Other articles from this issue | Version in English | Version in French

Divided Christendom in Relation to Judaism
Cl. -E. Florival

Assessment of Facts

As the Christian becomes aware of Judaism in its vitality of spirit and its variety of expression, he should also reflect on the divisions of Christianity from the viewpoint of Jewish—Christian relations. How does the Jew look upon "the Christian world"? Does he take into account the complex differences between the east and the west, the north and the south, the past and the present? Unfortunately the Jewish people have experienced the same hostility in all parts and periods of Christian civilization. He would not likely know the Christian world "from within" but in opposition to Judaism and Islamism.

For the Jew in a Christian milieu, the other would be the Christian; the Christian, however, relates to all others as "the pagan who does not know the true God", "the atheist who denies him", "the Orthodox Christian", "the Protestant", "the Catholic". The Jew does not necessarily enter the picture at all.

After the first five centuries, when Christian polemic was pre-occupied with Judaism and paganism, Christian consciousness centred more and more on a struggle between heresy and orthodoxy. The medieval wars of religion involved Christians in internicine struggles; in the final analysis, the Crusaders struck as deep blows against Byzantine Christianity as they did against Islamism.

In our own time, the ecumenical movement began because of the scandal of Christian division and rivalry in the mission fields. However, after fifty years, there is not yet complete acceptance of the concept of ecumenism, let alone a unified movement. The search for reconciliation and unity has only begun. The World Council of Churches, to which the Catholic Church does not yet belong, has 240 members, still very conscious of their differences and clinging to distinct ecclesial bodies. In short, attitudes among Christians pose obstacles to the Gospel call for unity in love ( Jn 17) and to the socio-historical need of a common front in relation to the non-Christian world, and in particular to atheism.

Two Types of Division

The fact that there are divisions among Jews and among Christians must be analyzed in detail to avoid an over-simplification.

Rivalry, tensions and division have been constant factors in the history of the Jewish people. There were political divisions in the monarchic period; religious "sects" sprang up in the period of the Second Temple; there were marked cultural differences between Palestinian and Diaspora Jews, as later between the Ashkenazi and Sephardi traditions; after the emancipation in Europe, the Conservative and Reform movements began; at present there is a certain political and religious tension, all are conscious of belonging to the Jewish people, sharing a common tradition and destiny. Any threat to the specific nature or integrity of this people causes the divergences to fade into the background.

Among Christians, on the contrary, divisions have fractured the community into rival Churches; they do not possess that concrete sense of community which would permit them to transcend their differences in a concrete expression of the union petitioned in the "priestly prayer" of Christ.

Divisions and diverse tendencies remain interior to Judaism, whereas in Chrisitinity, they externalize the various groups, separating one from another.

The Meaning of this Difference

The sociologist would explain that divisions are contained by minorities because they feel threatened by a hostile environment; this inner cohesion is not experienced by a dominant group exerting its power exteriorly. But such an analysis is insufficient because a society cannot abstract from its cultural framework. To compare Judaism and Christianity, one must analyze that which defines each.

Two traits define the specific unity of Judaism: on the level of faith, the confession of the One God, lived in the study and observance of Torah; this faith is rooted in election which identifies the people of Israel as the descendants of Abraham.

None of the divisions or tensions affecting Judaism touches its concrete reality and basic unity of peoplehood. One can deny his faith in God and the Covenant but he remains a member of the people because he is a descendant of Abraham.

It is quite different in Christianity. On the one hand, the unity of God's People is based on faith in Christ or, more precisely, faith in God as revealed in Christ. On the other hand, rather than base itself on physical descent and relationship to a people, the unity of Christians is founded on conversion of heart and rebirth in the Spirit (Jn 1: 13; 3:5). Thus there is a perspective of universalism not found in Judaism.

However, this structure of Christian faith does not produce in itself the guarantees of the unity which it claims by way of origin (in Christ), foundation (communion in the Spirit) and goal ["God may be all in all." (I Cor 15:28)] To find practical fulfilment, this unity must be incarnated in some way so that a visible sign becomes a rallying point for the community and its members and a distinguishing mark to outsiders. Now the Christian community does not have a concrete reality as the sign of its unity, because unlike Judaism, it is not constituted by membership in a particular people, nor by common ancestry. As a community, Christianity's sign of unity can be based only on the spiritual attitude of fraternal love (Jn 13:35), which is vulnerable and repeatedly called into question because of the freedom of each member.

In the beginning, certainly, the Christian community recognized the concrete principle of its unity to be the historical person of Jesus. But shortly after he departed from the historical scene, the community found that it no longer had a visible, concrete basis for its unity (the Spirit not being incarnated) but several contributing factors. This led to the paradoxical situation: the signs of community did not immediately contain the key to their unity but could be interpreted in different ways.

At the Origin of the Difference: the Proto-schism

1. The original and complete unity of the Apostolic Church:
Everything goes back to the unity of life, consciousness and religious solidarity that Jesus had with his people and with "his own", based on his personal fidelity to God. His condemnation by the leaders of the people did not affect this fundamental unity; like the prophets and Hassidim before him, Jesus' spiritual attitude transcended their efforts to exclude him. In fact, his unconditional gift of self to God as his Father effected unity on a deeper level.

During his ministry and again after the Resurrection, the disciples called by Jesus developed a relationship of life and solidarity with their Master and among themselves. What was manifested in Jesus was reproduced, at least in part, among his disciples. The Pentecostal consecration of this fraternal communion by and in the Spirit of Christ did not constitute a substitute for the presence of the historical Jesus as principle of unity. He told his disciples: "It is for your own good that I am going..." (Jn 16:7). What new element takes his place?

On the one hand, there is the memory, the very close proximity of Jesus as historical origin and personal principle of the community. The paradosis (tradition) of the Church demands that members conform to his way of life and his commandment. However, because this is oriented toward the past, it is not sufficient to guide the present community: continuity is never a sufficient criterion for nor a guarantee of unity. The question of meaning must be answered so that the veracity of continuity can be judged.

On the other hand, the Spirit of Christ assures the active presence of Jesus in building the community and in its recapitulation in him. This is a present but spiritual principle which requires concrete expressions of knowledge and life. The Church is built on three foundations, which are simultaneously criteria and sacraments of its unity.

Corresponding to basic manifestations of ecclesial life, proclamation of the faith (kerygma), fraternal fellowship (koinonia) and service of the community (diakonia), these concrete foundations are:

a) confession of faith in Jesus Christ, risen Savior and Lord, Son of the living God.
b) communion of the "faithful", those who, having believed in Jesus Christ, commit their entire lives to him, making the experience of their unity live in fraternal love (on the practical level of the moral life), through Baptism and sharing in the Eucharist (on the symbolic level of integration into and participation in the life of the community).
c) the hierarchy which, in the name of Christ, assumes general responsibility for handing on the faith and the conduct of the community.
It is noteworthy that these three concrete foundations on the unity of Christians appear at the very beginning of the apostolic Church, presented as typical in the various "summaries" of Acts (2:40-47; 4:32-35). Morever, they are found throughout the history of the Church, one foundation becoming predominant in each of the great confessions:
the hierarchy in Catholicism
fellowship in Orthodoxy
confession of faith in Protestantism.

2. Two principles occasioning division:
The Christian faith contains a double tension which distinguishes it from the faith of Judaism.

a) In the affirmation of its originality in relation to Judaism, Christian faith in the living God is verified by faith in Jesus Christ, the Son of God and Source of Life. This "novelty" in itself would not be enough to effect a "schism" between Jews and Christians. "Jewish-Christianity" could continue to live, it seems, within Judaism (as the Essenes did). But it introduced a tension producing later divisions within Christianity: a two-fold confession of faith — in God and in Jesus Christ. Then came questions of faith in regard to both God and man. From its existential basis of conversion—obedience, faith enters the domain of dogma and theology, whence arise problems of interpretation (hermeneutics) which lead to controversy.

b) The presentation of the Christian faith to the Gentiles results from Paul's understanding of "the flesh" being transformed by the Spirit. Abondoning the physical principle of unity (descendance from Abraham) as the concrete principle of the convenant, the Church thereby separates from Judaism.

Opening the "Covenant Community" to the entire human race, the Church introduces the possibility of new internal tensions at the very time she renounces the guarantee that consists in rooting a faith—tradition in the "flesh" of Israel.

However, one must not speak of an "uprooting" as long as the Christian community remains in fellowship with the Jewish—Christian group, which claimed to inherit the living tradition of Israel. It was a rupture of communion with it and its subsequent disappearance which completed the schism with Judaism. This "protoschism" deprived the Christian community of this original visible sign of unity, making new guarantees necessary in the face of the threat of internal divisions.

c) Three concrete principles of unity.

From the beginning, three guarantees were found in the apostolic community:

i) The immediate criterion of a living fidelity is communion being kept in the bounds of the original tradition. This guaranteed against the risks of evolution wherein the Christian uniqueness could be lost through adaptation to other cultures (assimilation) or by a unilateral emphasis on one or another of its internal elements (particularism, heresy).

ii) The community progressively defined its faith in the face of Judaizing and Gnosticizing tendencies. The canon of Scripture, creeds and a rule of faith form the first extra-biblical criteria of this ideological type.

iii) The institutional and hierarchical organization of ministers was intended to offset the danger of disputes and dissensions with the community or between local communities. This might be called the "political" criterion.

There is an order among these principles: communion is the most comprehensive and the least tangible. It does not produce unity but it is that which must be created and preserved. The rule of faith is a basis for verifying authenticity and equilibrium among the tendencies within a community. However, it is the ecclesiastical hierarchy which defines this rule of faith. Thus, the hierarchy seems to be the determining factor, responsible for the proclamation of faith and doctrine (Magisterium) and for the conduct of the community (pastoral activity).

While these criteria are principles of unity, they also contain the seeds of tension and division. As the faith spread, the local communities tended to differ more and more. Plunged into contact with a mature culture, either intellectual (Greek philosophy) or juridical (Roman law), the faith was expressed in thoughts which favored formal (juridical) or conceptual (dogmatic) definitions. The resulting theological elaboration intensified differentiation and dissension among Christian communities.

The hierarchy, concerned with maintaining unity within the local Churches, had to seek unity on its own level, in relations between communities and their leaders.

Development of Divisions among Christians

1. During the early centuries, the Christian faith affirmed its uniqueness in relation to other groups. Following the Jewish tradition, Christians proclaimed a personal God, the living God who reveals himself in history and enters a Covenant with his people. Thus, Christianity set itself apart from pagan religions and philosophical systems. In contrast to Judaism, it confessed Jesus Christ to be the mediator between God and men, true God and true man.

However, this definition in relation to "the outside" does not exclude internal tensions regarding an understanding of the person and function of Jesus in the relationship between God and man. The growing discussion among Christians themselves gave great importance to definitions of faith and dogma. In the response to problems posed by contemporary ideologies, there was a tendency to meet them on their own ground. This development from a simple living tradition of faith exposed the Church to intellectual dissensions culminating in schisms because of Christological disputes.

2. This tendency conceals a second tension, arising from different ways of understanding the relationship between doctrine and the life of the community. The local Churches lived their faith in a diversity of cultural milieux; this affected the living of Christian traditions and separated the east from the west into two distinct camps.
The Christian east continued to experience dissensions but they remained within the communion, the confession of faith springing from a living tradition proclaimed in the liturgy.

3. In general, evangelization in the west was more recent and usually resulted from a missionary activity controlled from Rome. The tendency to formalize faith, moral teaching and religious practices had a strong effect on living the Christian ideal. A new form of tension resulted, aggravated by the barbarian invasions: an increasing division between the hierarchy, clergy and the "simple faithful". This tension between clergy and laity, between hierarchical authority and "freedom in the Spirit", between institution and charismatic, led to the Reformation, a separation of the Nordic from the Latin cultures.

In its reaction against the Roman "primacy of institution" (the Church and its priesthood) and juridicism in dogma and practical legislation, the Reformation affirmed the primacy of existential faith over the Magisterium and its formal definitions, the primacy of God's sovereign freedom (transcendance of his grace) and the personal responsibility of the believer over every form of objective mediation (institution, sacraments, works). The Word of God remains, revealed in the Scriptures to give a concrete basis for unity through a multiplication of free communities.

The Counter-Reformation of the Roman Church emphasized the ecclesial institution, which became more and more identified with the hierarchy, and its priestly, magisterial and pastoral authority over the "simple faithful". This very strong structure protected the Roman Church from internal divisions but exposed it to the risk of a moribund faith, reduced to its dogmatic and cultic expressions.

4. At present, the general evolution of society and culture towards pluralism and secularization greatly modifies the interrelations of the various Christian confessions as well as their attitude towards "the world". Also, the cultural and social developments in the Third World and the vitality of non-Christian religions awakened Christians to their vocation to present a common witness of love and service. The ecumenical movement is the result of this awakening. Modern man's critical evaluation of traditional social customs leads the Churches to distinguish between the relative and the absolute, the accidental and the essential in the Christian heritage. This self-assessment occasions new tensions between"conservatives" and "liberals" within the Churches.

There is, in fact, a convergence of effort among various Christian confessions in their rediscovery of a common heritage and their appreciation of the three principles of unity: faith, fellowship and ministry. Each relates to these in its own way: The Church of Rome is primarily sensitive to the need of institution and hierarchy, the Reformed Churches to the existential dimension of the faith, the Orthodox Churches to a universal fellowship in the eschatological reconciliation of heaven and earth, anticipated in liturgical worship.

Reconciliation with Sources: a "Radical" Ecumenism

One must now ask whether a "horizontal" ecumenism among different branches of the same trunk does not presuppose a "vertical" ecumenism whereby they will become more of the trunk from which they spring. Perhaps they would be reconciled among themselves in being reconciled with the root from which their common life comes.

As we have tried to show, the divisions among Christian confessions come, in the final analysis, from the break occasioned by the turning to a spiritual universalism from a particular historical tradition lived through membership in the 'People of Israel.

1. Undoubtedly these divisions express the reality of the paradox of Christianity: the experience of sin and division, inherent in the human condition, contrasting with a call to salvation which cannot be acquired except as a gift and which will be fully realized only in the eschaton.
The Christian faith may well be sustained by this eschatological perspective of universalism in the Spirit, leaving it exposed to the risks of division throughout its human history. Yet this faith proceeds just as necessarily from a concrete particularism, an expression and immediate condition of the law of an historical incarnation of divine salvation, the initial sacrament and prophecy of the unity of fellowship to which the Church is called.

To reveal that it is a gift of total, ultimate salvation, divine grace must be universal; however, it nonetheless originates in a particular initiative of election without which it would not be conceivable as a gift of personal, disinterested love.

Thus the Church is necessarily sustained by the dialectical tension between the particularism of election and the universality of Covenant. The two poles of this dialectic are concretely and historically represented by the People of Israel and "the nations"; the latter stimulate an understanding of the mission of the Church, the former is its origin and foundation. Such a dialectic is not only historical, developing from the past (Israel) to the future (the nations) in a perspective of evolution and succession; it is also constitutive and present in the life of the Church.

2. The equilibrium of the ecclesial community remains deeply affected by the "proto-schism", which cut the Church off from Judaism as a religious system and from the People of Israel, represented in the first generation by the Jerusalem Community (see Ps 87:5).

Admittedly, a certain continuity between the different Christian communities ex Gentibus and the tradition of the Jewish—Christian community was always felt either because of Christians of Jewish origin or through the mediation of the religious and cultural heritage of the original Jewish—Christian tradition.

It is noteworthy that each Christian confession continues to present traits derived from the Jewish tradition. Catholicism stresses the importance of visible, institutional forms, order and law, concern for an equilibrium between Scripture and tradition, faith and works, cult and morals. Protestantism insists on the transcendence of God in his freedom and sovereign grace; it rejects any confusion between God and the world as it seeks the eschatological kingdom conscious of the delay caused by the sins of mankind and of the believing community. Orthodoxy proclaims the holiness of God in liturgy and interior prayer, teaching the unity of the spiritual experience which surpasses all dichotomies of heaven—earth, nature—supernature, exterior—interior, priest—prophet, temporal—spiritual, Word—Spirit, God—man. The relationship is not "both... and", "either... or" but "one through the other".

On the other hand, each confession contains elements incompatible with other aspects inherited from Jewish tradition and contained in the approach of another Christian group. Does this not show clearly that all fail to bridge the gap introduced with the break from Jewish tradition? Is the passage from a Jewish—Christian tradition to the Greco-Roman culture not the root cause of later divisions?

Her very openness to "the nations" prevented the Christian community from maintaining a unity similar to that of the People of Israel. But just as the Greco-Roman civilization showed the Church the necessity of being open to the "otherness" of all nations and cultures, so too Israel should represent to the Christian community the locus of her roots. Could this be mediated by a Jewish—Christian community as a sign of the Israel with which the Church claimed to be identified in the Spirit?

Of course, to recognize once more within the Christian Church a specific and, in a way, privileged role of a Jewish—Christian community will not automatically resolve the problem of division among Christians. A fortiori, it would not remove the tension (necessary to the very mystery of the Church) between the universalism of her mission and the particularism of her origins. Yet it would re-establish the possibility of a dynamic equilibrium which the Church has lacked throughout her history.

However, even to think of the re-birth of a Jewish—Christian community within the Church is to pose the very delicate question of the relation between the Christian Church and living Judaism. Here the Christian ecumenical movement logically extends to the concept of a radical ecumenism, and is challenged by a past heavy with polemics, misunderstandings and persecutions.

Cardinal Bea, the founder of the Vatican Secretariat for Christian Unity, seems to have understood this. From the very beginning of the fight he undertook to present a "Jewish document" to the Vatican Council. The work of reconciliation among Christians must be included withinreconciliation with the People of Israel, prophetic witness in the flesh of eschatological unity (Rom 11). Both are inscribed within the plan of the Covenant as call, promise and gift on the part of God and considered as committed responsibility, object of prayer, hope and conversion on the part of man.