Christians relating to Jews: key issues in public statements.

Squires, John T.

1. Introduction

Over the past six decades a number of public documents have been issued relating to the Christian relationship with Jews. These public documents have been written by the International Council of Christians and Jews (I.C.C.J.) (first in 1947), the Vatican (notably in 1965), the World Council of Churches (W.C.C.) and some of its agencies, and--especially in the past two decades--a growing number of individual Christian denominations. (1) These documents have canvassed a range of issues, which have taken the relationship into areas that are, at times, stimulating, challenging, and fraught with difficulties.

Many of these documents have taken pains to begin by stating the "common denominators" that exist between Christianity and Judaism. Practitioners of each faith have been able to focus on a set of key affirmations to which each believer might give assent. Because of the direction in which these documents look--from the Christian perspective, looking toward the Jewish religious experience--these shared affirmations are most often expressed in Christian terms. However, they point the way to fruitful developments in the relationship in the future.

The documents also canvass a range of issues that have difficulties and dangers embedded in them--some because of the emotional freight attached to them from history, others because of the way in which they shape current perceptions and behaviors of Christians in relation to Jews. Both evangelical fervor and persecutory actions have characterized ways that Christians have related to Jews in past centuries, up to the present day. Such matters are named and discussed in a number of these documents. In the process of exploring these issues in careful and sensitive fashion, a number of questions have been identified that merit deeper and more rigorous consideration. Such questions relate to the role of "covenant" in this relationship, the place of the Messiah in the respective faiths, models of "salvation" that might inform this relationship, the common activities that might be undertaken by Christians and Jews in partnership, and how Christians might address the difficulties inherent in Jewish commitment to the Land of Israel within the contemporary religious and political context.

The basic stance adopted throughout the range of documents is that Judaism is a living faith that is to be respected as an integral part of the contemporary religious scene and with which it is important for Christians to engage in mutual dialogue and common action. While this stance is not always explicitly noted, it is evident in the various documents. Nostra aetate, the 1965 Vatican statement on relationships with non-Christian religions, refers to the "spiritual patrimony common to Christians and Jews." (2) A decade later, the Roman Catholic bishops of the U.S.A. developed this terminology with their affirmation of "our common patrimony and spiritual ties with Jews," (3) while a 1985 document from the Vatican itself refers to "the faith and religious life of the Jewish people as they are professed and practiced still today." (4)

In more recent decades documents emanating from the W.C.C. have referred to "the continuing vocation of the Jewish people," (5) their "rich history of spiritual life," (6) and "the living tradition of Judaism." (7) The Anglican Communion has described Judaism as "a living and still developing religion," (8) Australian Catholic bishops have referred to "the living and complex reality of Judaism," (9) and U.S. Methodists have noted that "Judaism and Christianity are living and dynamic religious movements." (10) The Evangelical Churches in Austria "recognize Judaism as a living and diverse entity," (11) while the Uniting Church in Australia has affirmed Judaism as "a living faith possessed of its own integrity and vitality." (12)

Such statements about Judaism, while obvious to the observer of the contemporary world religious scene, are needed because of the widespread tendency within the churches to regard Judaism entirely through the lenses provided by a traditionalist (and uncritical) interpretation of the Christian Scriptures--often resulting in a stereotyped and inadequate view of Judaism as legalistic and moribund. Christians who are engaged in dialogue with Jews are soon aware that they are in relationship with members of a living, dynamic religion.

II. Key Affirmations

Out of this basic stance, a number of affirmations can be made. Throughout the documents there runs a consistent recognition that Jews and Christians are bound together by a range of factors. These factors are most evident in the shared literature and moral ethos of the respective faiths. In addition, certain theological considerations reflect the closeness of Jews and Christians. Aspects in common through the early history of the two faiths receive a more varied treatment in the various documents.

A. A Shared Literature

There is a significant overlap in the literature of the two religions: What Christians call the "Old Testament" comprises the books known collectively to Jews as the Torah. The Vatican's first document on this matter acknowledges that "the Church ... cannot forget that she received the revelation of the Old Testament through the people with whom God in His inexpressible mercy concluded the Ancient Covenant" (Nostra aetate, [section]4). The 1967 report of the W.C.C.'s Commission on Faith and Order notes that "the documents of the Old Testament belong to the heritage that the churches have received from Israel and have in common with the Jews" and calls for Christians "to analyze the criteria they use in their interpretation of the Bible." (13)

The Rhineland Declaration of 1980 describes these books as the "common foundation for faith and work of Jews and Christians," (14) while the I.C.C.J. continued this theme with its 1993 reference to the "common religious patrimony of the Hebrew Scriptures." (15) The Uniting Church in Australia noted that these books provide "a common heritage in the unique testimony of the Old Testament (the Hebrew Scriptures) to the One God, Creator and Redeemer" (UCA, 1997, [section]7.2).

In making such claims about the literature common to Jews and Christians, however, some documents recognize the need to refine the rather blunt claims made, as noted in the previous paragraph. While the Hebrew Scriptures are used liturgically and studied within both Jewish and Christian faith communities, it is also evident that Jews and Christians make divergent interpretations of these scriptures. This issue was first addressed in the document from the W.C.C.'s Commission on Faith and Order, noting that "the question of the right understanding of these writings will necessarily come to the fore, the Jews placing them in the context of the Talmud and Midrash, the churches in that of the New Testament" (CJP, 1967, [section]V); and, subsequently, that "the oral law must be specially mentioned, for it has played such a central role in shaping Jewish life and thought, and still continues to be of paramount importance for large groups" (CJP, 1967, [section]VI). Consequently, the Evangelical Church of the Rhineland observed that "we want to perceive the unbreakable connection of the New Testament with the Old Testament in a new way, and to learn to understand the relationship of the 'old' and the 'new' from the standpoint of the promise: in the framework of the given promise, the fulfilled promise and the confirmed promise" (Rhineland Declaration, 1980, no.7).

The Vatican Commission for Religious Relations with the Jews devoted a significant section of its 1985 document to consideration of "Relations between the Old and New Testaments" (Notes, 1985, [section]II), and in 2003 the Pontifical Biblical Commission produced a detailed consideration of the theological and doctrinal implications involved in this relationship. (16) The I.C.C.J. grappled further with this issue in its 1993 document, asserting both that "the Torah ... remains valid for Jews ... nor has the Torah been abolished for Christians, but remains part of God's revelation, albeit with a new interpretation through the person of Christ," and that "the coming of Christ did not change the Torah's purpose of giving shape to the life of Israel as a particular people with a particular vocation" (ICCJ, 1993). As German Evangelicals observed, "the two testaments form a unity of reciprocal interpretation ... we are grateful that Jews through their interpretation help us to a deeper understanding of the Bible." (17)

B. A Shared Moral Ethos

From this literature, a common "moral ethos" can be traced: As children of Abraham and heirs of Moses, Jews and Christians recognize the fundamental significance of the Ten Commandments and share in a commitment to "holiness" as a common ethos. Thus, "Christians and Jews have kindred ethical frameworks, grounded in the Old Testament (the Hebrew Scriptures)" (UCA, 1997, [section]7.3), or, as the I.C.C.J. expressed from another perspective, "One God speaks to us all through the Old and the New Testaments." (18) This foundation leads to the logical consequence "that the fundamental commandment of Christianity, to love God and one's neighbour, proclaimed already in the Old Testament and confirmed by Jesus, is binding upon both Christians and Jews in all human relationships, without any exception" (Seelisburg Address, 1947, point 4).

Subsequently, the I.C.C.J. has asserted that the "common religious basis of Judaism and Christianity" is based upon "a rich literature--the Hebrew Scriptures--comprising narratives, poetry, hymns, prophetic literature, wisdom teaching and historiography, which reflect the understanding of God, humanity and the world as well as the ethos and values set out above," and that "the two main commandments Jesus described as the greatest ... and the Ten Commandments ... are central to Christian ethics" (ICCJ, 1993). The document then details seventeen specific elements that comprise these common values and ethos under the heading, "The Common Religious Basis of Judaism and Christianity." More succinctly, the Evangelical Church in Germany declared commonality in "the hearing and following of God's commandments--for us Christians, in discipleship to Jesus" (Manifesto, 2000, [section]6). Yet, this claim is alone among recent documents, where an aversion to the somewhat discredited concept of the "Judaeo-Christian ethic" might be discerned.

C. A Shared History

The shared "history" of the two religions begins with the fact that Jesus was a Jew, as were the apostles and Mary; in the earliest period of the church, the majority of Christians were also Jews. As early as 1947, the I.C.C.J. urged the churches to remember "that Jesus was born of a Jewish mother of the seed of David and the people of Israel" and "that the first disciples, the apostles and the first martyrs were Jews" (Seelisburg Address, 1947, points 2 and 3).

However, documents originating from the Assemblies of the W.C.C. consistently fail to acknowledge this matter. In 1948, the Amsterdam Assembly noted "the special meaning of the Jewish people for Christian faith" but failed to ground this in the Jewishness of the church in its early decades. (19) In 1954, when the Evanston Assembly rejected a passage on "the hope of Israel," a number of delegates issued their own statement that affirmed: "Jesus Christ as Man was a Jew. The Church of Jesus Christ is built upon the foundation of the Apostles and Prophets, all of whom were Jews." (20) In its 1967 report the W.C.C.'s Commission on Faith and Order acknowledged that "the first community of Christians were Jews who had accepted Jesus as the Christ" but omitted any reference to the Jewishness of Jesus (CJP, 1967, [section]II). Pronouncements of subsequent W.C.C. Assemblies have not addressed this issue; their focus has been largely related to the political situation in the Middle East. (21)

The Vatican document, Nostra aetate ([section]4), also omits any reference to the Jewishness of Jesus or the early Christians. Yet, a decade later, as the Vatican Commission for Religious Relations with the Jews pointed to "the spiritual bonds and historical links binding the Church to Judaism," it highlighted this factor when dealing with matters of "Teaching and Education." (22) At the same time, the National Conference of Catholic Bishops in the U.S.A. devoted two substantial paragraphs to the matter of "the Jewish origins of the Church," affirming "the heritage and rich spirituality, which we derive from Abraham, Moses, the prophets, the psalmists, and other spiritual giants of the Hebrew Scriptures" (NCCB, 1975). A decade later, an extensive commentary on Nostra aetate devoted a substantial section to "Jewish Roots of Christianity" (Notes, 1985, [section]III). Noting that "Jesus is fully a man of his time and of his environment," the Vatican deduced that "this cannot but underline both the reality of the Incarnation and the very meaning of the history of salvation, as it has been revealed in the Bible" (Notes, 1985, [section]III).

Catholic bishops in the Netherlands implored that "we Christians may never forget that Jesus of Nazareth is a son of the Jewish people, rooted in the tradition of Moses and the prophets. In meeting Judaism, we will better understand Jesus ... Jews and Christians are sustained by the same root." (23) Canadian Catholic bishops began similarly: "Jesus of Nazareth was born of the Jewish people, and was rooted in the tradition of Moses and the prophets ... Jesus was and always remained a Jew. The more familiar we become with Judaism ... the better we will understand Jesus." (24) Yet, the 1998 Vatican document We Remember: A Reflection on the Shoah, deals with the early period of the church simply by noting the "disputes" that took place in the early decades, avoiding any reference to the Jewishness of Jesus or the early Christians. (25) The Pontifical Biblical Commission more recently affirmed that links between the two faiths arise, first, because "the person in whom it puts its faith, Jesus of Nazareth, is himself a son of this people. So too are the Twelve whom he chose" (Jewish People, 2003, [section]I.2).

Denominational statements from Protestant churches are, by contrast, consistent in treating this topic. The 1979 General Convention of the Episcopal Church (U.S.A.) saw it as fundamental to Christian-Jewish dialogue to declare that "our Lord Jesus Christ was born, circumcised, dedicated, and baptized into the community of Israel" and that "the first apostles and witnesses themselves were all of Jewish lineage." (26) The 1980 declaration of the Synod of the Evangelical Church of the Rhineland has as its third declaration, "we confess Jesus Christ the Jew, who as the Messiah of Israel is the Saviour of the world and binds the peoples of the world to the people of God" (Rhineland Declaration, 1980, no. 3). The Anglican report, Jews, Christians, and Muslims: The Way of Dialogue, considers "modern scholarly understanding of the Bible" and counts, among its benefits, the fact that "some Jews have become very aware of Jesus as part of their own history, and their writings have brought home to Christians his Jewishness" (Way of Dialogue, 1988). American Methodists acknowledged that "Jesus was a devout Jew, as were many of his first followers" (New Bridges, 1996, [section]2), while the Uniting Church in Australia clearly noted "that Jesus of Nazareth was born, lived, and died a faithful Jew, looking to the establishment of God's kingdom as the fulfillment of God's promises" (UCA, 1997, [section]7.4).

Austrian Protestants noted both that "Our Lord Jesus Christ was, according to origin, education and his faith in God, a Jew and has to be understood as a Jew" and that "the New Testament--which proclaims Jesus Christ as the redeemer of the world--was written mainly by Jews" (Time to Turn, 1998, [section]V). Is this an unfortunate attempt to draw an implicit authorization of Christian doctrine from Jewish sources? More subtle--and constructive--is the perspective offered by the Canadian Conference of Catholic Bishops; the "close association" of the early church and rabbinic Judaism points to "the ambiguities of a shared history." However, as the bishops noted, this history moved along an unfortunate trajectory: "separation ... rivalry ... alienation ... hostility" (Jubilee, 2000).

III. Three Shared Theological Features

Further, significant mention is made of three major "theological" features that are shared by the two religions: a belief in the same God, a commitment to the same covenant, and a mutual hope and expectation regarding the reign of God still to come. (The complexities and difficulties hidden in these last claims will not be addressed in detail in the discussion that follows.)

A. God

The first of these issues is strictly "theo"logical, in that it concerns "God." The identification of the God of Israel with the God of Christianity is a given, as it is derived from the biblical witness. It is frequently noted as providing an important foundation for Christian-Jewish dialogue. The first of the Ten Points of Seelisburg is to "remember that One God speaks to us all through the Old and the New Testaments." Nostra aetate begins with the premise: "[O]ne is the community of all peoples, one their origin, for God made the whole human race to live over the face of the earth. One also is their final goal, God." The Guidelines subsequently issued by the Vatican affirm that "it is the same God, 'inspirer and author of the books of both Testaments,' who speaks both in the old and new Covenants" (Guidelines, 1974). The Anglican Communion asserted that "the God in whom Jesus believed, to whom he totally gave himself, and in whom we believe is 'The God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob'" (Way of Dialogue, 1988). The "one living God in whom both Jews and Christians believe" stands at the head of the list of "guiding principles for Christian-Jewish relations" for U.S. Methodists (New Bridges, 1996, [section]1), while the U.C.A. Statement (UCA, 1997, [section]7.2) affirms "that Christians and Jews share a common heritage in the unique testimony of the Old Testament (the Hebrew Scriptures) to the One God, Creator and Redeemer." The Evangelical Churches in Austria similarly declared that "the God of Christians is no other than the God of Israel who called Abraham to faith and chose the enslaved Israelites to be his people" (Time to Turn, 1998, [section]V).

B. Covenant

The second matter, that of the "covenant," has received a more checkered consideration. The first W.C.C. document (WCC, 1948) avoids using the term "covenant" and describes the relationship of the two faiths in a more general manner: "By the history of Israel God prepared the manger in which in the fullness of time He put the Redeemer of all mankind, Jesus Christ ... the Church has received this spiritual heritage from Israel ... the promise has been fulfilled by the coming of Jesus Christ." The more precise claim that "the people of the New Covenant cannot be separated from the people of the Old Covenant" was not, nevertheless, a part of the 1954 Assembly's declaration; it is found within the minority statement issued by twenty-four Assembly delegates (Hope, 1954). Three decades later, however, the ground had shifted. The 1988 W.C.C. Consultation on the Church and the Jewish People was able to assert unambiguously "that the covenant of God with the Jewish people remains valid" (CCJP, 1988, [section]B).

Section 4 of Nostra aetate contains the language of covenant, used in a heavily proscribed manner, while attempting to affirm a form of solidarity with Judaism, by referring to "the bond that spiritually ties the people of the New Covenant to Abraham's stock." The National Conference of Catholic Bishops in the U.S. devoted four paragraphs to Paul's argument in Rom. 9-11, arguing that Paul was "making clear the continuing validity of Israel's call" and, thus, providing views "which help us to construct a new and positive attitude toward the Jewish people" (NCCB, 1975). In discussing Judaism, the U.S. bishops made reference to "the relationship of the Jewish people with God and their spiritual bonds with the New Covenant and the fulfillment of God's plan for both Church and Synagogue." Their second recommendation urged homilists and liturgists "to promote among Catholic people a genuine appreciation of the special place of the Jewish people as God's first-chosen in the history of salvation"--a strong affirmation, which, nevertheless still avoids the language of covenant. The Vatican's 1985 Notes urges preachers and catechists "not merely to uproot from among the faithful the remains of Antisemitism still to be found here and there, but much rather to arouse in them, through educational work, an exact knowledge of the wholly unique 'bond' (Nostra aetate, [section]4), which joins us as a Church to the Jews and to Judaism." More recently, their Canadian counterparts have affirmed that "the Jewish people are 'dear to God,' their election and mission have a permanent validity" (Jubilee, 2000), and a Catholic-Jewish ecumenical council in the U.S.A. has offered an extended set of reflections on the issue of covenant. (27) While the Catholic component of this document clearly affirms the eternal validity of the covenant with Israel, the Jewish section does not extend its view to any reciprocal statement regarding the Christian covenant. It is clear that, at this point, the conversation between Christians and Jews focused strongly on how Christians perceive Judaism and not as much on the perspective(s) on Christianity held by Jews. (28) In 2003, the Pontifical Biblical Commission, in its extensive treatment of scripture, noted the motif of covenant as one way in which a unity of thought permeates both testaments of scripture (Jewish People, 2003, [section]II.A.5) but did not go on to develop this idea through more detailed exegetical exploration. (29)

Covenant language appears more directly in the 1980 Rhineland Statement, which declares that "we believe in the permanent election of the Jewish people as the people of God and realize that through Jesus Christ the church is taken into the covenant of God with his people" (point 4). The U.S. Methodist document affirms that "Christians and Jews are bound to God through biblical covenants that are eternally valid" (New Bridges, 1996, [section]4). The plural case appears to indicate a view of the two covenants as distinct, yet running in parallel. Rather than attempting to argue for an equation of the two covenants, the document concludes that "we are mysteriously bound to one another through our covenantal relationships with the one God and creator of us all." At the same time, the Alliance of Baptists affirmed "the teaching of the Christian Scriptures that God has not rejected the community of Israel, God's covenant people," (30) while the Evangelical Churches in Austria cited Buber in declaring, "we profess to the permanent election of Israel as God's people. 'God did not terminate this covenant' (Martin Buber). It exists to the end of time" (Time to Turn, 1998, [section]IV).

Subsequent documents from the Anglican Communion and the Uniting Church in Australia avoid the direct use of covenant language, while affirming the unique quality of the Christian-Jewish relationship. The Lambeth Report (Way of Dialogue, 1988) refers to Judaism's "special bond and affinity with Christianity"; the U.C.A. Statement (UCA, 1977, [section]6.4) describes this relationship "as a faithful response to God who has called both Jews and Christians to be People of God." Perhaps the most profound insight to be drawn from reflection on the covenant is the observation of the Evangelical Church in Germany: "[God] has bound himself to Israel forever and remains faithful to it in the continuity from biblical Israel to the Jewish people. Jews are witnesses to us of God's faithfulness" (Manifesto, 2000 [section]1, emphasis added). It is clear that this issue remains an important area for ongoing Christian consideration.

C. Hope for the Future

The third theological issue addressed in many documents is the "common hope" for the future that is held by both Jews and Christians. Such eschatological language is absent from documents issued in earlier decades; it first surfaced in the 1967 Report from the Commission of Faith and Order of the W.C.C., which points to the Jewish emphasis on "justice and righteousness in this world" and the consequent "divine promise of a new earth" (CJP, 1967, [section]V.4). It is more developed in the 1980 Rhineland Statement that "we both confess and witness the common hope in a new heaven and a new earth and the spiritual power of this messianic hope for the witness and work of Christians and Jews for justice and peace in the world," and in the U.C.A. Statement that "Jews and Christians together seek reconciliation and justice for all peoples, in the hope generated by the coming kingdom" (UCA, 1997, [section]5.10).

The Anglican Communion noted that "Christians share the Jewish hope for the coming of God's Kingdom" and declared that "if this hope for God's Kingdom was given its central place by both Jews and Christians this would transform their relationship with one another" (Way of Dialogue, 1988). In like manner, U.S. Methodists affirmed that Christians "share a call with Jews to work for justice, compassion and peace in the world in anticipation of the fulfillment of God's reign" (New Bridges, 1996, [section]8). As a consequence, the insightful conclusion was drawn that "we are 'partners in waiting.'" Using more specifically Christian terminology, German Evangelicals asserted a common "expectation of the last judgment and hope for a new heaven and a new earth--for us Christians, associated with the second coming of Christ" (Manifesto, 2000, [section]6).

The Canadian Conference of Catholic Bishops noted that, "as we continue to heal the wounds that divide Jewish and Christian communities, we will contribute to healing the wounds of the world which the Talmud describes as a necessary action in preparing for 'the kingdom of the Most High'" (Jubilee, 2000). The conference grounded this action in "the promise and call of Abraham," which "invites a common commitment to the promotion of peace and justice among all peoples." The General Council of the United Church of Canada employed terminology drawn from the rabbinic tradition of tikkun olam (mending the creation) in affirming "our common calling with Jews and others to align ourselves with God's world-mending work," (31) as does the Jewish contribution to Reflections on Covenant and Mission (Covenant and Mission, 2002). Such language presents a creative option for interpreting and promoting future joint action.

IV. Matters to Be Deplored

Because of the scarred history of Christian-Jewish relations throughout two millennia, it has become crucial to identify certain features that are now to be "deplored" by all involved in this relationship. The intention inherent in clearly identifying these factors is the hope that the goodwill of dialogue participants will be extended, it is hoped, to all adherents of the two religions. There are three areas for consideration; each deals with the way that Christians have perceived Jews and how those perceptions have worked themselves out in specific actions against Jews.

A. Antisemitism

First, virtually all documents studied have included explicit criticisms of the development of Antisemitism in Christian history. Running throughout the documents is a consistent acknowledgement that such Antisemitism has been particularly manifest in the ways that scripture has been interpreted within the church, especially with reference to the passion narrative, and that this Antisemitism has been reinforced and extended through a number of actions undertaken by Christians and/or the church. (32)

The earliest document (Seelisburg Address, 1947) notes that "the Christian Churches have indeed always affirmed the un-Christian character of Antisemitism ... but this has not sufficed to prevent the manifestation among Christians, in various forms, of an undiscriminating racial hatred of the Jews as a people." It itemizes a number of matters for the churches to avoid: "avoid distorting or misrepresenting biblical or post-biblical Judaism ... avoid [using] the words 'the enemies of Jesus' to designate the whole Jewish people ... avoid presenting the Passion in such a way as to bring the odium of the killing of Jesus upon all Jews or upon Jews alone ... avoid referring to the scriptural curses [citing Mt. 27:25] ... avoid promoting the superstitious notion that the Jewish people are reprobate, accursed, reserved for a destiny of suffering" (Seelisburg Address, 1947, points 5, 6, and 7).

Within a decade the W.C.C. had confessed "we have failed to fight with all our strength the age-old disorder of man [sic] which anti-semitism represents" and declared "we call upon all the churches we represent to denounce antisemitism ... anti-semitism is a sin against God and man" (WCC, 1948). The New Delhi Assembly cited this section of the Amsterdam report and renewed "this plea in view of the fact that situations continue to exist in which Jews are subject to discrimination and even persecution. The Assembly urges its member churches to do all in their power to resist every form of anti-semitism" (WCC, 1961). Subsequent Assemblies turned their attention, justifiably, to a concern for the rights of Palestinians in light of the contemporary political situation in the Middle East. Nevertheless, in 1992, the Central Committee of the W.C.C. did point approvingly to the words cited above from the Amsterdam statement (WCC, 1948), to the recommendation of the 1967 Commission on Faith and Order that "... anything that may foster prejudice and discrimination against Jews should be properly corrected" (CCJP, 1988, [section]B), and to the "Sigtuna statement" of 1982, which reasserted "that anti-Semitism and all forms of teaching of contempt are to be repudiated" (CCJP, 1988, [section]B).

Toward the end of its discussion of non-Christian religions, the Vatican likewise noted that "the Church ... decries hatred, persecutions, displays of anti-Semitism, directed against Jews at any time and by anyone" (Nostra aetate, [section]4). In subsequent documents it canvasses the care that is required in various areas of liturgical and educational leadership as well as by commissions for liturgical translation of biblical texts (Guidelines, 1974; Notes, 1985). The U.S. Catholic bishops cited Nostra aetate on this matter and developed this standpoint in their document (NCCB, 1975), as did the Australian Catholic bishops, who asserted that "in keeping with the Church's strong repudiation of anti-Semitism, a frank and honest treatment is needed in our history books, courses and seminary curricula" (Faithfulness, 1992). Catholic bishops in the Netherlands explicitly rejected the "tradition of theological and ecclesiastical anti-Judaism," which led to the "catechesis of vilification" and produced "horrible results." In condemning "every form of anti-Semitism," they labeled the phenomenon as "a sin against God and humanity" (One Root, 1995).

Protestant documents share in the strong Catholic determination to repudiate Antisemitism. The Episcopal Church (U.S.A.) attributed Antisemitism to "a denial of or an ignorance of their spiritual roots by Christians" (Episcopal, 1979); the Evangelical Church of the Rhineland spelled out in detail the consequences of such Antisemitism (Rhineland Declaration, 1980). The Anglican Communion declared that, "in order to combat centuries of anti-Jewish teaching and practice, Christians must develop programmes of teaching, preaching, and common social action which eradicate prejudice and promote dialogue" (Way of Dialogue, 1988), while the United Church of Canada encouraged its members and councils "to be vigilant in resisting anti-Semitism and anti-Judaism in church and society" (Witness, 2003). The Uniting Church in Australia both lamented the fact that "the relationship between Christians and Jews has had a sad and tragic history" (UCA, 1997, [section]3.5) and provided resources to assist in understanding and addressing the damaging effects of Antisemitism. (33)

Alongside proactive measures, including educational programs, some denominations have expressly indicated their sorrow at earlier Christian expressions of Antisemitism. In 1995 and again in 2004, the Alliance of Baptists confessed "our sin of complicity ... our sin of silence ... our sins of indifference and inaction" as well as offering a general catchall confession, "our sin against the Jewish people" (Baptists, 1995). The General Conference of the Methodist Church (U.S.A.) declared that "we deeply repent of the complicity of the Church and the participation of many Christians in the long history of persecution of the Jewish people," affirmed that "the Church has an obligation to correct erroneous and harmful past teachings," and declared that "it is essential for Christians to oppose forcefully anti-Jewish acts and rhetoric that persist in the present time" (New Bridges, 1996, [section]7).

B. Supersessionism

A consequence of the antisemitic attitude of the church toward Jews and Judaism has been the development of a superior attitude and a supersessionist (or replacement) theology. This theology is thoroughly condemned in Protestant documents, starting with the Evangelical Church of the Rhineland's clear declaration that "we deny that the people Israel has [sic] been rejected by God or that it has been superseded by the church" (Rhineland Declaration, 1980). For the Uniting Church in Australia, "it is necessary to propose a new way for Christians and the Church to relate to the Jewish people and to Judaism" because of "the erroneous idea that the Jewish people and Judaism were rejected by God and superseded by Christians and the Church" (UCA, 1997, [section]7.6); likewise, the United Church of Canada "rejects supersessionism, the belief that Christians have replaced Jews in the love and purpose of God" (Witness, 2003).

By contrast, Roman Catholic documents avoid any direct discussion of this theological issue; the closest any document comes is in the second recommendation of the U.S. Catholic bishops, urging homilists and liturgists "to promote among the Catholic people a genuine appreciation of the special place of the Jewish people as God's first-chosen in the history of salvation and in no way slight the honor and dignity that is theirs" (NCCB, 1975).

Initially, the W.C.C. could address the issue only indirectly as "a divine mystery which finds its only sufficient explanation in the purpose of God's unchanging faithfulness and mercy" (WCC, 1948). Likewise, its Commission on Faith and Order produced an extended reflection that skirts around the issue by using terms such as "some kind of special relationship" and "its special place in history," before outlining as equally viable the two alternatives: on the one hand, that "the Church is the continuation of the Israel of the Old Testament" and, thus, "election and vocation are solely in Christ"; on the other hand, that "the present-day Jews ... actually still are Israel, i.e. that they still are God's elect people" and, thus, after Christ the one people of God is broken asunder, one part being the Church which accepts Christ, the other part Israel outside the Church, which rejects him ... but remains in a special sense beloved by God" (CJP, 1967). The two options are simply presented as alternative understandings within the W.C.C. communions.

A more detailed report from the W.C.C.'s Consultation on the Church and the Jewish People notes that "a classical Christian tradition sees the Church replacing Israel as God's people ... the covenant of God with the people of Israel ... was abrogated," and it distances itself from the "fateful consequences" of such a tradition (CCJP, 1982). Although it considers a large number of such consequences, which require renewed exploration and discussion through mutual Christian-Jewish dialogue, it fails to declare the invalidity of a supersessionist theology. In its next report the C.C.J.P. was able to "rejoice in the continuing existence and vocation of the Jewish people" and to explain that "we see not one covenant displacing another, but two communities of faith, each called into existence by God, each holding to its respective gifts from God, and each accountable to God," yet still recognize that "Christians honestly disagree amongst themselves regarding 'the continued election of the Jewish people alongside the Church'" (CCJP, 1988). Like the Vatican, the W.C.C. has been unable to produce a full repudiation of the theology of supersessionism.

C. The Holocaust

Hindsight allows for historical developments to be appreciated in fresh ways; but very little hindsight has been needed to assess the "Holocaust" as the tragic pinnacle of Antisemitism. Many denominations have noted the importance of recognizing and repenting of the significant role played by the church and by Christian theology in the events that led to the Holocaust. The Evangelical Church of the Rhineland highlighted, unambiguously, "the recognition of Christian co-responsibility and guilt for the Holocaust" and so was intent to "confess with dismay the co-responsibility and guilt of German Christendom for the Holocaust" (Rhineland Declaration, 1980). The Episcopal Church (U.S.A.) lamented "the festering of anti-Semitism even among the leaders of the Church of Jesus Christ" but softened the blow with reference to "the Holocaust in Hitler's Germany being only the most recent and painful memory" (Episcopal, 1979). The Uniting Church in Australia put it more pointedly, noting "that an anti-Judaism which developed in Christianity created fertile ground for the spread of anti-Semitism, culminating in the Holocaust (the Shoah)" (UCA, 1997). The Evangelical Churches in Austria expressed their shame and grief in their personal confession that "not only individual Christians but also our churches share in the guilt of the Holocaust/Shoah" (Time to Turn, 1998, [section]II).

The first W.C.C. Assembly assumed that the tragedy of the Holocaust was the basis for its consideration of "the Christian approach to the Jews" but failed to explore this issue in any way (WCC, 1948). One section of the report of the W.C.C.'s Commission on Faith and Order is devoted to "historical considerations;" yet, the report appears to give equal weight to the two historical events that "have caused churches to direct their thinking more than before to their relationship to the Jewish people," namely, the persecution and annihilation of Jews in Europe and the creation of the State of Israel (CJP, 1967). Later reports of the C.C.J.P. gave a clearer consideration of the Holocaust, noting that "the Church must so learn to preach and teach the Gospel as to make sure that it cannot be used toward contempt for Judaism," encouraging "a resolve that it will never happen again to the Jews or to any other people" (CCJP, 1982), and expressing "regret that, contrary to the spirit of Christ, many Christians have used the claims of faith as weapons against the Jewish people, culminating in the Shoah" (CCJP, 1988).

For a number of decades, the Roman Catholic perspective appears to have been to subsume mention of the Holocaust among the broader consideration of "hatred, persecutions and displays of anti-Semitism" (Nostra aetate, [section]4). Only in 1998 did the Vatican devote considerable attention to the matter in the papal letter We Remember: A Reflection on the Shoah. Here, John Paul II noted that "the fact that the Shoah took place in Europe, that is, in countries of longstanding Christian civilization, raises the question of the relation between the Nazi persecution and the attitudes down the centuries of Christians towards Jews." The letter attempts to highlight the positive stance of the Catholic Church during the 1930's and 1940's and the honoring of "many Catholic bishops, priests, religious and laity" by the State of Israel; yet, ultimately, it confesses: "we deeply regret the errors and failures of those sons and daughters of the Church" whose behavior "was not that which might have been expected from Christ's followers" (We Remember, 1998). A similar statement stands toward the end of Jewish People (2003, [section]II.B.4[b]).

The I.C.C.J. has subsequently declared that it "acknowledges with respect the historic step taken by Pope John Paul II expressing the admission of guilt and apology for sins committed in the past ... by the Catholic Church." Yet, the I.C.C.J. also opined that "the lack of an unambiguous reference to the Church's guilt in relation to individual groups of victims ... understandably leads to disappointment and criticism," both generally in "the history of the Church's anti-Judaism and specifically for the role of the Catholic Church during the Shoah." (34) Nevertheless, both acknowledgements of the role of the churches in creating the Holocaust and various expressions of sorrow or regret have been offered by Catholic, Protestant, and ecumenical bodies.

V. Significant Areas for Clarification

Now that we have surveyed the Christian documents' recognition of the vitality of Judaism, affirmation of a range of factors held in common, and explicit criticisms of unfortunate aspects of the relationship, there remain some important "clarifications" that need to be made. With regard to the ways in which Christians might relate to Jews, clarification is needed in the area of "mission." Regarding the place of the Jewish people within the contemporary world, clarification is needed in the area of "the land of Israel." Many of the documents studied address themselves to these matters.

A. Mission

The earliest attempts to articulate the nature of the relationship of Christians to Jews fail significantly at the point of "mission." In 1948, in the aftermath of the Holocaust, the W.C.C. could devote only one brief paragraph (a mere 155 words in English) to a cursory consideration of the fact that "no people ... have suffered more bitterly from the disorder of man [sic] than the Jewish people," before confidently launching into its outline of "The Christian Approach to Jews," namely: "1. The Church's commission to preach the Gospel to all men [sic]. 2. The special meaning of the Jewish people for Christian faith. 3. Barriers to be overcome [notably, Antisemitism]. 4. The Christian witness to the Jewish people." The conclusions are then drawn that "our churches must consider the responsibility for missions to the Jews as a normal part of parish work" and that "the converted Jew calls for particular tenderness and full acceptance" (WCC, 1948). There appears to have been little awareness of the deep hurts that require attention before such breezily enthusiastic evangelism could even pretend to be effective.

A more measured assessment, both of the Jewish place within the economy of divine salvation and of the "hatred, persecutions, displays of anti-Semitism," is provided by the Vatican in Nostra aetate; but, once more, the final paragraph on the Jews exhorts the Church "to proclaim the cross of Christ as the sign of God's all-embracing love and as the fountain from which every grace flows" ([section]4). Is the emphasis on the salvific role of the cross intended to be exclusive? That is, "'the' sign of God's all-embracing love" (and there is no other sign); "'the' fountain from which 'every' grace flows" (and no other grace flows from any other source). If such an exclusive reading is what was intended, then the step taken by the Vatican toward full and unencumbered recognition of the validity of Judaism is somewhat diminished. The subsequent Vatican Guidelines exhort Catholics to make their witness with caution and sensitivity: "they must take care to live and spread their Christian faith while maintaining the strictest respect for religious liberty," and "they will likewise strive to understand the difficulties which arise for the Jewish soul ... when faced with the mystery of the incarnate Word" (Guidelines, 1974). In the end "a great openness of spirit and diffidence with respect to one's own prejudices" is wisely enjoined.

Later documents reflect a keen awareness of the importance of this issue. The 1967 report of the W.C.C.'s Commission on Faith and Order includes an extended discussion of "the Church and her witness" (CJP, 1967, [section]IV), noting that "the Church stands in a unique relationship to the Jews" and pondering "the question as to whether it conditions the way in which Christians have to bear witness of Jesus to Jews." The report urges Christians "to gain a real understanding ... of the non-Christian," suggests that "often the best, and sometimes perhaps even the only, way in which Christians today can testify to the Jewish people about their faith in Christ may not be so much in explicit words but by service," and resolves that "we all emphatically reject any form of 'proselytizing,' in the derogatory sense the word has come to carry in our time, where it is used for the corruption of witness in cajolery, undue pressure or intimidation, or other improper methods" (CJP, 1967, [section]IV). Yet, presumably, the Commission would reject such behavior in any case, so the Jewish people do not really seem to stand in any distinctive or unique place, after all.

Similar language recurs in subsequent W.C.C. documents, but some development in thinking can be perceived. Noting that "coercive proselytism" has no place in any relationship with non-Christian people, the 1982 document does specify that "such rejection of proselytism ... [is] urgent in relation to Jews" (CCJP, 1982, [section]4.2-4.3). After surveying the spectrum of beliefs held among member churches of the W.C.C.--and again leaving the options wide open--the document concludes that "dialogue can rightly be described as mutual witness, but only when the intention is to hear the others in order better to understand," and that "the spirit of dialogue is to be fully present to one another in full openness and human vulnerability" ([section]4.6). In its 1988 document, the C.C.J.P. summarizes the views of W.C.C. member churches with reference to their recent public statements, indicating that "coercive proselytism directed toward Jews is incompatible with Christian faith" and that "Jews and Christians bear a common responsibility as witness to God's righteousness and peace in the world" (CCJP, 1988, [section]B). The document emanating from the W.C.C. Central Committee after the Canberra Assembly reaffirms these stances (WCC, 1992). The rejection of Christian proselytism toward Jews and the adoption of the notion of common witness by Jews and Christians are thereby strengthened.

The same dynamic is to be seen in other documents. In Germany the Rhineland Declaration articulates it in a direct and uncompromising fashion. First, since the Jewish people are in a unique position with regard to Christians, "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" (Rhineland Declaration, 1980, rec. 6). Then, the document goes on to urge the church "to begin to discover the common confession and witness of Christians and Jews" (Rhineland Declaration, 1980, rec. 8)--that is, a witness to the rest of the world, made in common by members of both faiths. At Lambeth Anglican bishops considered "the way of sharing" with Jews and Muslims, affirming their concern "to reject all proselytizing, that is, aggressive and manipulative attempts to convert," reinforcing the claim that "Jews, Muslims and Christians have a common mission," and affirming that "in the dialogue there will be mutual witness ... this will be a mutual witness between equal partners" (Way of Dialogue, 1988). A Baptist recognition of the inheritance of "a theology which has valued conversion over dialogue, invective over understanding, and prejudice over knowledge" led to a commitment to "rigorous consideration of appropriate forms of Christian witness for our time" (Baptists, 1995). (35)

The I.C.C.J. concurred: "[P]roselytisation of Jews, often referred to as missionary activity among Jews, is theologically untenable" (ICCJ, 1993). For the Australian Catholic bishops, "proselytism ... is to be avoided"; Christian witness will acknowledge and engage "with the permanent vocation of the Jews as God's people, the enduring values that Judaism shares with Christianity and with the vocation of the Church and the Jewish people to witness to the whole world" (Faithfulness, 1992, principle 6). North American Catholic bishops cited Cardinal Walter Kasper, who has defined mission as "conversion from false gods and idols to the true and one God, who revealed himself in the salvation history with His elected people," and concluded that "mission, in this strict sense, cannot be used with regard to Jews, who believe in the true and one God" (Covenant and Mission, 2002, under "Evangelization and the Jewish People"). Indeed, this same document argues that Christians and Jews share in parallel missions arising from their parallel, and equally valid, covenant relationships with God. What is held in common is the enterprise of bearing witness to the kingdom, "which did not originate with the Church's experience of Christ crucified and raised, must not be curtailed by seeking the conversion of the Jewish people to Christianity" (Covenant and Mission, 2002, under "Evangelization and the Jewish People"). The Jewish section of this same document refers to "the mission of the Jews and the perfection of the world," developing its argument in terms of the rabbinic vocation of tikun ha-olam, translated as "perfection or repairing the world" (Covenant and Mission, 2002, under "Some Talmudic Thoughts about Repairing the World"). The situation regarding the matter of "mission" is, thus, clarified in a way that is consistent throughout a number of denominations and organizations.

Two documents provide a developed theological basis for this position. Rejecting "every triumphalist arrogance," the Evangelical Churches in Austria discern that "mission among Jews is theologically not justifiable and to be rejected as a church program." This assertion is grounded in an understanding of the missio dei as "the mutual witnessing of faith in confidence of the free workings of God's spirit"--any compulsion to gain converts is misplaced, since it is "God" who "decides ... about the eternal salvation of all people" (Time to Turn, 1998, [section]V). U.S.A. Methodists recognize that the call for Christians "to witness to the gospel of Jesus Christ" cannot be blithely dismissed: "The issues of evangelization of persons of other faiths, and of Jews in particular, are often sensitive and difficult" (New Bridges, 1996, [section]5). However, careful reflection leads this denomination to acknowledge that "we can never presume to know the full extent of God's work in the world, and we recognize the reality of God's activity outside the Christian Church," thereby leaving open-ended the way that salvation is to be understood. These two documents signal an important issue that merits thoughtful consideration in the future.

B. The Land of Israel

The issue of the Land of Israel has been a contentious matter for the whole of the twentieth century; it remains so, most pressingly, into the present time. Almost all of the documents surveyed have paid attention to this matter, some more directly than others.

The first document considered, the Seelisburg Address, was published in the year before the creation of the State of Israel. In September, 1948, however, the Amsterdam Assembly of the W.C.C. noted that "the establishment of the state 'Israel' adds a political dimension to the Christian approach to the Jews" (WCC, 1948, [section]5) and treated this issue with great caution--in marked contrast to the evangelical enthusiasm evident in the previous four sections. Foreshadowing the future path of the W.C.C. on the issue of Israel, the Amsterdam Assembly recommended finally to refer "the many and varied problems created by establishment of a State of Israel in Palestine" to the Central Committee "for further examination." Lack of agreement at Evanston led to silence on this matter by the Assembly, while the twenty-four delegates who published a separate statement on "the hope of Israel" (Hope, 1954) noted explicitly that "our concern in this issue is wholly biblical and is not to be confused with any political attitude towards the State of Israel."

Assemblies meeting after the Six-Day War (1968), however, have taken an explicit political stance toward the matter. "The rights of the Palestinian people to self determination" are rightly affirmed (WCC 1975; WCC, 1983), and "criticism of the policies of the Israeli government" is rightly described as "not in itself anti-Jewish." (36) Yet, an imbalance is created because the significance of the Land of Israel for Jews is nowhere affirmed. Seeking balance, the C.C.J.P. affirmed the "quest for statehood" by Palestinians (CCJP, 1982, [section]2.16), noted that "Jews, Christians and Muslims have all maintained a presence in the Land from their beginnings," and asserted that "while 'the Holy Land' is primarily a Christian designation, the Land is holy to all three" (CCJP, 1982, [section]2.17).

Some Roman Catholic considerations of the matter, by contrast, affirm the importance of Israel in Jewish self-identity. The U.S. bishops observed that "an overwhelming majority of Jews see themselves bound in one way or another to the land of Israel. Most Jews see this tie to the land as essential to their Jewishness" and maintain that "whatever difficulties Christians may experience in sharing this view they should strive to understand this link" (NCCB, 1975). In the same paragraph they offer the caveat, "nor is this affirmation meant to deny the legitimate rights of other parties in the region." Two decades later, the Australian bishops were less balanced as they note "the permanence of Israel as an historical fact and of the 'religious attachment' of Jews to the land of their ancestors and of the establishment of the State of Israel according to international law" (Faithfulness, 1992). Any consideration of Palestinian rights is missing from these documents.

The strongest theological evaluation of the Land of Israel is provided by the Evangelical Church of the Rhineland: "[T]he insight that the continuing existence of the Jewish people, its return to the Land of Promise, and also the foundation of the state of Israel, are signs of the faithfulness of God towards his people" (Rhineland Declaration, 1980, factor 3). Less assertive is the more thoughtful comment of the I.C.C.J.: "There is an intrinsic relationship between the Jewish People and the Land of Israel, which is linked to God's covenant with them, a reality, which is often not well understood by Christians. They should strive to understand this link as well as the strong attachment of the great majority of Jews to the Land of Israel and therefore to the State of Israel" (ICCJ, 1993). Describing this attachment as "a reality" is more pastorally helpful than the bold assertion of the Rhineland Declaration. Neither document, however, mentions the Palestinians.

This stance has not been adopted by other Protestant churches. The Anglican Communion offers a brief, somewhat detached, noted that "the importance of the land of Israel to the majority of Jews throughout the world needs to be understood" (Way of Dialogue, 1988), but it provided no further consideration of the matter. (37) The United Church of Canada affirmed "that the State of Israel has the right to exist in peace and security" (Witness, 2003, [section]c) but provided neither an explanation of the religious significance of Israel to Jews nor an affirmation of Palestinian rights. The Lutheran World Federation asserted that "the connection of the Jewish people to the land is not a racist ideology but a central element of Jewish faith" but failed to provide any analogous support to Palestinian land claims. (38)

Two Protestant denominations have considered this matter more extensively, attempting to balance appropriate theological appreciation of Jewish attachment to the Land with an affirmation of Palestinian rights. The Uniting Church in Australia approached the issue through the lens of history, noting: "Two 20th century events have been central to the contemporary Jewish experience. Many Jews suffered the horror of the Holocaust (the Shoah), either directly or through family and friends. Many Jews also remember the experience of having no homeland and then the establishment of the State of Israel" (UCA, 1997, [section]2.2). This document observes that "the Uniting Church has been developing relationships with Palestinian Christians in the land of Israel" ([section]2.5) and affirms "that the Jewish people have a particular bond with the land of Israel, which is inextricably bound to the history of the Jewish faith, and that Palestinians also lay claim to some of the same land" ([section]7.9). It concludes by asserting the right to make public comment "about the particular policies of both the Israeli and Palestinian authorities" ([section]7.10) but fails to make any further such comment on the current situation, simply observing "that the search for a just and lasting peace for all states and peoples in the Middle East merits prayerful engagement on the part of all Christians" ([section]7.11). (39)

At almost the same time, the United Methodist Church (U.S.A.) noted the "anguish and suffering that continue for many people who live in the Middle East" and "the complexity and the painfulness of the controversies in which Christians, Jews and Muslims are involved in the Middle East" (New Bridges, 1996 [section]9). This document, however, does not shy away from making specific political claims. First, as befits a document addressing the relationship of Christians to Jews, is an affirmation of "the theological significance of the holy land as central to the worship, historical traditions, hope, and identity of the Jewish people." Alongside this stands a second affirmation regarding "this land's historic and contemporary importance for Christians and Muslims." Finally, there is a threefold commitment "to the security, safety, and well-being of Jews and Palestinians in the Middle East, to respect for the legitimacy of the State of Israel, to justice and sovereignty for the Palestinian people and for peace for all who live in the region." This document stands alongside that of the Uniting Church in Australia, as clear attempts by two denominations to identify and grapple with the complexity of these issues, although the Methodist document is prepared to probe these issues in a bolder--and more risky--manner.

VI. Conclusion

For six decades now the churches--as individual denominations and through ecumenical bodies--have issued documents in which statements have been made about Jews and Judaism and their relationship to Christians and Christianity, as explored above. Although these documents have been authored by Christians, working in denominational or ecumenical contexts, the issues identified and discussed have arisen out of their personal and institutional relationships with Jews and Jewish organizations. The conversation has not been one-sided, for Jews and Jewish voices have informed these documents at all points along the way. Yet, it is important to underline that these documents have each been articulating Christian perceptions of Jews and Judaism. (40)

It is only in recent years, however, that this Christian-Jewish conversation has explicitly entered into the public arena, through the issuing of two documents written not by church theologians as statements by or to the churches but by scholars with interest and experience in Christian-Jewish relationships. These two most recent documents have been intentionally framed so as to indicate what has been heard by the respective parties during this extended conversation. In 2000, four Jewish scholars took the initiative, after consultation with "an interdenominational group of Jewish scholars" (mostly North American), to issue the document known as Dabru Emet. (41) As a rationale for this action, the document begins with the claim that "it is time for Jews to reflect on what Judaism may now say about Christianity." This document makes a unique contribution to the ongoing public debate; for the first time, we have a public series of Jewish statements about "how Jews and Christians may relate to one another."

In response to Dabru Emet, a similarly interdenominational group of Christian scholars known as the Christian Scholars Group on Christian-Jewish Relations (again, mostly North American) published, in 2002, A Sacred Obligation. (42) The purpose of this document, according to its subtitle, was "Rethinking Christian Faith in relation to Judaism and the Jewish People." It takes seriously the task of reviewing and rearticulating Christian beliefs in light of the dialogue that has taken place.

These two documents merit careful consideration in their own right, and I propose to offer my own reflections on the ways in which these documents develop the key issues in the conversation, in a forthcoming essay. For now, from the above survey of denominational and ecumenical documents from 1947 onward we are able to identify a small, but potent, collection of issues that remain "matters on the table"--issues that require further prayerful and sensitive "exploration" by Jews and Christians together. These might best be expressed in a series of questions, which seem to point to ways forward in the evolving relationship. The questions are deliberately framed sharply and succinctly in the hope that they will provoke serious consideration and ongoing discussion of these issues.

1. Is the "eschatological hope," which is expressed in the Christian expectation of the coming realm, paralleled in Judaism in the concept of "the healing of creation"? In what practical ways can members of these two faiths work together in renewing and restoring the health of the creation?

2. Is the Messiah to be seen solely as a figure who divides Christians from Jews? Might the Messiah not be seen as a figure who points to the commonality---even unity--that is shared by Jews and Christians? Might it be feasible to concentrate attention on the enterprise that is held in common by both faiths--an enterprise already initiated for Christians by the Messiah, Jesus, and eagerly anticipated by Jews?

3. Is the covenant that God instituted through Moses with Israel the same as the covenant that God instituted through Jesus with the church? Or, are there points of similarity but no essential unity? How might the recognition of similarity or equality be given expression in our faith communities and religious traditions?

4. How might the Christian understanding of salvation be reshaped and rearticulated, in light of commitments noted above, in areas such as celebrating a common ethos, undertaking joint actions for building the realm of God, and signaling the understanding that Christians and Jews share in the one covenant?

5. How might the Jewish commitment to the centrality of the Land of Israel function within the relationship of Jews and Christians? Must it remain a political and ideological thorn in the side of this relationship? Or, can a common hope and a just future for this land be generated in a way that values Jewish, Muslim, and Christian commitments?

This last question, of course, brings the issue firmly into the trilateral conversation among these three faiths but also recognizes that political and diplomatic realities play the dominant role at the present time. It is, perhaps, the greatest challenge of the moment.

(1) For the sake of clarity, I will use "document" to refer to the full text of the various reports, proclamations, or statements issued in public by church bodies; while "statement" will refer to the individual assertions or paragraphs that comprise such documents. Note that many of the referenced documents in this essay can be found on an excellent website operated by the International Council of Christians and Jews: http://www.jcrelations.net/en/?area=Statements, which includes documents from 1947 through those most recently issued. For key published collections of documents, see Helga Croner, ed., Stepping Stones to Further Jewish-Christian Relations (New York: Stimulus Books, 1977); idem, More Stepping Stones to Further Jewish-Christian Relations (New York: Paulist Press, 1985); and Eugene J. Fisher and Leon Klenicki, eds., In Our Time: The Flowering of Jewish-Catholic Dialogue (New York: Paulist Press, 1990).

(2) Nostra aetate: Declaration on the Relation of the Church to Non-Christian Religions, The Vatican, 1965.

(3) Statement on Catholic-Jewish Relations, National Conference of Catholic Bishops, U.S., 1975 (hereafter, NCCB, 1975).

(4) Notes on the Correct Way to Present the Jews and Judaism in Preaching and Catechesis of the Roman Catholic Church, Vatican Commission for Religious Relations with the Jews, 1985 (hereafter, Notes, 1985).

(5) Christian-Jewish Dialogue beyond Canberra '91, Central Committee of the World Council of Churches, 1992 (hereafter, WCC, 1992).

(6) Ecumenical Considerations on Jewish-Christian Dialogue, Consultation on the Church and the Jewish People, World Council of Churches, 1982 (hereafter, CCJP, 1982).

(7) The Churches and the Jewish People: Toward a New Understanding, Consultation on the Church and the Jewish People, World Council of Churches, 1988 (hereafter, CCJP, 1988); and WCC, 1992.

(8) Jews, Christians, and Muslims: The Way of Dialogue, Lambeth Conference of the Anglican Church, 1988 (hereafter, Way of Dialogue, 1988).

(9) The Faithfulness of the Lord Endures Forever: Guidelines for Catholic-Jewish Relations, Australian Catholic Bishops Conference, 1992 (hereafter, Faithfulness, 1992).

(10) Building New Bridges in Hope, General Conference of the United Methodist Church (U.S.A.), 1996 (hereafter, New Bridges, 1996).

(11) Time to Turn, The General Synod of the Evangelical Church (Augsburg and Helvetian Confessions) in Austria, 1998 (hereafter, Time to Turn, 1998).

(12) A Statement Inviting the Uniting Church to Dialogue, Uniting Church in Australia, 1997 (hereafter, UCA, 1997).

(13) The Church and the Jewish People, section 4, Report of the Commission on Faith and Order of the World Council of Churches, 1967 (hereafter, CJP, 1967).

(14) Towards Renovation of the Relationship of Christians and Jews, Synod of the Evangelical Church of the Rhineland, Germany, 1980 (hereafter, Rhineland Declaration, 1980).

(15) Jews and Christians in Search of a Common Religious Basis for Contributing towards a Better World, International Council of Christians and Jews, 1993 (hereafter, ICCJ, 1993).

(16) The Jewish People and Their Sacred Scriptures in the Christian Bible, Pontifical Biblical Commission, 2003 (hereafter, Jewish People, 2003).

(17) Christians and Jews: A Manifesto 50 Years after the Weissensee Declaration, Synod of the Evangelical Church in Germany, 2000 (hereafter, Manifesto, 2000), [section]2. A similar comment concludes Jewish People, 2003, [section]II.A.7: "Christians can, nonetheless, learn much from Jewish exegesis practised for more than two thousand years ... for their part, it is to be hoped that Jews themselves can derive profit from Christian exegetical research."

(18) Seelisburg Address to the Churches, International Council of Christians and Jews, 1947 (hereafter, Seelisburg Address, 1947).

(19) The Christian Approach to the Jews, First Assembly of the World Council of Churches, Amsterdam, 1948 (hereafter, WCC, 1948).

(20) The Hope of Israel, Statement by twenty-four delegates to the Second Assembly of the World Council of Churches, Evanston, 1954 (hereafter, Hope, 1954).

(21) Resolution on Antisemitism, Third Assembly of the World Council of Churches, New Delhi, 1961 (hereafter, WCC, 1961); Statement on the Middle East, Fourth Assembly of the World Council of Churches, Uppsala, 1968; Statement on the Middle East and Statement on Jerusalem, Fifth Assembly of the World Council of Churches, Nairobi, 1975 (hereafter, WCC, 1975); Statement on the Middle East, Sixth Assembly of the World Council of Churches, Vancouver, 1983 (hereafter, WCC, 1983). In 1982, the W.C.C.'s Consultation on the Church and the Jewish People (CCJP) published Ecumenical Considerations on Jewish-Christian Dialogue. This document does acknowledge the Jewishness of Jesus (2.6) and the Jewish context of the early controversies between Jesus and the Pharisees (2.7), but it goes on to assert that "both commonalities and differences between the two faiths need to be examined carefully" (2.11). In CCJP, 1988, Nine Affirmations conclude this document; the third is an acknowledgement of the Jewishness of Jesus that, nevertheless, ends with an assertion of the "discontinuities" between Israel and the church. The 1993 document issued by the International Council of Christians and Jews has omitted this issue from its discussion of "communication and cooperation" between Christians and Jews (ICCJ, 1993).

(22) Guidelines and Suggestions for Implementing the Conciliar Decision Nostra Aetate, Vatican Commission for Religious Relations with the Jews, 1974 (hereafter, Guidelines, 1974).

(23) Supported by One Root Our Relationship to Judaism, Catholic Bishops in the Netherlands, 1995 (hereafter, One Root, 1995).

(24) Jubilee: Renewing Our Common Bonds with the Jewish Community, Episcopal Commission for Ecumenism, Permanent Council of the Canadian Conference of Catholic Bishops, 2000 (hereafter, Jubilee, 2000).

(25) We Remember: A Reflection on the Shoah. Letter from the Pope to Cardinal Edward Cassidy, 1998 (hereafter, We Remember, 1998).

(26) Christian-Jewish Dialogue, General Convention of the Episcopal Church (U.S.A.), 1979 (hereafter, Episcopal, 1979).

(27) Reflections on Covenant and Mission, the Consultation of the National Council of Synagogues and Bishops Committee for Ecumenical and Interreligious Affairs, 2002 (hereafter, Covenant and Mission, 2002).

(28) Indeed, the Jewish section of this document provides discussion of a variety of "missions," which it considers are held across humanity, grounding this discussion in the concept of covenant and thereby demonstrating a relative openness of Jewish thought to a variety of ideas in this matter.

(29) The purpose of this statement is more to establish overarching principles for interpretation of scripture than to argue through specific topics in an exegetical fashion.

(30) Statement on Jewish-Christian Relations, Alliance of Baptists, 1995 (hereafter, Baptists, 1995)

(31) Bearing Faithful Witness: Statement on United Church-Jewish Relations Today, General Council of the United Church of Canada, 2003 (hereafter, Witness, 2003), [section]c. Similar language concludes the Statement by the Central Conference of American Rabbis and the Rabbinical Assembly, 2000.

(32) In addition to the documents cited, there have been a number of statements made with the single focus of deploring Antisemitism; e.g., Teshuva--Turning, a letter presented to the Second European Ecumenical Conference of the Interdenominational Group, 1997; Antisemitism and Anti-Judaism Today from the Consultation of the Lutheran World Federation, 2001; Letter against Antisemitism from Church Leaders in Canada, 2003; Joint Statement on Antisemitism by the Presidents of the Council of Christians and Jews (U.K.), 2004; and Statement on Antisemitism, by the European Lutheran Commission on the Church and the Jewish People (L.E.K.K.J.), 2004.

(33) The 1997 Assembly published and commended for use throughout the church a video and study kit, Understanding Antisemitism, which had been prepared by the author and Elizabeth Raine for the U.C.A. Task Group on U.C.A.-Jewish Relations.

(34) Statement in Response to Papal Apology, issued by the International Council of Christians and Jews, 2000.

(35) The next year, the Southern Baptist Convention interpreted this statement as "an organized effort ... to deny that Jewish people need to come to their Messiah. Jesus to be saved; or to claim ... that Christians have neither right nor obligation to proclaim the gospel to the Jewish people," and thus resolved, "that we direct our energies and resources toward the proclamation of the gospel to the Jewish people" (Resolution on Jewish Evangelism, Southern Baptist Convention, 1996)--as if the gospel were completely independent of Jews or Judaism

(36) "Christian-Jewish Dialogue beyond Canberra '91" (adopted by the Central Committee of the W.C.C in August, 1992, as a basis for the ongoing Christian-Jewish dialogue and sent to member churches tbr study and action.

(37) The only other (two) references to Palestine elsewhere in this document refer solely to the situation in the first century.

(38) Antisemitism and Anti-Judaism Today from the Consultation of the Lutheran World Federation, 2001.

(39) It may not be explicitly evident in the Statement, but it was the issue of the Land of Israel that provided the catalyst for producing the Statement. A most injudicious publication in the early 1990's, written by an individual church officer but made public under the name of the U.C.A., led to the formation of a national dialogue group with the Jewish community, a working group on JewishU.CA. relations, the production of educational material, and the adoption of the 1997 Statement. As a member of the working group, my experience was that the formulation of that part of the document dealing with Israel was by far the most difficult aspect of the process.

(40) Some documents--those produced by the I.C.C.J. and Reflections on Covenant and Mission, e.g.--do involve Jewish contributors alongside Christian contributors.

(41) Dabru Emet: A Jewish Statement on Christians and Christianity, interdenominational group of Jewish scholars, 2000.

(42) A Sacred Obhgation; Rethinking Christian Faith in relation to Judaism and the Jewish People, Christian Scholars Group on Christian-Jewish Relations, 2002.

John T. Squires (Uniting Church in Australia) is Vice Principal and Senior Lecturer in Biblical Studies at United Theological College, North Parramatta, Australia, where he has taught since 1990; and Senior Academic Associate in the School of Theology of Charles Sturt University, N.S.W., Australia, as well as principal researcher of the University's Public and Contextual Theology Strategic Research Centre. He is a member of the national dialogue group of the Uniting Church in Australia and the Executive Council of Australian Jewry. Ordained in the U.C.A. in 1980, he has served parishes in Australia and in the U.S.A. He holds a B.A. and B.D. from Sydney (Australia) University, and an M.A. and Ph.D. (1988) from Yale University. His books include The Plan of God in Luke-Acts (Cambridge, 1993), Steps on the Way: Collected Essays on the Partings of the Ways (United Theological College, 1996), At Table with Luke (UTC, 2000), and forthcoming from Epworth The Way of Jesus: An introduction to the Books of the New Testament (co-authored with his wife, the Rev. Elizabeth Raine). He has co-edited two other books and contributed six chapters to books. His articles and reviews have appeared in a variety of both professional and popular journals. His creative works include several resources for ministry and a number of commentaries for daily Bible-reading guides.