NEWSLETTER No. 61 – March 2005

The 2004 ACCJ Patrons list

Revd Professor Robert Anderson AM
Rabbi Raymond Apple AM RFD
The Most Revd Dr Peter Carnley AO
The Hon. Sir William Deane AC KBE
Edward Idriss, Cardinal Cassidy AC
Dr. Davis McCaughey, AC
The Rt. Hon. Sir Zelman Cowen AK CMG GCVO QC
Rabbi Dr. John Levi, AM
Mrs. Jean Pratt, A

Editorial

This issue of SCENE?s front page report on the United Church of Canada?s resolution to curb its proselitising efforts vis a vis the Jewish community may be somewhat dated but nevertheless carries a vital message for the relationship between certain Christian movements in Australia which go out of their way to target Jews. The need to counter the efforts of these groups? inappropriate activities and the misguided direction which their endeavours takes in today?s multi-faceted and more highly educated society has never been more necessary. In effect what organisations such as the Jews for Jesus movement are still attempting is to downgrade Judaism by negatively stereotyping Jews and attempting to persuade plainly insecure members of the public that Christianity is superior to Judaism or, even more incredibly, that Christianity is a replace- ment for Judaism. In Sydney we have the phenomenon of Jews for Jesus not merely standing on street corners, actively buttonholing any passerby who is prepared to stop and listen; not merely picketing the gates of Universities (having been banned from on campus activities) but opening streetfront premises in the suburb of Bondi, a location directly targeted to the city?s most numerous concentration of Jewish population. Not that there is anything illegal here. Anyone can open a shop and offer ?for sale” any goods or services that fall within the law of the country. What is however questionable and what society is being asked to accept is the obviously predatory influence such activities have on the confused, the weak, the disoriented who more often than not are able to be steered into directions, the implications of which they are reluctant or unable to analyse, indeed of which they are frequently unaware. The message from the Canadians should be seen as universal. Christianity is not the rightful heir to Jewish faith. Rather the message which the UCC has embraced should become the watchword for meaningful understanding of the Christian world by Judaism and of the Jewish world by Christianity. We live in a world today which has no room for organisations or movements which cast aspersions or criticize other faith traditions. We must be ever watchful for such organizations; we must provide the young, the weak and the confused with a clear cut path which diverts them from street corner marketing and from those disseminating dubious dogma.

Email address: hdm@idx.com.au

Anglican Communion Primates? Meeting issues communiqu?

Edited version of the communiqu? issued by the Dromantine Conference in Newry, Northern Ireland last month

Primates of the Anglican Communion and Moderators of the United Churches, we gathered at the Dromantine Retreat and Conference Centre, at the invitation of the Archbishop of Canterbury, Dr Rowan Williams. We thank God that our meeting has been characterised by generosity of spirit, and a readiness to respect one another?s integrity, with Christian charity and abundant goodwill.

The most pressing business facing the Primates? Meeting was consideration of the Windsor Report 2004, in which the Lambeth Commission on Communion had offered its recommendations on the future life of the Anglican Communion in the light of developments in Anglican life in North America.

We reflected for many hours on the recommendations of the Windsor Report; we considered a careful analysis of the 322 responses which this group had received from around the Anglican Community.

We also wish to make it quite clear that in our discussion and assessment of the moral appropriateness of specific human behaviours, we continue unreservedly to be committed to the pastoral support and care of homosexual people. The victimisation or diminishment of human beings whose affections happen to be ordered towards people of the same sex is anathema to us.

We welcome the general thrust of the Windsor Report as offering a way forward for the mutual life of our Communion, and commend the constitutional processes and requirements (vi). We also wish to make it quite clear that in our discussion and assessment of the moral appropriateness of specific human behaviours, we continue unreservedly to be committed to the pastoral support and care of homosexual people. The victimisation or diminishment of human beings whose affections happen to be ordered towards people of the same sex is anathema to us.

We welcome the general thrust of the Windsor Report as offering a way forward for the mutual life of our Communion, and commend the constitutional processes and requirements (vi). We also wish to make it quite clear that in our discussion and assessment of the moral appropriateness of specific human behaviours, we continue unreservedly to be committed to the pastoral support and care of homosexual people.

The conference head table. Seated to the left of the Archbishop of Canterbury is Australia?s Primate, Archbishop Dr. Peter Carnley

The victimisation or diminishment of human beings whose affections happen to be ordered towards people of the same sex is anathema to us. We welcome the general thrust of the Windsor Report as offering a way forward for the mutual life of our Communion, and commend the following conclusions for dealing with the differences of opinion which have opened up amongst us. We welcome the Section C proposals for the future development of the Instruments of Unity, although we recognise that serious questions about the content of the proposal for an Anglican Covenant and the practicalities of its implementation mean that this is a longer term process.

We were glad to be reminded of the extensive precedents for covenants that many Anglican churches have established with ecumenical partners, and that even within our Communion the Chicago/Lambeth Quadrilateral has already been effectively operating as a form of covenant that secures our basic commitment to scripture, the Nicene Creed, the two Sacraments of the Gospel and the Historic Episcopate. We therefore commend this proposal as a project that should be given further consideration in the Provinces of the Communion between now and the Lambeth Conference 2008. In addition, we ask the Archbishop of Canterbury to explore ways of implementing this.

We also have further questions concerning the development of the role of the Archbishop of Canterbury, and of a Council of Advice. While we welcome the ministry of the Archbishop of Canterbury as that of one who can speak to us as primus inter pares about the realities we face as a Communion, we are cautious of any development which would seem to imply the creation of an international jurisdiction which could override our proper provincial autonomy. We ask the Archbishop of Canterbury to explore ways of consulting further on these matters.

We accept the principle articulated in Section D of the Windsor Report concerning the universal nature of the ministry of a bishop within Anglican polity Although formidable practical problems would attend any formal process of wider consultation in the election and confirmation of bishops, we request that Provinces should themselves find an appropriate place for the proper consideration of the principle of inter-dependence in any process of election or confirmation.

We are persuaded however that in order for the recommendations of the Windsor Report to be properly addressed, time needs to be given to the Episcopal Church (USA) and to the Anglican Church of Canada for consideration of these recommendations according to their constitutional processes.

Within the ambit of the issues discussed in the Windsor Report and in order to recognise the integrity of all parties, we request that the Episcopal Church (USA) and the Anglican Church of Canada voluntarily withdraw their members from the Anglican Consultative Council for the period leading up to the next Lambeth Conference.

During that same period we request that both churches respond through their relevant constitutional bodies to the questions specifically addressed to them in the Windsor Report as they consider their place within the Anglican Communion. (cf. paragraph 8)

In order to protect the integrity and legiti- mate needs of groups in serious theological dispute with their diocesan bishop, or dioceses in dispute with their Provinces, we recommend that the Archbishop of Canterbury appoint, as a matter of urgency, a panel of reference to supervise the adequacy of pastoral provisions made by any churches for such members in line with the recommendation in the Primates? Statement of October 2003. Equally, during this period we commit ourselves neither to encourage nor to initiate cross-boundary interventions.

In reaffirming the 1998 Lambeth Conference Resolution 1.10 as the present position of the Anglican Communion, we pledge ourselves afresh to that resolution in its entirety, and request the Anglican Consultative Council in June 2005 to take positive steps to initiate the listening and study process which has been the subject of resolutions not only at the Lambeth Conference in 1998, but in earlier Conferences as well.

In the meantime we ask our fellow primates to use their best influence to persuade their brothers and sisters to exercise a moratorium on public Rites of Blessing for Same-sex unions and on the consecration of any bishop living in a sexual relationship outside Christian marriage.

In the second half of our meeting we addressed some issues of practical ministry… the present situation in relation to the ministry of African churches in particular amongst people living with HIV/AIDS; the dying, the bereaved, and orphaned children. We noted that this serious challenge is faced by all of our churches.

Two whole sessions of our meeting were devoted to the important work of the discernment of theological truth and the development and improvement of theological education through the sharing of resources across the Communion. The Archbishop of Canterbury has identified this as a priority concern during the period of his leadership. The work of TEAC (Theological Education for the Anglican Communion) which was established at our meeting in Kanuga in 2001 was reviewed, including the four separate Target Groups which are now engaged with the development of specific education and training programs for bishops; for priests and transitional deacons; for vocational deacons, catechists and licensed lay readers; and for the laity. It is planned to hold a Consultation for theological educators later this year in Canterbury, and it is anticipated that this work will be a significant item of consideration at the Lambeth Conference in 2008.

Our common commitment to the pursuit of projects such as these, together with our recent very positive experience of close practical co-operation in response to the tsunami disaster, convince us of the enormous importance of our shared work together as Provinces of the Anglican Communion.

Indeed, in the course of our meeting, we have become even more mindful of the indissoluble link between Christian unity and Christian mission, as this is expressed in Jesus? own prayer that his disciples should be one that the world may believe (John 17.21).

Catholic-Jewish dialogue:
a developing agenda

Cardinal William H. Keeler

An excerpted report on the Cardinal?s address delivered at last year?s Jewish-Catholic dialogue sponsored by the Brazilian Conference of Catholic Bishops in Slavador, Brazil.

With two very important exceptions, the Shoah and the deeper levels of theological discourse, the agenda for dialogue between Catholics and Jews has been rather remarkably constant since its early days at the time of the Second Vatican Council.
One of the first formal dialogues in the United States, for example, was held at St. Vincent?s Archabbey in Latrobe, Pennsylvania in January of 1965, almost a year before the issuance of the document, Nostra Aetate. The papers, edited by Philip Scharper, were published by Sheed and Ward in 1966 under the title, Torah and Gospel: Jewish and Catholic Theology in Dialogue. That classic collection of seminal has greatly enriched the Church?s understanding of the deeper issues involved. I list the six theological and social themes put forward for the Latrobe exchange and attempt a brief status quaestionis of where we are at the present time.

Evaluating the past: Lessons for today from the pain of the past
The starting point in the discussion, in both texts, was the thesis set forth by French historian and Holocaust survivor Jules Isaac, whose classic works of the 1940?s in the field, Jesus and Israel and The Teaching of Contempt: Christian Roots of Anti-Semitism, which helped pave the way for the Council?s declaration. Isaac?s contention was that the ancient Christian ?teaching of contempt” against Jews and Judaism went back to the earliest Fathers of the Church and must be uprooted from Christian theology lest the tragedies of history repeat themselves.

Forty years after Latrobe (St. Vincent Archabbey) and the Second Vatican Council, we are, sadly, experiencing a renewed anti-Semitism in which, as the statement ”The Church and Racism” of the Pontifical Council for Justice and Peace warned as long ago as 1988, anti-Zionism is being used by certain intellectual circles of both left and right and in both Europe and the Americas ?as a screen for anti-Semitism, feeding on it and leading to it.” This has been dubbed ?the new Anti-Semitism,” but it is really not so new. What is, perhaps, new, is its particular virulence in parts of the Muslim world, where old results results of Western anti-Semitism such as the Protocols of the Elders of Zion and The Talmud Unmasked are being widely circulated.

It is no surprise, then, that the appearance of ?The Passion of the Christ” (about to be re-released: Ed) would cause profound concerns in the Jewish community. The deicide charge, after all, lay at the very heart of the ancient teaching of contempt, and was incorporated into modern, racial anti-Semitism even though Nazi ideology was in fact as anti-Christian as it was anti-Jewish. Passion Plays over the centuries caused innumerable incidents of violence against Jews, to the point that during Holy Week local bishops throughout Europe would place guards around the ghettoes, not to keep Jews in, but to keep marauding Christians out.

Yet if the Gibson movie was, as many said, a ?litmus test” of Christian-Jewish relations since the Holocaust, it must also be said that the dialogue and the relationship proved equal to the test. Jews did not turn away from but toward their Catholic neighbours. The lack of anti-Semitic incidents after the film does not mean that we can rest easy in the belief that classical Christian anti-Semitism has been eradicated. Rather the film should be a ?teachable moment” for Christian teachers and preachers:

Any Catholic school or religious education group contemplating using The Passion of the Christ in their programs should make use of these documents in developing solid educational programming around the film to guide students so they will be familiar with the deep theological significance and complex historical context of the passion narratives that no single film could fully convey.

The bond of worship: our debt to each other
At Latrobe, Rabbi Solomon Freeh of of Hebrew Union College and Father Aidan Kavanagh, OSB, of St. Meinrad Seminary ably recounted the cross-fructification of Jewish and Christian liturgical traditions over the centuries.

Here again solid foundations have been laid in the four decades since these talks were given. But much more work needs to be done. The reform of Catholic liturgy with respect to its traditionally negative portrayal of Jews and Judaism is not yet complete. More profound changes will come within the Roman Liturgy itself, but only when Catholic liturgists sit down seriously with Catholics and Jews who have worked together on these issues over the years in national and international dialogues. been radically altered into a respectful prayer that God will intensify the Jews in their faithful response to His ongoing covenant with them. But this does not exhaust the challenges faced by Catholic liturgists. The Passion is still read without official commentary or guidance on Passion Sunday and Good Friday, leaving it up to local churches and pastors to ?fill in” how it is to be understood by their congregations.

Biblical scholarship: bond or barrier?
It should be no surprise, then, that the recent major statement of the Pontifical Biblical Commission, ?The Jews and their Scriptures in the Christian Bible” argues persuasively that Jewish and Christian interpretations of Scripture, even where they appear to differ in their understanding of a given text of Tanach, can both be considered to be valid, in a parallel or analogical fashion.

This, again, is a radical departure from past disputations. The Catholic Church, both through her theologians and through her official statements, has announced to all Catholics that they may and should learn important insights from Jewish tradition of biblical interpretation that they cannot learn from Christian tradition alone.

The parallel for this on the Jewish side, of course, would be the remarkable statement signed now by hundreds of Jewish scholars, Dabru Emet

Religions and the public order: Church, Synagogue and social actions for the world
Catholics and Jews in the U.S. see themselves as immigrant communities into an ?Anglo-Protestant” ties into an ?Anglo-Protestant” nation, at once welcomed for the labour and intellectual energies we give to the larger society and reviled and discriminated against, historically, and to some extent even today, as possible polluters of that dominant culture. What the articles reveal, therefore, is a great deal in common in terms of social policy. But there was then and remains now a gulf in terms of some of the life issues, e.g. abortion, and in terms of what we in the U.S. call Church/State issues, particularly around aid to religiously affiliated educational institutions.

Yet even here we Catholics in the U.S. have a natural Jewish ally in the Orthodox community, which shares our interests and goals. With representatives of Orthodox Judaism, we are now, for example, working on a joint statement on issues of aid to private education. With the National Council of Synagogues, which represents Reform and Conservative Jews (90% of religiously-affiliated American Jewry), the USCCB has made a number of significant statements on social issues over the years, and most recently on theological insights as well.

Turkey's Jewish Community thanks U.S. Christians for help after synagogue attacks

A memorial service on the first anniversary of last year?s Nov. 15 car-bombing of two Istanbul synagogues paid tribute late last year to the International Fellowship of Christians and Jews for responding to the attacks with a gift of $500,000 to provide security for the city?s major Jewish institutions. Immediately following the attacks, which claimed 23 lives, the Fellowship sent Istanbul?s terrified Jewish community the funds to help provide security at the city?s synagogues, Jewish schools, Jewish Teen Club and the building of the Chief Rabbinate. Until the buildings could be secured, the community virtually shut down with parents refusing to send their children to school or youth programs and fearful adults staying away from synagogues and Jewish agencies. Silvio Ovadia, president of Turkey?s Jewish community, said Turkish Jews did not have the financial resources to repair and protect the institutions that are the center of Jewish life in Istanbul. ?It is only through (this) generosity that we were able to rebuild and secure our physical structures at the same time that we are still rebuilding our emotional lives following this horrible attack” he said.

A conversation with Abdurrahman Wahid

The Victorian Council?s highly successful ?Conversation with Abdurrahman Wahid” function took place at the University of Melbourne?s Sidney Myer Asia Centre last month. The prominent scholar was introduced by the previous governor general of Australia, the Rt Rev Dr Peter Hollingworth. After a short speech, a number of questions were asked by Mr Justice Howard Nathan and Dr Paul Barton, both of who have a deep commitment to inter faith dialogue.

At the Wahid function top table, CCJ chairman Bill Clancy, The Rt Rev Dr Peter Hollingworth Abdurrahman Wahid, Dr Paul Barton, Justice Howard Nathan

Letters:

I welcome Daphne McLachlan?s letter (?Puzzles of interfaith friendships”) in the December issue. Her frank and honest airing of her concern paves the way for dialogue that hopefully will help her and others resolve her dilemma , i.e. ?The Jewish dietary laws create an invisible but immobile barrier between their adherents and the rest of us [as Anglicans]?. I think it a pity such an obstacle should exist. But if it is the Will of the Almighty for the House of Israel to accept dietary laws as an integral part of religious practice, who am I to query it? The issue is not new. Dietary laws are not unique to Judaism. Buddhists, Hindus, Moslems and possibly others, accept dietary laws as an integral part of religious practice Cat, crocodile, dog, eel, goanna, horse, monkey, seal, snake or whale meat/fish are accepted and popular in some cultures although many Australians may baulk at some or all of them. In some countries animals are not killed for human consumption but deceased feral animals are eaten. In at least one country pig is habitually eaten uncooked. These cultural differences have evolved over very long periods, largely in response to environmental factors. None of them I trust would inhibit me, a Jew, from being a friend with people whose diet includes the aforementioned species and customs. The Jewish dietary laws are a cherished element of Jewish culture. For observant Jews they are at the centre of Jewish life. Many who are otherwise non-observant nevertheless observe the dietary laws either wholly or partly. There is no pecking order, each of us do as we wish. But none of this should inhibit cementing friendships. Where there is a will there is a way. Very broadly there are those who disregard dietary laws completely; those who will not eat proscribed species but disregard other aspects of the laws; those who keep kosher homes but will eat vegetarian or fish (excluding proscribed species) outside the home and those will eat only that which is 100% kosher. This requires not only kosher ingredients: kosher cooking vessels, utensils and crockery, and in the case of restaurants or catered functions independent supervision by a recognised authority are required; and do not fit within any of the above broad descriptions. With individuals I suggest frank enquiry. Most will welcome such consideration and be pleased to give a straightforward answer. If the stated requirements can be accommodated it should be, and almost invariably is, greatly appreciated. But if accommodation is not possible then mutual understanding and respect is the least one should expect. Either way there should be nothing to lose. For larger gatherings at which all should be welcome and comfortable it is desirable to make arrangements which will be acceptable to all.
Michael S. Cohen, Melbourne

The International Fellowship of Christians and Jews was founded in 1983 to promote understanding and cooperation between Jews and Christians and to build broad support for Israel and other shared concerns. Based in Chicago and Jerusalem, The Fellowship in recent years has contributed more than $100 million toward Jewish immigration, resettlement and social welfare projects in Israel, as well as funding food, housing and social service programs for Jews in the former Soviet Union and other areas of poverty and distress.

FROM DARKNESS TO LIGHT: YAD VASHEM, JANUARY 2005
Marianne Dacy

Anyone who has followed the course at Yad Vashem in Jerusalem knows that it is an intense experience. One takes an emotional journey through the darkness and suffering of antisemitism and the destruction of World War II. The cold blooded logistics of the death factories and the intricate planning to kill the maximum number of Jews in a day chill one to the depths. We were thirty four participants from fourteen different countries that included thirteen from Au