COMMENTARY: It’s time to retire the term `Judeo-Christian’

c. 1997 Religion News Service (Rabbi A. James Rudin is the national interreligious affairs director of the American Jewish Committee.) UNDATED _ It’s time to retire one of our most popular verbal icons:”Judeo-Christian tradition.” I say this with sadness, because until recently I viewed the term as a convenient, albeit superficial, way to affirm religious […]

c. 1997 Religion News Service

(Rabbi A. James Rudin is the national interreligious affairs director of the American Jewish Committee.)

UNDATED _ It’s time to retire one of our most popular verbal icons:”Judeo-Christian tradition.” I say this with sadness, because until recently I viewed the term as a convenient, albeit superficial, way to affirm religious pluralism. Frankly the term helped make the Jewish community _ a minority in America _ feel at home.


When I first heard of the Judeo-Christian tradition as a youngster, it conjured up comforting visions of historical figures _ like Roger Williams, the Baptist reformer of Rhode Island; Gershom Mendez Seixas, the Revolutionary War rabbi of New York; and John Carroll, the first Roman Catholic archbishop of Baltimore _ all affirming the same positive values.

For decades politicians of both parties have regularly invoked the Judeo-Christian tradition mantra to indicate their support of unspecified moral virtues. And I have heard Christian leaders employ the term especially when speaking in synagogues.

Judeo-Christian sounds so inclusive, so warm and fuzzy. But I have regretfully reached the conclusion that its usefulness, if only a limited one, has come to an end.

Whenever I press my Christian colleagues to explain precisely what Judeo-Christian means, they frequently retreat into theological mushiness, at best, or Christian triumphalism, at worst. In many cases, Judeo-Christian is used as a cover for the concept of a”Christian America”or the supremacy of Christianity.

Usually, after proclaiming the glories of the Judeo-Christian tradition, some Christian clergy solemnly inform me,”After all Jim, the Old Testament is part of our Bible, too.”As if I didn’t know.

In such cases, I politely reply:”How could it be otherwise since the Hebrew Bible (a far better term than Old Testament) was the only sacred Scripture that Jesus, a Jew from Nazareth, ever knew.” In time, the unpleasant truth became clear to me: the Judeo contribution to the well-worn phrase often ends with the Hebrew Bible. The term doesn’t include the uniquely Jewish tradition that emerged after the rise of Christianity, including rabbinic commentaries, the Talmud, the Midrash, and a host of other writings and teachings.

No wonder Judeo has a Latin origin. The Jewish contribution to the Judeo-Christian tradition seemingly ended with the Roman occupation of the Holy Land. Think about it. While there are certainly many Christians in the world, how many Judeos are there?


My recommendation is that we start using the more accurate phrase”Jewish and Christian traditions.” My entire screed against the use of the term Judeo-Christian would simply be material for a scholarly debate were it not for the lamentable fact that the term is now used in an unseemly, even dangerous way in American political life.

Just as Samuel Johnson observed that patriotism often becomes the last refuge of scoundrels, so, too, the expression Judeo-Christian is now the last refuge of some public officials who seem deeply troubled by recent demographic changes in the religious make-up of the American population.

Take Circuit Court Judge Roy S. Moore as an example. He insists on hanging a wooden replica of the Hebrew Bible’s Ten Commandments in his Alabama courtroom. If the judge’s action is declared unconstitutional by the Alabama Supreme Court, Gov. Fob James has threatened to call out the National Guard and state troopers to forcibly block the removal of the display.

The judge also has Protestant ministers offer prayers in his courtroom. We don’t know where he stands on prayers offered by Roman Catholic priests and rabbis.

When Moore was asked whether he would allow members of non-Judeo-Christian religions _ such as Muslims or Buddhists _ to offer prayers also, he angrily rejected the idea saying only those clergy”who acknowledge the God upon which this nation was founded”are permitted to pray in his courtroom.

Moore’s disdain for other religions made me wince, and I especially grimaced to see the term Judeo-Christian tradition cunningly used by his supporters to justify a mean-spirited and narrowly sectarian purpose.


While fully respecting Moore’s right to be a believing Protestant, something that is guaranteed by the Constitution’s First Amendment, there are many of his fellow Alabamans who do not share his religious views.

Moore is neither a”Protestant judge”nor a”Judeo-Christian”judge, but a judge of all Alabamans, regardless of religion.

END RUDIN

Donate to Support Independent Journalism!

Donate Now!