Fall 2006

Present were: Norman Beck, Mary Boys, Phil Cunningham, Mark Heim, Katharina von Kellenbach, Michael McGarry, Esther Menn, John Merkle, John Pawlikowski, Peter Pettit, Jean-Pierre Ruiz, Frank Sherman, Joann Spillman, Karla Suomala, John Townsend, Joe Tyson, and Clark Williamson. Frank Sherman served as secretary in Alice Eckardt's absence. (Bjőrn Krondorfer had an early departure.)

Clark Williamson, chair, Karla Suomala, Phil Cunningham, and Mary Boys, ex officio.

Clark Williamson reported on behalf of the Program Committee. Present plans are as follows:

June 2-4, 2007 [Boston]

1. Karla Suomala
2. Ruth Langer
3. Katharina Von Kellenbach
4. Daniel Boyarin

October 5-7, 2007 [Boston]

1. Mark Heim
2. Esther Menn
3. Peter Pettit
4. Richard Mouw

October, 2008

1. Amy Jill Levine

The floor was opened for further suggestions. Joe Tyson offered to do a paper for June 2008 on Luke 1-2 as an anti-heretical text. Michael McGarry offered to do one in October 2008. Katharina von Kellenbach spoke of the value of having a focused topic to which several papers are directed, as at the current meeting; one could also invite outside experts on the subject. Mary Boys noted that we could have two or three of the papers at a given meeting focus on the same topic, rather than all four. John Merkle recalled another useful model, having short (2-3 page) papers by everyone, distributed beforehand, as an introduction to discussion of a specific theme. Phil Cunningham suggested as possible topics (a) a Christian theology of Eretz Israel, with Richard Lux of Sacred Heart School of Theology, Hales Corners, Wisconsin, as a possible presenter; (b) how we understand the status of baptized Jews in Christian churches; (c) theology of the land. Katharina suggested the topic of conversion; someone added, "in both directions." John Pawlikowski mentioned the question of ecclesiology; if Jesus didn't found the church.... John Townsend spoke of a graduate student who had just completed a dissertation on "the parting of the ways." Joe Tyson suggested inviting Michael Cook to do a paper. John Pawlikowski mentioned Michael Kogan, who has just completed a book on a Jewish theology of Christianity (we had him once before, 12-14 years ago).

Further suggestions may be submitted at any time to the Program Committee..

John Merkle, Celia Deutsch, and Peter Pettit.

John Merkle reported on behalf of the Membership Committee. Members whose five-year terms are expiring at the end of the current academic year are the following:

• Norman Beck
• Rosanne Catalano
• John Merkle
• Joanne Spillman
• Joe Tyson

The question was raised whether there is a conflict of interest in John Merkle's serving as chair of the Membership Committee in the year in which he is to be reviewed. Mary stated that in her judgment, there is not.

It was noted that Peter Phan's slot is open. The question was raised of Deirdre Good's status, in view of the number of meetings she has missed, without any response or stated excuse. Frank Sherman said that it was his recollection that our policy is that no member may have more than two consecutive unexcused absences or four excused absences. Phil promised to recover the pertinent language from our policy decision of a few years ago and post it on the website.

Possible new members were mentioned, including Jonathan Lawrence (studied with Michael Signer at Notre Dame; expressed his interest to Michael McGarry; reviewed one of Clark's books); Elana Procario-Foley (Iona College); Robert Cathey (McCormick Seminary; was a guest at this meeting); John Clabeaux (co-convener of a CBA group with Phil); Daniel Joslyn-Siemiatkoski (recent Boston College Ph.D., Episcopalian); Jacqueline Bussie (Capital University, a Wiesel scholar); Daniel Goodman (teaches at Gardner-Webb School of Divinity; Walter Harrelson may know him). John T. urged trying to get one or more Eastern Orthodox members. Katharina urged broadening the scope to include non-mainstream Christian denominations. A related idea was to invite persons prominent in Asian, Hispanic, African-American and/or Conservative Evangelical circles, even if not experts on Christian-Jewish relations, in order to cultivate their interest in the field.

Members were asked to e-mail John Merkle within the next six weeks re any proposed names (the above plus any others), including a brief bio in each case. Frank Sherman reminded us of the possibility of inviting a prospective member to do a paper as a "tryout" without promising membership.

Peter Pettit reported that the 2006 conference in Vienna had been quite successful, though more historically oriented than a typical ICCJ conference. Frank noted that a report can be read online on jcrelations.net ( www.jcrelations.net/en/?item=2704). Peter announced that the next ICCJ international conference will be held in Sydney, Australia, from July 8-11, 2007, with a possible study tour afterward sponsored by the CCJR. (Note that this will be winter in Australia.) The ICCJ is facing significant financial challenges, due to a reduction in subsidies by the German government. Dick Pruiksma, former chair of the Dutch Council of Christians and Jews, is serving as Interim General Secretary of the ICCJ, pending the election of a new General Secretary at the 2007 Annual General Meeting in Sydney (July 12). John Pawlikowski reported that his own term as President of the ICCJ ends next summer. He added that a restructuring of the ICCJ to allow for expanded membership is also under discussion. The headquarters will no doubt remain at the Martin Buber House in Heppenheim, but various administrative possibilities are being considered, e.g. a contractual arrangement with Muhlenberg College for administrative services.

Phil reported that a new batch of articles for the CCJR's electronic journal, Studies in Christian-Jewish Relations, is about to be posted. Peter stated that the CCJR is considering the possibility of expanding one of its annual meetings to a broader event comparable to the former National Workshop on Christian-Jewish Relations. If this is to be done, input from the CSG will be welcome and vital. Cooperation with the ICCJ on this is also a possibility.

On behalf of the CSG's sponsoring institution, the Center for Christian-Jewish Learning at Boston College, Phil Cunningham reported on some financial questions that had arisen in recent months. They concern the establishing grant for the Center's endowment from the late John Corcoran and his wishes for the allocation of his donation. The university made the decision to implement a distribution of 60% of his gift for Center operations and 40% for a visiting chair, which will be announced soon. This has had an immediate impact on current programming and operations. Funding of the CSG, however, has not been affected by the ensuing reconfiguration of the Center's sponsored programs and operations.

Mary presented the notion of the CSG preparing a sort of primer on Christianity for Jews. The need for this, she said, becomes evident in many dialogue and teaching situations; other members agreed. The diversity of Christian traditions makes it difficult to give a brief overview, but it is worth trying. One could deal mostly with the major traditions, while acknowledging others. Peter suggested this might go straight to the web; others, however, felt that a book would also be useful, e.g. for synagogue adult study groups. The consensus was that we could and probably should do both. Karla mentioned Jewish Lights as a possible publisher. Frank recalled Gene Fisher's two pamphlets on "Homework for Jews" about Christianity and vice versa; we could look again at these and go on from there. John P. mentioned the program of Old St. Patrick’s Church, Chicago, in outreach to Christian-Jewish families – they got a Lilly grant for a curriculum for the children. Jean-Pierre urged that we not skew the book towards the intermarriage issue, though it would be useful for such families. He also urged that we highlight the global nature of Christianity. John T. said it could be conceived of as "Questions Jews Ask Christians." Mark suggested checking on what HUC-JIR does in its basic course on Christianity. Phil also reported being involved in a one-week intensive on Christianity at HUC. Peter suggested we might have a session at a CSG meeting with Michael Cook and also someone from Hebrew College, Jewish Theological Seminary, and/or the University of Judaism, asking them what they are currently doing and what we could do or provide that might be of help.

Mary asked for volunteers to work with her on this, possibly coming early next time for further discussions. The following volunteered: Karla, Katharina, Joe, Peter, Mark, Phil, Joanne, John-Pierre (though the latter two can't be there next time).

Peter Pettit presented a draft for a proposed CSG statement offering "guidelines to the churches as an aid to responsible, effective engagement with the issues of the Arab-Israeli-Palestinian conflict" (click HERE). Peter explained that the format of the eventual product would be something like our piece on “Facts, Faith, and Film-Making,” with graphics, boxes, sidebars, etc. He asked for comments on the balance between general comments and specific examples such as the list of antisemitic images. He noted that the proposed guidelines are one-sided in that they are addressed to language and imagery concerning Israel , without addressing similar problems with regard to Palestinians and other Arabs. Katharina affirmed the idea of including the latter as well. Mark stated that he found the treatment of Christian Zionism to be marvelously even-handed. He applauded the fact that the statement is directed at the churches; we call upon Christians to take responsibility for our role in the problem. Phil said that it is a great first draft. The statement will serve to caution people against the simplistic use of antisemitic stereotypes that draw unconsciously on Christian anti-Judaism. John T. suggested that the section on liberation theology contain a reference to John P.’s work on this subject, i.e. its antisemitic elements.

Note: at approximately this point, six members (Beck, Cunningham, Heim, Spillman, Townsend, K. von Kellenbach) had to leave for the airport.

John P. commented that Christians often ask why Jews are theologizing a political question (the land); we, however, did it first, saying they lost the land because of their failure to recognize the Messiah. Regarding liberation theology, he noted that the draft deals with a particular form of such theology, namely, that of the Sabeel Center , not liberation theology generally. Jean-Pierre said that he saw it similarly. Why give this much attention to that particular center, or why use it as the occasion for a broadside against liberation theology generally? Most church people are unacquainted with the Naim Ateek material. Jean-Pierre stated that he could not sign the document as it is.

Michael stated that he regards this as a wrong-headed project. The statement at the same time attempts too much, trying to deal with the whole Arab-Israeli-Palestinian conflict, and too little, failing to deal adequately with liberation theology. Why not bring Naim Ateek, Donald Wagner, and Mitri Raheb to a CSG meeting to discuss this directly? Anyone who is concerned about cartoon depictions of Israelis, Michael said, should see the cartoons of Arabs in Israeli far-right, and even centrist, literature. The statement as its stands could be viewed as simply reflecting the views of the ADL and the AJC. It will please only those already sympathetic to us. Michael concluded by saying that he also could not sign such a document.

Clark asked, Who is the audience for the statement? If it is the mainstream Protestant churches – and that is where the biggest problem lies – they could benefit from what is said here re antisemitic prejudices. But the language of oppressors and oppressed comes easily to those on the wrong side of the wall, and mainstream Protestant leaders are well acquainted with this. The statement might affect them like water off a duck’s back. John P. added that the audience could also include Israelis pushing relations with the Evangelicals, warning them against doing this uncritically. As to liberation theology, he said that it has its virtues, but it shouldn’t be done on the backs of Jews.

Michael spoke approvingly of the way in which Presbyterians and Jews, after the Presbyterian action on divestment, sat down for face-to-face conversations, and traveled to Israel together. This is a better paradigm – don’t make a statement about the other group; rather, talk with them. The draft statement has no balance, he said. It would confirm the view that criticism of the state of Israel can be equated with anti-Semitism.

Frank asked the chair to remind us of the context out of which this project originated. Mary pointed to the last paragraph of the minutes of the June 2006 meeting, summarizing the discussion of a proposed response to a recent World Council of Churches statement, and indicating that the consensus moved toward the idea of a more general document that would refer to this and other similar statements. Peter noted that the intended audience wasn’t universal – it was specific groups such as the WCC and the mainline churches who characteristically take a pro-Palestinian position; hence, the characterizations of both liberation theology and Christian Zionism are more pointed that they would be for a more general document. John P. reminded the group, however, that the recent experience with the Pope’s remarks in Regensburg indicated such narrow targeting of public documents is hardly possible in these days of instant and universal communication. Regarding statements from the WCC and the mainline Protestant churches, Clark said he personally had never received any such, one-sided or otherwise. Peter stated that the situation is quite different in the ELCA, which is strongly influenced by its Palestinian contacts, and where these statements resonate broadly.

Frank suggested that the project be dropped: the task is too big, feelings are too strong, and it would take a whole CSG meeting to deal with this adequately. Mary suggested that maybe this could be done in the October 2008 meeting: have a group of papers on the land and related subjects, including one by Michael; invite WCC representatives. Joe supported the idea of dropping the project, while expressing great appreciation to Peter for his work. John P. suggested that perhaps it could be posted on jcrelations.net under Peter’s name; it provides a useful overview and identification of issues that need to be looked at. Esther noted that the draft contains valuable elements that could be used as a resource for a future statement. Jean-Pierre stated his view that even something of pamphlet length would be too brief to deal adequately with the subject. Joe and others said that any action not to proceed with the project should not be seen as impugning or dishonoring Peter’s work. Peter said that he had no personal problem with whatever course of action is adopted.

Michael suggested that the CSG change its plans for the June 2007 meeting and meet at Tantur for a direct dialogue with Ateek, Wagner, Raheb, and others. A number of members commented that this proposal had merit, even if it could not be done that soon. John P. again said that we should encourage both Peter and Michael to prepare essays to submit for publication or web posting. In conclusion of the discussion, the following two motions were passed:

Moved, seconded, and carried (unanimously): That in lieu of a statement or set of guidelines from the CSG as a whole, we encourage members to prepare materials on this subject for www.jcrelations.net or Studies in Christian-Jewish Relations or elsewhere.

Moved, seconded, and carried (unanimously): That the CSG leadership explore the possibility of a meeting at Tantur on the topic of “the land” in dialogue with Christian Zionists and Palestinian theologians. In the discussion, it was clarified that by “the CSG leadership” is meant the Executive Committee, which includes the chairs of the CSG as a whole and of the Program and Membership Committees (Boys, Williamson, Merkle), working with Phil Cunningham for the sponsoring institution, Boston College .

June 2-4, 2007 (Sat.-Mon.) - Boston College

October 5-7, 2007 - Boston College

Phil proposed June 7-9, 2008 (Saturday-Monday) and October 3-5, 2008 (Friday-Sunday). He will check these with the Boston College calendar