(RNS) — Years ago, I was part of an interfaith clergy group in which a well-meaning Presbyterian colleague led a ritual she thought would include Christians and Jews alike: anointing us with oil. The Jewish participants politely declined, as just because something appears in Hebrew Scripture doesn’t mean it’s part of our ritual practice today.
I thought about this interfaith misstep when I read the U.S. Department of Education’s proposal for “promoting patriotic education,” published in September. Listing important influences on the “American political tradition,” the regulatory proposal notes “Judeo-Christianity” — a term it fails to define. That’s a shame because “Judeo-Christian” can mean very different things, as my well-meaning Presbyterian colleague learned.
When President Dwight D. Eisenhower invoked the “Judeo-Christian concept” in 1952, the term had been commonly used for about two decades. Its usage surged as a Cold War watchword to distinguish the West from the atheist Soviets. In the same era, “under God” was added to the Pledge of Allegiance, another polemic against the godless communists (and a confusing prepositional choice for those who believe God is omnipresent).
Eisenhower said the nation needed a “deeply felt religious faith,” but he didn’t care what it was. Hence, “Judeo-Christianity” was valued for its utility as an American civil religion — a differentiator between a god-fearing West and a godless East. However, it ignored the spiritual force of two distinct faith traditions and their transformative power in their adherents’ lives.
Using the term as a theological construct rather than a Cold War shibboleth, as it’s often used today, does not simplify matters. Judaism and Christianity rest on mutually exclusive beliefs, most notably whether Jesus was the messiah foretold by the Hebrew prophets. Hyphenating Judaism into Christianity sometimes implies a kind of supersessionism — Judaism is relevant only for giving the world the Hebrew Bible and Jesus, thereby setting the stage for Christianity.
Then there are those who self-identify as “Judeo-Christians,” in the same way a person might identify as Catholic or Baptist. They actively embrace Jesus’ Jewish roots to be more like his early followers. Was the Department of Education referencing this group with its usage of “Judeo-Christianity”? Doubtful.
If not theological, “Judeo-Christianity” could be used as a cultural descriptor. Historically, it was a postwar term of inclusion for Protestants, Catholics and Jews, when that trinity represented America’s religious diversity. The flip side of that inclusive usage is the exclusion of other contributors to the American experiment, including adherents of other faiths and those of no faith at all. Given this administration’s track record of prioritizing Christianity, I am not confident that ecumenical aspirations motivated the education department’s proposal.
Earlier this year, when announcing the creation of the White House Faith Office and a Task Force to Eradicate Anti-Christian Bias, the president vowed to “protect Christians” in all sectors of society. Just last month in Dallas, the White House Religious Liberty Commission welcomed testimony from David Barton, whose WallBuilders organization promotes the idea of America as a Christian nation. And the vice president’s recent Hanukkah reception invitation listed the event as part of the Golden Noel, celebrating 50 years of Christmas at the residence.
If this is Judeo-Christianity, it seems that what comes after the hyphen is doing most of the work.
If by using the term the department means something about the influence of Jewish and Christian texts and ideas on the founders, then it should say that. At present, though, the term stands as a Rorschach test, inviting different audiences to impose their own agendas, which may well be the point.
(Rabbi David Segal is the policy counsel for Baptist Joint Committee for Religious Liberty. The views expressed in this commentary do not necessarily reflect those of Religion News Service.)
