm agin it. Passover, whether or not it actually happened, celebrates a specifically Jewish liberation from alleged slavery in Egypt. The only Christian connection lies in the fact that the Last Supper was allegedly a seder, or Passover meal. (Maybe the Eucharist is the more appropriate place to adopt Jewish ritual.)

Happy to be corrected if I'm wrong, but I don't recall ritual elements of the seder being reported in the gospels.

What is communion, if not (among other things) a re-enactment of the seder and celebration of Jesus as "the lamb of God"?

The fact of the matter is, like or not, Christianity came out of Judaism, retained most of the Hebrew Scriptures & stories, yet has, from the beginning, always reinterpreted those Scriptures & traditions in distinctly Christian ways-- thus from the beginning falling prey to the sort of "appropriation" you are (rightly) concerned about. I think we're better off acknowledging that, owning it, and doing so with all the respect we can, while still being authentic to our own faith.

[ 12. January 2013, 17:48: Message edited by: cliffdweller ]

Posted by Rosa Winkel (# 11424) on :

Indeed.

The Harvest Festival is somewhat like Sukkot. Pentecost has overtones of Shavout as well.

Posted by Porridge (# 15405) on :

quote:
Originally posted by cliffdweller:
What is communion, if not (among other things) a re-enactment of the seder and celebration of Jesus as "the lamb of God"?

Huh?

I admit to not having attended a Christian communion in 2-3 years (or a Jewish seder for at least as long); perhaps both have undergone sweeping change, or communion is celebrated very differently in your place of worship than in my former one. But the last communion I attended contained nothing I'd associate with a seder.

There were no bitter herbs, no parsley, no salted water, no roasted egg, no charred lamb shanks, and no charoses (or however it's transliterated). There was no cup for Elijah (and no door left open for him), no mention of bondage in Egypt, no passing angels daubing lintels with lamb's blood, no plagues, no pharoah, no Red Sea, no Miriam dancing through the gap in the waters, and no Moses.

There was a thimble full of grape juice rather than the standard 4 cups of wine; there was a loaf of leavened bread rather than matzoh (or whatever they used in 1st-century Palestine).

Further, the whole communion ritual took about 30 minutes as opposed to several hours. At its close, nobody said, "Next time (year) in Jerusalem."

They are both symbolic meals containing music, prayer, and scraps of scripture; I'll give you that.

Other commonalities, I suspect, are imputed to the ritual by the believer.

Posted by PaulTH* (# 320) on :

quote:
Originally posted by cliffdweller:
The fact of the matter is, like or not, Christianity came out of Judaism, retained most of the Hebrew Scriptures & stories, yet has, from the beginning, always reinterpreted those Scriptures & traditions in distinctly Christian ways

Yes, but the distinctly Christian way of interpreting Jewish initiation rites, at least for the majority of Christians for the majority of Christian history, has been to replace circumcision with baptism, and to replace Bar Mitzvah with confirmation. These are the Christian rites of reception into the covenant of Christ. I'm not a supracessionist, and I believe the Jews are perfectly entitled to keep their rites of initiation into the Mosaic covenant, but I see little point in Christians trying to mimic them when we already have our own long standing sacraments of Christian initiation.

Posted by HenryT (# 3722) on :

When I saw the title, I immediately thought "in the Anglican church, that's called Confirmation." We often have the confirmation candidates read the scripture, btw.

Posted by fletcher christian (# 13919) on :

Surely it's the other way around though Paul? Before expulsion from the synagogue, Christian and Jewish practice was intertwined and it's only after expulsion that Christians reinvent the wheel and bring into the equation ideas and ceremonies that mimic what was presumably once done.

Porridge has a point about the details of Passover celebration as we know it today, but Cliffdweller is right too. Scripturally and liturgically we have statements like 'Christ our Passover is sacrifices for us' and statements of Jesus being a sacrificial lamb etc. To pretend there is no link whatsoever between Passover and Eucharist is a deceit.

Posted by cliffdweller (# 13338) on :

quote:
Originally posted by PaulTH*:

quote:
Originally posted by cliffdweller:
The fact of the matter is, like or not, Christianity came out of Judaism, retained most of the Hebrew Scriptures & stories, yet has, from the beginning, always reinterpreted those Scriptures & traditions in distinctly Christian ways
Yes, but the distinctly Christian way of interpreting Jewish initiation rites, at least for the majority of Christians for the majority of Christian history, has been to replace circumcision with baptism, and to replace Bar Mitzvah with confirmation. These are the Christian rites of reception into the covenant of Christ. I'm not a supracessionist, and I believe the Jews are perfectly entitled to keep their rites of initiation into the Mosaic covenant, but I see little point in Christians trying to mimic them when we already have our own long standing sacraments of Christian initiation.

My point was to the tangent re: Christian seders. But the broader point is that we have a long history of using aspects of Jewish tradition & practices (as well as Scripture) in ways that are uniquely Christian. There are good reasons to be concerned about that, but it's a bit late in the game to try and re-cork the bottle. We are also in an era of intermarriage when families have to invent new ways of honoring their ancient customs in very new familial and cultural settings. Being a bit less rigid about how they/we do that, as long as it's done w/ respect and thoughtfulness, is important IMHO. ymmv.

Posted by cliffdweller (# 13338) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Porridge:

quote:
Originally posted by cliffdweller:
What is communion, if not (among other things) a re-enactment of the seder and celebration of Jesus as "the lamb of God"?
Huh?

I admit to not having attended a Christian communion in 2-3 years (or a Jewish seder for at least as long); perhaps both have undergone sweeping change, or communion is celebrated very differently in your place of worship than in my former one. But the last communion I attended contained nothing I'd associate with a seder.

There were no bitter herbs, no parsley, no salted water, no roasted egg, no charred lamb shanks, and no charoses (or however it's transliterated). There was no cup for Elijah (and no door left open for him), no mention of bondage in Egypt, no passing angels daubing lintels with lamb's blood, no plagues, no pharoah, no Red Sea, no Miriam dancing through the gap in the waters, and no Moses.

There was a thimble full of grape juice rather than the standard 4 cups of wine; there was a loaf of leavened bread rather than matzoh (or whatever they used in 1st-century Palestine).

Further, the whole communion ritual took about 30 minutes as opposed to several hours. At its close, nobody said, "Next time (year) in Jerusalem."

They are both symbolic meals containing music, prayer, and scraps of scripture; I'll give you that.

Other commonalities, I suspect, are imputed to the ritual by the believer.

Communion is and has always been understood by Christians as a re-enactment (however truncated) of Jesus' last seder meal. As others have noted, the liturgy is often sprinkled liberally with references to Jesus as our "Passover lamb". Christians have always understood a relationship between the two, even if it is less visible to a casual observer.

Posted by Porridge (# 15405) on :

quote:
Originally posted by cliffdweller:
Christians have always understood a relationship between the two, even if it is less visible to a casual observer.

Look, with all respect, I was not a casual observer at my last experience of communion. I was a deacon, and assisting in serving it. I am in complete agreement that there’s a relationship between the Last Supper, assumed to be a seder, and communion, in that it’s commonly accepted that Jesus was presiding over a seder at his last meal.

What you originally claimed, however, was this:

quote:
Originally posted by cliffdweller:
What is communion, if not (among other things) a re-enactment of the seder and celebration of Jesus as "the lamb of God"?

Are we using the word "re-enactment" differently? I understand the term to mean a fairly close replication of the original event -- a Civil War battle re-enactment, for example.

All I’m saying is that a relationship does not equal re-enactment. Christian communion does not in any way re-enact the seder as traditionally celebrated among Jews. What communion re-enacts is the point at which Jesus departed from the usual “script” for seders (though at least these days, in the U.S., there’s a lot of variation among haggadot (if that’s the correct plural).

The seder meal commemorates the purported escape from purported enslavement of the Hebrews by the Egyptians. The communion meal commemorates the final gathering of Jesus with his disciples, and prefigures his execution, not his escape.

The wine drunk at a seder is in joyful celebration of new-found freedom. The wine drunk at communion is in reflection of sacrifice (this is my blood, poured out for you).

The bread consumed at a seder is unleavened to show the haste with which the Hebrews departed Egypt. The bread consumed at communion, whether leavened or not (Christians differ in practice) is a second reminder of Jesus’s bodily death (this is my body, broken for you).

The two rituals may be similar in intent, in that they are meant to invite and/or perpetuate participants’ identity as Jews or Christians (each ritual occupies a central place in its respective tradition). They are (sometimes) linked in timing. What they commemorate, though, is utterly different; how they commemorate these events is different, the emotive content is different, and the symbologies (with the one possible exception of lamb’s blood) are different. A claim that communion re-enacts the traditional seder boggles my mind.

Posted by fletcher christian (# 13919) on :

So communion isn't a re-enactment of the last supper, which in itself was a seder meal?

posted by porridge:

quote:

Christian communion does not in any way re-enact the seder as traditionally celebrated among Jews.

I think you're over stating the point here.

quote:

The seder meal commemorates the purported escape from purported enslavement of the Hebrews by the Egyptians. The communion meal commemorates the final gathering of Jesus with his disciples, and prefigures his execution, not his escape.

Yet also represents freedom from the captivity of sin and death

quote:

The wine drunk at a seder is in joyful celebration of new-found freedom. The wine drunk at communion is in reflection of sacrifice (this is my blood, poured out for you).

Yet is also the new wine of the new kingdom, a foretaste of heaven and a joy of being IN communion.

quote:

The bread consumed at a seder is unleavened to show the haste with which the Hebrews departed Egypt. The bread consumed at communion, whether leavened or not (Christians differ in practice) is a second reminder of Jesus’s bodily death (this is my body, broken for you).

Yet it tended to be, and in many places still tends to be unleavened. Unless you think this is pure coincidence, but I think that concepts of Jesus as a new Moses, leading his children out of exile were fairly important in the past, and even today.

quote:

What they commemorate, though, is utterly different; how they commemorate these events is different, the emotive content is different, and the symbologies (with the one possible exception of lamb’s blood) are different

There are differences, certainly, but not 'utterly' different. You seem to have trouble accepting that there is a shared heritage in faith. I know that having that shared heritage has produced it's problems, but it would seem foolish and disengenious to Judaism and Christianity to say it isn't there

Posted by cliffdweller (# 13338) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Porridge:

quote:
Originally posted by cliffdweller:
Christians have always understood a relationship between the two, even if it is less visible to a casual observer.
Look, with all respect, I was not a casual observer at my last experience of communion. I was a deacon, and assisting in serving it. I am in complete agreement that there’s a relationship between the Last Supper, assumed to be a seder, and communion, in that it’s commonly accepted that Jesus was presiding over a seder at his last meal.

What you originally claimed, however, was this:

quote:
Originally posted by cliffdweller:
What is communion, if not (among other things) a re-enactment of the seder and celebration of Jesus as "the lamb of God"?
Are we using the word "re-enactment" differently? I understand the term to mean a fairly close replication of the original event -- a Civil War battle re-enactment, for example.

All I’m saying is that a relationship does not equal re-enactment. Christian communion does not in any way re-enact the seder as traditionally celebrated among Jews. What communion re-enacts is the point at which Jesus departed from the usual “script” for seders (though at least these days, in the U.S., there’s a lot of variation among haggadot (if that’s the correct plural).

The seder meal commemorates the purported escape from purported enslavement of the Hebrews by the Egyptians. The communion meal commemorates the final gathering of Jesus with his disciples, and prefigures his execution, not his escape.

The wine drunk at a seder is in joyful celebration of new-found freedom. The wine drunk at communion is in reflection of sacrifice (this is my blood, poured out for you).

The bread consumed at a seder is unleavened to show the haste with which the Hebrews departed Egypt. The bread consumed at communion, whether leavened or not (Christians differ in practice) is a second reminder of Jesus’s bodily death (this is my body, broken for you).

The two rituals may be similar in intent, in that they are meant to invite and/or perpetuate participants’ identity as Jews or Christians (each ritual occupies a central place in its respective tradition). They are (sometimes) linked in timing. What they commemorate, though, is utterly different; how they commemorate these events is different, the emotive content is different, and the symbologies (with the one possible exception of lamb’s blood) are different. A claim that communion re-enacts the traditional seder boggles my mind.

it re-enacts Jesus' last Seder, more so than Seders in general.

Your list of similarities & differences is precisely my point. There are places of connection-- our use of terms like "Passover lamb" and other aspects of our liturgy are clearly borrowed from those Jewish roots. There are common themes-- redemption, freedom from slavery, sacrifice, new life. And yet, as I said, we are re-configuring and reusing both the ritual and the themes in distinctly Christian ways for distinctly Christian purposes with distinctly Christian meanings. That was precisely my point, in the context of our discussion of the validity of Christians "appropriating" Jewish rituals.

[ 12. January 2013, 22:26: Message edited by: cliffdweller ]

Posted by Chesterbelloc (# 3128) on :

There is very far from being universal agreement - either amongst Christians or Jews - that the Last Supper was a Seder at all.

Posted by Porridge (# 15405) on :

Indeed. I don't recall any evidence from the gospel accounts that it was a seder being observed; none of the traditional aspects of a seder is mentioned, which is why I can't understand how it can be claimed that a seder is re-enacted in the Eucharist. What makes a seder a seder is not only its timing, but also the symbolic consumption of bitter herbs, salted water, egg, charoses (the latter not, so far as I know, consumed outside of the Passover), etc.

And I've forgotten the details now, but there's confusion among the gospel accounts about when exactly that least meal was alleged to have taken place with respect to the Passover.

Posted by Jade Constable (# 17175) on :

With regard to Passover seders, the details of them (eg bitter herbs, salt water etc) are not included in Scripture but are later, culturally Jewish additions. While Exodus is part of the Christian canon and I think it is wrong to ignore the fact that it's not just Jews who consider the Old Testament to be Scripture, the actual seder meal is not described in Exodus or elsewhere in the OT. It's not culturally appropriative for Christians to mark Passover or any other festival mentioned in Scripture, but it is appropriative for Christians to use specifically Jewish celebrations that are not part of Scripture.

Posted by cliffdweller (# 13338) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Chesterbelloc:
There is very far from being universal agreement - either amongst Christians or Jews - that the Last Supper was a Seder at all.

That's an overstatement. There is some small debate among scholars, but nothing substantial. Luke 22 (esp. v. 13-17) and Mark 14:12-22 explicitly identify the Last Supper as a Passover meal.

Posted by cliffdweller (# 13338) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Jade Constable:
It's not culturally appropriative for Christians to mark Passover or any other festival mentioned in Scripture, but it is appropriative for Christians to use specifically Jewish celebrations that are not part of Scripture.

This strikes me as a rather odd rule. Could you expand on why you think it inappropriate to engage in Scriptural rituals but not in cultural ones???

Posted by Jade Constable (# 17175) on :

quote:
Originally posted by cliffdweller:

quote:
Originally posted by Jade Constable:
It's not culturally appropriative for Christians to mark Passover or any other festival mentioned in Scripture, but it is appropriative for Christians to use specifically Jewish celebrations that are not part of Scripture.
This strikes me as a rather odd rule. Could you expand on why you think it inappropriate to engage in Scriptural rituals but not in cultural ones???

That's not what I said - it's inappropriate to engage in *other people's* cultural rituals, not cultural rituals in general. Christmas is a cultural ritual, not a Scriptural one, but as it is a Christian cultural ritual it's perfectly appropriate for Christians to celebrate it. Seders belong to a non-Christian culture, therefore it is inappropriate for Christians to hold seder meals. The only exception would be for those Christians who are culturally Jewish themselves.

Posted by cliffdweller (# 13338) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Jade Constable:

quote:
Originally posted by cliffdweller:

quote:
Originally posted by Jade Constable:
It's not culturally appropriative for Christians to mark Passover or any other festival mentioned in Scripture, but it is appropriative for Christians to use specifically Jewish celebrations that are not part of Scripture.
This strikes me as a rather odd rule. Could you expand on why you think it inappropriate to engage in Scriptural rituals but not in cultural ones???
That's not what I said - it's inappropriate to engage in *other people's* cultural rituals, not cultural rituals in general. Christmas is a cultural ritual, not a Scriptural one, but as it is a Christian cultural ritual it's perfectly appropriate for Christians to celebrate it. Seders belong to a non-Christian culture, therefore it is inappropriate for Christians to hold seder meals. The only exception would be for those Christians who are culturally Jewish themselves.

That doesn't seem to be the same as what you wrote (quoted above) where your distinction was not based on who the ritual "belonged" to but whether or not it was in Scripture. Which, again, seems odd. That's the piece I'm curious about.

As I said before, I understand and appreciate the concern about appropriating rituals from other cultures. But Christianity has been appropriating Jewish rituals from the very beginning-- starting with the Hebrew Scriptures themselves, which are quoted and used in the NT in ways that are distinctly Christian, often in great variance from the way they would be used and understood by the wider Jewish community at that or any other time.

And then there's the whole inextricable connection of the seder with communion.

Posted by cliffdweller (# 13338) on :

oops... I see my problem. You said "appropriative" (a unique coinage? it works), I read it as "appropriate", which gave it a meaning completely contrary to what I thought you were saying.

[ 13. January 2013, 04:24: Message edited by: cliffdweller ]

Posted by Jade Constable (# 17175) on :

quote:
Originally posted by cliffdweller:
oops... I see my problem. You said "appropriative" (a unique coinage? it works), I read it as "appropriate", which gave it a meaning completely contrary to what I thought you were saying.

No problem - I was using 'appropriative' in relation to cultural appropriation. Regarding whether something is in Scripture or not, it would be OK for Christians to celebrate an OT feast because it's part of Christian Scripture as much as Jewish Scripture. It's not OK for Christians to adopt the purely Jewish rituals associated with how modern Judaism celebrates those feasts, unless that Christian is culturally Jewish themselves. To take Passover as an example, the seder meal is not part of the Scriptural feast (which Christians have a legitimate claim to) but unique to the Jewish interpretation of it. As has been said, the Last Supper and therefore Communion doesn't actually resemble a modern Jewish seder, and there's no agreement amongst Christians that it was even a Passover meal (IIRC, modern Jewish seders are quite different to 1st Century Passover meals anyway).

Regarding Christians appropriating the Hebrew Scriptures in the first place, given that Jesus quoted them extensively and the Spirit's work in establishing the Christian canon, I would argue that the OT has been given to Christians by God.

Posted by M. (# 3291) on :

Originally posted by Jade Constable:

quote:
...it's inappropriate to engage in *other people's* cultural rituals, not cultural rituals in general. Christmas is a cultural ritual, not a Scriptural one, but as it is a Christian cultural ritual it's perfectly appropriate for Christians to celebrate it.

I on the other hand am very happy for my Jewish and Muslim neighbours to celebrate the cultural rituals of Christmas. And they do.

M.

Posted by leo (# 1458) on :

Many Messianic Jews and Jews for Jesus continue Jewish rituals although they are technically Christians.

Indeed, the early Christians were all Jews, so I don't disagree with what the father is doing.

Posted by Jade Constable (# 17175) on :

quote:
Originally posted by M.:
Originally posted by Jade Constable:

quote:
...it's inappropriate to engage in *other people's* cultural rituals, not cultural rituals in general. Christmas is a cultural ritual, not a Scriptural one, but as it is a Christian cultural ritual it's perfectly appropriate for Christians to celebrate it.
I on the other hand am very happy for my Jewish and Muslim neighbours to celebrate the cultural rituals of Christmas. And they do.

M.

I would guess that they don't have nativity scenes or the like though? I mean, Santa and trees aren't part of the religious cultural/non-Biblical aspect of Christmas. I would consider what I'm guessing your Muslim and Jewish neighbours do to be part of general secular Christmas celebrations. The Santa stuff isn't part of my Christmas celebrations although I can't speak for other Christians.

Posted by Jade Constable (# 17175) on :

quote:
Originally posted by leo:
Many Messianic Jews and Jews for Jesus continue Jewish rituals although they are technically Christians.

Indeed, the early Christians were all Jews, so I don't disagree with what the father is doing.

I would say that it's different for Christians who are culturally Jewish (and not Christians who become 'Messianic' in order to convert Jewish people).

Posted by fletcher christian (# 13919) on :

posted by Jade

quote:

The Santa stuff isn't part of my Christmas celebrations although I can't speak for other Christians.

Saint Nicholas is fairly important for a very significant number of Christians

Posted by angelfish (# 8884) on :

I am having serious trouble understanding why people have a problem with "cultural appropriation". Where's the harm? If I see something valuable in another tradition and seek to incorporate it into my own life, nobody is harmed or denigrated and maybe my life will be enriched. It seems a bit divisive to insist that only members of certain groups can do certain things.

Posted by Rosa Winkel (# 11424) on :

Cultures are not closed or static, anyway. It seems to be impossible for a culture not to be affected by contact with another one. In fact one culture will at the least be more self-aware in such a contact.

Posted by HenryT (# 3722) on :

If you dig into history, it's often hard to decide what culture "owns" something; however I do think that there's such a thing as cultural appropriation and it's not a good thing.
It would be bad if I took something out of context, for example opening a chain of Last Supper restaurants that offered some bad parody of a eucharist for a high price and with just enough of the ceremonial left to be recognized -- which is close to what I've heard of some church seders.

Otoh, either a sincere attempt at a first century or a contemporary Jewish seder wouldn't necessarily be either appropriation or offensive. I think I am saying that the less Jewish your seder, the worse then appropriation.

Posted by fletcher christian (# 13919) on :

It's kind of what Jesus did though, and Paul after him.....would leave us with a bit of problem....

Posted by cliffdweller (# 13338) on :

quote:
Originally posted by fletcher christian:
It's kind of what Jesus did though, and Paul after him.....would leave us with a bit of problem....

... and the NT writers-- constantly quoting the OT completely out of context and in ways contrary to Jewish tradition...

Posted by Og: Thread Killer (# 3200) on :

I think it would be wise of the church to celebrate passages within a person's life.

(But then I'm a true Anabaptist so my perspective is a bit skewed on age celebrations compared to most people on here)

But, if we are going to appropriate cultural events for the purpose of celebrating children becoming a certain age, there has to be more choices then a Bat/Bar Mitzvah.

Posted by Anglican_Brat (# 12349) on :

quote:
Originally posted by angelfish:
I am having serious trouble understanding why people have a problem with "cultural appropriation". Where's the harm? If I see something valuable in another tradition and seek to incorporate it into my own life, nobody is harmed or denigrated and maybe my life will be enriched. It seems a bit divisive to insist that only members of certain groups can do certain things.

I think the issue is that some traditions have powerful meanings within a specific culture or ethnic group and that "borrowing" by another group could constitute parodying or insulting that meaning.

Posted by Timothy the Obscure (# 292) on :

Nobody owns culture, no matter how much some people would like to claim they do. We are all plagiarists--get used to it.

Posted by cliffdweller (# 13338) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Anglican_Brat:

quote:
Originally posted by angelfish:
I am having serious trouble understanding why people have a problem with "cultural appropriation". Where's the harm? If I see something valuable in another tradition and seek to incorporate it into my own life, nobody is harmed or denigrated and maybe my life will be enriched. It seems a bit divisive to insist that only members of certain groups can do certain things.
I think the issue is that some traditions have powerful meanings within a specific culture or ethnic group and that "borrowing" by another group could constitute parodying or insulting that meaning.

quote:
Originally posted by Timothy the Obscure:
Nobody owns culture, no matter how much some people would like to claim they do. We are all plagiarists--get used to it.

I think Timothy is correct-- there's just no avoiding it. But we do well to take care in the how of the borrowing-- to try to do so with all the respect we can, and to attempt to avoid " parodying or insulting that meaning." It's quite possible we will do so anyway, inadvertently, which is where good communication comes in that allows us to listen non-defensively and adjust our actions accordingly.

Posted by M. (# 3291) on :

Originally posted by Angelfish:

quote:
I am having serious trouble understanding why people have a problem with "cultural appropriation". Where's the harm? If I see something valuable in another tradition and seek to incorporate it into my own life, nobody is harmed or denigrated and maybe my life will be enriched. It seems a bit divisive to insist that only members of certain groups can do certain things.

This is what my post upthread was trying to say. As others have suggested, I'm not sure it's even possible to 'insist that only members of certain groups can do certain things'.

I might feel something's in bad taste but that's life.

M.

Posted by Chesterbelloc (# 3128) on :

quote:
Originally posted by cliffdweller:

quote:
Originally posted by Chesterbelloc:
There is very far from being universal agreement - either amongst Christians or Jews - that the Last Supper was a Seder at all.
That's an overstatement. There is some small debate among scholars, but nothing substantial. Luke 22 (esp. v. 13-17) and Mark 14:12-22 explicitly identify the Last Supper as a Passover meal.

I was very careful in my post not to say more than was warranted about this, and in fact erred on the side of undersattement. There are many sceptical voices in the scholarly field on this issue - some of them

Almost the very first site that showed up when I was googling this was this 2001 article from the Biblical Archaeology Society:

quote:
In these times of ecumenicism and general good feeling between Christians and Jews, many people seem to find it reassuring to think that Communion (the Eucharist) and the Passover Seder are historically related. History, however, is often more complex and perhaps a little less comforting than we might hope. Although I welcome the current ecumenical climate, I believe we must be careful not to let our emotions get the better of us when we are searching for history. Indeed, even though the association of the Last Supper with a Passover Seder remains entrenched in the popular mind, a growing number of scholars are beginning to express serious doubts about this claim.

Some of those scholars are quite prominent. Both that article and the link to the "prominent" scholar's work and definitely worth reading if you think there is almost complete consensus that the Last Supper was a Seder.

Posted by fletcher christian (# 13919) on :

John's Gospel is stressed to point out that Jesus is sacrificed as a Passover lamb - hence his chronology of events differing from the other three Gospels. He's making a theological point with all the subtlety of a breeze block. To suggest that this is a new thing only recently noticed isn't quite true. The arguments have run in circles for a very long time. But even if John is correct and the other three Gospels are wrong, John is still drawing a very strong parallel with Jesus as the sacrificed Passover lamb - a passion which is very much a part of communion, and a symbol that lies at the heart of understanding it. In this sense, the arguments over whether John is right or the other three Gospels are right is fairly insignificant then. The only real argument you could make is that the Last Supper meal in John is not a Passover - yet points to all the same themes and parallels to Passover anyway.

Posted by Porridge (# 15405) on :

quote:
Originally posted by cliffdweller:

quote:
Originally posted by Anglican_Brat:

quote:
Originally posted by angelfish:
I am having serious trouble understanding why people have a problem with "cultural appropriation". Where's the harm? If I see something valuable in another tradition and seek to incorporate it into my own life, nobody is harmed or denigrated and maybe my life will be enriched. It seems a bit divisive to insist that only members of certain groups can do certain things.
I think the issue is that some traditions have powerful meanings within a specific culture or ethnic group and that "borrowing" by another group could constitute parodying or insulting that meaning.
quote:
Originally posted by Timothy the Obscure:
Nobody owns culture, no matter how much some people would like to claim they do. We are all plagiarists--get used to it.
I think Timothy is correct-- there's just no avoiding it. But we do well to take care in the how of the borrowing-- to try to do so with all the respect we can, and to attempt to avoid " parodying or insulting that meaning." It's quite possible we will do so anyway, inadvertently, which is where good communication comes in that allows us to listen non-defensively and adjust our actions accordingly.

I agree that cultural appropriation is commonplace, and often serves the laudable aim of breaking down our unfortunate human tendency to categorize people of cultures different from our own as "other."

Two things are being overlooked in this discussion, though. First, we're discussing a specifically religious-based practice (either the bar/bat mitzvah or the seder). Though the bar/bat mitzvah is typically observed within the temple/synagogue and the seder is (generally) observed at home, observant Jewish practice is generally at least as home-based as it is house-of-worship-based. This is one of the reasons that there's often a blurring of boundaries (if any) between "cultural" and "religious" aspects of Jewish practice. This leads us to the second item:

One tenet of Judaism is that the Jews are the chosen people, chosen and specially-set-aside by God. In short, it's part of religious Judaism to understand oneself and one's religious community as having a special relationship with the divine, different from that of one's non-Jewish neighbors.

One way to remind both non-observant others and the observant self of this special status is to have practices / rituals / language which, because they differ from those of the surrounding culture(s) (especially since the diaspora) also set apart the observant self and his/her community from the surrounding culture.

Case in point: Hanukkah. The efforts to make a big deal of this once fairly minor Jewish holiday (at least in the US) stem primarily from well-meaning efforts by the mainstream to be inclusive, since Hanukkah often falls near Christmas. But this effort to be "inclusive" on the part of mainstream culture overlooks or misunderstands the point that being included (which often also results in being assimilated) runs exactly counter to the goal of Jewish religious practice, which is to be constantly mindful of the Jewish community's obligations as the chosen, specially-set-aside people.

When Christians adopt Jewish rituals, they may sincerely believe they're honoring the common roots of the two religions, since Jesus, from a Christian perspective, was a Jew.

For many Jews, though, what Christians may seem to be doing is trying to erase, through adoption, the very differences that set them apart as the chosen people -- a sort of reverse assimilation.

Posted by cliffdweller (# 13338) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Chesterbelloc:

quote:
Originally posted by cliffdweller:

quote:
Originally posted by Chesterbelloc:
There is very far from being universal agreement - either amongst Christians or Jews - that the Last Supper was a Seder at all.
That's an overstatement. There is some small debate among scholars, but nothing substantial. Luke 22 (esp. v. 13-17) and Mark 14:12-22 explicitly identify the Last Supper as a Passover meal.
I was very careful in my post not to say more than was warranted about this, and in fact erred on the side of undersattement. There are many sceptical voices in the scholarly field on this issue - some of them

... Both that article and the link to the "prominent" scholar's work and definitely worth reading if you think there is almost complete consensus that the Last Supper was a Seder.

At the risk of sounding like "I'm rubber, you're glue" I did not say "complete consensus" I said there was a "small debate" and simply that your earlier remark was an "overstatement".

At the same time, I don't see how anyone beginning with a presumption of canonical reliability (understanding not all do) is going to get around the very clear statements in Luke 22 and Mark 14. When we're talking specifically about what Christians (most of whom assume some variation of reliability) believe about communion and how that informs our practice, I think it's more than fair to suggest that connection between Passover and communion. Outside of that field of discussion obviously ymmv.

Posted by cliffdweller (# 13338) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Porridge:

When Christians adopt Jewish rituals, they may sincerely believe they're honoring the common roots of the two religions, since Jesus, from a Christian perspective, was a Jew.

For many Jews, though, what Christians may seem to be doing is trying to erase, through adoption, the very differences that set them apart as the chosen people -- a sort of reverse assimilation.

Yes. All very true. And beyond that, just as we see enormous diversity among Christians on this very thread in their understanding/ interpretation of such things, you're also going to find diversity among Jews in how they interpret/ understand such appropriation of Jewish rituals.

All of which I think simply shows the whole area is fraught. I can't condone an all-out ban, but would agree that we enter carefully, with trepidation. Again, I think it's best if such adoptions are done in the context of close communication/ interaction with the other culture, with dialogue that adjusts, changes, or redirects our practices.

Posted by Enoch (# 14322) on :

Why is it so important for so many of us to condemn other people for doing something that presumably helps them, but which we ourselves don't want to do or don't think would help us?

For denominations that do not have anything that corresponds to Confirmation, or where their equivalent has fallen into desuetude, or where it is done too early, or where it is too exclusively religious, something in adolescence to mark passing from childhood to early adulthood would obviously be a good idea.

For many youngsters, leaving school does this, but happens a bit late, which tends to encourage prolonged juvenility.

As for the grumbles about Christian services designed to bring out more strongly the link between the Eucharist, the Last Supper and the Passover, I think I've mentioned on the ship before that for me, 40+ years ago, hearing an ordinary 100% non-messianic rabbi explain his take on Passover and the weekly seder, opened my eyes to Holy Communion and cleaned out a lot of sub-theological gunk in a way that repeated Christian instruction had singularly failed to do.

I think also that the Communion Service on the evening of Maundy Thursday is special and should be significantly different from other Communion Services. This is a way, but by no means the only one, of doing this.

Posted by cliffdweller (# 13338) on :

quote:
Originally posted by fletcher christian:
John's Gospel is stressed to point out that Jesus is sacrificed as a Passover lamb - hence his chronology of events differing from the other three Gospels. He's making a theological point with all the subtlety of a breeze block. To suggest that this is a new thing only recently noticed isn't quite true. The arguments have run in circles for a very long time. But even if John is correct and the other three Gospels are wrong, John is still drawing a very strong parallel with Jesus as the sacrificed Passover lamb - a passion which is very much a part of communion, and a symbol that lies at the heart of understanding it. In this sense, the arguments over whether John is right or the other three Gospels are right is fairly insignificant then. The only real argument you could make is that the Last Supper meal in John is not a Passover - yet points to all the same themes and parallels to Passover anyway.

Not sure why you suggest that the synoptic gospels differ on this point-- again, Luke 22 and Mark 14 also place the Last Supper as a Passover meal.

Posted by fletcher christian (# 13919) on :

I'm not - read what I said

Posted by cliffdweller (# 13338) on :

quote:
Originally posted by fletcher christian:
I'm not - read what I said

Oh, sorry... I'm confused by "But even if John is correct and the other three Gospels are wrong, John is still drawing a very strong parallel with Jesus as the sacrificed Passover lamb..." Where is it you think the synoptics are differing from John then?

...just trying to follow the conversation...

Posted by fletcher christian (# 13919) on :

Well, if you take a read back at what Chester has said and the links he provided it explains it. Essentially the synoptic Gospels place it as a Passover meal, but John doesn't (in order to make a theological point, which still more or less adds up to the same thing)

Posted by cliffdweller (# 13338) on :

ah. Gotcha. [Hot and Hormonal]

Posted by leo (# 1458) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Enoch:
100% non-messianic rabbi explain his take on Passover and the weekly seder,

? Seders are annual, not weekly.

Posted by fletcher christian (# 13919) on :

I think he's referring to the marking of Shabbat

UBB.classic^TM 6.5.0