Gorazd Andrejč                                                                       UDK: 2-767(=411.16):27-72 ;

PhD Student                                                                                         2-767(=411.16):274/278

Department of Theology and Religion                                Original scientific paper

School of Humanities and Social Sciences                        Received: 02. 07. 2009.

University of Exeter, UK

CONTEMPORARY ROMAN CATHOLIC

AND PROTESTANT VIEWS REGARDING

THE CONVERSION OF THE JEWS TO CHRISTIANITY

Summary

In the past ages, the conversion of the Jews was, at least in principle, always welcomed by the Christian side. Yet, ethical awakening after the Holocaust, the new self-critical attitude toward anti-Judaism in Christian theology, and the new perspectives in biblical studies which show that earliest Christianity was an integral part of the first-Century Judaism – all these factors influenced the position of numerous Protestant Churches and the Roman Catholic Church regarding their mission among the Jews. As a result, some Churches (or groups in the Churches) have given up any organized mission to the Jews (for ex. Roman Catholic Church); others defend the priority of dialogue over mission which has to be based on mutual witness to ones own faith; but there are also those who try to convert the Jews with specially designed methods. Although there is more agreement regarding some other Christian positions towards the Jews and Judaism in contemporary Western Churches, the question of mission (and conversion) is one of the most difficult issues in Jewish-Christian relations today and remains an open question.

Key words: Conversion, Judaism, Protestantism, Catholicism

Introduction

For many centuries, conversion to Christianity was at the same time one of the greatest threats to Jewish survival and one of greatest temptations facing the Jews of the west. Christian motivations and efforts to convert the people from which Messiah has come „according to the flesh“, and whose were the Law and the Prophets, varied in form and strength, depending on time and place. The Augustinian doctrine of Jewish Witness (Cohen 1999: 1-3.19-21; Fredriksenn 2008: xi-xii) which in many ways shaped the western Christian attitudes towards Jews and Judaism after Augustine, included a particular interpretation of the passage from Psalm 59:12 “Slay them not, lest at any time they forget your law; scatter them in your midst”. This was interpreted as a programmatic statement of policy for the Christian rulers regarding the Jews, not only as a theological idea. The imperative included a prohibition of preventing the Jews to observe Judaism, and not simply a prohibition of killing them. Nevertheless, it was usually thought, not only by uneducated Christian masses, but also by the most prominent theologians of the Church – such as Irenaeus, Augustine, Thomas Aquinas, and Luther, for ex. – that Jews should have believed in the Gospel in the first place, and that their “blindness” was in some way wilful and therefore sinful – they were responsible for the rejection of Jesus. Therefore, although a forceful conversion of the Jews was never prescribed or legitimized by the Church from antiquity to modern era, many subtle and less subtle attempts to coerce the Jews into Christianity were taking place. For Jews, the threat of conversion was not only perceived, but very real.

Christian attitudes toward the Jews have changed extensively in the later part of 20^th Century. Whereas minor changes started to occur in late 19^thth Century, it was the horror of the holocaust that shook western Christian theology (Roman Catholicism and Protestantism). Increasing numbers of theological voices were calling for a thorough re-evaluation of Christian teachings and attitudes towards Jews and Judaism. As a result, many Christians in the West today do not accept anymore the replacement theology or supersessionism, which is a “theological perspective that interprets Christian faith generally and the status of the Church in particular, so as to claim or imply abrogation or obsolence of God's covenant with the Jewish people” (Soulen 2005a: p. 375). Not only mainline Churches – Roman Catholic, Presbyterian, Anglican, Methodist, German Protestant Church, and similar – and their vocal theologians, but also Evangelical, Adventist and other more conservative and even fundamentalist churches have been affected. Many of these churches have, in their public statements or theological teachings, accepted the claim that the Jews are still God’s people of the covenant today (whatever that may mean, but they have not been simply “replaced” by the Church), while some have endorsed the claim that the Jews by following their own faith can attain salvation. and early 20

But the question of Christian mission to the Jews with an aim to convert Jews to Christianity remains a controversial, even divisive issue in Christianity today. Recently, John Pawlikowski has claimed that the issue of Christian mission towards the Jewish people remains a “central, unresolved” question, indeed “one of the most difficult issues” in Jewish-Christian relations today (Pawlikowski 2005: 292-3). Whereas some Christians feel that the abandonment of supersessionism clearly demands also an abandonment of Christian attempts to convert the Jews to Christianity, others continue to affirm active missionary efforts directed toward the Jews. Is conversion of a Jew to Christianity today desirable from a Christian point of view, even if it is not necessary for salvation? Has an attempt, or even a desire for any Jewish conversion to Christianity, become, not only politically incorrect, but, more significantly, theologically questionable?

Naturally, on the Jewish side we find virtually unanimous disapproval of Christian missionary efforts to convert the Jews. By some Jews, such efforts are seen as “spiritual Nazism”, because in their view, missionaries want to “annihilate” Judaism spiritually, where as Hitler wanted to annihilate it physically. But there have also been less negative attitudes towards the Jews who do convert to Christianity today, yet still feel and regard themselves as Jewish. Are these converts still Jewish in any “religious sense”? And, should they be repudiated from the Jewish community and from the Synagogue, even if they want to retain many Jewish religious expressions of their faith? Some feel that these are questions with no easy theological answers even from the Jewish point of view (Cohn-Sherbok 2000).

I will look only at the Christian side of this challenge here and examine some contemporary Roman Catholic and Protestant responses. The overview of positions is not exhaustive, but I hope it may give us some understanding of the differences that exist in the approaches to the questions of Christian mission to the Jews and of possible conversion of Jews to Christianity.

The Catholic perspectives

As mentioned at the beginning, the Augustinian “doctrine of Jewish witness” has prevented the Church  officially advocating any forced conversion of the Jews. Of course, in centuries past (especially during the late Middle Ages and the times of Reformation), many Roman Catholics did try to persuade or make the Jews become Christians. Different kinds of social pressure of a dominant Christian society, and even forced conversions of the Jews into Catholicism were happening – the latter perhaps most notably in Spain and Portugal. However, during the last two centuries or more, efforts to convert Jews to Catholicism have not been nearly as strong as they have been in Protestantism (Pawlikowski 2005: 293).

More recently, the most significant development happened in the 1960-s. The Nostra Aetate document of the Second Vatican Council signified a notable change in Roman Catholic attitude towards Jews and Judaism, especially with the statement: “Although the Church is the new people of God, the Jews should not be presented as rejected or accursed by God, as if this followed from the Holy Scriptures” (Pope Paul IV 1965). However, since Vatican II, there has been a disagreement – a silent one at first, but increasingly public as the time went on – regarding the implications of this and a few other statements from Nostra Aetate for Christian mission to the Jews.

Catholic scholars Gregory Baum, John Pawlikowski, Eugene Fisher and Walter Kasper, who have been on the forefront of Catholic-Jewish relations during last four decades, have in one way or another expressed disapproval of targeting Jews for conversion. Explaining when the Catholic Church has abandoned any organized effort to convert the Jews to Christianity, cardinal Kasper said:

“The term mission, in its proper sense, refers to conversion from false gods and idols to the true and one God, who revealed himself in the salvation history with His elected people. Thus mission, in this strict sense, cannot be used with regard to Jews, who believe in the true and one God. Therefore, and this is characteristic, there exists dialogue but there does not exist any Catholic missionary organization for Jews” (Kasper 2001).

John Pawlikowski (2005: 294) likewise interprets Nostra Aetate to mean that the Catholic Church “has no formal obligation to espouse the conversion of Jews to Christianity through organized missionary efforts” and emphasises that in the light of enduring validity of Jewish covenant to the present day and until the end of history, all Christians have to radically rethink, not only the question of mission to the Jews, but also their own Christian identity and Christology” (Pawlikowski 2007). This is so because the traditional but erroneous conception that Christianity superseded and fulfilled Judaism (which was thought to be spiritually dead), is at the very heart of Christian identity. So, according to Pawlikowski (2005: 282-288), abandoning missionary efforts to convert Jews is not just a nice gesture of political correctness or politeness, but a necessary consequence of the radical rethinking of Christian identity that happened after the holocaust and through which Christianity also discovered a new theological understanding of Judaism.

American bishop Eugene Fisher agrees. He claims (Fisher 1982: 34) that the whole “concept of Christian mission to the Jews is challenged today…, by a growing Christian appreciation of the continuing role that Jewish people are called to play in God’s plan”. Christians generally, and Catholics in particular, should seek to develop a concept of a joint mission they have together with the Jews to the unbelieving or pagan world. Both Pawlikowski and Fisher have co-authored, together with other Christian and Jewish scholars, two important documents in contemporary Jewish-Christian relations: Reflection on Covenant and Mission, issued by Consultation of National Council of Synagogues and the Bishops Committee for Ecumenical and Interreligious Affairs (USA) and A Sacred Obligation, issued by the American ecumenical group called Christian Scholars Group on Christian-Jewish Relations. Both documents explicitly call for abandonment of organized Christian attempts to convert the Jews.

All these Catholic scholars see Christian relationships with Jewish people and religion as different, in an important way, to its relationship to other faiths. The special historical and theological relationship with Judaism from which Christianity emerged as a Jewish sect, include a great closeness andsui generis because Jews are alone in having authentic revelation from a Christian theological perspective” (Pawlikowski 2006: 9). Because of this, the rejection of the efforts to convert the Jews does not necessarily mean an abandonment of effort to convert adherents of other faiths (ibid.: 38). ancient antagonism at the same time and call for special relations in praxis of Christians and Jews today. Therefore, they feel that Christian attitudes towards the Jews can not be understood in the same way they are in relation to adherents of other faiths. “Jewish-Christian relationship is

Although these voices remain influential in Roman Catholicism today[1], a more conservative view also has strong influence and competes with the view just described. Perhaps the most vocal and public advocate of a conservative view was cardinal Avery Dulles, who expressed a decided disagreement with the above mentioned documents, A Sacred Obligation and Reflections on Covenant and Mission. He claimed that an abandonment of evangelization of the Jews is a theological error and contradicts the clear teachings of the New Testament, that Christ came as a Saviour and Messiah (also) for the Jewish people, and the he should be proclaimed to every nation, including the Jews (Dulles 2002). Dulles defended a different interpretation of the Nostra Aetate from Vatican II, one which still affirms a version of supersessionism: Old Testament objectively points to Christ and its fulfilment in the New. So, while the covenant with Israel from Sinai is not abrogated, its true and final fulfilment is only in Christ (Dulles 2005). He also reads the statements of John Paul II, a devout friend of the Jewish people, differently than Pawlikowski or Fisher: John Paul II strongly advocated, Dulles reminds us, missionary evangelization of all peoples, and he never excluded Jews from this universal call to conversion (ibid.).

Although Pope Benedict XVI (former cardinal Ratzinger and the head of Pontifical Biblical Commission) didn’t explain all his statements about Jews and Judaism extensively, many Catholic theologians on both sides of the debate read him as being closer to the conservative view. In an address at St Peter’s square in Rome in 2006 he claimed that 12 tribes of Israel have been replaced by the universal Church, and that they are reunited in the new covenant, which is a “full and perfect accomplishment of the old”. The statement seems to confirm the classical supersessionism (cf. Pawlikowski 2006: 12). Pope’s move in 2008 to reinstate the older, Latin version of Good Friday prayer, which was dropped from Easter liturgy by Vatican II, was seen by many Jews and Catholics as a serious blow to Jewish-Catholic relations. The prayer urges Catholics to “pray for the Jews” and says: “May the Lord our God illuminate their hearts so that they may recognize Jesus Christ as Saviour of all men” (Heinz and Brandt 2008: 3). Many have seen in this act a message from Benedict XVI, that the Jews need to, at least at some point in the eschatological future if not before, convert to Christianity or even Catholicism.

On the other hand, he clearly affirms the validity of the Jewish covenant and their expectation of the Messiah, even though he sees a Christological fulfilment of the Jewish expectation. Whether he claimed that the Jews will have to recognize Jesus as their Messiah in the eschatological future or not, is not perfectly clear. Some read him as though he does claim this, and others as though he doesn’t. Perhaps he expressed his views – at that time still as cardinal Ratzinger – most clearly in the series of interviews published under the title God and the World (Pope Benedict et al. 2002). There he claims that Jews “still stand within the faithful covenant of God,” and that “they will in the end be together with us in Christ” (ibid.: 150). He also says that the Catholics are “waiting for the moment when Israel, too, will say Yes to Christ”. Until then, however, both Jews and Christians need to patiently wait for God’s kingdom to come (ibid.: 149). Overall, the present Pope’s position seems to side closer to the conservative position of the debate endorsed by the late cardinal Dulles, and poses some problems for Catholic Jewish-Christian relations, at least in the eyes of the main representatives for dialogue on both sides (Kessler 2009).

But it is not clear which view will prevail or even become an official one in the Roman Catholic Church. The debate goes on for some time now, definitely since Nostra Aetate, but it has become more heated and explicit during the last ten years. It seems the conservative view that missionary evangelization of the Jews should never be abandoned, has gained some momentum again in recent years. Despite this turn, cardinal Kasper’s words are still a good description of reality in the practice: It appears that the Roman Catholic Church still does not actively engage in any organized missionary efforts to convert the Jews.

Some Protestant Perspectives

Given the extremely diverse and fragmented nature of Protestantism[2], the attempt to present an overview of Protestant views regarding conversion of the Jews is a hard task. I will mention only a few positions which I hope are typical and, to some degree at least, representative for many other Protestant views, but I have no doubt that many more exist which can not fit into the categories here adopted. Also, the discussions in the Protestant world regarding this question could not be covered here in a similar way as they are for the Catholic Church, simply because there are too many discussions and positions involved.

A brief look back at the beginnings of Protestantism tells us that Martin Luther had high hopes for the conversion of the Jews at the beginning of his career as a public preacher and writer. Now that the pure Gospel without the Catholic twisted doctrine will be preached to the Jews, Luther believed, they will gladly accept the good news. As the years went by and this didn’t happen, Luther turned strongly against the Jews in his later years, even calling for destruction of the synagogues and for expelling of the Jews from Germany (which was not so unusual sentiment for those times, it must be admitted) (Chazan 2000: 21-22).

More “civilized” efforts to preach the Gospel to the Jews by Protestants came about in 18^th, but especially in 19^th century, during the great momentum of the protestant missionary activity in English-speaking, but also German and Dutch-speaking Protestantism. In the decades after the London Society for Promoting Christianity among the Jews was founded in 1808, many other similar societies were formed. At the Edinburgh World Missionary Conference, which was the peak of European Protestant Mission in the world and has brought together all major Protestant churches, there were at least 95 similar missionary societies for the Jews present that engaged more than 800 people in an active mission to the Jews (DeRidder 1982: 106-107).

The situation has changed much in the decades after the holocaust. Many protestant theologians have come to a realization of the extent to which Christian theology itself includes anti-Judaism and proposed different reformulations of the doctrines in order to remedy this problem. But it was not only the effect of the holocaust: critical study of the Bible and of traditional protestant interpretations of the Old and New Testaments also brought about relevant changes. The classical Lutheran sharp contrast between Law and Grace – where the law is associated with the outdated and abolished Old Testament and Judaism, and the grace only with the New Testament, Jesus and Christianity – began to be seen as an erroneous interpretation of the Bible, especially of the writings of the Apostle Paul. Scholars like E.P. Sanders, James D.G. Dunn and N.T. Wright have pointed out that in Paul there is much less contrast between the law and grace than traditionally conceived. Paul was still a Torah-observant Jew, despite his Christian faith and despite the fact that he proclaimed that the gentiles who believed in Jesus do not have to become circumcised and fully observant (cf. Sanders 1977, Dunn 1988 and Wright 1991).

These developments within Protestantism – the ethical awakening after the holocaust, the new self-critical attitude towards anti-Judaism in Christian theology, and the new perspectives in Biblical studies that showed the original Christianity as a much more integral part of the Jewish world of the first century – influenced the attitudes of many Protestant Churches in the West toward the mission to the Jews. Consequently, the majority of Mainline Protestant churches have issued statements in which they have condemned anti-Semitism and anti-Judaism and recognized their historical share in guilt for these phenomena in the world. Furthermore, some of these statements explicitly repudiate “proselytism”, “evangelism” or “targeting Jews for conversion”. For example, not dissimilarly as the statements from more “liberal” Roman Catholic perspective mentioned above, a declaration of the Synod of the Evangelical Church of Rhineland in Germany said:

“We believe that in their respective calling Jews and Christians are witnesses of God before the world and before each other. Therefore we are convinced that the church may not express its witness towards the Jewish people as it does its mission to the peoples of the world” (Synod of the Evangelical Church 1980)

In a similar vein, the General Council of the United Church of Canada declared that it “rejects proselytism which targets Jews for conversion to Christianity” (General Council 2003).

Other Protestants have not been so willing to abandon the mission to the Jews, but have rather issued statements and guidelines with which they want to ensure a more sensitive approach to the mission question and avoid psychological or other kind of coercion of Jews in order to convert them to Christianity. For ex., Alliance of Baptists in the USA have in 2003 issued a statement where they reject supersessionism and confess their sin of anti-Judaism, as well as their own contribution to anti-Semitism in the past, but regarding mission they commit themselves “to rigorous consideration of appropriate forms of Christian witness for our time” (Alliance of Baptists 2003). This vague statement clearly does not denounce the mission to the Jews. But forms of mission can range widely, from organized and targeted evangelization of the Jews with the aim of conversion, to spontaneous and less organized activities like sharing one’s faith in the context of friendship between Christians and Jews, which is usually regarded as a less controversial form of faith witness, especially if done mutually. The document of the Alliance of Baptists recognizes a need for rethinking the forms of Christian witness, and a responsibility of choosing those which they understand to be ethically appropriate and compatible with an honest and respectful dialogue with the Jews.

On the other end of the spectrum are conservative Evangelical Christians who can be found in many denominations and free Churches across the World, but have a strongest presence in the US. According to a widespread evangelical position, not only are Jews not exempt from the universal Christian mission to all “nations and tongues” of the world, but they constitute a special target for conversion because of their history as God’s people and because Jesus was sent as the Messiah “to Jews first and then to the Gentiles” (Rom 1:16, 2 Cor 5:14-15). Together with this targeting for conversion, however, there is a deep appreciation of the Jewish people among evangelicals, because of the unique role of the contemporary Jews in dispensationalist eschatological scenario that is prevalent among evangelicals. According to this scenario, the Jews and Israel have an important – although instrumental – place in the end time events just before Jesus’ second coming on earth which will occur, according to many evangelicals, in Jerusalem (Ariel 2000: 289-290).

Since the late 1960s, the movements that eventually became very influential in evangelical circles and shaped the evangelical views about the mission to the Jews, are Messianic Jews and an organization called “Jews for Jesus”. As Messianic Jews (a generic term for a type of Jewish Christians) are a considerably widespread and cross-denominational movement – forms of Messianic Judaism exist also in mainstream churches, not just in independent evangelical ones – a slightly closer look at both movements is in order.

The basic stance of both is that the Jews, who convert to Christianity, need not abandon their Jewish identity, practices or rituals. Rather, the Jew who accepts Jesus as Messiah is, according to a basic Messianic Jewish understanding, a fulfilled Jew. Contrary to the position of the most Western mainline Churches, including Roman Catholics, they claim that a person can be Jewish and Christian at the same time. This means that, even after all the centuries of separate traditions and interpretations, these identities are not mutually exclusive in principle. A Jewish person who believes in Christ can be both.

Messianic Jews are led by people of Jewish origin (usually first-generation converts) of whom the vast majority advocate active mission to the Jews, conducted by the Jews who already converted to Christianity, and using special methods and contextualization of the gospel for various groups of Jews today. This includes building “Messianic synagogues”, using Jewish liturgy, symbols and Hebrew language at services, performing the services on Seventh-day Shabbat, and similar – all this usually in order to attract non-Christian Jews to Christianity.[3] Many times their converts are secular Jews who feel that they have found a fresh connection with their spiritual roots through Messianic Judaism.

There are different types of Messianic Jewish congregations and organizations. Jews for Jesus, for example, are involved in one of the most aggressive forms of evangelism known in Christian world today, by confronting Jewish people on the streets and university campuses (predominantly in the US) and engaging them directly into arguments regarding Messiah, the Covenant, etc. Not surprisingly, their activities have spurred great controversy and public protest in the Jewish communities and continue to do so. The leader of Jews for Jesus, Moishe Rosen, has consistently advocated confrontational and aggressive conversionary activities and believes that the publicity and controversy that such an approach creates is eventually good for missionary purposes, and a hallmark of genuine God’s work (Ariel 2000: 214). Other Messianic Jews have been less aggressive in their missionary approach and many distance themselves altogether from organizations such as Jews for Jesus. But virtually all of them hold that conversion of the Jews to Christianity is a good and desired thing, and feel specially called to witness at least in some way, to their faith that Jesus is the fulfilment of their Jewishness. They developed a distinct vocabulary, different from the usual evangelical one, to describe conversion: instead, they talk of “coming to know Yeshua”, or to experience their “Jewishness in full” (ibid.:228-29).

However, it must be noted that the vast majority of Jews feel Messianic Jews have abandoned their Jewish identity. This is not surprising, as rejection of Jesus of Nazareth as Messiah or God’s Son has became an integral part of rabbinic Judaism during the early Christian centuries and has remained so. As a result, Messianic Jews – either because of their conversionary attitude or because of the uncomfortable blending of identities in the eyes of majority of Jews and Christians – often find themselves rejected by both, mainstream Judaism and mainstream Christian Churches (especially by those Churches who have abandoned Christian mission to the Jews, of course).

Lastly, let us consider also the somewhat unique situation of the Anglican Church. It seems to include the greatest diversity of attitudes towards mission to the Jews, compared to other major Christian denominations, which is not unusual for Anglicanism – in this denomination, a similar plurality holds also in connection with several other pertinent questions that face Christianity today. A document of the Church of England (a part of Worldwide Anglican Church) describes three prevailing attitudes towards mission to the Jews in this Church today. As it sums up the predominant Protestant (and Catholic) positions so well, a somewhat longer excerpt from this document is an appropriate way to conclude our overview:

i.) Some within the Church of England today feel that it is not appropriate for Christians to believe that they have any kind of “mission to Jews”. Often this view is based on a particular theological understanding of God’s covenant with the Jewish people. Many further believe that Christian responsibility for the “teaching of contempt”, and therefore for anti-Judaism and anti-Semitism down the centuries, makes it unthinkable for Christians to seek to persuade Jews to change their minds about Jesus and “become Christians”. The point is also strongly made that conversionist endeavours of this kind can destroy the foundations of trust between Christians and Jews, and so adversely affect the development of dialogue and cooperation which should be the imperative in Jewish-Christian relations. Christians should think in terms of “a common mission” with Jews, in the sense that “they share a mission to the world that God’s name may be honoured, a common obligation to love God with their whole being and their neighbours as themselves”.

ii.) Others feel that it is entirely appropriate that Christians who establish relationships of genuine friendship and trust with Jews should continue to see these relationships in the context of Christian mission. In open and frank dialogue they see no reason why Christians should not seek to share their beliefs about Jesus with Jews, provided they do so with genuine respect and sensitivity and carefully listen to what their Jewish friends have to share. There is no place, however, for special “targeting” of the Jews, still less for methods involving any kind of coercion or manipulation. In the history of our tragic past, the priority today must be to establish a new, constructive relationship with the Jewish people: this will mean trying to understand Judaism from a Jewish point of view, affirming common ground, but also sharing our most deeply held convictions even where this entails disagreement. Within this general understanding, some Christians find it possible to think in terms of both a common mission shared by Christians and Jews and a distinctive mission of Christians to the Jews. However, it is not evident that the possibility of such a position would be recognized by most Jewish people.

i.) Yet others feel that Christians have a responsibility to try to convince Jews about Jesus as Messiah. This stems from the desire that they should become Jesus’ disciples. Some would go further and say that, on the basis of Paul’s conviction about the need to bring the gospel “to the Jew first, and also to the Greek” (Romans 1.16), Christians have a special responsibility to evangelize Jews in particular, and this is likely to require special approaches directed to the Jewish community and taking account of their particular context and history. Jewish community leaders have expressed particularly vigorous objections to this approach, which is that generally promoted by Messianic Jewish believers. It should be noted that in 1992 the Archbishop of Canterbury, in declining an invitation to be the patron of the Church’s ministry among Jewish People distanced himself from mission organizations entirely directed towards specific other faith communities. (Interfaith Consultative Group 2001: 25-27)

Conclusion

We can only agree with Pawlikowski’s estimate that the question of mission to the Jews, is one of the most difficult issues in Jewish-Christian relations and remains central and unresolved (Pawlikowski 2005: 292-3). This is because mission, in the sense of proclaiming the message of Jesus, has been an essential feature of Christianity from its very beginnings. The first to whom Jesus and his disciples have proclaimed the gospel, were Jews, as were apostles and Jesus themselves. But it is now much better understood that these were initially internal Jewish disagreements and discussions at the time of Jesus and early apostles (which touched upon gentiles as well), so that we can not talk about two different religions at that early time. This reveals a deep connection, and indebtedness, of Christianity to Judaism and calls for a committed and ongoing Christian appreciation of Judaism. Since the holocaust has revealed how deeply anti-Judaism was ingrained in European Psyche and how obviously Christianity, among other things, caused this fact, Christian mission to the Jews became, not only a theological issue, but very much also an ethical and political one. It is clear today that Jewish-Christian relations cannot be grounded only (or even predominantly) on Christian feelings of guilt because of the holocaust and anti-Judaism, but needs to go beyond that: it needs a firmer commitment of mutual respect from both sides. The challenge, how to reconcile the basic “rule” of dialogue – “respecting the other and taking the other equally seriously, as we wish to be taken ourselves” (Kessler 2009a, 35) – with the commitment to proclaim the Gospel to all people, extends wider than Jewish-Christian relations. It is connected to a more general question of how to retain a positive respect and openness toward the other, with whom one does not agree even in very deeply held beliefs, but with whom one desires an open and honest communication and lasting relationship.

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Alliance of Baptists (2003) „The Statement on Jewish-Christian Relations from Alliance of Baptists“. Online. Available at: http://www.jcrelations.net/en/?item=2048 . Last accesed 10.07.2009.

Ariel, Yaakov. (2000) Evangelizing the Chosen People: Mission to the Jews in America, 1880-2000. Chapel Hill and London: University of North Carolina Press.

Chazan, R. (2000) «Christian-Jewish Interactions over the Ages». In T. Frymer-Kensky et al. eds. Christianity in Jewish Terms. Boulder, CO: Westview Press. pp. 7-24.

Cohen, Jeremy. (1999) Living Letters of the Law: Ideas of the Jews in Medieval Christianity. Berkeley: University of California Press.

Cohn-Sherbok, D. (2000) Messianic Judaism. London: Continuum.

DeRidder, R. (1982) «A Reformed, Evangelical Perspective of Mission». In M. A. Cohen and H. Croner, eds. Christian Mission–Jewish Mission. New York: Paulist Press. pp. 101-118.

Dulles, Avery. (2002) "Evangelization and the Jews". America 187:12 (October 21, 2002), 8-16. Available Online:

https://www.americamagazine.org/content/article.cfm?article_id=2550&comments=1. Last accessed 13.07.2009.

Dulles, Avery. (2005) „The Covenant with Israel“. First Things (November 2005). Available Online: http://www.firstthings.com/article/2008/08/the-covenant-with-israel---42 . Last Accessed 13.07.2009.

Dulles, Avery. (2008) „Who Can be Saved?“ First Things (February 2008). Available Online: http://www.firstthings.com/article/2008/02/001-who-can-be-saved-8 . Last accessed 13.07.2009.

Dunn, James D. G. (1988) The theology of Paul the Apostle. Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans.

Fisher, Eugene J. (1982) „Historical Developments in the Theology of Christian Mission“. In M. A. Cohen and H. Croner, eds. Christian Mission–Jewish Mission. New York: Paulist Press. pp. 4-45.

Fredriksen, Paula (2008) Augustine and the Jews. New York: Random House.

General Council of the United Church of Canada. (2003) „Bearing Faithful Witness: Statement on United Church – Jewish Relations Today“. Available online: http://www.jcrelations.net/en/?item=998 . Last Accessed 10.07.2009.

Heinz, H., and Brandt H.G. (2008) «A New Burden on Christian-Jewish Relations». Sidic-Roma Documentazione Bollettino di Informazione. Aug 2007-Mar 2008. p. 3-4.

Interfaith Consultative Group of the Archbishop's Council. (2001) Sharing One Hope? The Church of England and Christian-Jewish Relations. London: Church House Publishing.

Jews and Christians – Discussion Group of the Central Committee of German Catholics. (2009) „No to Mission to the Jews – Yes to Dialogue between Jews and Christians“. Online. Available at: http://www.jcrelations.net/en/?item=3098#3 . Last accesed 10.07.2009.

Kasper, W. (2001) “Dominus Iesus”. Address delivered at the 17th meeting of the International Catholic-Jewish Liaison Committee, New York, May 1, 2001. Quoted in Reflections on Covenant and Mission, written by The National Council of Synagogues and the Bishops Committee for Ecumenical and Interreligious Affairs, USCB, August 12, 2002.

Kessler, Edward. (2009) „Dialogue, not Symbolism“, Guardian, Sunday 10 May 2009. Available Online: http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2009/may/10/pope-benedict-judaism-christianity . Last accessed 14.07.2009.

Pawlikowski, J. (2005) „Reflections on Covenant and Mission“. In E. Kessler, M.J.Wright, eds. Themes in Jewish-Christian Relations. Cambridge: Orchard Academic. pp 273-300.

Pawlikowski, J. (2006) „Developments in Catholic-Jewish Relations: 1990 and Beyond“. Prepared for a Festschrift for Professor Zev Garber. Available online at: http://www.sistersofsion.org/charism/DevelopmentsOctober2006.pdf . Last accessed: 13.07.2009.

Pawlikowski, J. (2007) “Christology and the Jewish-Christian dialogue: A Personal Journey”. Irish Theological Quarterly, 72/2, 147-167.

Pope Benedict XVI and Seewald, Peter. (2002) God and the World. San Francisco, CA: Ignatius Press.

Pope Paul IV (1965) «Nostra Aetate: Declaration on the Relation of the Church to Non-Christian Religions». Available online:

http://www.vatican.va/archive/hist_councils/ii_vatican_council/documents/vat-ii_decl_19651028_nostra-aetate_en.html . Last Accessed 12.07.2009.

Rausch, D. (1982) «The Messianic Jewish Congregational Movement». The Christian Century 99/28 Sept. 15-22, 1982. pp. 926-7.

Sanders, E. P. (1977) Paul and Rabbinic Judaism: A Comparison of Patterns of Religion. Minneapolis, MN: Fortress Press.

Sequeira, R. (2009) „Jewish and Adventist Issues“. In R. Elofer, ed., Comfort, Comfort My people: Towards a Growing Adventist-Jewish Friendship. Silver Spring, MA: General Conference of Seventh-day Adventists.

Soulen, Kendall. (1996) God of Israel and Christian Theology. Minneapolis: Augsburg Fortress.

Soulen, Kendall. (2005a) “Replacement Theology.” in E. Kessler, N. Wenborn, eds., Dictionary of Jewish-Christian Relations. Cambridge, Cambridge University Press. pp. 375-376.

Soulen, Kendall. (2005b) “Supersessionism.” in E. Kessler, N. Wenborn, eds., Dictionary of Jewish-Christian Relations. Cambridge, Cambridge University Press. pp. 413-414.

Stowe, D. M. (1982) «A Contemporary Understanding of Mission from a Protestant Orientation and Tradition». In M. A. Cohen and H. Croner, eds. Christian Mission–Jewish Mission. New York: Paulist Press. pp. 80-100.

Synod of the Evangelical Church of the Rhineland. (1980) „Towards Renovation of the Relationship of Christians and Jews“. Online. Available at http://www.jcrelations.net/en/?item=1005 . Last accessed 10.07.2009.

Wright, N. T. (1991) The Climax of the Covenant: Christ and the Law in Pauline Theology. Minneapolis, MN: Fortress Press.

Gorazd Andrejč

DANAŠNJI STAVOVI RIMOKATOLIKA I PROTESTANTATA

PO PITANJU OBRAĆENJA JEVREJA U HRIŠĆANSTVO

Rezime

U prošlim vekovima je, barem u principu, obraćenje Jevreja u hrišćanstvo bilo uvijek poželjno sa hrišćanske tačke gledišta. Ali etičko buđenje nakon Holokausta, nov samokritički odnos prema antijudaizmu u hrišćanskoj teologiji i novo stanovište u biblijskim studijama, koje pokazuje da je izvorno hrišćanstvo mnogo integralniji deo jevrejskog sveta u prvom veku – uticalo je na stavove brojnih protestantskih i rimo-katoličke crkve o misiji među Jevrejima. Kao rezultat, neke crkve (ili struje u crkvama) odustale su od svakog organiziranoj misioniranja Jevreja (npr. katolička crkva), druge zagovaraju prednost dialoga ispred misijoniranja koje mora temeljiti na uzajamnom svjedoćenju o vlastitoj veri, a neke pokušavaju obratiti Jevreje sa posebnim metodama. Iako postoji više suglasnosti oko nekih drugih hrišćanskih razumijevanja Jevreja i Judaizma u suvremenim Zapadnim crkvama, pitanje misioniranja među Jevrejima jedno je od najtežih u jevrejsko-hrišćanskim odnosima i ostaje otvoreno.

Ključne reči: obraćenje, judaizam, protestantizam, katolicizam

[1] Cardinal Walter Kasper is the head of the Pontifical Commission for Religious Relations with the Jews and has been regarded as one of most influential cardinals in the Vatican curia; Bishop Eugene Fisher is Associate Director of the Secretariat for Ecumenical and Interreligious Affairs of United States Conference of Catholic Bishops, and Dr John Pawlikowski is a professor of Ethics and Director of the Catholic-Jewish Studies Program in Catholic Theological Union at University of Chicago. See also a very recent document (“Jews and Christians” Discussion Group 2009) which the Central Committee of German Catholics adopted in March 2009 and explicitly argues, from historical and theological points of view, against Christian mission to the Jews.

[2] With Protestantism in this essay I mean all denominations and groups which came out of reformation and subsequent developments: not just the magisterial reformation (Lutheran, Zwinglian and Calvinist), but also Anabaptist and other radical reformation traditions.

[3] There are different perceptions of these practices among Messianic Jews. Some groups adopt or retain them primarily to attract other Jews to Christianity, whereas others believe theologically that these practices, including the Seventh-day Shabbat, dietary laws and circumcision, are still incumbent on all Jews, including Christian Jews. To the latter group, among others, belong also the Jewish Christian believers who are Seventh-Day Adventists, who are reluctant to call themselves Messianic Jews because of theological differences (cf. Sequeira 2009: 37-40).

Nazad (Back to) "Najnovije izdanje"