The Way Christians Should Respond to the Holocaust - Essay Example

Final Reflection Paper Religion is important for the humanity for a number of reasons. Originally, it was used to explain the natural phenomena in a way so that people would be able to gain some kind of control over them. For example, it was rather convenient to explain thunder as a strike of a thunder god. However, later in history a new kind of religion appeared, that dealt with much more abstract and complex notions. Gradually, the large number of local religions declines and nowadays there are several world religions that dominate the globe. Nevertheless, one has not changed: religion still largely defined the culture of a specific group of people and it often used as a market to show the belonging to them. Nowadays a considerable number of people in the world are Christians; that is why they are thought to follow the guidelines set by this religion. One of such guidelines focuses on the significance of compassion and the need to help others. The history witnessed several great catastrophes but the Holocaust is surely one of the most tragic ones. This paper will explore the way Christians should respond to it. To begin with, it must be noted that the tragedy in question was directed against a particular group of people: the Jews. That is why it would be fair to call them the targets of institutionalized aggression which was the aim of exterminating them. Considering the appropriate response of the Christians it is important to keep in mind that the Jews not only belong to a different society, but they also belong to a different faith. That is why from various perspectives they should be regarded as others. The same was felt by the Holocaust survivors. One of them noted: “I began to despair of humanity and God; I considered them as enemies of one another, and both as enemies of the Jewish people” (Wiesel 609). This means that an appropriate response to the tragedy in question would be to include the Jews into the common social and religious framework. It is understandable that there are many differences; however, it is always possible to find common ground. Another difficulty that the Christians might face when interacting with the Jews focuses on the very state of Israel. It would not be an exaggeration to suggest that one of the direct outcomes of World War II is the creation of Israel. While not every nation agreed on the validity of its claims, it is clear that the Middle East will remain a troublesome region as long as the two parties, namely the Jews and the Arabs, are not able to acknowledge the rights over its territory. The biggest complexity here lies in the fact that it is difficult to determine who is right and how is wrong, since both parties are able to provide sufficient amount of evidence to support their position. As a result, the Christians “need to mediate between two equally valid claims, between ‘two rights’” (Braverman 47). All this leads to high controversy when it comes to recognizing the Jewish state. In order to be able to gain the maximum objectivity, it may be necessary to design interaction with the Jew on principles that are different from what was used before. It is suggest that the interaction might benefit in case it is structure as a dialogue and allows each party to reflect on whatever the other party says. From a broad perspective, the same principle can be found in the Bible itself: the New Testament is often considered with regard to the Old Testament so that the two texts are closely connected. So, “these criteria form our Midrashic approach which functions as a basis for post-Shoah dialogue and creates a context for doing creative post-Shoah theology” (Moore 62). This makes perfect sense since it engages both Christians and Jews into a fruitful interaction with one another and allows them to exchange ideas and have no hidden issues, including one’s regarding the Holocaust, emerge between them. One may point out that Christians are famous for claiming that their God is merciful and always helps those who believe in Him. The Jews had a different perspective on that matter: they appeal to the Covenant. However, “in the aftermath of the Holocaust, the Jewish people want to know why God was unfaithful to the divine side of the agreement” (Batstone 591). This is one of the most essential points that Christians should remember when they talk to Jews about what happened in the middle of the previous century. For the majority of the world, the Nazi horrors form nothing, but another page of atrocities that happened during World War II. Nevertheless the Jews see it from a different angle: they are not able to comprehend why God, Who agreed to watch over them, was able to let all this happen. In other words, while Christians might feel shame for their brothers in faiths (the members of the Nazi party were technically Christians), Jews see the Holocaust as their personal tragedy. That is why whenever Christians preach to Jews about Jesus or God, the latter are always able to point out to evidence that can be found in history to prove that the former may get the entire picture. Many of the Holocaust survivors ask “how could one talk about God and the divine role in this tragic event?” (Downing 289). Indeed, for the majority of them, the Nazi crimes are the worth that the humanity was capable of: they represent the darkest part of the human nature and can hardly be justified by anything. That is why Christians should understand that Jews were exposed to much greater stress that they were. In other words, this experience allowed the Jews to develop a completely different picture of the world as they saw what it means to have the world without Jews. On the other hand, Christians would never know what it is like to have the world without Christians. One might point out a sad irony: in spite of the tremendous evidence that was collected by the Allied forced and the scholars in the later years, there are still people who deny the existence of the Holocaust and many of them are Christians. It was suggested that “on the one side we find survivors, clergy, scholars, and the simply concerned, engaged, whether they realize it or not, in a theology of destruction” (Manseau 387). This means that whatever Christians want to do, they should not pursuit with the theology of destruction which focuses on forgetting the real nature of the Nazi atrocities. Indeed, the Jews were chosen as a victim and were exposed to the most horrible events in the entire history in order to show the rest of the world that blind aggression is not able to do any good. However, after many decades that passed from those days, the world seems to gradually lose the memory about those events and tend to be willing to reevaluate the results of World War II, including the part with deals with the Holocaust. With this in mind, the Christians should not support such initiatives and resist them. Finally, the Christians may be willing to draw connections between the most important event in their religion and the Holocaust. Indeed, there is a particular reason why the Church commemorates the crucifixion of Jesus Christ and why the Jew always remember the Holocaust: there are tragic events that redefined their nature. Nevertheless, “at the cross no monstrous crime of cruelty was involved. Jesus Christ … took on the sins himself, willingly … [which is] very different indeed to the Shoah” (Pinder-Ashenden 135). This reflects the gap between the two world: the Christian and the Jewish. For the former, the events that involved Jesus have long passed and become a history that is remembered on holidays as something legendary and glorious. Contrary to that, for the Jews the Holocaust is an event from their own lives and many survivors of are still alive and active. Furthermore, the death of Jesus Christ is often seen as an event that had universal significance and was predetermined by God; on the other hand, the Holocaust was created by the corrupted minds of the Nazi and did not have any higher goal. In other words, there are the differences that the Christians and the Jews should keep in mind while trying to understand each other. Having examined all the points that were mentioned in the paragraphs above, one is able to come to the following conclusion: it may be rather difficult for the Christians to react properly to the tragedy of the Holocaust since there is a considerable number of factors that should be taken into account. Nevertheless, it is crucial to keep in mind that there is a way to bridge this gap which emerges from a sincere dialogue that allows the two groups experience the genuine feelings of one another. In other words, this should be regarded as a path to mutual understanding and appreciation. Works Cited Batstone, David B. "The Transformation of the Messianic Idea in Judaism and Christianity in Light of the Holocaust: Reflections on the Writings of Elie Wiesel." Journal of Ecumenical Studies 23.4 (1984): 587-600. Print. Braverman, Mark. "Zionism And Post-Holocaust Christian Theology: A Jewish Perspective." Holy Land Studies 8.1 (2009): 31-54. Print. Downing, Frederick L. "The Poetics of Memory and Justice: Elie Wiesel and Post-Holocaust Theological Reflection." Journal of the NABPR 1.1: 284-300. Print. Manseau, Peter. "Revising Night: Elie Wiesel and the Hazards of Holocaust Theology." Killing the Buddha. 2015. Web. 14 June 2015. . Moore, James F. "A Midrashic Approach to Genesis 6 and Matthew 21: A Case Study for the Use of Midrashic Dialogue in the Classroom." Bulletin 35.3 (2006): 60-62. Print. Pinder-Ashenden, Elizabeth. "How Jewish Thinkers Come to Terms with the Holocaust and Why It Matters for This Generation: A Selected Survey and Comment." European Journal of Theology 20.2 (2011): 131-38. Print. Wiesel, Elie. "Recalling Swallowed-Up Worlds." The Christian Century 1.1 (1981): 609-12. Print. Read More