Dear Brendan,

Thank you for responding to my posts with the candor and sincerity that is your hallmark.

I would respectfully say that the two points you say are irrelevant are indeed relevant, since Church writers in the past have, as you know, basically denied that the Jews abide in the love of God etc. precisely because they deny Jesus.

You are the one that points to the Fathers and to historical writings such as those of St. John Chrysostom about the Jews, not me. I don't believe I have to approve of such writings in order to be in good standing with the Church.

And I wasn't ONLY referring to the love of God for individual Jews. I was also referring to their way of life as being capable of engendering a rich and meaningful life of faith in God.

I put it to you this way. A child that is born and that is baptised who dies goes to Heaven. A child that is born but dies without baptism - ? I think the answer to that question is a partial answer to this issue.

We are all limited by our own historical and life contexts that influence the way in which we interpret reality, even Christians who believe they have the truth.

There is no such thing, you see, as someone who believes that his or her religion ISN'T absolute truth. Well, perhaps Unitarians. But they are absolute in their liberalism.

And I could be a Christian for the wrong reason, without real faith in Christ, or only a Church-goer because everyone else is - the argument goes on.

You mention a particular case in your life which I really DON'T think is relevant here - good for you, Big Guy - but it's not relevant to what I'm trying to find out.

The man in question was a Christian. I'm talking about the way in which Christians can and should be conducting themselves in a religiously plural society with Jews, Muslims, Buddhists and non-believers on a daily basis.

What does the whole "conversion" paradigm mean in this instance?

Are you saying, and you seem to be reticent about it, that you would be nervous around Jews and others at work until you've had a chance to have a go at them to try and convert them? That is a caricature, to be sure, but you know what I mean.

The argument about Judaism vs Christianity is important but it is largely a philosophical one at this juncture and outside the pragmatic considerations of Christians, again, living in a religious pluralistic society.

The Fathers are of little use to us here since they lived in a context of "one society - one religion." The idea of religious pluralism wouldn't have occurred to them as it was quite outside their experience - and I think this impacts on how we view their teachings for this day and age.

So to deal with the implications of religious pluralism in North America is to have little by way of past Christian tradition to draw on.

I don't know what your profession is, Brendan, but I surmise that, by the way you write and think, that you are a lawyer.

And you don't have to answer that issue, surely!

But I say that because the legal perspective is germane to the document under discussion here, as you've alluded to earlier.

The document itself needs to be interpreted as to "pith and substance" by subsequent commentary from those who developed it.

I think right now we can extrapolate some things, but unless we go to the episcopal horses' mouths, so to speak, and hear how they have interpreted it, we are on shaky ground ourselves.

Christianity, for me, is the truth. And it is so objectively and not just because I feel it is.

Unfortunately for human beings, we really cannot determine the reality of anything outside the prisms of our subjective understanding, our own culturally determined ways of interpreting what is around us and in the milieu in which we live.

I think this document, for the first time, represents (imperfectly perhaps) a step in the right direction toward acknowledging that faith is a gift of God and that it is not something that can be objectively arrived at for all to immediately conclude the same way about.

As a sociologist, I congratulate the bishops for their effort.

As a Christian, I invoke St Alexander the New Martyr of Solovki, who called himself an "Orthodox Jew" as he was a convert to Orthodoxy, and who gave icons of the Old Testament saints to his family members who were not Christians.

I gave an icon of St Joseph, Son of Jacob to my Jewish uncle. He hung it in his bedroom.

He gave me an Icon of the Mother of God. A "Daughter of Israel, you know, Alex," he said.

Alex

Dear Administrator,

Thank you, as always, for your guidance and shared thoughts.

I do take some Fridays off in the summer, so I apologise for giving the impression that all Canadians share in my good fortune. They don't, alas

In terms of approach, you have answered my earlier question and I agree totally that our example is what brings people to Christ.

And you and the Navigator are correct that Christ commanded us to baptise etc.

But did he command us to baptise those who would not accept Him, even after hearing about Him? Did he command us to rain fire and brimstone on those who rejected Him? We know the answer to that.

The fact is that we Christians in North America are living in a religiously plural society where freedom of religion is guaranteed - thankfully.

And I think this experience, relatively new to Christian consciousness in historical terms, requires us to reflect anew on our relationship to other faith traditions.

We are no longer the dominant religion in western European society that is indifferent to religion at best.

And the very idea, in secular terms, of seeing other faith traditions as somehow "lacking" because otherwise why would we want to convert them - in any way - is deemed harassment and intolerance period.

Having said that, I think it behooves to reflect on how the Church has viewed Judaism.

I frankly don't agree with Brendan's assessment of the bishop's words regarding the integrity of Judaism.

To that commentary, I pose the question, "When a Jew is baptised, does he or she cease being a Jew?"

If being Jewish is seen in terms of religious commitment ONLY, then the answer is "Yes."

But if it also has something to do with a sense of peoplehood and culture, then there must be other answers.

Certainly St Alexander Men agreed with the latter point when he included aspects of his Jewish heritage in his experience of being Orthodox.

The question must also be asked pertaining to the relationship between the Salvation of Christ and the religious traditions that do not see Him or His Gospel as their centre.

Vatican II and the Catholic theologians reflecting on the seeds it sowed in this respect saw these other traditions as capable of achieving union between humankind and God. Certainly, St Peter did in the Acts of the Apostles.

Christ Himself praised the Samaritan and the Centurion, BOTH representing non-Jewish traditions outside of which it was also believed there was no salvation.

We have no real patristic or other tradition that would serve to guide us in these deliberations. We can only surmise and speak on the basis of their perceived "spirit" as to how we are to think of the role in God's plan of other religions in the varied pleroma in which we live.

Can people who are not baptised find union with God in heaven after death?

Millions upon millions of people have lived after Christ without being baptised.

Was their union with God something imagined? Were the religious traditions and communities in which they lived their lives in faithfulness to the basic religious impulses that all of humanity shares illusory?

The time has come for us to step out of the narrow straits of evangelical-style lock-step and go deeper to meet the unique challenges of today's religiously plural society.

We cannot meet those challenges from within the security of evangelical-style quotes from Scripture and Tradition.

And there is nothing wrong with assessing the limitations inherent in the perspectives of some who are saints and fathers of the Church.

The Church has always recognized "Baptism of Desire" and "Baptism by Blood."

To what extent are those millions who don't know Christ or whose circumstances prevent them from knowing him in this life "baptised" by their desire to reach out to the God they know only through their culture and experience in a wholehearted and complete way that may very well put many of us "orthodox" and "catholic" Christians to shame?

These are questions I am asking. And I agree with the Bishops who ask them as well.

Have a good weekend starting tomorrow night . . .

Alex

"I put it to you this way. A child that is born and that is baptised who dies goes to Heaven. A child that is born but dies without baptism - ? I think the answer to that question is a partial answer to this issue."

No, I don't see it that way. I think that we rely on the mercy of God with respect to the unbaptized -- it's not an endorsement of the lack of baptism, that it's okay not to be baptized. It isn't okay not to be baptized, but as to those who are not we do not condemn, but hope for God's mercy. That impacts not one whit the command given to the Church to baptize the world in the name of the Trinity.

"There is no such thing, you see, as someone who believes that his or her religion ISN'T absolute truth."

See, I think that Judaism doesn't see things this way. Judaism does not seek converts, and does not teach that one has to be Jewish in order to be righteous before God. The Jewish view of election is one of responsibility -- responsibility to bear witness to God before the world, to sanctify the world on behalf of God. Judaism does not seek converts, and is very open to other spiritual expressions by non-Jews (and infact expects these of non-Jews). That's a radically different perspective from the NT directive from Christ to baptize all nations. I think that the perspective of these "reflections" is closer to the Jewish understanding of the relationship between different religions than it is to the Christian understanding.

"And I could be a Christian for the wrong reason, without real faith in Christ, or only a Church-goer because everyone else is - the argument goes on."

Of course. The point is not that Christians are better people. The point is that God wills men to be reconciled to him in Christ and through the Holy Spirit, and Christ commanded us to baptize the nations in the name of the Trinity. Not all of these will live up to the demands of their baptism, but that's surely not an argument that others needn't bother being baptized.

"The man in question was a Christian."

Actually an ex-Christian with a very Jewish perspective on things. One of the things he explicitly liked the best about Judaism was its non-exclusivity and non-proselytizing nature.

"Are you saying, and you seem to be reticent about it, that you would be nervous around Jews and others at work until you've had a chance to have a go at them to try and convert them?"

No, of course not. Religion has been almost banned from the workplace, as you know. To the extent that religion comes up, and there is an opportunity to witness, one can do so respectfully and with tact. I have done so with Jews with whom I work.

"The argument about Judaism vs Christianity is important but it is largely a philosophical one at this juncture and outside the pragmatic considerations of Christians, again, living in a religious pluralistic society."

We all need to live together, but pragmatic considerations ought not go to theological lengths.

"I don't know what your profession is, Brendan, but I surmise that, by the way you write and think, that you are a lawyer."

A good guess, but it's pretty obvious. I think Stuart has also noted this in the past. I'm certainly not ashamed of it.

"I think right now we can extrapolate some things, but unless we go to the episcopal horses' mouths, so to speak, and hear how they have interpreted it, we are on shaky ground ourselves."

I agree. There are things that are certainly troubling to me in there, but I suspect that the NCCB and perhaps even the CDF will have something to say about what has been written there.

Maybe what the Bishops tried to say is that the word "converting" isn't the most correct one when we refer to the Jews who accept christianity.
Maybe be should talk about the Jewish people being received in the christian faith, or in the New Covenant. The word "Conver+ion" goes better with those who are "Pagans" or those who are not related to the judeo christian tradition.

My grandmother's father was Jewish and she says that when he was received as a Catholic christian, the ceremony was beauteful (is it that there was or is a special liturgy for the Jewish people who enter the Church?). He was dressed with some special clothes, he knocked the doors of the Church, and when it was openned he received the sacraments.

Have you heard about the Messianic Jews? (Jewish people who still practice their rituals but are fully chrsitian?

Dan and Moe:

The Liberation Theology is the cause of most of what you've said. The marxist authorities of Mexico supported this ideology in order to create a puppet church and to reduce the influence of the conservative hierarchs. The main trouble is that most of the catholic bishops here, originally came from that theology (some of them even worked as informants for the old regimme).
I hope that the recent visit of the Pope and the canonization of new native Saints will help to reduce the results of the bad theology.

Remie,

You make a fascinating point here:"The Liberation Theology is the cause of most of what you've said. The marxist authorities of Mexico supported this ideology in order to create a puppet church and to reduce the influence of the conservative hierarchs. The main trouble is that most of the catholic bishops here, originally came from that theology (some of them even worked as informants for the old regimme)."

Liberation "Theology", and it's hard to call it a theology, has had a corrosive effect upon much of Christianity, not only in Mexico but in all of the Americas. It tends to reduce all theology to politics. Do you know of studies that can connect the dots on this observation?

Dan Lauffer

Dear Dan,

I hate to admit it, but since Brendan has admitted his profession, I might as well say that I took my undergraduate in political theology.

I knew I was going to have a rough time of it when the professor asked me what I thought of the phrase, "The meek shall inherit the earth."

I told him I thought it to be God's "trickle down theory."

Alex

Alex,

"Political Theology"? I've never heard of that. Are you pulling my leg? I think that is what many of my colleagues in ministry actually majored in instead of divinity if political theology is the practice of making ourselves into gods. But I suspect that is not the proper definition of what you studied. You seem to actually care what God thinks.

Dan Lauffer

Alex,

Did you really worship politics? When did you become a Christian? They say that the journey from politician to Christian is one of the most difficult.

Admin

Alex,

You understand that conversion-for Jews, Muslims, etc.,-is a form of cultural, domestic, and personal suicide.

"In my Father's house there are many mansions...."

Conversion is personal and, therefore, complex, as you imply and involves resolving a moral query:What affect will my conversion have on those who love me and are relying on me to pass on the family ethnic and religious tradition to the next generation?

Blood is thicker than...well...water (pardon the pun), almost always.

Abdur

"The meek shall inherit the earth?"

What will be left to inherit?


Abdur

First of all, let's cut out all the sociological and cultural excuses for not sharing the Good News and for people not accepting it.....good, now that that is over....

Jesus gave the mandate to ALL believers: "Go out and make disciples of ALL NATIONS." And what really makes this interesting is the word translated nations is actually ethnos, the Greek word for race/ethnicity. So there was to be NO socio/cultural excuses for not sharing the gospel.

Second, it is pitiful for any professing follower of our Lord to consider it repugnant (I believe this was the term used) to seek to convert someone to Christ.

If an individual truly has been converted, or born again by the regeneration of the Holy Spirit, and possesses Him as his/her Lord and Savior, IT IS IMPOSSIBLE TO KEEP QUIET ABOUT HIM!!!!!!!!!!! YOU CAN'T KEEP HIM LOCKED INSIDE!!!!! HE'S GOT TO COME OUT!!!!!

A person who wishes to keep his/her Christianity private does not truly possess Christ; they possess rituals and other external acts of religion....okay, 'nuff said.

Thirdly, Scripture makes it very clear what will happen to those who refuse to accept Him. Jesus Himself wept over Jerusalem because the people REFUSED TO COME TO HIM IN FAITH AND REPENTANCE....THEY DID NOT BELIEVE IN HIM.

If Jesus was concerned about the conversion of the Jews, we should be also if we are truly imitating Him and being sanctified daily.

If it is repugnant to wish the Jews to be converted, then I proudly proclaim my desire to be repugnant...I am in good company...Jesus wanted them converted too.

I don't know who made the "repugnant" remark but you should bury your head in sand for 6 months.

One who is not afraid to proclaim Christ to the Jews,

Walter Metrick

P.S. Remember the second part of John 3:16:
".......those who do not believe are already condemned."

Dear Walt,

There are no cultural or sociological "excuses" here, only the question of appropriate methodology.

Are you a sociologist? I've met many who think it's a cinch to become one. Believe me, after 12 years of study, it still doesn't get any easier.

I'm not boasting, but I've helped bring seven Jews to Christ who wanted to, not because I told them they'd go to hell if they didn't "accept Jesus as their Lord and Saviour" or other evangelical sayings that apply, by the way, according to them equally to Catholics and Orthodox, as well as Jews.

What's your record, Preacher Man?

Alex

Dear Administrator,

Well, I didn't exactly WORSHIP politics . . .

"Political theology" is the term, as you know, coined by those RC theologians in Latin America (Gustavo Gutierrez and Juan Luis Segundo being the most popular)that points to that curious mixture of Christianity and Marxist dialectic that sought to make the Church more "politically relevant" to the lives of the people there.

For them, political theology meant the enterprise by which social structures were identified as sinful and then active political (and military) intervention was promoted to change them.

But even here I was able to make some inroads . . .

I kept going on about the Eastern Church, Theosis etc. You know, just to really get under their skin! (I know that's hard to believe, I mean that I would do such a thing. Sorry for the upsetting revelation ).

On the day after the murder of Archbishop Romero of San Salvador, our prof came in and told our class, many of whom were avowed Marxists and members of traditional communist parties, that there will be a "prayer vigil for the repose of the soul of the Archbishop" at such and such a Church and "I expect you all to be there as part of the overall socio-political commitment of this course."

He also mentioned some other services and then winked at me across the room as he said, "I think we've been infiltrated."

I still get all choked up when I recall that.

Sniff . . .

As for my position on the Jews here, I'll defend their right to the legitimacy of their beliefs until the cows come home.

While I've developed a thicker skin during my sojourn here, I think Walt came close to an ad hominem attack on my person.

But somehow I feel good about being attacked for defending my Jewish friends and the Jewish people.

They all participate in the Cross of our Lord insofar as they've been crucified, as a people, time and again for centuries.

I hope you are having a good summer!

Alex

[ 08-20-2002: Message edited by: Orthodox Catholic ]

Dear Abdur,

Yes, you are absolutely right.

Those of us who are either cradle this or that, or who have grown up in a formally Christian environment have little inkling as to what it costs those who become Christians from other religious-cultural contexts.

What is "Christian" is often, for those contexts, a form of Western cultural domination since there is so little of what is truly "Christian" in those who preach it to them.

And the idea of going among people with tracts and pamphlets to convert them is so repugnant - Walt, I hope you are reading.

That style of converting is so pharisaical and so disrespectful of others. The Jehovah's Witnesses use it as do others. They use pressure tactics, and from the get-go assume your religion, be it Catholic or Orthodox as well, is false etc .

Such people don't really read the Scriptures - they are very selective about what they read and also totally jettison the Patristic and practical tradition of the Church of the ages.

And the "conversions" they do get are not the type that "stick."

Alex

First of all, Walter, it depends on how you make that proclamation, doesn't it? I find the Western way, based on aggressive apologetics and rationalist argumentation to be obnoxious and in most cases futile. Much better is an approach based on love, which does not seek either to exalt one's own position or condemn that of the other, but rather which seeks understanding through the dialogue of truth and charity. A lot more is accomplished by Christians and Jews working together, learning from each other, and especially by setting an example of unostentatious Christian living than by resorting to the most common approaches. Proclaim Christ through your life, not with your mouth, and you will win over more people than you would otherwise do.

As for John 3:16, prooftexting is an unworthy tool, and that passage can only be taken in the total context of the entire Gospel. No one denies that salvation comes through Christ alone, but Christ has not specified to us the parameters of that faith, nor his own criteria for selecting those who are saved. All we can say is that, if someone is saved, it is because of faith in Christ, but the exact way in which this happens can often remain a mystery. The man who wrote the hymn "Amazing Grace" wrote the following lines towards the end of his life:

"As I contemplate my end, I firmly believe that when I arrive in heaven I will be surprised by three things. First, that many will be there whom I would not have expected to be there. Second, that many will not be there whom I would have expected to be there. Third, that I will be there."