Well, the four-part Stuart Polly Interfaith study "A parting of the ways? Jews and Christians in the first centuries of the common era" ended last night. (The first three.) I'd like to say it ended in a draw, but in my estimation the historian Seth Schwartz won hands down. The fourth century is when Christianity was legalized and eventually became the official religion of Rome, and it was interesting to survey this period with an eye to the experiences of Jewish communities. Seth glossed the growing anti-Jewish rhetoric in theology and law as showing that the Christians were "sore winners." This was not just witty but profound.
It's probably easier to teach an interfaith subject as a historian than as a theologian, but it was more than that. Seth seemed comfortable with a messy complicated history which put the lie to any retrospective simplification; there was a piety here in recognizing this complexity and not giving up on it. (Last night' debunked myth was that Constantine's conversion led to the start of the middle ages for Jews; in fact, things weren't so great for Jews before Constantine, the Christianization of the Roman Empire took a long time, and while it progressively "combed" Jews out of positions of civil authority it at the same time supported and strengthened Jewish religious institutions.) Peter, by contrast, seemed hamstrung by having to talk about the first centuries of Christianity without using the word "heresy," which last night played a major role, although dressed up awkwardly as "what in retrospect was deemed heresy." He reflected on his experience at the end, saying that it had been a learning experience for him to present "the same message" here that he offers at his seminary (I wouldn't have thought the "same message" is what B'nai Jeshurun asked for, though it's Peter's way of being honest), and of course I've found it a learning experience for the same sort of reason. But really: can't you tell the story of the origins of Christianity without speaking of heresy? Or to turn it around, can you tell it as a story of messiness and complexity?
The question isn't just rhetorical. Heresy seems an indispensable concept for Christianity. Peter reminded us that the Apostle Paul himself had said "For there must be also heresies among you, that they which are approved may be made manifest among you" (1 Cor 11:19), and offered, somewhat lamely, that this suggested that divine providence favored a kind of religious diversity. (To his credit, in saying this he went out on a limb other Orthodox would gladly cut off.) But did Paul say that? The King James Bible translates it thus, but the Revised Standard Version and many other newer translations speak of "factions," not "heresies." Not that "factions" are darlings of the divine, or that this passage wasn't understood to refer to heresies for most of Christian history, but Peter's use of that translation in a talk in 2009 is a theological choice.
The stumbling block for Peter, the one he stumbled over the honest way not to ignore, was that in the theological tradition he was sharing, providence does need heretics for true Christians to define themselves against (even as they also identify with them, for every Christian knows himself to be a sinner like all sinners). Doesn't it also need the Jews, or some of the Jews, to reject and keep rejecting Christianity - and so deplore and punish? He tried to resist this rather obvious point, and was at his most eloquent and sincere when he concluded that since Christians have a cyclical rather than linear sense of time (since Christ is alpha and omega etc etc), the survival and thriving of Judaism, which all Christians "in their right mind" must acknowledge as the rock on which their faith is built, is a good thing - a different argument from those of the early Fathers he was describing. Is it that simple, or that complicated? Why must the "heretics" and the Jews be regular guest stars in the Christian story? Sore winners indeed. But... how to do better?
