Beyond Tolerance: Christians and Jews in Dialogue

James Taylor Christie. B. Th.. M. Div., M.A.

A Doctor of Ministp thesis submitted to the Faculties of the Toronto School of Theology

in partial fulfilment of the requirements for the degree of

Doctor of Ministry

Awarded by Emmanuel College of Victoria University

4 3 copyright 2000 James Christie

National Library BSfB of Canada Bibliothèque nationale du Canada

Acquisitions and Acquisitions et Bibliographie Services services bibliographiques

395 Welfington Street 395. rue Wellington Omwa ON K1A ON4 OttawaON K l A O N 4 Canada Canada

The author has granted a non- exclusive licence allowing the National L i b r q of Canada to reproduce, loan, distribute or sell copies of this thesis in microform, paper or electronic formats.

The author retains ownership of the copyright in this thesis. Neither the thesis nor substantid extracts fiom it may be printed or othemise reproduced without the author's permission.

L'auteur a accordé une licence non exclusive permettant à ia Bibliothèque nationale du Canada de reproduire, prêter, distribuer ou vendre des copies de cette thèse sous la fonne de microfiche/film, de reproduction sur papier ou sur format électronique.

L'auteur conserve la propriété du droit d'auteur qui protège cette thése. Ni la thèse ni des extraits substantiels de celle-ci ne doivent être imprimés ou autrement reproduits sans son autorisation.

This thesis is witten from the contrxt of congregational ministry in the United

Church of Canada as a contribution to Christian - Jewish dialogue particularly and. in

some measure. interfaith dialogue in general. It is my contention that interhith dialogut:

is of intrinsic worth. and enhances the îàith life of its practitioners. That contention is

addressed through the exploration of the experience of a panicular proup of se\-en

Christians and seven Jews in North Toronto engaged in one model of dialogue.

The thesis acknowledges the historic intimacy and enmity of Christianit) and

Judaism. and. in the first two chapters. examines the histop- of tension betnxen the t~vo

religions in both the long-term and global context - the background to dialogue: and the

more recent and localized context of Canada and Nonh Toronto - the foreground to

dialogue.

The third chapter addresses some Christian biblical and theolopical perspectives

on interfaith dialogue. establishing a rationale for an action in ministq. the esamination

and implications of ~vhich form the balance of the thesis.

I t is rn'. belief that new insight into the esperience ofdialogue mil1 proc'e useful

throughout the Christian Church m d that the model of dialogue developed and employed

for the action in ministry which is at the heart of this thesis will be translatable to other

contexts of interfaith diahgue.

" There rr-ill he no peuce wirhour pecrcr among religions. " H a m Küng. theoiogian and ecumenist

"The 7 Sr cenruv* will be religinuii or- ir lt-ill nor be. " André Malraus. philosopher

"The rime is pmr for poiirics utzd religion. Thc. iinze lzus corne- for science und spit-itltulih.. "

Sri Jauaharlai Nehru. statesman

111 Memoriam.. .

The Reverend Professor George Johnston Sornetime Dean of the Faculty of Religious Studies. McGill Universit~.:

mentor and friend

Rabbi Hamy Joshua Stem Sometime Rabbi of Temple Emmanuel-Beth Shalom. Montreal:

inspiration and gatskeeper

Acknowledgements

In many toays. this ~hesis has beett a liminle itz rhe muking. and rhere rtmild he u)np(e jicsrijication. rtere ir possible, IO &isr u ii$erime S ucquuinrances. -fi-iends urld L . O ~ / C ' L ~ ~ I I L ' S fo rvhom I orve a debr rvhich cun hardi^. be colcuiured Zer a ime repuid. 1 cim. tir lerrsr. cddc. to nanze some of [hosr most dirrcr-7 involved w i ~ h ils cornpierion.

My deepest appreciation to:

.& Collaborative L earning Group ar rhr Toronro School o f ' Thcolos*. it*irl~ ii.lronr ir srarred:

The Re\-. Aruna .4lesander The Rev. Kathryn Ariss-Pater The Re\.. Judith Archer Green The Rev. Venice Guntley Steve Hanson The Rev. Makarios Isaac Marsha Skain

:Mi. :Winisrry Base Group, rr pho dreamed rhe possibilities:

Paul Davidson .4mir Hussein Prof. Eric Mendelsohn Rabbi Larry Pinsker Helen Strasser Elizabeth Thomson-Walters

El lie \*an den Berg The Re\,. Dr. Roy Wilson

The Acrion in IMinisny parricipur~rs fi-on1 Dorchei .Lpoorn and Sr. Jrrrnrs-Bond. ii-hu coirld nor have been more graciorts und g,ic)ne)-otts in ci*eKia itq.:

From Darchei Noam.

Lome Blumer Delores and Morris Feldman Esther Geva Rachel Kamor Suzanne Klein Jonathon Usher

and from St. James-Bond,

Bill Andrews Shirley Bush Ron Hall Heather and Richard Osolen Imre Strasser V i v i e ~ e Young

In addition to these "groups." there are a number of others without whose support and encouragement this could not have corne to pass. Thanks to Prof. Jean-Marc Lapons. rn) thesis director. for his keen insight. his patience and his unflagging enthusiasm for the project; Prof. Eric Mendelsohn. who worked with him in supervising the writing of this thesis, and whose knowledge of Judaica and many things was invaluable: Prof. Dorcas Gordon. D. Min. Programme Director. who convinced us al1 that the T.S.T. D.Min. is the best in the world: Rev. Bill Lord for the right word at the right time. always: my thrse rather daring clerical colleagues. Rev. Karen Hamilton. Dr. George McClintock and Rabbi Lam, Pinsker: the congregations of Durchri .Voarn. St. James-Bond United Church and Southminster United Church in Ottawa for their ongoing interest. encouragement and willingness to "do" theology over nearly six years: to Helen and Imre Strasser for years and years of warmth and hospitality on countless trips to Toronto: to Valerie Pereboorn for her unfailing ability to roll with every têchnological punch in the production of the final drafi of the thesis: and. as always and in everything. to Jan and the boys.

Table of Contents

Introduction " ... a rvild o l i ~ v shoot ": The Jewish Roors qf 'Chrisricrnih. From Diswtisr ro Dialogrrc~ Beyond Tolerance The Shupe of ihe D. .Win. rhesis

Chapter One - Christian-Jewish Dialogue: Background Prelzide to Prejudice Enshrining False Witness: Insri~ztrionali=in Prejziciice The Shoa und the Stare oj'lsruel

Chapter Two - Christian-Jewish Dialogue: Foreground "The United Church and Irs Jerc.ish Pt-oblern " Resolved ro Resolving Resolurion R-5

Some Fruits of Dialogue in Canada Minisrry and Dialogue in .Irorrh Toronro The Dialogrie Theologian us Re~mt-cher

Chapter Three - Non-defensi~e Discipleship: -4 Christian Starting Point 101 -4 Bibiicul Buis for Diulogzre ? 101

"Paradoxical Inclusit-ism" as a Perspective for Dialogue 110

Chapter Four - The Origins, Design and Methodology of the Action in 126 Ministry

The Origins and Design of rhe .4crion in .Minisrry! 126 Research A4erhodology 137 Daru Garhering and Merhod u f ' Eïuliiuiion 142

Chapter Five - Christians and Jews in Dialogue The Action in Ministry as Dance Invitation tu the Ball Dressing for rhe Dance Greeting F'ozir Parrner Shall We Dunce? After the Ball " Through a Glass. Darkb: . . "

Epilogue 193

Bibliography 200

vii

Introduction

". . . a ir*ild olive shoot ": The Je~c.ish Roois oj'C'I~risiiunin

Christians today are not Jews. Christians are gentiles who. through the graci: of

God in Christ Jesus. have come to know the God of Israel. So a Christian of the lats

twentieth century might, and probably should. regard him or herself. But the historical

reality is far more cornplex. Christianity was bom out of Judaism with Paul. the great

apostle to the gentiles. being himself a "Pharisee among Pharisees." Upon the

destruction of the second Temple in Jerusalem in 70 A.D. by the Roman enera l Titus.

two strands of what had beeri the whole fabric of first-century Judean and Galilean

Judaism remained in what is today Israel: the Pharasaism of which Paul had been a

rigourous practitioner. and the infant and marginal Jesus movement. recently labelled

-'Christian.'- As Rabbi Irwin Shields of Toronto has noted. Christians and Jeu-S. no matter

how uncornfortable each ma' be about it. are joined at the hip. Rabbi Gunther Plaut

provides a concrete example in his book. )OZU- .\'righhoztr is a Jm.. as he reflects on the

relationship between the Christian Easter and the Jetvish Passover:

"The two festivals have a common histoq. but in the course of centuries they have diverged so significantly in celebration and context that the cornnion ground on which both of them stand has been obscured. The first Christians were. of course. Jews. and as Jeus the' celebrated the festivals of their people. The last days of Jesus were closely intertwined with the observance of the Passover festival and especially with the Srder supper on the eve of the holiday. When Jesus offered bread to his disciples at the Last Supper. he gave them doubtlessly a

piece of unleavened bread or mafia - hence to this day. a maca-likr uafer is usrd in communion services."'

The relationship between Jews and Chnstians has always been. is now. and perhaps cver

will be, intimate and compiex.

In Romans II. Paui articulates what might be described as his '-theoiogy of

Christian-Jewish relations." Not only does hs recognize the ob\.ious. that Christianit?.

springs from Judaism. he argues that the rejection of messianic claims for Jesus by the

Jewish people is according to God's salvific plan for the whole of humanity. In this

instance. he employs the language of botany rather than of biology:

"I ask then. has God rejected his people? By no means! 1 myself am an Israelitr. a descendant of Abraham. a member of the tribe of Benjamin. God has not rejectcd his people whom he foreknew. . . What then? Israel failed to obtain what it was seeking . . . So 1 ask. have they stumbled so as to fall? By no means! But through their sturnbling salvation has come to the Gentiles. so as to make Israel jealous. Now if their stumbling means riches for the world. and if their defeat means riches for the Gentiles. how much more will their full inclusion mean? NOM' 1 am speaking to -ou Gentiles. lnasmuch 3s 1 am then an apostle to the Gentiles. 1 elorify my ministry in order to make my oivn people jealous. and thus savr some C

of them. For if their rejectioii is the reconciliation of the world. what will their acceptancs be but life from the dead? If the part of the dough offered as first fruits is holy, then the whole batch is holy: and if the root is holy then the branches also are holy. But if some of the branches were broken off. and you. a wild olive shoot, were grafied in their place to share the rich toot of the olive tree. do not boast over the branches. 1 F you do boast. remember that it is not you that supports the root. but the root that supports you. . . And even those of Israel. if they do not persist in unbelief. \\-il1 be grafied in. for God has the power to grafi them in again. For if you have been cut from what is by nature a wild olive tree and grafted, contrary to nature. into a cultivated olive tree. how much more will these natural branches be prafted back into their own olive tree." (Rom. 1 1 : 1 - 2 4 )

' Gunther W. Plaut. Your .'teighboar ;.Y a Jew (Philadelphia: Pilgrim Press. 1968). p. 5 1 .

In the exquisite enthusiasm of first-generation Christianit~. well before the

destruction of the heart of Judaism by the Romans. Paul's thinking yet reflects a

generosity of spirit that was not long to be sustained by the nascent church to~vard the

Jews. The twentieth century reader must never lose sight of the ve- real tension bet\\.sen

the two comrnunities. Naturally generous Paul rnay have been. but in the debate as tc

whether Gentile males were required to undergo circurncision and become de firctc,

Jewish prior to their admission to the church. Paul was unyielding. In Galatians. Paul

describes his charnpioning of the Gentile cause:

"But when Cephas came to PLntioch I opposed him to his face. because he stood self-condemned; for until certain people came for James. he used to eat with Gentiles. But after they came. he drew back and kept himself separate for fear of the circumcision faction. .And the other Jews joined him in this hypocrisy. so that even Barnabas was led astray by their hypocrisy. But when I saw that they were not acting consistently with the truth of the Gospel. 1 said to Cephas before them all. 'If you. though a Jew. live like a Gentile and not like a Jew. how can you compel the Gentiles to live 1 i ke Jews?"' (Galatians 2: 1 1 - 1 3 )

Returning to botanical imagery. granted I do not know of anyone in the Jekvish

community who would accept the "wild olive branch grafiing analogy." nevertheless. as 1

shall demonstrate latcr. there is a resonance with certain of Paul's perspectives among

those Jewish scholars in the late twentieth ccntux-y who are trying to articulate what has

been called a -'Jewish theology of Jesus." It should also be observed that in one of the

"Meditations on the Cross" contained in the Book of Niernaie Services of the Anglican

Church of Canada. a contemporary twist has been piven to Paul's language in the light of

recent Christian - Jewish dialogue. In the course of a Christian penitential litany. the

worshipper prays:

"1 grafied you into the tree of my chosen Israel. and you tumed on them nith persecution and mass murder. 1 made you joint heirs with them of my covenants. but you made them scapc= 1 ~ 0 â f s for your o w guilt." (B.AS.. p.3 '1 6)

The growing appreciation for the Jewish roots of Christianity demonstratsd

implicitly in such -'maidine" liturgies and explicitly in documents such as the United

Church of Canada's Bearing Fairhfitl Wirness: Unired Chrtrch-Jewish Relurioits TtW"ig.- is

due in no srna11 part to the work of contemporary biblical scholars. including thosr of the

self-styled "Jesus Seminar." The Jesus Seminar. a group of biblical scholars cornmitteci

to what arnounts to a ' ~ h i r d quest for the historical es us^ is determined to drau. as close

to the person of Jesus of Nazareth as the most rigorous of historical-critical methods u4I

allow. They hold as apriori the Jewishness of Jesus. In Itfeering Jesrts Again for rlze

Fir-sr Tirne. Jesus Seminar member Marcus Borg. writes:

--Jesus was deeply Jewish. It is important to emphasize this obvious fact. Not on1y was he Jewish b!. binh and socialization. but he remained a Jeu. a11 of his life. He did not intend to establish a new religion. but saw himself as ha\-ing a mission within Judaism. He spoke as a Jew to other Jews. His early followers were Jewish. Al1 of the suthors of the New Testament (with the possible exception of the author of Luke-Acts) were Jewish . . . Jesus' opponents did not represent the Jewish people or nation. 'The Jews' did not reject Jesus . . . the few Jewish persons involved in the events leading up to his esecution were a small but powerful d i t e whose power derived from the ~ o r n a n s . ' ~

In the best of Christizn thinking. thertr is nothing neu. here. To return to the Good Friday

liturgy of the Anglican Church of Church of Canada's Book of .dlrernafe Services. the

' Bearing Fairhfil Wirness: Unired Chzrrdt-Jewish Refations T o d q was adopted as a study document by the General Council o f the United Church of Canada in 1997. More will be said later in the thesis.

' The atternpt to pin down the elusive Jesus of Nazareth as an historical character has been the subject o f two eariier waves o f schoiarship. primarily in Europe.

' Marcus Borg, .UeeiingJesus Againfor rhe Firsf Tirne (San Francisco: Harper Collins. 1994). p.22

instructions to the worshipper note that ". . . 'the Jews' in St. John's Gospel appliss to

particular individuals and not to the whole Jewish people. Insofar as we ourselves tum

against Christ, we are responsible for his death."

Acknowledging the Jewishness of Jesus and the Jewish roots of Christianit>* is

critical in the Christian quest for self-understanding. But for that quest to have integrit?..

oversimplification must be eschewed by al1 parties. If it is tme that it cannot be said that

the "Jews" as a people rejected Jesus. neither c m it be argued that Christianity \ a s bom

of anything other than violent controversy fiom within a beleaguered first-century

Judaism.

Christianity was born in a time of blood ar'd fire. By the Iate 60's of the Cornmon

Era. Jewish frustration with Roman rule had led to yet another rebellion. Roman

frustration with continued Jewish insurgenc~. had led. in turn. to a first century "final

solution." The Roman genrral. Vespasian. filled wiih Imperia1 drearns for himself and his

house. decided to put an end to the "Jewish problem." First under his generalship. then

under the command of his son. Titus. the congenitally fragile Jewish state kvas destroyed.

In 70. the hean of the Judaism which Jesus knew. the Temple in Jerusalem. was

destroyed. Save for a substantial section of the western wall. lefi standing contrary to

Titus- orders so that postenty might be aware of the awesome extent of the Roman

victory. The mass suicide of nearly one thousand Zealot men, women and children in

Herod's mountain retreat of Masada constituted the final mopping up operation. The

Saducees. the entire pnestly cast. disappeared. In a very real sense. Judaism had to be re-

invented. and it had to be re-invented by the survivors. chiefly the Pharisees and the

infant Jesus movement. As might be expected. two such divergent visions were hardly

destined to forge a hannonious and united hture.

The echoes of the battle for the sou1 of first-centuq Judaism in the rifiermath o t'

the destruction of the Temple are to be heard. for Christians. with particular chrit>- in the

Gospel according to St. Matthew. especially in the twenty-third chapter. which. through

its rnany '-woes." constitutes a wholesaie condemnation of Pharasaic Judaism. .An

increasing number of late twentieth-centq Christian scholars. have corne to recognizc

the irony in this. given the distinct possibility that Jesus himself fell within the Pharisse

camp.

Anthony J. Saldarini. in his article. -'The Gospel of Matthew and Christian -

Jewish Conflict," is extremely helpful in addressing the historical context and content of

the tensions which figure so prorninently in the polemical texts of Matthew:

--Jews in Palestine and southern Syria had to adapt, or perhaps better. reconstitute their symbolic worlds. and their socio-political worlds as iveIl. in aftennath of the destruction of the Temple and its leadership. Jerusalem. the symbolic and political center of Palestinian Judaism. was eiiminated with g r a

the

re community consequences which had to be met with innovative solutions drawn from the tradition. Jewish literature of the period. including the Gospel according to St. Matthew. testifies to se~reral approaches adopted by different Jewish groups.''S

Saldarini identifies Matthew's comrnunity and the Gospel emanating from it in the early

70's as manifestations of a:

". . . Christian-Jewish group that keeps the whole law. interpreted through the Jesus tradition. Matthew considers himself to be a Jew who hm the tme interpretation of Torah and is faithful to God's will as revealed by Jesus whom he

Anthony J. Saldarini. '*The Gospel of Matthew and Christian-lewish Conflict." in Socid ffis~og* oj - the Marthean Comrnrini~: David L. Balch. ed. (Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 199 1), p. 3 1.

declares to be Messiah and Son of ~ o d . " ~

He then employs the sociological tool of -'deviance theon." to gain soms

understanding of the dynamics which led to the anti-Pharasaical polemic constituting the

bulk of Matthew 23.

"The study of deviance is critical to the understanding of culture and conimuni (1.. What a society considers deviant is intimately related to its identit>-. sh0w.s \\-hsrt. it draws its boundaries. and exposes key structures and values in its social - and symbolic system. To study what a society rejects is to study what i t is."'

If Saldarini is correct, then Rabbi Shield's "joined at the hip" analogy becomes virtually

self-evident. It becomes as important to Jews as to Christians to plunge into the

maelstrom of the first century in search of self-understanding. Indeed. in the past decade.

Jewish scholars have begun to take that plunge. with f au1 as the point of departure. Alan

Segal in Paul rhe Converr: The Aposrolare and Aposras-v ofSuu1 the Pharisee. and Daniel

Boyarin in A Radical At.: Paul and rhr Polirics oj-ldenri~. are cases in point.

Saldarini sees Matthew's comrnunity and the author of its Gospel as:

-'. . . deviant Jews. . . labelled deviant by the authorities and by many members of the Jewish communiry in their city or area. Socio1ogical:y the Matthean community is a fragile minority still identified with the Jewish community by others and still thinking of itself as Jews. . . many o f the stigmatizing procedures used by communities against deviants and the countermeasures they provoke can be seen in Matthew's polemics.""

Seen in this light. Matthew's polernics become humanl y understandable. if less

than divinely inspired:

/bid. p. 41.

' ibid.. p. 4. 8 ibid.. p. 38.

"Matthew attacks the Jewish leaders unceasingly in an attempt to deligitimize their authority and teaching, and to win the people over to his interpretation of Judaism. Matthew's polemics. even his famous attacks on the scribes and Pharisees as hypocrites. . . are nuanced. Matthew attacks the Jewish leaders. . . and their interpretations of how the Jewish cornmunity should live in order to replace their understanding of Torah with his comrnunity's reforrn program. He is dealing with real tirne. concrete history and living people.

Al1 well and good in the first century context of Judea. or rather its remains. as

two marginal factions of a nearly-obliterated religious and political community struggled

to survive. find meaning and rebuild. But by the beginning c f the fourth century. not

only had Christianity been transformed into a Gentile religion. the greatest of a11 Gentiles.

the Roman Emperor Constantine. had come to identify Christianity with his persona1 and

Imperia1 interests, and the Western world was about to change. In Who KilledJesrrs:

Exposing the Roots of AnLîemirisrn in the Gospel Story of the Death of Jesus. John

Dominic Crossan. notes:

-'For Christians, the New Testament tests and Gospel accounts are inspired by God. But divine inspiration necessarily cornes through a human heart and a mortal mind. through personal prejudice and communal interpretation. through fear. dislike m d hate. as well as through faith. hope and charity. It can also come as inspired propaganda. and inspiration does not make it any the less propaganda. In its origins and first moments. that Christian propaganda was fairly innocent. Those first Christians were relatively powerless Jews. and cornpared with them the Jewish authoritics represented S ~ ~ O U S and threatening power. As long as Christians were the marginalized and disenfranchised ones. such passion fiction about Jewish responsibility and Roman innocence did nobody much harrn. But. once the Roman Empire became Ciiristian. that fiction tumed lethal. In the light of later Christian anti-Judaism and eventually of genocidal anti-Semitism. it is no longer possible in retrospect to think of that passion fiction as relatively benign propaganda. However explicable its origins. defensible its invective. and understandable its motives arnong Christians fighting for survival. its repetition

has now becorne the longest lie. and. for our owm integrity. we Christians must at last name it as s ~ c h . " ' ~

From Distrusr ro Dialogue

In Telling Tales: Making Sense of Christian and Jrrdaic hionsense. Rabbi Jacob

Neusner declares:

"Afier two thousand years of addressing one another through juxtaposed monologues. Judaism and Christianiiy are ready for dialogue. . . The urgrncy of dialogue flows from our shared professions: we believe in one God. who is the sarne God, who is the on!y God. . . 1 find God in the Torah. my Christian neighbour meets God in the person of Jesus Christ. and since we agree that we are spealiing of the same God we surely have something to teach one another and to learn fiom one another.""

But afier two thousand years. Neusner's remains a minority view in both traditions.

Distrust rather than diaIogue has marked Christian - Jewish relations. From the Christian

perspective. the incentive for genuine dialogue - the willingness to know the other

without ulterior motive - is mainly a product of the post-World War II. post-Shou reality.

Guilt over Crossan's "longest lie" has been the chief motivator.

From the Jewish perspective. distrust of the first Christian initiatives for dialogue

is entirely understandable. Forced conversions. ghettoization. the Inquisition. the

systematic expulsion of Jews from Christendom. pogroms. conspiracy theories embodied

in ludicrous slanders like The Prorocols of the Eiders of Zion. and ultimately the Shoa at

the hands of the Nazis describe the history of Christian - Jewish relations for two

IO John Dominic Crossan. Who KilledJesus? (San Francisco: Harper, 1995). p. xi.

1 I Jacob Neusner, Telling Tales: :%faking Sense of Christian and Judaic Nonsense (Louisvil le: Westminster, 1993). p. 5.

miIlennia. Granted. there is no evidence to show that Christianity inkaentcrd anti-Judaism

or anti-semitism. Pre-Christian Roman and Jewish sources demonstrate marksd

antipathy to the Imperial Jewish population based on m i l i t e and economic esigencies.

Recent IsraeIi research into the Roman Imperial m i l i t q budget shows an increasing

frustration with the cost of supporting an extensive military presence in Syria in order to

maintain a detente of sorts with the ever volatile Judaeans. The Spanish Inquisition and

the attendant expulsion of Jews seems motivated as much by racial as religious issues. as

we see from the brutalization and expulsion of conversos. Jews who had. in some cases

generations earlier. chosen to become Christians. Even the Nazi genocide was based on

the pseudo-scientific racial superiority theories of the nineteenth century.

Still. it cannot be denied that Christians. employing biblically-based theology.

have provided a religious foundation in some instances. and a religious veneer in others.

for horrors perpetrated on Jews. individually and coliectively. for nearly two thousand

Whatever the causes. arguments and justifications. Neusner argues that there has

never been a genuine dialogue between Christirins and Jews.

'-. . . while going through the motions of argument and disputation. neither part). brought to the debate the required attitude of reasoned disagreement about shared propositions among mutually respecthl parties to discourse. No Judaic 'you' ever argued with a Christian 'you'. but Judaic theoiogical apologetics forrnulated an imaginary argument with a Christianity of their own invention. and Christian theological apologetics invented an equally fantastic Judaism. So much for the monologues - parallel lines that never met - that ran on in place of dialogue.""

'' Ibid.. p. 6 .

Stephen Haynes addresses this issue of imaginary adversaries in Rrlucrrirtr

Wirnesses: Jews und the Chrisrian Imaginarion. Drawing first from Dante. he observes

that:

-'. . . Jews must always be special cases in products of the Christian imagination. because of the uniquely ambivalent place which the Jewish people inhabit there.. . They are men and women of exemplary faith upon whom the divine favour eternally rests: or they are betrayers of friends. murderers of the innocent. killers of ~ o d . " ' ~

Twenty-five years of Christian-Jewish dialogue. formal and informal. institutional

and personal. have convinced me that both Neusner and Haynes are correct. Christians

motivated by guilt and Jews guarded by distrust will achieve little by way of genuine

dialogue. The very best we might hope to achieve is tolerance. and 1 am convinced that

tolerance. while arguably an improvement on intolerance. is not enough. I am convinced

that Christians and Jews must movs. through genuine dialogue. beyond tolerance.

Beyond Tolerance

It was G. K. Chesterton who obsenred that '*tolerance is the last refuge of the

uncommitted." While this ma!. seem an otrerly jaundiced view to some. tolerance does

have its limits. At a "Neighbourhood Intsrfaith Dinner" held in April of 1994 at Beth

Tzedec synagogue in Toronto. Rabbi Baruch Frydman-Kohl noted that tolerance was

being aware that there was a synagogue on Bathurst south of Eglinton. or a United

Church on Avenue Road north of Eglinton. and not minding. Community was orily built

when the people in the synagogue and the church recognized one another as neighbours,

and went beyond tolerance to mutual understanding and respect. so that they might livr

together in harmony. and work together for the sake of the community.

To come to know one another. to learn from one another. to benetit tiom the

encounter. to derive further benefit from that encounter for the sake of the

' WStS commonwealth: herein lies the hope for dialogue. It is the hope which bieusncr sus,

is real: it is the undergirding etlios of Martin Bubér's I and Thozi: it is the hope which led

to the action in ministry which is rhç heart of this dissertation. "What is the esperience of

Christians and Jews in dialogue?" This is the research question 1 have set rnyself to

answer. within certain bounds and limitations. Underlying it is the assumption that

dialogue is worthwhile, that dialogue leads to positive results. But is that assumption

borne out in the experience of dialogue participants? Christians and Jews each c w the

baggage of centuries into dialogue with one another. Yet. as Neusner observes:

--It is the simple fact that generations of Jews. dorvn to my own mother. spoke about Jesus as Yoske Pandra, little Joshua. the illegitimate son of the Roman soldier. Pantera. So did the scurrilous Toledor Yeshu come to me; but my children have heard no such talk from me. . . 1 have known more than a few faithfùl Chnstians. both Protestants and Roman Catholics. who may have heard about us as Christ-killers. or as rnoney-gmbbers. or as a bit sharp. but whose children have not - at least. not frorn their parents."'"

Neusner is convinced that:

"When fundamental attitudes of the one toward the other shift, then theological solutions to the dilemma of Judeo-Christian dialogue will bring healing where there is no longer a wound. Al1 things depend on attitude: proposition cornes later, when it is scarcely needed. escept for purposes of r a t i~na l i t~ . " '~

1; Stephen Hayes. Relzrclanr M'irnesstis: Jrws and rhe Chrisrian fmagination (Louisville: Westminster. 1995). p. 3.

1-1 Neusner, p. I I . 15 lbid., p. 1 1 .

Here then, is the content of this dissertation in a nutshell: to bnng ChRstians and

Jews together in a bounded experience of dialogue: to gather data about thrir knou-ledgs.

attitudes and behaviour towards the other. both prior and subsequent to the esperisnce:

and in doing so. to propose a mode1 for the kind of dialogue for which Neusner calls.

The Shape of fhe D. Min. Thesis

That tensions exist between Christians and Jekvs is one of those truths which the

founders of the Amencan republic would label self-evident. Not quite so self-evident is a

growing cornmitment arnong Christian institutions to revisit the sources of that tension.

The Catholic Register of the week of November 1 oth. 1997. carried an article entitlcd.

--Conference examines roots of ami-Judaism in Christian milieu: Effects of anti-Jekvish

thought likely long term." The article descnbes a Vatican conference on the origins of

anti-Jewish thought in Christianity. Among the statements made was that -*Christians

who yield to anti-Judaism offend God and the Church itself." In the sarne month. the

.Anglican Jorlrnal carried a s t o p on an act of repentance by the Roman Catholic Ctiurch

in France for its collective compIicit>, in the holocaust. There is a sizable burr under the

Christian saddle. I t is in the global context of this gradually changing sensibility that the

research project. the action in ministry. which is the heart of this paper was undertaken.

The paper provides both a foundation and a frame for the project and its implications for

interfaith dialogue in ministry.

Continuing the thmst of the introduction, this thesis will examine, in the barest

and most essential of overviews the background of the tensions between Christians and

Jews over tweniy centuries. both in the popular imagination and in institutional positions.

with 3 brief reflection of the impact of the Shoa and of the founding of the State of Israel.

. Then the focus will narrow to the foreground of Christian-Jewish dialogue. rsamining the

specific context of the action in ministry: relations between the United Church of Canada

and the Jewish community in general. and the North Toronto context in particular.

Before exploring the action in ministry and the data gleaned therefrom. some

theological assumptions and principles will be proposed. the eflicacy of which 1 believe

will be born out by the results of the action in ministry. The background and

undergirding principles of the action in rninistry will be followed by a detailed review of

the results of the dialogue event which was the focus of the action. employing the

metaphor of the dance to illustrate the comples symmetr). of the dialogue process.

Having begun the paper with the \;eV gencral and then moving to the very specific. the

thesis then returns to the general with an assessment of the implications of the action in

ministr). and its conclusions.

Chapter One

ChristianJewish Dialogue: Background

Pnor to the action in ministry. which I shall refer to for con\.enience's sriks as

"the event," Jewish participants were asked what they felt upon hearing the word.

Christian. Christian participants were asked the corresponding question. The results

were instructive. Five of the seven Jewish participants used terms which denotzd a

degree of anxiousness associated with the word Christian. for exarnple. '-a1armed.'-

--alerted." "nervous." The Christian participants exhibited sirnilar concem when the)-

heard the word. Jew: --uneasy:" ocdefensive:" "contùsed:" --uncornfortable."

The seven Christians and seven Jews who participated in this stud; were ali

highly intelligent. aniculate human beings. with a disproportionate number of teachers

and intellectuals in both groups. Still. it is hardly surprising that the preponderance of

feeling should be guarded. to sa' the least. Two millennia of popular and official

prejudice. interspersed with horrific violence and capped with the Shoo undrrgirds that

guardedness. The history of distrust between Christians and Jews fills volumes. while

this thesis is concemed with but one strategy by which that distrust might be ameliorated.

1 propose. therefore. to note but a few esamples of that distrust for the purposr 01'

illustration. begiming with the first century struggle between church and synagogue for

the hearts and minds of first century Jews.

Let me state once again that an anti-Jewish bias was well-established mithin the

Roman Empire before an infant Christianity provided it with a theolopical rationale.

Judea. and especially its neighbouring Jewish province to the north. Galilrr. hnd long

been a thom in the flesh to the Roman occupying force. By 70 C.E.. the tlesh

surrounding that thorn had begun to fester. In Liberaring the Gospels: Readiitg r h Bihl'

ivith Jeivish Eyes. John Spong notes:

". . . the Jewish province of Galilee was al1 but unconquerable as far as the Romans were concemed. . . this region itself became a synonym for the hostility that the Romans had for Jews. Galilee was a land of rugged terrain occupied by a fierce and warlike people against whom Rome was required to keep constant vigilance."'

By 66 C.E.. guerilla raids by the Jews had provoked the Romans into open warfare. The

inevitable occuned:

". . . as is tnie to the reality of warfare. the propaganda machine of the Roman Empire began to tum out increasingiy shrill anti-Jewish sentiments. Jews ivere portrayed by the Romans as sub-human. uncivilized. base and evil. In this political climate. anyone who had any grievances against the Jews found it politically correct to express that negativit? publiciy. When the mutilated body of a Roman soldier was discovered. other Roman soldiers were ofien forced to view the remains. . . as each side ovenged itself against the other. the cruelty factor in this war increased. as it tends to do in any war."?

By 70 C.E.. as the war dragged on into its founh inconclusive and costly year. it

became apparent that to achieve a final victory. a final solution would have to be found -

noi. it can be argued for the first time: cenainly not for the last. It was clear to Vespasian

that to defeat the heart of the Jewish nation. Jerusalem must be destroyed. In 70 C.E.. i t

I J. S. Spong, Liberaring the Gospels (San Francisco: Harper Collins, 1996), p. 43.

' lbid.. p. 43.

was. The impact of the destruction of Jerusalem upon the Jewish people can not bt.

exaggerated. Spong writes:

"We need now to become aware of. to understand and embrace the trauma that entered Jewish life in this kzirolic moment of its h i s t o ~ . In this defeat these Jewish people had lost their nation. their Holy City. their Temple and their priesthood. They had also lost their ordered social and worship life. which the Jewish leadership people of Jerusalem had established. Because their ver'. identity was tied into these things. it is fair to Say that in this moment the Jewish people had al1 but lost their identity."'

It must afso be said that Christians. for al1 the increasing number of gentile

converts still a Jewish sect - though probably viewed as deviant because of their

messianic claims for Jesus of Nazareth - had not participated in this disastrous \var with

Rome. This was but another element in the self-marginalization of Christians from Jews

which. while perhaps inevitable. would have such far-reaching consequences. In the

aftermath of the destruction of Jerusalem. the struggle was for survival. But for the

--I'oIlowers of the way." as Judean Christians were calIed. and the remnant of the

"maidine" Judean Jewish cornmunit?.. for lack of a better term. the struçgle was

quaIitatively different. For the former. the struggle was for birth; for the latter. the

struggle was against death. The goals. in the minds of both communities. were mutually

exclusive. In the end. the struggle \vas tigainst one another. Echoes of that stmggle are

painfully evident in the New Testament. In Liheratinp rhe Gospels, John Spong brings

that struggle into sharp focus:

' Ibid.. p. 44.

-'. . . folIowing that defeat in the year 70, we find that every other value of the

Jewish people was sublimated or put into the service of suwivaI. SunvivaI becamil the

overwhelrning and prirnary agenda of the Jewish people. The sacred scriptures ot'thr

Jews became not only their p r i m e possession of note but also their chief Lveapon in

their quest to achieve this goal of sunfival. In such a stmggle. ir \vas inevitable that

people would defend their chief weapon with a vehemence unknoun and unheard ot-

before in the history of these sacred witings. . . It um.s in the process of turning their

sacred scriptures into a weapon with which to fight for survivaI that enonnous

ramifications lay for the future of the Jews and. indeed. for the ~hristians.'-4

With this new and urgent rmphasis on sun~i\.al- the kind of deviance represented

by the nascent Christian community within Judaism was not long to be tolerated. Js~vish

survivors of the cataclysm moved swiftl!* to isolate and excise the --follo~vers of the way."

At the rabbinic Council of Jarnnia. in the same year as the destruction of the Temple in

Jerusalem, the process of finalizing the Hebrew scriptures in the form of the Tmukh was

emphasized. At least part of the motivation \vas to distinguish this cannonica1 structure

from the Greek c m o n i c a l structure. the Srptirugint. favoured by Christians. Spong

captures the flavour of conflict:

--Prior to the year 70. within the Synagogues. (the Chnstians) were at best an enriching new tradition and at worst a minor imitation. But on the other side of that fatefùl year. these '-followers of the way" began to find themselves classified as a threat to Jewish survival. The fact that many folIowers of Jesus throughout the Empire, bath Jewish and gentile. had begun to interpret the fa11 of Jerusalem

and the loss of the Temple as God's punishment for their rejection of Jesus did not ingratiate the Jewish Christians to the surviving staunchly traditional worshippers of Jerusalem. Beyond that . . .the "li beralizing" Jewish Christi ans did not cling tightly to that single-minded understanding of the Jewish source of revealed truth. Their very presence meant that the fragile hold of orthodos Jews on the possession to which they clung for their very identity was intolerably weakened. Thus the stage was set for hostility to erupt. and rmpt ic did."'

Here we see the devastated Jewish community lockcd in its struggle against

obliteration. Over and against this immovable object was set an increasingly irrrsistibk

force. the gradually coalescing Christian Church. struggling equally vigorously to be

bom. With its Pauline aspirations in the gentile community. the Christians recognized

the importance of pÿblic opinion within the Empire:

"As hostility toward al1 things Jewish pervaded the empire. it becarne extremely wise politically for Jewish Chnstians to make public political distinctions between the rigid orthodoxy of the traditional Jews and them~elves."~

in fairness. it must be said that those distinctions did. and do. exist. But there is a

shamelessness in the rnisrepresentations of onhodos Jemrish religion in the Gosprls and.

indeed. throughout the New Testament in which Torah is seen as not only stultifying but.

in Romans. as death-dealing. that should make a twentieth century Christian blush. I t

was a very short step to suggesting that it was slavish adherence to the letter rather than

the spirit of the Law which blinded Judean Jeu-s to the mission of Jesus and which led to

their rejection of him and, ultimately. to the charge of deicide. Even now. the entirely

' /bid, p. 46.

Ibid., p. 49.

suspect distinction between the Old Testament as law and the New testament as grace is a -

priori in the most liberal of homiletics programmes in Canada.'

The battle lines were clearly draun. As Spong observes:

--. . . survival oriented Jews couid not allow their single surviving Jew-ish asset to be used in such a way as to suggest that the defining limits which the? had placrd around their scriptures were not real. . . the traditional Jews sought to prorect théir sacred scriptures from what they regarded as an improper use of the scriptures by the Jewish Chnstians. That in turn caused these Jewish Christians to respond ~vith an answering hostility. Each group thus claimed ownership of the Jewish scriptures. and each group used those scriptures as a lethal weapon against the other.""

Scripture was not the only weapon employed in this originally internecine feud. but to

push an analogy, it constituted first stnke capability.

Popular Preiudices between Christians and Jews

It must be imrnediately obvious that e\..idence of the increasingly vicircs strife

between continuing Judaism and the "followers of the way" will not be found in the

Hebrew scriptures. They remained closed to both traditions. the foundation upon which

the superstructures of IWO increasingly divergent religions would be constmcted. It is to

the Christian scriptures we must tum. and here the evidence of conflicr is overwhelming.

The ietters. gospels - and here 1 would argue for the categorization of Luke-Acts as a

continuous narrative - and apocalypse of the New Testament are al1 written. edited and

' Anecdotal comments from United Church students attending colleges in Kingston, Toronto and Vancouver, and the author's conversations with homiletics teachers.

* Ibid, p. 50.

collated into the canon of Christian scripture as much bu declaring what Christianit). is

not as by proclaiming what Christianity is.

In an unpublished paper. "Woe unto Everyone: Matthsw 23 as a Problcm Test in

Christian-Jewish Dialogue." 1 exarnined ways in which the developing New Testament

illustrated the struggle between church and synagogue. 1 implied no judgement upon the

editors of the Christian canon. We view history with twenty-twenty hindsight. and rvhile

1 concur that it is both legitimate and necessary to study the past criticallp in order to gain

new insight into present circurnstances. an arrogant dismissal of the exigencies ~Vhich

drove Our forebears serves no one.

There is a sense in which al1 these anti-Jewish texts might be charactsrized as

"defensive." This is to Say that in the first century struggle of the infant Christian church

for survival. the rhetoric with which these texts are laden serve the principle that the "best

defense is a good offence." Two passages from the Gospel according to Matthew will

illustrate my point. They bracket the full text like bookends. The first. keeping in mind

the concept that the Passion and Resurrection narratives forrn the heart of the gospel. with

the balance of the text latterly accreted according to the exigencies of the comrnunity of

origin of the particular gospel account. is found in Matthew 27: 62-66:

"The next day. that is. afier the day of Preparation. the chief priests and the Pharisees gathered before Pilate and said. 'Sir, we remember what that impostor said while he was still alive. "Afier three days I will rise again." Therefore command the tomb to be made secure until the third day; otherwise his disciples may go and steal him away and tell the people, "He has been raised from the dead," and the last deception would be worse than the first.' Pilate said to them. 'You have a guard of soldiers; go, make it as secure as you cm.' So they went with the guard and made the tomb secure by sealing the Stone. . . "

The second follows the visit to the tomb by Mary Magdalene and the women. the s t o p

continuing in chapter 28. verse 1 1 :

". . . some of the guard went into the city and told the chief priests evep-thing that had happened. Afier the priests had assembled with the elders. they devised a plan to give a large sum ofmoney to the soldiers. telling thrm. T o u must Say. --His disciples came by night and stole him away while we were asleep." Il'this cornes to the governor's ears. we will satisfy hirn and keep you out of trouble.' So they took the money and did as they directed. And this s t o q is still told arnong the Jews to ti-is day."

Let us set aside, in this context at least. the historicity of this text. or even that

which Fr. Raymond Brown might cal1 its verisimilitude. It must be clear to anyone with

even a passing knowledge of the churcMsynagogue tension of the first century that this

story serves a purpose that goes beyond the piety of the early 70's of the Christian era

when it was written. Brown. in his Death of rhe !Lfessiah. like Sherlock HoImes

drducing the existence of a Niagara from a single drop of water. proposes that this stop.

is incorporated into Matthew's gospel account to answer charges from within the Jewish

community that grave-robbing was precisely how the Christian claim of the resurrection

should be seen. As an aside. if Brown is correct in his deduction. it brings into question

John Dominic Crossan's assertion in Who Kifled Jesus? that the body of Jesus of

Nazareth was simply tossed into a common grave.

The sto- certainly brings to mind the contemporary caricature o f the Jews as

scheming conspirators, prepared to corrupt and distort tmth through bribes. Taken out

of the context of the first century. i r has becorne a calumny with deadly implications.

For the second exarnple. we tum to the begiming of the gospel. to Matthew's

account of Jesus' nativity. Again. I work fiom inference. relying on Brown's detailed

comrnentary and analysis, this time in The BN-rh ofrhe Messiah. The particular test to

which 1 tum is Matthew 1 : 18-25:

W o w the birth of Jesus the Messiah took place in this way. When his mother Mary had been engaged to Joseph. but before they lived together. she was found to be with child fiom the Holy Spirit. Her husband Joseph. being a righteous man and unwilling to expose her to public disgrace. planned to dismiss her quietly. But just when he had resolved to do this. an angel of the Lord appeared to him in a drearn and said. 'Joseph. son of David, do not be afraid to take Mary as your wife, for the child conceived in her is from the Holy Spirit. She will bear a son, and you are to name him Jesus, for he will Save his people from their sins.' Al1 this took place to fulfill what had been spoken by the Lord through the prophet, 'Look, the virgin shali conceive and bear a son. and they shall name him Emmanuel. which means. 'God is with us.' When Joseph awoke frorn sleep. hs did as the angel of the Lord commanded him; he took her as his wife. but had no marital relations with her until she had borne a son; and he narned Iiim Jesus."

This. of course. is a Christological passage of great significance. It demonstrates

how. by adoption of both the Holy Spirit and Joseph. Jesus is both human and divine.

But. once again setting aside histoq-. verisimilitude and piety. we see residual trace

elements of the deadly contest between surviving Judaism and Christianity. Brown

concludes that the prirnary purpose of this chapter is to demonstrate who Jesus is in the

face of scandalous rumour. Brown suggests that at the time Matthew's gospel account

was written. there was already in circulation a Jewish charge that Jesus was illegitimate.

Matthew 1 : 1 8-25 thus becomes apologet ic in a li ke manner to the passages in Matthew

27 and 28 concerning the guard at the tornb:

-'If the marital situation between Joseph and Mary were not a fact and could ha\-e been created according to the dictates of Christian imagination. it is difficult to see why a situation less open to scandai was not contrived.. .instead of picturing Mary as already pregnant. the narrator could have imagined hrr as betrothed to Joseph. but without child. Then he could have had the angel of the Lord appear.. . Everything else could follow and there would be no hint of scandal . . .as Matthew's account now stands. it means that Jesus will necessarily be bom early

.A after the parents corne to live together - too early to escape notice and gossip.

The author of Matthew meets the inferred charge of illegitirnacy head on through the

medium of theological apologetic, kiliing an entire flock with one Stone. Bro\\n

dedicates Appendix V of The Birth of the Messiah to the charge of illegitimacy. His

evidence is convincing and provides some insights into the Jewish side of the defamatory

debates between the two comrnunities. From non-canonical Christian sources. Brown

quotes the Acts of Pilate:

"The elders of the Jews answered and said to Jesus. 'What should we see? First, that you were born of fornication: second. that your birth meant the death of the children in Bethlehem; third. that your father Joseph and your mother Mary fled into Egypt because they counred for nothing among the people."'"

The links here to Matthew's narrative are obvious; not so the fabrication of Celsus

based. according to Brown. on Jewish sources. and dating toward the end of the second

century C. E.:

"tt was Jesus himself who fabricated the story that he had been born of a virgin. In fact, however, his rnother was a poor country woman who earned her living by spiming. She had been driven out by her arpenter husband when she was convicted of adultery with a soldier narned Panthera. She then waiîderd about and secretly gave birth to Jesus. Later. because he was poor, Jesus hired himself

R. Brown, The Birlh ofrhe Messiah. (N.Y.: Toronto, 1993). p. 142. 10 Ibid. p. 535.

out in Egypt where he became adept in magical powers. Puffed up bu these. he claimed for hirnself the title of ~od . " "

TertuIlian. Brown notes. writing in about 190 C.E.. reports Jewish charges that Jrsus u x

the son of a prostitute. Brown notes also. and quite correctiy. that a Christian account of

a Jewish polemic is not necessanly reliable. brit goes on to demonstrate Jewish sources

for comparable charges:

"By the Arnoraic period of rabbinic literature (A.D. 200-500). the belief in Jesus' illegitirnacy was well estabtished in Jewish circles. as Ben Pantera was identified with Ben Stada whose mother was Miriarn. a hairdresser who had been unfaithful to her husband. Ben Stada was supposed to have learned black-magic formulas in Egypt which he brought back inscribed or cut into his skin. and he is said to have been hanged (crucified) on Passover ~ v e . " "

1 shall return to this particular tale shortly in illustrating the popular prejudices

between Christians and Jews in the Middle Ages. For the moment. let me state again for

emphasis that popular prejudices have existed from the begiming in the minds of both

Christians and Jews but. with the decision of the Emperor Constantine in the early founh

century that the Roman Empire should be Christian. the stakes changed dramatically.

The once-beleaguered Christians now held the upper hand and it wouid soon become

clear tha! they intended to ernploy their new advantage in deadly eamest.

In his exhaustive Judaism: Between Yesrerday and Tomorrow. Roman Catholic

scholar Hans Küng traces both the popular and "official" growth of anti-Judaism. He is

careful to distinguish between pre-Christian pagan anti-Judaism and Chnstian anti-

Judaism, confirming, as 1 noted earlier. that Christianity did not invent hostility towards

the Jews. He cites four reasons for pagan mti-Judaism: relentlrss monotheism: an

"aggressive description of their own saivation history" - the sense of --chosemess:"

circurncision; and restrictive d i e t q practices.'3 Küng places the first anti-Jewish

pogrom in 38 C.E. in Alexandna. But Christian anti-Judaism developed a quaIitati\-ely

different and very particularistic nature. He. too. is aware that this anti-Judaism grew out

of an early and mutual antipathy:

"The blame for the clash between Jews and Christians (so vigorous was a dispute in Rome in the year 49/50 that the Emperor Claudius banished both parties from the capital for a time) cannot be assigned one-sidedly. Did the young Christian heresy represent a real threat to Judaism? Or conversely, ir, view of the tirne of persecution which already began with the Emperor Nero, did perhaps the Christian cornrnunities note bitterly the hostile attitude of the Jewish community? . . . we can understand that the Judaism which continued to exist (even afier the destruction of Jerusalem) increasingly represented a challenge to Christianity. which believed it was theologically in the right - indeed that many Christians. includin the theological elite. felt the continued existence of Judaism to be a threat." , f Out of this hostility grew Christian anti-Judaism. not a matter of gentile irritability

at Jewish ways within the midst of their communities. but an ideologically based anti-

Judaism. which would. centuries later. develop into the deadly racist policies of the Third

Reich. Küng notes four elements of this Christian anti-Judaism which can be seen as

integral in both popuIar and official predjudice. They include: the growing alienation

frorn Old Testament roots as the church spread through the gentile world; the exclusive

claim to the Hebrew Bible by the church for the sole purpose of undergirding developing

" lbid. p. 536. i 3 H. Kiing. Judaisrn: Berween Yesrerday and Tomorrow W.Y.: Continuum, 199 1 ), p. 147. 14 Ibid, p. 151.

Christian doctrine: the ending of anything like conversation between church and

synagogue; and the charge of deicide against the Jews. clearly evident in the New

Testament itself. especially in the gospel accounts of Matthew and ~ohn. ' '

Out of the existential struggle for survival. and upon a theolo_eical foundation of

supercessionism. was constructed fiom the second century C.E. on what Küng calls an

"adversus Judeos literanire. a literature that was explicitly hostile to the ~ews."'" Küng

quotes the classic example of Chrysostom in Constantinople:

-'. . . the synagogue was a place of opposition to the law. a sphere of evil. a bastion of the devil: the Jews were bon viveurs who. unfit for work. were now more fit for slaughtering.""

A corresponding anti-Christian polemic developed, first arnong which was the

Toledoth Yeshu. which sprang from the Ben Pantera/Ben Stada polemic. the roots of

which. as we have seen in Brown's work. may well pre-date the Gospel according to St.

Matthew. According to the Toledoth Iéshrr:

". . . during the days of Alexander Jannaeus (early first century B.C.), a certain Joseph Pandera forced himself on ~Viriam. the wife of Johanan. who gave birth to Yeshu (Jesus). When it became known that he was the illegitimate son of Joseph Pandera. Yeshu fled to Upper Galilee. Yeshu discovered the secret letters of the divine name which he sewed into a cut in his thigh and used for magical purposes. He claimed to be the Messiah and the Son of God and was ultimately put to death on Passover ~ve.""

15 Ibid., p. 152.

l6 /&id. 17 /bid, p. 154. 18 Brown, p. 536.

As noted by Jacob Neusner, this particular polemic has been among the most

enduring, being passed on from generation to generation well into the twentieth century.

But there were other anti-Christian polemical works of note:

"The Same of the Saints ( 1 397) written in Spain by Isaac Ben Moses Ephodi. or the A bolilion of the Dogmas of the Christian Religion ( 1 3 97/ 1 3 98) also wri tten in Spain. by Hasdai ben Judah Crescas: or books like Book of Rejiriation.(written in the thirteentidfourteenth century in the Rhineland) . . . " "

In reality. this Jewish anti-Christian polemic counted for little. for as Küng quitr

x-ightly - indeed. one would think obviously - points out:

"Much as both sides were entangled in polemic. the two polemics were not of equal importance. The Jews never had anything like the political power of Christians. Indeed. from Our present perspective. it is sharning for Christians.. . to see how the Christian church. of al1 bodies. oppressed and persecuted Jews with the force of the state in the name of the Jew Jesus. and now even more triumphantly gave itself out to be the successor. representative, heir to Israel which had normally been rejected. What a fatal division of roles this was. in both theory and practice.. .the church was now the spiritual Israel. the people of God. For had not the Jewish people in fact ceased to be God's people since the crucifixion of Jesus? The punishrnent for this death was now finally indeed a history of suffering. unparalleled in hurnan h i s t ~ r ~ . " ' ~

By the end of the first m i l l e ~ i u m of the Christian E ra popular prejudice and

formal dogma would blend into the deadlp and. in retrospect. unholy union which was the

crusades. The crusades were both momrntous and contentious. From the late eighteenth

century to the present, they have attained an even greater mythic stature than they did in

the event itself. From Sir Walter Scott's Ivrinhoe to Sir Arthur Conan Doyle's The

White Company novelists have romanticized the crusades and the crusaders. With the

19 Brown, p. 1 1. 20 Kung. Judaism. p. 167.

advent of motion pictures in the early twentieth century. the romantickation of that

period which we loosely cal1 the Middle Ages attained new sophistication. Highlp

cotoured accounts of the legendary exploits of Robin Hood, the Cid. and Richard I have

created a Hollywood history for four generations of movie Iovers,

But filrnmakers are not alone in their capacity for inventiveness. In his 1 99 1

book, Invenring the Middle Ages, medievalist Norman Cantor provides a critical

assessrnent of the ways in which scholars and novelists, working from the flimsiest of

materials, invented a Middle Ages to suit their particular purposes. A case in point is

Harold Lamb's The Crusades: h n Men and Sainrs, published in 193 1. Lamb's

preface, written in florid Edwardian prose. illustrates the image of the crusades still

propagated in schools and the popular media. Witness the 1997 British production of

"1 vanhoe":

"At the end of the night of the Dark Ages. a multitude of our ancestors lefi their homes. They started out on what they called the voyage of God. . . They were marching out of the familiar. known worid into Asia to set fiee with their own hands the Sepulcher of Christ. . . They wanted to live there. in the promised land. ruled by no king but by the wiIl of God. On the shoulders of their jackets they wore a cross. sewn out of cloth, and because of this they were called the crttciari, or cross-bearers. So we. today. cal1 them the crusaders.""

It is hardly surprising that so noble an image should have captwed the

imagination of generation after generation, and that the terrn crusade should still be

empIoyed by evangelical Christians to describe their missions.

" Harold Lamb, The Crusades: lron Men and Sainfs (N.Y.: Collector's Library, 193 1 ). p. 3.

Certainly. the impact of the cnisades can not be underestimated. -4s Cantor

notes:

"Medieval civilization came of age in the First Crusade. This was the breakthrough moment. From within their metal helmets and woolen c o n k clean- shaven Frankish faces now imbibed the warmth and inhaled the sea-salted air of the Mediterranean. They came home again. afier so long hiding in the northem dragon lairs. to the heartIand of classical nations and ancient cities. In 1099 the French Crusaders broke the walls of Jenisalem. In King David's golden ci ty on the fertilized plateau high above the arid Palestinian plain. God willed the Franks victory over the momentarily confused and divided Muslims. Now the commingled blood of Arab and Jew - peaceful. compatible citizens then - rose in a flash flood to the knee joints of the Europeans' feudal chargers.""

There was a distinct millenarian. eschatalogical quality to the whoIe endeavour:

--(The Crusaders) believed Divine Providence. proceeding chronologically dong a teleological straight line from Creation through Incarnation to the Last Judgement was very much on the side of the aristocratic families from Normandy. the Loire Valley and Toulouse. Quickly and securely. European-centred historical destin? would now accelerate the Second Corning of the Lord. a clean-shaven. tall. blonde. lithe. French-looking nobleman in a gold-trirnrned white silk shirt.""

In a such a context, the idea that Jesus was Jewish would have been not only

preposterous. but blasphemous. In the Crusades. 1 would suggest. the alienation of

Christian from Jew in the popular mind reached its apogee. The Shoa of our oun

century is a result of the consciousness shift which was the Crusades. With the best will

in the world towards our eleventh century Christian forebears, it is virtually impossible to

view their cmsading enterprise with any sense of equanimity. Roscmary Radford

Ruether, in her seminal 1974 book, Fairh und Frarricide, shares Norman Cantor's view

" Norman Cantor. lnvenring the Middle Ages (N.Y. : Wm. Morrow, 199 1 ), p. 26

23 lbid., p. 27.

of the Crusades as pivotal. b ~ t focuses particularly on the calamitous impact of the

Crusades on European Je\\qV:

--The great turning point of Jewish status in the Western Middle Ages. a tuming point itself expressive of the success of the Church-s indoctrination of popular religious hatred for the Jew. was the Crusades. Like a great underground Stream of enrnity. the Crusades burst upon the prospering Jewish communities along the Rhineland From the lower levels of medieval society. catching both eçclesiastical and secular leaders by surprise and leaving them helpless to protect thc victims. Although the Church and al1 Christian society agreed in principle that the Jews were a viIe people hated by God. the social consequence of this in massacres e \ w eluded their understanding."'"

In virtual ly archetypal genocidal fashion. a millennium of contention. em bodied in

popular adversrrs Judeos pietistic literature. was translated into the most L-icious of

popular slogans:

--'Who kills a Jew has al1 his sins forgiven' and that 'it is preposterous to set out on a long journey to kill God's enemies far away. while God's worst enemies. the Jews. are dwelling at ease close at hand."'"

This attitude. while prevalent in the popular mind was not the official position of the

Church. For the moment. suffice it to sa' that the theoiogical attitude towards the Jews

\vas extraordinarily complex. While the Jeu-s were loathed as deicides. they were seen

to be necessary as a continuing historic counterpoint to the Gospel. The Jews senre as a

--~vitness people." This peculiar role is the focus of Stephen R. Haynes 1995 studj..

Relucranr Witness: Jews and the Christiar~ imaginarion. He quotes Bernard of

Clairveaux's ( 1 090 - 1 1 5 3 ) Lefter to the People ofEngland to i 1 lustrate the point:

Rosemary Radford Ruerher. Fadh and Fratricide (N.Y.: Seabury Press, 1974). p. 78.

25 Ibid. p. 78.

'-The Jews are not to be killed. persrcuted or even put to Ilight. Ask an>.one u.ho knows the sacred scriptrires ~vhat he finds foretold of the Jews in the Psaims. 'Nor for their destruction do I pray.' it says (Ps. 59: 12). The Jews are for us the living words of scripture. for they remind us always of what our Lord suffered. They are dispersed al1 over the world so that by espiating their crime the' ma'. be everywhere the living witnesses of our redemption. Hence the psalm adds. -ml> let thy power disperse thema. . . If the Jews are utterly wiped out. n-hat \vil1 become of our hope for their promised salvation. their eventual conversion*?"'"

Bernard. who in his thinking on the subject of the Jews was in Iine with no less a

luminary than St. .4ugustine." was a man to suit his actions to his words. In 1 1-16.

dunng the Second Crusade. he was summoned by the Archbishops of Cologne and

Mainz. who were facing severe anti-Jewish riots fomented by a Cistercian monk named

Radulf. Bernard. founder and head of the Cistercian Order. recalled Radulf. and himself

preached against the violence. Haynes quotes a Jewish chronicler of the period:

--In His great mercy and grace (The Lord) sent a decent priest. one honoured and respected by al1 the clerg. in Francs. narned Abbe Bernard of CIairveaus to deal with this evil person (~adulfl. '"

Perhaps nowhere in medieval "popular" thought is the strange ambivalence

towards the Jews more noticeable than in Dante's Inferno. As Virgil escorts the poet on

his guided tour of hell, Dante learns that the -'saints" of the old Testament - - -Hebre~ .

saints" like Adam. Noah. Moses. Rachel. Da\.id and so on - were included arnong the

'' Stephen R. Haynes. Reievanr Wtrnersess.. Jews and rhe Christian /maginution (Louisville: Westminster John Knox. 1995), p. 38.

blessed despite their lack of Baptism. "Jews." on the other hand, epitomized by Judas.

are another story entireiy.'9

The bottom line for Haynes is that:

-'. . . neither Dante's honoured Hebrews nor his despised Jews can be conhsed with what we might cal1 average human beings. They are men and women of exemplary faith upon whom the divine favour eternally rests; or the' are betrayrrs of friends. murderers of the innocent. killers of ~ o d . . ' ~ *

It is no wonder that dialogue between Christians and Jews has been virtually nonesistent:

dialogue. afier all. can only occur between human beings. not caricatures.

In the end, the ongoing and perftdious confusion over the Jews in the popular

European mindset couId only lead to more and greater atrocities. The Church. regardless

of its intentions. had sown the wind. and the whirlwind still rages round about us. Hans

Kung, in Judaism. describes the persecutions and massacres of Alsace which occurred

between 1348 and 1350. in which three hundred communities were destroyed and

hundreds of thousands of J e ~ v s murdered." Mranwhile. in Spain. the stage was being set

for an entirely new phase of popular and officia1 prejudice. if so innocuous a term may be

employed for so insidious a programme.

The Spanish were neither unique nor original in their desire to expel their Jews.

The English were ahead of them by several centuries in at least a temporary expulsion.32

But by the mid-fifieenth century. an entirely new twist was being given to anti-Judaism.

5 1 Kilng. Jtrdaism, p. 170.

which hitherto both in the popular and official medieval mindsets had been largel'.

religious in nature. In hfecred Chrisrianiv:A Sru& of-A4uderrt Racisrn. Alan Davies

documents this twist which -'anticipated racist developments in the tate nineteenth and

early twentieth centuries.'"' 1 refer to the tragic history of the conversos. Wirh the

'-liberation" of the lberian peninsula from the Moors by such energetic patriots as El C'id.

Spanish Chnstians developed a positive mania for religious unity. Muslims and J a v s

were thus faced with a clear choice: convert or leave. Understandabty. many chose to

stay. and were baptized accordingly. But this was not so simple. as Dakies points out:

--Many Spanish Jews accepted baptism- bringing into the church a tide of 'New Chnstians' fCunversos) who were eligible for prestigious offkes in the ecclesiastical and social hierarchy. The -01d Christians.' ofien less well educated and less wealthy t h m the 'New Christians.' resented these unwelcome rivals in their rnidst: the latter. in their eyes. remained aliens in spite of their baptism. Since. however. they had been baptized. the former theological arguments for oppressing Jews in Christian society were no longer applicable and a new rationale for discrimination had to be invented. This led to the ingenious concept of 'purity of blood' flirnpieza de sangre): the notion that pure Spanish descent was a necessary prerequisite for office in the church - Jewish and Moorish descent did not qualifi. Baptism. the sacrament that washed away sin, evidentIy could not wash away the taint of race.""

The popular doctrine of limpiriu de songrz would be rnshrined in legislation by

thé mid-fifieenth centuq. Davies cites the work of Albert Sicroff. noting that:

--. . . the Spanish Catholics rediscovered the Jew concealed within the convert. and this rediscovery reIeased the anti-Jewish passions of the Christian ages in a different guise. Hatred was transposed from a religious into a racial key: a step

.. '' A lan Davies, Infecred Chrisriani~l: .-1 Srwu). of Modern Racism (Kingston and Montreal:

McGil VQueen's, 1988). p. 10.

fraught with perd for those whose blood was regarded as impure. since it lrfi no escape."35

It m-ould take the twentieth centuc and the Shoa of Nazi Gennany to brin- that peril to

fullest flower: and still it spreads. from the ethnic conflicts of the last decade of this

c e n t q . to the '-money and ethnics" s!ur of former Quebec premier. Jacques Parizeau.

following the 1995 referendurn result.

Through two millennia of popuiar prejudice between Christians and Jews. it must

be observed that. however CO-equal may have been the responsibility for the distrust bom

in the first cennÿy, since the Counci! of Nicea at the begiming of the founh. Christians

have had the upper hand and have wielded it ruthlessly. This may be no more

consistently demonstrated than in the treatment of Judas Iscariot in popular Christian

tradition. In 1996. William Klassen tried to redress what he considers to be the slander

of a person and a people in .hidus: Berrayer or Friend of Jesus? Klassen maintains.

convincingly. that there is simply no testual evidence to suppon the popular

understanding of Judas as betrayer. He obsenes that in al1 other ancient tests extant. the

Greek word. paradidomi is translated not as "betrayed." but as -'handed-over." Klassen

does not quarrel with the latter translation. but argues that:

'The task of 'giving-over' is. . . fundamentally God-centred. initiated and carried out under the direction of God. It is. we would sa). today. a theological t a ~ k . " ~ ~

If this is so. Klassen continues. then:

j' lbid.

'' Wm. Klassen. Judas, Berrqer or Friend oflesiis? (Minneapolis: Fortress Press. 19%). p. 203.

". . . Judas did his God-given duty and contributed to the realization of Jesus' ministry by handing him over. The emerging church began to see the need to draw boundary lines and found Judas a convenient figure - for he was both a Jsw and had been a disciple. Thus. by tuming against Judas. the Johannine cornmunity especially could deal with both lapsed Christians and their Jewish antagonists, In doing so. the. tumed their backs not just on Judas but also on the way Jesus had taught them to love their enemies. It has taken many follou-ers of Jesus twenty centuries to recognize this disparit). and to think through its implications.""

The implications are. of course. clear. Whether or not one subscribes fully to

Klassen's revisionism. the identification of the Jewish people with the popular perception

of Judas in both name and action. has coloured the Chris. :an rnind against Jesus- own

people. Add to this forrnalized and even Iegislated prejudice. and the combination is as

toxic as the Zyklon B of Auschwitz.

Enshr ining False Witness: Inst ir w io nalizhg Prejdice

The late Frank Herbert. science tiction writer and creator of the '-Dune" universe

was always fond of the bon m o t . One of his favourires was that "perceptions rule the

universe." The popular prejudices between Christians and Jews described in the

preceding pages would seem to bear out Herbert's observation. By cornparison to the

foundation of anti-Jewish perceptions set in misconception and deliberate

misrepresentation. the superstructure of officially sanctioned and established prejudice

modest in mass. though deadly in the estreme. To push the image. one might descnbe

the Wannsee Protocol of the Third Reich - the bluepnnt for the "final solution" as

minuted in detail at a meeting in the Berlin suburb of Grosse-Wannsee in January of 1942

- as the spire c roming the whole corrupt edifice of anti-~emitisrn.'~ The Wannsre

Protocol was a formal plan for the extermination of the Jews as a people - a "race-' in

the pseudo-science of the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries. But sistsen

centuries of "preparatory legislation" from al1 across Christian Europe lay behind it.

From Christianity's first "establishment" under Constantine the Great, persecution of the

Jews had been as much a question of public policy as of popular perception. I t had not

always been so.

During the four centuries and more prior to Constantine's - and Christianity-s -

ascendancy, the Jewish people had fared relatively well. As noted earlier. they had

experienced a certain unpopularity. tempered. nevertheless. with a hi& degree of

tolerance issuing in a special status:

.'In Alesandria, thère are criticisms of Jewish esclusivity as early as the third century B.C. In Rome. where they won unique exemptions from taking part in pagan cults. and permission to observe the Sabbaîh. Cicero. in his Pro Flacco. complained of their clannishness and undue influence: and Tacitus. in his Hisrories. of what he saw as the misanthropy of the Jews: 'Toward every other people they feel only hatred and enmit!.. They sit apart at meals. and they sleep apart. and although as a race they are prone to l u t . they abstain from intercourse with foreign women: yet arnong thernselves nothing is u n ~ a w f u l . " ~ ~

"Sticks and Stones. . .. " as the old saying goes. Popular prejudice rnay have

worked against the Jewish people in the Roman Empire. but under the law. the' were

afforded reasonable security and reasonable autonomy. This was not enouçh to satisf>-

the Jewish nation in Judea, and we have seen how swifi and vicious was the Roman

3 8 Victoria Barnett, For the Sou/ of rhr People: Prorrsrat~~ Prorcsr .-(gainsr Hitler (N.Y .: Oxford University Press. 1992), p. 145.

response to a political threat from the eastern Mediterranean. But in a curious footnote

to history, Piers Paul Read notes that afier the Jewish War. which ended in 70 C.E. nith

the destruction of the Temple in Jenisalem and which marked the clear parting of the

ways between Jews and their offshoot religion. Christianity. the Jewish inhabitants of the

Empire fared rather well. In contrast to the Christians.

'The Jews. . . were a known quantity, and they were seen as a nation. not a sect. Once the revolt in Palestine had been suppressed. the special pnvileges pre\iousl>. held by Jews - the right to worship in their synagogues. to circumcise their male children. to rest on the Sabbath - were restored. The exclusiveness of Christians. on the other hand, was seen not just as offensive. but as seditious. . . -40

It seems, on the evidence. reasonable to conclude that the Christians had rathrr a rough

go during the centuries before Constantine's victory at the Mulvian Bridge against C

Maventius in 3 10 C.E.. and his subsequent decision to adopt Christianity as the imperiai

"Apollonius. described by Eusebius as 'one of the most distinguished for learning and philosophy of the Chrisrians of the time.' was given a hearing before the Roman Senate which nevertheless condemned him to be beheaded because no other krerdict was possible under tne statute: ' I t is unlawful for a Christian to e ~ i s t . ' - ~ '

During these three centuries of persecution against the Christians. sometimes

~ a x i n g . sometimes waning in ferocitj-. the popular mindset of Christianity identified the

Jewish people as accompIices of Rome. When in the second century C.E.. Polycarp.

Bishop of Smyma. was condemned to the fire by Titus Quadratus. the regional Roman

3 9 Piers Pau1 Read. The Templars (London: Weidenfield and Nicolson. 1999). p. 8 . JO [bid. p. 23. 4 1 lhid., p. 25.

governor. 'rhe crowds rushed to collect Iogs and faggots frorn workshops and public

baths. the Jews as usual joining ir, with more enthusiasm than ar~-one."~'

With Constantine's accession to the imperium, al1 this changed. Nou the

maligned and despised Christians were to have the upper hand. and an internecine

squabble. capped with years of growing popular prejudice amongst Christians againsr

Jews. would ernploy civil law to enshrine that prejudice for seventeen centuries of

persecution, culminating in the Wannsee Protocol.

It cannot be stressed enough that the Jewish community never had such

dominance over the Christian. not even in that strange kangaroo court which the gospel

record daims condemned Jesus of Nazareth. There was hatred and slander aplenty. as

witness the Toledorh Yeshu discussed earlier. But this narne calling had no legal weight

to it. The closest one seems to corne to an'hing like an institutional condemnation of

Christianity is found in the prayer knouv as the minim secturians. originating in the

Babylonian Talmud in the early years of the Common Era:

"Frustrate the hopes of those who malign us: Let al1 evil very soon disappear: Let al1 your enemies be speedily destroyed. May you quickly uproot and crush the arrogant: May you subdue and humble them in our time. Praised are you. Lord. who humbles the arrogant."

One other passage, from the Taimitci Berakhoth 606. reads "Blessed are you. Lord God.

King of the universe, who has not made me a heathen." The "arrogant" and the

"Heathen" in these passages have. I am told by Jewish colleagues. been generally

understood to refer specifically to Christians. 1 am also told that they no longer figure

prominently in rnany Jewish contexts. if at al1 - not, for example in the Reconstructionist

tradition. to which Darchei Aioam belongs - and conservative Rabbi Arnold Fine of

Ottawa advises against a facile interpretation even where these prayers are rmployed.

In short. Jewish prejudice toward Christians was aiways popular prejudice: the

Jewish commmity lackez :kc means to institutionalize any historical bittemess. Xot so

the Christians. although the first Constantinian legislation tended to be pro-Christian

rather than anti-pagan or ami-Jewish: "Under the Edict of Milan in 3 13. al1 pend edicts

against Christians were rescinded; Christian captives were released and their property

was restored.'-" This served to redress Christian grievances. but Constantine rnoved

srviftly beyond redress to establishing Christian supremacy within the Empire: "Bishop's

were made his counsellors and were allowed to use the imperial postal service.. .A law of

333 ordered imperial officiais to enforce the decisions of bishops. and to accept the

testimony of bishops over other witne~ses."'~ Constmtine pushed the bounds of privilegr

still funher when he -'promulgated lan-s gi\-ing the Christian clergy fiscal privilegrs and

legal immunities. 'for when they are fiee to render supreme service to the Divinity. it is

evident that they confer great benefit upon the affàirs of state."-'j Herein. as an aside. are

the roots of the late twentieth century debate in Canada around the limits to tax-exempt

clergy housing allowances being proposed by Liberal Finance Minister Paul Martin.

This preferential treatment was personal as well as political on Constantine's part. \\.ho

--enjoyed the Company of Christian bishops. called them his brothers. entenained them at

court and, when they had been scourged and mutilated in past persecutions. re~wentl '

kissed their ~cars.'''~

Christians suffered a brief setback ~ q d e r the rule of Constanti~e's nephen-. J ulian.

a pagan. but following Julian's death in 363. the path to Christian domination of much of

imperial Roman Iife was cleared. In 380. the Emperor Theodosius ruled that the Nicene

Creed was binding on al1 s ~ b j e c t s . ~ ' Jewish citizens now topped the Christian hit list.

Read notes that "having aided and abened the pagan persecution of Christians. and

welcomed the counter-reformation of Julian the Apostate. (the Jews) were nomr subject IO

oppression by impenal statutes and harassment by Christian mobs.'-'* Through the

former. by 425. " - in circumstances which are not completely clear - both the

patriarchate and the Sanhedrin were abolished.'-" Hans Küng writes in .lrdoi~w.

Benrven Yesrerday and Tomorroic.. that:

-'The church now no longer remembersd that it had been persecuted. On the contrary. with the help of the state. that sanie Christian church which not too long beforehand had been a persecuted minority within the Roman empire. LX-ithout rights. now made Judaism.. .an entity without rights.. .there was a ban on mixed mariages: a ban on Jews holding official positions: a ban on the building and extension of synagogues: a ban on any prosell.tizing.''50

Ibid.

Ibid a 7 fbid. p. 29. 48 Ibid.. p. 29. 49 Kung, Judaisrn. p. 149. 50 ibid., p. 153.

Several intnguing thoughts arise from this last. Miriam Hadas-Lebel. in her

biography of Flavius Josephus. contends that up to ten per cent of Roman imperial

citizens in the first century were ~ewish." This suggests a rather high degrer of active

ncruitment on the part of the Jewish cornrnunity. 1s there some sense in which the

current reluctance to conversion has at least some basis in the need to make the best of a

bad situation? More importantly. as Dr. Küng goes on to observe. T h i s very ban on

recruiting compelled Judaism. which had formerly been a missionary religion

successfùlly on the offensive, fatefülly to concentrate on itself and reproduce itself. so

that it was easy to speak of it later as a distinctive *Jewish race.'""

Meanwhile. over generations. as the decaying imperial structure in the West grew

incapable of maintaining even a modicurn of social order. "the Church took on more than

the fùnctions of the defunct empire: it i w s the Roman empire in the minds of the people.

To be a Roman was to be a Christian: to be a Christian was to be a Roman.. .the non-

Christian found himself an outlaw in a unified rate."^^

Not that the Jews were to be desrroyed. The. were to remain alive on the

margins of society. a reminder of their "perfidy" in the eyes of the Church. Of course.

the means by which they were to stay alive were equally marginal: money-lending and

dealing in antiquities. As some sense of civilization began to emerge fiom the European

Dark Ages, as they are still popularly called. capital for the new "middle classes" was

" Mireille Hadas-Lebel. Fimius Josephu. (Toronto: MacMillan, 1993). p. 54. 52 Kung.Judaism. p. 153.

required. The Church. with sublime hypocrisy. forbade Christians to engafe in lending

money for interest. Rabbinical proscriptions. on the other hand. applied to only those

within the faithhl of Judaism. The result was inevitable. and so \vas the hatred against

Jews which money-lending engendered. As the new mercantilism grew more effective

and influential, the Church lified its ban on fledgling capitalism. but the stigma attached

to Jetvish businessmen remained - and in many instances. remains.

By the thirteenth centun. "the Jews were driven out when there was no longer

any econornic need for them: in France. where there had been at first special tasarion.

confiscation of goods, buming of the Talmud. and forced baptisms. and particularly in

England. Afier vain attempts at conversion. in iiie thirteenth century hundreds of Jews

were hanged there. thousands imprisoned. and. finally. in 1290. al1 were banished and

their property confiscated. Here aIready. there were -final solutions' to the 'Jewish

problem."'s4 The Spanish Inquisition. under Ferdinand and Isabella. on the urging of

Torquemada. the Grand Inquisitor. and in that most significant year. 1492. demanded that

al! the Jews in Spain either convert. or kave. As we have seen. even the conversos were

not secure. and the blood purity issues of the Spanish Inquisition stand in a direct Iine to

the racial purity statutes of the Third Reich.

How imocuous those earliest Nazi statutes must have seemed to a Germany and a

Europe desensitized over centuries to anti-Jewish attitudes and laws. One thinks. for

example. of the April 25. 1933 Iegislation "Against Overcrowding of German Schools

53 Read, p. 33.

and Universities," which was really. as John Comwell observes in Hitler S Pope: The

Secrer History ofPiozrs XI(. -2imed at reducing the number of Jeu-ish pupils allowed into

these institutions. The act laid down a strict quota (1.5 per cent of school and collegr - -

enrollrnents) deemed appropriate for the size of the non-Aryan or Jewish population.""

This was just the begiming. According to Victoria Bamett in For the Sou1 qf'rhc

People: Protestant Profest againsr Hitler. '-around 2000 racial laws were passrci during

the course of the Third Reich. 1.219 before the Krismhachr in Novernber. 1538."" that

temble night of broken Jewish glass and broken Jewish bodies.

And then came the Wannsee Protocol. and the "final solution" to the .-Jewish

Problem." Out of al1 this proceeds the Shoa. and the founding of the State of Israel.

During the course of this next section. 1 have opted for the use of the term Shoa.

which c m be translated into English as -'disaster." rather than the more cornmonly used

"Holocaust" in order to describe the annihilation of six million European Jews. men.

wornen and children under the Nazi Third Reich. I t was Elie Wiesel. 1986 Nobel Peace

Laureate and survivor of both Auschwitz and Buchenxald. who is generafly credited with

applying the term "Holocaust" to the Nazi genocide. Recently. however, the term has

been less frequently employed in both Jewish and Christian circles. "Holocaust"

originally appiied to the burnt offerings offered up to God. and there has been a growing

concern that sorne implied positive symbolic meaning might be attributed to the horror of

54 Küng, Judatsrn, p. 1 65. 55 John Cornwell. Hifier's Pope W.Y.: Viking. 1999). p. 153.

the camps. the gas chambers and the crematoria. Shon captures more adequatsly the

biatant evil of the final solution.

The Shoa and the State of lsrael

The fact of the Shoa and the State of Israel

In the light of nearly two rnillemia of both popular and institutionalized prejudice

between Christians and Jews, it would hardly have seemed possible that there should be.

as Solomon would Say, "anything new under the sun" to come between Christians and

Jews. Yet. the twentieth century was to demonstrate that there are no limits to the

human capacity for evil on the one hand and o u capacity for hope on the other. The

Shoa stands as irrefutable testirnony to the former. and the founding of the State of Israel

- notwithstanding the complex and controversial politics surrounding i t - to the latter.

Let me state at the outset that 1 am not here suggesting a facile cause and effect

relationship between the Shoa and the founding of the state of Israel: that the latter was in

whole or in part dependant on the gentile world's guilt over the former. The roots of the

modem state of Israel reach back some fifiy years hefore the Shoa. to the Zionism of

Theodore Herzl. Nevertheless. these two over-lapping events. historically and

theologically, have afforded both the incentive and the context for Christian-Jewish

dialogue. It could hardly be othewise.

In the extended prearnble and rationale for the United Church of Canada's

seminal and self-critical assessrnent of its relationship to Judaism, Bearing Faithjùl

Witness. the authors note that "we are finally understanding that Christian denial of Jesus'

Jewishness contributed to pogroms. the Holocaust. the retUsaI to admit refugees and other

horrors against Jewish peopk.. ." The increasingl y acknowledged awareness among

Christians that Our failures directly contributed to the Shoa has been a key factor in

Christian-Jewish dialogue. At the sarne time. policies within the state of Israel

concerning Palestinian nghts and aspirations have been a major stumbling block.

Perspective on these two realities differ both between and arnong Chnstians and Jews.

I was forcibly stmck by the observation of Rabbi Howard Joseph of Montreal at a

meeting of the Canadian Christian-Jewish Consultation in May of 1998. at the offices of

the Canadian Council of Catholic Bishops. In a discussion of Bearing Failhfirl ifirness.

1 had commented upon the impact of the Shoa on the Christian community and its desire

to pursue dialogue. Rabbi Joseph commented that he thought that the Shon was more an

issue for Christians and that he was growing increasingly convinced that the most

signiticant event for Jsws in this centup was actually the founding of the state of Israel.

A discussion of Christian-Jewish dialogue must address both events. for they are

the key facts of the Christian-Jewish relationship in this century. and the mutual coming

to grips with them wilI surely define that relationship for generations. if not forever. In

the final section of this -'background" chapter. I will attempt to address. in very broad

strokes. the impact of the Shoa and of the state of Israel on Jews and Christians

respectively, and on Christian-Jewish relations. 1 will also suggest some cautionary

notes. and draw the discussion back to the importance of dialogue.

The Impact of the Shoa on Judaism

Naturally. any discussion of the impact of the Shoa and of the State of Israel will

be in this context. but modestly representational. The fact of the Holocaust. the

bureaucratie. technocratie, systematic murder of a people is so staggering that generations

will be required to come to gnps with its immensity. if indeed we ever do. But there are

thinkers. Christians and Jews, who have dedicated much thought. energy and anguish to

the attempt to assess, before mernory dims. the impact of this century-defining horror.

Amongst Jews, one of the most prominent is Emil Fackenheim.

In To Mend the Wororld: Foundntions of Posr-Holocaust JewishThoughr.

Fackenheim addresses both the devastating effect of the Shoa on Judaisrn. and reassesses

the essence of Jewish temporal purpose: Tikkztn Olarn, "mending the world."

He begins from the principle that there has neLrer been an event in histoq to

compare with the Shoa. He articulates five points which demonstrate, to his mind. the

uniqueness of the Holocaust:

". . . whereas the 'uniqueness of the Holocaust' is a subject that will require much space.. . the basic facts are so plain as to be altogether beyond legitimate dispute:

Fully one-third of the whole Jewish people was murdered; and since this included the most Jew-ish of Jews - East European Jewry - Jewish survival as a whole is gravely in doubt. This murder was quite literall y 'extermination:' not a single (Jew). . . would have survived had Hitler won the war. This was because Jewish birth was sufficient cause to merit torture and death: whereas the 'crime' of Russians and Poles was that there were too many of them. with the possible exception of Gypsies only Jews had committed the 'crime' of existing at all. The 'Final Solution' was not a pragmatic project serving such ends as political power or economic greed. . . It was an end in itself. And, at least in the final

stage of the dominion of the Third Reich (when Eichmann divened trains to Auschwitz fiorn the Russian front). it was the only such end that remained.

5 . Only a minority of the perpetrators were sadists or perverts. For the most part. they were ordinary jobholders with an extraordinq job.""

In the face of this, in Fackenheim's view. unprecedented event, Jewish histoq.

thought. and theology must be reassessed. For the reality, Fackenheim declares. is that

--a Jew today is one who, except for an historical accident - Hitler's loss of the war -

would have either been rnurdered or never been bom."j8 In 1967. convinced of the

ontological uniqueness of the Holocaust. and of its consequent foundational impact on

Judaisrn. Fackenheim formulated an addition to the Sinai Covenant. a -06 1

commandment (sometimes referred to as the eIeventh). to the effect that Jews are

forbidden to give Hitler a posthumous victory." Survival must become the essence of

Judaism.

Rabbi Dow Marmur of Holy Blossom Temple. a Reforrn Jewish synagogue in

Toronto. acknowledges the new centrality of Jewish survival in his book. On Bring a

Jeri,. He writas that "in modem Jewish theology. survival has become a religious

~ a t e ~ o r ~ . " ' ~ He cites Fackenheim's %14th commandment." but then adds a qualifier:

-'More recently. the stress on survival has been augmented by an affirmation of

continuity; there are signs of less emphasis on the present and more on a vision of the

future."60

'' Emil Fackenheim. Tu Mend the W o r l ~ f (Bloomington: Indiana University Press. 1994). p. 12. 58 /bid.. p. IO.

' 9 Dow Marmur, On Being a Jew (Toronto: Holy Blossom Temple. 1994). p. 10.

* Ibid

To Mannur. this is a cntical issue. He is convinced that Judaism's --real airn is to

testiQ to the presence of ~ o d . " ~ ' Without this aim. which is the continuous thread of

Judaism running from the p s t through the present to the future. then sun-ival has little

rneaning. Thus Marmur. though appreciating Fackenheim's contribution to post-

Holocaust Jewish thought. and acknowledging the impact of his views. does not

necessarily concur with Fackenheim:

"The title of the book 1 published in England in 1982. Beyund Sun*iïal. is an implied challenge to Fackenheim's commandment. The book argues that survival may have been the appropriate message for the generation that ~vitnesssd the Holocaust. but it is not sufficient for their children and grandchildren. For them. mere survival is not enough: they want to know the purpose of survival. And that has to be formulated in positive terms, not as an act of defiance against Hitler's determination to destroy us."6'

As noted above. that purpose. stated in positive terms. is to testifi to the presence of God.

For Marrnur. this purpose is inestricably linked to the State of Israel. which figures as

large in Marmur's thought as Rabbi Josephs' comments at the Canadian Christian-Jewish

Consultation had suggested it would.

In fact, Rabbi Marmur's cautious treatment of the Holocaust is rnoderate when

compared to the perspective of Rabbi Jacob Neusner. Hans Küng. in his exhaustive

work, Judaism. notes that. -'for man>- Jew-ish theologians. if they go into the question

theologically at d l . the Holocaust is no less and no more than a fùrther exarnpie of the

monstrous evil of hurnan beings which is attested in the Bible from beginning to end."';

This is certainly true for Rabbi Neusner. who writes:

"What consequences, then. are to be drawn from the Holocaust'? 1 argue that none are to be drawn. none for Jewish theology. and none for the life of J e w u-ith one another, which were not there before 1933. Jewish theologians do no good service to believers when they daim that 'Auschwitz' denotes a turning point.. . In reality. Jewish piety has always been able to react to catastrophes."64

Michael Wyschogrod, an Orthodox Jewish theologian is equaIIy direct:

"The God of Israel is a redeeming God: that is the only message we are justi fisd in preaching, no matter how false it may seem in the eyes of unbelief. ShouId the Holocaust cease to be a marginal phenornenon of the faith of Israel and penetrate the Holy of Holies. and becomes a dominant voice to which Israel hearkens. then the voice that it heard could only be a demonic voice. No salvation can be gained from the Holocaust. no tottering Judaism can revive through it. no new foundation for the ongoing existence of the Jewish people c m be found in it. If there is hope after the Holocaust, there is hope because for believers the voice of the prophets speaks louder than Hitler. and because the divine promise extends beyond the crematoria and reduces the voice of Auschwitz to si~ence."~'

If the Shoa. unspeakable horror that it was. has nc shattering impact on Jewish

theology. it has certainly shaken Christianity to its foundations.

The Impact of the Shoa on Christianiw

From very nearly the beginning of the church. aImost two thousand years ago.

there have been Christians who have seen Christianity as the religion which replaced

Judaisrn in the eyes of both humanity and God. Facile readings of the Passion narratives

in the gospels, especially those in Matthew and John, lefi the faithful with the clear

understanding that the "Jews" murdered Jesus. and that, for this most heinous of crimes.

deicide. they were stripped of their covenental relationship with God and berefi not only

of their homeland, but of any status in the increasingly Christian world of the rad'

centuries of the first millenium.

Liturgies and hyrnns still extant in the most liberal of Christian denorninations

continue to portray the church as the --newWIsrael - but uneasily. A cloud hangs over the

preparations for the celebrations to mark the year 2000 in the Christian cornmunit' world

wide: a cloud bom of the ash fiom the crematoria of the Third Reich. The Shoa is a

constant reminder of the failings of Christianity, most especially in relation to Jews and

Judaism. In Reflecrions of a Posr-Auschwitz Chrislianity. Henry James Cargas writes:

"When we remember such historical periods as the Crusades. the Inquisition. pogroms or the Holocaust. we Christians must ever acknowledge Our guilt in the eyes of others and in the eyes of God for the treatment of those we have also recognized as being among His Chosen ~ e o ~ l e . ' ' ~ ~

Franklin Littell makes the point. echoed by many others since the end of the

Second World War. that Christian mistreatment of the Jewish people for two thousand

years is a betrayal of Our own roots:

"In a way mysterious and awescme. the Jews who perished in Hitler's Europe perished for a truth which Christians. . . betrayed: that the Author and Judge of history was made manifest to us out of the Jews?"

65 Ibid. p. 586. 66 Haynes, p. 120.

67 Ibid

Littell and Cargas are among a small group of Christian thinkers who have been

identified as "Holocaust theo!ogians.'- Perhaps the best known of thsse. and among the

most vocal are North Arnericans. This is hardly surprising. given that North America is

home to the largest proportion of Diaspora Jewry; hardly surprising. too. given that Emil

Fackenheim has long served on the faculty of the University of Toronto. These

Holocaust theologians come from both the Roman Catholic and Protestant communions,

and include John Paw 1 ikowski. Paul van Buren- Alice and Roy Eckardt. Grego? Baum-

and Monika Hellwig. Stephen R. Haynes in Reluctanf bVifnesses: Jews and [he

Chrisrian Imagination. notes that:

-'while their visions for the future of Christian theology occasionally diverge. these theologians agree that the fundamental failure of Christendom in the past c m be located ir. its conception and treatment of the ~ e w s . " ~ ~

Haynes goes on to define Holocaust theology as:

--my sustained theological reflection for which the sIaughter of six miliion Jews by the Nazis and their accomplices I'unctions as a criterion. whether the Shoa displaces or merely qualifies traditional theological criteria and noms such as Scripture, tradition. reason and religious e ~ ~ e r i e n c e . " ~ ~

According to Haynes' analusis. Holocaust theologians see the Shoa as a massive

rupture in the fabric of continuous Christian experience and tradition. a rupture that can

not be understated:

"The HoIocaust signais the moral bankruptcy of any theoIogy which Iacks an awareness of anti-Judaism's deep roots in the Christian faith and the ongoing complicity of Chnstians in Jewish suffe~ing."'~

Theologians Iike the Eckhardts go even further. holding the conviction that:

". . . the treatment of Jews by Christians and by Christendom over two millennia and culminating in the Holocaust is an indisputable sign of the church's apostas! fiom authentic ~ h r i s t i a n i i ~ . " ~ '

There is a radical paradigmatic shift between pre-Holocaust and Holocaust

theology:

". . . pre-Holocaust theologies regarded the fate of the Jew as a sign of God 's judgment upon Israel for its refusal to embrace the tnith manifest in the church. Holocaust theology. on the other hand. divines in the fate of the Jews a sign of God's judgment on the church for refùsing to recognize the tnith manifest in ~srael.'"'

Hans Küng, while in no way diminishing either the horror o r the historical impact

of the Holocaust. can hardly be classed arnong such Holocaust theologians. He is far

closer in his perceptions to Rabbi Neusner. Küng cautions against any "fisation" on the

Holocaust. and notes that:

"The essence and identity of Judaism arc not to be defined fiom a historical situation but from the Jekvish religion. The long history of jewish suffering ma- not be reduced to the Holocaust. its presuppositions and consequences: the most recent history of the Jewish people must not be cut off from its former history: hoiocaust theology must not become a substitute theolog.. -73

The Impact of the State of Israel on Judaism

As noted earlier, both Rabbi Neusner and Professor Wyschgorod reinforce Rabbi

~Marmur's conviction that sunival is not enough: that there must be a vision beyond

survival and a purpose for survival. That purpose is bound up in the State of IsraeI.

Jewish opinion across the spectrum seems united on the near ultimate significance of the

State of Israel. Here Marmur and Fackenheirn agree. but with a somewhat different

rationale one from the other. Marmur writes:

-'Fackenheim's stress on survival brings him to affirm the State of Israel as the surest guarantee that Hitler will not get his posthumous victory. (1 stress). ..the centrality of Israel. not because it guarantees Jewish survival but because it defines Jewish purpose. By inference this also guarantees survival yet goes beyond it."74

This not so subtle shading in understanding permits Marmur to view not only Israel. but

anti-Semitism. from a new and critical perspective:

"Neither does it rnake sense to regard the existence of Israel as under the constant threat of anti-Semitism. and to view every critic of lsraeli governrnent policies as a Jew-hater. A Fundamental mistake of Diaspora J e w q is to defend Israel on the grounds that it is a victim. It is nothing of the kind. and thank God for that! Those who are prepared to take the step beyond survival and move towards purpose become less concemed with strategy - fighting enemies - and more with the content of Judaism - being witnesses to the presence of God in history. A growing number of Jews today want to know how to Iead Jewish lives more than how to fight ami-Semitism because they know that living as Jews will. by definition. protect them against e~tinction."'~

It is not so much an eitherlor situation. with the Holocaust on the one hand being more

important than the State of lsrael on the other - or vice versa. Both figure in what is an

essenrially new understanding of the .Jeueish people and their role in the world. Marmur

7; Küng, Judaism, p. 586. 74 Marmur, p. 17. 7 5 Ibid.. p. 20

"1 believe that the Holocaust is the last and rnost gruesome manifestation of the old paradigm, the one that lefi Jews to the mercy of others. 1 view Israel as the celebration of the new paradigm. the one that enables Jews to have as much sa>- in their own destiny as any other free people. The conventional view regards Israel as a potential victim and equates anti-Zionism with the oId anti-Semitism. My approach celebrates Israel as the victor and views Zionism as the liberation rnovement of the Jewish people. This means the Holocaust and Israel belong to different categories. 1 base this contention on the fact that the new paradigm.. .was born fifiy years before Hitler came to power.. . Only after the Holocaust.. .has it become clear - but. alas. still not to the majority - that the old paradigm is dead and the retun to the land.. .is the new paradigrn."76

Marmur holds that distinguishing between these two paradigms is fùndarnental:

"To view the Holocaust as a prelude to Israel leads to a very different perception of the Jewish state than to see Israel as an old-new beginning. The former sees Israel as a refuge for persecuted Jews and an avenue of escape in case life becomes dificult in the Diaspora. The latter sees the land of Israel as a place where the Jewish people. at last. c m testify to the Jewish faith - just as the Bible has charged us to do. and as we have been unable to do because we have been persecuted. It is the difference between a Judaism based on survival and a Judaism based on purpose and con t in~ i t~ . " '~

In the end. Fackenheim and Marmur are not really so far apart. Both are ultimately

concerned with rikkun olarn. with the mending of the world which is an inextricable

element of the Biblical witness to which M m u r points. But there is a distinct

difference in emphasis. a difference illuminated in the respective work of the two

theologians. Marmur is convinced that an emphasis on survival is counterproductive to

the life and witness. the purpose. of Judaism:

"When we stress survival above al1 else. we see no reason to try to 'mend the world.' Instead, we argue that. since the world has not been prepared to protect us, we have to look after ourselves whether the world Iikes it or not. It is the manifestation of a ghetto mentalitp. for it decides moral issues based on if they

are good or bad for the Jews. not whether they are right or wong based on universal standards. Instead of making us act to rnake a good impression on non- Jews. which is the criterion of the old. the new paradigm demands that tve do the right thing in the eyes of God. according to the standards laid down in the ora ah.'"*

In saying this. Marmur places upon the State and people of Israel a burden of

responsibility which is demonstrably difficult to bear. He contends that solidarity. not

survival must be the Jewish motif. and that:

"When we stress solidarity. we reformulate the biblical doctrine that we rnust be kind to strangers and support the helpless because we were strangers in the land of Egypt. Because we have been the victims of evil. we are called upon to fight evil wherever we find it. The Jewish state c m never be Iess than a refuge for al1 Jews. but it cannot be only that. It m u t also be an exponent of Judaism. and thus a force forjustice and goodness in the world. The return of the people to the land is validated by the faith."'9

Whether or not Marmur's distinctions between the t\vo paradigms becomes

common currency within late-twentieth century Judaism. the State of Israel provides a

tangible. constructive post-Holocaust vision for the Jewish people.

Bearing in rnind the srnse. noted b'. both Rabbi Josephs and Rabbi Marrniir. that

the Founding of the State of Israel is of more theoiogical significance than the Shoa for

Judaism - perhaps even of ultimate significance - i t is of more than passing interest that.

frorn an institutional perspective. Judaism has no prayer designated for the Shoa. but has

for the State of Israel. The prayer emanates from the Chief Rabbinate of Israel. and is

used in al1 traditions within Judaism. It reads. in part:

"Our Father who art in heaven. Protector and Redeemer of Israel. bless thou the State of Israel which marks the dawn of our deliverance. Shield it beneath the wings of thy love; spread over it thy canopy of peace; send thy light and th! tmth to its leaders, officers and counselors; and direct them with thy good counsel. O God, strengthen the defenders of our Holy Land; g a n t them sahation and croun them with victory. Establish peace in the land. and everlasting joy for its in habitant^."^^

The Christian response to the State of Israel is rather more mixed.

The Impact of the State of Israel on Christianitv

In some respects, the impact of the State of Israel on Christianity is more pressing

than the ongoing agonizing over the implications of the Shoa. for the situation with

respect to Israel is current, emerging and in flux. The stakes are high both pulitically and

theologically, and they are measured in human lives as we have seen, and continue to see

time and again. Like their Jewish counterparts. Christian theologians are unanirnous in

their appraisal of the critical importance of Israel: and. like their Jewish counterparts.

opinions Vary. The more radical of the Holocaust theologians, such as Roy Eckhardt,

"(have) experimentally substituted the State of Israel for the Resurrection as harbinger of

redernption and reconciliation in the post-.4uschwitz ~ o r l d . " ~ ' But Eckhardt is largely

rnarginalized arnong Christian thinkers. especially those concerned with the ongoing

stniggle for human rights for Palestinians. More cornmon ground, as Haynes notes, ma-

be found among Christian Holocaust theologians as among Jewish Holocaust theologians

80 English translation provided by Prof. E. Mendelsohn. 8 1 Haynes, p. 13 1 .

in the recognition that ..."( the) Jewish people will survive only if they can do so

independent of others' good will.'"'

Küng refuses on the one hand to deny the theological significance of the Statr of

Israel - after d l . God still has promises to keep to His people - nor to overdramatize it on

the other, as though the re-establishment of Israel as a political entity senrrs only the

purposes of pre-millennialist Christian theologians. He calk instead for the sarne kind of

recognition for Israel as for the Shoa, as an historical event of great import. with far-

reaching implications which will not be h l ly assessed for generations. if ever. He urges:

'*a critical solidarity of Chnstians with the State of Israel. In the Middle East conflict. where manifestly there is right on both sides. over the Palestinian problem and over Jerusalem. the Holy City of Jews. Christians and Muslims. Christians in particular should not apriori take one side or the other. After all. both peoples on Palestinian-Jewish soil. Jews and Palestinians. have sufkred enorrnously. -4fier all. both have made mistakes. committed acts of violence and allowed terrorism. But at the sarne time. among both peoples a broad spectrum of opinions has emerged from the present poliiical stalemate. and there is also good will and a love of peace.. .in the future. Christians should devote themseives even more as steadfast bridge-builders ro seeking a balance between the justified clzims of the Jews and those of the Palesdnian Arabs. not heaping al1 the costs of the conflict on one side or the ~ ther . "~ '

Cautionarv Notes and Tentative Possibilities

With stakes as high as they have been and continue to be between Christians and

Jews. no theology should be received uncritically. Stephen Haynes notes that an

assumption underlying al1 Holocaust theology is "that genocide is intrinsic to the

*' fbid.. p. 129. 8; Kung, Judaisrn, p. 564.

traditional Christian understanding of the Jewish people. While no doubt po~verful on an

emotional level. this assurnption is dubious hist~ncall~."" Ir is certainly debatable. and

one of the first cautions that must be raised is the reminder that Christian theolog>- has

many things to speak of and wrestle with which are not directly. or even rnarginali~.

related to Judaism or to Israel.

There is an equal danger that. with the nightmares of Stalin's Ukrainian genocide

in the 1930s. Ruwanda in the early nineties, the Sudan. the Balkans and Indonesia

currently. discussion about the Shoa and its impact may al1 too easily devolve into a

debate on comparative misery.

Surely the question must be asked as to whether the Shoa is first and foremost an

historical event, triggered by terrible and complex circumstances. of which Christian anti-

Semitism is among the most evident: or whether the Shon is primarily a theological

event. To suggest that God would employ the Shocr to demonstrate divine wrath \\-ith the

church's mistreatrnent of one of His chosen people seems preposterous to the point of

blasphemy. And yet, one of the hard questions kvithin Judaism is why it was the most

faithful who perished. while the secular humanist champions of Zionism suwived. When

Emil Fackenheim assigns theological significance to the WoIocaust itself. and then

attributes the defeat of the Nazi regime to luck. one is entitled to at Ieast ask whether he is

not employing a double standard. How can one apply mythic rneaning to the one and not

the other?

- 8J Haynes. p. 127.

Then. too. there is the terrible and peremiai question of innocent suffering and the

probIem of evil. Surely we must be wary of an argument that suggests that evil is

somehow greater according to its scope. It may at least be argued that evii is evil.

whether one person is tortured, or one million. But there is another cautionary note

which may be more significant than any of these.

In Reluctant Witness. Stephen Haynes develops the thesis that the source of

tension between Christians and Jews lies mainly in the Christian inability to see Jews

other than symboiically, as a rvitness people. Whether before the Shoa or since. "the

church encounters its tnie reflection only in the Jewish m i r r ~ r . " ~ ~ Because this is so. and

because Christian "Holocaust theologians have not transfonned the Christian tradition so

much as inverted it.. .(and because the Christian) tradition is distinguished by a deep

ambivalence, it is quite amenable to inversion without the promise of fundamental and

lasting change."86

Given that both Christians and Jews see God as acting in history. it is

inconceivable that theological significance should not be assigned by both peoples to

both peoples and to what happens to them. Nevertheless, if we continue. in either

comrnunity. to maintain an essentially symbolic understanding of the other community.

built and nurtured in isolation. it seems virtuaIIy certain that no progress in Christian-

Jewish relations will be possible. Hence the critical importance of dialogue: not simply

dialogue between the scholars and leaders of Chnstianity and Judaism, the "professiona1"

Christians and the "professional" Jews. but between Jews and Christians in genenl:

ordinary men and women concemed with the business and the meaning of lifr. I t is for

these people. and for the funire of these two great faiths. that this action in min i s t~ . has

been underta ken.

Chapter II

Christian-Jewish Dialogue: Foreground

"The United Church and ifs Jewish Problern "

The Al Forrest Affair

The Iate Dr. A.C. "Al" Forrest was a United Church minister. journalist and. for

better than two decades starting in the mid-fifties. editor of the Unired Chttrch Observer.

considered then. as now. one of North America's most influential religious periodicals.

In the afiermath of the "Six Day War" in June of 1967. Forrest was asked by Interchurch

Features. a syndicate of North Arnerican church publications, to visit the Middle East in

search of the tmth about the 300.000 Arab refugees who were said tu have fled their

homes afier Israel's lightning cicton ot*er her neighbours. In the ensuing thretr years.

Forrest visited seven Arab nations. and traveled five times to Israel. He spoke with

Israeli govemment officials and Arab and Palestinian leaders. including members of the

Palestine Liberation Organization. cisited the remains of Palestinian villages. spent time

in the camps. met extensively with United Nations and Save the Children aid workers.

When he published his experiences in the United Church Observer. he unleashed a storm

of fusl within the Canadian Jewish community the likes of which had never been seen.

He coIlected his observations. and the reactions they generated. in his 1971 book. The

C'nholy Land

At first glance. it is hard to imagine anyone taking umbrage with Al Forrest's

attitude toward Israei. In the introduction to his book. he notes that his three concerns

are :

' ~ h a t positive steps be taken to avoid another war that may engulf us al!: that the long suffering of the Palestine refugees be ended: and that the securicy of the Jewish people be assured."'

Forrest notes that when he first undertook his assignment for the Interchurch

Features Group:

". . . 1 suppose 1 was mildly anti-Arab. Certainly. like almost everyone else. 1 was pro-Israeli. When 1 remember what 1 was taught in school about the Crusades and some of the stories 1 have read about 'dirty Arabs' and 'wily Arabs'. I realize how badly we were prepared for what has happened."2

Forrest goes on to reflect on how he was indoctrinated to his original operating

prej udice:

--In my original anti-Arabism I suppose 1 was rather typical of reasonably intelligent. fairly well-inforrned. well-intentioned church-going. newspaper- reading Westerners. To me. the Jews were God's Chosen People. Jerusalem was His Holy City, and Palestine His Holy Land. It was a sign of God's special fzvour that when General Allenby entered Jerusalem the Turks surrendered without a shot. It seemed that after long centuries of wandering. the Jews could go back to the land of their fathers. and not unreasonable that the people who had lived there - Arabs who went around on donkeys and carnels and neglected their land - would have to move over and let them in. 1 had inherited some of these notions fiom my church and Sunday ~ c h o o l . " ~

Just as in A Chrisrmas Carol. Charles Dickens wished to ensure that his readers

understood that Marley was dead. so Forrest wished to ensue his readers of his

admiration for Israel. If, as Dickens observed, Marley had not been dead. then nothing

- - --

I A.C. Forrest, The Unholy Land (Toronto: McLelIand and Stewart. 197 1 ), p. vii.

Ibid., p. x.

wonderfil could have ensued. If, as Forrest contended. he were not such a great admirer

of Israel. then his critique would not be so credible. Thus he wrote:

-'I cannot help but believe that through al1 their sufferings and persecutions. so ofien at the hands of people called Christians. the Jews have emerged a superior race. (Of course. that does suggest others are inferior.) In art, music. drama - in the making of books. and the miracles on the land. in so many things. Israel has excelled. Tme. the U S . and world Jewry have poured in billions to do ir n.ith. but many peoples have squandered much of such aid. None. I suspect - although the Japanese and Germans might have given it a real try - would have accomplished so rnuch. so quickly. as Israel has."'

But Forrest could not leave it there. His experience of the devastztion urought in

so many lives as a result of the consolidation of Israel's authonty in Jenisalem and the

occupied temtories led him to convictions which were bound to be controversial and.

oiven Forrest's passionate idiom. inflarnmatory. b

In retrospect. it seems preposterously naive that Forrest should have expected

anything less than cornplete excoriation when he listed the summary of his conclusions

about the nature of the victorious Israel:

"In attempting to solve the Jewish problem by recomrnending the partition of Palestine the world inflicted a grave injustice on the Palestinian Arabs. There is Iittle hope of lasting peace in the Middle East until there is redress of that injustice. The Palestinian refugees are not just the innocent victims of war who fled their homes in Palestine in panic and must not be allowed back because the? would threaten the security of Israel: many of them were ruthlesdy driven out as part of an Israeli master-plan to rid Palestine of its citizens in order to build a "Jewish" state. The Palestinians are not just being kept as "political pawns" by the A r ~ b States. but are determined to resist settlement and assimilation and return to their homes in Palestine.. .Arabs who remained in IsraeI have been exploited and repressed by the Israeli Jews.. . Israel consistently violates the Fourth Geneva Convention in her treatment of civilians and flouts the unanimous decisions of the United Nations General Assembly and Security Council. Israel is now a racist

' Ibid.

'' Ibid., p. ix.

Twenty-two years afrer AI Forrest w o t e those words. the "Palestinian" question

and Israel's behaviour with respect to the Founh Geneva Convention on Hurnan Rights

remained flash points for both the Christian and Jewish communities in Toronto.

Members of the United Church's Toronto Conference could not believe that. as they sa\\-

it. lsrael was still acting as Al Forrest had accused them of acting in 197 1. by espeiling

some 400 Palestinians into the g*no-man's" land between Israel and Lebanon undsr very

harsh conditions. Members of the Jewish community could not believe that the United

Church of Canada still failed to understand the desperate necessity which drove Israel to

take extraordinary measures against Palestinians. Israel in 1993. as in 1971. argued that

LTnited Nations' resolutions failed to take into account the kind of arguments posed b>

Manuel Prutschi. Executive Director of the Canadian Jewish Congress. Ontario Region.

in an unpublished paper in response to an Israeli-critical Resolution. number R-5.

presented to the Annual Generai Meeting of Toronto Conference of the United Church of

Canada in .May of 1993. Mr. Prutschi \\-rote:

-*. . . in the 1970's. Jordan massacred thousands of Palestinians. in 1982. Syria committed nothing short of genocide when it butchered over 10.000 of its own citizens in Hama and let us not forget that. while Canadian soldiers were risking their lives defending Kuwait during the Gulf War. Kuwait deported tens of thousands of Palestinians. many of whom found refuge in Israeli controlled temtories.. . Egypt.. .sentenced seven fundamentalists to be hanged and in mid- May rounded up over 800 fundamentalist security risks. Even though capital punishment is allowed under international law. IsraeI has never executed a convicted terrorist.. .Resolution R-5 cites many U N . resolutions passed against Israel ... until the Gulf War. not one U.N. resolution has been passed against Arab States for their actions against kllow Arabs. let alone military aggression against

5 Ibid. p. xi.

Israel as well as state-sponsored terrorism. The U.N. is quick to censure Israel without investigating the senes of events leading to Israel's policies."6

Mr. Prutschi went on to observe how the United Church. through the Toronto

Conference Resolution R-5 of May 1993. not only ignored Israeli attempts to improve the

lot of Palestinian refugees, but actually placed Israel in a "damned if the- do. damned if

they don't" situation:

"Since 1970. Israel has built nine modem housing projects in the Gaza strip. housing approximately 70.000 Palestinians. These projects. financed solely b!. Israel and built on state land in proximity to the refugee camps. have been condemned by the U.N. for they are seen as an Israeli sponsored Palestinian resettlemerit policy. Israel. apparently. is always the wrong party in the Arab- Israeli conflict, even when it wishes to alleviate some of the suffering of those under its control."'

Christian condemnation of Israel: Jewish apologetic for Israel. back and forth Iike

a see-saw. If the arguments of articulate members of the Jewish cornmunity like Manuel

Prutschi have had little impact on the United Church constituency over the past twenty-

five years. the heart-string-tugging accounts of passionate writers and ministers have. In

197 1. Forrest described the demolition of a Palestinian house; a description that has been

echoed repeatedly by Christian and Arab obsewers since- and espscially during the

Inrifadu. or resistance. of the last decade:

"A feu: hours later 1 was taken from Jerusalem to the old Kalendia refugee camp north of the Holy City. That afiernoon the Israeli police had moved in, set up loud speakers, ordered the people - there were over three thousand in Kalendia - into their houses. and told them to open their windows. The Israelis went directly to a seven-room house between the mosque and the school basketball courts, gave the people ten minutes to get out. laid nine sticks of dynamite, to bits. Fifty rabbits. some turkeys and most household goods

and blew the house were beneath the

M. Prutschi. unpublished paper. May 1993.

' /bid

rubble. An expensive-looking incubator for turke). eggs la) broken beside the ruins. 'He got the incubator out. but the Israelis smashed it.' a bystander said. A teen-aged girl was weeping. She had worked and saved and purchased a sewing machine. It went under too.. .The owner of the house had been taken to the hospital in a state of shock ... 1 asked them what the man had done. 'We don3 know. but the police arrested one of his sons a month ago and took him ava l - . ' I t was presumed the son had been made to talk. Sometimes houses are blown up because the owners have not reported on the subversive activities of their neighbours. 1 said it was very sad. 'There are over seven thousand cases l i ke it.' I was told. The lsraeli officials admit they have blown up about seven hundred Arab homes but the Arabs count al1 the houses that have been destroyed when as many as eighty houses have been levelled as a collective reprisal. The Israelis apparently count only 'individual' dynarnitings."8

Twenty-two years later. at the A M U ~ General Meeting of Toronto Conference in

Orangeville. Ontario. painfully similar incidents were described in graphic detail by the

Reverend Lilian Patey. a Palestinian Christian serving with the United Church of Canada.

and by the Reverend Betty Marmura. whose husband is a Palestinian Christian.

Reverend Patey was particularly persuasive as she described the death of her father at the

hands of Israeli forces during the taking of Jerusalem in 1967. According to Ms. Patey.

he was targeted as an influential Palestinian leader. and was gunned down. unarmed.

when he opened the gate to the Garden Tomb at the demand of Israeli troops. He was the

superintendant of the site.

To Al Forrest. the suffering of individual citizens carried more weight than the

exigencies of Israeli state security. The same was true for Conference delegates in 1993.

Speaking out about those sufferings. in both instances. carried a cost. For Al Forrest. and

for the United Church. that cost would be high. and the currency in which it would be

paid was vitriol. If Al Forrest could be acidic in his condemnation of Israeli policies and

8 Forrest, p. 2.

actions with respect to Palestinians. the response of the Toronto Jewish comrnunity

wouid prove to be equally corrosive. not only to Forrest's reputation. but to immediate

and long-term relations with the United Church. as the nest section. on Resolution R-5

will demonstrate.

According to Forrest. his relations with the Toronto Jewish community before his

criticism of Israel were more than cordial:

"My professional and persona1 relations with the Jewish cornmunity were excellent. 1 counted as friends the leading rabbis of rny city. 1 had never hesitatrd to disagree or agree with them on public issues. To me. as it is to most liberal Christians. ami-Semitism has always been one of the viler sins - the sort of thing stupid, sick. or ignorant eople might be guilty of. Just look at the fruits of anti- Semitism in Germany!" J'

FolIowing his published reports on the condition of Palestinian refugees. the

situation changed - dramaticaily. Forrest wote:

"In the months that followed the publication of my reports on the retùgee situation in the Middle East 1 was subjected to a barrage of invective and innuendo. In thirty years of more or less public church life. fifieen of them editing the largest - and 1 like to think in some ways one of the most respected - church papers in the British Commonwealth. 1 had never known anythirip like it. One cannot take a place as a responsiblr editor in the free church press without angering some people. There is usually some way in which controversy can be carried out with decency. However. 1 have found no way to criticize the policies of the State of Israel. . . (or) of political Zionism. or tell my readers what the facts of the Middle East are. and escape slander and libel from the Zionist-Israeli cornrn~nity."'~

Those are strong words and, seen from the vantage point of decades after. would

almost hint at a certain paranoia were it not for the equal strength of some of the

cornmentary directed at Forrest. Two examples wilI suffice:

In the Globe Magazine. Toronto. Myrer Sharzer. a Jewish Congress official. was quoted as calling (Forrest) a .dupe of comrnunist and Arab proPaganda."" '

One of the comments that must have hurt the most came fiom a Toronto rabbi:

"'You'll have a page in Jewish history dong with AdoIf Hitler.. .I'd like to knou. what the Arabs are paying you."'"

Genuinely puzzlrd by the outrage from the Jewish community. Forrest consultrd

his fiend, joumalist. broadcaster and author. Pierre Berton:

"Berton had an impeccable record as a friend to the Jews and other minorities. 1 thought 1 had. too. ' Why are they zeroing in on me?' 1 asked him. -Man?. have been more criticai of Israel and less critical of the Arabs than 1 have.' 'It's because you keep on the refugee problem.' he said. 'Every Jew in the world feels guilty about that. It's when you criticize people where their guilt complexes are that you get such a reaction."'13

A psychotherapeutic understanding of complexes is that of a bundle of unresolved

conflicts. However accurate. or inaccurate, Berton's comments, it is tme that the

Palestinian question has remained one of the bundle of unresoIved conflicts between the

United Church and the Jewish community. and Forrest went to his grave a source of

contention. In the midst of the "Al Forrest" affair those conflicts reached their peak. and

in the midst of threats of suits and counter-suits. it appeared for a time that there would be

no voice of reason in the midst of the madding crowd. But one did emerge. and from the

Toronto Jewish comrnunity. the only place from which it could. He was a Toronto rabbi.

10 lbid., p. 38. 1 1 Ibid., p . 40.

'' lbid., p . 38. 13 lbià., p . 38.

Reuben Slonim. and his voice was heard in his 1977 book. Famiij* Quarrei: The Cnitrri

Chzrrch and the Jews.

Like Al Forrest. Reuben Slonim was not one to mince ~vords. He uerote:

"The United Church of Canada and the Canadian Jewish community ma>- be described as two opposing camps viewinp each other across a Maginot line.""

With a d i s m i n g bluntness. he descx-ibed the Jewish perspective on the United

Church during the tense years surrounding and following the .AI Forrest affair:

"Viewed from the Jewish side. the United Church is infested with anti-Semites and an almost ineradicable anti-Sernitism sanctified in the New Testament and hallowed by the Christian Church for over 1.900 years. This anti-Semitism is seen in a contemporary form as anti-Zionism. or anti-Israelism. This anti- Zionism enables liberals. uho are devoted to individual rights. to attack J e w collectively. and thus accomplish the ancient purpose of demeaning Jews and Judaism. Even in democratic Canada.. .Jews feel they must be ever vigilant against the detractors of Zionism. which has become a dirty word. and against the opponents of Israel, who spread their views through the general press and e'iert pressure on the government in Ottawa in the formation of Middle East polic>f.'"'

He applies the sarne directness in describing the United Church view:

"Frorn the United Church side. Je~vish defensiveness is often seen as claiinishnsss and paranoia. as an inability to assinilate in to the gensral population as full- fledged Canadians. free of the psychological weight of persecution and unhampered by outworn chawinistic concepts and tribal traditions. Jews are seen as the parochial nation of old. which cannot make up its mind whether to cleave to biblical prophetic ideals and the senice of al1 people or to its fancied chosenness and excIusiveness. This ambivalence renders Jews incapable of recognizing Palestinians who now suffer in the same kind of Diaspora, or exile from their homeland. which Jews have experienced for almost two m i l l e ~ i a . " ' ~

'' R. Slonim. Family Quarrel: The United Church and fhe Jews (Toronto: Clarke & Irwin. 1990). Introduction.

'' lbid

'' lbid.

Those who might be tempted to criticize Slonim as offenng a caricature of both

cornrnunities would do well to remember that there is ofien a sad arnount of truth in

caricature. and 1 would be hard-pressed to deny not the universality of Slonim's

description of the United Church position. but at least its pervasiveness.

There is one caricature. however. that Rabbi Slonim wished to dispel:

T h e r e is a widespread impression that had A.C. Forrest been more cautious in his comments on Jews, the European Holocaust. the role of Israel and the plight of the Palestinian refugees. the quarrel between the Jewish cornmunity and the United Church of Canada might have been avoided. That is a misleading assumption. Forrest did help to precipitate the quarrel and gave it shape. His editoririls and articles sparked editorial comment in the general and the leu-ish press and aroused Christians and Jews alike to u-rite letters to the newspapers. ..But the quarrel was not only of Forrest's making: the seeds of dissension between the two church.. . 9 7 1 7

Slonim is very much aware

cornmunities existed from the founding of the

that the Middle East has been a particular fruurce of

tension for the United Church:

"For almost three decades the Middle East has been agonizing issue for the United Church. Over the years it has considered the Israeli side, then the Palestinian. and back again. wit ing position papers and battling thé problem in and out of the Cornmittee on the Church and International a f fa i r~ . " '~

By 1 993 and the debate over Rssolution R-3 of Toronto Conference. the three decades

had become alrnost half a century. with little sign of a reconciliation in sight. What was

clear to Slonim in 1977 was that neither side understood the other. Canadian Jewish

leaders could not understand how the United Church of Canada as an institution could be

"ofticially silent when the Obsemer publishes an insensitive editoria~..~''

Correspondingly. "the mernbers of a majority group like the United Church.. . find it hard

to understand Jewish insccurity. otien regarding it as parochialism or paranoia.. .thai is

what free speech is al1 about.. ."'O

Free speech. Slonim noted. got very short shrifi from theologian Emil

Fackenheim:

"Ever since the Six Day War the most visible and powerful groups in the United Church have behaved toward the Jewish people as though this church wrre a monolithic body. and their behaviour has been hostile. .. The Observer has shon-n an ever-increasing anti-Jewish bias. and United Church officials. while seeking refuge behind the editor's freedom of speech. have either themselves kept silent. or else used their own freedom of speech only to defend the policies of the editor. or even to attack.. .those who opposed those policies. be they Jewish and especially should they be ~hristian.""

Fackenheim's languap was inflarnmatory: so was Forrest's. Each. no doubt. understood

himself to be speaking the truth. Neither. I suspect. understood the other. Slonim

believed that the stance of "tw.o solitudes." as Hugh M a d e m a n said in another context.

was unacceptable for these two communities:

"Feeling and ernotion. com bined with a lack of awareness of the facts. keep the United Church and the Jews apart. Reason says we must get together. To ignore reason would mean that w e are either perplexed or hypocritical. In each instance that would defeat s v e ~ h i n g we stand for as Jews and ~hristians.""

Bringing communities together is the essence of dialogue. To be most effective.

dialogue requires some awareness of the issues which separate communities. Granted

that dialogue itself will cause ever more of these issues to emerge. forewarned is

forearmed.

There are so many areas in which misunderstanding and hostility can brerd: and

as Rabbi Reuben Slonim notes. there is one major attitudinal block above al1 othrrs:

". . . if religious leaders are serious about an end to dispute and a beginnin to accommodation, they must stnp themselves of their representative roles. w-hich are a towering bamer to dialogue in depth. In the past, United Church and Je~vish officiais have stood behind a title or a robe or a narne on an office door.. .The representative pIays a cornpetitive game. because ail eyes are on him to \vin. Thar is one of the difficulties in the United Church-Jewish quarrel. We choose sides and captains and step into the arena as adversaries to argue the issues. Each Sroup assumes a fixed position and its representatives bend al1 their efforts to winning arguments about anti-Sernitism. the Palestinian refugees. Israeli policy. the Holocaust, and theological insight. Wiming is important because the €105 of the group must be maintained. United Chürch and Jewish leaders. in a breach of their own Judeo-Christian philosophy. have succumbed to the sporting formulation of life, in which life is conceived of as a game."'3

Slonim called for an end to garnesmanship. and. in doing so. argued implicirly and

effectively the old mavim that religions don't dialogue. people do. In the spring of 1993.

in addressing the above-mentioned Resolution R-5 and its impact in both the United

Church and Jewish communities. SIonim's cal1 \vas heeded. Leaders in both

communities set roles and office aside and met to listen and to talk. The process by

which this occurred was comples and muIti-faceted. and it wiIl be some time before

adequate distance from the events will accommodate reasonable perspective. In

attempting to capture the events surrounding Resolution R-5. it must be noted that my

approach has been. by necessity. more journalistic than scholarly. 1 was a participant.

'' fbid.

'j lbid.. p. 157.

It should also be noted that both Forrest and Slonim. marginalized b>- thsir

respective communiiies dunng the disputes of the 1970's. have afier their deaths been

sornewhat "rehabilitated" as passionate seekers after truth.

Resolved to Resolving Resoiurion R-5

On the evening of June 10, 1993. sixty-eight years to the da' afier the founding of

the United Church of Canada one of the most respected rabbis of Refonned Judaism in

the country-. Dow Marmur. presented a paper he had wit ten to a meeting of the Esecuti\.e

Cornmittee of Holy Blossom synagocgue in Toronto. The paper was redolent with deep

pain and fmstration. It was entitled. T h e United Church and its Jewish Probkm."

The paper was in response to a resolution adopted in May of 1993 by the .Annual

General Meeting of the Toronto Conference of the United Church of Canada. an

ecclesiastical jurisdiction stretching from Lake Ontario in the South to the Muskokas in

the north; and from Pickering in the east to Etobicoke in the West. It incorporates nine

sub-jurisdictions. or Presbyteries. \\*hich in turn include over three hundred churches and

seventy thousand members. Approsimateiy four hundred of those members. clergy and

lai. constitute the quasi-IegisIative event which is the Annual GeneraI Meeting.

During the course of the meeting in question. seLVenteen resolutions were

presented to the assembled delegates. or coun. for debate and action. That which so

troubled Rabbi Marrnur was numbered R-3 in the Conference workbook. It had been

prepared by the Conference World Affairs Cornmittee and was entitled, "The Fourth

Geneva Convention and Israel in the Occupied Territories." Afier long and painful. even

acrimonious debate, the Conference. by a srnaIl majority. resolved to:

--1. Request the Canadian Govemment, as a signatory to the Fourth Geneva Convention. to cal1 upon Israel. through the United Nations. to abide fully with the provisions of the Convention: 2. In the event that lsrael continues to violate the Convention, to cal1 upon the Canadian Government to apply to the United Nations Security Council so that a Protecting Power. as defined b?, the Convention. be appointed to protect the inhabitants of the Occupied ~emtories ." '~

The Gove rnen t of Canada so petitioned. sent a polite and noncornmitral letter to

the Conference. and then retained a diplomatic silence. Not so the Jewish community in

Toronto - and beyond.

In his paper of June 10, 1993. Rabbi Mannur reflected on an apparent anomal' in

the work of Roman Catholic theotogian. Rosemary Radford Ruether:

-'In addition to her writings on feminism and other subjects, she (Ruether) published some years ago a powerful book called Faifh and Fratricide. in which she urged Christians to reconsider their theology of the Jews in the light of the Holocaust. She argued persuasively that Christians cannot evade a measure of responsibility for the Holocaust. To prevent it happening again. the Church should look at its teaching. More recently she has. together with her husband. written another book. The W m h of Jonah. which is a virulent attack on the state of ~srael."~'

Rabbi Marmur wondered. quitc reasonably. how it was that the same person could

have written two such completeiy different books. For guidance. he turned to the Jewish

historian. David Biale. whose ansver. Marmur writes. "may help us to understand lefi-

wing Christianity in general. and Toronto Conl'srence of the United Church of Canada in

Mannur quotes Biale:

'' Toronto Conference Annual General Meeting Workbook for 1993, p. 12.

'' D. Mamur. T h e United Church and Its Jewish Problem." unpublished paper, June 1993.

26 fhid.

"The purpose of Faith and Fratricide was to divest Christianiq o f its own chauvinism, namely anti-Sernitism. so that it might become its me universalist self The purpose of The Wrath of Jonah is to do the sarne thing for Judaism. the parent religion of Christianity. Christian universalism cornes from the 'trus' Judaism. but the Jews have strayed f ron their calling by espousing tribal nationalism. The correct role for Jews is to fight for these universal. piuralistic values in the countries of the diaspora the m e Jewish homelands.""

To Rabbi Marmur, the anaiogy was obvious:

"Though 1 don't know if the Ieaders of Toronto Conference have reflected on their motives for this and other statements on Israel. 1 can think o f no more apt a description of their utterances than Bide's characterization of Rosemary Ruether. Like Ruether, 1 am sure, they would urge Christians to rethink their theology in light of the Holocaust. and repudiate anti-semitism. At the same time. however. they are more than ready to condemn the Jewish state as if it was the greatest villain in the world?*

Rabbi M m u r agreed that God calls both Chnstians and Jews to speak out

against injustice and on behalf of those who have no voice. but in the case o f Toronto

Conference's statement, he felt that the motives of the church were blatantly. even if

unconsciously, mixed:

". . . I am more than surprised that Toronto Conference does not feel called by God to mention Arab violations and -4rab violence: there is not even a passing refererice, let alone regret. at the loss of Jewish civilian lives.. .Nor is there any recognition of the delicate and cornplex curent peace negotiations toward a comprehensive settlement and self-nile for Palestinians as yet another step. we hope, to full independence. And. of course. there is no reference to the cause of the conflict and the Arab responsibility for it, nor to Israel's right to live in security .''29

Rabbi Marmur went on to offer a qualified benefit of the cioubt:

"The intention behind the distress of the Toronto Conference over the expulsion of four hundred Islamic fundarnentalists by Israel may be laudable, but its

" Ibid.

Ibid

'9 lbid

selectivity in presenting the matter makes one suspicious. In its endeavour to be topical, 1 do not expect the United Church to praise Israel for its actions. but in its desire to be moral. 1 do not expect it to be silent about other. infinitely more cruel. ~ r o n ~ s . " ~ O

In the end, Rabbi Marrnur did not condemn the action of Toronto Contkrencr In

adopting the contentious resolution of May. 1993: but he did cal1 the Conference to the

task of critical self-evaluation in its process of decision making. He wrote:

"Bernard Lewis, the internationally renowned scholar of Islam. makes an important distinction between those who are pro-Arab and those who are anti- Jew. Pro-Arabs consistently and relentlessly champion the cause of the Arabs: anti-Jews only champion the cause of the Arabs when Jews are involved. Lewis' criteria may help us judge this resolution. 1 hope that. in its efforts to be scrupulous in its sel f-scrutiny . Toronto Conference will want to j udge i t~e l f . "~ ' Rabbi Marmur's paper was not only arnong the most comprehensive of the

responses to the resolution. it was arnong the most moderate. On June 4. 1993. Ineing

Abella. President of the Canadian Jewish Congress. wrote:

"The Canadian Jewish Congress was shocked and saddened by the anti-lsrael resolution adopted by the United Church of Canada (Toronto Conference). This grossly unbalanced resolution contains a sharneful denmciation of Israei. The resolution does not take into account the murderous attacks by Arab terrcrists on Israeli civilians, nor the Israeli contribution to the peace process now taking place in Washington. nor the rise of Islarnic fundamentalism which calls for the destruction of Israel ... The United Church fails to understand that the Arab-Israeli conflict stems fiom the refusa1 of the Arab world to recognize the Jewish state.. .The Canadian Jewish Congress originated the Christian-Jewish Dialogue in Canada. which brought together Our faiths in the wake of the Holocaust. The success of this dialogue will be undermined if Israel is subject to such unbalanced and hostile attacks by the United Church of Canada.. . whose statement can only lend encouragement to terrorism. and those who believe that Israel should be destroyed.""

jo lbid

'' lbid.

'' Author's personal correspondence.

Dr. Abella's was a pnvate letter to the author in my office as President of

Toronto Conference. B'nai Brith chose to go public. issuing a press release on May 3 1.

"It is most unfortunate that once again Israel is singled out for criticism at a timr when its government is taking positive steps to advance the peace negotiations and resolve the Palestinian issue. The United Church resolution fails to provide a balanced and objective depiction of the problems in the West Bank and Gaza Strip, and turns a biind e y e to human rights violations in other Middle East countries. Unfortunately. the resolution fails to credit Israel for its initiatives to improve the situation. including its recent proposa1 in the bilateral peace negotiations with the Palestinians to establish a subcommittee for human rights in the ~ e r r i t o r i e s . " ~ ~

The press release did hedge its bets somewhat:

"The United Church's resolution. however. must in no way impede attempts to further mutual understanding and tolerance among Canada's ethnocultural communities."3"

The most bitter response the Conference received in writing wcls in a letter from

Mrs. Citron. the Vice-Chairman of the Canadian Holocaust Remembrance Association.

On June 23. 1993, she wrote:

'-We are not certain whether the Toronto Conference of the United Church of Canada is being deliberately misled by a few. or are the leaders being duped by sorne.. . We are appalled at the outrageous claims contained in that resolution. and the selective morality of the United Church's Conference leaders. and particularly, the initiators of this infamous Resolution. and cal1 on your leaders to read this letter to your members. and ask them to withdraw or rescind the motion and the resolution.. .since this resolution was published in several newspapers. the Canadian Holocaust Remernbrance Association must insist on a public apology . . .the Canadian Holocaust Remembrance Association expects to hear from the leadership of the Toronto Conference of the United Church within ten days."35

3' au th or*^ personal archives.

'' lbid. ;' Author's personal correspondence.

The leadership of Toronto Conference did respond. although not with a public

apology. As President of the Conference. 1 answered each phone cal1 and each Ietter

quickly and courteously and in much the same marner in uhich 1 wrote to Mrs-Citron.

My letter to her of June 29. 1993. read in part:

"1 regret your pain, yet c m only note that the resolution. brought fonvard in proper order, hotly debated. was not adopted lightly: that our comrnitment to Christian-Jewish Dialogue remains unabated: that Our opposition to anti- Semitism, especidly in such insidious and cruel f o m s as Holocaust denial. remains uncompromising; and that our prayers For Israel and al1 the peoplrs of the Middle East are ~ n c e a s i n ~ . " ~ ~

Given that we heard no more from Mrs-Citron. it seemed that my letter had. in

some measure. defùsed a potentially explosive situation. but it was hardly a satisfactory

resolution to the renewed tensions between the Jewish community and the United Church

in Toronto Conference. In fact. the 1993 Annual Meeting of Toronto Conference and its

contentious Iegislation proved a turning point of sons in the relationship between the two

groups: a critical incident. or perhaps more accurately. a cntical opponunity. in which to

address misunderstandings which. taken together. could be described as a twenty-five

year case study in Christian-Jewish dialogue. The emotions that erupted in the Jewish

community over the 1993 resolution smanated from traditional uneasiness between

church and synagogue; from post-Shoa sensitivity among Jews. Zionist or not; from the

increase in hate crimes docurnented as recently as the autumn of 1999 in the Toronto

Star; and. of course. from the '-Al Forrest Affair." The tension surrounding R-j would

have been sigiiificantly greater. had not leaders in both communities undertaken to follow

Reuben Slonirn's advice to set aside role and office and to engage in a significanr act of

dialogue. In fact. three experiments in dialogue must be factored into the contest of the

Resolution R-5 conflict.

Leaders in Dialogue

On Tuesday. April 20, 1993. Dror Zeigerrnan. recently appointed Consul Général

to the Israeli Consulate in Toronto. invited three United Church ministers to lunch at the

Primrose Club on St. Clair Avenue West. They were the Rev. Gordon Nodwell. a long-

time Director of the Christian-Jewish Dialogue of Toronto: the Very Rev. Bruce

McLeod. former Moderator of the United Church of Canada: and me. at that time a

Director of the Christian-Jewish DiaIogue of Toronto. and the President-elect of Toronto

Conference. Mr. Zeigeman was a businessman and a former member of the Likkud

Party in the iuiesset. the Israeli Parliament. He was not. perhaps significantly. a

professiorla1 diplomat. His concern was to meet with people in leadership positions in the

Christian community informally. face-to-face. where the maintaining of roles. which so

concemed Rabbi Slonim. could be minimalized. His agenda was to lay before the people

with whom he met advance notice of the Peace Initiative between the Israelis and the

Palestinians, nearly six months before it became public. Naturally. he was unable to

provide details. His hope was to build trust arnong individuals, so that when the initiative

becarne public. there would be those who would be in a position to provide moral support

to the Israelis and Palestinians alike.

36 Author's personal correspondence.

His candour was impressive. and he engaged freely with us on the concrrns which

we raised not only around the question of Palestinian refugees- but on the question of'

Palestinian Chnstians especially. He understood that none of us were in a position to

speak for the United Church, but he was lefi with a better understanding of the

denomination. and with his pnmary agenda completed. He had sown seeds of potential

trust.

Through to the present. under a new Consul-General. the informa1 relationship

has continued, expanded to include other United Church people. agreement on issue of

lsraeli policy is not the focus: informed appreciation of one another's concems is.

The second instance occurred on Thursday. May 13. 1993. With the meeting with

Mr. Zeigerman fresh in my rnind, and very much impressed with his concept of

dialogical table talk. I decided to employ a similar strategy in order to address Resolution

R-5. which 1 knew wos among the order papers for the A M U ~ General Meeting of the

Conference. which was by then imminent. The resulting meeting, in the less elegant yet

still congenial surroundings of Yitz's Delicatessen. on Eglinton Avenue West in Toronto.

brought together Manuel Prutschi. Executive Director of the Ontario Region of the

Canadian Jewish Congress: the Iate David Satok. a Congress Board member; the Rev.

Ailan Hallett, then Chairperson of the Toronto Conference Interchurchhterfaith

Cornmittee; and me. Ali of us, Save Mr. Hallett. knew one another as Directors of the

Christian-Jewish Dialogue of Toronto.

The purpose of the meeting was to *'leak" Resolution R-5 to the Canadian Jewish

Congress before it became a media issue. and in doing so, to take the time to explain the

process by which the resolution was developed and by which it would be presented.

debated and voted on at the Annual Meeting of the Conference. My concern was to

demonstrate among friends that. although the resolution would be unacceptable to mosr

in the Jewish cornmunity. it was a concern Iegitimately brought fonvard through the

correct procedures of the church. While 1 expected serious objections to the content. I

believed that an understanding of the process could forestall a repetition of the name-

calling around previous issues.

The meeting was cordial and. in effect. successfiil. Although Mr. Prutschi and

Mr. Satok disagreed completely with the content of Resolution R-5, when it was

ultimately passed and the Conference was awash with a flood of angry response from

various sectors of the Jewish cornmunity. only the Ontario Region of the Congress was

temperate in its response. Furthemore. as 1 shall shortly demonstrate. this informal

dialogue, person-to-person. laid the foundation for later. and very significant dialogue

and CO-operation.

In the third instance. and afisr much preliminary discussion about appropriate

location. a dekgation from B'nai Brith. led by Frank Dimant. Executive Vice-President

of the organization, met with a delegation from Toronto Conference at the former United

Church House at 85 St. Clair Avenue West. on Thursday. June 24, 1993, nearly a month

afier Resolution R-5 had been adopted.

The United Church delegation included not only Mr. HalIet and me as. by then.

Conference President, but also Dr. Helga Kutz-Harder. Executive Secretary of the

Conference, and the Reverend Elizabeth Marmura, one of the drafters of the resolution.

The agenda did not include an apology of any kind from the United Church. but rather

once again provided an opportunity for people on both sides of a painfùl issue to sit down

and listen to one another. The emphasis was on describing to one another our respective

decision-making processes m d on naming again those issues which we beIieved to be our

respective priorities.

At the end of the meeting. Mr. Dirnant proposed an informal cornmitment to

future coIIaboration. B'nai B'rith too. hc declared. was concerned with hurnan rights for

Palestinians. As the United Church looked to legislation in the tùture. B'nai B'rith would

be glad to consult on the most effective strategies to ensure an audience for United

Church concerns in Israel.

Dr. Robert McClure. a former moderator of the United Church. is credited with

having observed tbat there is nothing more past than a past moderator. If there were.

however. it would be a past-President of Conference. Thus. I do not know if that

proposa1 will ever see action. But in a lstter of July 12. 1993 addressed both to Dr. Kutz-

Harder and to me. Mr. Dimant expressed both appreciation and hope:

"We believe that it is very important to engage in dialogue and feel that the meeting was productive in assisting to understand each other's perspectives. We hope this will be the first stage in ongooing discussions between Our ~r~anizations.""

Although. to my knowledge. little has developed with B'nai B'rith. a different story

developed with the Ontario Region of the Canadian Jewish Congress.

Some Frzrirs of Dialogre in Canada

On June 8, 1995. the Progressive Conservative Party of Ontario led by Mike

Harris won a sweeping electoral victory and embarked immediately on Mr. Hams'

"Common Sense Revolution." The result was cross-sectoral. ecumenical and intertàith

concern and consternation Early in December, more than eighteen months afier i had

relinquished my duties as President of Toronto Conference. 1 received a telephone cal1

from Manuel Prutschi at the Canadian Jewish Congress asking if 1 would anange a

meeting with current Conference officials and Congress officials to be hosted at the

offices of the Canadian Jewish Congress on Bathurst Street in Toronto on December 13.

1995. The meeting would be to explore ways in which the Jewish community and

Christian comrnunities. in this case the United Church. might work together to build a

common front to address the social and religious implications of the Common Sense

Revolution.

The initiative came through me not as a church officiai. but as a Christian friend

who would know who to approach and how best to approach them. The current church

leadership, recognizing the validitj. of this informal and persona1 interfaith networking.

responded eagerly. and by early 1996. a unique interfaith coalition was at work to present

common concems for the welfare of al1 citizens of Ontario to the Harris govement . It

included the Canadian Jewish Congress. the Jewish Federation of Greater Toronto. the

Portuguese Canadian National Congress. the Chinese Canadian National Council,

Catholic Charities, the Anglican Diocese of Toronto. the Seventh Day Adventists. and the

National Congress of ItaIian Canadians.

While this --soteriologicaI" dialogue for the sake of suffering humanit!. got

undrnvay in Toronto. a United Church working group in Calgary was engaging the

theological fiontier of dialogue. In an unpublished paper presented to the

Interchurch/lnterfaith Cornmittee of the General Council of the United Church in J a n u a ~

1996 in Toronto, the results of person-to-person dialogue in the Canadian West has

resulted in a new stance toward Judaisrn:

"The United Church of Canada has, from time to time, clearly opposed anti- Semitism in its own ranks and outside the church. Voices have been raised in our church asking for an apology for lack of action before, during and afier World War II. Some have suggested that the Basis of Union should make explicit reference to the Jewishness of Jesus and to Judaism. Nevertheless, we have never made a theological statement about Our relationship to Judaism; we have not made an apology to the Jewish community: we have not amended our constitution through changes in the Basis of Union. Due to the lack of theological guidance there is still the danger of anti-Judaic teaching and preaching in our church. The United Church needs to begin to address these concerns through adopting theological guideliries to guard against anti-Jewish ~entirnents."'~

The Palestinian situation is far from resohed: Christians and Jews remain uneasy

with one another: disagreements will continue to arise; but perhaps the Al Forrest affair

will soon be relegated to history. The United Church may never resolve its "Jewish

Problem" to everyone's satisfaction. But a generation of church leaders is coming to

reaIize that, if any of the human creature's problems are to be resolved. it will be over

time and through dialogue: dialogue between people of good will who. through

encouraging dialogue. engender still more good will.

It is out of these new perspectives on dialogue that this action in ministry springs:

but not this project onIy. In Chapter 1. a broad historical background to Christian-Jewish

dialogue has been provided. The preceding pages of this chapter have illustratsd somr o t'

the histoncal tensions between the United Church of Canada as a denomination and the

Canadian Jewish community. In the balance of this chapter. the focus wilI be sharpened

to the context of dialogue in which the action in rninistry is set. North Toronto. and

particularly the congregations of S t . James-Bond United Church and Darchei Abunz

synagogue.

Ministry and Dialogue in .Worth Toronro

Christian - Jewish dialogue has been a factor in the religious life of Toronto in

general. and North Toronto in particular. since 1966. It was then that the Rev. Roland de

Corneille. whose seminal work has been cited earlier. with the blessing of the Anglican

Diocese of Toronto. approached Rabbi Jordan Pearlson. arnong other Jewish leaders. with

the idea of establishing inter-religious dialogue between the two communities. The

response to his initiative was not overnhelming. As noted earlier. the Jewish experience

of dialogue. historically, was one of bullying conversion. There was deep suspicion. but

there was also good will. based in no small part on who the players were. DeComeille

was able to convince leaders in the Jewish community that his vision was one of genuine

dialogue with no preconceived outcornes. and operating on certain pnnciples which were

38 "Bearinç Faithful Witness." United Church study document.

to be irnmutable and inviolable. These same principles figured explicitly in the action in

ministry and were included in each participant -*kit."

The Christian-Jew-ish Dialogue of Toronto continues to be active and crsati\-e

more than three decades afier its founding. It is institutionally based. which is to sa"

the participants represent the religious communities which sponsor the dialogue. At

time of the action in ministry the sponsoring members were the Anglican Diocese of

Toronto. the Canadian Jewish Congress. the Evangelical Lutheran Church (Eastern

Canadian Synod). the Roman Catholic Archdiocese of Toronto, and the Toronto

that

he

Conference of the United Church of Canada. The Sisters of Sion were also sponsoring

members. but by 1996 had for some years lacked representation on the Board. The

Canadian Council of Christians and Jews decided in i 994. amidst sorne contention. that

they wished to participate as "observers" rather than as rnembers. despite their continued

and significant financial support for the dialogue. This decision reflected a conviction

within the Canadian Council of Christians and Jews that Jewish representation should br

through the Canadian Jewish Congress. ~vhich was understood to be the official voice of

Judaism. at least in this context. The delegation from the Canadian Jewish Congress

consisted of broad constituent representation from across the Jewish community.

including the Toronto Board of Rabbis. The Board of the Christian-Jewish Dialogue of

Toronto was chaired on a rotating basis arnong the Christian sponsoring organizations.

This was understood to be the result of the Dialogue having begun as a Christian

initiative to the Jewish community. but the arrangement has begun to corne under some

discussion.

The Christian-Jewish Dialogue of Toronto was not free fiom tension or

controversy. Issues surrounding the state of Israel and Palestinians have always been

sensitive. never more so than during the --Al Forrest" affair. when the Dialogue was able

to exert a temporizing influence. One of the ongoing concems was in the nature of a

"catch 12" situation. The Dialogue. or more especially its Board. was penodically

criticized for a certain '-clubbishness" arnong its members. Of course. the difficdty is

that dialogue occurs best between and among people who have come to trust one another.

The argument of Board members was that such trust required time to build and frequent

change of participants would be counterproductive to the establishment of such trust. On

the other hand, trust and friendship do not always lead to candid conversation about

sensitive issues, and the concern was sometimes expressed within the sponsoring

religious institutions that candour was being sacrificed to avoid offending friends.

This is a difficult dilemma to address and possibly an impossible one to resolve.

It was a consideration in the design of the action in ministry upon which this dissertation

is bâsed. in the hope that a mode1 might be promoted in which disciplined interchange

would engender respect and trust without sacrificing candour.

The Christian-Jewish DiaIogue of Toronto was welI known to both the

congregations of Darchei Noam and St. James-Bond at the time of the action in ministry.

The Rabbi of Darchei Noam, Lawrence Pinsker. was a director of the Board of the

Dialogue. representing the Toronto Board of Rabbis through the delegation of the

Canadian Jewish Congress. At the tirne the senior minister of St. James-Bond. 1 was a

representative of Toronto Conference of The United Church. Furthermore. members of

both congregations had participated in programmes sponsored by the Dialogue

throughout the region of Metropditan Toronto.

Three of those programmes. Holocaust Education Week. the Christian Semice in

-Memory of the Holocaust. and the '-First Year Thrological Students' Dimer" desene

special mention.

Holocaust Education Week. as the name suggests. provides m annual opportunit!.

for people in the metropolitan Toronto region to learn more about the Holocaust and its

impact not only historically. but upon their contemporary neighbours. no few of whom

are Holocaust survivors. The event runs for just over a week each November. u-ith

events decentralized around the city in churches. synagogues, schools. colleges.

universities and community centres. Varied media are employed to illustrate the scope of

the Holocaust. from art and photograph displays. theatre. films. to lectures. panels. and

workshops. The congregation of St. James-Bond and the action in ministry participants

from that congregation were aware that 1 had participated in Holocaust Education Week

events. They were also aware that in the autumn of 1996. subsequent to the action in

ministry event, St. James-Bond was to be a Holocaust Education Week event site.

The Christian Service in Memory of the Holocaust has been held each year for

over fifieen years in April. near to the time of I'om Har Shoa. the day of remembrance for

victims of the Holocaust marked by the Jewish community. The location of the service

changes each year, moving among churches belonging to the sponsoring denominations

of the Christian-Jewish Dialogue of Toronto. The service and linirgy are designed by the

Christian participants in consultation with Jewish colleagues and there is significant

Jewish participation in the contest of the lighting of six large candles. one for each of the

six million dead, and a seventh for the "righteous gentiles." those non-Jews who risked

and often gave their lives in the attempt to Save their Jewish neighbours.

Leadership of the services is shared among the member denominations and

speakers of prominence in Christian-Jewish dialogue are sought fiom across the country.

sometimes from even M e r afieid. On one occasion. a Danish Lutheran pastor preached

the sermon, drawing attention to the Danish rescue of Jews during the war. On another

occasion. the Reverend James Leland. a United Church minister fiom New Brunswick

and a crusader against anti-semitism was invited to take the pulpit.

The service is always followed by a simple reception. with the food provided by a

Jewish caterer so that al1 present can feel comfortable. AI1 of the St. James-Bond

participants in the action in ministry had attended at least one such service p i o r to the

autumn of 1996. in which the action took place.

The "First Year TheologicaI Students' Dinner" is coordinated each y e x in

cooperation with the Toronto School of Theology. The mernber colleges have agreed

that students in their first year at any of the schools are expected to attend the dinner. held

in a different Toronto synagogue each year. Synagogue members and board members of

the Christian-Jewish Dialogue of Toronto also attend. and mix arnong the tables of

students to stimulate discussion and respond to questions. A traditional Jewish meal is

served by the host synagogue. complete with customaq blessings before and afier food.

A rabbi. generally a rabbi of the host synagogue. speaks after dinner on some aspect of

Jewish life. tradition or theology. The evening is usually concluded by a guided tour of

the synagogue, including an opportunity to examine the scrolls of the Torah.

Dialogue between Christians and Jews is by no means restricted to the formalized

programmes and regular board meetings of the institutionally sponsored Christian-Jeuish

Dialogue of Toronto, however. A less-structured, though still well-organized dialogue

event in North Toronto is the Neighbourhood Interfaith Dimer. In this instance. the

initiative came from the Jewish community. specifically the Men's Club of the

conservative synagogue. Berh Tzrdec. Building slowly and adding new partners to the

programme each year, the pioneers of the dimer. Hart Rossman and Bill Gazer of Beth

Tzedec. drew together an ad hoc yet continuing cornrnittee from arnong a number of

Churches in the North Toronto community to plan an annual dinner. By the mid-nineties.

this cornittee drew its membership from ten synagogues and churches. representing

both reform and conservative Judaism. and the Anglican, Roman Catholic and United

Churches. Some three hundred people regularly participated.

The dinner was held in the spring- as soon afier Easter and Passover as

practicable. after the demands of the respective hol). seasons and before the summer

hiatus in the lives of North Toronto's religious communities. The location of the dinner

was most ofien Beth Tzedec. The conservative setting with its in-house catering seen to

be the most likely to satisQ any concerns around the honouring of food mies, or kashru~.

The first exception to this was in April of 1996. when the venue was moved to Timothy

Eaton Mernorial United Church. A mobile caterer was employed. who provided not only

the meal, but the dishes and utensils. In the two years since, the dimer has returned to

the synagogue setting. although not tc Beth Tzedec. but to another consenrative

synagogue which has joined the programme.

After dinner speakers for the event have. in most years. alternated betn-een

prominent Christians and Jews. Thus. in 1994. the guest was the Rev. Dr. Lois Wilson.

now Senator Wilson, a former Moderator of the United Church of Canada and a President

of the World Council of Churches. In 1995. the guest was Dr. Victor Goldbloom, former

cabinet minister in the province of Quebec. and one-time President of the Canadian

Council of Christians and Jews. In 1996. the speaker was the Rt. Rev. Dr. Terence

Prendergast, Auxiliary Bishop of the Roman Catholic Arc hdiocese of Toronto. The

alternating pattern was broken only in 1997. for the tenth anniversary celebration of the

Neighbourhood Interfaith Dimer. when the guest speaker was the Rev. Roland de

Corneille, Anglican priest. former liberal member of Federal Parliament. and the initiator

of what became the Christian-Jewish Dialogue of Toronto.

Since 1993. St. James-Bond had been a sponsoring church. and al1 the St. James-

Bond participants in the action in ministry had attended at least one of these dinners prior

to the action in ministry. Indeed. the people of St. James-Bond were well-acquainted

with their Jewish neighbours. both pro-actively and positively, and reactively and at least

somewhat negatively. The Iatter was fresh in the minds of the congregation when 1 began

ministry there in 199 1.

During the 1990-91 school year. tensions had developed around the marking of

holidays. Those tensions came to achieved critical mass during the

Advenr/Chrisrmas/Cltannukah season over the singing of Christmas carols in school

"holiday" concerts at John Wanless Public School. Some parents protested. and the

school authorities banned the singing of carols. Consequently. other parents counter-

protested. An "emergency" dialogue process was estabIished. including both Christian

and Jewish parents and teachers, and facilitated by staff fiom the Board of Directors of

the Christian-Jewish Dialogue of Toronto. In the end. carols were excluded from the

programme that year and an uneasy tnice established. One of the teacher members of this

ad hoc dialogue group was also a leader at St. James-Bond. and this led to one of the

most positive results of a difficult situation. Many in the congregation of St. James-

Bond. farniliar with and concerned for their many Jewish neighbours in Nonh Toronto.

began to ask themselves what this had al1 been about. They wanted to know more about

these people who lived next door. who were such good neighbours. and yet who now

seemed to be so different. By the time 1 assumed my responsibilities there- Christian-

Jewish dialogue had bezome an issue in ministry. at least among the congregational

leadership. That leadership was represented among the participants in the action in

ministry five years later.

It was also an issue in ministry for me. It is a basic assumption for me that

ministry. iike scriptme. cannot be understood. Let alone practiced. without consideration

of its context. The demographic context of North Toronto was, and is, a roughly even

split between Jews and Christians (or. at Ieast. gentiles). Furthemore, 1 share the

assumption articulated in 1995 - according to Jesuit interfaith scholar, Ovey

Mohammed - by the General Congregation of the Society of Jesus, that to be religious at

the end of the twentieth century is to be inter-religious. This had led me to an extensive

cornmitment to dialogue within the institutional life of the United Church of Canada.

including "charter" membership in the Toronto Conference Standing Committee on

Interchurch and Interfaith Relations. established in 1987. and representational

membership on behalf of the Conference on the Interchurch/Interfaith Committee of the

General Couci l of the United Church of Canada. My cal1 to St. James-Bond kvas thus a

convergence between at least one perceived ministry need on the part of the congregation

on the one hand, and extensive rninisterial experience on the other. In the spnng of 1994.

my institutional interfaith work in Christian-Jewish dialogue gave rise to a new

opportunity in ministry for St. James-Bond.

David Hart was a long-time resident of North Toronto and a longtime and

respected member of Holy Blossom synagogue. a Reform synagogue several blocks from

St. James-Bond. David was also a member of the Board of Directors of the Chris

Jewish Dialogue of Toronto and a keen proponent of --gras-roots" congregation-

congregation dialogue. which had languished in North Toronto for some years. In

of 1994. David approached me. asking if 1 thought Si. James-Bond might be ready to

engage in a dialogue process with Holy Blossom. The people of Holy Blossom were

veterans of such encounters and had developed a process which they believed to be

reliable. at Ieast for initial dialogue encounters. If St. James-Bond agreed, the dialogue

would begin early in 1995 and run for several months. This would allow the sumrner for

planning and the autumn for the recruiting of participants. In its subsequent meeting. the

Pastoral Council of St. James-Bond received the proposal. agreed to participate. and the

die was cast.

Sixteen participants were sought from each congregation. A general invitation

was issued from the pulpit and through the various congregationd pnnt media at St.

James-Bond. and the spaces filled up rapidly. David Hart had 2 somewhat more difficult

time at Holy Blossorn. Perhaps remembering the events described earlier in this chapter

at the 1993 b u a l General Meeting of Toronto Conference and Rabbi Marmur's

scathing paper, "The United Church and Its Jcwish Problem." enthusiasm for dialogue

was initially limited at the synagogue. The historic suspicion of the Christian motives

underlying dialogue which have already been described came into play. and Da\-id

regularly received the response to his invitations that. '-we talk and we talk. and nothing

ever changes." In the end. the dialogue took place due in no small measure to David's

persona1 stature within his congregation. There was much at stake.

Holy Blossom's mode1 of dialogue was designed to bnng people from both

communities together for intimate dialogue over an extended time. The sixteen people

from each congregation were blended. then divided into four equal groups of eipht each.

Husbands and wives were encouraged to participate separately. The rabbi and minister of

the congregations were excluded from the small groups by design in order to discourage

an'. tendency on the part of lay participants to defer to the "professional" Christian or Jew

in their midst. There were to be three plenary sessions, two at the begiming and one at

the conclusion of the process. with the groups meeting in each other's homes. on

schedules and with topics of their own choosing. It was hoped that each group would

meet four times, approximately every other week.

The initial plenary sessions were for basic information on the respective faith

traditions. The first was held following Sunday moming worship at St. James-Bond.

with the Jewish participants anending and a kosher lunch provided afterwards. Rabbi

Marmur made the presentation on basic Judaism. Two weeks later. the pattern was

repeated at Holy Blossom following the Saturday morning service. On this occasion. 1

provided a basic lecture on the essentials of Christianity. The final plenary session uas

held in mid-May. after the holy seasons of Easter and Passover. and consisted of a wine

and cheese reception at St. James-Bond. with an informa1 evaluation of the programme

following.

The event was very well-received by participants frorn both the church and the

synagogue and a number of lasting friendships were forrned. It should be noted that

several members of the St. James-Bond group chose to be part of the action in ministry

the following year. It should also be noted that although it had hitherto been the custom

of Holy BIossom not to repeat a dialogue programme with the same congregation.

participants from both church and synagogue felt that this was the time to break with

tradition and try something new. Although the intimate. small group mode1 employed in

1995 has not been tried again. successive dialogue programmes have continued through

the year 2000. Each has consisted of presentations by Christians and Jews on issues or

texts of evident. common concem. frorn the place of money iri our lives to our respective

understandings of etemal life. to the comples and troubling story of the binding of Isaac

in the book of Genesis. In 1998 the programme was expanded to include the North

Toronto Roman Catholic Parish of Holy Rosary. and the year 2000 programme is to

include Muslim gurst participation in a study of "Peoples of the Book.'* Al1 this serves to

demonstrate that by 1996. at St. James-Bond. intertaith dialogue. parricularly Christian-

Jewish dialogue. was an accepted and valued elernent of the congregation's ministry and

mission and a suitable subject for an action in ministn;.

The Dialogue Theologian as Researcher

It wil! be obvious to the reader that my earlier disclaimer that much of the content

of this chapter falls more under a nibric of joumalism than of research was. if anything.

an understatement. Some M e r comment, perhaps even sorne justification conceming

this seems warranted.

The first thing to be said is that much of the material cited is available only

arnongst my own papers and correspondence received and generated while holding office

within the United Church of Canada. I t is thus "original source" material in the most

rudimentary sense. Given that research within a Doctor of Ministry programme not only

implies but demands a context. and that the first parameters of that context are defined by

the ministry of the researcher. that in itself seems entirely appropriate.

The next thing to be said is that such material. journalistic in tone though it may

be, is still of intrinsic worth in understanding the United Church of Canada and its

relations with the Jewish comrnunity. and by thus sening it down in a sustained narrative.

a base upon which to build later and more considered research has been established.

This leads to my next point. that the material bean directly on the project in two

ways. First, it adds shape and colour to what I have chosen to cal1 the "foreground" of

dialogue in this dissertation, senring to set the scene in which the action in ministp. takrs

place. Second. it exposes the obvious underlying bias in favour of dialogue ~vhich the

reader must keep in mind in exarnining the theological unde rp i~ ings of the action in

ministry, its formulation. construction and execution, its data collected. evaluated and

interpreted. and the implications of the study for the life of the wider church.

Nevertheless. the caveal applies. It is still too soon for a scholarl>~ assessment of

much the material 1 have employed in this chapter. Even the "Al Forrest Affair" of thirty

years ago is yet to be adequately assessed. although its impact is still keenly felt. as 1

have dernonstrated.

A M e r note on my own background is also in order. From its earliest days. rny

practice of ministry has included elements of dialogue. especially interchurch and

interfaith dialogue. As a student in the Faculty of Religious Studies of McGill Universit!.

in the early 1970's and under the tutelage of the Reverend Professors John Kirby and

George Johnston and Roman Catholic Sister Erin Malloy. 1 was inspired and instmcted in

dialogue with those of different denominations and of different faiths. Ml. tïrst esposurs

to Jewish tradition was in the annual Institute on Judaism sponsored by Temple

Emmanuel, now Temple Emmanuel Beth-Shalom. in Montreal. 1 was first on the staff of

the Centre Dialogue in Montreal from 1 974-75. and subsequentl y the c hairperson of its

board of directors. For over a decade 1 have engaged in forma1 and informa1 interfaith

dialogue in the congregational, presbytes. conference and national structures o f the

United Church of Canada. 1 currently represent my denomination on the Faith and

Witness Commission of the Canadian Council of Churches.

Some years ago. while studying "world religions" with Professor Ovey

Mohammed. a Jesuit of Regis College of the Toronto School of Theology. 1 was forcibly

struck by Professor Mohammed's encouragement that we should be striving to be

'-dialogue theologians." There are so many ways in which this might be understood. That

such a theologian is one who believes that. at the end of the twentieth century. theology

can only be undertaken thoroughly and with integrity in dialogue with the differing

strearns within one's own tradition and with the rnajority of the world's people who are

of other traditions is obvious. Yet. surely there is more and the definition can be pushed

deeper. At its deepest Ievel, the theologian must forever seek dialogue with God by

entering fully into the complex and messy business of being alive. Othenvise, theology

becomes monologue, dogma descends into cant. and religion becomes a force to darken

the Iife it is intended to enlighten.

1 have implicitly engaged in dia lope theology throughout my entire vocational

life; since that encounter with Professor Mohammed. 1 do so explicitly. convinced of the

intrinsic and pragmatic worth of dialogue no1 only in understanding rny neighbours. but

in bearing to them. and of them. faithtùl uitness. that together we might seek that which

is the common good according to our rnutual and individual understandings of the will of

God; but also that by doing so. 1 might corne to a greater appreciation of my own faith.

These are basic assumptions for me. They form a large part of what I bring to any

situation in ministry. But integrity demands that 1 have at least some sense of whether

these assurnptions are shared by those with whom and to whom 1 minister. Thus, my

research question took shape. To what extent are these assumptions, which 1 have

accorded the status of basic tmths. borne out in the practice of ministry? U%ut is rhe

experience of Chrisrians and Jews in dialogue?

It is this question which the action in ministry addresses. First. let us examine the

biblicaI and theological foundations upon which that action is grounded.

Chapter III

Non-defensive discipleship: A Christian Starting Point

" We are called to follow Jesus, not defend him. " - .4 Biblical Bmis fur DiuIogne."

In May of 1998. Rabbi Barry Levy. Dean of the Faculty of Religious Studies of

McGill University in Montreal. addressed delegates to the Annual General Meeting of the

Montreal and Ottawa Conference of the United Church of Canada on the subject of

Jubilee. In reflecting on the manner in which a comparatively obscure text from

Leviticus 25 was being appropriated by the Christian ecumenical community for its own

millemial purposes. Dean Levy noted that in the field of biblical studies. passages are

properly addressed from the perspectives of te.rr. textztre. contexi and prerext. TCXI rekrs

to the passage itself. taken at face value: textztre to its literary qualities: conte-rt to the

passage's historical and social milieu of origin: and pretexr to the manner and purposes

by which and to which the text is employed in Our generation. With respect to the last. it

should be noted that this is a far cry from proojlrexting, long the bane of Christian

apologists. Proof-texting employs scriptural passages for the purpose of argument with

no reference to texture or context.

Although literary issues are at rnost tangential to this action in ministry of

Christian-Jewish dialogue, the other three perspectives have and will figure prominently

both in the action in ministry and the biblical b a i s which supports it. For example. the

preceding chapters have dealt with both the background and foreground of the context in

102

which the action in ministry was undertaken. including specific contexts from the first to

the twentieth centuries in which tension between Christians and Jews has evolved and

escalated. The data from the action in ministry addressed in succeeding chaptrrs \viII

provide a text to be studied and from that will be denved a pretext. a way in which the

data may be employed to draw conclusions concerning potential dialogue between

Christians and Jews.

For the present exercise to be a study in ministry it must be grounded both

biblically and theologically. Each of the biblical texts employed as pretext share a

context. which is the late first century C.E.. afier the destruction of the Temple in

Jerusalem and during the early stages of Christian expansion from the Jewish to the

gentile worlds. The texts have been selected for their illustrative capacities. They serve C

to demonstrate a b a i s frorn the New Testament for the kind of "non-defensive

discipleship" which not only permits but promotes interfaith dialogue. This concept of

-'non-defensive discipleship" grew out of several conversations with the late Dr.

Katherine Hockin. United Church theologian and one-time China missionaq. shortly

before she died in 1994. To the proposition that Christians are not called to defend Jesus

but to follow him. Dr. Hawkin added that Christians are called to follow Jesus into

interfaith dialogue.

Actually. what we experience within the history of Christianity is a continuum of

sons. which begins with what might properly be termed inrrafaith dialogue. still the most

important element of the contemporary ecumenical movement. which extends to include

1 O3

the most radical of interfaith dialogue embodied by the United Church of Canada in the

concept of whole-world ecumenism contained in the document Mending the Wrld. ' The presence of intrafaith dialogue in the life of the church is seen most

drarnatically as the Jesus movement - still very much kvithin Judaism sven if --de\-iant" -

strives to determine the degree to which a person must be Jewish to be Christian. This is.

of course. the debate on circumcision. dealt mi th at such Iength in Acts and Galatians. In

Acts 10: 1 - 16 we are introduced to the story of Cornelius and Peter's drearn. in whicli

Peter has it forcibly demonstrated that "What God has made clean. you must not cal1

profane." (vs. 15) This drearn has such an impact on Peter that it becomes the substance

of Peter's report in Acts 1 1 : 1 - 18 to the church in Jerusalem conceming the acceptability

of gentiles into the church. This theme is reprised in the account of Paul and Barnabas

and the Council in Jerusalem in Acts 15: 1-35 and again from Paul's perspective in his

account of the Council in JenisaIem in Galatians 2: 1 - 10. an account which differs

drarnatically from that in Acts. and of his confrontation with Peter in Antioch over this

same issue of circumcision in Galatians 2: 1 i -3 1.

What we see in these passages is the profound debate between universalism and

particularism. which rernains rither a point of contention or of potential dialogue in both

intrafaith and interfaith dialogue and which is drawn in particularly sharp relief in

Christian-Jewish dialogue.

Mending the World was adopted by the General Council o f the United Church o f Canada in 1997 as a "lens" through which the church might assess its work. It called for a "whole-world" ecumenism, which acknowIedges God's active presence in the world's religions and seeks comrnon action for the sake o f God's creation.

With respect to intetfaith dialogue. the best example outside the gospels - granted

with a subtext of conversion - is the account found in Acts 17: 16 - 34 in which Paul is

debating in the Aereopagus in Athens. Here Paul offers his farnous discourse on the

'-unknowm god":

"Athenians, 1 see how extremely religious you are in every way. For as 1 \i.ent through the city and iooked carefully at the objects of your worship. 1 found arnong them an altar with the inscription 'to an unknown god.' What therstore you worship as unknown. this 1 proclaim to you." (vs. 23)

That which is proclaimed is the Gospel: Christ has died; Christ is risen: Christ

will corne again. It is to that gospel. open to both particularist and universaIist

interpretations. that 1 would turn now. Central to the gospel accounts is the Passion

narrative. The story of Jesus' arrest in Gethsemane is instructive. In John 18: 1 - 1 1 we

read :

After Jesus had spoken these words, he went out with his disciples across the Kidron Valley to a place where there was a garden, which he and his disciples entered. Now Judas. who betrayed him. also knew the place. because Jesus often met there with his disciples. So Judas brought a detachment of soldiers together ui th police from the chief priests and the Pharisees. and they came there with lanterns and torches and wcapons. Then Jesus- knowing al1 that was to happen to him, came forward and asked them. "Whom are you looking for?" And they answered. -'Jesus of Nazareth." Jesus replied. "1 am he." When Jesus said to them. -'I am he," they stepppd back and felI to the ground. Again he asked thern. -'Whom are you looking for?" .And they answered. "Jesus of Nazareth." Jesus answered. "1 told you that 1 am tie. So if you are looking for me. let these men go." This was to fulfill the word that he had spoken, "1 did not lose a single one of those whom you gave me." Then Simon Peter. who had a sword. drew it, struck the high priest's slave. and cut off his right ear. The slave's narne was Malchus. Jesus said to Peter, -'Put your sword back into its sheath. Am 1 not to drink the cup that the Father has given me?"

In John's account Jesus is. as usual with John. the one in charge of the situation.

Addressing those who have corne to arrest him. Jesus. far from demanding or even

expecting support from his disciples, identifies himself as the only one who needs to be

taken. When Simon Peter, with typical Petrine rashness. strikes out in Jesus' defense.

Jesus rebukes him, claiming for himself and himself alone the birter cup of suffering. In

each of the gospel accounts, Jesus rejects any attempt on the pan of his followers to comc

to his aid. Matthew. while not identifiing Peter. employs unmistakable images of

messiahship, and is the most explicit of d l . From Mattheu 26: 5 1 -54:

Suddenly, one of those with Jesus put his hand on his sword. drew it. and stmck the slave of the high priest, cutting off his ear. Then Jesus said to him. --Put your sword back into its place: for al1 who take the sword will perish by the sword. Do ?ou think that 1 cannot appeal to my Father. and he will at once send me more than twelve legions of angels? But how then will the scriptures be fulfilled. which Say it must happen in this way?"

The evangelists are clear: the only defense possible or necessary is God, and

God's purposes are to be served at al1 costs. even the death of Jesus himself. Jssus

neither requires nor desires that his followers defend him. but rather. as the texts

repeatedly demonstrate. that they folrcw him. That following was a radical business.

The story of the centurion's sentant is found in Luke 7. In this account. Jesus

receives a delegation of Jewish elders who have come to petition him on behalf of a

gentile. a Roman official. designated a centurion by the text. whose much-Ioved servant

is critically ill.

When they came to Jesus. they appealed to him eamestly. saying, "He is worthy of having you do this for him. for he loves our people. and it is he who built our synagogue for us." And Jesus went with them, but when he was not far from the house, the centurion sent friends to Say to him, "lord do not trouble yourself. for 1 am not worthy to have you come under my roof; therefore 1 did not presume to come to you. But only speak the word and let my servant be healed. For 1 also am a man set under authority, with soldiers under me; and 1 Say to one. 'Go,' and he goes, and to another Tome' and he cornes. and to my slave, 'Do this.' and the slave does it." When Jesus heard this lie was amazed at him. and turning to the

crowd that followed him. he said. '-1 tell you. not even in Israel have 1 found such faith." When those who had been sent returned to the house. they found the slave in good health.

Setting aside for the moment the fulsorne pro-Roman bias of the author of Luke-.4cts.

and the contrast in faith between the Jewish and non-Jewish communities in Jesus'

words. there are yet a number of significant points in the narrative. There is the

awareness and sensitivity of the not-quite-converted fiend of the Jewish community in

Capernaum. the centurion. who does not wish Jesus to be inconvenienced by the length!.

purification process which would be required afier a visit to a gentile home. More

importantly, there is the swifi and unhesitating response of Jesus to the need of both the

centurion and the servant - also. we might reasonably conjecture. a gentile - testi-ing to

the apostoIic conviction that the essence of the gospel message of God's love was

unrestricted by socio-cultural boundaries. This openness is pushed even fùrther in

Mark's story of the Syrophoenician woman's daughter.

In Mark 7. Jesus has undertaken an excursion beyond the bounds of both Judea

and Galilee. to the gentile region of Tyre. According to the text, in verses 24 - 30:

From there he set out and went to the region of Tyre. He entered a house and did not want anyone to know he was there. Yet he could not escape notice, but a woman whose little daughter had an unclean spirit immediately heard about him. and she came and bowed down at his feet. Now the woman was a gentile. of Syrophoenician origin. She begged him to cast the demon out of her daughter. He said to her. "Let the children be fed first. for it is not fair to take the children's food and throw it to the dogs.'. But she answered him, "Sir. even the dogs under the table eat the children's crumbs." Then he said to her, "For saying that, you may go - the demon has Iefi your daughter." So she went home. found the child lying on the bed. and the demon gone.

1 subscribe to the view that this is a '-conversion" point for Jesus himself - a moment of

revelation with the Syrophoenician woman as the agent of conversion. 1 take the "dogs"

discourse to be genuine, neither banter nor test as have sometimes been suggested. and

the wornan's response to have provided Jesus with an object lesson into the full breadth

o f his mission. Her daughter is freed from that which is possessing her. but there is mors.

This woman is not Jewish. but gentile: not only gentile. but Syrophoenician. Surely it is

not too much to imagine that: like characters we rneet in Genesis. she maintains her

pagan household shrine, and might cany the clay statues of her gods in her apron. Yet

Jesus responds to her and does so without the demand either that she convert to Judaisrn.

nor even that she give up her customs or her religion and follow him.

Perhaps we should not be surprised. for a careful reading of what some have

called Jesus' '-manifesial in Luke 4 might lead us to expect just such a response. In this

text, Jesus has returned to Nazareth. where. tradition and text maintain. he was raised as

apprentice to Joseph the arpenter. I t is the sabbath and Jesus has. following his custom.

gone to the synagogue. Here he reads from the scroll of the prophet Isaiah. From Luke

3:18 - 19:

"The Spirit of the Lord is upon me. because he has annointed me to bring good news to the poor. He has sent me to prodaim release to the captives and recovery of sight to the blind. to let the oppressed go free. to proclairn the year of the Lord's favour."

Jesus then "proof-texts," ernploying this passage as pretext for his own ministry. He

chooses to end his reading at lsaiah 6 1 : 2. not continuing the passage into its

proclamation of the day of God's vengeance on behalf of Israel. and the reestablishment

of the people thereof. He proceeds to declare Isaiah's vision to be his mandate. and

delivers himsetf of the "a prophet is not without honour Save in his own country'' speech

in verse 24.

He continues in verse 25:

But the truth is, there were many widows in Israel in the time of Elijah. when the heaven was shut up three years and six months. and there was a severe famine over al1 the land; yet Elijah was sent to none of them except to a widow at Zarephath in Sidon. There were also many lepers in Israel in the time of the prophet Elisha, and none of them was cleanssd sxcept Naaman the Syrian.

While it would be an error to assume that the first century church would have seen these

passages as legitimizing a late-twentieth century vision of interfaith dialogue. it is surely

not too much to observe that the apostolic witness in the contest of the gospels allows for

what Bishop Michael Ingharn has designated "grounded opemess." a concept to which I

sha1l r e m Iater in this chapter.

Perhaps the most intriguing passage concerns comments annbuted to the

historical figure of the first century Jerusalem-based rabbi. Gamaliel. In Acts 5 the

apostles are again brought before the High P+st and the Council. As usual. the apostles

succeeded in offenng offence to their questioners. but support for them came frorn a

startling source. In Acts 5: 34 - 39 we read:

But a Phaxisee in the council narned Gamaliel. a teacher of the law. respected by al! the people. stood up and ordered the men to be put outside for a shon time. Then he said to them. "Fellow Israelites. consider carefully what you propose to do to these men. For some time ago Theudas rose up. claiming to be somebody. and a number of men. about four hundred. joined him; but he was killed and al1 who followed him were dispersed and disappeared. Afier him, Judas the Galilean rose up at the time of the census and pot people to follow him: he also perished. and al1 who followed hirn were scattered. So in the present case 1 tell you. keep away frorn these men and let them alone: because if this plan or this undertaking is of hurnan ongin it will fail; but if it is of God you will not be able to overthrow them - in that case you may even be found fighting against God.

Here. at least. is a passage in which pretext may be ernployed. whether on the

basis of its sheer reasonableness. or because it has what translater J.B. PhiIlips has called

1 O 9

--the ring of tmth." Here we see the best of Christian openness expressed in the best of

Christianity's Jewish heritage. I f it lasts. there is a good chance God is involved

somewhere. Here is one test for determining whether a given religious tradition is one

~vhich might be engaged in dialogue: has it stood the test oftime? If so. then might not

God be at work arnong the adherents of the tradition in question? In this passage

demonstrating Gamaliel's acuity. Christian witness meets Jewish wisdom and suggests

that. for the Christian. there is at least an implicit scriptural foundation to engage in

interfaith dialogue. acknowledging as the United Church did through General Councils in

1936. 1966. 1977 and 1997 that God is active and at work in the various religious

traditions of humanity. Granted. Christians rnust be cautious in employing these texts as

a mandate for the kind of inter-reiigious dialogue which is emerging at the end of the

twentieth century. Nevertheless. and with honouring the text in light of its texture.

context and pretext. there is at least nothing which forbids s i ~ h dialogue and much that

would encourage it.

But what of the question of the uniqueness of Christ. of the conviction that Jesus

of Nazareth is the second person of the trinitarian God? Is there a theological position

consistent with this adrnittedIy conjectural scriptural foundation for interfaith dialogue? It

is to these questions that we must nest direct our attention.

"Paradoxical Inclusivisrn " as a Perspecrive for Dialogue

A disclaimer concernin~ theological refiection

110

John Hick is one of the leading figures in the study of world religions. Though

placing himself solidly within the Christian tradition. Hick is convinced of the validit?. of

other world religions. In .-l Chrisrian Theologr ofReligions. he notes the three basic

approaches within Chnstianity towards other religions: exclusir.isn~. ir~clrrsi\-isnz and

plurulism. The first two he defines with a bluntness that borders on the brutal.

Exclusivism. he says. "asserts that salvation is confined to Christians. -. (a position \$hich

is) a consistent and coherent one for those who c m believe that God condemns the

majority of the hurnan race. who have never encountered or who have not accepted the

Christian Gospel. to etemal damnation."' According to Hick. inclusivism .-acknowledges

that the salvific process is taking place throughout the world. within each of the world's

great faiths and also outside them. but insists that wherever it occurs it is the work of

Chnst."~Iuralisrn sees each world religion as one response to the divine among many.

the result of which is that each world religion "will gradually de-emphasize that aspect of

its teaching which entails its own unique superiority.""

The difficulty with Hick's work and that of his Roman Catholic disciple. Pau!

Knitter. is the implicit assurnption of the inherent superiority of pluralism. to the

exclusion. ironically. of other approaches. Time. of course. may prove them right

theologically and even ontologicallj~. perhaps. But the kind of dialogue which the

religious of the world are increasingly obliged to consider - thanks to the advent of the

"dobal - village" foreseen by Marshall MacLuhan - is not the elegant theologizing of the

' John Hick. A Chrisrian Theologv of Religions (Louisville: Westminster Press. 1995). p. 19.

Ibid.. p . 20.

' fbid., p- 20.

1 1 1

pluralistically minded of each tradition. Rather. it is a dialogue which must engage the

exclusivists and inclusivists of each tradition. In short. something nemr will need to

emerge, to be developed. out of the practice of dialogue itselfi dialogue which engages

those who are different rather than like-minded.

In his reflection on science and ethics. Imagined lhrids. physicist Freeman

Dyson projects a view of the short terrn future in which '*economic dislocations will

intensifL over the next ten years.. . this process of intensifiing inequalitp must somehow

be reversed. but the means for reversing it are not yet in sight.. . we shall need new

political institutions as well as new technologies."' In like manner. humanit) will require

new strategies. possibly even new structures for inter-religious dialogue, out of which

may emerge new theologies. But such new theologies will grow out of the practice of

dialogue. not from theoretical constmcts developed by even the most talented.

Part of the contextual reality of the United Church of Canada is its history of

"pushing the envelope" liturgically. ecclesiologically and theologically. In an article in

the January. 2000 edition of the h i r e d Chrwch Ohsenvr. 1 suggestsd that this is because

we are concerned. as a denomination. not so much with having a theology. but with doing

theology. This is not seen universally as either a blessing or a virtue. It does mean,

however. that the thrust of both this action in ministry and this thesis is not to articulate

an adequate theology for dialogue. nor even to develop one. but to contribute to a praris

from which one day such a theology may emerge. The resolution of the tensions among

Freeman Dyson. lmagined Worldr (Cambridge. MA: Harvard University Press. 1 997). p. 144.

112

the various approaches to world religions is. ufier alL a part of human spiritual rvolution.

and evolutior.. like dialogue itself. is full of surprises.

For a number of reasons, I have chosen for the rernainder of the chapter to refer to

the work of Bishop Michael Ingham of New Westminster. British Columbia on the

thernes of exclusivism. inclusivism and excIusivism, First. he writes out of a Canadian

theological context and with Canadian sensitivity to pluraiisrn. Second. 1 find him to be

somewhat less dogmatic in his approach than either Hick or Knitter. Third. I appreciats

his clarity of style. Finally. his approach grows out of the pastoral context. as does this

thesis.

In the autumn of 1984. on the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation's flagship

moming show. Morningside. host Peter Gzowski. Dean of Canadian broadcasters and.

according to the Chancellor of the University of Alberta. the "cartographer of the

Canadian soul," interviewed Roman Catholic theologian. Ham Küng. In drawing the

e'ttended and wide-ranging intenieu to a dose. Mr. Gzowski invited Küng to offer his

thoughts on our present and troubled age. Afirr a pause. Küng replied that in the end. the

historians of the hture might look back at this in many ways terrible century not so much

as an age of war and gztlag and holocaust. but as that moment in history when the world's

great faiths first began to talk to one another.

Now it must be said that Father Küng. depending upon one's perspective. is either

on the cutting edge of Roman CathoIic theology or bordering on the heretical. In this

comment to Gzowski, however. he is cenainly operating well within the publicly

expressed outlook of his tradition during the last half of this century. Even the most

113

consemative reader of .bsrru ilerare. the Second Vatican Council's document concerning

peoples of other faiths. and Lumen Gentium. the Council document which provides a

ChristoIogical foundation for :Vosrra .defate, must acknowledge an explicit openness to

the religious other and to the v e p real presence of God in the reIigious life and practict:

of non-Christians. At the Riva de1 Garda meeting of the World Conference on Religion

and Peace in 1994. no Iess orthodox a Roman Catholic than John Paul 11 plaqxd an acti~ss

role. Significantly. that role was as a participant. not as the presumptive leader of the

religious. nor even the Christian world. From this meeting emerged the Rivu del GLII'LICI

Declaration, a cal1 for a gIobal ethic endorsed by al1 the participants. including the

Church of Rome. Whatever the next century may bring. it seems that Father Küng is

right about the end of this one: God's spirit is blowing a wind of change among the

world's religions. Liberal Protestants who are surprised by such Roman openness might

consider the strange case of Father Feeney.

Father Leonard Feeney \vas the founder of the Slaves of the Immaculate Heart of

~Mar).. but he staned out as a Jesuit. He did not leave the Society of Jesus Lvith the

divinely inspired intent of founding a ne\\. religious order. He left because he was

espelled by the Father General of the Jesuits in New England for having accused

Cardinal Cushing of Boston of heresy. It seems that Cardinal Cushing had allowed that

salvation could be found outside the Roman Catholic Church. and this was too much for

Father Feeney. Father Feeney. a teacher of a conservative group of young Catholics at

the St. Benedict Centre in Cambridge. Massachusetts held firmly to the most literal

interpretation of the medieval doctrine of '*exrra ecclesiam nulla salus, " or "no salvaiion

1l - i

ozmide the chztrch. '' So intmsigent in his convictions was Father Feeney that.

following his 1949 condemnation of Cardinal Cushing. his refusal to leave his tcaching

ministry, and his expulsion from the Society of Jesus. he was escommunicated b>- Pope

Pius XII in 1953.

In 1972. shortly before his death. Father Feeney was reconciled with the Roman

Catholic Church. rather in the manner of a Soviet dissident returning from a p l u g In the

end. the reconciliation. or perhaps more accuratel?. rehabilitation. was appropriatrly

Jesuitical in formulation. It was decided that Father Feeney would not be required to

retract his literal interpretation of the church's doctrine.' In retrospect. the issue seerns to

have been not so much doctrinal as ecclesiastical. It was Father Feeney's attack on

Cardinal Cushing and. by estension. the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith. that

led to his estrangement with his church. But his case is illustracive of the compiesity of

interdenominational and inter-religious dialogue in the late twentieth century. There is a

new wind blowing. and in Sulr.uriot7 Oztrsidc the ChztrchI7. Francis Sullivan. himself a

Jesuit. attempts to wrestle with the apparent anomal!, of a universalist church recognizing

religious tmth to exist outside of its mogisrrrirrrn. The question is critical not only for

Roman Catholics, nor indeed onl!. for Christians. but for any who struggle with the

tensions of exclusive tmth in a pluralist world.

It must be acknowiedged here that there has long been a wiiiingness within the

Roman Catholic Church and particuladj. within the Jesuit order to wrestle with the

implications of cultural and religious pluralism. One need only recall. for exarnple. the

Francis A. Sullivan. Sc~fvation Outside the Chrwch? (Mehweh. N.J.: Paulist Press. 1992). p. 3.

I l 5

Jesuit approaches to mission and contextual theology in India. Japan and China over

several centuries.

An apocryphal rabbinical conundrurn springs to rnind. A revered rabbi. reno~ined

for sound judgement. is approached by petitioners representing two unerly divergent

views on the same point of la\\-. Afier hearing the first petitioner. the rabbi pauses b r

reflection, nods sagely, and declares. --You are right." The second petitioner protests that

the rabbi has yet to hear his argument and the rabbi turns to listen to the counter-

arguments. Again the rabbi. having attended to the second presentation. pauses for

reflection. nods sagely, and declares. T e s . you're right." A disciple of the rabbi csclaims

in amared frustration. "But Rabbi. they can't both be right!". to which the rabbi replies.

"You're nght!" Herein lies the dilemma of the believing Christian, though not necessaril!.

the observant Jew. It is not too great a characterization to suggest that. historically at

least. Christianity has been concemed primari ly with orrhodo.yy. while J udaism has been

concerned primarily with orrhopi-ai.. As a Christian. 1 can comment only upon my own

tradition. and any such comment must begin with an acknowledgement of diversity

within the Christian world. a diversity which transcends denominational lines.

A cartoon from the Glohc und .Md is illustrative. In the cartoon. entitled "God at

the Shopping Mall."a disreputable youth and a ~~enerabie. bearded ancient are exarnining

separate map boards of the facility. The one facing the young reprobate is labeled. "You

are Here." with the spot indicated. The one before the old man representing God is

labeled. "You are Everywhere." and littered with multiple arrows.

Some Christians would intsrpret this as a tvitty affirmation of the omnipresence ot'

the divine. so powerfully captured in the psalms. Others would see this as a sign of

God's presence in al1 of humanity's religious endsavours. Still others ~vould seek a i.iti

media. At the end of the twenrieth century. the three principal positions amont

Christians towards other religions are. as noted earlier. best described as the e-v~i~i.si~-c. the

incirisive and the piuralisr. In his 1997 "primei' on interfaith dialogue. ~l/rrn.sions ol'rlw

Spirit: the Gospel in a Mulfi-fuith World. Bishop Michael Ingham provides useful

thumbnail sketches of these three positions.

From a Christian perspective. Ingham writes. exclusivism is '-the position Lvhich

holds that such tmth as can be known about God has been h11y revealed in Jesus

~ h r i s t . " ~ He expands:

--Exclusivism is based on the belief that Jesus Christ is the final and complets revelation of God. and that he represents an absolute point of faith from which no Christian c m depart. Human saivation has been won by Christ on the cross and by him alone. There is no other narne by tt-hich we may be saved (Acts 4: 12). Faith in his atoning death and redemptive resurrection is the only path to eternal life. There cannot therefore be many paths to God. for it is this particular path that has been opened up for us by God hirnse~f."~

This. of course. is the position held by the unfortunate Father Feeney. albeit with

the additional exclusi~.ist particdarit) of insisring that the path in question could be found

only within the bounds of the Roman Catholic communion. The comparable Protestant

particularity eschews the church. visible or invisible. as rnediatrix. opting instead for the

formulation found in the 1974 Declararion of Lausanne:

"There is only one redeemer and only one Gospel.. . We repudiate as

8 Michael Ingham, Mansions ofrhe Spirir (Toronto: Anglican Book Centre, 1997). p. 5 1 9 lbid, p. 51

a slight on Jesus Christ and on the Gospel any syncretism and any dialogue uphich daims that Jesus Christ speaks equally through al1 rehgions m d ideoiogies. Jesus Christ. true man and true God. gave himself as the soie redemption for sinners. He is the only mediator between God and man. And there is no other name by which we are saved. Al1 men and women are lost in their sin. But God Io\.es everyone. He does not will that anyone should be Iost, but that e\.ep.one should repent. However. those that reject Jesus Christ scorn the jo'. of sal\mion and thus condemn themselves to eternal separation frorn ~ 0 d . l '

In the Lausanne Declaration. the exclusivity of Jesus Christ is declaimed in personal

rather than institutional terms.

There are many and significmt difficulties with the exciusivist position. There

are. as has already been demonstrated earlier in this chapter. sound biblical arguments to

support a more latitudinarian interpretation of Christ and of his mission. Furthemore.

Our increasing understanding of the fields of biblical. literary and historical criticism. not

to mention insights from the relatively new discipline of sociology. demand a more

cornplex view of Christianity than allowed for by exclusivity. Our growing

understanding of Our non-Christian neighbours in the global vil1;gc has led to a greatcr

appreciation in rnany Christians for the rich religious heritage and deep faith evident in

both the doctrines and the adherents of the world's great religions. And. as Bishop

Ingharn notes. "The problem with esciusivism is that it presents us with a god from who

we need to be delivered rather than the living God who is the hope of the world."" He

waxes eloquerit on the subject:

"The excIusivist god is narrow. rigid and blind. This god pays no attention to the sanctity and persona1 holiness of people outside the Christian fold.. .This god is compassionate only towards Christians (and. if we are honest, only towards certain kinds of Christians) and is obsessed with the conviction that everyone in

10 lbid. p. 53

" lbid.. p. 6 1

the world must become like these Christians or else they will be forever cursed.. . This theology.. . compromises the mercy and love of God.. . it forces us into the unwanted and unnecessary position ofchoosing either to abandon belief in the God who creates al1 and who loves a11 even beyond death. or to abandon thosr outside the Christian faith to a hopeless and tragic destiny. '' It seems impossibIe that genuine diaIogue might occur when either part? holds to

an exclusivist position. Courtesy there may be aplenty: but save for bIcltant hypocris!- or

the most convoluted sophistry the ultimate aim of an- such conversations must bt:

proseiytisrn. Inclusivity preserves niore options.

Once again. Bishop Ingham is clear in his definitions. Inclusivism. he \\-rites.

"atternpts to hold together two biblical principles that on the surface appear to be

contradictory. One is that God makes possible the salvation of al1 people. The second is

that salvation is possible through Christ alone."" Bishop Ingham finds the most extensive

arguments for the inclusivist position in relatively recent documents emerging from

Roman Catholicism. He cires the work of' the second Vatican Council. which recognized

with respect the truth which ma\- br found in non-Christian religions, and the 196 1

lecture by Karl Rahner. who introduced the idea of "anonymous Christians" into

theological discourse. Both positions have their foundations in the work of Paul: the

latter in Acts 17. in which Paul inierprets the statue of the "unknown god" to the

.4thenians: the former in Paul's arduous labours in his letter to the Romans preserving the

sanctity of God's covenantal relationship wi th Judaism.

Concerning Rahner's ideas. Ingham ~ t ~ i tes:

"This is a novel idea and on the face of it holds some promise for those tvho u i sh to rernain faithful to the biblical proclamation of salvation through Christ alone and who also wish to see the sphere of God's redemption include al1 people of faith and good will. Rahner suggests that a person living outside the church. xvho leads an exemplary life and desires to know God. is redeemed by Christ on the cross even though this person is incapable of knowing it.. . Salvation is therefore not lirnited to Christians. Yet only Christians h o u . its true dimensions, and hou it has been won.'""

Ingham continues by demonstrating that there are appealing e1emen:s in the

inclusivist position. but also certain problems. He cites a certain presumptuousness and

even religious imperialisrn not qualitatively different from esclusivism and also notes

that. logically. just as Rahner can speak of anonymous Christians. so the adherents of

other religious traditions could speak of anonymous Muslims. Jews. Buddhists. Hindus

ad infinirum and. ultimately. ud absrtrdum. Still. 1 do not dismiss the inclusivist position

too liglitly and will Iater retum to a further variance or nuance upon it.

Pluralism is the third position. Ingham notes that:

"(Pluralism) has many forrns and champions. but al1 pluralists agree that there are diverse paths to God. and that God is active among spiritual traditions outside Christianity. Al1 forms of pluralism arise from the belief that religions represent human perceptions of the m!stery we cal1 God. that al1 religions are hliman constructs. and therefore limited and falli ble. and that the? necessari1~- retlect the culture. worldvieu. and thouoht forms of the people who at different times and places have produced them .S.'

Ingharn observes that there are those \vho see:

". . .religious pluralism as more than simply an historical fact, but as the evident will of God for humankind. It is a view arising from the understanding that the religions of the world are relatively stable vis à vis one another. that they appear in general to be satisfjhg to their followers. and that there is little objective evidence to demonstrate the preeminence of one over the others.. . Pluralism also arises from the deep desire to move beyond both exclusivism and inclusivism.. . It

seeks to create a climate of mutual tolerance and resprct. an end to religious competitiveness and smggle, to overcome violence and reciprocal suspicion. and to enter into a new humility and openness to others without condescension or paternalisrn." l6

Pluralism is not without its obvious attractions and it has able. articulate and convincing

champions: John Hick among Protestants and Paul Knitter among Roman Catholics.

Nevertheless, like exclusivism and inclusivism. it, too. is flawed.

In the first instance pluralisrn. as understood by Ingham and articulated by Hick

and Knitter, at best lirnits and at worst eliminates the expenence, albeit subjective. of

revelation. If religions are exclusively human constructs attempting to explain the

mystery which is God, it stands to reason that God is then exclusively to be sought rather

than seeking. Furthermore. in that Christianity is based so much upon revelation, there is

an inherent risk in pluralism of reducing Christianity to ethical humanism grounded in

Judaism. In this case, it could easily be suggested that Christianity is not simply an

offshoot of Judaism, but clearly and in al1 respects supercessionist. Of course. this

struggle with how to address the question of promise and filfillment while avoiding the

"replacement" issues of supercessionism is primarily a concern for Jews and Christians

and. to a lesser extent, Christians and Muslims. There is also a sense in which pluralism

is somewhat unsatiseing psychologically. If al1 is sacred. then nothing is sacred. Lastly.

given the traumatic history of religious discord. pluralism may simply be naive.

In this fast instance, Ingharn hirnself is helpful:

". . .the central weakness of the pluralist position.. .(is) in its attempt at generosity and openness, it fails to establish any noms for judging other religions to be true. It falls prey to its own insistence rhat there is no standpoint other than God's by

which we may daim absoluteness for our own position as Christians.. . Pluralism appears unable to discriminate between healthy and unhealthy religious beliefs.. . Pluralism seems to entail a suspension of judgement about truth and falsehood within and between the world's religions.. . By treating al1 religions as equd. pluralists may have abandoned any ground for regarding some doctrines as evil and to be opposed.""

Thus. each of these positions, exclusivism. inclusivism and pluralism seem plagued with

critical flaws. Yet one or another must still be provisionally adopted. modified to be sure.

if any dialogue solidly grounded in one's religious tradition is to be achieved.

The exclusivist, 1 believe, eliminates itself. The Wesleyan Quadrilateral,

theoiogicaily normative if nominally practiced within the United Church of Canada,

when applied to the exclusivist school illustrates in biblical, traditional, experiential and

reasonable terms the inadequacy of this position. 1 have, in some measure, dernonstrated

this in the earlier sections of this chapter.

On the other extreme. the pluralist position is too easily vulnerable to the surgical

application of Occam's razor. Thus, we retum to some variant of the inclusivist position.

CS. Lewis, in Mere Christianity. offers an attractive if somewhat fanciful variant to

Rahner's concept of anonymous Christians. In a chapter entitled "The Obstinate Toy

Soldier," Lewis asks his reader to return in imagination to childhood. Recalling the tin

soldiers which were at one time so popular, at l eu t among little boys, Lewis asks his

readers if they, like him, had ever imagined what it would be like if the toys could

actually corne to life. Any anthropomorphic toy would do. of course.

But suppose, Lewis asks. this were to happen m d the toy didn't like it? "The tin

soldier is not interested in flesh.. .al1 he sees is that the tin is being spoilt. He thinks you

are killing him. He will do everything he can to prevent you. He will not be made into a

man if he c m help it."I8

This, Lewis says. is precisely analogous to the relationship between God and

humanity at the time of the Incarnation. God wishes people to be so much more than we

are willing to become. Lewis does not presume to know what we might do overe we God

and faced with such a situation. What God did about it. Lewis contends. was to become a

hurnan being. "The result of this was that you now had one man who really was what al1

men were intended to be.. . One tin soldier - real tin, just like the rest - had become fully

and splendidly alive."lg

At this point Lewis demonstrates an insight which is bioIogically,

anthropologically and spiritually satisS>ing, as much to the exclusivist as to the pluralist:

"...here, of course, we corne to the point where my illustration about the tin soldier breaks down. In the case of real toy soldiers or statues. if one came to life, it would obviously m&e no difference to the rest. They are al1 separate. But human beings are not. They look separate because you see them walking about separately. But then. we are so made that we cm see only the present moment. If we could see the past, then of course it would look different.. .if you could see humanity spread out in time. as God sees it. it would not look Iike a lot of separate things doned about. It would look like one single growing thing - rather like a very complicated tree. Every individual would appear comected to every other. And not only that. Individuals are not really separate fiom God any more than fiom one another.. .Consequently. when Christ becomes man it is not as if you could become one particular tin soldier.. .It is as if something which is always affecting the whole hurnan mass.. . begins to affect that whole hurnan mass in a new way.. .the effect spreads.. . It makes a difference to those who lived before Christ as well as to those who Iived after him. It makes a difference to people

l7 lbid., p. 83

" C.S. Lewis, Mere Chrisfianiiy (New York: MacMillan. l96O), p. 1 54.

'' lbid, p. 155

humanity spread out in time, as God sees it, it would not look like a lot of separate things dotted about. It would look Iike one single growing thing - rather like a very complicated tree. Every individual would appear connected to every other. And not only that. Individuals are not really separate from God any more than from one another.. .Consequently, when Christ becomes man it is not as if you could become one particular tin soldier.. .It is as if something which is always affecting the whoie human mass.. .begins to affect that whole human mass in a new way.. .the effect spreads.. . It makes a difference to those who lived before Christ as well as to those who lived after him. It makes a difference to people who have never heard of him. It is fike dripping into a glass of water something which gives a new taste or a new d c u r to the whole lot."20

Lewis then adds a quite proper disclaimer, noting that "none of these illustrations works

perfectly.. . In the long run God is no one but Hirnself and what he does is like nothing

If pressed, 1 would cal1 this approach "existential inclusivism." 1 find it helpful,

but stilf not adequate as a basis for dialogue, although in some measure it does eliminate

the Protestant reservations about the more institutional, church-centered inclusivism of

Rahner.

Some approaches adopt aspects of pluralism, but remain in essence inclusivist. In

T'e to You: Living our Faith in a MuZti-minded World, religious author and researcher

Donald Posterski urges Chxistians to embnce cipied pied p!~isrn . '9u Posterski argues

that this approach recognizes pluralism as the dominant reality in the modem world and

urges Christians to recognize the right to choice of others out of civility on the one hand,

and in order to c i a h the same rights on the other. He argues convincingly that

"adversarial evangelism" wil1 be failed evangelism. He argues M e r in good Pauline

'Olbid, p. 155

" Ibid, p. 157

Donald Posterski, True To You (Wmfield, BC: Woodlake Books. 1999, p. 155

124

argues that, "The knowledge of God is not given through the intellect but through

revelation, and revelation is specific to the culture and thought forms of the world's

various peoples."23 Furthemore, *'the knowledge of God can only come through

comrnitrnent to particular forms and is not available universally or abstra~t l~." '~ Thus. the

person of real faith must be grounded in their own religious tradition, yet open to the

truth in that of others. At first blush this might sound suspiciously close to the message

to the Church of Laodicea so roundly condernned in the Book of Revelation for its

lukewarm, uncommitted faith. Not so; for Bishop Ingham hm not neglected a critical

element in this discussion. That element is p a r a h The whole edifice of Christian

doctrine rests upon the foundation of paradox. Consider the central tenet of the

Incarnation: Christ is fuZZy human andfirlly divine. D.M.Baillie pursues the implications

of paradox to christology to great effect in his classic. God Was In Christ. Shall we deny

ourselves the theological tool of paradox in engaging in interfaith dialogue?

It is impossibIe to live in peace with Our neighbours if we invoke ngid

exclusivism. It is impossible to witness as Christians without the universality of Christ.

Is Christ universally salvific? Yes. 1s God present hl ly and sufficiently in my

neighbour's religion? Yes. How? That is God's problem; our problem is to learn to live

with this paradox, just as we Christians have had to learn to live with others, equally

difficult, for two millennia. Paradox. or '-paradoxical inclusivity," gives Iife to Lewis' tin

7 '> -- Donald Posterski, Tme To You (Winfield, BC: Woodlake Books, 1995), p. 155

13 Ingham, p. 120

Ibid.

soldier, makes possible Posterski's pnncipled pluralisrn, and allows us to live with our

neighbours in an attitude of grounded openness. A practical illustration may be in order.

In September of 1998, on the occasion of the Thirty-Fifùi Anniversary of the

Ottawa Lay School of Theology, Michael Ingham delivered an address entitled. "Is

Tolerance Enough? New Hopes and New Obstacles to Religious Unity." In it he offered

the following:

"American composer Charles Ives had the unusual ability to carry two tunes in his head at the same time. He could literally hear distinctly different compositions simultaneously without losing track of them. Can modem Christians l e m to sing two religious tunes at the sarne time? Can we sing the Song of the Christian tradition, the Nicene Creed, the hymns, songs and poetry of our ancient and Iovely tiadition, which proclaims Jesus Christ as redeerner of the world and saviour of al1 humanity - and can we at the same time sing the Song of an interfaith movement. which proclaims the saving activity of God in other ways, an infinite variety of ways, in this diverse and complex world? . . . one will be a Christocentric . . . the other will be a Theocentric Song.. . If you Say this is intellectually dishonest, that these songs are inharmonious and incompatible, a blasphemy against Christ. then 1 would Say. try it and see. God works much more effectively through music than theology in my experience.""

And so on to the action in ministry. to hear two songs in one particular context.

'J Michael Ingham. "1s Tolerance Enough." address to the Ottawa Lay School of Theology, September 14, 1998.

Chapter IV

The Origins, Design and Methodology of the Action in Ministry

The Origins and Design of the Action in Ministv

Bishop Ingham's challenge to contemporary Christians to Ieam to sing two songs

at the same time resonates very loudly within me. In a sense it describes the passion

which motivated this action in ministry and al1 the work that has gone into it. It has

become a kind of leifmotifin ministry for me.

The process underlying the Doctor of Ministry degree and the action in ministry

which lies at the heart of it begins with a question, a question about which the researcher

feels some degree of passion. This question is understood to have arisen from within the

researcher's experience and context of ministry. If the whole of that ministry were to be

represented on a pie chart. then the researcher is required to identify a wedge of that chart

to represent a particular aspect of ministry. Then the process of sharpening and refining

begins.

From the relatively large wedge which defines that aspect of rninistry a thin

segment is almost surgically sliced. a segment adequately defined so as to be subject to

manageable research. This focus of this segment is sharpened and re-sharpened until a

clear question emerges, one which may be explored in an action in rninistry research

project. That question and the process by which it will be answered is an integral part of

the Doctor of Ministry project.

In light of the earlier chapters of this D. Min. thesis. it will corne as no surprise

that the aspect of ministry which 1 chose to investigate was interfaith dialogue and that

the thin segment within that aspect would be Christian-Jewish dialogue. Initially 1 was

concerned with the issue of Christian witness in a pluralistic society. My first tentative

and very broad question was how one rnight witness to one's own faith with integrity

while actively pursuing dialogue and reconciliation with peoples of other religions. This

was an issue of evangelism with integrity. It soon becarne apparent, however. that there

were two discrete issues in ministry implicit in this: evangelism and interfaith dialogue.

It was necessary to choose. At least. so it seemed. But the Reverend Dr. Bruce

Gregerson, the Interfaith Dialogue Officer of the United Church of Canada offered a new

perspective on the apparent tension between dialogue and evangelism - at least, new to

me.

In the auturnn of 1994. the Billy Graham Evangelistic Association accepted an

invitation from a loose coalition of Toronto area churches to undertake a "mission" in

June of 1995 at Toronto's Skydome. A nurnber of United Church clergy were

enthusiastic supporters of the project. In my role as Past-President of the Toronto

Conference of the United Church, I undertook the task of bringing together these

supporters of the Graham Mission .and those who were skeptical, if not actually opposed

to the event. It eventually became my task, assigned by the Moderator of the United

Church, Marion Best, to express our denornination's concem over the somewhat negative

depiction of other world religions in some Graham promotional films.

Dr. Gregerson provided expertise in a nurnber of contexts in which more activel!.

evangelical leaders within the United Church met with more liberal leaders to discuss

involvement in the mission. During the course of one of those meetings and in several

private conversations 1 held with him. Dr. Gregerson argued very effectively that

evangelism and interfaith dialogue are not only inseparable, but they are essentially the

same thing. In some respects, this is hardly a new thought. Christians of al1 stripes have

long paid lip service to the pnnciple that the task of the Christian is to witness to that

which we have received. the Gospel of Jesus Christ. If it is anyone's task to convert. it is

God's. Christian coercion twists the gospel into its diarnetric opposite: bad news rather

than good. Given the nature of the world at the end of the twentieth century, Dr.

Gregerson argued that the majority of Christian witness in the most accurate sense of the

term would be in the context of interfaith dialogue. The application of this perspective is

evident in the document, Bearhg Faithful Wi~ness, not least in its very title.

The two great passions of my ministry have been witness and dialogue.

Dr. Gregerson's observations united them in a single theme, played in two meIodies

simultaneously. But having reconciled the tension between witness and dialogue, it was

still necessary to sharpen the focus of the project: interfaith dialogue was too thick a

segment for examination, but Christian-Jewish dialogue, within the confines of a

narrowed context seemed both appropriate and manageable.

It was at this point, in the winter of 1994-95, that the Reverend William Lord.

Director of Continuing Education for the Toronto School of Theology, made his first

contribution of many. 1 had begun the D. Min. programme in September of that year

and, during the course of reviewing my Individuai Learning Plan which outlined my

intentions and goals for the programme, he wondered what might happen if a small group

of Chnstians and a small group of Jews were brought together in a highly structured

dialogue event. He suggested the event might be built on similar principles to those

sometimes employed in maniage counseling or conflict resolution. It was not that

conflict was to be anticipated, but rather that discipiined and sensitive techniques might

serve dialogue well, given the demands upon the participants both to articulate their own

stones clearly and to listen attentively to those of their dialogue partners.

Both the passion and the project had bren clearly articulated. The refinement of

the project and its myriad detail would unfold in the work of the Collaborative Leaming

Group at the Toronto School of Theology and of the Minis~y Base Group within the

context of my practice of ministry. The former. consisting of my peers in the D.Min.

programme. would be the arena in which 1 developed both the research question and the

methodology to undertake that research. The latter, made up of individuals from within

my ministry context, would be the place in which the theory developed in the

Collaborative Learning Group would be tested against the reality of the context of

ministry and in which the details of the actual action in ministry developed.

1 took great care in building my Ministry Base Group. Diversity and plurality

being, by definition, an integral part of dialogue, it seemed to me that diversity must be

an essential element in the group's membership. This does not imply a desire for

diversity for its own sake; rather. a diversity that would add both breadth and depth to the

development of the action in ministry.

The core of the Ministry Base Group was to corne fiorn the ministry base itself.

the congregation of St. James-Bond. in which 1 had served as minister for three years.

Four people were invited. HeIen Strasser was a long-time member of St. James-Bond. a

dedicated chorister, and among the solid core of church members. She brought to the

group a sense of comrnunity rnemory - both the church comrnunity and the

neighbourhood.

Paul Davidson. a young man in his thinies. and relatively new to the

congregation. brought a wealth of experience. including a strong church background.

intercultural experience in South Africa and professional experience as a consultant to

goverment and business.

Ellie Van den Berg, married to Paul. was at the time serving with the Anglican

Church of Canada, as a staff member of the Primate-s World Relief and Development

Fund. Her strong sense of social justice was matched by a theological acuity brought

with her fiom her upbringing in the Dutch Reformed Church.

The Reverend Dr. Roy Wilson was a retired United Church minister of national

distinction, with a cc.~mitnenl; to developing a relationship of integrity with the Jewish

cornmunity and honouring the Jewish roots of Christianity while at the sarne time

rnaintaining strong friendships within the Palestinian community in Israel and on the

West Bank of the Jordan. He brought. too. a thorough understanding of United Church

polity.

It seemed wise, given the nature of my research interest. to broaden my definition

of the ministry base to include members of the wider cornmunity. One of the criticisms

sometimes leveled against the United Chwch of Canada is a tendency to press the

boundaries of Christian doctrine and practice without due regard to other Christian

cornrnunities - not only to live on the cutting edge of Christian theology. but occasionally

to tip Gver that edge. With this in mind 1 invited a more conservative Christian colleague.

Elizabeth Thomson. Director of Christian Education at Rosedale Presbyterian C hurch.

Elizabeth was also a teacher at Branksom Hall. a prestigious girls' school. which was

entering a transitional phase in which its Christian roots were being challenged by a more

pluralistic world view. The challenge was being posed in part by a recently appointed

principal who was Jewish.

I t seemed self-evident that a project focusing on Christian-Jewish dialogue should

erow from a ministry base group which contained strong Jewish representation. To that - end. Professor Eric Mendelsohn and Rabbi Lawrence Pinsker agreed to be part of the

group. Professor Mendelsohn is a mathematician with the University of Toronto, a

commentator on the Reconstructionist Prayer Book. and a past-president of his

synagogue. We had been introduced through an article which he had \\ntten for the

United Church Observzr.

Rabbi Pinsker. of Darchei .Voam, brought not only the great wealth of knowlrdgc:

which is the hallmark of the rabbi. but a special interest in Jewish-Christian relations.

This interest had been honed in practice through his extensive involvement in Christian-

Jewish dialogue in the United States and in theory through a scholarly fascination with

Jewish-Christian relations in the first century. Through the Toronto Board of Rabbis. he

was a Canadian Jewish Congress director of the Christian-Jewish Dialogue of Toronto.

Last, in the valued role of "third party." was Amir Hussein. a member of the

Sunni Muslim community. Amir was completing a doctoral degree in religious studies at

the University of Toronto and brought extensive esperience in interfaith dialogue. He

was active in the World Conference on Religion and Peace. Toronto Branch. and kvas

also a regular consultant and ecumenical observer at regional and national courts of the

United Church of Canada. Not the Ieast of Amir's contributions was to remind us al1 that

inter-religious dialogue was of more than biIateral concern.

This group met monthly from January of 1995 until June of 1996 and. with the

Collaborative Leaming Group, provided me with two distinct yet complementary design

studios in which to develop my action in ministry. Each made significant contributions.

The latter was the context in which I became abIe to translate rny passion into a single.

focused research question. The former becarne the workshop in which the project site

and the design of the project itself were devetoped.

The nature of the research question was of paramount importance. It needed to be

clear succinct. comprehensive and above all. it had to be answerable. TransIating a

passion in ministry into such a question is no mean feat. Drafi afier draf was presented

to the Collaborative Learning Group. only to be deemed problematic: in almost every

instance because the question as I was attempting to frame it lacked the n e c e s s q

precision to be contained within manageable boundaries.

In the end. I found that 1 had to return to my beginnings: that is to Say. 1 had to

return to my basic assumptions about this dual passion for witness and dialogue which

had been resolved into the overarching passion of faithfùl witness in dialogue. For

virtually al1 my adult life and certainly al1 of my life in ministry. 1 had been operating on

the assumption that dialogue was not only intrinsically beneficial. but critical for the

further spintuai development of humanity. possibly even for our survival as a species. 1

accepted as given Dr. Ham Küng's maxim that. "there will be no peace without peace

arnong religions."' My experience of dialogue oïer the years in a variety of contexts and

with a variety of groups had been invariably positive. Was it so for others? 1 realized that

1 now had my research question: Ctihat is the experirnce of Christians and Jews i~

dialogue? This fundamental question would be refined by the exigencies of the ministry

base and by the Iimits imposed by the model of dialogue ultimately developed for the

action in ministry. Granted, 1 would need to work with a limited number of Christians

and Jews operating within a closed system. Nevertheless. I would be able. within

reasonable limitations, to glean qualitative data on how one Croup people experienced

one rnodel of dialogue from which to extrapolate some of the values and problems

inherent in at least that model. Furtherrnore. because the dialogue process was itself so

critical to the action in ministry, 1 would be able to gain some sense as to whether the

dialogue mode1 empioyed might be translatable to other contexts.

To examine the experience of Christians and Jews in dialogue. it was necessaq to

provide an opportunity for that dialogue to take place. That opportunity was designed

almost entirely within the Ministry Base Group. As 1 noted earlier. William Lord had

suggested a basic approach. The dialogue event which would constitute the action in

ministry would operate on the strict principles of listening and clarification inherent in

the disciplined approaches to conflict resolution in counseling. It was Ieft to determine

participants. a site or sites. and to refine the basic approach into a model for dialogue.

This basic approach should be thought of not so rnuch as a conflict resolution

model. but rather as analogous to a conflict resolution model in its structural rigidity and

enformced civility of process. It must be acknouledged that there are extant. a wide

variety of dialogue models, several of which were described and cornmented upon in the

preceding chapter. In recent years. growing concem with the increasing de facto

pluraiism of the modem world has resulted in numerous experiments in dialogue, notably

in the United States. Mary C. Boys. for exarnple. in her comprehensive study of

Christian-Jewish relations published early in 2000. Hus God Only One Blessing: Judaism

' Hans Kong, Global Responribility W Y : Crossroads. 1 990). p. i,

us a Source of Chrisrian Self-Understanding. provides in extensive notes and

bibliography some sense of the growth of what might be called the modem dialogue

movement. She describes in detail her own work with a colloquiurn for Christian and

Jewish educators which she led from 1993-1 995. and demonstrates hou- producti\.e this

project was in understanding gained. In her programme. twenty-two participants engaged

in intense dialogue for six two-day sessions. ultimately addressing questions of

si p i ficant and sensitive theological import.

But 1 was looking for something different. 1 wanted to develop and explore a

programme that would be suitabie for people with no background in dialogue. as much as

for those who were experienced. 1 wanted this programme to be suitable for Iay people

whether informed or not in their own tradition. I reject utterIy the suggestion that

dialogue is best accornpiished by professional religious; this srnacks of a sort of '.trickle-

down" theory of religious Ieadership reminiscent of the worst of "Reagonomics." Given

the demands of modem life. 1 sought to develop a programme which could be completed

in a weekend and be of intnnsic uorth. or ~vhich could be the starting point for more

extensive dialogue. 1 sought a programme suitable for liberal and consenfative alike; one

which could be translated into a wide varietu of dialogue contexts. None of the models

which 1 had experienced or of which 1 was aware met these criteria. This action in

ministry was intended to break new ground.

The participants and the sites almost suggested themselves. St. James-Bond. as

the ministry base. had always been seen as both a site and a source of participants. Both

Rabbi Pinsker and Professor Mendelsohn affirmed their synagogue. Darchei .Voarn. as

the obvious partner site. Each congregation had a scripture study group. and ir \vas

proposed that participants be self-selecting. invited from the congregations in gensral and

from these groups in particular.

The general structure of the weekend of dialogue is iij be found in my thesis

proposai (Appendix A): the drtails of the event are described in the next chapter. .4

special note should be made here. however. about two particulsu refinements which were

a particular contribution of Professor Mendelsohn's. The first of these refinements was

that the action in ministry should take place in both sites. thus providing the participants

from both congregations with a sense of equity and a balance between familiar

surroundings and new experiences. The second was to build the dialogue in such a way

as ro incorporate the cycles of both the Jewish and Christian Sabbaths. This intuitive Ieap

of Professor Mendelsohn's to incorporate within the dialogue the opportunity to

experience each other's worship proved to be of far greater significance than I imagined

when the action in rninisiq was being designed.

As the design for the action in rninistv took shape, it became apparent that there

was inherent in that design a theoretical basis for the research which 1 was undertaking.

Before proceeding to the action itself. it was necessary to articulate that basis and the

various rnethods by which the data would be gathered to answer the question. what is the

experience of Christians and Jews in dialogue?

Research Mefhodology

The Doctor of Ministry is about the organization of esperience. First. there is an

experience in ministrv; next. the organizing of that expenence into a f o m amenable to

analysis: then cornes the analysis itrelf and the conclusions proceeding therefrom. Lastly.

there is the hope that the initial experience in ministry, organized and analyzed

accordingly, may contribute qualitatively to the purposes of the reign of God or to the

human cornrnunity. or at the very least. to the life of the church.

The preceding section of this chapter described the genesis and design influences

of the Christian-Jewish dialogue action in ministry which grounds history and theory in

one particular context of the practice o f rninistl . This bnef section is concemed with the

theoretical foundation upon which the action in ministry was buiIt.

In his book. Research in .lfinistry. William R. Myers identifies three broad types

of research methodology suitable for a Doctor of Ministry project: the quantitative

research rnethod; the ethnographic research method; and the pro-active research method.

The latter two might be more helpfull seen as variations on a theme. and corne under the

general rubric of qualitative research. L

The quantitative research method "attempts to measure available data through a

sequence of increasingly sophisticated statistical programmes.. .controlled experiments

are ofien set up in ways that attempt to isolate and measure contrasting sets of

variables."' Key to this approach is the principle that. insofar as possible. the researcher

will be objective as opposed to subjective: that large numbers of subjects can be engaged

to participate in the research; that tight control can be maintained over each phase: and

that the results might be indefinitely replicable.

The difficulties of using this approach in the Doctor of Ministq contest are

irnrnediate and rather obvious. They include factors of cost and of time. to be sure. but

the sheer scope of quantitative research methods argues against the key amibute of

qualitative research. This is the opportunity to study in depth what Anton Boison. the

founder of Clinical Pastoral Education. identified as the "living hurnan document."

Ministry is essentially about the interchange between living hurnan documents and

qualitative research. and while eschewing the objectivity and replicabiIity of quantitative

research it is concemed with that interchange. or. more particularly. a "snapshot" of it.

Bruce L. Berg observes that '-the notion of qrtaliry is essential to the nature of

things. On the other hand yzraniir;' is elernentally an arnount of something. Quality refers

to the what. how, when. and where cf a thing - its essence and ambiance. Qualitative

research thus refers to the meanings. concepts. definitions, characteristics. metaphors.

symbols, and descriptions of things. In contrast. quantitative research refers to counts

and measures of things."3 Quantitative research. in the words of Welsh poet. Dylan

' W . R. Myers. Research in Minisr- (Chicago: Exploration Press), p. 25. 3 Bmce L. Berg, Qualitative Research Melhodsfor the Social Sciences, 2nd ed. (Toronto: Allyn &

Bacon, 1995). p. 3.

Thomas. tells us. '-everything about the urasp. but ~ h ~ . ' ~ Qualitative research is

concerned with that elusive. why?

Given that my research question is focused upon the esperience of Christians and

Jews in dialogue, it is self-evident that the qualitative approach is the more suitable. But

qualitative research as such simply serves as a distinction from quantitative research. The

two major classifications of qualitative research. according to Myers. are ethnographic

research and pro-active research.

According to Myers, "the ethnographic research method sets out to descnbe what

can be seen by sorneone.. .who wants to understand what is going on within a culture or

subculture."' He notes that --critical to such research are those persons from within the

system who are 'gatekeepers' . . . and the disciplined use of subjective. personaIIy

generated data.. . data gathered from three dissimilar sources c m indicate the emergence

o f a 'generative theme' (which must be submitted) to critical review from both insiders

and o~ts ids rs . "~ He adds that theoc- is .-more of a --back-loading' process: i.c. the core of

what cornes to be understood as 'theory' emerges and is grounded out of the ethnographic

process.*-7

It wiII immediately be evident from the preceding section of this chapter that 1 am

engaging two particular subcultures. study group participants from within a United

'' This phrase is taken fiorn Thomas' poem. "A Child's Christmas in Wales."

Myers. p. 28.

fbid.

Church congregation and a Reconstructionist Jewish congregation: and that 1 have

engaged the support of particular 'gatekeepers.' leaders From within both communitirs.

not the least of which are the respective rninister and rabbi. In the nest section of this

chapter. the description of the data gathering tools which 1 ernployed will prove

consistent with Myers' parameters.

Myers observes that "while ethnographic case study replicability is low.

researchers assume that a good ethnographic study will rate high in validity: i-e.. it

accurately will describe (like a snapshot) what is actually going on at a particular moment

within a c~l ture ."~

Yet. although my work falls within the bounds of ethnographic research, 1

understand that 1 have also engaged in pro-active research. According to Myers. "the

pro-active research method intentionally engages in qualitative research while pro-

actively working towûrd transformation."' Nod Miller in the article. **Participatory

Action Research: Principles, Politics and Possibilities." notes that in this variation of

qualitative research. there is '-an expl ici t intention to bring about change through the

research process."'O

Myers notes, methodologically. that such research "relies upon observation.

intenriewing, joumalling, and the use of documents.. . such research usually results in the

' ibid

Ibid 9 Ibid., p. 29.

presentation of a narrative description.'" ' Once again. 1 refer the reader to the next

section of this chapter, noting that the rnethodologies of data coIIection employed are

consistent with pro-active research: and to the subsequent chapter. in wrhich thar data is

presented Iargely in the manner of a case study.

It would be fair to Say that the methodoIogy underlying this action in rninistry has.

in the end. proved to be a convergence of ethnography and pro-active research. 1 have

been concerned with providing the "snapshot" of which M o r s speaks and. at the sarne

time. 1 have remained convinced that the dialogue process. which is the action in

ministry. is in itself an effective strategy for change, engendering more positive relations

between disparate communities.

There is one further refinement. The process 1 have employed in obtaining my

ethnographie "snapshot" could also be described as phenornenological. According to

Bruce Berg. the primary characteristic of the phenornenological approach lies in the

concept of "bracketing" in which "one holds some phenornenon up for close and carefùl

inspection. It is removed from the natural world where it occurs and then is esarnined.

This unmasks. defines. and determines the phenomenon's basic elernents and essential

s t r~c tu re .~ ' '

10 Nod Miller. "Participatory Action Research: Princip les. Politics and Possibilities, " in h'erv Direcrions for .4duk and Conrinuing Educalion ($63. 1994), p. 70.

I I Myers, p. 29.

'' Berg, p. 73.

In North Toronto. Christians and Jews are in constant interaction in the contest of

my ministry base. This is a naturaily occurring phenornenon which frequently leads to

tension and sometimes to confrontation. In the action in ministry. 1 bracketed this

interaction by bringing together a specific group of Christians and Jews in dialogue: by

investigating the resulting bracketed interaction; analyzing the data thus gathered: and

then drawing some conclusions about how Chnstians and Jews in dialogue might retain

the integrity of their own traditions while moving beyond tolerance to understanding.

respect and solidarity for the sake of the larger cornmunity.

1 employed phenornenology to answer an ethnographic research question. within a

pro-active qualitative research perspective. Before tuming to the specific strategies

employed. there is a curious waming offered by Nod Miller. According to Miller. pro-

active research "is not experienced as uplifiing and rewarding by al1 participants.

Researchers adopting this approach need to recognize that outcornes may br unexpected

and sometimes painful for some or al1 participants."'3

Data Garhering and the Merho J q f ' E~*ulzturion

Thanks in no small measure to the n-ork of twentieth century theoretical

physicists. researchers have corne to understand that the purely objective does not exist.

As Einstein, Planck, Heisenberg and a host of others have demonstrated. the mere

13 Miller. p. 79.

presence of an observer to a process has an impact on the process observed. If this is trur

in the hard sciences, it is csrtainly true in the "soft'. sciences and in the area of qualitative

research. Thus. Bruce L. Berg in Qualitative Research Merhods for rhe Social Scietzcrs

observes that '.when they make direct observations of events, researchers assume reality

is deeply affected by the actions of al1 participants, including themselves.. . each nietiiod

(of research and data gathering) reveals slightly different facets of the sarne.. . realit!.

Every method is a different line of sight directed to the same .."" He concludes

that "by combining several lines of sight. researchers obtain a better. more substantial

picture of reality.. . n i e use of multiple lines of sight is frequently called triangulation.""

The term triangulation has been borrowed frorn the fields of surveying and of

military reco~aissance. To limit the region in which an unknown point is located from

three knoun points. sighting lines are drawn which normally intersect in a srnaIl triangle.

The most accurate location of the unknom-n point will. be within this triangle. By

analogy. if three or more rnethods of data collection are employed in qualitative research.

data common to al1 three methods is Iiable to reflect a high degree of reliability. Thus. in

an action in ministry. when a participant's evaluation. an observer's journal. and the

results of an interview yield common themes. those cornmon themes may reasonably be

seen as accurate data resulting from the action in ministry. Triangulation may

I .a Berg, p. 4.

'' Ibid., p. 5 .

incorporate -'. . .multiple data-collection technologies. multiple theories. multiple

researchers, multiple rnethodologies. or combinations of these four research ~ a t e ~ o r i e s . " ' ~

In the preceding section of this chapter. 1 noted that although phenomenolog~ -

that is to say. obtaining a "snapshot" of this bracketed esperience of Christians and Javs

in dialogue - was a key primary research strategy underlying my action in ministp, 1 also

employed elements of ethnography and of pro-active research. In further honouring the

principle of triangulation. I employed multiple data-collection methodologies and

multiple researc hers.

Data-collection methodotogies included questionnaire-guided pre-interviews with

each participant; the wrïtten responses from each participant to "starter questions":

participant journals of the action in ministq: a "quick-check" witten evaluation

completed by each of the participants: a questionnaire-guided post-interview with each

participant; and a data-analysis validation form developed after the data had been

collated. and completed by each participant in order to verify the validity of the ernergsnt

themes which 1 had identified.

In addition to this data. 1 engaged a number of people as observers of much.

though not all. of the action in minist-. The first of these was the Reverend Dr. George

McClintock, Minister of Seniors Affairs at St. James-Bond United Church. Dr.

McClintock. himself a graduate of the Toronto School of Theology Doctor of Ministry

Programme and a pioneer member of the Christian-Jewish Dialogue of Toronto. served

as the facilitator of group process for the weekend. Insofar as focus-group work \vas

involved. it was he who undenook to manage those group sessions. Dr. McClintock

maintained a journal of his observations and reflections of the weekend in a spiral-bound

notebook.

In addition to Dr. McClintock, the Reverend Karen Hamilton. at the time of the

action in ministry my successor at St. James-Bond. facilitated the opening session

reserved for each of the congregational groups separately. as did Rabbi Pinsker for

Darchei Noam. Both Rev. Hamilton and Rabbi Pinsker remained for the duration of the

action in ministry in the role of observers. participating only in their prescribed roIes of

worship leaders, m d at the very end of the weekend when. in the closing plenary session.

they were invited to share their observations. Like Dr. McClintock, Rev. Hamilton and

Rabbi Pinsker kept spiral-bound journals of their observations during the course of the

action in ministry.

Both the pre-interview questionnaire and the post-interview questionnaire were

designed with a view to what Professor .Anne Anderson o f the Toronto School of

Theology has tenned "artful simplicity." It was rny hope that the interviews based on

these questionnaires would yieid at least some data on the participants in three areas prior

to and following the action in ministry. Those were the areas of knowledge. attitude, and

behavior. Thus. the pre-interview questions in general focused on the participants'

reasons for choosing to be a part of the action in ministry; their prior experknce in

relating to members of the other community to be engaged in dialogue; their knowledge

of their own and the other tradition: their attitude to the other tradition: and lastly. how

they might respond to given situations involving the othcr tradition. The post-inten.ie\v

questionnaire differed in the phrasing of some questions to allow that the e\.ent had taken

place. but some of the questions were identical. The data and such change as ma'. ha1.e

been engendered by the action in rninistry will be exarnined in the next chapter.

Additional richness was added to the pre-interview data through the participants'

"twenty-five words or less" opening statements. Each participant. according to religious

tradition. was asked to respond to the statements, "What does it mean to you to be a J e ~ v

today?" and "ln what way do Jewish sacred texts play a role in your life?" or "What does

it mean to you to be a Christian today?" and '-In what way do Christian sacred tests play

a role in your life?" The latter question was based on the premise that in each tradition.

the term --sacred text" allowed for material other than the scriptures to be considered:

prayer books and hyrnnaries. for esample.

Participant journals were actually more along the lines of work sheets. For each

session of the action in rninistry. each participant was provided with a form which

contained several "trigger" phrases to encourase the participant to keep ordered.

consistsnt and comparable notes of thrir rsprrience in dialogue: -'As this session began. 1

(felt. thought. wondered, etc.). . .": "As this session ended 1 (felt, thought, wondered,

etc.). . . "; "A positive moment was when.. . ": "A negative moment was when.. .":

gained new insight when.. ."

By contrast, the observers, Dr. McCIintock. Ms. Hamilton. and Rabbi Pinsker

were provided with identicaf spiral-bound notebooks and asked to record their

observations and impressions with no guidelines Save in identifying the session.

The "quick-checkt evaluation was a form included in each "participant kit" to be

completed by each participant before they left the action in ministry site on the Sunday

afiemoon. It was concerned with the participants' expectations of the event. preparation

for it. "high" and "lowt' moments. an initial impression of new insights gainsd. and

whether the participant might be likeIy to pursue hrther opportmities for dialogue.

Once the initial collation of data had been completed and evident themes had been

identified. the validity of those themes was confirrned with the participants in the action

in ministry through an "Initial Data Analysis Validation Form." which each participant

completed and returned. The forrn consisted of a series of statements. each of which

represented a theme or issue which emerged from the action in ministry data.

Participants were asked either to agree or disagree with the statements and to comment as

they feIt rnoved. They were also invited to identify any additional themes which they had

discerned and indicate what had contributed to the success of the action in ministry and

what factors might have mitigated against success.

The wealth of data which emerged from these multiple lines of sight was

enormous. The next chapter will lay out that wealth to be exarnined so that a clear

picture of the experience of this particular group of Chnstians and Jews in dialogue may

emerge.

Chapter V

Christians and Jews in Dialogue

The Action in Minisiry us Dance

The underlying premise of the action in ministq as developed in my thesis

proposal, was that it should be highly structured. The rationale for this might weil be

expressed in terms of a metaphor. One such metaphor might be athletic: that such a

highly formal approach provides a "level playing field" for the participants. However. I

prefer the metaphor of the dance to that of the stadiurn. Curiously. and entirely

independently. Rabbi Pinsker noted in his "observer journal" that --dialogue is a dance."

It lacks the rssentially cornpetitive tone quite proper for athletics (but unproductive for

the cooperative nature of dialogue). yet still implies clear rules. To refine the netaphor

further. 1 would suggest a country bal1 or folk dance in the manner of Jane Austen. Here

more than two individuals are involved: ofien. two groups participate. The groups relate

to each other both as groups and as individuals relating as interchanging partners

throughout the course of the dance.

So it is with the mode1 of dialogue employed in this action in ministry.

Participants from both congregations related to one another as two distinct groups.

participated as individuals. and interrelated with other individuals as the process

rvarranted. Furthemore. the groups would. as in the complex movements of a countr ,

dance, face inwardly towards one another and outwardly, according to the rhythm

prescribed by the caller. h d . just as the movements of the dance are facilitated by a

caller, so were the stages of the action in rninisuy prescribed by the facilitator. As in a

country dance. groups and partners greet each other formally at the beginning of the tune

and separate just as formally as the last strains of the fiddle fade.

The first factor to note is that the action in ministry proceeded as planned. In tact.

it proceeded so completely according to plan that participants commented both positi\.el!.

and negatively on the structure of the event in the course of evaluation according to

whether they felt constrained or liberated by the rigid structural process. My intent was.

of course, to generate the latter feeling. C.S. Lewis once applied the rnetaphor of dance

to worship. employing it to defend his preference for a set liturgy in the fashion of the

Book of Cornmon Prayer. He argued that the set liturgy of the Anglican communion

permitted the worshipper the freedom to engage in the worship of God without

wondering what was coming next. He observed that. in dancing, when one is constantly

obliged to concentrate on the steps. one is not yet dancing. but still learning to dance. So

in liturgy. an established pattern allows the worshipper to worship rather than imposing

the need to concentrats on the form of kvorship. In the sarne marner, it was my intention

to establish a clearly defined structure for the action in ministry so that the participants

could concentrate on what the other was saying and doing, rather than on the process

through which it was being said and done.

Of course. any metaphor or analogy can be taken too far. In this chapter of data

presentation and analysis, I shall liken the various elements of the dialogue process to a

dance as a useful structure for presentation. t believe, as 1 have already argued. that it has

merit, but it remains simply a descriptive device for a forma1 approach to dialogue. rather

than a more free-flowing. externporaneous one.

The following sections of this chapter will deaI with the action in ministq. and the

data generated fiom it in headings more o r less corresponding to various elements of a

dance. The "Invitation to the BaII" will describe the process by which participants n-err

selected for the action and outline some of the salient characteristics pertaining to the tn-O

groups and the individuals compnsing each. "Dressing for the Dance" will examine the

data obtained fiom the pre-event interview/questionnaire. "Greeting your Partner" wilI

describe the opening phase of the action in ministry proper and draw on the material from

the statements prepared by each participant on the questions. W h a t does it mean to you

to be a JewIChristian today?" and "In what ways do JewishKhristian sacred texts play a

role in your life?" -'Shall we Dance" examines the data generated from the participant

journals kept during the course of the action in ministry. while "Afier the Ball" will deal

with the data from the quick-check evaluation and the post-event interviev;.

Throughout this chapter and the nest. as the data from the action in ministry is

described and the implications and applications from that data are drawn out. I shall be

bearing in rnind the objectives set out in the thesis proposa1 which governs the terms of

the action in ministry. I shall identif). the major thernes which emerge from the data in

the light of my research question and my "hunches." To quote from the thesis proposal

concerning my research "question'':

"My action in ministry will provide an opportunity for Christians and Jews. whose daily lives bnng them together. to engage in an intentional coming together in a process of dialogue. Through such a process 1 want to explore the experience

of Christians and Jews in dialogue with one another about the nature of their respective cornmunities and religious traditions."

My hunches were descnbed more as that which 1 hoped 1 wouid discover through this

process of dialogue:

". . . hope that such an intentional experience of dialogue would enhance the mutual understanding and the mutual liking of this particular group of Jews and Christians.. . 1 want to know how people who harbour significant differences experience one another when brought together intentionally for the purpose of getting to know one another bener. 1 hope to discover if and how the knowledge of the other. the attitudes towards the other and the behaviour towards the other might be changed in dialogue. Such experiences have been invariably positive for me. I hope that the sarne might be true for others. both Jews and Christians."

Ultimately, 1 hope that the data will dernoilstrate that the mode1 of dialogue which

1 have chosen to develop and employ in this action in ministry will be transferable to

other groups and other contexts. Shall we dance?

Invirarion ro rhe Ball

With the October 1996 date established. general "in-.itations" to the mcmbers

and adherents of St James-Bond and Darchei Xoam to participate in the action in

ministry were extended in the late spring of 1996. with the participant list finalized by

mid-September. In consultation with my Ministry Base Group. 1 had determined that the

groroups would be self-selecting. with the arbitra- figure of seven participants from each

congregation. Ideal group size is a subject of debate. but the popular practice within the

United Church of Canada has been to set small groups at seven, plus or minus two. It

was critical to my mode1 that each cornmunit). was represented equally to rnake one-on-

one dialogue a part of the action in minism.

1 wished the groups to be self-selecting on the operating principle that onl?, those

who were genuinely interested in dialogue would choose to participate. 1 also guessed

that it would be illuminating to see what "types" of persons rnight choose to engage in

such a project. Having stressed the element of self-selection. 1 must point out that

particular care was taken to ensure that the rnembers of the congregations' respective

"bible study" groups were made aware of the opportunity to participate in the action in

ministry.

These study groups had several cornrnonalities. Each met pnor to the principal

service of the week: Darchei Noarn's group meeting pnor to the Saturday moming

service at the synagogue, St. James-Bond's imrnediately prior to Sunday moming

worship. Each group was clergy-Ied. Each group was as much. if not more. concemed

with the broad themes of the texts studisd as nith testual minutiae. Each group was

heterogeneous with respect to age. gender. and marital status. The individual rnembers of

the groups were well-educated and well-read. Lastly and perhaps significantly. St.

James-Bond's study group happened to be studying the Old Testament. begiming with

the Pentateuch, as was Darchei .h'oant. ln the end there was a surpnsing correspondence

in the make-up of the two groups of participants. Each group was roughly gender-

balanced, with St. James-Bond's participants including four men and three women. and

Darchei Naorn's comprising three men and four women. Each group contained one

rnarried couple. Each group contained one senior citizen and two teachers. The groups'

age ranges were similar. with the youngest member of Darchei Noam's group being a

little younger than the youngest of St. James-Bond. -411 members of both groups came

with a rich life experience and al1 members were established in their particular life

endeavours.

In short - and this was demonstrated in the data collated from the event - the

individual members of both groups had much in cornrnon personally and sociaily apart

from the obviously significant difference of their religious background. The? shared a

comparable experience of work and community in many ways. yet, as will be

demonstrated. the differences between the two communities perceptions of their world

and each other varied drarnatically.

Rabbi Pinsker played a more direct role in the selection of participants from

Darchei Noam than 1 did. This may IargeIy be accounted for by differences in personal

leadership style. although 1 wonder whether more explanation and even encouragement

was required to recruit Jewish participants. This is a question. and 1 have no data to

address it, but it might be a reasonable hunch considering some of the history of what has

passed for Jewish-Christian dialogue. 1 refer the reader to the first two chapters of this

thesis.

The clergy. Rabbi Pinsker of Darchei Noam. and the Reverends Karen Hamilton

and George McClintock of St. James-Bond were not invited to participate until the 1 s t

session. Save for Dr. McClintock's role as facilitator of the process of the action in

ministry and for such worship explmations as seerned appropriate by Reverend

Hamilton and Rabbi Pinsker. This was to ensure fieedom of expression for the

participants, with neither perceived need nor practical recouse to the wisdom and

opinions of the "professional'- religious present. 1 believe that the data from the

"observer" joumals kept by the clergy will demonstrate the validity of this decision. To

give credit where it is due. this idea of keeping the clergy in check was gleaned from the

years of experience in Christian-Jewish dialogue of Mr. David Hart of Holy Blossorn

synagogue in North Toronto.

The invitations having been extended and accepted, it was tirne to dress for the

dance.

Dressing for the Dance

1 conducted a '.pre-event" interview with each participant from both

congregations. In each case the i n t e ~ i e w was conducted by telephone with the typical

interview lasting approximately 30 minutes. In order to focus the data, 1 employed a

questionnaire format which. in keeping with rny thesis proposal, was intended to assess

knowledge. attitude and behaviour around questions of relations between Christians and

Jews. Questions were also includrd to probe motivation for participation in the action in

ministry and the level of each participant's pnor experience in Christian-Jewish dialogue.

A copy of the ques t i o~a i r e employed is found in the appendices. A corresponding

strategy was employed in developinp the "post-rvent" questionnaire. with some questions

remaining the sarne and some based on information provided in the "pre-event"

questionnaire. By this, 1 hope to be able to identiQ such changes in knowledge, attitude

and behaviour as might have been brought about by participation in the action in

rninistry.

In developing each questionnaire, 1 was determined to establish what Professor

Ann Anderson of the Toronto School of Theology calls "arthl simplicity." The

questionnaires were not ends in themselves. but tools to stimulate conversation and

generate data.

Participants from both church and synagogue demonstrated remarkable

congruence in their motivation to take part in the action in ministry. placing a high

intellectual expectation on the event. The pnmary factor moving them was the desire for

knowledge and understanding. Al1 seven participants from Darchei Noam indicated a

desire to l em. Sample cornrnents were: '-. . . 1 look fonvard to meeting people who give

as much thought ta their Chnstianity as 1 do to rny Judaism;" "I've always been

interested in religion. al1 aspects of religion. and this will be a close dialogue in that I will

be talking to people rather than reading about religion;" - T m interested in finding out

what dialogue is al1 about;" and, "...an interesting opportunity to get a sense o f how

Christians think." One also noted the influence of Christian friends: "1 have a number of

gentile friends who know more about Judaism than I do."

Five of the participants from St. James-Bond indicated a desire and expectation

for learning. Comrnents included "l believe.. .in understanding between people o f

different faiths;" ' T m interested in learning about the Jewish faith;" and, ' T m interested

in the entire concept." As with the Dorchei .hrooarn group. one participant cited the

significance of having friends of the other tradition: -'. . .I'm interested in Jewish-

Christian dialogue because so many people 1 b o w have a Jewish background -

colleagues. fnends - and this is a way to understand them."

One particularly interesting factor. with implications which ranged far beyond the

dialogue weekend, was that one of the participants from St. James-Bond was Je~vish b'.

birth. This person's motivation was unique arnong the participants: "1 Iike to maintain

and develop contacts with my Jewish roots."

Two participants from Darchei ;Voarn noted the implicit influence of their rabbi in

choosing to participate. although it might be more accurate to say that they trusted in the

worth of their rabbi's projects, interests and leadership: -'. . .anything with Rabbi Pinsker

is always a highlight," was one of the comments. One participant from St. James-Bond

expressed a similar sentiment about me.

Similar as motivation may have been. levels of experience in Christian-Jewish

dialogue were radically different. Of the participants from St. James-Bond. only one

lacked any kind of experience of Christian-Jewish dialogue, while one other had been on

the fringe, but never reaily a full participant. The remaining five had a11 participated in

dialogue programmes previously and al1 rxpressed enthusiasrn for the experience. noring

that it had been. -'stimulating. gratifying and interesting:" "educational, interesting and

uplifiing;" %ery positive, enriching:'. and "illuminating and fortifying."

Darchei Naom participants demonstrated the reverse with respect to experience.

Six had no previous expenence in Christian-Jewish dialogue and the one who had

rendered the rather bleak comment that it was "if nothing elss, iinique." This reality will

weigh heavily in assessing the effectiveness of the experience from the perspectives of

the Jewish participants and must be seen as a significant indicator of modified

knowledge. attitude and behaviour when balanced against the evaluations. The Christian

participants went into the event expecting a positive experience: the Jewish participants.

based on expenence. expecting very Iittle.

A kind of symrnetry re-emerged in the discussion around knowledge of one's own

tradition and the other's and around one's own sacred texts and the other's. Tradition and

text had been selected as reasonable. if arbitrary. discussion points during work within

the Ministry Base Group.

When asked to reflect upon their individual knowledge of their own religious

tradition. neither group produced a participant who felt cornfortable in giving themselves

an "excellent" rating. Two from Darchei Noam felt that they merited a "very good" in

terms of knowledge of their own tradition. while only one felt so at St. James-Bond.

Three from St. James-Bond saw their knowledge as fair. compared with two fiom

Darchei .%am, while no one in either group saw their self-knowledge of their 0v.n

tradition to be poor.

When it came to the participants' percei~red knowtedge of the other tradition in

the dialogue. the results were. if anqrthing. even more similar. One participant from St.

James-Bond thought that they had a "good" knowledge of Judaism. while four saw their

level as "fair" and two admitted to poor knowledge. Among Darchei Noom participants.

five understood their knowledge of Christianity going into the dialogue event as "fair."

while two assessed their understanding as "poor."

With respect to knowledge of one's own sacred texts. St. James-Bond participants

demonstrated some hesitancy, dividing individuai perceptions aimost equall>- between

good and fair. By contrast. Dnrchei Noam participants exhibited a striking self-

confidence, with three claiming "very good" knowledge of their own sacred tests. t\vo

-'good" knowledge of their texts. and two "fair." Neither group contained a member \vho

would admit to "poor" knowledge.

Most intriguing was that when it came to awareness of the other's sacred tests.

the resulrs were identical. each group having two members who professed only "faif'

knowledge of the other's texts and five each who stated their knowledge of the other's

sacred texts was actually "poor." Although this might seem surprising given the

commonality of content if not order of some two thirds of the Christian version of the

Bible with the scriptures of Judaism. it should be borne in mind that for the purposes of

this cvent. "sacred text" was understood to refer to hymns, prayer books and devotional

material as well as to scnpture. Nevertheiess. this also seems to indicate the ver). real

differences between the two communities with relation to the nature and purposes of

scripture. The superficially similar ma' yet be the source of significant difference and

even contention when one considers that the church has appropriated the Hebrew

scriptures for radicaliy different interpreti~~e ends.

As the pre-event interviews turned to questions of attitude, the action in ministry

began to move into sensitive territory. Thus far. the questions employed to both frarne

and guide the pre-event interviews had elicited essentially intellectual responses. The

subsequent questions directed the interview toward the emotive. Each participant was

asked to cornplete the sentences. "When 1 hear the word Jew. 1.. ." and '-When I hear the

word Christian, 1.. ." To move from knowledge to attitude is to move from hsad to hem.

The question elicited discomfort from both the Jewish and Christian participants.

Although Christian comments included that sense of interest again and a feeling of

warmth which one participant felt when thinking of Jewish friends. Christian participants

in generd felt little that was positive upon hearing the word "Jew." One participant from

St. James-Bond felt "sadness and horror at the memory of holocaust." coupled with

*-sadness and horror at the crucifixion of Jesus." which was seen to be linked with his

being Jewish and persecuted. This was stressed in almost identical terrns by another who

associated the word "Jew" "with words like holocaust. persecution. ongoing

persecution." The esperience of three of the Christian participants was that the term

-'Jew" was "derogatory - the word is used in that sense so ofien."

Amongst the Darchei Noam participants. the word .'Jew" was hardly less

problematic. Four of the seven participants felt distinctly uncornfortable. employing such

terms as "apprehensive." "nervous" and .-alerted." Two were unreservedly positive. one

noting that to hear the word '-Jew" elicited the feeling that "I'rn at home." One expressed

mixed feelings, noting that. "When someone is reported in the newspapers as doing

something temble and turns out to be a Jew. 1 feel ashamed. When Israel does something

good 1 feeI proud. Israel has given pride and backbone." This last seems to be in accord - with the observations on Israel included in Chapter II. The collective and individual

impact of Israel on Jews seems intellectually and viscerally significant.

I f distinct uneasiness was displayed by the majority of participants in both groups

over the word "Jew" there was a significant emotive shifi when the question was reposed

employing the word -'Christian.'' Although two of the St. James-Bond participants

expressed ambivalence and one admitted that it occasionally elicited a sense of

"hypocrisy, some confusion." the majority spoke of feelings which they identit'ied as

-'kinship." being "content." a "sense of pride, of belonging.. .good will towards others.'-

Even this early in the process. one participant noted '-a taking for granted attitude. and

I'm reflecting on that."

Of the Jewish participants. only one expressed positive feelings about the term

~'Christian." and those feelings concrmed those who had risked their lives to Save Jews

during the Second World War. One indicated the feeling of being an "outsider." while

two expressed neutrality. one noting that -'it brings to mind simply a member of another

religion." Three expressed the same kind of nervousness and anxiety which they felt upon

hearing the word "Jew."

In attempting to obtain some initial data on how knowledge and attitude might

influence participants' behaviour towards the other. each member of both groups was

asked how Iikely they might be to attend a Christian service in memory of the Holocaust.

This question is particular to the Toronto conte'ct. in which such a service has been held

annually since the early 1980's. The results were identical. It must be remembered that

the interviews were individually conducted. without - to my knowledge - consultation

arnong participants. Three from each group feit that they would be very likely to attend

such a service; three that they would be likely to attend; and one each would be unlikely

to. The Christian felt that such an esperience would be too depressing: the Jew that they

simply were not interested, and would not attend whether such a service were Christian

or Jewish. The last question was intended to push the limits of behaviour for participants

in both groups. Each participant was asked to complete the sentence. "If rny

soddaughter were dating a Jew/Christiarr, 1 would.. ." Both groups of participants

exhibiteci the kind of sophisticated response that one might expect from the nature of their

shared urban community. The majority of the responses indicated that eve-hing would

depend on the individual concemed. Was this a decent person. a responsible person?

One Darchei Noam participant observed with pointed parental humour. "if it were my

son. my God, it's about time he was dating sorneone!"

Yet, beneath the urbanity and the levity there were concerns. rnostly on the part of

the Jewish participants. These concerns seemed to focus on the difficulty of building so

complex a reIationship as a marriage without a cornrnon heritage and background. One

Darchei Abam participant observed that "1 was born in Gerrnany. married a Czech, both

of us orthodox. We had ri common tradition. and even then we had our differences." One

Jewish participant said simply that the' "~vould not be happy." another that she would be

"conflicteci. 1 would rather rny children ma- Jews. but.. . I wouldn't sit shiva. " One St.

James-Bond participant wondered hotv to address the question of c hildren; another said

that much depended on the particular tradition within Judaism from which the person

carne: '9 would feel very different if my daughter were marrying someone from an

orthodox or consemative tradition rather than someone from a reforrned or liberal

tradition." But they went on to Say that "if they were dating anyone from a

fhdamentalist or religious nght tradition it would worry [me]" also. The couple from

Darchei Noam observed that two of their daughters had married gentiles. while one of the

Christian participants said that inter-religious dating had never been an issue. By and

large. the Christians were less concemed. with one participant noting that the question

was "irrelevan t."

Going into the dialogue event- then. it is possibIe to Say frorn the data that the t~vo

participant groups shared a comrnon socio-cultua1 base in North Toronto; the members

of both groups were strongly motivated intellectually to participate: the members of both

groups felt they had a fair grasp of their own tradition. less so of the other's: emotionall~~

and experientially. each group was courteously wary of the other. especially the Jews of

the Christians.

Greering Your Partner

First impressions count. As the dialogue event opened with the first session at

Darchei Noam. several critical questions had already emerged. Would the participants

trust the rather ngid format or rebel against i r ? Would the two groups' first impressions

of one another be such as to facilitate dialogue or to stifle it? Would the content of the

dialogue. specifically the "starter questions" which would f o m the b a i s for the

weekend's exchange. be adequate to engage the participants?

Two unanticipated factors had already corne into play. The first was that the

"welcome to the Sabbath" service was not a regular aspect of synagogue life at Darchei

Aroam and was a new feature for Jewish and Christian participants alike. Second. with

the best intentions and significant forethought. the ministry base group had overlooked

the significance of Sabbath proscriptions conceming labour. and thus the fifi' word

responses to the starter questions were. in al1 but one case. prepared in advance by the

Jewish participants. In the sole remaining case. the responses were dictated to me prior

to the event. This also meant that Jewish participant journals would have to be n-ritten in

retrospect until sundown the following day. Neither of these factors appeared to have a

significant impact on the event or on the data but should be narned at least for the sake of

replicability of- the dialogue mode1 employed.

In my research question - to explore the experience of Christians and Jews in

dialogue - I have sought to consider both intellectual and ernotive issues. This is

nowhere more evident in the action in ministq than this moment in which the two groups

engage for the first time. The responses to the starter questions are head-centred: the

participant journals, to a great extent. are heart-centred. The phase of the action in

ministry which 1 have labeled "Greeting your partner" includes the first two session of

the dialogue event. both held at Darchei .lbcim. The weekend began with the '-wrlcome

to the Sabbath" service. following which there was a time of refreshment and socializing

in which people were introduced to one another and a general explanation of the weekend

process was provided. The participants were then invited to adjoum into their respective

groups to share arnong the members of their own community the responses to the starter

questions.

The second session held the following inoming was designated for the members

of the groups to read their responses to the other group in tum. On Saturday moming.

when it becarne obvious that substantial time remained before the Sabbath service.

facilitator Dr. McClintock. on a hunch. proposed that the exercise of reading and

listening be repeatcd once more, thus reserving questions for clarification until the third

session as originally planned- This proved to be fortuitous.

As it becarne apparent that the resporises to the starter questions were proving

even more foundational to the process than 1 had anticipated. 1 asked if 1 might m d e

copies of the participants' responses as additional data. Everyone agreed.

The responses to the question of what it means to be a Jew today in every instance

focused on the issue of identity. Specific vocabulary varied, but not the import of the

responses: "My Jewishness penetrates every phase of rny life. even when 1 am with non-

Jews:" '-a boundary that separates and defines.. .a common culture and histoq that unites

across time and space:" -'being part of a community.. . being vulnerable because I'm

worried about the disappearance of Jews:" "being a Jew is imbued in every day of my

life:" and. " a strong source of my identit>-."

The importance of the state of Israel also emerged as part of this question of

identity. Two participants directly linlied the existence of the state of Israel to their

understanding of being a Jew today. One noted. 'Tm very affected by what happens in

Israel and feel that if anything untowrd happens here. there is a country to which 1 could

go. With so much anti-semitisrn in the wortd. this is always at the back of my mind."

It is worth noting at this point that Professor Eric Mendelsohn. a mathematician

by vocation and a Reconstructionist comrnentator and theologian by avocation, has

observed the generality that of three major streams of Judaism in North America the

Orthodox, the Reformed and the Reconsuuctionist. Orthodoxy emphasizes Torah. the

Reformed emphasizes God, and Reconstructionism emphasizes peoplehood.

Although the above was the only comment to link the state of IsraeI with refuge

from anti-semitism. it was clear that the vulnerability of being Jewish was a k q r theme.

Four of the participants narned anti-semitism as being a part of the meaning of being

Jewish today. This data brings to mind the frequent and forcefui assertion of David Hart.

a rnember of Holy Blossom synagogue in Toronto and a founding member of the

Christian-Jewish dialogue of Toronto that Judaism is more a peoplehood than a religion.

CertainIy identity, vulnerability and Israel as haven were the main themes emerging from

the starter questions for the Jewish participants.

The main insight emerging from the rrsponse to the question of the place of

sacred texts in the participants' lives was the manner in which those texts serve to define

and support the sense of identity articulated in the responses to the first question.

"Studying Torah.. .makes me more and more aware of how amazing my Jewish

background is:" '-(1) study Jewish sacred texts so that 1 would remain and know who 1

am:" and -*a source of personal and ethnic identity."

In sharp contrast to the Jewish responses. no Christian participant esplicitly raised

the issue of identity. The meaning of being a Christian today focused primarily on

following Jesus Christ and, more particularly. following the teachings of Jesus in tems of

social responsibility. This will be explained in no small measure by the social-ethical

emphasis of the ethos of the ~ n i t e d Church of Canada, but something deeper may

perhaps be discerned. For the St. James-Bond participants, Christianity appeared to be

propositional. a faith to which they gave their assent. There was a strong inteliectual

fla~our to their responses. One wrote, "1 am seeking to understand both rnyself and

others in the light of the teachings of Jesus Christ.'.

As might be anticipated. the role of Christian sacred tests. at least when scripture

was specifically identified. was seen as the source of those teachings which the Christians

understood thernselves as obligated to follow. What emerged unexpectedly was the

trernendous importance placed on hyrnns by a majonty of the Christian participants. Five

of the seven St. James-Bond participants identified music as a key element of their

religious life.

The participant journals for these two sessions were valuable with respect to the

process and the content of the dialogue event. At the outset. rnembers of both groups

wondered "what they were doing there" and whether such a ngid process could lead to

real dialogue. By the end of the first session. these concems appear to have been allayed.

the participants were prepared to trust the process. and it became evident that the

members of both groups were listening intentl'. both to their CO-religionists and to the

rnembers of the other groups.

Jews and Christians aiike espressed appreciation for the opportunity during the

first session to hear. in many instances for the first time. the perspectives of their hiends

on what it meant to be a Jew or a Christian. A member of Darchei Noam noted. "1 was

surprised by how much 1 leamed about the fellow memben of my Torah study group. 1

suspect we al1 made many discoveries about one another. By the end 1 felt much closer

to these people." A St. James-Bond member was "surprised by the commonality o f

thought and expenence in the room."

In the second session. as the participants listened for the first time to the responsss

of the other group to the starter questions. it became evident that the members of each

group were hearing what the members of the other group were saying. The journal

entries. compared with the written responses. show remarkable congruity. The Jewish

participants were stnick forcibly by the high socio-ethical content of the United Church

responses and by the emphasis on persona1 cornmitment to Jesus Christ. Several also

remarked on the importance of hymns to the Christians.

The Christians noted how being Jewish was an issue of identity. Several also

noted the sense of vulnerability concerning anti-semitism which was expressed. Almost

al1 the Chnstians noted with appreciation the warmth of the welcome they had received

and the courtesy extended to them. The majonty also expressed appreciation for the

synagogue worship which they experienced both on Friday night and Saturday moming.

Members of both groups noted the courtesy and good will of the other group. and

the many cornrnonalities of the North Toronto social context.

Members of both groups noted the importance of hearing each others' responses

to the starter questions read twice. It appeared to emphasize the importance to the

dialogue process both of listening and of clarity of expression.

Shall We Dance?

The first focused interaction between and among the participants of the t ~ v o

groups occurred dunng the third session. now relocated to St. James-Bond. In the

intimacy of the church's Hearth Room. Rabbi Lamf Pinsker of Darchei Aoam led in the

simple yet moving "Farewell to the Sabbath." which completed the Jewish cycle of

worship for the dialogue event. In the dialogue exchange which followed. participants

were perrnitted to ask questions of each other for clarification. but not to engage in

discussion or debate.

The participants had enjoyed a fiee afiemoon and members of both groups

indicated that they had appreciated the tirne to talk with their CO-religionists of the

experience to date. and to attempt to achieve perspective.

Several members of both groups indicated in their participant joumals - the

primary source of immediate dzta for this "Shall we dance?" component of the action in

ministry - that up to this stage they were sri11 concerned by the rigidity of the dialogue

process. By the end of the evening. this concem had been transformed to appreciation.

A Jewish participant noted, ".. .this time was extremely important as it gave us the

opportunity to get to know each other. and to feel comfortable with each others'

questions.. .this part of the process was estrernely important, and without it, 1 am sure

that the rest of the weekend would not have gone as well." A St. James-Bond participant

noted that "in retrospect (this part of the process) was an essential bridge."

During the Saturday evening session. participants had begun to discem a growing

intimacy and openness of community and a depth of content. A participant from Darchei

Noam "felt better educated about Christian life - where it is both disparate and similar to

my life." Several others noted that they "became aware that there is a lot of good wil1.'-

And members of both groups began to articulate what was cIearIy the great underlying

theme of the dialogue. one that should hardly be surprking. given the two historical

chapters of this thesis: anti-semitism. One St. James-Bond participant noted that --man>.

of the Jewish participants mentioned the growth of anti-semitic remarks and their deep

sense of unease at being a small minority." Another observed. "I again heard how

strongly the Jewish participants feel about anti-semitism in Toronto and the fact that Jews

are a very small minority."

For the Jewish participants there was a disturbing variation to this theme. As one

put it. a negative moment of the evening was when "1 saw how surprising the Jewish

group's concern about anti-semitism was to much of the Christian group." It was as if the

entire history of the joumey of Christians and Jews from distrust to dialogue had been

concentrated in this bnef moment. The questior. was whether this process could faciiitate

the transition from the former to the latter. As early as this third session. one participant

from Darchei Xoam rendered a tentative affirmative: "I feel that the dialogue we had was

worthwhile. 1 believe that the Jewish members will meet to discuss the experience. and

more importantly, to discuss their reactions to the experience. 1 believe that we reaIly

just scratched the surface.. . but it is better to scratch than not to scratch."

1 believe this transition from distrust to dialogue required the rigid formality - and

the resulting courtesy - of the dialogue mode1 developed and employed for this action in

ministry. A Christian participant noted that "1 listened intently to the views of both Jews

and Christians. with no opportunity to challenge those views - THIS WAS A WISE

MOVE!" (upper case employed in the participant journal).

By the end of this session. intirnacy of communil had been established. 1 noted a

Jewish participant's perception of '*lots of good will." This was echoed by St. James-

Bond members, one of whom noted -that al1 the participants were ixcessible. and couid

answer with a sense of humour and a sense of compassion."

In Session IV. on Sunday morning. prior to the worship service at St. Jarnes-

Bond, the initial formality was relaxed. Jewish and Christian participants were randomly

paired for a time of one-on-one dialogue. Participants from both the church and the

synagogue observed that in these one-on-one conversations, they were able to affirm

substantial cornrnonalities of social context and concem. One Christian participant

"realized even more areas of commonality between us as people.. . we shared many

persona1 examples of how church (and synagogue) life operates and the secular concerns

of politics. economics and justice." A Jewish participant noted that ' w e share - in some

important respects - more in comrnon n-ith one anothsr than with the fimdamentalist

elements of our own religion."

As to the worship service. as Rev. Hamilton had preached at Darchei Noam the

previous morning, so Rabbi Pinsker preached at St. James-Bond. In both cases. preacher

and sermon were well received by the participants from each group. But concem over

worship from a Jewish perspective emerged. On the previous day, and with the

-'welcome to the Sabbath" service on the Friday evening, the Christians found themselves

deeply moved by the synagogue worship service. It was more difficult for the Jewish

participants to experience Christian worship. One wrote "1 reatize that the cross has a

negative image for me. Most of the pictures 1 remember of pogroms have pictures of a

church leader holding a cross in them." The same participant also noted. with regard to

the Sunday morning service. that "to participate spiritually.. .I had to mentally replace the

words Jesus Christ with that of God. .. with this mental gymnastic I could participate and

enjoy the service more hlly." This discornfort is hardly surprising. Jon D. Levinson

notes in his article "The problem with Salad Bowl Religion." in the December 1997 issue

of the penodical "First Things." that "Halakah forbids Jews to engage in mixed

worship." The question must be raised as to whether inter-faith worship is ever really

possible or whether the most that might be achieved is respectful and appreciative

observing of another's worship.

Once again. in this more intirnate conte'ct. the issue of anti-semitism was

specifically raised. A St. James-Bond participant noted that "we discussed the news

media and the subtle ami-semitism evident in broadcasts. 'Jews are news' was a phrase 1

had never heard."

The concluding session took place afier lunch. which was provided by a kosher

caterer recommended by Rabbi Pinsker. empIoying disposable dishes and utensils. It

took the fom of an open forum. at the end of ~vhich Rev. Hamilton and Rabbi Pinsker

were invited to offer comment for the first time during the course of the dialogue event.

I t was evident from the first that the preceding sessions of the dialogue event had

established a 1evel of trust adequate for the expression of deep feeling and the ainng of

sensitive issues. A St. James-Bond participant was struck by "the depth of feeling around

differences." Another gained the new insight that "there are more differences between the

Christian and Jewish cornmwiities than 1 had thought." A Darchei Noam pmicipant

noted that we were only begiming to get into the differences."

There seemed virtual unanimity that the experience had been positive. but that

there was stili a long way to go. A St. James-Bond participant "felt a sense of

incompleteness. that things of real significance were begiming to open up." A Dat-chei

. . -Vuam participant "felt disappointed to return to the more mundane matters of my I i fr . . .

Despite the feeling that the dialogue had only just begun to deal with the more

contentious issues between the two communities, and despite the sense of

incompleteness. a Jewish participant expressed that which I had hoped to hear and which

endorses the process and the principles underlying it: "1 felt that I had learned more. not

only about the feelings of the Christian participants. but about the Jewish participants.. . 1

stili feel that as long as people are different there will always be some prejudice among

some people because of the differences. 1 am encouraged that through discussion and

understanding, perhaps rhose prejudices can be minimized to a very few of our society."

The themes which emerged from this phase of the dialogue event were convergent

between both groups. Good will was esperirnced by both groups, especially in the

oppor-tunities for interpersonal dialogue: the importance of the worship component was

noted by both; the dialogue process employed was affirmed repeatedly; and anti-semitism

emerged as the issue of significance for borh cornmunities.

-4 fter the Bail

As the reader will recall. multiple strategies for obtaining and verif'ing data have

been built into this action in ministry. Thus far. data has been generated frorn the pre-

event interviews. the written responses to "starter questions." and participant joumals.

The event having been completed. the data now generated includes a "quick-check"

evaluation form. completed by each participant at the end of the event before they Left St.

James-Bond on the Sunday afiemoon. and the results of a post-event interview based. as

was the prevent interview. on a set questionnaire.

The overall response to the dialogue event from Jewish and Christian participants

was unreservedly positive. On a scale of one to ten. with ten being the most favourable

response, only one participant of the 14 rated the weekend at less than an eight - that

person suggested a six. Four participants rated the event at ten on ten. On questions

rating expectations. participant preparation (including preparatory documents. and

accommodations and logistics). the event drew very positive responses from al1

participants. When asked whether the- would be likely to accept an invitation to a

similar event in the future. al1 participants said they would either be very likely or likely

to accept. As to whether the- wouid actively seek out such an opportunity. five

Christians and four Jews said they wouId be very likely to do so: two from each group

said they would be likely to and one participant from Darchei hbam indicated they would

be unlikeIy to.

Given the low level of prior dialogue experience arnong the Jewish participants. it

seems reasonable to suggest that sorne shifi in attitude and behaviour may be indicated

here and should be looked for in the remaining data. The quick-check evaluation also

identified four dominant themes which emerged from the weekend. albeit with different

weighting according to group.

For the St. James-Bond participants. attending synagogue worship was of preat

importance. Four of the seven participants identified this as the "especially high point"

of the event. -4 bar rnirmah had been a part of the Sabbath service and one St. James-

Bond participant particularly appreciated -'the exceptional delivery of the young woman

of her programme and the evident preparation and learning invohed. It would be

interesting to see this in our own congregation."

One Darchei lVoarn participant noted worship - specifically Rev. Hamilton's

Torah commentary. or Drar Torah. during the Sabbath senrice - as a high point of the

event. The other six. however. cited the interpersonal time with Christian counterparts as

the especially high point of the weekend. One Jewish participant was pleased to see '-a11

these strangers become friends..' Another appreciated the -'diversity and sensitivity of

Christians. how much we share. learning of some of the concepts of Christianity."

The Christians also spoke glouingly of the interpersonal sharing during the

course of the dialogue event. One \vas "delighted to find such openness and w m t h . "

Another identified as a new insight that "the commonality of the two faiths is much

deeper than 1 realized."

The third theme, clearly identified by both groups in the quick-check evaluation

as it had been in the participant journals. was anti-semitism. A St. James-Bond

participant identified a particdarly low moment in the weekend as "when I realized the

extent to which anti-semitism was growing or perceived to be here in Toronto and

elsewhere by Jewish participants." Another identified a new insight as "news media

references to Jews and their frequenc y ." S ti II another raised the soul-searching question.

--. ..are communities of faith. whatever religion. contributing to anti-semitism and

racisrn?"

One of the Darchei Noam participants expressed surprise at the new learning that

-'most of the Christian group were not aware of anti-semitism." This was echoed by

another who gained new insight into the '*understanding of Christians about anti-

semitism.*'

Although the other themes of deliberate courtesy between the two groups. the

desire for knowledge and 3 strong commonality of social/ethical vision conti~ued to be

evident, the themes of satisfaction with the dialogue process. the significance of worship.

the importance of the interpersonal and anti-semitism were clearly uppermost in the

minds of participants as the weekend drew to a close. The resuits of the post-event

interviews were consistent with this.

The post-event interview questionnaire was parallel in structure to the pre-event

interview questionnaire. Some questions xere new. to reflect the fact that the dialogue

had occurred and had provided a new experience for the participants. Other questions

were explicitly repeated to gauge the degree to which the participants' knowledge,

attitude and behaviour had shified as a result of the dialogue event. In these cases, the

participants were reminded of their responses in the pre-event interview and then asked

how their response differed following their experience. Still other questions were posed

precisely as they had been in the pre-event interview.. with no commentan- oftèred. (c l .p . .

"When 1 hear the word Jew!Christian 1 feel . . . ")

Four questions concerning concrcte knowledge of the participants' oun tradition

and sacred texts and of the others' were re-asked with each participants being reminded

of their response pnor to the dialogue event. With respect to knowledge of their o \m

tradition, five Christians and two Jews felt that their knowledge of their own tradition had

improved somewhat. With respect to knowledge of the other tradition in the dialogue.

three of the St. James-Bond participants felt that their knowledge of Judaism had

improved somewhat. The response from Darchei Xoam participants varied intriguingl>*.

As with St. James-Bond, three k l t that there had been a shifi. For one, this meant a

straightforward increase in knowledge. The other two discovered that their self-

perceived level of knowledge about Christianity and Christians proved to be more limited

than they had thought - arguably an increase in awareness as a result of the dialogue

es perience.

As to knowledge of one's O-n sacred tests. there was no change arnong the

Darchei Noam members subsequent to the dialogue. The sâme proved true for the St.

James-Bond participants. This is understandable. given that the sacred texts of the

traditions were not explicit topics during the course of the event.

With respect to the other group's sacred texts. there was only a marginal shift in

knowledge gained clairned by the Darchei Xoam participants, while four St. James-Bond

participants felt that their knowledge had improved. one noting emphatically. "1 did learn

a lot!"

Asked to cornpiete the sentence. "When 1 hear the word Jeu.. 1 feel.. .." the

responses from both Jews and Christians in the post-event interview were far more

expansive and far more complex than in the pre-event interview. In general. both

responded more positively. A Jewish participant answered. -'happy. more cornfortable

with my Jewishness than before i went on the event." A Christian participant noted

feeling "better than 1 did before. It had been a negative word in my background. but here

the word was used in the right context and fiequently." Two St. James-Bond participants

expressed deep concem over their new-found awareness "as to the extent of anti-

semitism in Toronto."

In completing the sentence, "When 1 hear the word. Christian 1 feel.. .." the

oveniding feeling expressed by the Jewish participants was of wariness. as before the

event. But one participant expressed some marginal change in attitude. feeling "perhaps

a little more positive now. but very little." Among the Christians, the major shifi was

away from a propositional attitude towards their traditicn to a p a t e r sense of persona1

identification. One noted '-(1) feel good about being a Christian myself." another that

"my rnind changed a little.. . 1 have to tell myself that the word means Christian. not just

someone who says they are."

With respect to behaviour or. more accurately. potential behaviour. there was a

perceptible shifi in answer to whether participants might be likely to attend a Christian

service in memory of the Holocaust. No participants felt that they would be less likely to

attend afier the event, but two Darchri Xoam participants declared that they would now

be more likely to attend, and the one St. James-Bond participant who, p ior to the event

said they would be unlikely to attend such a service now indicated that they would be

likely to attend.

The responses to the question conceming reaction to a son or daughter dating a

member of the other goup's tradition did not vary dramatically after the event. There

appeared to be slightly more openness to such an eventually on thé part of the Jewish

participants and the same couid be said for the Christian participants. One interesting

comment from a St. James-Bond member is wonhy of note. demonstrating the n rw

depths of reflection to which the participant had been pushed by the dialogue event: '-It

wouldn't have mattered at al1 before the event.. .now 1 wonder about (the Jewish)

reception of her after having attended the event."

The questions in the post-event interview conceming significant moments and

general cornrnents once again identified the four themes noted earlier: satisfaction with

the dialogue event; the importance of interpersonal interaction: the significance of each

other's worship: and the issue of anti-semitism.

As to the event itself. one Jewish participant noted. "It's a long, interesting

process and would take a lot of determination to follow through." Another remarked. "1

intend now to take my daughter to a friendly church. now that 1 know of one." The

Christian response was equally positive. One noted. "it was provocative. My head felt it

was going to explode." Another said. -'I wish we were starting again next week." Still

another responded, "1 hope the relationship between St. James-Bond and Darchei Noam

continues. 1 think they are going to be asked to join the next neighbourhood Inter-faith

dialogue."

Time and again. the importance of interpersonal relations was stressed by

participants fiom both congregations. For one Jewish participant. the most significant

moment in the dialogue "was in the one-to-one talk when 1 couId a littie bit better

understand the Christian point of view. 1 tried through the whole weekend. but it was

foreign and hard to understand. In t h one-to-one 1 found it a Little easier." Still another

treasured '2he moments which illuminated how little we know about each other.. .this

was the truest moment of our dialogue."

The St. James-Bond participants confirmed the importance of the "one-to-one'.

sessions. Several remarked on how moved the!, were by the openness of the Jewish

participants and bg their candour. One participant remarked especially on ". . . Rachel's

story of the Gestapo agent who came to her home." h o t h e r said. '*I didn't realize the

strong feelings of the Jewish people.. .the fact that they were opening up made me feel

that we were really starting." That sense of beginning was reaffirmed by another St.

James-Bond participant who wished that there had been more time for "one-to-one" and

roundtabte discussion.

The experience of obsenring each other's worship was important for both

Christians and Jews. but qualitatively different in each case. Five of the seven St. James-

Bond participants cited worship in the synagogue as a significant moment in the dialogue

event. One commented on the "uniqueness of the Jewish services. which 1 had never

witnessed before." Another rernarked upon "the beautiful service with the Bar Mir-~ah;

so incredibly long, but I didn't realize quite how long until it was over, and the challenges

to the congregation to respond and to try and think." Only one of the Christian

participants picked up explicitly on the dificulty of Jewish participation in Christian

worship: "1 noticed that the Jewish people did very little in our church. and that the rabbi

had stressed that we had not worshipped togrther - they seemed offended thar n e c :

mentioned Jesus."

None of the Darchei Noam participants indicated a sense of offense at

exprriencing worship at St. James-Bond. Several cornmented positively on the service.

One noted that the --music was beautifûl." another that "I found the service at St. James-

Bond surprisingly beautifil. and. in places. very moving. It surprised me. the positive

way 1 responded." Still another said. "I was really impressed with the front where the

cross is as a spiritual thing and the organ is as a spirituai thing. The empty cross was not

as negative as the medieval picture.. ."

For al1 that. Jewish participants felt that there was sornething lacking in the

Christian worship. '-1 found the sirnplicity of the service good and bad - short- talked

about loving God, was nice. easier than the Hebrew service. but 1 find it of value to

struggle over the Hebrew and interpretation. Jews missing sirnplicity, Christians missing

the value of a struggle."

The Christians found Jewish worship inspiring. filling needs that had not even

been recognized; the Jews intrigued. but unnourished by the Christian service. This may

be that different ends are in rnind. The Jewish service is a primary teaching vehicle as

well as an act of worship. The Christian service. despite the sermon, is more an act of

worship centring on the person of Christ. The results seem to affirm the maxim that one

can observe respectfully the worship of the other. One carmot truly worship ivith the

O t her.

Lastly, there was the theme of anti-semitism. Neither the holocaust nor the State

of IsraeI featured prominently in the comrnents made. It was the lived experience of Jrws

and Christians in North Toronto which was the focus.

Here was the biggest source of surprise for al1 the participants. both Jewish and

Christian. The St. James-Bond participants were shocked to hear their Jewish neighbours

speak of their experiences of anti-semitism in Nonh Toronto. Darchei iVoam participants

were shocked that the Christians were shocked. Said one, ''1 was surprised at the lack of

knowledge of how anti-semitism effects Jews. and they were obviousIy surprised at the

degree. 1 think they would be shocked at my feeling of the cross" (in another response.

negative). It must also be noted that another Jewish participant remarked on the "obvious

sincere effort to see things through our eues rather than dismiss our concems as

imaginary." This seems to be borne out by the comment of one St. James-Bond member

who said. "1 heard the phrase . J e w are news' for the first time. I learned to read the

news more carefülly." SeveraI Darchei Noam members were also intrigued that '.at least

one member from St. James-Bond identified the church group as being part of a

minority.. ." This was news for the Jewish participants.

And so the event was completed. the "Ball" over. The task now is to review the

data verifying how accurately 1 have identified the themes, to indicate such outcomes as

have resulted from this dialogue esperience and to explore some of the implications of

the whole process.

So, what is the experience of Christians and Jews in dialogue? This thesis has

addressed both general and particular historical and contextual issues which colour the

relationships between Christians and Jews in the ministry base of Sr. James-Bond and the

analysis of the data generated by the action in ministry has illustrated the intellectual and

emotional impact of a dialogue expenence on the participants.

But. as St. Paul so welI advised us in his first letter to the Corinthians. Ne tend to

see -'through a glas. darkly," and. given the demands of trimgdation in data gathering. 1

was concemed to veri@ both the data which 1 received and my interpretation of it. To

achieve these ends. 1 employed two instruments: a data analysis verrfica[ionforrn.

distributed to al1 the participants early in 1997. and the observer jottrnals kept by Rabbi

Pinsker. Rev. Hamilton. Dr. McClintock. and me. In the former. 1 wished to discovsr if

my reading of the data and rny identification of themes corresponded to the assessments

of the participants. In the latter. I wished to see if the observations of non-participcints

tallied with those of participants.

The majority of questions on the data analysis verifkation foms allowed for

quick responses - agree or disagree - with room provided for an extended written

response. Several questions were Iefi open-rnded. The form is reproduced in the

appendices. As to whether the event was a positive experience. the participants were

unanirnous in their agreement. One rnember of Darchei Noam noted that "the experience

has remained, and 1 still ofien recall my thoughts and feelings." A Christian participant

noted "both Christians and Jews had the opportunity to leam about each other's faiths and

opinions." Another wrote, "it was enlightening for me.. - 1 was happy to participate."

When invited to comment upon what made the event work. remarks were equally

positive. Durchei Noam participants noted. '-we spent a lot of rime together and

everything was well run and well thought out." "the moderators.. . whose warmth and

goodwill were obvious," "a good Pace and direction. careful preparation. cautiousness

and sincenty," "self-selection of participants - we al1 wanted it to work. excellent

facilitation."

St. James-Bond participants noted. "the enthusiasm of the leaders of the event and

most of the participants," "cooperation. respect and the openness of the participants and

the plamers." "balance achieved (between) sensitivity of participants and.. . focus." "the

organization of the event.. .." -.we ate together.. . the informa1 atmosphere."

There were some reservations. A member from each group noted that they would

have liked more one-on-one tirne. A Darchei Xoam participant felt that "Canadian

politeness" may have delayed real openness of discussion on sensitive issues and a

participant from St. James-Bond felt that more younger participants would have been

welcome. Nevertheless. satisfaction with the dialogue event was confirmed by the

participants as a major theme.

The importance of interpersonal interaction was affirmed unanimously by both

Christian and Jewish participants. Members of both groups felt free to expand on their

essential agreement conceming the importance of this dialogue elernent. A St. James-

Bond participant noted that "it is always possible to study texts. to get information from

dry research. but nothing compares to -1ive' communication." Another wrote. '-1 really

enjoyed the informal discussions and the sharing o f meals. This is when 1 felt the true

dialogue occurred and it led to greater understanding."

A Darchei iVoarn participant echoed this latter observation. noting that, -'this

brought out the differences in our faiths."

While the participants were unanimous in agreeing that more interpersonal. one-

on-one time would have been valuable. there was an interesting variation in the espanded

remarks between Christian and Jewish participants. The comments from both groups

were positive. A typical comment from a St. James-Bond participant was. "my time with

my Jewish counterpart was just a begiming. I felt 1 couid ask questions and learn more

about the differences and the chance was there to resolve misunderstandings." Darchri

i\bum participants qualified their comments in every case by noting that the- would have

like more one-on-one time. but wirh more [han one partner. One noted. '-il would have

been useful to have had one-on-one ~ v i t h various people in the Christian group." Another

wrote. *'one-on-one with other mernbers of the group would have provided valued

encounters.'*

There was also unanimous agreement that open discussion on the -'hard issues" in

dialogue - anti-semitism. intemarriage. etc. - only began to occur during the open

discussion session on the Sunday afiernoon of the dialogue event. after the hard work of

building trust had been largely accomplished. A Jewish participant observed that "it

takes time to build up confidence - takes time to develop the 'words' for dialogue." A

Christian participant noted that ". . .at first. most participants were afiaid of being too

outspoken and giving offence." On the other hand, another St. James-Bond rnember

qualified that "it did climax at the end. but 1 noted openness on such issues throughout."

With respect to the significance of worship. hvo retrospective questions kvere

posed for confirmation of the importance of the theme and for clarification of the impact

of each other's worship on the members of the respective groups. Participants were

asked to agree or disagree. with comment. to the staternents. "Christian participants found

the synagogue service profound and moving." and -'Jewish participants had mised

feelings concerning the church service.'- 1 hoped to gain data not only on the individual

participant's persona1 reaction, but on their perception of the other's reaction.

Al1 but one of the Christian participants agreed with the former statement. One

cornmented. "the service was very welI conducted with good explanations for the

Christians." Another noted. '-the extension of the ritual to me (embracing me under a

shawi) was very moving." The one dissenter observed. "Maybe others did. but 1 didn't. 1

found the length of the service. the rote ritual. and the constant coming and going of the

congregation to be quite disturbing."

Darchei Noam participants were reticent to rnmment ckfinitively. None

disagreed, but only one signified agreement. There was a declared aversion to

presumption expressed in the accompanying comments: "As a Jewish participant 1 heard

positives, but could not go so far as saying the (comment) was me." Another noted

simpIy. "1 believe that's what they said."

Conversely. Jewish participants were unanimous in their agreement that they had

mixed feelings conceming the church service. and forthcoming in their comments. One

observed, '-1 find church services a little off-putting because of the church histop of ami-

semitism." Another noted. '-Christian worship involves concepts and symbols which Jeu s

find hard to accept. participate in. Ctuistianity has elements sirnilar to Judaism. but

Judaism does not 'include' Christianity in any way."

This seIf-acknowledged reticence towards the experience of Christian worship on

the part of the Darchei Nuam participants was clearly heard by the members of the SL.

James-Bond group. Their comments. in several cases. were narrative. One said. "They

quite openly said that the music was enjoyable. but the service lefi them without an

uplifted or reverent feeling. and (thry) seemed puuled that we found it satisfying."

Another told how "1 met one of the Jewish participants later at a Bar Mitzvah. and she

was very clear at expressing disappointment at the church service. She felt i t was shallow

and was arnazed at how little scripture [was employed]." Clearly, regardless of the

qualitative content issues. the experience of observing the other groupas worship tradition

was significant. and evoked deep feeling.

The issue of anti-semitism \\.as addressed through two statements with which

participants were asked to agree or disagree and to comment upon: "Christian participants

were surprised at the Jewish experience of ami-semitism in Car.ada in general and in

Toronto in particular," and '-Jewish participants were surprised at the Christian

participants' lack of awareness of anti-semitism in Canada in general and Toronto in

particular." The responses varied significantly. though the extent of additional

commentary by the St James-Bond participants. greater than for any other questions. was

a clear indication that this was a significant theme.

Jewish participants agreed unanimously with both staternents. though only one

offered any additional comment. That cornrnentq was extensive. In assenting to the

first statement, the participant noted. "1 was surprised at this. and thar the St. James-Bond

participants thought we were more numerous than we are.'' To the participant's assent to

the second statement was added. in part. '-. . . for us. ami-semitism is real. part of our

collective history and personality.. .eye-opener for us was [the] perception that Chnstians

see themselves as a minority in a secular society. We see our society as a Christian one.

even though it is secular. It is culturaIly Christian and we are perpetual outsiders.. . I

think we were disappointed that our St. James-Bond partners really did not understand

despite al1 the discussion."

This last observation seems especially insightfd, given the responses from the St.

James-Bond members.

Only one Christian participant agreed with both statements. but each added

lengthy cornrnentary. One disagreed with both and the balance were mixed. One

participant who disagreed with the first statement noted that it wasn't a surprise "because

1 have many Jewish friends and I have read many books on the anti-semitic immigration

poticies of our government." One u h o disagreed with the second statement said, "1 think

the Jewish participants did not expect the Christians to be really knowledgeable about

Jewish problems." But among those who agreed with one or the other of the statements.

the surprise was clear: "1 had no idea that the Jewish participants felt so strongly about

the extent of anti-semitism." Another noted. with respect to the second statement, "Those

(Jews) who had bad experiences were surprised that we could not know that

discrimination still persists."

Beyond veriGing the themes identified from the data generated before. during and

after the event. participants were asked to agree or disagree. commenting if they ~vished.

with the statement. '*the majority of participants. both Jewish and Christian. would Iike to

pursue M e r oppomuiities for dialogue." A11 participants. Christian and Jewish. agreed

with this statement. One St. James-Bond participant wrote. "this should definitely not be

the end of dialogue. but the start of more and better communications between our faiths."

Another wrote- "1 would Iike to see a study group of both [groups of participants] tackle

Old and New Testament scriptures." One Jewish participant wrote simply. "certainly. 1

would!" Another observed "the Jewish participants did have another meeting.. ." In fact.

as demonstrated in the epilogue. this dialogue event was just the begiming for the two

congregations.

What is the experience of Christians and Jews in dialogue? For this particular

group of Chnstians and Jews ernploying the dialogue mode1 designed for this action in

ministry. it can be said that the experience was positive. so much so that the participants

were prepared to engage in further opportunitirs for dialogue: that new knowledge and

appreciation of the other community was gleaned by both Jewish and Christian

participants; that major themes emerged and were dealt with in such a way that future

dialogue upon these themes is seen as both positive and desirable. Knowledge, attitude

and behaviour were al1 affected by the dialogue process in this action in ministry.

Triangulation, whether in navigation or in the social sciences. seeks not so much

to achieve pin-point accuracy as to continually reduce the "target area" by increasingly

convergent lines drawn from independent sources. The data thus far has corne. in a

variety of formats, from the participants themselves. This is proper. given that it is their

experience of dialogue which has been the focus of this action in ministry. But an effort

was also made to glean the reaction of the '-obsenlers" and "supporters" of the dialogue

process: Rabbi Pinsker, of Darchei Noam; the Rev. Karen Hamilton. of St. James-Bond:

the Rev. George McClintock. also of St. James-Bond; and me. In reviewing the

extensive journals kept by these individuals. it was clear that the same themes were

identified by them as by the participants. although the qualitative content varied. most

especially in the case of Rabbi Pinsker.

In the first instance. Rabbi Pinsker indicated a disappointment with the relative

homogeneity of the Dmchei Noam participants: "The social-activist. humanist side of the

congregation is weI1-represented here. but virtuall no one is here to represent religious

observance." This was only parti‘. attributable to a self-selective process for participants.

given that Rabbi Pinsker engaged actively in that process in the synagogue community .

He recognized the impact of the process as a major theme of the action in

ministry. but expressed hstration with it: '-Process bogs down in fonnalities and the

need to have equal access for a11 participants. It-s mistrating to see the gingerly manner

in which hot topics are side-tracked for lack of time. Or is it that we have no license to

set aside politeness when certain sensitive issues arise?" Given that equal access to

participation in the process was a key element in the design. there is a sense in which

Rabbi Pinsker's critique argues the success of the event.

He very astutely articulates one of the key tensions between the two communities.

however, when he notes "the St. James-Bond participants are seeking to enrich their

spirituality. the Darchei Noam are there to present the authenticity. integrity and

independence of Jewish life against a prevaihg (or predatory?) rnajority culture." Still.

he acknowledges, "the participants seem to have enjoyed the experience." Rabbi Pinsker

was also surprised at the lack of awareness of anti-semitism arnong the Christian

participants and cornmented on the impact of the wonhip services of the two

communities.

Rabbi Pinsker's is the most probing of the three joumals in some respects. but his

concerns seem to be IargeIy self-directed. An imponderable is whether. in light of

contrasting participant experience. he is reflecting a degree of personal stmggle. or

whether he was experiencing the frustration of the reiigious leader relegated to a non-

fmi i i a r passive role.

Dr. McClintock and Rev. Hamilton also w o t e of the same themes identified by

the participants and by Rabbi Pinsker. but both esperienced less frustration than he did.

Rev. Hamilton, reflecting on the process afier the Saturday evening session, wrote in her

journal. "The evening session ended as it began - much trust and comfort. very real

questions. and really genuine interest in each other. Very good, articulate questions." She

commented several times on the importance of worship in the dialogue process. noting on

one occasion, "1 think that rnuch (trust and comfort) has corne fiom the sharing of food.. .

but particularly the sharing of worship. There has been in the structure of the weekend

much chance for the Christians to reflect on the structure of Jewish worship.. ." She also

noted the issue of anti-semitisrn and the very deep chords stmck by the Sunday afiernoon

discussion: "So much in common. which is good, but also good to hear some more

difficult points, feelings, etc. The depth of anti-semitism. so painful to the Jem-ish

community and the feeling that Christianity and Judaism are close. but not so close. The

pain was close to the surface t!!en." Her journal comments included specific reference to

the positive nature of the one-on-one time. On Sunday moming she wrote. '-. . .almost an

eagerness to begin the one-on-one this morning.. .the feeling from the rooms was one of

intense interest, an eagerness to enable the most of a gifted opportunity."

Dr. McClintock's journal observations were equally positive and also echoed the

major themes of the weekend. Writing of his experience of synagogue worship on the

Sabbath eve. he said. "Despite the new-ness of the language. 1 felt myself drawn in from

being an observer to become at least an observer-participant. It was a fine experience!"

In wnting of the process he noted - though without a sense of frustration - that -'it was

hard to remain an observer." His summary comment bears quoting at length: --1 was

impressed by the frankness and general freedom of the dialogical process achieved.. 1

believe that your D.Min. process positively contnbuted to the active engagement of al1

participants and helped thern to arrive successtùI1y to the degree of rapport which 1

perceived to exist arnong them - notwithstanding the diversity of each one's formational

experiences."

My own journal comments seem in large measure redundant. echoing both

participant-generated data and the journal observations of my colleagues. Once again.

the major themes emerge. 1 noted as much the reactions of participants to the process as

my own reflections. For exarnple. 1 noted comrnents on the "beauty of the Siddur" b>.

Christian participants. and that "conversation has not flagged." 1 noted moments which

touched me as early as Saturday moming. cornmenting that it was -Ove- moving to hear

deep persona1 content" from the participants. By Saturday evening. it had become so

apparent that worship was a significant component of the event that 1 noted. --1 ~vish 1 had

included specific religious evaluations." From tirne to time 1 noted a high level of

candour: "Very direct questions to individuals." On Saturday evening 1 also noteci.'. the

system & working - everyone is getting a chance to speak!"

On Sunday afternoon 1 remarked. --Anti-sernitism was also a part of the group's

discussion. Christians seem to have been unifomly surprised by degree of anti-

semitisrn." 1 noted, too. that one of the Jewish participants. a Holocaust survivor. "wants

to go beyond anti-semitism.. .shs wants to rnove forward." But also that there were "swifi

mixeci fecfings ahn!!t !hi, from both Jews and Christians."

Two observations from participants were especially gratifying. A member of

Darchei Noam cornrnented. "1 have learned. 1 wish i t could go on. I don't usually feel

optimistic about these things. but my eyes are a litîle bigger now. This will inforrn what 1

tell my children." A St. James-Bond mernber said. "1 started with Iittle faith in the

process.. . I felt 1 was being objectified. so I was chafing. 1 prefer spontaneity [but] in

retrospect 1 cm see the value of the process. because as a teaclier the big problem is to

give everybody a chance. in this process everyone did [have a chance]."

In the end. the observer journals were usefül as a factor in triangulation. but also

as an affirmation that it was wise to exclude the professional "religious" from the actual

process of dialogue. 1 am convinced that both Rabbi Pinsker's frustrations and my

Christian colleague' s enthusiasm would have inhibited free exchange among the

participants.

Rabbi Pinsker and one Christian participant were the only ones to wonder whether

anything substantive had been achieved by the experience. From my perspective. of

course. the pnmary purpose of the event had been achieved in capturing the experience of

these Jews and Cbristians in dialogue with one another. But I had also hoped that the

event would be of intnnsic wonh. perhaps offerhg a useful and replicable dialogue

mode1 for other contexts.

Perhaps the best word on this came fiom a St. James-Bond member who wrote in

her participant journal. "It seems to me that groups of people of goodwill. meeting like

this throughout churches and synagogues. mi ght have a positive synergistic effect on

society." 1 hope she is right.

Epilogue

"The Last Prophecy of the Hebrew Scriptures"

In the last couple of decades. there have been a number of attempts to do belated

honour to the Jewish roots of Christianity through a process of benevolent borrowing -

benevolent in apparent intent. at least. An increasing number of Christian ministers.

leaders and lay people have adopted the Hebrew term Shalom as both salutation and

benediction. Mock, or more kindly. modified Passover seders have become seasonal

stock-in-trade in many North American churches. The retragramrneton. with requisite

vowels. addresses God as Yuhiveh rather than the archaic Jehovah. and there is an

increasing tendency arnong Christian preachers and scholars alike to refer to the Old

Testament as the Hebrew Scriptures.

This is not what 1 have had in mind as I have worked on this thesis with its title

and theme of "Beyond To1erance:-' in fact. quite the contrary. Each of these usages is

merely a pasteurized forrn of supercessionism which. to my mind. is most insidiously

practised by the misappropriation of another's tradition. It is an underlying principle of

my work that the Christian Church has not replaced Israel in God's regard. We are. if

you will, another project of God's entireIy. rooted in Judaism, but distinct. Ctuistians are

not Jews, but rather Gentiles who. through the grace of God in Jesus Christ. have come to

know the God of Israel. hevitably, this means that Christians understand themselves to

have "gone further" than Judaism. Hou. could it be othenvise when Judaism is the

foundation upon which the superstmcture Christianity is built? The very first Christians.

themselves first century Jews, appropriated their own scriptures to illuminate the

expenence of Jesus of Nazareth. There is thus an inevitable degree of supercessionism to

Christianity with relation to Judaism. as there is with Islam in relation to Christianity.

But such appropriation must be done consciously, respectfully. and humbly.

acknowledging that God is the ultimate arbiter of truth. whatever that eIusive virtue ma'.

prove to be.

Thus we must heed the cautionary voices of Jewish f i ends and colleagues who

tell u s that shalorn belongs in a specific religio-cultural context: that pretend seders do

little to illuminate Jesus' purposes dunng his last supper: that the narne of God is

deliberately unpronounceable: and that the Hebrew Bible. or Tenakh. as it is increasingly

being called, is not the same as the OId Testament.

This last was the theme pursued by Professor Eric Mendelsohn. of Darchei Noam.

in a sermon preached at Southrninster United Church in April. 1999. nearly three years

after the action in ministry with St. James-Bond. and another point on the continuum of

the Christian-Jewish dialogue of which that action in m i n i s t ~ was such a pivotal

experience.

The sermon was the culmination of a week-long "Faith-to-Faith" programme

located at Southrninster United Church of Canada is yet another strategy in Interfaith

dialogue. Inspired by "face-to-face" visits to United Church congregations by visitors

from partner churches in oîher parts of the world. the office of Dr. Bruce Gregerson.

Associate Secretary for Interfaith Dialogue. has arranged for visitors from world rdigions

to spend eight to ten days living in United Church congregational contests in order to

nurtwe mutual understanding and respect. At the time of witing. three such encounters

have occurred: a Buddhist has visited Aurora United Church: a MusIim. St. James-Bond

United Church - now recognized as a centre for interfaith dialogue: and a Jew has ~ i s i t ed

Southminster.

It should be noted that some elements of my action in ministry were incorporated

in this Iast, including the clearly significant opportunity to witness each other's uorship.

But it is Professor Mendelsohn's sermon. "Joshua, Judges, Samuel? The Last

Prophecy of the Hebrew Scriptures." which serves as the fitting epilogue for al1 that this

action in ministry has been intended to achieve. Professor Mendelsohn. having

introduced the term Tenakh. and hacing demonstrated the différences between this Jewish

arranging of the texts and the Christian. pointed out that the last prophecy in the Tenakh

structure and in the Christian Old Tesrament is Malachi 324: "Behold. before the coming

of the great and awesome day of the Lord. 1 \vil1 send the prophet Elijah to you. He will

tum the hearts of the parents to the children and the fiearts of the children to their

. . parents.

Professor Mendelsohn then went on -'IO interpret the prophecy as responsibility by

inverting it as the Jews do: if you wish to bring about the great and awesome day of the

Lord, you must reconcile the hearts of the parents to the children and the hearts of the

children to their parents."" He did not push the point any further, but 1 will. Surely it is

not beyond reasonable interpretation to understand Judaism as parent in relation to

Chrktianity. I f that is so. then this action in ministry and the thesis which has proceeded

tiom it rnay be seen, 1 hope, as contributing to our part. Chnstians and Jeus, in fulfiHing

the responsibility of seeking reconciliation which Professor Mendelsoh derives tiom the

prophecy. That it succeeded in so many ways and on so many levels might. perhaps. be

seen as a sign, albeit rnodest, of God's blessing on the endeavour.

The action in rninistry succeeded in satisfying my desire to know the esperience

of Christian and Jews in dialogue. Granted. the groups were small with man' socio-

cultural cornrnonalities. Nevertheless. the data obtained from the participants before.

during and after the dialogue evenr was extensive enough, and the convergence of

experience so clear, that it is reasonabIe to generalize on the effectiveness and the value

of the process employed.

During the course of the dialogue event. key issues between the two communities

were identified. and tentative beginnings undertaken to address those issues. These were

identified and discussed at length in the preceding chapter.

There were some surprises. In the last chapter I noted the surprises for both

groups of participants around the issue of anti-sernitism. But 1 was surprised. too. by the

unanimous enthusiasrn for the process employed. despite early concerns that it might be

too rigid, even artificial; and by the trernendous impact of including a substantial worship

component into the dialogue event process.

Perhaps the greatest surprise was experienced by a Christian participant who had

discovered as an adult that he was Jewish by birth. Following the last session, on the

Sunday afiernoon, he wrote in his "Participant's Journal." "1 felt 1 had made a

breakthrough. 1 knew how important my Jcwishness was to me. and began to understand

what separated me from it. what 1 needed to gain. and what 1 could not afford to Iose. 1

wonder what the future holds." Late in 1998. this person phoned to tell me that. afier

long hours spent with Rabbi Pinsker of Darchei Noam, and with the Rev. Karen

Hamilton of St. James-Bond. he had decided to return to Judaism which he had never

known. but which was his inheritance.

Nor was this the only way in which the dialogue process of this action in rninistry

continued to bear fniit in season. Darchei Noam, as a comrnunity has. 1 understand.

become a partner in dialogue in the North Toronto community. and a sponsor of the

!Veighbourhood Interfaith Dinner discussed earlier. IndividuaI participants from the two

congregations have continued to develop friendships in the years since the project. As

recently as the autumn of 1999. Rabbi Pinsker was once again a guest preacher at St.

James-Bond.

Like a pebble dropped into a still pool. the ripples from that weekend in October.

1996 continue to expand outward. reaching toward a distant and unseen shore.

1 believe the most significant implication of this action in ministry to be its

transferability. Allowing for contestual modification. the basic principles which proved

sound between Christians and Jews should prove equally sound between other faith

communities. To begin, as the Rev. Bill Lord suggested in December, 1994 with the

extreme attention to sensibilities inherent in conflict resolution process ensures courtesy

and careful listening; to meet equally in each other's environment; to take tirne to

establish a basis for trust; to observe each other's worship traditions with respect; to

ensure time for one-on-one interaction - al1 this worked. and c m work again in other

contexts.

I hope that the report of this action in minisr- in interfaith dialogue ma? be a sign

of hope- even now. to people of goodwill within in the comrnunities of Chnstianity and

Islam to work towards the same end. to go beyond tolerance to understanding.

appreciation and reconciliation. If so. then perhaps Dr. Küng's vision my yet become

reality and this terrible century will be seen as that moment in history when the world's

ereat faiths first began to talk to one another. C

Baillie, D.M. Cod Was In Christ. London: Faber &- Faber. 1955.

Boccaccini, G. Middle Jrhisrn Minneapolis: Fonress Press. 1991.

Borg, M.J. Meering Jesus Again for the First Time. San Francisco: Harper. 1994.

Borg. M.J. and N. R. Wright. The Meaning O/-Jesrrs: Trvo b'isions. San Francisco: Harper, 1999.

Boyarin. D. '4 Radical Jew: Paul and the Polirics of Idenfi&. Los Angeles: U C L A Press. 1994.

Breech, J. The Silence of Jesus. Philadelphia- PA: Fortress Press. 1983.

Brown. R. The Gospel kcording ro St. John. .YI11 - . K U Toronto: Doubleday. 1 9 70.

Brown. R. The Birrh of'the Messiclh. New York. N Y: Doubleday. 1 993.

Brown. R. The Dearh of rhe Messiah. 2 vols. Toronto: Doubleday. 1994.

Crossan. J.D. Jestrs: A Rrvoluriona~, Biogruph: San Francisco: Harper Col 1 ins. 1 994.

Crossan. J.D. The Birth of Chrivlicrnig. San Francisco: Harper Collins. 1998.

.Crossan. J.D. The Hisrorical Jeszts. Ne\\. York. NY: Harper-CoIlins. 1992.

Crossan. J .D. Who Killed Jesrrs? San Francisco: Harper. 1 995.

Halpern, B. The First Historians: The fihreir. Bible and History. S a n Francisco: Harpe& Row. 1988.

Hoiy Bible. New Revised Standard Version Nashville: Nelson, 1989.

Klassen. Wm. Judas: Betrqver or Friend of Jesrrs? Minneapolis: Fortress Press. 1996.

Lewis. CS. hfere Christianiiy.. New York. NY: MacMilIan. 1952.

Pagels. E. The Gnosric Gospels. New York. N Y : Random House. 1979.

PeIikan. J, Jesus Through the Cer~neries. New Haven: YaIe Universit). Press. 1985.

Pelikan. J. The. !Melody of T h e o l o ~ . Cambridge. M A : Harvard Universit~. Press. 1988.

Saldarini. A.J. T h e Gospel of Matthew and Christian-Jewish Conflict.'- in Socid Hisrory of the Matthean Cornmunip. Baleh. David L.. ed. Minneapolis: Fonress Press. 1991.

Sandmel. S. .-Infi-Semitism in rhe Xeiv Testamenr. Philadelphia: Fortress Press- 1 978.

Segal, A.F. Paul, the Converr. New Haven: Yale University Press. 1990.

Segal, A.F. Rachel's Children: Chrisrianity and Judaisrn in the Roman Nbrid. Cambridge. MA: Harvard University Press. 1986.

Smith. W.C. Wlhar is Scriprrcre? Minneapolis: Fortress Press. 1993.

Spong. John. Liberating the Gospe 1s: Reading the Bible u~irh Jeutish &W. San Francisco: Harper Collins. 1996,

Sullivan. Francis A. Suivation Orttsiuk the Clr~crch'? NY: Paulist Press. 1 992.

The .4 zerhority und /nrerpreturiotr o f'Sct-iprrtt-e. Toronto: United C hurch Publishing House. 1992.

Wilder. A.N. Earb* Chrisrian Rheroric. Cam bridge. M A : Harvard University Press. 1971.

Christians and Jews

.-I Time To Speak: The Evctngeiicui-Jeki-i.sh Encomtet-. A.J. Rudin and M.R. Wilson. ed. Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans. 1987.

Alpert. R. and J. J. Stauh. Explori~g Judaism: '4 Reconstructionist Approach. N Y : Reconstructionist Press. 1985.

Boys. M q C. Nas God On()* One Blessing?: Jzrdaism as a Sorrrcc. of Chrisrian Seif- Lnderstanding. Mahwah. N.J.: Paulist Press. 2000.

Chrisriani@ and Rabbinic Judaisrn: A Parallel Histoq. of rheir Origins und Errr(\. Devehpments. Shanks. Herschel. ed. Washington: Biblical Archeological Socirt>-. 1992.

Davies. A T . .-1 nri-Semitism and the Fuitr~ciarions oj'chr-isriunihv. N Y : Paul is t Press. 1979.

Davies. Alan. Injected Christiani~.: -4 Srri& of'Modrr-n Racisrn. KingstodMontreaI : McGiI1-Queen's, 1988.

De Corneille. R. Chrisrians und Jeivs: The Tragic Pasr and rhe Hope ful Fzrritrw N 1': Harper & Row. 1966.

Dyarnic Judaism: The Essenrial Writings of Mordecai M Kaplan. Goldsmith. E S . and M. Sault. eds. NY: Fordham Uni\,ersity Press, 1985

Eckhardt, R. Elder and Yolrnger- Brother.. N Y : Scribner's. 1967

Evangelicals and Jews in ut7 -4ge of-Plrrralisrn. b1.H. Tannenbaum and M.R. Wi lson. eds. Baker. 1984

Fackenheim. Emil. To Mend rhe Mkrlri: Forrndofions qf'fosr-Holocausr Jc.ri.i.sh Tholghr. Bloomington: Indiana Uni\:ersity Press. 1 994

Fisher. E. Fuirh Withoztr Prejitdice: Rr hliiltiing C1hri.srian A rrirudes Toward Jitdaism. NY: Paulist Press. 1977

Fisher. E. Inrenvoven Desfinies: Jw*s a d C'hristians Through the 9ges. NY: Paulist Press. 1993

Fisher. E. The Jewish Roots of the Christian Liturg)'. NY: Paulist Press. 1990

Flannery. E. The Angzrish of rhe Jews. NY: MacrniIlan, 1965

Forrest, A.C. The Unholy Land. Toronto: McCleiland & Stewart. 197 1

Gal lagher. W. Working on God. N Y : Random House. 1 999

Haynes. S. R. Reluctanr Wirnesses: Jei1.s artd the Christian Imagination. Louisville: Westminster John Knox Press. 1995

Horo to Be a Perfect Stranger: A Guide to Eriquerre in Other Peoples ' Religiolts Cerernonies. Arthur J. Megida. ed. Woodstock: Jewish Lights. 1996

Isaac. J. Jesus and k a e l . N Y : Holt. Rinehart and Winston. 197 1

Küng. Hans. Jzrdaism: Between fisterda). and Tornorrow. N Y : Continuum, 1996

Lapide. P. and J. Moltmann. Jewish Monotheisnr und Chrisrian Trinilaricm Doc.rr-irw. Philadelphia: Fortress Press. 198 1

Marmur. Dow. On Being a Jt.tt-1.4 Reforrn Perspecrive. Toronto: Holc Blossom Temple. 1994

McGarry, M . Christology After Azm9nvitz. N Y : Paulist Press. 1997

Modern Theologians. Chrisrians and Jercrs. Thomas E. Bird. ed. Southbend. IN: University of Notre Dame Press. 1967

Neusner. Jacob. Teliing Tales: :Making Sense of Christian and Jztduic .Vonsense. rhc. Urgency and Basis for Jztdeo-Christian Dialogte. Louisville: Westminster/John K n o x 1993

Orir- Religions. -4. Sharma. ed. San Francisco: Harper. 1993

Plaut. W.G. Iozir .Veighboro- is a . k t - . Philadelphia: Pilgrim Press. 1968

Pawlikowski. J. Christ in the Light of Jekvish Christian Dialogue. NY: PauIist Press. 1982

Pawlikowski. J. Ct/hat Are Th-* Sujing .-i hoirr Cltrisrian-Jewish Relations? N Y : Paulist Press. 1980

Rosenberg. S. The Christian Prohlern. Toronto: Deneau. 1 986

Ruether. R. Fairh and Fratricide. N.Y .: Seabun; Press. 1 974

Scripiure in the Jewish and Christian Traditions: Authority. Inrerprerarion, Relevance. Nashville: Abingdon. Z 892

Slonim. R. Farnib Quarrei: The L'nited Church and the Jews. Toronto: Clarke & Irwin. 1977

Steinberg. M. Basic Judaism. Orlando: Harcourt: Brace. Jovanovich, i 947

Stem, H.J. One World or No firld. N.Y.: Bloch. 1973

Van Buren. P. Discernzng the Ctaj*. N.Y.: Seabury Press. 1980

Akenson. D. H. Surpassing CYunder: The Irwenrion of rhe Bible and rhe Talmrth. Montreai and Kingston: McGilLQueen's University Press. 1998

Cahi Il. T. Desire of'rhe Everlasring Hills. N . Y.: Doubleday. 1 999

Cahill. Thomas, The Gifis of rhe J e ~ s N.Y.: Doubleday. 1998

Cantor. Norman E Inventing the Middle Ages. N.Y.: Morrow. 1 99 1

Cornwell, John. Hirler's Pope. N.Y.: Viking. 1999

Barnett, Victoria. Fur rhe So10 of-flze People: Prorestant Protest Against Hirler. N.Y.: Oxford University Press, 1992

Hadas-Lebel. M. 1 Flavius Josephrrs. Toronto: Mach/Iillan, 1 993

Lamb. Harold. The Crrrsades: lron .\feu und Suints- N.Y .: International Collectors Librar).. 193 1

Le Goff. Jacques. The Medieid Inlc~gintrrion. Chicago: University of Chicago. 1 988

Read. Piers Paul. The Tenzplat-S. London: U'iedsnfield and Nicolson. 1999

Richardson. Peter. Herod: King of rl~e .Jeris und Fteiend of the Romans. Columbia: University of South CaroIina Press. 1996

Richler. Mordechai. This Year in Jet-zisalem Toronto: Knopf. 1993

Schurer. Emil. A Hisrory of rhe .Jeit.ish People in rhe Time of Jestrs. N.Y.: Schocken. 1961

Interfaith

Armstrong. K. .-I Hisron cV'Gud. N . Y .: Knopf. 1 994

.&rirudes Toward Orher Religions: Some Chrisrian Interprerations. 0. C . Thomas. rd. N.Y.: Harper. 1969

Barber. B.R. Jihad vs. Mc World Toronto: Random House. 1995

Buber. M . I and Thou. N.Y .: Charles Scribner's Sons 1958

Hick. J: .4 Chrisrian Theulog); of Religions. Louisville: Westminster. 1995

Hick. J. and Knitter. P. The Myth of Christian Uniyzieness. Maryknoll: Orbis. 1987

Hoffman. J. Fairh-full Srories. Toronto: United Church Publishine Housc. 1991

Ingham. Michael. ,Wansions qf rhr Spirir: The Gospel In a Mdri-fairh LVurld. Toronto: Anglican Book Centre. 1997

Knitter. P. No O~her .Vame? M q k n o l l : Orbis. 1 994

Knitter. P. One Eurrh. Man). Rrfigiom. Maryknoll: Orbis. 1 995

Küng. H. Global Responsihilir~.. N. Y .: Crossroad: 1 990

Lochead. D. The Dialogicui /mperuriiv: .-î C'Izt-isrimt &ficrion on 1nrrt:tairh Encounrer. M q k n o l l : Orbis. 1988

Posterski. D. Trzte ro loti. Winfield. B.C: Woodlake. 1995

Smith. W.C. Toic.urds u [!kt-id Thcoio,q-. Philadelphia. Westminster. 198 1

The Docitmenrs of Larican il, Abbott. N'.M. ed. N.Y.: Guild Press. 1966

Berg. B. L. Quuiirarive Research ?Merhodsjbr rhe Social Sciences. Toronto: Al 1 y n & Bacon. 1995

Davies. R.E. Handbook for Doctor of ,\4inist~, Projects. Lanham: University Press of America 1984

Myers. W.R. Research in hlinistry. Chicago: Esploration Press. 1993

Brueggemann. W. S., Parks. and T.H. Grooms. To .-let Jrt.~r!r.. Love Tender(\.. Ifirlk Hu rn 6-v. N.Y.: Paulist Press. 1986

Buechner, F. Telling the Truih: The Gospel as Trctge& Corne-, und Fui?. Tule. Y-)--: Harper & Row, 1977

Casebier-Mccoy. M. Frederick B~trchner: :Voivlisr and TheologÏan ~j'rhc L m u i 7 d Fortnd. San Francisco: Harper & Row, 1988

Nouwen, H. The Wounded Healer-. N.Y.: Image Books. 1979

Schillebeecks. E. Mnistry: Leadership in the Comrnuni~~ of'Jesus Christ. N .Y. Crossroad: 1 98 1

Related Works

Dyson. Freeman. !magined U'orids. Cambridge: Hantard University Press. 1 997

Wiesel. Elie. A Beggm in Jerzrsalern. N.Y.: Random House, 1970

Wiesel. Elie. The Forgotien. N.Y.: Summit Books, 1992

Wiesel. Elie. The Gaies of the Forcsr. X.\rr.: Holt. Rinehart. Winston. 1966

Wiesel. Elie. Twilight. N.Y.: Surnmit Books. 1987

Wouk. Herman. The Winds qf Wui-. Boston: Little. Brown. 197 1

Wouk. Herman. War and Remen~hr-~rnw. Boston: Little. Brown. 1978

Appendix A

BEYOND TOLERANCE: CHRISTIANS AND JEWS IN DIALOGUE

A D.Min Thesis Proposal Submitted to the D.Min. Programme Cornmittee, Toronto School of Theology

-by James Taylor Christie, B.Th., M.Div., M.A.

-S t. James-Bond United Church, Toronto

Prof. Jean-Marc Lapoae, Thesis Director -------

Prof. E. Mendelsohn, Ministry Base Group -------

The Rev. Venice Guntley, Collaborative Leaming Gmup

SUBMITTED, APRIL 9, 1996.

The Background and Context of this Applied Research Tbesis

My ministry base is the congregation of St. James-Bond, a pastoral charge of the United Church of Canada, located in the middle class Forest Hill neighbourhood of North Toronto. Founded in 1929, its heritage combines that of the historic Toronto churches, St. James Square Presbyterian and Bond Street Congregational. Close to four hundred members and adherents, reasonably distributed in age from young children to the very senior c d St. James-Bond their spintual home.

St. James-Bond began as a struggting urban church desperate to survive in the midst of the Great Depression, which was bom in the same year as the congregation. The post-war church-going boom saw St. James-Bond grow to a congregation of some eight hundred members, nearly a thousand in the Sunday School, and a weekly radio broadcast of the Sunday Senrice. From 1968 to 1990, the decline in numbers was steady, until by 1 99 1, the membersbip hovered at around four hundred members and adherents. Demographically, the congregation has changed Zittle throughout its history. The great majority of members are white, of Anglo-Scots descent, and are middle to upper-middle class professimals, their spouses and their children.

From 1990-1 99 1, during an intentional interim ministry, the congregation assessed their history and their future vocation, and, adopting the maxim that "small is beautiful", set out to identify new directions. In the words of the Pastoral Relations Cornmittee which interviewecl and ultimately extended a c d to me, the people of St. James-Bond believed that they had much to give in ministry, and were seeking leadership in exploring possibilities. If their days as a congregation were to be numbered, however, they wished to "go out with a bang, not a whimper."

St. James-Bond has been fortunate. During the last five yeais the congregation has found that fewer numbers has diminished neither the sense of mission, nor the ability to exercise that mission. Staff has been configured to include a full-tirne minister; a minisiter with 114 t h e responsibilites in support to youth and womens' minisitries; a "minister of seniors8 affairs", engaged on a per diem basis; a part-the choir-master and organist; and nearly full-time secretary and sexton I occupy the full-time position in ministry, with overall responsibility for woid, sacrament, pastoral care and co-ordination of ministry.

This staff team, together with a strong volunteer nucleus, has succeeded in revitalizing and redirecting the ministry of St. James-Bond in eveIything from worship to the goveming structure of the congregation One sign of this is in the new motto, adopted in 1993: "A church with a bond to the community, and a message for the world."

Tme to this motto, the ministry base of the congregation, and my own, extends beyond the pastord charge into the wider communities of North Toronto and Metropditan Toronto. St. James-Bond is set in what is now, and has been in the living memory of the congregation, a blended neighbourfiood: a nearly equal demographic rnix of Jews and Gentiles, the latter continuing largely to identify themselves, for census purposes, as Christians During the last three years of the ongoing process of identifying prionties in ministry for the congregation, and due in part, but by no means completely, to my influence and that of my colleagues, many leaders and members have taken a p w i n g interest in interfaith dialogue in general, and Christian-Jewish dialogue in particular.

In the spring of 1994, St James-Bond became a sponsor of the Annual Neighbourhood Interfaith Dinner. That September, the congregation made musical and cultural histow by hosting the Israel Kibbutz Choir in concert: the fmt time this renowed ensemble performed in a Christian venue. Early in 1995, at the invitation of Holy Blossorn Synagogue, St. James-Bond engaged in the fmt congregation-tocongregation dialogue with the Jewish comfnunity in its history; and, in Jan- of 1996, at the u@ng of both Jewish and Christian participants of that fmt dialogue, began a second phase in the proces. At the January 1996 meeting of the Executive Council of St. James-Bond, a new priority was adopted for presentation to the congregation at the Annual Meeting in Fehary 1996. It is this: "Leaming to live with integrity as Christians in a pluraüstic society."

This congregational priority is congruent with the broadest description of my research interest. For the last sixteen years 1 have been engaged in congregational ministry; in the proclamation and propagation of the Gospel. Through much of that time, and for many y e m prior, 1 was also engaged, through both secular employment and religious opportunity, with people of other religious communities: especially the Jewish community. Throughout my adult Me, 1 have becorne increasingly aware of the piwalistic nature of reality, whether in the absolute uniqueness of each snowflake or fmgerprint; the increasing diversity of the cultural mosaic of Canada in generai and Toronto in particular; or in the rich variety of what I have corne to believe as genuine religious experience and tradition Here 1 use pluralism in the sense in which it is employed by Don Posterski, a Canadian Anglican researcher and religious sociologist, that "people put their lives together accephg the asssurnption that many ways of believing and behaving are equaiiy valid." (PosterskiJive to You: 11ving w e d W a . . . . . * - ). This growing awareness has led to a regular re-examination of rny personal Christian faith, which 1 absorbed while growing up in a liberal Anglican household.

DuRng the course of my preparation for and practice of reiigious leadership within the United Church of Canada, a number of factors have contnbuted to my growing concem of being able to live with integrity as a Chxistian, while at the same time iiving in respectful haxmony, even soiidarity, with my neighbours of other religious

and faith traditions.

While a student at the United Theological Coilege in Montreal, 1 psutitipated annually in the Institutes on Judaism pioneered by Rabbi Hany Joshua Stem of what was then Temple Emmanuel. I quickly came to appreciate Rabbinic Judaism, with its deep biblical roots as a living and vital tradition. My ongoing studies of the New Testament, which I will henceforth refer to as the Christian Scriptures, have led to a conviction that Christians must becorne aware of the Jewish roots of our faith. In light of the Shoa, there may even be an ethical imperative for them to do so.

My pastoral experience of the last five years, set in the blended Jewish/Gentile neighbourhood which 1 described earlier, has intensified my conviction that Chnstians and Jews need to know one another better, religiously and culturally, that they may appreciate each other as neighbours. Members of my congregation have experienced both positive and negative encounters with members of the Jewish community over the yearg most often in the public and private education systems. These mixed experiences have characterized relations between the United Church and the Jewish comuni ty for over a quarter of a century.

In recent years, my experiences as President of Toronto Conference of the United Church; four years of service with the Interchurch/hterfaith Cornmittee; and extensive travel intemationally in the area of United Nations refom and the democratization of international institutions through rny work with the World Federalist Movement, have ail strengthened my conviction that human beings must niove beyond passive tolerance for one another, to an understanding which may engender respect and mutual action for the sake of the world.

Out of these several contexts, personal, pastoral, global, cornes the overarching research interest of how I might be a more faithful and effective minister to people who live in a pluralistic society, and an increasingly pluralistic world.

Statement of the Research Problem

The peuple in my congregation are in regular contact with their Jewish neighbours: at work, at school, at play, in the mall. Generally speaking, relations are cordial. Life in these contexts tends to go on with little reference to the differences between neighbours. But, fkom tune to time, contact with limited mutual understanding has led to confrontation. There is, for example, the problem of the "December dilemma", which is shorthand for the tensions which develop in public schools specifcally around the singing of Christmas carols in "holiday conceas" during the month of December. Some Jews - and some non-religious gentiles - have taken great offense to the custom, with the result that the religious content of Christmas, sometirnes even the name, has been expunged from the schml system. This has

engendered reciprocal hm among memben of my congregation.

Similady, the day nursery founded by St. James-Bond in the early seventies and which is still, legally, sponsored by the c h m 4 no longer has any reference point to its Christian roots. The perception on the part of those in the congregation whose memory is long is that, while Jewish holiday gameg gifts, and special foods, such as dreidels, Hannukah gelt and latkes, and the recounting of the Passover narrative are acceptable to the parents and staff of the nursery school, Chnstianity is represented only by a brief visit f m Santa, a purely cultural accretion

When these tensions are supplemented by increased desecration of synagogues and Jewish cemetaries, and the proliferation of neo-Nazi hate propaganda and Holocaust denial on the intemet, the need to corne to appreciate our neighbours as fellow human beings becornes acute. This was reinforced in the results of a study on racism in Canada, which appeared in the Toronto Star of Febmary 1% 1996, which found that hate crimes are far more common than the general public believes.

My Researc h Question

My action in ministry will provide an oppoitunity for Christians and Jews, whose daily lives bring them together, to engage in an intentional coming together in a process of dialogue. Through such a process I want to explore the experience of Chnstians and Jews in dialogue with one another about the nature of their respective comrnunities and religious traditions.

Sorne Hunches tbat 1 have

Granted that I will be working with a small group of Christians and Jews of liberal leanings; and granted that 1 would not be able to generalize the results of my proposed research, 1 nevextheless harbour some hunches about what 1 may f d : or what I might hope to fmd. 1 would hope that such an intentional experience of dialogue would enhance the mutual understanding and the mutual Liking of this particular group of Jews and Christians. More important, however, 1 want to know how people who harbour signif~cant differences experience one another when brought together intentionally for the purpose of getting to know each other better. I hope to discover if and how the attitudes towards the other, the knowledge of the other, and the behaviour towards the other might be changed in dialogue. Such experiences have invariably b e n positive for me. I hope that the same might be tme for others, both Jews and Chnstians. 1 want to know.

The Theoretical Framework and Assumptions Involved in the Study

Given that 1 propose to bring Jews and Christians together in dialogue, 1 anticipate three simcant biblical/theological issues to require address in the study. These are the manner by which sacred scnpture is approached and ernployed in the Jewish and Christian traditions respectively; the Chrisological question of who Jesus e s t is for Christians and Jews; and the perception of tmth, specifically religious tmth, in the two communities.

1 am convinced both from study and experience that Christians and Jews approach scripture differently. For example, even the most liberal Christians, through the continued use of a pre-set lectionary in the preparation of sermons and liturgy, subscxibe impiicitly to the position that the Old Testament - which 1 will hencefoxth refer to as the Hebrew Scriptines - exists primarily to provide background material for the Christian Scriptures.

Second, there is the question of Christology. By any remotely orthodox standard, Jesus of Nazareth, as Jesus the Christ. is somehow the second peIson of a triune God which Chridians claim is the God of Israel. Jews object. Wnether it is possible to denve a Christological formula which will honour, if not accommodate both, is a stumbling block in dialogue, and cannot be overlooked.

Third, there is the issue of truth, and whether it has the sarne meaning in the Christian tradition as it does in the Jewish A caricature which is sometimes employed is that Christians are more interested in creed, while Jews are more interested in deed. In other words, Christians are more concemed with questions of religious belief and ethics, while Jews are more cuncerned with questions of religious behaviour and ethics. A Jewish member of my Ministry Base Group raised this with relation to Pilate's famous question to Jesus, "What is truth?" The more helpful question fmm a Jewish perspective, he observeci, would have been, "Who is the true person?" When it cornes to questions of tmth, Christians seem to be taLking a different language to people of other religious traditions, especially Jews.

The United Church context of the study offers some advantages in addresing these theological issues and others which may emerge from the action in mùiistry proper. The United Church is not a specificdy creedal denomination, and thus does not demand a doctrinaily ngid stance as a pre-condition for dialogue. Ln fact, 1 have sometimes noted that the United Church does not so much have a theology, but rather that the United Church attempts to do theology. The method which 1 intend to employ is that which is often referred to as the "Wesleyan Quadnlateral", attributed to John Wesley, the founder of Methodism, which was, in tuni, one of the founding traditions of the United Church of Canada.

In this approach, theological reflection is undertaken in a disciplined process which brings to bear experience, reason, tradition and scxipture. John Wesley himself

tended to give slightly greater emphasis to scxipnire, and 1 shall follow his example. Having said that, I expect to be substantially irformed by the worlc of Paul Knitter, Roman Catholic dialogue theologian, whose ongoing stnipge to fmd ways to be f a i m to one's own tradition while honouring the traditions of others has become most helpful to me.

Both from the development of m y r e s m h question,and fmm my identification of theological issues, it must be evident that certain assumptions are operant for me. Those asnimptions include a conviction that dialogue between people of different faiths is a good thing, and leads to positive learnings and creative possibilities. 1 am further convinced that it is possible to be tme to one's own faith tradition, and yet recognize the validity of othen. 1 believe this to be so even in the face of the apparent intransigence of Christian claims to univedty and the uniqueness of God's revelation in Jesus Christ. Perhaps most important, I believe in the accuracy of the truism, pmpagated by Wüfred Cantwell Smith and otherg that religions do not engage in dialogue, people do.

The Action in MLnistry

1 propose to undertake an action in mimstry over a two &y period, tentatively the Saturday and the Sunday following nianksgiving in October of 1996. The action will be in the foxm of a dialogue between members of St. James-Bond United Church and Darchei Noam, Toronto's only synago ue of Reconstmctionist Judaism. The synagogue was founded a quarter O f a century ago by the members of a conservative synagogue who wished to incorporate egalitarian elements into the practise of their tmdition: egalitarian, that is to say, with reference to gender. 1 am aware that there are those within the Jewish cornmunity, even in the tradition of Refom Judaimi, who consider Reconstructionin Judaism to be marginal. This is an opinion, however, which is hotly contested by Rewnstnictionisn. It should also be noted that there are some within the Christian cornmunity in Canada who see the United Church as marginally Christian This too, is hotly contested.

I anticipate that the groups will be largely self-selecting from among the members of the weekly Torah study group at Darchei Noarn; and from the corresponding Bible study group at St. James-Bond. Based on many years of group proces within the United Church, 1 intend to Limit the respective groups to six to eight members, fkom each of the comrnunities, with the intent that the groups will be equal in number. The St. James-Bond group will be facilitated by the Reverend Karen Hamüton, my colleague at St. James-Bond, and a candidate for the degree of Doctor of Theulogy in the Hebrew Scriptures at Emmanuel Coilege. The Darchei Noam group will be facilitated by Rabbi Lamy Pinsker, the rabbi of Darchei Noam. The Reverend Dr. George McClintock, D.Min, my second coileague at St. James-Bond, and a long-tirne and distinguished director of the Christian-Jewish Dialogue of Toronto, will serve as moderator when required, and

assuming both groups of participants concur. 1 propose to adopt the role of observer, taking notes as one element of the data gathering process.

I propose that the dialogue process incorporate several structured sessions. in the fmt, each group will be asked to meet independently of the other. The gmups will be asked to reflect on two questions, frtst as individuals, in writing, with responses of fifty words or l e s to each question. These wntten responses wiU be brought to the session in order that the Jewish memben rnight properly obsexve the Sabbath by avoiding the work of writing on the Holy Day. Second, they will be asked, within their respective groups, to reflect collectively on the questions.

Although I have a padcdar interest in the role of scriptwe in each comrnunity, 1 am aware that people in both traditions are informed not only by their respective canong but by a much broader collection of writings, including commentaries, prayer books and hymns. My questions are designed to reflect this reality.

The Jewish group will be asked f m "What does it mean to you to be a Jew today?" and second, "In what way do Jewish sacred texts play a role in your life?" The Christian group will be asked,"What does it mean to you to be a Christian today?" and, "In what way do Christian sacred texts play a role in your life?"

In the second session, the groups will meet together, as they wiU for the balance of the action in ministry. By turn, the members of each group will be invited to read their responses to the other group. nie members of the group which is listening may take notes as they wish, but no response w u be pemiitted during this session: not even for clarification.

In the thVd session, the respective groups wil! be invited to teil the other group what they heard, by referring to their notes. Participants wiU be permitted to quote what they heard members of the other group say, but not to interpret anything they heard. The prirnary purpose of this session is confiinnation and clanfication of content.

In the fourth session, the Jewish and Christian participants will be paired, to discuss as they wish the results of the process thus far.

The final session will be a plenary, and wili incorporate an opportunity for an informal evaluation of the dialogue event.

The action in ministry is designed to take place over one weekend, incorporating the cycles of both the Jewish and Christian Sabbaths. On the Friday evening, the participants would gather at Darchei Noarn for a "Welcoming the Sabbath" service, followed by an exercise in group-building, the fim dialogue session and a social. The second session, on Saturday morning, would be followed by Saturday moming services and lunch with the congregation of Darchei Noam. Saturday aftemoon will be fme, with the gmups reconvening at St. James-Bond for an early dinner, the

"Farewell to the Sabbath Service", and the third session. On Sunday morning, the participants will attend worship at St. James-Bond, followed by fellowship with the congregation, Iunch, and the founh session. The final session WU take place following a mid-aftemoon break, with people free to depart in time for Sunday dinner.The opportunities to eat and to experience and observe each other's worship are integral to this dialogue process, and I will seek &ta on the impact of this l e s structureci aspect of the programme on the participants.

The Research Methodology Operative in the Study

My prirnary data gatherhg instruments will be a "pre-inteMewu and a "pst- interview." These will be with individual participants, and will be of one half-hour dination with three to four directed questions uniformly posed. The pre-inte~ew will be designed to elicit some understanding of the individual's experience of their Christian or Jewish counterparts, especially if that experience was gained in dialogue. 1 will be particularly concemed, in designing the questions for the interviews, to seek data on the knowledge of, and attitude and behaviour towards the other. The p s t - i n t e ~ e w will be designed to eiicit the understandings of the participant after the action in ministry has k e n wmpleted, and will be equaliy time structured and unifody conducted. There will be core questions common to both interviews, inciuding questions utilizing a contiuum format. Some questions in the post-interview, however, rnay weU be modifïed both by my reading of the pre-interview data, and by my obsewations during the action in ministry.

in addition, each participant will be asked to complete a written evaiuation of the dialogue process Interview and evaluation results wili be coded in such a way that they may be easily correlated, yet protect the anonymity of the participant from anyone but me. Lastly, when my data has been organized, 1 intend to reconvene the participants to ask hem if my findings correspond to theK recollection of the event. In this way, by inteniews, evaluation, check-back, and my observations, in note f o m or taped, depending on the concurrence of the group, I hope to achieve an acceptable degree of txiangulation of results. I anticipate that several categories of data will emerge, from which both conclusions and questions may be drawn.

Each participant will be asked to s i n and to have witnessed, a clearly worded consent fom, which wiil guarantee to preserve the anonymity of their interview and evaluation data, and the destruction of di data upon the successful defence of the Doctor of Ministry dissertation for which this action in minstry is to serve. The consent f o m will include the specific assent to participation in the full process of the action in ministry. Furthexmore, Reverends Hamilton and McClintock and Rabbi Pinsker will be available both during and after the dialogue process to any participant who is spiritualiy or otherwise troubled by the process.

Risks and Limitations of the Study

The pimary limitation of the study is that it involves a lunited number of Jews and Christians nom two religious communities which are socio-economically similar, and which are, within their respective traditions, correspondingly liberal in outlook

The ri& are limited, but real. The dialogue process may lead to ïU-will, rather than good. The group may develop a life of its own, and =bel against the formal process which 1 am proposing. Participants may fmd their ideas challenged in ways that are disturbing. There may be a degree of suspicion between the two g m p s which will affect the data. Any one of these risks may disrupt the action in ministry, yet still provide significant insight, a s my concern is to gather data on the genuine expenence of Christians and Jews in dialogue with one another. There is also the correspondhg risk that the dialogue will be so polite as to be superficial; yet even that wiU provide useful data and insights.

A significant factor which will have an impact on the action in ministry is my impending change of pastoral relations. By the t h e the action in ministry is undertaken, 1 wiu have assumed rninisterial responsibiiities at Southminster United Church in Ottawa. 1 do not foresee the action being compromised in any way by this move. Al1 parties involved, including m y new congregation, have indicated not ody willingness, but enthusiasm to continue. It may even be a positive factor, in that 1 will be further distanced in my role as participant observer by no longer wielding implicit pastoral influence in the action 1 shall need to be sensitive to any irripact on the action in the assessing of data.

The Contributions of the Study

Although the r e d t s obtained from this study and from the amalysis of the data collected therein will not be generalizable beyond the two congregations from which participants wiU be selected, 1 believe that the process wiU yield valuable insights for anyone in pastoral ministry who is seeking to minister more effectively to people in a pluralistic society. Lndeed, throughout this action in ministry, 1 wiU be gathering data on a process in dialogue which I hope wiU be transferrable to other settings and between d e r religious communities. It wiü, 1 hope, be illustrative of some of the problerns and possibilities in engaging in interhith dialogue in a congregationai setting, especiaily, though not exclusively, between Jews and Christians. I hop, too, that this study will demonstrate that people of different religious communities who share a cornmon secular environment, wili, through dialogue, be able to move beyond tolerance to a new vision of life together for the good of the whole commtmity. Lastly it WU, 1 hope, confikm some of the hunches and validate some d rhe assumptions which 1 hold concerning the positive nature of dialogue, and, if not, will provide useful insights.

Appendix B

Selected Documents Employed in the Action in Ministry

CONSENT FORiM

4 , hereby consent to take part in a study conducted by the Rev. James Christie, under the direction of the Toronto School of Theology. In consenting to participate 1 understand that:

1. The purpose of the presem study is to gain understanding of the experience of Jews and Christians in dialogue with one another. In the course of this dialogue I will be asked tu share my thouphts and feelings honestly and courteously as I deem appropnate.

2. I will be asked to undenake an intewiew with Mr. Christie both prior to and following the dialogue even4 and, insofar as 1 am able and without rnfruigkg upon my religious obligations in any way, to record my perceptions of the event, and to allow Mr. Christie access to that record which will be retunied to me upon the acceptance of his doctorat dissertation.

3. The data I provide will be kept snictly confidentid and secure to the exrent allowed by law. Neither my name, nor any other personal identifying information will be kept together with the other data which 1 may provide.

4. The results of this study wiU be rewrted in such a manner that 1 will not be idenMiable in any way. identifiable individual.

5. I agree to participate

6. In terms of risks and

hblished rekns wiU refer to grouped data and not to any

in all sessions of the prognm, both fomal and infomal.

benefits, the only anticipated ri& of participation in this study would be discOTllfort arising from interchanges among and between participan- cu-religiomsts or othenvise. The only anticipated benefit 1 can expect to receive is that of participation in a project desiped to increase understanding, appreciation and CO-operation benireen people of different religious traditions.

7. I have been advised that 1 will receive a copy of the Sped consent fom.

Dated at Toronto, this day of , 1996.

--- - Participant's Name Participant's Sipature

This consent fonn has been read and si-ped by --y who i n f o m me that its vaxious points and conditions have b e n read and cleady understood.

Witness' Sipanire Date

776 Kingfier Crescent Orleans, Ontario KIE 2L2

October, 1 996

Dear Dialogue Paaicipants:

Once again, many thanis for your willingness to take part in the Toronto School of Theology authonzed Doctor of Mimsuy dialogue event between members of Darchei Noam Synagogue and members of the congregation of St. James-Bond United Church As the event b w s nearer, 1 grow more and more convinced that it will pmve pexsondy enriching for the participants, as weil as singulariy conributive to the field of intexfaith dialogue in gened, and Christian-Jewish dialogue in particular.

You should have received this letter and the attached dialosme kit several davs pior to the evem, and I ask you to examine the contents th;>roughly. You u h fmd:

- a detailed agenda of the weekend event; - 4 adhesive name tags, enough for each session; - the "frfty word or l e s" starter questions, to be completed in advance of the event and brought with you;

- several "principles of dialogue" to keep in mind; - a "jounial" which 1 would ask you to keep when possible and when not infringing upon the Sabbath (1 would Iike to bormw the journals for my data analysis, and will r e t m them to you upon acceptance of m y dissertation);

- an evaluation sheet; - a consent form, to be signed, dated, witnessed and brought to the event.

Rabbi Pinsker, Reverend Hamilton, and Dr. McClintock have all indicated that they aii3 looking fonvard to the weekend almost as much as 1 am. 1 hope that you, too, are looking foiward to the dialogue with @ad anticipation.

( flfl e ev.) Jmes Christie

A Few "PMciples of Dialogue":

Comesy and hcmesty are Nvui pillas of dialogue.

Dialogue is never an opportunity to proselytize.

In dialogue, each participant speaks only for herseX/himsel€, never for the other person, or the other pemn's tradition.

" QuickC heck Evahation " Please use reverse if necessary.

(Ali "scale-type" questions assume "O" a s the lowcnd value and " 10" as the hi&)

1. On a sale of O - 10, what is your overall rating of this dialogue event?

O 10

2. To what extent did the event conform to what you were led to expecr? 9

Very much Somewhat Not much Not at all

3. How adequately prepared were you for uiis event?

Adequately More preparation would have helped Inadequately

4. On a scale of O - 10, how clear did you fbd the preparatory documents?

O 10

5. On a scaie of O - 10, how would you rate the physical arrangements?

6. Please identa one especially "high" moment of the weekend?

7. Please ide- one especially "low" moment of the weekend?

8. Please iden- one new thing leamed from this event?

9. How likely would you be to accept a future invitation to a sknilar event?

Very likely Likel y Unlikely Never

10. How likely would you be to seek out future dialogue oppmunities?

V e v iikely Likel y UnLikely Never

- 7 - - 5. 1 consider my knowledge of my own sacred rems (Christian/Jewish) to be:

Exceiient Very Good Good Fair Poor

6. 1 consider my knowledge of the other rradition's sacred rem to be:

Excellent Very Good Good Fair Poor

7. Please complete: "When 1 hear the word Jew I feei

8. Please complete: "When 1 hear the word Christian 1 feei

9. H o w likefy would you be to anend a Christian service in memory of the Shoa (Hoiocaust)?

Very Iikely Likeiy Unlikely Never

10. PIease cornplete: "If rny soddaughter were daring a ChristiadJew, 1 would

DOCTOR OF MIiVISTRY

Pre-Ouestionnaire

Dialogue Evenr

1. Please complete: "1 a@ to pdcipate in this evenc because

2. Have you participa& in ChrinianlJewish dialogue previousiy?

Please complete: "The expenence was

3. 1 consider my howledge of my own tradition (JewishKhristian) to be:

ExceHent Very Good Good Fair Poor

4. I consider my howledge of the oher nadition in rhis dialogue (JewishKhrisrian) to be

Excelient Very Good Good Fair Poor

DOCTOR OF MIMSTRY Dialogue Event

Post-Ouestionnaire

1. Having participated in this dialogue event, please complete:

"The experience was

2. Prior to the event, you said that: 1 consider my knowledge of rny own tradition (JewisNChristian) to be:

Excellent Very Good Good Fair Poor

Having participated in the event, how would you respond?

3. Prior to the event, you said that: 1 consider my knowledge of the other tradition in this dialogue (JewishfChristian) to be:

Excellent Very Good Good Fair Poor

Having panicipated in the event, how wouid you respond?

4. Pnor to the event, you said: 1 consider my knowledge of rny own sacred texts (ChnstianlJewish) to be:

Excellent Very Good Good Fair Poor

Having participated in the event, how would you respond?

5. Prior to the event you said: 1 consider my knowledge of the other tradition's sacred texrs to be:

Excellent Very Good Good Fair Poor

Having panicipated in the event, how wouid you respond?

6 . Please complete:

When 1 hear the word Jew 1 feel

7. Please complete:

When 1 hear the word Christian 1 feel

8. Prior to the event. you said: You would be to attend a Christian service in memory of the Shoa

(Holocaust) ?

V e q likely Likely Uniikel y

Having participated in the event, how would you respond?

9. Please complete: "If my soddaughter were dating a ChristiadJew, I would

10. Were there any significant moments in the event for you?

What were they?

Dear Friends:

The irritahg truth is that truisms are; for example, time redy does fly. At this time last year, 1 suffered high h e t y through beginning a new ministry, moving our family, and preparing for the dialogue event in which you so graciously participated. This year 1 a m suffering from high anxiety trying to construct a thesis fmm a l l that we have done together, knowing that there is yet a vast amount of reading and research to be undeden .

Nevertheles, I am happy to report that Professor Jean-Marc Laporte, having seen the basic data from our event, is convinced that "we have a thesis here." b remains to write it.

This letter cornes with a 1st request fmm me, and some information for you. You wi l i fmd enclosed:

- üsts of participant names and addresses as you requesterl; - a "sehddrwed , stamped" envelope; - a "verifïcation" form.

1 mentioned this form to you during our last phone conversation. It is a way for me to check whether 1 have correctly identified the major themes which emerged during the weekend of dialogue. Would you please respond to the questions on the form, and return it to me in the envelope provided by September 15,1997.

Once again, many thanks for your participation and your patience. 1 had hoped to have h s to you in the sprinp, but the demands of family and vocational Me, combined with the completion of final course requirements, rendered my self- . imposed deadlines wildly optimistic.

1 hope your summer is restful and refreshg, and remah,

Christian-Jewish Dialogue Event, Autumn 1996 Dam hei-Noam & St James-Bond Initial Data Analysis VaUdatlon Form

The foiiowing statements emerged as themes or issues from the various wurces of data as I have compiled them. In this fom, 1 wish to see if my "take" on the event is accurate.

Please circle the suitable response, and comment as you wish.

1. AU in all, the event was a positive expenence. A p e Disagree

Comment:

2. The "interpersonal " element of the event was very important to all participants, and very positive. Agree Disagree

Comment:

3. More time for "onean-one" encounter would have been useful. Agree Diagree

Comment:

4. Openness on the 'hard issues" in dialogue only surfaced in the final "free-for- all" session Agree Disagree

Comment:

5. Christian participants f o n d the synagogue seMce profound and moving. Agree Disagree

Cornment:

6. Jewish participants had mixed feeiings conceming the church sexvice. Agree Disagree