form

The great Reformation cry of Sola Scriptura (“by Scripture alone”) apparently has been replaced by “scuttle the Scriptures” by the national leadership of Presbyterian Women. In a well-meaning but woefully performed attempt to assist groups in avoiding anti-Semitism, PW leadership has, instead, set itself up in opposition to the Scriptures and even against Jesus’ teaching. It is commendable to oppose anti-Semitism, but not so by showing embarrassment about the New Testament, opposing what Jesus taught, and denying the essence of Christian faith!

The Presbyterian Women leadership has placed on their web site a document entitled “Guidelines for Avoiding Anti-Semitism” (click here). While providing such guidelines is an excellent idea in general, this particular document demeans Christianity, the Scriptures, and even the Jewish people.

Besides betraying a cavalier attitude toward matters held dear by Christians, the document fails badly in a number of other ways—providing definitions of the anti-Semitism connected to the Holocaust, overstating the authority of a study document, dismissing supersessionism, and even giving an anti-Semitic definition of the state of Israel. The errors are jumbled together in a rather inelegant muddle that is in some ways more than groups need in order to avoid anti-Semitism, and in other ways inadequate and misleading.

Rather than just declare the paper flawed, however, we supply examples and explanations. Here are a number of troublesome factors.

Those who produced and now commend this paper must have a dismally low esteem for Scripture. The guidelines’ authority is not the Bible; rather, the Bible is seen as the chief problem! Right off, the guide blithely begins by stating that “A large percentage of Christian negative portrayal of Jews and Judaism emanates from New Testament scripture, which has caused a history of misunderstanding of the Jewish people that has contributed to two millennia of persecution.”

Blame it on the Bible and its “editorial tendencies” that cast “many of Jesus’ Jewish contemporaries in the worst light.” Good leaders, it says, will bring “the content of religious materials in-line with the policies of the Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.).” And that includes the worst offender among religious materials: the Bible! This is not a particularly commendable beginning.

In other places, the guidelines caution against the use of the lectionary, which is “particularly problematic around Advent, Lent, and Easter.” Leaders are to take care “to eliminate or contextualize scriptures that portray Jews and Judaism in a negative light.” In other words, if you don’t like what the Scriptures say, eliminate them!

Elsewhere, the guideline writers express certainty that the Bible is in error: “References to the Sanhedrin should be made sparingly if at all because events in the Gospels do not reflect the realities of Sanhedrin practice.” In other words, “Don’t use that part of the Bible, because it’s all wrong.”

Apparently those in the Presbyterian Women office believe they can try the biblical text and declare it guilty, but do they have a leg to stand on? They cite as examples such classic passages as Peter’s sermon in Acts (2:23) and Stephen’s marvelous defense (Acts 7:52). They fault Matthew’s account of the Crucifixion (27:25). The whole Gospel of John is a big red flag: “The Gospel of John is noted by many scholars as the most anti-Jewish book in the New Testament.” They even cite Acts 5:3 as troublesome, in error, apparently.

Are these Presbyterian Women national leaders providing good counsel? In an excellent article on anti-Semitic potential in the Gospels in the Dictionary of Jesus and the Gospels, Jon A. Weatherly offers commentary that answers that question with a resounding no!

For instance, Weatherly writes about the so-called problem of generalized statements that are seen as hostile to the whole Jewish nation. One such expression is “this generation” (Mt 12:39–42; Lk 11:29–32; cf Mk 8:12). He writes that because this term is used in an “apparently unfavorable comparison with Gentiles,” it is “taken to indicate anti-Semitism on the part of the Evangelists.” Is Jesus condemning the whole Jewish people?

Weatherly employs the first century Jewish historian Josephus to argue against this. Josephus uses the same phrase “with reference only to one segment of the generation.” This in fact is the way Jesus used the term. As Weatherly puts it, “The statements reflect the sharp conflict between Jesus and his opponents, but their setting indicates that Jews are not condemned en masse.”1

A second example: Another generalized term, “the Jews,” is seen as a problem by some scholars, particularly as it is used in the Gospel of John. Here again Weatherly refers to Josephus and his use of the term “the Jews.” Josephus refers to those who rebelled against Rome as the Jews, although he was aware that there were Jews who had not rebelled. Additionally, the Gospel of John is the same book that states that “salvation comes from the Jews (4:22)” and as Weatherly points out, “affirms that Jesus was a Jew (4:9).”2

There is a better solution than indicting and then discarding the Scriptures because some might consider them anti-Semitic. Obviously the Scriptures can be and have been misused by anti-Semites, but the Scriptures themselves are not anti-Semitic. It is arrogant to stand in judgment over the Bible and decide it has to go because it doesn’t square with what one prefers to hear. It is also unnecessary.

They treat a temporary study paper as if it were sacrosanct Presbyterian policy

The guidelines cobble together a confusing set of documents, often with little or no explanation or connecting material. The paper begins with seven affirmations from “A Theological Understanding of the Relationship Between Christians and Jews,” It ends with some guidelines from the United Church of Christ Curriculum Publishing. In between, the long list of definitions isn’t ascribed, but it does refer to someone named Jules Isaac, who came up with an 18-point list in 1947. At the end, a bibliography is provided.

What makes this odd conglomeration a useful tool? It seems more a hasty pastiche than a cohesive reference.

It should be noted that the 1987 statement, “A Theological Understanding of the Relationship Between Christians and Jews,” is no more than a “provisional statement,” recommended to the church “for study and comment.”3 Thus, the theological statements in the anti-Semitism guidelines have not been “established” as “theological affirmations” by the Presbyterian Church and do not have the authority of policy. Indeed, the 1987 statement, itself, has troubling aspects of its own.

Both a shocking tendency toward syncretism and an inordinate fear of exclusivism fatally flaw the guidelines. One would think that Presbyterians would gladly trade away their theology and faith distinctives for a feel-good pottage of innocuousness. Do we have solid beliefs or merely malleable religious notions?

The most egregious wording comes from a section out of the United Church of Christ materials, where we are given this troublesome advice: “Practice talking about Christianity in a way that is not imperialistic. Don’t assume that we hold the authority over all other religions and always offer something better than other faiths.”

While it is never good to be condescending or haughty in attitude, and while we don’t want to act as if we hold personal authority over anyone, still we do serve a God who commanded, “You shall have no other gods before me” (Exod 20:3). We do worship Jesus Christ, who made it clear that “I am the way, and the truth, and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me” (John 14:6). There will come a day when every knee will bend and every tongue confess that Jesus Christ is Lord (Phil 2:10–11).

We had certainly better assume that Christianity “offers something better than other faiths”! Jesus warned that “those who are ashamed of me and of my words in this adulterous and sinful generation, of them the Son of Man will also be ashamed when he comes in the glory of his Father with the holy angels” (Mark 8:38). It should be unthinkable for Presbyterians, afraid of possibly offending someone, to act and speak as if God were no more significant than some human religious construction!

The guidelines appear to be negative about “exclusivism” (and seemingly okay with syncretism), saying, “Christian exclusivism says the confession of Jesus Christ as personal savior is the only pathway to salvation.” Well, yes! All roads don’t lead to God. All religions aren’t equally true and efficacious. Jesus said so (John 10).

Further, after saying that we “shouldn’t assume that we hold authority over all other religions,” the guidelines scold us: “If you have difficulty about this, remember the Holocaust.” The inference is of course that Christianity was attempting to dominate other religions, and this is what caused the Holocaust.

The paper does offer some good advice about anti-Semitism and the Holocaust, such as: “In respect for all victims of the Holocaust, it is best to limit usage of the term to this event.” But obvious confusion sprouts up about the foundational ideas for the kind of anti-Semitism that produced the Holocaust. The confusion not only puts a damper on basic biblical truths for Christians; it also helps to feed the continuing anti-Semitism that still marks some theological and social policies in mainline churches—including even this particular paper.

The guidelines’ definition for anti-Semitism reads: “Hatred of Jews, whether as members of a religion, a nation, or a culture. Anti-Semitism and anti-Judaism are often used interchangeably, though anti-Judaism does not carry the hatred of anti-Semitism, which remains a problem in the United States and worldwide.” The definition is okay, but, given the bias against Scripture elsewhere in the guidelines, it fails to differentiate well enough.

The confusion calls for a clearer understanding of the difference between anti-Semitism and anti-Judaism. The former is racial hatred, while the latter is hatred of the Jewish religion. Both are, of course, wrong, but sometimes anti-Judaism gets applied to the mere pointing out of the differences between the Christian faith and the Jewish faith.

If Christians rightfully believe that all peoples—including Jewish people—need to acknowledge Jesus Christ as Lord and Savior, this gets mistakenly construed as anti-Judaism. But that doesn’t explain people such as Corrie Ten Boon and her family. They believed that Jewish people needed Jesus Christ as Savior, yet they gave their lives to hide and protect Jewish people during the Holocaust.

There is certainly an appalling history of some Christians hating Jews and persecuting them, particularly in the Middle Ages. Beyond a doubt, that is sin. However, unlike anti-Judaism among Christians, the Holocaust was undergirded by a philosophy that was hostile to both the Christian faith and the Jewish faith.

The philosophy held a mystical view of race, which understood there to be a racial spirit for each nation. Culture was innate, since the spirit of a race molded its culture. And nature was sacred, since supposedly the natural surroundings of a people formed their soul and contributed to their spirit.

For some, including some Nazi theologians, the ideal was Christianity alongside culture, Christianity alongside nature. For the Pagan Nazis, there was no compromise; it was blood and soil only. For all, except the brave few, the Jew was considered soulless and less than human, having come from an arid land. None of this has anything to do with the Scriptures or Christianity.

Strangely enough, a form of anti-Semitism actually shows up in the “Guidelines for Avoiding Anti-Semitism.” It flows from the guidelines’ failure to address the kind of racial hatred that is like Nazism. This is troubling, since there are many contemporary examples of such hatred, including especially that practiced and proclaimed by radical Islamic groups. The paper does nothing to encourage Christian believers to stand alongside the Jewish people or the Jewish nation, amid those who speak and act to annihilate them!

The reality is that the guidelines themselves practice a more-than-subtle type of anti-Semitism. “The modern State of Israel,” we are instructed, “is properly called Israel/Palestine in respect for the independent Palestine state emerging there.” Well, once that independent state emerges from barbarous anarchy and takes on legitimacy in its own right, it will have a name. But the State of Israel has no other name. It is racial prejudice to deny the people of Israel the right to name their own land.

One of the more problematic issues in these guidelines is the insistence that it is wrong to believe that the New Testament fulfills the Old Testament. In fact, one is not even supposed to call it the Old Testament anymore. It is the Hebrew Scriptures, the First Testament, or the Shared Testament, according to the guidelines.

This is despite the fact that “Old Testament” is universally understood by Christians and is used 18 times in our Book of Confessions, including the Confession of 1967, which reads: “The Old Testament bears witness to God’s faithfulness in his covenant with Israel and points the way to the fulfillment of his purpose in Christ” (9.28). While use of the title Hebrew Bible may be helpful when addressing a Jewish audience about matters such as racism, why should any Presbyterian guidelines directly contradict our confessions?

One way the guidelines define the scorned term “supersessionism” is “the New Testament fulfills the Old Testament.”4 Later, under the heading “Guidelines from the United Church of Christ Curriculum Publishing,” leaders are told to “Screen your sermons and your teaching for the language of supersessionism—the belief that the church is the new Israel replacing Israel.”

Although one often sees this rule being followed in materials produced by Presbyterian Women, including the yearly Bible Study, it remains a troublesome method for Christians to follow. In fact, a more reasonable method is not as simplistic.

One must understand the Hebrew Bible in the context of Jewish history. The words have real meaning and promise for those who existed within that history; nonetheless the words have meaning for all time, since the Scriptures are about God’s relationship with his people. Similarly, although the Jewish Scriptures have meaning and fulfillment in their particular time, for the Christian, Jesus Christ becomes the final fulfillment of all the great promises and prophecies. Felix Mendelssohn, the great composer and Jewish convert, understood this. In his composition “There Shall a Star from Jacob Come Forth,” Mendelssohn proclaimed that Jesus Christ was the final fulfillment of the great prophecies of the Hebrew Bible.

In the same context, the Church consists of all those in the Hebrew Bible who in faith looked forward to those promises that were fulfilled in Jesus Christ, as well as all those who now come to faith in Jesus Christ. Israel is the people chosen by God; through them he would fulfill his plans for the redemption of humanity, but the Church reaches back to the Jewish people who walked in faith and reaches forward to the Second Coming of Christ.

All those who disregard the Incarnation—the final Word of God, Jesus Christ—walk in disobedience, whether Jew or Gentile. The church consists of all those members of the Jewish people who were “looking for the consolation of Israel” and the “redemption of Jerusalem,” as did the devout Simeon and the prophetess Anna, along with all those who now yearn for the second appearing of Jesus Christ.

Generally two peoples are usually counted, namely, the Israelites and Gentiles, or those who have been gathered from among the Jews and Gentiles into the Church. There are also two Testaments, the Old and the New. The Same Church for the Old and the New People. Yet from all these people there was and is one fellowship, one salvation in the one Messiah; in the same faith, partaking also of the same spiritual food and drink. Yet here we acknowledge a diversity of times, and a diversity in the signs of the promised and delivered Christ; and now the ceremonies being abolished, the light shines unto us more clearly, and blessings are given to us more abundantly, and a fuller liberty. (The Book of Confessions, PC (USA) 5.129)

The absolute dismissal of any degree of supersessionism fights against both Bible and confession. We strongly recommend a fresh reading of the powerful section in Romans 9–11 that passionately speaks about the Apostle Paul’s deep concern for the souls of his fellow Jewish people and God’s unrelenting plan for their salvation. It is a hard read in one respect, with branches being lopped off the vine. It cautions Christian believers about taking for granted one’s salvation. It also talks of new branches being grafted into the new vine in the place of the pruned branches that were originally there. This is sobering imagery.

Yet the unremitting love of God and of Paul for the Jewish people—the original branches on the true vine—and the ultimate purposes that God yet has in store for his covenant people are uplifting. The full story has not yet been written. God’s love for God’s people is yet to be finally fulfilled.

God’s Word is so much richer, so much more untamed than the brittle and reductionistic guidelines that are so fearful of offending Jewish people that they offend God!

Because the “Guidelines for Avoiding Anti-Semitism” fail in so many ways—practical, theological, biblical, confessional, logical—they ought to be removed and reworked by the Presbyterian Women leadership. The idea of providing guidelines is self-evidently good. But this set of guidelines contradicts Scripture and our confessions. The guidelines offer incomplete, inaccurate, and confusing—if not damaging—counsel.

Presbyterian Women Circles and indeed our denomination as a whole deserve better guidelines from their leaders. Let your national Presbyterian Women leaders know.

* Elder Viola Larson of California is a member of the board of directors of Voices of Orthodox Women James D. Berkley is Director of Presbyterian Action for Faith and Freedom, a committee of the Institute on Religion and Democracy, Washington, D.C.

1 Jon A Weatherly, “Anti-Semitism,” Dictionary of Jesus and the Gospels, Joel B. Green, Scot McKnight, I. Howard Marshall, Editors, (Downers Grove: InterVarsity Press 1992), 14.

2 Ibid.

3 The Berkley Blog: http://pfrenewal.blogspot.com/2004_07_01_pfrenewal_archive.html#109062435969502345

4 Here the author references “Mary Boy’s eight tenets of supersessionism.” No other information is given. An interesting point might be made that after the author earlier suggests that one should not refer to the Hebrew Bible as the Old Testament, she continues to do so.