Theology rising out of the Holocaust - September 2000

Some thoughts on Franklin Littell’s assertion that “Christians need the Jewish people as a "model" of peoplehood in God's work in history, and they need the living interaction with the people of the Torah”

 

 

Back to Index

© The Revd Barry Drake M.A.  September 2000

 

 

"The most difficult, if not impossible, prospect for the Christian church would be to have to live and work in a world without Jews. The Christians need the Jewish people as a "model" of peoplehood in God's work in history, and they need the living interaction with the people of the Torah." (Franklin Littell, The Crucifixion of the Jews, 5)

 

Introduction

On his own admission [1], Littell provoked a wide range of reactions when he wrote “The Crucifixion of the Jews”.  His work is outspoken, incisive, and even twenty-five years on from his original writing seems avant-garde.

 

The central question that faces the church and every individual Christian in these post-Shoah years is framed by Littell in his foreword to Eckardt’s “Long Nights Journey Into Day”.  The question is: “How do you interpret the survival of the Jewish people?”  It takes courage to face that question.  Littell says that the church “having given the wrong answer for centuries, now ignores the question.” [2]  Littell had, in the “Crucifixion of the Jews” not only faced the question, but had become convinced that the answer to the question is that the Jews must survive; their survival is part of God’s purpose, and essential to the survival of Christianity itself.

 

Littell begins with a comprehensive look at the roots of antisemitism deeply entrenched in Christianity itselt.  He goes on to look at how this antisemitism affected the church in Germany during the second world war, and how it was used by Hitler.  He then moves forward to the contemporary church, urging it to engage in many ways with the Jews as Littell himself was doing.

 

In this essay, I will be looking firstly at what Littell is saying in “The Crucifixion of the Jews”, followed by a look at Covenant in relation to God’s people, what the church is saying, what the Bible says, and what the future might hold for the church if Littell’s clarion call for a newly reformed church is heard.  Littell has been a voice crying in the wilderness for many years now: I believe that the church is listening, but Christianity is big, diverse, and slow to change.  It will take time, but I hope and pray that Littell will live to see the church begin to respond to his call.

Littell’s view

Littell sees the Shoah as an event which is comparable in magnitude to God’s covenant with Abraham, the Exodus, Sinai and Golgotha.  He calls upon Christians to see it in that light.  He points out that there could have been no Christianity without the Jews.  That is an historic fact.  But at the same time, the Jews do not depend on any other faith for their existence.  The Jews exist because God has called them to be his people.  Thus far, there can be no controversy, but Littell goes on to see a continuing dependence on the Jewish people for Christianity – a dependence on an ongoing Jewry.  It is at this point that he becomes challenging to Christians of all persuasions.

 

Littell argues for a reformation “more radical and universal than the sixteenth century event known by that name”[3].  He sees the only possible solution in a return to the situation before the parting of the ways between Church and Synagogue, and for Jewish Christian dialogue to build a new Christianity without the stain caused by ecclesial antisemitism.  “We Christians must go back to the turn in the road and reject the signs and signals which, expressing a spiritual and intellectual teaching which was false though familiar, turned us toward Auschwitz”[4].  In this, he is echoing Karl Barth[5].  His exposition of Christian history in which he shows the direct responsibility of the Church for the pre-existing antisemitism before ww2 is exemplary[6].  Perhaps most important of all, Littell points Christians to the “Suffering Servant” passages from Isaiah [7] reminding us that the prophecy is for Israel.  In their enthusiasm to claim the passage for Jesus and for him alone, Christians may never forget the relevance of “The Suffering Servant” to Israel, in history, and more specifically in respect of the Shoah [8].  Littell’s argument thus far is powerful, and well presented.  There is little doubt that the Shoah is, and will remain, a turning point for Christianity.

 

Littell is harshly critical of “modern” thinking following on from the Enlightenment.  Science has been raised to a far higher place than religion, and from there has gone on to replace God in our Western Culture.  In large measure, Littell blames the churches’ attitude towards the Nazis on the extent to which Enlightenment thinking had permeated Christian culture and the church itself.  His book was written in 1975.  Twenty-five years on, some of this concept seems remarkably similar to the more recent ideas on post-modernism that is currently so ill defined.

 

In one particular area, Littell is remarkably (I might say refreshingly) traditional.  He makes use of the word “the Adversary” very frequently.  He clearly means “Satan”, or “the Devil”.  Perhaps this fact helps explain his some of his attitude towards Christians of a liberal persuasion[9].

 

His argument for Christianity’s need for and dependence upon present day Jewry is based in the main on Jewish culture being clearly identifiable today and throughout history.  If Christianity were true to its roots, then a similar culture (Littell prefers the term counter-culture) would be evident in all Christian countries in the world today.  He accuses Christianity of “Blending into the dominant culture, accommodating to the spirit of the times …… “  Littell believes that only the Jews can show us (the Christians) how to get back our roots, our story, and our culture.

 

Littell – some considerations

Although Littell shows great clarity in his description of the way in which antisemitism is firmly rooted in the church, and however much one may believe that he is correct in his conclusion about the place of the Jews in the world today, his attitude throughout his work is very negative towards Christians who do not share his particular Evangelical position.  He has an especially negative attitude towards Liberal Protestants.  He begins with a section headed “Liberal Protestant Antisemitism”[10] which perhaps justifiably connects Liberal Protestants in Nazi Germany with the failure of much of Christianity to speak out against Hitler.  In other chapters though, Littell takes very negative views of all present day Liberal Christians[11].  It is my personal conviction that any of the extremes within Christianity can cause the same serious problems that he ascribes to one particular group.  This can be just as true where extreme Conservative Evangelical Christians involve themselves in interfaith dialogue.  I find it hard to understand Littell’s silence on that issue! [12]

 

In addition to the above criticism, Littell treats present day Jewish culture with an almost too positive attitude.  I would venture to say that he idealises Jews and Jewish culture to an unrealistic degree.  I feel that these two points needlessly weaken his otherwise powerful and relevant argument calling for a re- reformed Christianity.

 

In his preface to the second Mercer printing of The Crucifixion of the Jews, Littell speaks of the criticisms levelled at the original edition.  Here, the reactions came from the extremes.  He mentions criticism from both the extremes of the Conservative Evangelical and the Liberal Protestant camps.  One can only conclude that he must have got something right for this to happen.  He also speaks of criticism by a part of the Jewish establishment.  This time, because of the negative effect that his work was having on Christians!  The book was “a negative influence in the effort to improve relations between Christians and Jews [13]”

 

Littell’s thinking on culture makes good sense, and needs to be considered deeply.  It is a pity here though that he makes no reference at all to the great and noble cultural changes that have taken place as a direct result of Judaeo-Christian influence.  It is true that so called Christian nations have never taken Christian values on board in the way in which Littell feels they ought, but there is nonetheless a great deal of the faith ethos that underpins much of the social and legal heritage of these countries [14].  One must never overlook this.

 

In the other hand, present day Jewry is the product of enforced dispersion, persecution, pogrom and ghetto over centuries.  The need for cultural uniqueness becomes fierce under such conditions.  And latterly Jewry is inevitabley deeply influenced by the Shoah itself.  It is many centuries since Christianity has been persecuted here in the West.  This is a further consideration that seems absent from Littell’s impassioned plea for Jewish culture to be grafted back into Christian community.

 

Littell bases at least some of his thoughts about Jewish culture on his knowledge of Israel at the time of his writing.  Littell was writing twenty-five years ago and the secularisation that we see in Europe is true for Israel too.  There is little doubt that Jewish culture is surviving longer and better than Christian culture, but the same problem exists even in Israel.  Dan Cohn-Sherbrook[15] makes this point in his criticism of Ignaz Maybaum.  He shows evidence of a decline in world Jewry giving as reasons intermarriage, assimilation and indifference[16].

 

Despite my criticisms of his book, there is a very great deal that Littell opens up for discussion that the Church needs to take very seriously indeed.  A reviewer of his book points out that “It is rare to read a book by a Christian who believes in God [17]”.  Christian unbelief has to be a commonly held view for this statement to have been used so glibly – and I imagine it refers to a number of theologians in todays church who are spoken of as offering a Godless Christianity.  Much as I may believe the reviewer’s view to be in error, it is a commonly held one.  However, a theologian with no belief in God would be a contradiction in terms [18].   I mention above Littell’s obvious belief in a force of evil, which he refers to as the ‘Adversary’.  I suggest that the “Liberal Protestants” of whom Littell is so scathing may find some difficulty with this concept.  On the other hand, acceptance of a real power of evil is normal in the whole of the Bible.  ‘Satan’ used to be an essential part of Christian writings and belief and has been so until the last few generations.  What, I ask, is one to make of Paul’s letter to the Ephesians without a belief in his “powers and principalities [19]”?  Certainly Littell sees no problem with a tangible force of evil in connection with the Shoah.

 

The points that Littell makes that lead him to the conclusion that Christians could not possibly “live and work in a world without Jews” are then, Covenant (and the Christian teaching of supersession), the Jews as the root of Christianity, the writings of the Apostle Paul, especially Romans 10 and 11, the question of culture, and, by default, the disagreement between Christians of Conservative, Liberal and Catholic persuasions.  This last issue is one that has to be discussed if for no other reason than Littell’s strong criticisms of positions other than his own.

The Question of Covenant

The Bible tells us that Jews are the Chosen People; the Covenant People.  In Genesis 13:14-17, and again in Genesis 15:4-5, God promises Abraham that his offspring will be as numerous as the stars in the heavens.  He promised the land of Israel to them.  It will be necessary to return to this promise in more detail.  The covenant is re-iterated in Genesis 17 and again in Genesis 22 after the Akedah.  The promise is an ongoing one, and will never be broken.

 

When Moses leads the Chosen People back to the “Land of the Promise” this is a fulfilment and a sign and a symbol that God has kept the promise that he had made to Abraham, and when Solomon brings the Ark of the Covenant into the newly built temple  this again is to be a symbol of the presence of God among his people, and a sign once more that he has kept the everlasting covenant.  It ought, then to be inconceivable that the covenant between God and his chosen people should be anything but everlasting.  This has not been the case.

 

In the early days of the church, the idea of supersession arose and became the norm (Littell prefers the term ‘displacement’).  There is not the space here to expand the concept fully, but briefly, the idea is that the Church superseded (or displaced) the Jews as the Covenant people. The Christian theological viewpoint was that a “New Covenant” had superseded God’s Covenant with Israel and the Jewish people and the Christians were the new Israel.

The need for the Jews was at an end.  They had served God’s purpose in giving Jesus to the Gentile world, and therefore surviving Jews were something of an anachronism.  The teaching of supersession progressed, and developed by the Middle Ages into a “teaching of contempt” towards Jews.  Some examples of what has been taught might illustrate the situation [20]:

 

“The former law that was given by Moses was to cease, and a new law was to be given”.  Cyprian – treatises.

 

"God will not cast off his Christian church, as he cast off the church of the Jews, the New Covenant is established upon better and surer promises than the Old." John Wesley (Wesley’s notes) – commentary on Isaiah 54

 

"They [the Jews] are now enemies - To the gospel, to God, and to themselves, which God permits. For your sake: but as for the election - That part of them who believe [have been Christianised], they are beloved".  John Wesley (Wesley’s notes) on Romans 11 – words in square brackets mine.

 

“though the Jews were cast off at present, yet in God’s due time they should be taken into his church again. The Jews, it is true, were many of them cast off, but not all …..

God had made a distinction between some of them and others. There was a chosen remnant of believing Jews, that obtained righteousness and life by faith in Jesus Christ …….”  Matthew Henry Commentary on Romans 11

 

This attitude continued well into the 1970’s. 

“A New Catholic Commentary on Holy Scripture” from 1969 speaks of:  “ …..  the present exclusion of Israel from the salvation of the Messiah in the Church …..”

 

A number of documents and statements[21] have been made by various parts of the church in post-war years in the main because of the growing realisation that the antisemitism that caused the Shoah was rooted in Christian teachings of the kind that we see above.  These statements have been slow to take effect, but the majority of the church now rejects supersessionism.  Supersession apart, there are two main viewpoints on the question of Covenant within Christianity.  One takes the view that there is one Covenant that has existed since Abraham, and the church is grafted into this covenant alongside Israel.  The other view is that there are two covenants; the covenant with Abraham is ongoing, but God, through Jesus made a new covenant and this is separate and operates alongside rather than supersedes the old covenant.  I have oversimplified the question of covenant for the purposes of this discussion, however in broad terms the two positions outlined indicate that almost the entire church sees an ongoing Israel as the People of God alongside the church which is also the People of God.  This is true except for a small minority within the church that still maintains a strict supersessionist doctrine.

 

Whilst the above does not lead directly to the conclusion that Christians could not possibly “live and work in a world without Jews” it paves the way insofar as it accepts that Jews remain part of “the People of God” in the world today, and the People of Israel can and should continue alongside the Church.

What the Christian Scriptures say

During the history of the Church, the Gospels and letters have been used and abused to justify both the doctrine of supersession and the teaching of contempt.  It is easy to pick out, for example, from John’s Gospel the phrase: “Jesus said …., "I am the way, and the truth, and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me” (John 14:6) and teach that this means that anyone who does not become a Christian cannot enter God’s Kingdom[22].  The earliest of the Christian Scriptures are the letters from Paul the Apostle.  In particular, Paul’s letter to the Galatians, and his letter to the Romans say a great deal about his view on the place of the Christians and that of the Jews in relationship to God and to one another.  The letter to the Galatians is very evidently written to a particular church in answer to a specific problem that had arisen there.  It is unlikely that Paul had intended it to be anything more than that.  The problem that he addresses is a conflict between Jewish Christians and Gentile Christians on the question of Torah observance.  Paul had previously set out a minimal observance for Gentiles (see the “Council of Jerusalem”, Acts 15, which can safely be dated before the letter to the Galatians[23]).  In this letter, he tries to affirm his previous statements, and to give reasons.

 

The letter to the Romans was written a few years later[24] is a far more considered approach to Paul’s own theological position.  He gives his thoughts on faith, Torah and salvation and discusses once more the topics that he had explored in his letter to the Galatians.  It is probable that Paul’s polemical words to the Galatians, written as I have said, into a particular crisis, were being used by some Christians to defend a position similar to that of supersession which came later.  Certainly Paul in Romans 9 to 11 sets out very plainly his view on the “Mystery of Israel”.  Israel has had its “heart hardened” for a time.  If Israel has “stumbled” for a time, it is to allow the Gentiles the opportunity to become part of the people of God as Christians.  “Has God rejected His people?” Paul asks, and then gives the answer: “By no means!”

 

A reading of Romans 9-11 with none of the background knowledge that is part of Christian tradition gives a clear enough picture: Paul is struggling with what to him is a mystery.  If Jesus is, in fact the expected Messiah [25], why do many Jews carry on as though he had not come?  He never fully understands this mystery, but accepts that God must have some purpose in mind for the situation that exists.  He speaks of the Church being “grafted in” to its Judaic root[26] and the idea that Christianity has taken over from or superseded the “Old Covenant” is far from evident in Paul’s writing.  Nevertheless, supersession was not only taught, but has been ‘proved’ by Paul’s letter for many centuries.

 

I have already cited John Wesley on Romans[27].  The use of the letter to the Romans to illustrate supersession was normative until recently.  In Romans 11:5, Paul speaks of the "faithful remnant" of Israel.  The view has been taken that only Jews who convert to Christianity are part of this "remnant".  The rest of Israel is then understood to be outside the new People of God, which is the church, until the end times, when the full number of Gentiles have become Christian.  After that, there will be a sudden conversion, in which all the Jews will become Christian.  The old standard, "Ellicott's Commentary" says: "The reconversion of the Jews will be a signal to inaugurate that reign of eternal life which will be ushered in by the resurrection of the dead." 

 

There is something of this thinking behind the present day expectation among some Christians that the restoration of Eretz Israel is a sign of the end times, in which the Messiah will soon be among us [28].

 

To read the Christian Scriptures in a fresh light then, is to see that Paul, at least, was aware that God has a continuing purpose for His Covenant People.  Paul is not clear as to the nature of this, but he gives a strong message to the Church which the Church has ignored for far too long.  From the point of view of the Christian Scriptures, Littell’s argument has to be taken very seriously.

What the Churches say

I mentioned above that Littell takes a view that the Liberal Protestants and the Conservative Evangelical Christian hold differing views on the question of Jewish Christian Relations.   I suggest that he oversimplifies the case.  There are, broadly speaking, three schools of thought on the place of Christianity relative to other world faiths.  The Jews are regarded by most Christians as being part of the group termed “other world faiths”.  The three views are: Exclusivism, which holds strictly to the view that there is no salvation outside the Church, Inclusivism, which states that the only salvation is through Jesus, but that through God’s grace others than Christians may be included in this salvation, and the third view is Pluralism, which accepts that there are many paths to salvation, and that the world religions represent these paths.

 

I have simplified the present situation within the churches – as one might expect there are schools of thought that are in between these three clear-cut models.  However, these different views do not correspond nicely with divisions of the Church into Catholic, Orthodox, Conservative-Evangelical and Liberal.  Until very recent years, the entire church would have allied with the Exclusivist position (which went hand in hand with supersession).  In the official statements from the churches mentioned above, there is a shift from Exclusivist to Inclusivist teaching.  This is true in both the Catholic and the Protestant or Evangelical churches [29].  The late Lesslie Newbigin saw the Inclusivist position as being the most appropriate for the Evangelical Christian: Newbigin defines those who hold this view as having "an inclusivist position which acknowledges Christ as the only saviour but affirm that his saving work extends beyond the bounds of the visible church"[30].

 

The Liberal wing of the church extends right across the denominations.  While the Catholic Church tends to produce conservative official statements, it has its share of liberal theologians, whose views in many ways parallel those of liberal Evangelical scholars[31].  It is our liberal theologians who constantly challenge us to look afresh at our doctrines, and consider new possibilities.  Pluralism currently has its place among the liberal theologians[32]. 

 

.Whilst the churches would not generally go as far as Littell in saying that the Jews of the present day are essential to Christians, they do at least acknowledge that Jews remain God’s Covenant People.

A New Christianity?

Littell makes a case for a changed church – a new Christianity - and as mentioned above, he is quoted by Fackenheim as calling for a “Reformation”.  I see a big difficulty in this kind of thinking.  There is no doubt that the entire church is in a process of change, and that this change is profound.  There is also no doubt that the church is having to reconsider its position as a result of the part it undoubtedly played in sowing the seeds of the antisemitism that gave rise to the Shoah.  The Reformation came about because an authoritarian church had become too proud to admit that it was wrong.  The church of today, as we have seen, is in a process of repentance, and of searching.  It is, in fact, in a reforming process, but this is going to take time.  Reformation, on the grand scale of which Littell speaks inevitably breeds Counter Reformation, and faction.  There can not be a better reason for “making haste slowly”.  We are in a Christianity that needs to be fully aware of all of its history as it re-thinks its past mistakes.  The admission that the Church Fathers were wrong in their teachings about “The Jews” strikes at the very foundations of church as we know it.  The question has to be asked: “If they were wrong about that issue, what about other equally important doctrines?”  It is only a small step to begin questioning seriously a wide range of teachings to which the Church holds tenaciously.  As an example, the doctrine of the Trinity, necessary in its day, may well need to be reviewed[33].  As I have said, and as the Church knows well, once foundational “truths” are challenged where does one stop?  The slow steady transition is to be preferred.  This is not to say that change should be delayed unnecessarily, just that it needs to be considered well and at length if we are to make progress.

 

At this juncture, we need to consider Littell’s point about the Church learning from the Synagogue.  There are two sides to this suggestion.  The first is that the Church neglected a valuable source of education in the past when it rejected the work of the Rabbis.  One might, for instance look at the Talmud (BT: San. 107b) in which Jesus is accused of “worshipping a brick”.  Whilst the episode itself is pure illustration, it is not hard to see the underlying criticism of Christianity as being idolatrous and failing to observe Torah.  The first of these charges proved well founded and in part led to the need for the Reformation [34].  The second of these charges may well prove to be equally well founded.  Jesus is quoted in Matthew’s Gospel (Matt. 5:18) as saying that the law must be observed.  The early church seen in Acts was also concerned about Torah observance as we have seen above in the Council of Jerusalem (Acts 15).  Littell makes a valuable point in observing that a Christian country ought to have a distinctive culture, and in pointing out that this culture ought to have a similar ethos to Jewish culture if both cultures were truly Torah based.

 

At the same time, the Synagogue today is very different from anything that existed in the Second Temple era.  This may be an obvious statement, but the Church has tended to act as though the situation had never altered from the time in which Jesus lived.  Hilton [35] is able to show that Jewry has been changed significantly because of Christianity.  The question has to be asked: “Does either present day Judaism or present day Christianity adequately reflect the teachings of Jesus?” and if so, to what extent?  These are not straightforward questions: there are no simple answers.  Just as the Shoah came out of a Christianity which is a sham, and a Christendom which is a fraud[36], Christianity never has fully reflected its origin.  Open dialogue between Christians and Jews in which Christians are prepared to study and take seriously the foundation of modern-day Judaism in the writings of the Rabbis could lead to further discoveries of the flaws in our inherited tradition.  This could only lead to a better church which is more true to its origin than is the present one.  Indeed, the process is well under way in some sectors of the Church[37]

 

I mentioned two sides to Littell’s plea for Church to learn from Synagogue.  On the other side of this particular coin is the apparent infatuation that Littell has with Jewish culture.  I have mentioned that Dan Cohn-Sherbrook points us to a more measured view.  The present spiritual malaise in the Western Christian world that Littell sees as springing from the Enlightenment is affecting our Jewish brothers and sisters too.  Here. I believe that dialogue can be at its most productive.  When Christians are prepared to step outside their own flawed tradition for a while, and leave behind their preconceptions of Jesus as Messiah and Son of God, they may well discover Jesus the Rabbi in his real context.  They may well go on to discover, alongside their Jewish brothers and sisters, Jesus the first century Jewish prophet[38].

 

The Future

The above discussion has focussed in the main on the findings of Theologians and Scholars, and upon the official statements from various parts of Christianity.  There are other levels at which the process is taking place - other areas in which Jewish life, learning and culture is entering into the lives of Christians.  As a Christian Minister, I find it very noticeable that ordinary Christians are taking far more of an interest in Jewish thought than was usual just a few years ago.  Our local Christian bookshop now boasts a large collection of books about Jews, Jewish feasts and Judaism.  There is also a rapidly growing following in so called Messianic Communities.  This is not to suggest that Messianic groups are in themselves a good or a bad thing - I mention them simply as an indicator of a burgeoning Christian interest in Judaica.  This growing interest in Judaica on the part of ordinary Christians at a grass-roots level is I believe, significant.  I would personally regard it as a part of a wider movement of the Holy Spirit.

 

At another level, the church – perhaps the Synagogue too – needs to listen to its mystics and its prophets.  I have in mind the best known quotation from Elie Wiesel – the episode of the child dying on the end of a rope:  “Then he heard the same man asking ‘Where is God now?’ And I heard a voice from within me answer him: ‘Where is he? Here he is – He is hanging on this gallows …….” [39]  This episode, which Ken Cracknell[40] believes has profoundly influenced Christian Theology, is one that needs to be listened to and understood in the very depths of our soul.  Every Christian can identify with the idea – it is basic to our understanding of Jesus – it is basic too to our understanding of Humankind “created in the image and likeness of God”.  Elie Wiesel’s mysticism shows through the pain of his anger towards the God who failed him.  If we are, as Littell suggests, to go back to the time before the parting of the ways as Christians and Jews together, it is voices such as Wiesel’s that need to be heard and understood.

Conclusion

Littell’s stark and powerful statement that Christians can’t be Christians without the Jews is a challenge.  Deep down I have, for reasons more emotional than rational, found myself wanting to oppose it.  Equally deep down, I believe Littell to be right.  He had great courage to write what he wrote, especially twenty-five years ago.  The Church is slowly accepting its part in the antisemitism that led directly to the Shoah – it remains to be seen how much further it will be willing to go in reconsidering its theological position more deeply in the light of its own Hebrew roots.

 

The Christian Scriptures – particularly the writings of Paul – leave no room for doubt about the attitude that we ought to be taking with regard to the Jews.  Littells main point about a clearly defined counter-culture ought to be self-evident.  He has a good argument – outsiders ought to be able to see the Christian difference as easily as they can see the distinctive marks of Jewish community.  Going back to “the parting of the ways” as Christians and Jews together would not be easy – but it is what is needed.  If – dare I say ‘when’ – we do that, there is much that we will have to examine that will be painful.  I mentioned above the question of the Trinity.  It seems to me that the Church is going to need to re-think its entire Christology.  To many Christians that would be to think the unthinkable.  It would be a step too far.  Wallis quotes Ekardt as saying that the Church needs to be prepared to give up its ‘incarnational’ Christology – and that the Church will not do that.  He goes on to say that it remains a weakness of the Eckardt’s position that he does not begin to offer an alternative Christology.  I don’t believe that the Church is yet ready for such an alternative.  But I do feel that it is vital that Jewish Christian dialogue works towards the formulation of this.  The starting point might well be the divinity of humankind[41].  Our Christian Mystics and our Jewish Kabbalists have a great deal to say about this.  Let us begin to listen to them.

 

Endnotes