Reflections on the Scandal of Particularity

Abstract

Reflections on the Scandal of Particularity Andrew Foster Connors Serving as a the pastor of a self‐described “progressive” Presbyterian Church with deep connections in the Jewish community I was somewhat skeptical about what I, and more importantly, the community of Christians I serve might take away from the Scandal of Particularity. Many Christians in my congregation are already painfully aware of the legacy of anti‐Semitism with the Church. In fact, the awareness of our history, at times, has made many within our community reluctant to embrace core claims of our faith—claims related to Jesus, biblical authority, and the Church. Perhaps, too, this skepticism was nurtured in interfaith conversations shared among self‐described “progressive” Jews, Christians, and Muslims where the tenor of the conversation often led to the false and unsatisfying conclusion that we are “all the same,” or we are all “paths leading to the same one truth”—a conclusion that obliterated rather than respected the claims of “the other.” My skepticism soon abated as new colleagues, many well‐versed in Jewish–Christian dialogues, took the reverse approach. Instead of looking for those places where our faith convictions overlap, we went directly to conversations about difference. What was shared was not always a common approach, or common faith conviction, but rather a desire to understand our differences, to grapple with ways those differences have led to harm in the past, and bring fresh, imaginative approaches to ways in which our differences might lead not to harm but to healing, and a deepening of our respective traditions. Given the fact that Christianity emerged from Judaism, claims a core text from Judaism, worships the God of Israel, and claims that a Torah‐observant Jew was in fact the Messiah, one would think that Christians would know a great deal about Jews and Judaism. Alas, this is not the case. Those of us in the preaching profession, in particular, regularly extrapolate erroneous perspectives on today’s Jews and Judaism from New Testament readings born in the conflict between an emergent church and changing synagogue. Most Christians—seminary trained or not—have little idea what Jews mean when they refer to the “oral law” and the “written law,” or “the rabbis,” or “Halakah.” If the Scandal of Particularity had achieved nothing other than the re‐education of several pastors, then it would be a success. I walk away from the Scandal with a rich appreciation for the history of interpretative thought, a greater understanding of the sources and norms that inform Judaism as well as the ways in which those sources and norms continue to be contested. I have a renewed understanding of the diversity of ways in which “chosenness,” or election, is interpreted and functional for Jews and Judaism, as well as the threats of assimilation which confront Jews who are seeking to hold onto the center. And I have an incomplete, yet emerging understanding of the importance of land and the ways in which Christian ignorance in this area can run counter to mutually held hopes for peace. The concept of election, is one area worth extended reflection since it has ongoing significance for Judaism and for Christian theology, particular my own Reformed understanding of the Church. In one fruitful conversation, I was privileged to hear Michael Wyschogrod argue against the liberal notion that the people Israel are elected based on ethical criteria. Rather, God’s election is a carnal election—“in the flesh”; the election of a people descended from the seed of Abraham. This provocative view led to a spirited debate among the Jews present about just what it means to be Jewish. The dispute was an important reminder that foundational issues within each of our faiths are not static, but highly and repeatedly contested. As provocative and challenging as Wyschogrod’s argument was for the Jews in the room, it opened a new way of understanding my own faith’s struggle to define itself in relationship to Judaism. Using Pauline texts, Wyschogrod argues that, according to Paul, the Christ event had a different significance for Gentiles than for Jews. For gentiles, the Christ event opened the door to a kind of “associate membership” for gentiles—a...