Otros artigos deste número | Versión en inglés | Versión en francés
Perspectives - The ten points of Seelisberg: A significant anniversary
William Simpson
Thirty years ago, in August 1947, a conference was held in the village of Seelisberg, high in the hills overlooking the Lake of Luzerne in Switzerland. This conference was destined to make the name of the village known wherever, in future years, the Christian roots of anti-Semitism would be discussed. It was there, in the course of what was described as an «emergency conference» on anti-Semitism, that the now internationally famous « Ten Points of Seelisberg » were formulated. The holding of such a conference had been suggested during the first-ever international conference of Christians and Jews which met in Oxford (England) in August 1946.
There in Oxford, in the immediate post-World War II situation, and under the general heading of « Freedom, Justice and Responsibility », the participants addressed themselves to the study and reaffirmation of the essential rights and obligations of man in the light of the fundamental moral and ethical principles of Judaism and Christianity.
Among the commissions set up to deal with varying aspects of this overall theme was one devoted to the general problem of group tensions. That commission, in its report, emphasized the fact that « of all the various group tensions, that known as anti-Semitism concerns the whole world and calls for special treatment ». The report continued: « Recent history shows that an attack on Jewry is an attack on the fundamental principles of Judaism and Christianity on which our ordered human society depends. Accordingly it is advisable to deal with anti-Semitism as a special case requiring special treatment, though suggestions for dealing with anti-Semitism may be applicable to other types of group tensions. »
To this end the commission recommended « that an emergency conference be convened at as early a date as possible » and that the purpose of the conference be:
a) to study the present extent of the evil of anti-Semitism and the contributory factors to its persistence and growth in post-war Europe;
b) to formulate plans for immediate and long-range activity through educational, political, religious and social institutions both of a national and international character, for removing the causes, and remedying the effects of anti-Semitism.
The earliest possible date proved, in the event, to be almost exactly one year later when, in response to an invitation issued on a personal non-representative basis, there assembled some sixty-five persons from eighteen different countries who « by reason of their personal knowledge and experience, were in a position to make important contributions to the work of the Conference, irrespective of their religious, national or political affiliation. »
As in the case of the Oxford Conference, a number of working commissions were set up to deal with particular aspects of the overall theme. These were defined as: the principal objectives of Jewish-Christian cooperation in relation to the combatting of anti-Semitism; educational opportunity in schools and universities; the tasks of the Churches; work in the field of civic and social service and relations with governments.
The commissions worked hard and well. The reports both in the attention they focus on general principles and in their specific suggestions for programmes of action are in the main as relevant today as they were thirty years ago. Indeed one of the shrewdest and most realistic comments on the whole operation is contained in a single sentence of the concluding paragraph of the Introduction to the published report of the Conference which makes the point that « it may take a very considerable time to carry into effect many of the recommendations set out in the reports printed in the following pages ». It may indeed! Much still remains to be done, even in relation to the report of the third commission which dealt with the tasks of the Churches and which was responsible for producing the Ten Points.
The membership of this commission, numbering fifteen in all, included a number of distinguished scholars, both Jews and Christians. Outstanding among them was Professor Jules Isaac, the centenary of whose birth occurs this year, and whose pioneer study of the Christian roots of anti-Semitism, Jesus et Israel, was to be published a year later in 1948. Already he had brought with him to the Conference an eighteen-point programme for the correction of Christian teaching about Jews, a programme that was to play a very important part in the preparation of the eventual Ten Points of Seelisberg.
The task entrusted to this group was as delicate as it was difficult. The Jewish members in particular, understandably concerned about what they felt to be the failure of the Churches to resist anti-Jewish feeling and its consequences, both historically and in the immediate past, were equally anxious not to appear to be exercising undue pressure upon their Christian colleagues. The problem was solved, as such problems frequently are, by procedural arrangements.
After a first full meeting of the commission, the Christian members met in private to consider a first draft of a document for submission to a further meeting of the group as a whole. The draft was then subjected to further close scrutiny by the Catholic and Protestant members in separate meetings. This was followed by a further joint meeting of all the Christian members before the draft was submitted to the full commission which, in due course, agreed to recommend to the Conference as a whole the adoption of the completed report.
Even then it was deemed advisable not to publish the full report pending further consideration by a number of Church leaders to whom it was agreed that it be submitted. In the meantime what subsequently appeared as an introduction to the Ten Points was released for immediate publication, while the Ten Points themselves were studied by several religious authorities.
The full story of what has happened since these decisions were taken, of minor adjustments to the text, of the preparation by other bodies of comparable formulations, and of the influence of the Ten Points themselves has still to be told. It could be the subject of a fascinating piece of research by some theological student in pursuit of a doctoral thesis. But in the meantime a few pointers may be of interest.
A first, and from the point of view of the organizers of the Conference, very important stage was reached when the Chairman of the Commission, Father Calliste Lopinot, O.F.M., who had worked for three years in a concentration camp for Jews at Ferramonti-Tarsia (Cosenza, Italy), reported that the ecclesiastical authorities in Rome had issued a nihil obstat in respect of the publication of the document. At the time of the Conference, fifteen years before the convening of the Vatican Council, the possible reaction of the Catholic authorities to an appeal to all Churches in the name of both Catholics and Protestants was still a matter of some uncertainty: a cause even for some measure of anxiety.
A second and very interesting development came as the result of a correspondence between one of the Joint-Secretaries of the Conference and the then Archbishop of Canterbury, Dr. Geoffrey Fisher, to whom a copy of the document had been sent immediately on the Secretary's return to London. In his reply the Archbishop, while acknowledging the importance of the document, expressed himself as being « not completely happy about it as it stands », adding at the same time that he found it « difficult to say exactly why ».
Among the points on which he commented were the following. First, in the opening sentence of the Address to the Churches the document referred to « the persecution and extermination of millions of Jews living in a Christian environment ». « It really is not possible », wrote the Archbishop, « to describe Nazi Germany as a Christian environment. In fact it was denounced by Christians inside as well as outside Germany.» Eventually, in accordance with the Archbishop's view, in which he was supported by the Archbishop of York, the words « living in a Christian environment » were dropped from the published English version of the text.
Secondly, and still in the preamble to the Ten Points, there is a reference in the second paragraph to « the manifestation among Christians, in various forms, of hatred and distrust towards the Jews ». Commenting upon the use of the omnibus term « the Jews » in this context, the Archbishop argued that while « hatred is indeed un-Christian, distrust may not be: and certainly some Jews are, on Christian grounds, to be profoundly distrusted ». The document, he urged, « must make clear that some Jews dishonor their own race and think it might be recognized that sometimes (as in America) Jews pursue political ends which may cause controversy ». (It is very important to remember that this was written in the late summer of 1947 when the British Government, struggling with the last throes of mandatory responsibility for the setting up in Palestine of a national home for the Jewish people, was under considerable and unilateral pressure from the government of the United States.) « The most proper exhortation that on Christian grounds there must be no racial hatred » he concluded, « gains force if at the same time it is recognized that amongst the Jews there are as many different kinds as amongst the Gentiles, and that in both cases charitable discrimination and the Christian desire to love must prevail ». The passage was therefore amended to refer to « the manifestation among Christians, in various forms, of an undiscriminating racial hatred of the Jews as a people ».
Another interesting textual change was made in the fifth of the Ten Points which, in its original form read: avoid disparaging biblical or post-biblical Judaism with the object of extolling Christianity. Commenting upon this the Archbishop wrote: « It is after all essential to show where Biblical Judaism became arid and sterile, and this is in a sense disparaging in order to extol Christianity. »
Replying to the Archbishop's letter after reporting upon it to the Executive Committee of the British Council of Christians and Jews the Secretary wrote:
« I think you will be interested to know that we felt as we read the phrase (arid and sterile) that it was in itself a quite unconscious and unintentional example of precisely the kind of difficulty that has to be met in this particular field. »
Two arguments were adduced in support of this reaction by the Committee: The first was to cite « the paradox that a religion which could be described as 'arid and sterile' should not merely have persisted but should have exercised so profound an influence for good on the lives of so many people through so many centuries ». Secondly, it was suggested that in so far as there might be « justification for using the phrase in relation to certain outward manifestations of Judaism at different periods in the history of the Jewish people, not only in Biblical but in post-Biblical times, the same might also be said in relation to certain aspects of Christianity ».
The problem was eventually resolved by the substitution of the words « distorting or misrepresenting » for the word « disparaging » in the original version so that point five in the English version published by the British Council of Christians and Jews has always read:
A final consideration raised by the Archbishop led to certain changes in the seventh of the Ten Points as originally drafted. The changes were twofold, the first relating to the first of the two paragraphs, Its point can best be made by setting down the paragraph as formulated at Seelisberg, followed by the form in which it appeared in the version published by the British C.C.J.
Original formulation:
7. Avoid presenting the Passion in such a way as to bring the odium of the killing of Jesus upon Jews alone. In fact, it was not all the Jews who demanded the death of Jesus. It is not the Jews alone who are responsible, for the Cross which saves us all reveals that it is for the sins of us all that Christ died.
Revised version as published by the British C.C.J.:
7. Avoid presenting the Passion in such a way as to bring the odium of the killing of Jesus upon all Jews or upon Jews alone. It was only a section of the Jews in Jerusalem who demanded the death of Jesus, and the Christian message has always been that it was the sins of mankind which were exemplified by those Jews and the sins in which all men share that brought Christ to the Cross.
The second major change was to take the second paragraph of the original version of point seven, recast it in the form of practical suggestions and make the whole thing an addendum to all the ten points and not, as appeared in the first instance, to point seven only. The paragraph then appeared in the following form:
We venture, therefore, to make the following practical suggestions:
a) That all Christian parents and teachers be made aware of the great responsibility they assume in the presentation of the Passion Story, and of the risk they run, however unintentionally, of implanting an aversion in the conscious or subconscious mind of children by careless teaching. There is always a danger lest simple minds, moved by a passionate love and compassion for the crucified Saviour, might allow the feelings of horror which are quite naturally aroused by the story of His death to be turned into an indiscriminate hatred of the Jews of all times, including those of our own day.
b) To introduce or develop at all stages of religious instruction in schools a more sympathetic and a more profound study of the biblical and post-biblical history of the Jewish people.
c) To promote the spread of such knowledge by publications adapted to varying groups of Christian people.
d) To ensure the correction of anything in Christian publications, especially of an educational character, which would conflict with the above principles.
The French text of the whole document as formulated at Seelisberg was published by the Amitié Judeo-Chrétienne in Paris. This was followed in March 1950 by the publication, again by the Amité, of a pamphlet containing certain extracts from the catechism issued by the Council of Trent (1545-1563). These extracts, taken from the fifth chapter of the fourth article of the Apostles Creed, deal with the question; « Who suffered under Pontius Pilate, was crucified, dead, and buried?»
Republished in this form by the Amitié Judeo-Chrétienne as « an authentic expression of traditional Christian teaching », the extracts serve to underline the need for just the kind of guidance given by the Seelisberg document which was published, for purposes of comparison, in the same leaflet.
In Germany at about the same time another kind of exercise was undertaken: From May 6 to 8, 1950, under the joint auspices of the Hesse Council for Christian and Jewish Cooperation and the German Coordinating Committee for Christians and Jews, a group of Evangelical and Roman Catholic scholars met at Bad Schwalbach in Hesse to examine the Ten Points of Seelisberg. This working party in its turn produced a document containing eight theses on Christian doctrinal pronouncement with regard to the continuing errors concerning the People of God of the Old Covenant, the first five of which correspond in subject at least to points one to five of the Seelisberg document, while theses six to eight cover much the same ground as Seelisberg six to ten though in somewhat different order.
It would perhaps be unkind to say that the Bad Schwalbach Theses were typically German, but comparison with the relative brevity and directness of the Seelisberg points leaves little doubt as to why the latter appear to have exercised a far greater and more widespread influence than the former.
Take, for example, the first point in each document. Whereas the Seelisberg formulation bids us « remember that One God speaks to us all through the Old and New Testaments », the first of the Bad Schwalbach Theses affirms: « One and the same God speaks through the Old and New Testament to all men. This one God is the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob. Where we Christians do not believe in this one God, then we believe in a false God, even when we call him the Father of Jesus Christ, as did the heretic Marcion already in the second century.»
Here it is immediately apparent that we have passed from the Hillelesque simplicity of Seelisberg to the Shammaitic complexity of the theologians' metier. Questions immediately begin to emerge. The warning against believing in a false God may well be understandable against the background of what had happened in Germany under the Nazis, but the introduction of Marcion might well pose some real problems for the rank and file parents and teachers to whom the Ten Points of Seelisberg were addressed.
Nor is it simply a matter of brevity. The fifth point of the Bad Schwalbach document compares very favorably for length with its opposite number in the Seelisberg document. But whereas the latter, even as slightly revised at the suggestion of the Archbishop of Canterbury, bids us quite simply to « avoid distorting or misrepresenting biblical or post-biblical Judaism with the object of extolling Christianity », the Bad Schwalbach theologians, claiming that their formulation corresponds to Seelisberg point five, affirm that « it is a sin, if ‘the Jews’ of biblical and post-biblical times are disparaged in contrast to ‘the Christians’, instead of recognizing the Gospel as the fulfilment of the Law ». Immediately the document is given a doctrinal Tendenz of a kind which is not to be found in the Seelisberg document, the strength of which lies in the fact that it was promulgated in the name of a joint organization of Christians and Jews.
This Tendenz is to be found elsewhere in the Schwalbach Theses, and nowhere perhaps more clearly than in number eight which reads:
The question of the « rejection » of the Jews is only mentioned in one place in the New Testament (Romans 15), where the future « receiving » of the people of the old Covenant into the new and eternal expressly faces them. It is contrary to revelation, from this double-statement to proclaim only one half — temporarily valid —without at the same time mentioning its abrogation and overcoming by the — final — other half. That the « yes » of the Jews to Jesus as the final word of their history is promised by God, must be also constantly the final word of the Christian proclamation for the Jews.
Such an affirmation no doubt has a proper place in a document prepared by Christians for Christians, though it may call for further exposition and interpretation even in Christian circles. It clearly could not carry the imprimatur of a body representing the concerns of both Christian and Jewish communities.
The extent of the impact of the Seelisberg document in Vatican circles and in the World Council of Churches, which was formally established a year later in Amsterdam, is difficult to determine. The argument post hoc ergo propter hoc in such a situation is singularly unconvincing, though there can be little doubt that the publication of the Ten Points, together with other studies of the problems, and notably Jules Isaac's Jesus et Israel, all served to focus attention upon the extent of Christian responsibility for the rise and persistence of anti-Semitism.
Already at Amsterdam in 1948, in a report on the Christian approach to the Jews, there began to emerge — against the background of more conventional discussion concerning the inclusion of the Jewish people « in our evangelistic task » — signs of awareness of « high barriers to be overcome » which Christians « have too often helped to build and which WC alone can remove », barriers which include the failure « to manifest Christian love towards our Jewish neighbours » and « to fight with all our strength the age-old disorder of man which anti-Semitism represents ». There is even an admission that « the Churches in the past have helped to foster an image of the Jews as the sole enemies of Christ, which had contributed to anti-Semitism in the secular world ».
The recommendations included in the report were in two sections. The first, addressed to the member churches, was concerned in the main with the inclusion of the Jewish people in their evangelistic work. The second, and much more significant, was addressed to the Central Committee of the World Council. It recognized the need for « more detailed study by the World Council of Churches of the many complex problems which exist in the field of relations between Christians and Jews » including « the historical and present factors which have contributed to the rise and persistence of anti-Semitism ».
So the process was begun which bore fruit in subsequent Assemblies, as for example the third at New Delhi in 1961 which, besides condemning anti-Semitism as « irreconcilable with the practice of the Christian faith and a sin against God and man », went on to affirm that « the historical events which led to the crucifixion should not be so presented as to fasten upon the Jewish people of today responsibilities which belong to our corporate humanity and not to one race or community ».
Seven years later, at Uppsala in 1968, the Fourth Assembly adopted more specific recommendations concerning the extermination of « educational and devotional materials with a view to eliminating any misrepresentation of Judaism and the Jewish people ». There was evidence, too, that a number of Churches had already begun to implement the recommendations of earlier Assemblies in this respect. And so the matter proceeds.
Meanwhile, in Catholic circles the first signs of awareness and action came in 1949 when papal authorization was given to translate perfidis in relation to the Jews in the Good Friday liturgy as « unfaithful » or « unbelieving » rather than « perfidious ». This however proved a quite inadequate step. Priests continued to use the Latin word without comment or explanation, while the congregations continued to observe the centuries-old tradition of refraining from genuflecting when the prayer for the Jews was said. The genuflection was restored by Pope Pius XII in 1955, while in 1958 Pope John XXIII struck out altogether the phrase pro perfidis Judaeis.
Finally, in 1960, in the course of what Mme Claire Huchet-Bishop has described as « a lengthy, earnest and friendly conversation » in response to a plea by Jules Isaac that there was «a crying need for the voice of the head of the Church to be heard, solemnly and forever condemning ‘the teaching of contempt’ », Pope John announced his intention to set up a sub-commission in the Vatican Council to undertake a special study of this whole matter.
The fruits of that decision in Nostra Aerate, the declaration on the relationship of the Church to non-Christian religions (issued by the Vatican Council in October 1965), and the Guidelines for implementing that section of the declaration dealing with religious relations with the Jews (published in December 1974), are now well known. That they owe something of their impetus to the intervention of Jules Isaac and his advocacy of the principles laid down in the Ten Points of Seelisberg is beyond question.
But the end is not yet. Much has been achieved by these declarations both of the Vatican and the World Council of Churches. Detailed studies of the problem have been undertaken by an impressive array of scholars and theologians, one of the most recent of which, Faith and Fratricide by Rosemary Ruether, proved a major factor in persuading a Catholic priest, Gregory Baum, who has been active in this field for many years, to revise his earlier conviction that the anti-Jewish trends in Christianity were peripheral and accidental, not grounded in the New Testament itself but due to later developments, and that it would be fairly easy to purify the preaching of the Church from anti-Jewish bias ».
He is no longer of that opinion. Far from being fairly easy it is seen by all who have become aware of the problem to be far more complex and wide-ranging than many have supposed. And far more urgent too.
It is urgent because it affects not only what Christians think and feel about Jews and Judaism, but also what Christians understand about the roots, developments and implications of their own faith. It is urgent too because Jews and Christians, whether they realize it or not, stand side by side in a world which calls into question everything they profess to hold dear, the ideals and principles they believe to be of a fundamental importance to the well-being of the whole human family. The thirtieth anniversary of the holding of an emergency conference on anti-Semitism and the promulgation of the Ten Points of Seelisberg is an occasion not merely for grateful recollection but for solemn dedication to the furtherance of the principles there laid down.
Rev. William Simpson, who is a Methodist minister, is Secretary of the International Council of Christians and Jews. For many years General Secretary of the British Council of Christians and Jews, he was an active participant in the Seelisberg conference.
