| |
My second question
Here is the way I framed the second question I posed to the group, and
the resulting posts:
Current Forum: Ongoing Course Discussion Read 14 times
Date: Thu May 3 2001 9:20 pm
Author: Mary (the teacher)
Subject: Christian appropriation of Judaism and Jewish symbols
------------------------------------------------------------------------
One of the central problems with our current discussion of the cartoon,
and the underlying issues it raises, is that many of us are very ignorant
of the history of Christian interaction with and treatment of Jews and
Judaism. (I recommend two books: John Carroll's _Constantine's Sword_
and Mary Boys' _Has God only one blessing?_).
When Debra talks of "supersessionism" she is speaking of a tradition
within Christianity that is very ancient and still living, and which not
only posits that Christianity "superseded" Judaism (note: this
is very different from a child coming from a parent), but went on to use
that belief as an excuse to eradicate Jews.
There is a lot of very real, very material history at stake here. But
it is not a history that many Christians are all that familiar with. We
are, I suppose, reluctant to share that story when we are having a hard
time simply sharing the basic, constructive story of Jesus' witness. But
it seems to me that we are not fully witnessing to the Christ if we leave
this piece of history out.
And for kids raised in ignorance of that story, who have been raised with
a belief both in the belief that love is at the heart of Christianity,
and that Jesus was Jewish, debates such as the ones we're having may seem
like a lot of "political correctness" or a misinterpretation
of an author's intent (eg. "that's not what the author of the cartoon
intended").
So we are coming on one of the central problematics of this course: religious
symbols are afloat in our larger culture, uprooted from the communities
of which they are a part, and used in ways that are at a minimum ignorant
of their original meanings, and at worst, deeply offensive. Further, the
author of a "message" (whether that's a cartoon, sermon, movie,
tv show, etc.) is not in control of the meanings that will be made of
that message.
How do we deal with this? I think there are many responses, but one of
the most crucial has to do with respecting the communities' beliefs about
the central meanings of particular symbols, and seeking out their interpretations
of those symbols. And this action can be pursued in a number of ways.
I think we are graced by Debra's presence in this class, and her willingness
to risk sharing her concerns and traditions with us. I think we are also
graced, in the Christian community, by young people who are willing to
risk making religious sense of their lives using "The Matrix,"
or other pieces of pop culture. Just as I think we ought to seek out people
like Dennice who are willing to share with us across the Jewish/Christian
divide, I also think that Christian church folk ought to seek out young
people to discern the deep meanings of their engagement with pop culture.
This message is already way too long... but I think these questions we're
engaging are VERY important, and VERY central to this class.
--------------------------------------
Current Forum: Ongoing Course Discussion Read 15 times
Date: Fri May 4 2001 12:36 am
Author: Ben
Subject: Re: Christian appropriation of Judaism and Jewish symbols
------------------------------------------------------------------------
While it is true that we cannot control how a person receives our message,
I think we need to exam more carefully the message we're trying to communicate.
These symbols that we "fight" for whether they are the cross,
or what have you, do we know what these are truly about? One of the things,
I believe, the internet has taught us to fine tune our "knee jerk"
reactions. I think a couple of fitting local examples would include 1)
our govenor of Minnesota, but also 2) me and many of my responses throughout
our discussion board. I see the word discussion and so I read a message
and immediately respond to it just as if I were sitting in the room with
that person. There have been numerous times that because I didn't sit
down and take the time to more carefully craft my message that I found
myself in places I never intended. True, we may have ended in those places
anyway with the discussion. However, I may have been better prepared for
that possibility if I had taken the time to more carefully think through
what I was going to say. So, yes, I cannot control what message is received,
but I can be more careful about what message is sent. Perhaps that is
a first step.
-------------------------------------
Current Forum: Ongoing Course Discussion Read 9 times
Date: Tue May 8 2001 3:02 pm
Author: Sharon
Subject: Re: Christian appropriation of Judaism and Jewish symbols
------------------------------------------------------------------------
I think you've made a really good point, Ben. I agree. I know I still
speak without thinking (or thinking enough!) way too much!
-------------------------------
Current Forum: Ongoing Course Discussion Read 13 times
Date: Fri May 4 2001 3:17 pm
Author: Ben
Subject: Re: Christian appropriation of Judaism and Jewish symbols
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Pardon my ignorance here, but I'm going to ask the question because I
want to understand. Mary mentions there is a painful history of a theology
of supersessionism within Christian circles. I am not even slightly shocked
by that. However, it is also pointed out that not many people know of
this. This leaves me to wonder, if we are not familiar with it does that
then maybe mean that we also do not believe it? I used the example of
the child and the parent because that is how I have always viewed Christianity
coming from Judaism. I think many in my generation would have similar
sort of thoughts ('though not necessarily the same analogy). Which then
gets me to thinking about things like we discussed with school shootings,
if we talk more about this misinformed history which wants to replace
Judaism with Christianity, then are we helping stir up ideas that weren't
there and would not be otherwise? So is it helpful to speak of this history?
Ideally it should help those of us who are Christians understand where
Jews are coming from, just like Debra's use of the "Two Sons"
helped us in class, but is that reality as well?
If I'm missing something here, go ahead and tell me. I'm wanting to learn.
---------------------------------
Current Forum: Ongoing Course Discussion Read 10 times
Date: Sun May 6 2001 1:53 pm
Author: Debra
Subject: Re: Christian appropriation of Judaism and Jewish symbols
------------------------------------------------------------------------
I am not sure what you mean when you ask about history and reality. I
think it might be helpful to start with a definition and a little history.
I think one reason Christians don't know about the history and or about
this heresy, is that it began so long ago and it has become operationalized
in peoples' understandings, perceptions and actions and integrated into
their understanding of Christianity in God's plan and their relationship
to that plan.
Supersessionism also goes by the name of "replacement theology"
and while many Christians may not know what it is, if you ask them what
God's relationship is to Jews and/or Judaism as compared to Christians/Church/Christianity
- they would be able to articulate this theology without knowing it as
such.
I am not sure why seminarians do not understand supersessionism, it is
taught in Christian History classes here. I think that Christians in general
don't see or understand it because they have not been nor are they affected
by it, that is they have not been the victims as a result of this doctrine,
nor are they aware of how it is inexplicably intertwined with their Christian
identity.
Nevertheless, perhaps it would be best to begin with a clear definition
of the word suppersessionism and say a little about its original context.
The word itself comes from the Latin word meaning to sit upon or to rule
over. In the context used here, it refers to the belief/doctrine that
because the Jews didn't accept Christ as the promised Messiah, that God
canceled his covenant with the Jews and the church replaced Israel as
God's one and only chosen people. That Jews no longer have a legitimate
relationship with God.
Early on, 'supersessionism (a heresy) said that Judaism was the precursor
of the church and that the church was something better. In essence, Judaism
(it's life and practice) was a fading truth. This belief was originally
used as a defense by the church to justify its' legitimacy. However, with
the legitimization of Christianity after Constantine it was used offensively
against Jews. Later Augustine appropriated this idea and equated Judaism
as "Cain" blaming the Jews for the death of his "brother
Able" - Jesus. Augustine's formalization of supersessionism, combined
with other beliefs led to the most reprehensible acts by Christians: Christians
who according to their cannon, were to be identified and recognized by
their love for others. Furthermore, it was to be their love and relationship
with the G-d, which was to provoke the Jews to jealousy. Instead, Christians
were provoked to anger, hate and murder. Christianity moved from a position
of defense to offense in terms of its relationship with their older Jewish
sibling and created a situation that has led to the saddest epic in both
our histories.
Throughout the history
of the church, many a Christian has embraced supersessionism or at least
its premise, often quoting from the Gospel of Matthew, whose rendition
of the parable of the vineyard (Matt. 21:43) says the vineyard will be
taken away from the wicked tenants and given to other people. Augustine
said, "the church admits and avows the Jewish people to be cursed."
Luther, trying to show that God had indeed replaced the Jews with the
Church writes: " 'Listen Jew, are you aware that Jerusalem and your
sovereignty, together with your temple and priesthood, have been destroyed
for 1,460 years?' For this year, which we Christians write as the year
1542 since the birth of Christ, is exactly 1,468 years, going on fifteen
hundred years, since Vespasian and Titus destroyed Jerusalem, and expelled
the Jews from the city." The list of others who follow suit is long
and comprehensive. Yet even today there are denominations that openly
claim to be "Israel" or "Spiritual Israel", replacement
theology is foundational for them, that is to say - this doctrine is alive
and well today.
One aside - I don't want to leave you with the impression that Jews understand
Christianity or that what they do understand is entirely accurate, many
however understand supersessionism and Christianity as synonymous.
On Friday, Mary raised a very important and valid point: we cannot speak
about a group of people or their faith or judge them without fully understanding
them. Judaism has a long and extremely complex history, only 1900 years
of that history includes Christianity.
You asked "if we talk more about this misinformed history which wants
to replace Judaism with Christianity, then are we helping stir up ideas
that weren't there and would not be otherwise? What ideas are being stirred
up? Ideas of wrongly understanding how Christians fit into God's plan?
OR??
You ask if is helpful to speak of this history? Absolutely, for how will
we ever have a conversation that takes place on a level playing field
when one side does not know what happened, or the long term affects. I
think this is the least that should be done in order to understand the
one that has been wounded.
As I said at the beginning I don't know what you mean when you as if "that
is reality as well?" Acknowledging that I don't know what you mean
or are getting at with this question let me offer this thought.
Before Christians can begin to question the Jewish reality or our understanding
of reality, Christians need to first seek to understand, again which is
what I believe Mary was getting at on Friday. To say Christianity comes
from Judaism but to know little - if anything about Judaism is a dangerous
thing. To claim relationship without understanding the other - is wrong.
I am often struck by a general arrogance (I don't mean you) amongst Christians
in general, didn't Paul warn against this? IF Christianity is grafted
into Judaism, (Paul writes that they are the wild branches grafted into
the root - Judaism: how much easier for the wild branch to be cut off
and burned) - - Then isn't it incumbent for Christians - seminarians specifically
and Christians generally, to understand the "what and how" of
the covenantal relationship we share with God? After which, should come
discussions of what went wrong some 1900 years ago, the history and the
affects, then begin to look for ways for healing in both communities,
to which a common goal could be identified and a respectful working relationship
developed so that we can all be about OUR father's business? As I said
to someone recently - this isn't about who "Daddy" (God) likes
best or who is right and who is wrong.
Sorry this is s-o-o long! If I don't get a chance to say so later, I want
to thank you for being open and willing to engage in this conversation.
It has been very meaningful and for me. I appreciate your directness and
willingness to engage in a sometimes-difficult discussion. I have appreciated
your directness and have welcomed your questions. Thank you!
As I have said before, I truly believe that it was never God's will or
intention that we became two separate and distinct communities of faith.
I see our conversations and your willingness to go where others may fear
to tread (angels too) as an excellent way to improve understandings and
build relationship and just maybe it will lead to a full reconciliation
between our communities.
----------------------------------
Current Forum: Ongoing Course Discussion Read 11 times
Date: Mon May 7 2001 1:13 am
Author: Ben
Subject: Re: Christian appropriation of Judaism and Jewish symbols
------------------------------------------------------------------------
A few things, as brief as I can be.
1) Thanks for the history of the discussion.
2) I liked the reminder from Paul. If he's right, and I like to hold him
up in many other cases so I'm going to have to assume that he is here
as well, then our being grafted on puts us in a rather precarious position
as you pointed out.
3) The reality that I speak of is one which does not hold the view of
supersessionism. I think it may be one of the things that political correctness
can actually be credited for (I like to blame PC for a lot of stupid stuff
that goes on in this world). I can see where Christians could easily fall
into supersessionism, but I know of no Christians in my generatio that
hold to it. That doesn't mean that they don't exist, I just think there
are fewer than not. I think this current generation that's coming of age,
with their highly tuned "crap detectors" realizes that neither
Christianity nor Judaism is superior to another. I think that's why I,
personally, have not heard supersessionism before, because I could never
be convinced that Christianity was superior to, or replaced, Judaism.
You could argue until you're blue in the face and you would not be able
to convince me that because Jesus came God no longer has a place for the
Jews in His heart, that somehow they are no longer His children. That
would be a ridiculous notion. I think that's true of much of my generation
as well. (Keeping in mind I can as truthfully speak of GenX thoughts as
you can speak of Jewish thoughts, although you're probably closer in touch
than I am.)
---------------------------------
Current Forum: Ongoing Course Discussion Read 12 times
Date: Tue May 8 2001 9:25 am
Author: Debra
Subject: Re: Christian appropriation of Judaism and Jewish symbols
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Allow me ask one question: If it is, as you say, that you and other Christians
from your cohort do not hold to supersessionism, that is, the idea that
one is better or more right than the other, why then, do they insist on
proselytizing or witness to Jews: Jesus? (I understand the theological
reason very well. Yet, if Jews (those who actually have faith) love, serve
and worship God, doesn't the very attempt to evangelize or convert them
imply suppersessionism/superiority or that what their relationship to
the same God is somehow lacking/not good enough/ inferior???
To me the answer is yes, for the act of evangelism and the belief behind
it implies this to be true.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Current Forum: Ongoing Course Discussion Read 11 times
Date: Tue May 8 2001 9:52 am
Author: Mary (the teacher)
Subject: Re: Christian appropriation of Judaism and Jewish symbols
------------------------------------------------------------------------
I think there's an important issue here that we ought to talk about some
more, and that's the one Ben raises when he asks whether or not it's harmful
to teach about a theory that's been dangerous and wrong.
The curriculum here at Luther is framed around three movements: learning
the story, interpreting and confessing, and leading in mission. It seems
to me that this order is intentional and appropriate, and that it has
something to do with our discussion today.
We can't interpret and confess something until we've learned it at a basic
level. And it may be that part of what Ben is pointing to is the need
to help GenX folk simply learn basic Christian "stuff" before
we try to complicate it with the ways in which it's been distorted over
the centuries.
I think there's some truth to this. I read my kids bible stories that
are fairly simplistic, and then when they raise questions I give them
more complex answers. So, yes, on one level it's important just to get
the basic story out.
But with Christianity it's hard, sometimes, to know what the basic story
is. Is it the witness of Jesus? The gospel of love? A commitment to always
standing on the margins with those who are persecuted? It seems to me
all that, and more. And if that is at the heart of the story, than a crucial
part of the story has to be how we've taken that central message and turned
it, instead, into a weapon for hatred and persecution.
I think that GenX folk -- as Ben points out -- are often highly skeptical
of the church because of their highly tuned "crap detectors."
It seems to me that telling our story in its most painful moments might
go a ways towards meeting that skepticism with authenticity and courage.
It might also help GenX folk find a way to be present in a community and
yet also present in a faith community. One foot in, one foot out. There
is certainly a lot in the Christian story (stories, really) that supports
this kind of living on the margins spirituality.
The history of supersessionism is also a history of the ways in which
churches got in trouble when they allied too closely to state powers.
That's a story worth telling in and of itself!
So... do violent representations on tv cause kids to become violent? I
don't think so. But do they support an atmosphere in which alienated and
isolated kids who don't see any other models turn to violence as an outlet?
Perhaps. And a church that only tells the stories of its successes, rather
than its failures, risks building a community that people leave when they
experience its failures, rather than taking heart from history and learning
from it and growing beyond it.
------------------------------------------
Current Forum: Ongoing Course Discussion Read 8 times
Date: Tue May 8 2001 3:13 pm
Author: Sharon
Subject: Re: Christian appropriation of Judaism and Jewish symbols
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mary, your last comment reminds me of our discussion of the mythical/parabolic
roles of ritual and narrative. The church emphasizes the mythical and
denies the parabolic stories of its history, including the history of
its relationship with the Jews.
----------------------------------------
Current Forum: Ongoing Course Discussion Read 10 times
Date: Tue May 8 2001 4:21 pm
Author: Ben
Subject: Re: Christian appropriation of Judaism and Jewish symbols
------------------------------------------------------------------------
I've been thinking about this supersessionism for the last few days now.
While I still hold that there is not a sense of superiority of one over
the other, I do wonder if supersession can be totally avoided. What little
I know of the story is that by simply calling yourself Christian is to
confess Jesus, on some level or another, as the fulfillment of the first
testament. Now it seems to me, and again I'm not overly educated in this
area but I'm going to speak to it anyway, that this a theological point
that Jews and Christians will never be able to agree upon. So logic then
tells me that at this point Christians have a choice: a) accept the differences
and move on or b) witness to Jesus and argue until you're blue in the
face to try and convert Jews. Yes, option B has been the path chosen by
many, if not most, Christians over the years, I don't think that's the
case. I truly believe that we have a generatioin circulating through now
that choses option A. Especially when you look at people like my roomate
who really isn't much of a church goer at all. I suspect he, and many
other of my GenX friends, would argue that Judaism is Christianity without
Jesus. We all worship the same God so what's the big deal. Obviously as
a Christian I think Jesus is a big deal. However, that's not something
I'm going to hold against a Jew. Would I like Jews to be introduced to
Jesus? Yes! Are they the group that needs evangalism the most? No! It
seems it would be a waste of time. God has chosen them already. What I
need to spend my time on is sharing the story with those who have not
heard the story yet, who have not met God. (If all goes as it has in the
past I suspect I may have complicated my argument more. I'm sorry if I've
done that.)
----------------------------------------
Current Forum: Ongoing Course Discussion Read 10 times
Date: Tue May 8 2001 11:15 pm
Author: Debra
Subject: Re: Christian appropriation of Judaism and Jewish symbols
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Ben,
I don't think you have complicated it at all. I agree we need to accept
the differences, but I ask that you not move on - rather that we walk
together side-by-side.
I have thought a lot about the Dabru Emet statement lately (the Jewish
piece from beginning of term) that talked about Jews responding appropriatly
to Christians and to acknowledge that God sent Jesus to save the Gentiles,
to graft them into the root. And as you said so well, accept our differences,
but to the end that we can move on together and be about the work of "our
father".
As I see it, we can choose to focus on where we differ or choose to focus
on where we are the same. Too much time and effort over the centuries
has been on the former. It is time to focus on the latter. I think (and
hope) these discussions will bring us closer to that end.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
------------------------------------------------------------------------
|
