Author's note: I cheated and used a PageMaker plug-in to create the HTML in this file, instead of manually transcribing and writing the code. For some reason, looking at 130 pages of code again didn't sound like fun. I update the HTML every once in a while. I'm in the process of signifying where the "pages" would have been in the print version at the moment.

Anyway, go BACK to the source page if you either want a raw text version of this, or if you want a .PDF version, which is MUCH prettier, and is 100% the way I submitted the project.

I hope that you find this useful. I've progressed, as one would hope, past the point frozen in this thesis, to the point where I'm now studying the dichotomy between building character with church and using the same church merely to push doctrine. That study, along with some possibilities for implementation of what's written below and what I'm currently studying, will come out some time in late 1998 or 1999, in the form of a novel.

Thanks, and Enjoy!

©1997,1998 Paul Heimbach

Many Thanks go to:   Richard Spencer, for taking many hours out of a busy schedule not only to read my paper, but also to make many very incisive comments on it, some of which are incorporated herein.     My Wife, Barbara, for putting up with many dozens of books on the living room carpet, and many hours without the hus band I know she loves, and think she remembers....     My advisor, Dr. Thomas Edgington, who for long hours has slaved not only to help me craft this thesis, but also provided me with a rare model of how to craft myself.     Other friends who have read the thesis as it became avail able on the web, and have offered their comments...   The many others who have inspired my creativity, often while trying to advance their own positions...

Title: WHERE THE CULTURE IS THE COUNSEL: AN APPRAISAL OF THE JEWISH AND CHRISTIAN RELIGIOUS SYSTEMS AND THEIR CULTURES TO AS SESS A COMMON COUNSELING METHODOLOGY.

Author: Paul Edwin Heimbach

Degree: Master of Counseling

Date: July, 1997

Advisor: Dr. Thomas J. Edgington

This paper began as an attempt to show that Jewish psychology was both different than, and possibly superior to, Christian psychology, due largely to differences in the mindsets of the two religious groups which had grown up over the millenia. It also began with the thesis that Judaism might be superior for counseling, given its relational nature, and there fore, if that were provable, it might be wise to incorporate into Christianity those aspects which would make it more relational.

As research continued, however, it became clear to me that such a thesis, and the concomitant attitude, would be seen as antagonistic, not to mention unprovable. This same research, however, showed me something drastically different. I will indeed compare two religious systems, and the mindsets which both shaped, and with which they were shaped. My purpose here, though, will not be to pit the two systems against each other, but to examine them, and to use that examination to further the cause of both the Church, and of psychology. I will examine the mindset and culture inherent in each religion, and will examine core theologies of each religion, noting where culture meets theology in each case. My course of inquiry will involve three steps.

First, I will attempt to construct a psychological system which might arise out of the tenets of each religion and mindset. Second, I will examine each of the resulting psychological theories. It is my belief that this will prove quite educational. (how? most people start with a belief structure, and look to the bible to prove it, not the other way around. Doing what we are, we should eliminate any individual quirks, and produce an acceptable "blanket" Christian theology, useful in several ways.) Third, I will use the strengths and differences to make us more aware of the state of current Christian psychological theory induced by our Western culture, and what the Judaism which we lost can restore to that theory. We will, however, show that that state is not good, as the parable below intimates.

In the end, the following seem true. Judaism incorporates in its theology, by means of its emphasis on life as art and many other emphases, both a healthy psychology and a solid means of conveying that psychology . Western, Hellenized Christianity as defined above may be creating, seems to focus on the compartmental, the logical and the intellectual, among other things. Therefore, as opposed to Judaism, Western Christianity is creating the need for a healthier psychology, and has a minimal, and possibly ineffective or dysfunctional delivery system.

Accepted by the Faculty of Grace Theological Seminary

in partial fulfillment of requirement for the degree

Master of Arts in Counseling

Thomas J. Edgington, Ph.D.

Advisor

TABLE OF CONTENTS

PREFACE ............................................... 6

DEFINITIONS ........................................... 10

OPENING PARABLE ....................................... 11

CHAPTER

ONE. An Exploration of Mindset and Theology ............15

TWO. The Mindset and Theology of Judaism ...............18

The Context of the Jewish Mindset ......................19

Essential Jewish Theology ....................,,,,,,.....23

Summary of the Jewish Mindset/Culture ..........,,,,,,.. 37

THREE. The Mindset and Theology of Christianity ..,,,... 41

Four Influences which formed Christianity ......,,,,,,.. 42

The Greek Language and Philosophy ...........,,,,,,,,,.. 43

The Greek Culture and Mindset ..............,,,,,,,,,... 45

Heresy ................................................. 46

Growing Anti-Semitism .................................. 47

Essential Christian Theology ........................... 52

Problems Associated with Such Thinking Patterns ......... 64

A Summary of the Christian Mindset ...................... 67

FOUR. Cultures and Mindsets, An examination of each,

with its inherent psychological system ................... 72

Jewish ................................................... 72

Christian ................................................. 75

INTERLUDE TO UNITY ........................................ 80

FIVE. Evaluation of Existing Representative Counseling

Systems from both camps ................................... 85

Christian Counseling Concepts ............................. 87

Jewish Counseling Concepts ............................... 100

SIX. A Proposed Model, Based on the above ................ 111

CONCLUSION............................................... 122

BIBLIOGRAPHY .............................................123

Preface:

I've been asked many times during the various processes which went into writing this thesis just why a Western Chris tian, enrolled in a conservative Seminary, would choose to write a paper attempting not just to combine Christian and Judaic theology, but Jewish and Christian psychology as well. 'Isn't your Christianity enough?' I've been asked. After three years of studying Judaism as intensely as I've studied Christianity, I feel I have to say a qualified no. Why I answer that way lies in several key 'discoveries'.

As I began to study how the Body of Christ should func tion, I discovered several things. First, the Western Chris tianity of recent centuries bears little resemblance to the Christianity of the early Church. Second, growing out of that realization, I have found that the early church was a commu nity which was culturally AND religiously Jewish, except for the belief that their Messiah had indeed come. I have found this unity valuable psychologically, but lacking in Western culture. The earliest Christians believed that Y'shua (Jesus) was not simply a political saviour, but was indeed their spiritual savior. They believed that after a time, He would come back for them, to demand an accounting of their time here.

Rather than view that accounting as a threat, however, they viewed it as a challenge, and a normal one at that, one for which they were readily equipped. Rather than view it as a time for fearful explanations of why they had participated in a list of forbidden activities, they viewed it as a sort of juried art day, on which the work of art they had attempted to

create, with more or less help from the Master Artist, would be judged on both its accomplished points, and the points left rough. Most critically, they believed that the community of which they were a part would have a solid hand in the prepa ration for that day, and that the way to a good accounting on that day was not a solid memorization of theology and defini tions, but of character change. For them, their "religion" was not just a thing to be done, but a way to be.

In much of the journey which has been my life, I have been surrounded with the knowledge of, and relationships with, many Jewish people, and with many of the concepts of Judaism. As I've supplemented subjective knowledge with more concrete knowledge over the last decade, and especially the last three or four years, my sense of kinship with the Jewish people has grown strong enough that I almost feel at one with them. What is it that keeps me from taking that last step into only Judaism?

First and foremost, I am Messianic. I believe that, while Judaism places a heavy responsiblity upon the individual for his own betterment, we cannot become perfect on our own. We require community, and we require a mechanism within that community to force us not just to "apply principles", but to forge one tough step farther, and actually tear apart our old lives, and rebuild new ones, based on those principles. I feel that I must emphasize though, that I believe that it was because we need such help that Moshiach has already come. I also believe, however, that with regard to community/growth issues, today's church is wholly inadequate.

Second, I consider my "religion" neither fully Jewish, nor fully Christian. While such a position puts me largely at odds with the orthodox of both religions, I do not believe that either "religion" exists in the state in which it was intended to exist. Neither is pure; both have aquired un healthy and un-needed impurities over the millenia. There is, however, a middle ground, which I have struggled to find, the route to which was through the Early Church. Much of this

struggle has consisted of identifying issues, of studying the Bible related to those issues, and of asking myself how much of what is now institutionalized is actually productive, i.e. whether it would either win new souls, or actually help those new souls grow, or both. It also has consisted of comparing present practice with First Century practice. I consider myself, for the record, a Messianic Jew, but one who views Yeshua-Moschiach (Jesus-the-Messiah) as the end of his faith, rather than the beginning. I believe, quite simply, that Yeshua came to complete the Jewish faith, and to offer salvation to the Gentiles. The Church would be the mechanism for both aims.

Thirdly, I wish to make explicitly clear, from the begin ning, that I am not, either in this paper, or in real life, what the apostle Paul, in his letter to the Galatians (1:6-9), calls a Judaizer. Paul's complaint was against those who would say that Jewish practice was absolutely necessary for one's salva tion. This I do not believe. I practice, and preach, Judaism, combined with Christianity, for the sake of adding new meaning, background, and emotional content to my Christianity. This paper may at times, due to its nature, sound overly protective of Judaism and overly critical of Christianity, but I have attempted to keep any bias as marginal as possible, and to permit it only where the subject matter makes it unavoidable.

I do, however, believe the following about Christianity and Judaism in common. In other words, I believe the fol lowing about God:

· God exists.

· God created the world, and the human race, in that order.

· God did not create one for the other, but both for each other.

· God created the human race with the capability to sin, with the full knowledge that they would do so.

· God created the means for the redemption of all who sinned.

· God selected the Jews as the conscience of this planet, and therefore as the forerunners of this salvation.

· Salvation, when it came, was meant to be understood in the context of the religion and religious practices which God, in covenant with Israel, had spent several thousand years cultivating.

· God sent the second member of the Christian Trinity, called variously Jesus, the Messiah, Yeshua, and Moshiach, to the world to bring salvation.

Definitions:

With that said, I believe, and popular opinion has stated, that at least two definitions are in order:

Christianity, Christian, as used in this paper : Christianity today, both in terms of dogma and practice, seems vastly different than what history notes it to have been, and what it seems to have been intended to be. I will therefore be using "Christianity" to mean the institutionalized religion which it became after several anti-heretical fights in the first centuries, and especially after Constantine in 313 AD/CE. I include these two further restrictions on the term: unless mentioned otherwise, when the word 'Christianity' appears alone, it automatically includes either the prefixed term (and baggage) Western, and/or the prefixed word Hellenized. As noted above, I have no intent of attacking those Christians who actually have taken, and do take, the time to use the Bible to enact changes in their own holistic persons and personalities, and for whom that change is an ongoing and thorough process.

Judiasm, Jew, Jews, etc, as used in this paper : Judaism did change after about 200 BC/BCE as noted below in this paper, but the extent of that change has been difficult to determine and document. I most often am referring to Judaism as a culture, as the integrated unit of culture, religion, mindset, etc that it has proven to be. Most importantly, though, I refer to any Judaism which would run most parallel to Christianity of the same period, if Christianity existed in the mentioned period. Importantly, the Judaism of which I speak is not the one which the Roman Church has portrayed, one solely of slavish devotion to laws, but one of vibrant per sonal and community culture.

A Parable:

The Jewish people, especially their teachers, are very fond of telling stories. Some say that this fondness is merely a hand-me-down from the long oral tradition of this people, which they have been unable to forget. Others say that it is more important, as Edward Hoffman (1995) notes in the gloss of a chapter which he edited on the subject:

For those interested in the visionary aspects of Judaism, it has become increasingly clear that its folkloric tradition contains a treasure house of wisdom. Such teachings, often transmitted orally and evocatively in the form of stories, have long focussed on the subtleties of spiritual growth (p.20).

Those in the "more important" camp note that stories are and have been used to educate, to illustrate, to speak in images common to the hearer. The hearer doesn't have to reach quite so hard, once he has grasped the main points, and rather can stretch his imagination, by means of the new common images. The stories, however, never have had a cast list. One is never told, in the best of them that a "king", or a "simple man", or a "tree" stood for thus-or-so. One had to guess, and from the guessing, from grasping the whole story well and thoroughly enough, to winnow out the characters' identities.

This paper will need to do all of these things if it is to succeed. This paper is about reconciliation, between two parties so large, and apart for so long, that it is only remotely possible that many know both sides of the story. So, we will need common images, but we will also need to stretch the imagination a bit, by putting aside all prejudice. We need a story which will do all of this. After a search of the relevant literature, none would quite do. So, in the spirit of the story-tellers I've fashioned one, in the form of a classic rabbinic tale. It is an imperfect tale, no doubt, but one which I hope is effective.

Six thousand years ago, give or take a few centuries, a bride was chosen, in a quiet conversation between the Ruler of the Universe and a man from Ur of the Chaldees named Avram. The bride was most like the Ruler, and was chosen to be his own bride, someday. Rather than take her to be with Himself immediately, however, He left her in this world for two reasons. She was created from the best part of that other nation, and was to serve as the conscience of that, and other nations. That, however, would prove a dan gerous occupation. She was also, because she was found to be so much in His image, to learn much about him before their marriage. The Ruler selected her, however, for her special traits, which he strengthened and made equal to that task. She was tough, she saw herself as one, and viewed life as an opportunity to better the self, rather than simply to be lived, or tolerated in fear.

Occasionally, however the Bride had ideas of her own. The same stubborn streak which which had a hand in her role as conscience also had a hand in numbing her own conscience, in an odd desire to become like the very nations she was to have been helping. Painful as it must have been, the ruler allowed others to try to take her, and many thought they had her. Eventually, though, after she had learned her lesson for a while, the Ruler would inevitably return, and free her from her false bonds. Eventually, though, her captivities weakened her health, and destroyed another of her helpful traits, her powerful internal unity. After about four millenia of life, her Ruler, Maker, and Lover enacted a plan made long before her calling, or even her birth. He sent a final messenger not only to deliver a very clear and impassioned message, but to change the relationship forever. The messenger was to give his life to make the Bride acceptable to her Ruler and Lover.

However, because the Bride was merely called from human ity, as opposed to being created separately, the sacrifice made for her was also good for the balance of humanity.

It is this fact, coupled with humanity's increasing resist ance to their conscience, which would eventually cause the Bride intense pain, abuse, and grief. Her grief, however, would become multi-faceted.

Shortly after The Sacrifice, The Bride was placed under the most intense strain she ever encountered, and was scat tered throughout humanity. The Sacrifice of the Messenger was also taken to other cultures, including the dominant culture of the era. That culture, however, had values al most diametrically opposed to the Bride's.

For that reason, The Sacrifice and The Relationship were never integrated into the culture of the Caretakers, how ever, as they were in the Bride. The Caretakers soon stripped away the context of the message, perfectly satis fied with studying the mysteries of the message, out of context, quantifying it, dissecting it, nearly losing it in a plethora of tubes and life-support systems as, loosed from its supportive environment, it struggled against all to many diseases. Values which allowed the Bride to accept trouble with equinamity were lost, and replaced with struc tures that, with frightening rapidity, wrote the Bride out of the picture. For many years, the Caretaker developed The Message of the Sacrifice without any consultation with the Bride. Such development was pointless, since the pri mary meaning of the Message lies in the completion of the Bride's talents.

Some of the developments were valuable, however. Many more, though, caused intense grief and pain for the Care taker.

In recent days, however, developments have once again forced them together, as Bride first became quite sick, facing near certain annihilation, and the Caretaker, for whom the message had become almost completly academic, found and feared that both of them were increasingly losing strength to other individuals in their community. The Caretaker has dropped official opposition to the existance

of the Bride, and the two are finally beginning to realize two things: their histories are so mutually entwined that no pulling by others can break them apart, but neither rec ognizes what the other has become. Their only hope for re vitalization is reconciliation. But reconciliation to and of what? Often the Bride wants little to do with the Care taker. But just as often, members of the Caretakers Commu nity are finding less and less value within it, and finding themselves desperately seeking what the Bride was sent to provide.

So far, this parable has been of division. I hope that, ironically, the academic extension of this parable which follows, in the form of a counseling session, can tease out the unique possibilities inherent in each, at a time when each is most likely to give custody one more go. While many would urge a separation, I believe a reconciliation of their core ideologies, a remarriage of Bride's history, and Grooms healing powers, is the best hope. Bride has been given a mission, and is uniquely talented to complete it. She is, however, missing one thing: she cannot do it alone. She needs the Message of the Sacrifice back.

Therefore, if we can re-integrate the Message of the Sacrifice with the Brides talents, the counseling session will have been a success.

This is their hope, and may be the only hope for many of the disenchanted and wounded. The paper which follows will deal not only with my view of what kind of counseling needs to occur in this "relationship", but with what we, as counselors and ministers can glean from the results of that "counseling session."

CHAPTER ONE:

An exploration of mindset and theology, with an eye for culling out useful issues with which to work, and a framework of similarities to hammer them onto.

Three religions can be discerned in the period from about 100 BCE to 100 CE, says Neusner (1984); Judaism prior to CE /AD, Judaism CE/AD, and Christianity CE/AD. It was the de struction of the Temple which caused the creation of the second two out of the first. "The destruction of the Temple which took place in 70 CE ... was normative in the formation of ... Judaism ... (as it) took shape in the documents produced by Rabbis from the first through the seventh centu ries. This same event proved decisive in the formation of Christianity as an automonous and self-conscious community of Israelite faith" (p. 10).

As of 70 CE, Christianity is still considered to be adher ing to mostly Jewish beliefs. We will see below that this is quite true deep into the second Century. I have written extensively elsewhere about why the break might have oc curred. I will touch again on it in a section below, although always the why is secondary to the what, with respect to what differences became embedded in the Bride and her Caretaker. The why will be informative to the what, but here is never meant to over-ride it.

Neusner (1984) provides one critical path for inquiry on the question of why. He speaks in his book of three types of men critical in the age of which I have just spoken, and whom I will describe in more detail below. They are the priest, the sage,and the Messiah. I mention them here because they are critical to understanding why Judaism and Christianity became such different religions, apart from their quite basic

differences with respect to Messianic issues. This trio is therefore important to achieving whatever level of re-unifi cation, or integration we desire for the purposes of psychol ogy. The dichotomy which is so critical to Neusner is one of salvation vs. sanctification. What is comes down to is as follows:

The priests (Temple) and the sages (Torah) tended to focus inward, and therefore tended also to focus on sanctification. The Messianists tended to focus on salvation, which by its nature required a much more outward focus. It is along these lines that, under the intense pressures of history after 70 CE that Judaism, with its very inward focus, and Christanity, with its outward and upward tendancies, eventually were torn apart. Aside from Messianic issues, at one time, Christianity and Judaism were indistinguishable, with multiple sources from era historians and commentators to current scholarship, stating in common that Christianity was often considered, early on, to be simply a radical Jewish sect.

The establishment of this point is critical before any thing else is done or said. This is said at the very least because this point represents the strongest of the possible paths in allowing Judaism and Christianity, both in their theologcial, lifestyle, and psychological spheres, to posi tively influence each other back to a powerful marriage. Not only does this give us a structure, onto which to place all of the other, smaller issues which we will discuss below, but it provides us with a core unity. It makes me feel like Judaism and Christianity belong together, or at least are complimen tary in their focus, in that they change our focus from uni -directional to bi-directional, encompassing, in their unity, BOTH of the important directions to look for our healing.

So where do we go from here? How do we tackle such a seemingly daunting task of not only establishing what each religion deems critical, but then establishing each reli gion's sphere of influence, and then, ultimately, teasing from that sphere of influence issues prominent enough, and

central enough, to provide a basis for the re-establishment of relationship touched upon in recent paragraphs? It seems that the parable stated at the opening of this paper will be of quite a bit of help in this issue. While easier ways may be possible, the most productive way, both in terms of clarity and produced knowledge seems to be provided by a counseling session of sorts. With that route established, finer details will include first an "individual counseling session" in which the "bride" tells us about herself, followed by something similar from the "caretaker". What they tell, and how they tell it, will differ, based upon what we already know of their personalities. Let us now move on to our interview with the Bride of this tale.

Many modern theologians increasingly attempt to define the message of Jesus over against Judaism. Jesus is said to have taught something quite different, something original, unacceptable to the other Jews. The strong Jewish opposi tion to Jesus' proclamation is emphasized .... Even though he gave his own personal bent to Jewish ideas, selected from among them, purged and reinterpreted them, I cannot honestly find a single word of Jesus that could seriously exasperate a well intentioned Jew.

-David Flussner, quoted in Brad Young (1995)

Because I am attempting to use religion to establish a psychology, the "counseling sessions" with the "bride" will attempt to explore the context in which she has had to live. Since the 'counselor' in this situation, along with most of the auditors of this conversation have been raised with a Western mindset, it will seem more comfortable to tease apart her "common mindset", how she behaves ordinarily within her culture, how she functions in everyday life, and how she approaches her religious life, even though for her, the two will be more or less seamlessly welded. In "later sessions" she will attempt to speak more about that religious life. At the end of those "sessions", I will interact with her, weaving what she has said into a form which will be more portable, for use in later "sessions", in which I will attempt to determine a psychological theory of her existance. But that will come after several "interviews" with the groom.

Perhaps the words of Barry W. Holtz (1992) summarize the interview into which I am about to enter, as I try to encapsulate Judaism:

"... there is not fixed path, no step-by-step curriculam for learning, or for entering Judaism. You can begin anywhere and move in any direction you like. (...) because Judaism is a spiritual tradition that is, a tradition designed to help people discover who they are and what they should do about it much of Judaism cannot be mastered dispassionately or objec tively the way one might learn "about" French civilization, American literature, or Japanese gardens. Ultimately, Judaism must be lived personally. (...) learning about Shabbos can never be a substitute for making one. (...) In Judaism, study itself can be an act of prayer." (italics mine)

Besides augmenting our understanding of what Judaism is, this passage tells us what it cannot be: purely intellectual. As the parable above hinted, and the discussion below will seek to uncover, this is not necessarily the case with other reli gions.

I will attempt to show what happens when a religion tries to become intellectual property. But this is perhaps as good a point as any to make clear a key issue, one on which I struggle daily: both religions can , during the initial time of acquaintance, seem, and even be purely intellectual.

What is important to this investigation, however, is what has happened to two religions which at one time were extremely similar. One remained concerned with remaining a lifestyle, and one became primarily concerned with the maintenance of intellectual correctness. Judaism will refuse to make sense past a certain point if practiced or learned on only an intellectual level, for many reasons (mostly of time-based practices, such as holy-days). Christianity on the ohter hand has developed, due primarily to Hellenization, to the point were it can be made to make sense, and provide a sort of satisfaction and direction on a purely intellectual level for most of its adherants. This difference we will seek to explore, by looking at the development of each mindset, rather than simply a snapshot of each mindset at any given time.

The Context of the Jewish Mindset

While Thorlief Boman (1970) states in his book Hebrew Thought Compared with Greek that "(t)he Jews themselves de fined their spiritual pre-disposition as anti-Hellenic" the primary determiner of the Jewish mindset is its language. Boman has written what appears to be both the seminal and the only work both detailing the uniqueness of the Hebrew lan guage, and contrasting it somewhat with the Greek language. The conclusions which he draws with may impact up to one-half of our conclusions.

Perhaps the thing which emerges most quickly is the time conciousness of the Hebrew people."'Dwelling' for the Hebrews is related to the person who dwells, while for the Greeks and for us it is related to the residence and the household goods" (Boman, 1970). While this is only one word, it is perfect for my uses here, in that it deals squarely with many issues. Foremost among them, it highlights a lasting and critical difference of focus between the Hebrew and Greek civiliza tion, in which one focuses on the inner being, and one focusses on the quantifiable outer issues.

Boman (1970) also addresses other issues raised by the above quote, i.e. state of being. "Our analysis of the Hebrew verbs that express standing, sitting, lying, etc., teaches us that motionless and fixed being is for the Hebrews a nonen tity; it does not exist for them. Only being which stands in inner relation with something active and moving is a reality to them." This quote holds much promise for religious devel opment, theology, and psychology in the way that it changes their focus. This focus will be detailed below.

Even when something or someone in Hebrew seems to be standing still, or as a Greek would put it: in a position to be quantified, there is motion or connectedness in or with time: "...even the Hebrew stative verbs are not static; they are called stative because they designate a condition (sta tus) which is not fixed and dead but is in flux it is as much

a becoming as a being" (p.33). As opposed to the Greeks, the Hebrews have a great number of these stative verbs. "There fore, we must presuppose that the verbal idea ... is always living and palpable, even when we are not, because of poverty of expression either to repeat it or to feel it with them" (p.34). Without doubt, repeated practice with envisioning emotional verbs as a process would strengthen the empathic skills of a counselor, since the entire history of the emotion must be rooted out and understood, rather than simply assuming that the emotion expressed is one of the moment.

Just as critical as what this basic lingual analysis has revealed is what specific lingual analysis reveals with ref erence to the Hebrew language and psychology. Oates (1973) states that "the Hebrews had no word for person (as we use it today, as derived from Latin persona (see below)). Nor did they have a word for body. The body was the person, and there was no differentiation between the physical and psychical, the natural and the supernatural" (p. 18). This will, as we will see below, carry heavily into their theology. With the Torah meant to be directly interactive with the soul, rather than simply changing the mind, seeing the person as parts to be added to allows a localization of the change, and a deeper interaction with the self.

Neusner, (1988) summarizes the importance which language plays in this discussion. He notes quite simply in his introduction to the Mishnah that "world view and ethos are synthesized in language." That synthesis is already extant, so for the rest of this chapter, we will seek to finish the revelation of what language analysis has begun.

According to Jacob Neusner (1988), the stated purpose of Jewish education in the first Centuries CE was to "create a decent human being". (Neusner, JIBC, p. 24) How different this appears from the schooling of the West, in which, at best, the purpose is the learning of a job; at worst, the

memorization of huge quantities of facts, and learning their inter-relationship, if any, in hopes that the skill of inter -relating facts will "land" one a job. But this idea also creates a question, to be answered below, with respect to just how such an ideal might be integrated. The other thing that it does is make us aware that people who think and educate in Jewish fashion will have people who are, in themselves, works of art, rather than works of art based on material goods, and inter-related facts.

One such work of art appears in our Bibles as The Song of Songs, or The Song of Solomon. Solely by noting who is present and who is absent, the Song notes a very important mindset issue for its readers, especially in light of the present context. In the song, it becomes clearly obvious that while the men shape the history of the tribe and nation, the women are in charge of passing on the traditions of love (Bloch and Bloch, The Song of Songs, p.6).

The Song teaches us more than that, however. "In cel ebrating love and lovers, the Song proclaims the power of the imagination. The verb damah ("to be like") occurs with particular frequency; in one of its conjugations, dimmah, it means ... 'to conjure up a mental image, to imagine, to fantasize'" (Bloch and Bloch, Song Of Songs , p.14). There is no warning in the Hebrew that what the imagination cre ates cannot come to fruition, as there is in Greek litera ture, such as Plato's Republic. So, where the Greek at tempts to stick with what is easily quantifiable, visible, hard, the Hebrew is encouraged to interact with others with the additional blessing of imagining a future. One sus pects this would lead to a much more dynamic form of wor ship, if one not ONLY can concentrate on what is (doc trine), but what might be.

Buber (1967) suggests, when speaking on unity that when one is a member of a people on its own soil, one can afford not to look at his people, and can take them for granted. This gives him the liberty to become, and be, an indi

vidual. But when one's very people, let alone one's land, are forced time and again close to non-existance, when one lives landless for millenia, one must not take one's people for granted, for community with them is all he has.

Essential Jewish Theology

"In investigating the existential foundations of the several symbolic systems available to ancient Jews, we seek to penetrate to the bedrock of Israel's reality, the basis for the life of the nation of Israel and each Israelite, the ground of being even to the existential core we share with them." (Neusner, 1984, p. 39) Not only which, but we will also use these to develop a Jewish psychological theory. Jewish theology has proven difficult to tease apart from Jewish mindset, primarily because what Jewish theology I have found has been in the context of usefulness to daily life. So I have stuck to separating the two by means of space and time parameters.

Despite the lack of overt dogma (as opposed to doctrine) Jewish theology has remained rather stabile over the millen nia. Granted, there have been changes, but none of those changes have reached the ground-breaking magnitude of those which have continually rocked Christian theology over the past 1800 years. For this reason, we will explore Jewish theology on a topical basis, rather than by using the histori cal approach which will be necessary to gain the most (poign ant) view of the Christian experience below.

So where do I begin? Philip S. Bernstein (1952) spends his entire book detailing the Jewish faith by only using the Jewish Holy days and Festivals. While it does not seem to be his intention to represent the whole of Judaism using this vehicle, it certainly provides an effective means of convey ing both the living realism and the theology of Judaism at the same time, not to mention the reality of its focus on time and times, rather than activity.

On the other hand, Milton Steinberg (1947) spends a bit of time "hosting" an argument between those who say that Judaism has, or has not, a distinct set of articles of faith. We will see some of the results of that argument below. At bottom, however, he, as the "moderator" of this "discussion", decides that Judaism has indeed some articles of faith, some distinctives, but has no inflexible dogmas. As a matter of fact, many different rabbinical and commentative opinions state that flexibility in the law, based proportionately on the stress and danger of the situation, are the accepted, expected, and taught norm, not the exception.

Given these two polar opposites, then, quite likely the best way to gain an initial view of the groundwork of Judaism is to look at a structure assembled by a rabbi named Maimonides, in approximately the 13th Century CE/AD. Maimonides penned a summary work dealing with thirteen principles of the Jewish faith, principles without which the faith, he says, cannot really be itself. What follows is a terse summary of those points:

"The First Principle of Faith.

The existence of the Creator (...) i.e. that there is an existent Being with the highest perfection of existence. He is the cause of the existence of all existent things. In Him they exist and from Him emanates their continued existence. (..) Whatever is outside Him, (...) all need Him for their existence.

The Second Principle of Faith.

The Unity of God. This implies that this cause of all is one; not one of a genus nor of a species, and not as one human being who is a compound divisible into many unities.

The Third Principle of Faith.

The removal of materiality from God. This unity is not a body nor the power of a body, nor can the accidents of bodies overtake Him (...) Whereever in the scriptures God is spoken of with the at tributes of material bodies, like motion, standing, sitting, and such like, all these figures of speech, as the Sages said, 'the Torah speaks in the language of men.

The Fourth Principle of Faith.

God is everlasting, an eternal being . This means that the unity whom we have described is first in the absolute sense.

The Fifth Principle of Faith.

That it is He who must be worshipped and made known by His greatness and the obedience shown to Him. This fifth principle is a prohibition of idolatry. The greater part of the Torah is taken up with the prohibition of idol worship. Epstein reads this " God is the only object of human prayer."

The Sixth Principle of Faith.

God's word is made known through prophets. This implies that is should be known that among this human species there exist persons of very intellectual natures and possessing much perfection. Their souls are predisposed for receiving the form of the intellect. Then this human intellect joins itself with the active intellect, and an exalted emanation is shed upon them. These are the prophets. The complete elucidation of this principle of faith is very long...

The Seventh Principle of Faith.

The prophecy of Moses our teacher. (...) The prophecy of Moses differs from that of all other prophets in four respects. Moses was the only prophet without an intermediary. Moses was the only prophet to receive communication when awake. Moses is the only one who did not suffer phyical hardship as a result of receiving prophecy. Moses was the only prophet to whom prophecy came when either he or God chose.

The Eighth Principle of Faith.

That the Torah has been revealed from heaven. What we have today is the same thing that Moses received, and directly from the mouth of God. The Torah is meant for all time.

The Ninth Principle of Faith.

The abrogation of the Torah. The law of Moses will not be changed, and that no law will come from before God.

The Tenth Principle of Faith.

That He, the exalted one, knows the works of men and is not unmindful of them.

The Eleventh Principle of Faith.

That He rewards him who obeys the commands of the Torah, and punishes him who transgresses its prohibitions. God's great reward is "the future world." His strongest punishment is "cutting off."

The Twelfth Principle of Faith.

The days of the Messiah. This involves the belief and firm faith {interesting combo of words...}in his coming. No date must be fixed for his coming, neither may the scriptures be interpreted with the view of deducing the time of his coming.

The Thirteenth Principle of Faith.

The resurrection of the dead.

When these principles are in the safe keeping of man, and his conviction of them is well established, he then enters 'into the general body of Israel,' and it is incumbent upon us to love him, to care for him, and to do for him all that God commanded us to for for one another in the way of affection and brotherly sympathy."

(Bleich, With Perfect Faith. pp. 36 to 43)

What interests me about these is their focus. Here we have a relatively complete set of 'principles of the faith', whose emphasis completely avoids many of the items we would con sider, and have considered historically, to be crucial to a belief system, such as anthropology, angelology, salvation theory, etc.

This system as is leaves little room for intellectual debate, and when Maimonides fleshes it out to his fullest,

leaves even less. There is no need for intellectualizing. The Jew simply accepts that God is the center of everything, and that to define God is ludicrous. Further, when the Jew accepts God as the center of everything (and by default, his life), a great humility enters, hopefully along with a desire to be in the closest and best possible relationship with Him. I have little doubt that this desire is what made the Jews at Pentecost so eager to accept the Apostles' message: the God for Whom they had done many mitzvot, and Who was the core of their world, suddenly had manifested Himself in such a way that an infinitely closer relationship was possible.

Lawrence Epstein (1994) notes concisely that "(t)he Jew ish de-emphasis on beliefs was ... a profound psychological assertion that mere beliefs cannot substitute for real ac tion, that right thinking was secondary to moral behavior." The other thing which strikes me is the total lack of the requirement of a moral "purity" which many of today's churches often "lay" upon people in order to accept them. Granted, Judaism has 613 laws which contain a very complete moral code, but acceptance of any or all of those 613 is not a precondition for complete acceptance by the Jewish community in full stature. We will see more of this below.

Even more important is this thought: while there have been sporadic attempts to further elucidate the Jewish faith, to the exclusion of the Jewish culture, the main bulk of Jewish theological work along with the main culture revolves around the concept and the person of God. There are few and meager attempts at any of the broad, deep and sweeping theo logical panoramae which so commonly are found in Western Christianity as "Systematic Theologies". Many of the works which we do find are more elucidations of the laws which God laid down for the Jews at Sinai, attempts to integrate those laws into the realities of a culture.

This thought leads to another, even more important thought: because God is the Jewish focus, the focus is on a Being, a being at once immortal, immutable, and more, Who yet remains

willing to hold relationship with His creatures. This has little meaning until it is contrasted with the focus (foci?) of Western theology, which can be interpreted either as a focus on a plethora of issues not related directly to the human creature, or as a singular focus upon a System, rather than a Being. Such a system either tends toward instability if left mutable, or towards inflexibility; both of which are dangerous, for there is no pattern on which to fix one's eye, and with which to compare one's personal growth. Whereas in Judaism, with its personal focus, there is a pattern, a Being, albeity perfect, against Whom to check growth.

Speaking of flexibility, these thirteen can be reduced further. There are several other sets of doctrines, main tained as pillars, which I should in fairness, mention before passing on to individual elements of Judaism, to examine their contributions to our theory. Most of them can be summarized in a necessarily abbreviated quote by Steinberg of Rabbi Simlai:

"Six hundred and thirteen commandments were imparted to Moses (...) Then came David and reduced them to eleven, even as it is written (in) Psalm XV (...) Then came Isaiah and reduced them to six, even as it is written (in) Isaiah XXXIII:15

He that walks righteously, and speaks uprightly;

He that despises the gain of oppressions,

That shakes clear his hands from laying hold on bribes,

That stops his ears from hearing of blood

And shuts his eyes from looking upon evil.

Then came Micah and reduced them to three, (Micah 6:8)

(...) Do justly, love mercy, and walk humbly with thy God.

(..) Then came Amos and reduced them to one, (Amos V:4)

Seek me and live." (Steinberg, p. 13-14)

Steinberg (1947) goes on, listing several other individuals in Jewish history who have sought to distill Judaism's essence to a phrase. He notes a single commonality among them: "The simultaneous love of God and man: here is Judaism's first postulate and final inference, its point of departure and its destination, the root of it and its fruitage." Interestingly enough, we find Christ teaching this in Matthew's Gospel.

From the specific pillars of Judaism, I want to examine some tenets which might be common to both, thereby suggesting a course of reconciliation, if their premises can be merged . On the topic of prayer, Reuven Hammer (1995) writes that

"prayer is not an exclusively Jewish enterprise. It is an expression of our human status. The impulse to pray comes from basic human needs and desires. The informal words a person addresses to God may well be the same re gardless of one's background. The distictiveness of of Jewish prayer is to be found in the concept of the God to whom we pray, a God who is the sole source of life, who can be entreated but not compelled, a God who is father and king at the same time" (p.11).

Hammer (1995) goes on to say that prayer, for Jews, is very reflective of a belief system, ideals, history, and view of the future, and that learning about prayer is a way of helping us enter the world of Judaism (p.11). What is exciting, however, is what Hammer says later in his treatise, in a discussion of the Siddur, the Jewish prayerbook. He notes that it is "the key to understanding and experiencing the meaning of Judaism." He then quotes Abraham Joshua Heschel, who said that "The liturgy is our creed in the form of a spiritual pilgrimage. Our liturgy is no mere memorial to the past; it is an act of participating in Israel's bearing witness to the unity, uniqueness, love, and judgment of God." (p.75)

What excites me about this is the view taken of the creed. It seems to be a live thing, and not only a live thing, but also a thing in time, not in space. It is not built to lock down something for eternity, but rather it is built to transport a people through eternity. This has two-fold ramifications. First, it will need to be recalled below, as we "counsel the groom". Second, such a living thing should have profound bearing on the psychology inherent in a religion.

There is another kingpin to Jewish theology which impacts how it deals with personal growth. That kingpin, again, is not a thing, as might be expected, or a dogma, but a day. It sounds simple: Keep the Sabbath. But the why behind the commandment is the important part. Abraham Joshua Heschel (1994) has written a brilliantly clear, possibly seminal work on the Jewish interpretation of the Sabbath for modern man. While neither its meaning nor human nature has changed in six or more millenia, our circumstances have. This change, and the relevance of the Sabbath to it, will be key, again, to our teasing out of a psychology. So what has changed that is so earth-shaking? Busy-ness, business, and hence our perception of our perception of ourselves. We are now enmired, like never before, in defining ourselves by what we do, and by what labels we wear, and compartmentalization of our lives, that civilization often tempts us to forget the real, and only possible, definition of ourselves.

Of this, Heschel (1994) asks: "Is civilization essen tially evil, to be rejected and condemned? The faith of the Jew is not a way out of this world; but a way of being within and above this world; not to reject but to surpass civlization. The Sabbath is the day on which we learn to the art of surpassing civilization" (p.27). Heschel's comment that "(t)he Sabbath is a bride, and its celebration is like a wedding." (p.54.) shows us the intimately personal level on which the ideal Jew meets time and/or times. Heschel takes this a step futher by noting that "(t)he idea of the Sabbath as a queen or a bride is ... an exemplification of a divine attribute, an illustration of God's need for human love; it does not repre sent a substance but the presence of God, His relationship to man." (p.60) Rarely, in this culture, does one find such a religious symbol so full of possibility, with such a frequent recurrance. (Quite likely Christmas and Easter are the only such symbols for Christians).

"The seventh day was full of both loveliness and majesty an object of awe, attention, and love. Friday eve, when the Sabbath is about to engross the world, the mind, the entire soul, and the tongue is tied with trembling and joy what is there one could say?" (Heschel, p.60) "The idea of the Sabbath as a bride was retained by Israel; (...) to this day the meal on Saturday night is called 'the escort of the queen.' (...) to thank, and show that they do not like the departure of the holy guest, that her parting evokes a deep regret."

So we have seen how the Sabbath feels and what it means to the Jew, along with what is experienced. But more impor tantly, what does it provide for him, what has it to say to him, for the other six days, for application to his real life? "Every seventh day a miracle comes to pass, the resurrection of the soul, of the soul of man and of the soul of all things. A medieval sage declares: The world which was created in six days was a world without a soul. It was on the seventh day that the world was given a soul. This is why is is said: 'and on the seventh day He rested vayinnafash' (Exodus 31:17); nefesh means a soul" (Heschel, p. 83). So, psychologically, Sabbath becomes a tool of hope. No matter how soul-damaging the balance of the week may become, on every seventh day, there is rest, and better, there is the hope of a miracle, of complete restoration.

Heschel (1994) buttresses this idea when he notes that

"Judaism tries to foster the vision of life as a pil grimage to the seventh day; the longing for the Sabbath all days of the week which is a form of longing for the eternal Sabbath all of the days of our lives. It seeks to displace the coveting of things in space for coveting the things in time , teaching man to covet the seventh day all days of the week. God himself coveted that day, He called it Hemdat Yamim , a day to be coveted" (p. 77).

It is with comments like these about time versus space that the final theological and psychological significance of the

Sabbath really shines through. We come again to the dichotomy between the Western idea of space as dominant, as opposed to the Jewish idea of time holding sway. We shall see below just what this can contribute.

A major part of the observant Jew's year, the Pirkey Avoth, also speaks to this conquest of time and space.

"Let the awe of heaven be upon you, so that the thrill of having a relationship with God, and the prospect of a dialogue (...), is independant of any material wish. One the cause-and-effect dimension of material gain is eliminated, the room that is needed for an authentic service of God, in awe, is created" (Bulka, 1993, p. 25)

When Judaism speaks of using space to sanctify time, this is one aspect of what it means.

An electronic mail message I received recently from a rabbinic friend uses a facet of Passover to also deal with personal growth.

Without being overly symbolic, I think it is clear that the process of leavening represents the develoment of powers inherent in something. Matza is simply flour and water, baked. Bread is the same ingredients, but when you leave it around, unwatched and unbothered, it magically rises and grows, realizing a hidden potential and expressing it. Is this bad? Not at all! It would not be exaggerated to say that this is the goal of Torah life in general. But the Torah is warning us about something on Pesach. This process of growth and development, when left to unfold of itself, wildly, can be catastrophic. The raw powers of the human spirit, unguided, are anarchic precisely because they are powerful, precisely because they represent real growth and vitality. The first step, when granted freedom, is not to run and let all the repressed inclinations and urges fly out. Even the, espe cially then, one should eat matza and beware the hidden powers bursting to free. ... Rather than making (our first creative products) in a burst of activity the first day of freedom, we must first find the direction to "the mountain of the Lord," first learn the purpose of freedom, and then and only then take davantage of the wild unchecked powers within (Rabbi Israel Koschitzhy, Yeshivat Har Etzion, list mailing 20.4.97).

It would be fair, then, to say that the Sabbath consti tutes a pillar which has been put in place to remind the Jew

not to see time as quite so important was what it is that he does with that time. I will show another such pillar below, in the upcoming exploration of the concept of tznius .

So what of the book out of which much of Jewish theology and practice is taken? "To be a Jew may similarly be reduced to the single, pervasive symbol of Judaism: Torah . To be a Jew meant to live the life of Torah, in one of the many ways in the masters of Torah taught" (Neusner, 1984, p. 13). Again the reader is exposed to the emphasis upon living what one reads, as opposed to merely intellectualizing it. But Jewish opinion takes an interesting tack with regard to its Torah, holy as it may be considered. Holtz (1992) states that

"(i)f you are convinced that the Torah has nothing more to do with God (...) than any other book, than wait a while before reading it. (italics mine) If, on the other hand, you are prepared to consider the (...) possibility that the Holy one of Being can somehow "get through" to people (...), then the Torah is already a holy text for you" (p. 11).

I do not have the necessary scholastic proof to allege that Christianity forces converts and others to read the Bible before they are ready, but one cannot help but be impressed both by Christianity's constant emphasis upon proving logi cally that one's interpretation of the Bible is "it", and by Judaism's seeming non-chalant and open willingness to wait for the convert to reach his own decisions with regard to the important issues in this regard.

Another important "theological issue" arises out of the Torah as well. Holtz (1992) notes that "(t)he best way to read Torah is with a Hevra, a small group which meets weekly specially for this purpose usually on the Sabbath" (p. 11) Small groups, and more importantly communities, are the para mount and central societal group within Judaism. The groups that meet, however, serve more of a purpose than simply a theological discussion group. "If a person was a member of the middle class, for example," says Rabbi Dr. Shmuel Himmelstein (1990), "and suffers a severe financial setback, he has to be

given greater support than a person who had been of the lower classes. In essence, then, Jewish law recognizes that there is a psychological element (even) in poverty, and that the community cannot treat all the poor identically." While it exists as an option, there is little emphasis, especially within certain Christian circles, on group Bible studies, support/growth groups, or more importantly, group social in teraction outside of Church walls. Even assuming that the church could get people together for a Bible study, it would be rare group which would be willing to support any one of its member families at its accustomed income level.

Conversely, in discussing personal change in a commentary on the Pirkey Avoth, Rabbi Reuven Bulka (1993) notes, in concert with Chapter 4, Mishna 7, that "communal concerns should be foremost, that even if one is not a giver towards the community, at least one should be a receiver, one should not separate oneself from the community" (p.150) . Rabbi Halevy Donin, (1980) notes that "(s)o much significance is still placed on communal worship that if one is unable to attend a communal service, he is advised taht the next best thing to do is to pray privately at the same time as the congregation is praying." Donin also notes that "the sages taught that God listens more readily to the prayers of a congregation that He does to those of an individual." While we may choose to argue about the derivation of such a teaching, one has to concede that for sages over centuries to teach this meant two related things: that it sounded true for the community concerned, and that the rabbis must have percieved that such teaching would reflect a value integral to the community.

"The promise that universal peace can be reached and the earth turned to paradise, ..., (that) there will be a final redemption within human history not beyond it, ..., in pledging a covenental partnership, (G-d) has accepted humans, in all their flawed and finite nature, as the medium of divine activity. Human capacities are allowed for and human needs

are met in the structure of Israel's redeeming faith. The Divine illuminates, orients, and instructs humans, but God does not and will not overwhelm them or destroy their dignity or integrity not even to save them." (Rabbi Irving Greenberg, 1994, p.121) How many different psychological points can we winnow out of that very concise statement?

In light of universal peace however, what of redemption, that crucial cross-bar without which no one can be admitted into God's presence, either momentarily, or for enternity? I can think of no other topic, other than perhaps Messianism itself, (and rightly so) which divides the camps more cleanly than the vision of the future of which I have just written. At the very beginning, I wrote of an inward focus, (Jewish) and an outward and upward focus, which I labelled as primarily Christian. It is on the issue of redemption which I believe that this chasm most bluntly manifests itself.

But on the Jewish side, I believe that the chasm, if that is indeed the correct word, is intentional. Jacob Neusner (1988), in his lengthy introduction to his literal transla tion of the Mishnah, has this to say in clarification:

"Now the Judaism shaped by the Mishnah consists of a coherent world view and comprehensive way of living. It is a world view which speaks of transcendent things, a way of life in response to the supernatural meaning of what is done, a heightened and deepened perception of the sanctification and redemption of Israel in deed and in deliberation. Sanctifi cation means two things: first, distinguishing Israel in all its dimensions from the world in all its ways; second, estab lishing the stability, order, regularity, predictability, and reliability of Israel at moments and in contexts of danger."

Thus, even though the Jew can stay in his culture (like the Christian after conversion), for the Jew, that staying is still a separation. He isn't just one sanctified individual, but he becomes part of a sanctified culture, and everything he does, while pulling him further from world culture as a being, pulls him further into the folds of his own culture, but more importantly, in his building that structure further. The

Christian, on the other hand, as Vedders (1923) notes, often is not only distinguished by his pulling away from the common social play of his generation, but from any of his fellows who participate as well. Such a pulling away hardly builds a structure which will survive the kind of danger through which the Jewish people have come.

As was demonstrated immediately above, Judaism sees an internal change of such massive proportions that the entire world is changed. This, of course, places the burden for that change, but more importantly for redemption, squarely on the heads (and the hearts) of the Jewish community. As will be demonstrated below, however, Christians can, if they elect, have the desire of merely accepting one set of truths (Christ's death and resurrection, and his imminent return) and live the balance of their lives with a) the assurance of their future, b) the assurance of their place in it. There is little necessity for personal responsibility. This has major rami fications in the composition of a Jewish, and a Christian, psychology.

Another small, yet important issue for Jews is the concept of "tznuis", or modesty. Tznius has, in Western culture, often been directed at women, often in the extreme, while being mostly ignored by men. However, for Jews, at least in theory, according to Rabbi Yissocher Frand (1995),

Tznius (...) is a call to us to emphasize and strengthen the internal aspects of our personality, to concentrate our energies on that which is deeper and more hidden within us our spiritual nature. That is why the prophet Michah (sic) as one of the three basic principles upon which a Jew must conduct his life. It is nothing less than a demand that we emphasize the Divine image within us, the soul which was taken from under the Kisei HaKavod (Divine throne) and brought into the physical world.

Once again, the Jewish world emphasizes a commandment which regulates one's being by means of de-emphasizing the impor tance of one's appearance.

According to an internet page entitled "you are what you choose" (http://www.j51.com/~jrsflw/success.htm), the key to success is:

A) Choosing to make the effort. Being willing to take on the challenge. "L'fum tzaara agra." According to the pain you're willing to take is the success you'll find.

B) The most important effort is trying to understand what to do. If a guy says "I want to be a millionaire," how do you know he's serious? What's he doing about it? Is he looking for the right investment? Is he planning out his strategy? Is he constantly trying to get more out of his efforts, to find a better way of doing it?

That's the effort that counts. Understanding with the head. Man will go to any amount of work to avoid thinking. Real effort means using your mind to figure out what will succeed.

C) What's the best effort? "Zivchei Elokim ruach nishbera." Humility. At the very least, give thanks to the Almighty for all that you accomplished. Realize that the reality is that it's all a gift from G-d. We don't do anything on our own. Everything's a find. If we make the effort, we're guaranteed to find success.

D) Deeper than that, realize that all there is is the will of G-d. Identify with that and nothing else.

According to the same source, Americans think happiness is a happening. Judaism says it is a state of mind:

"Americans are brought up thinking that happiness de pends on what you get. (...) Judaism says happiness is not a happening. You can have everything in this world and you can be miserable, or you can have relatively little and feel like a rich man.

The Talmud says in Ethics of the Fathers (Avos 4:1): "Ayzeh hu ashir? HaSameach B'Chelko." Who is rich? The one who's happy with what he has. If you're happy with what you have, you'll feel like a rich man. If you can't appreciate what you already have, no matter how much you get you'll never feel satisfied.

That's why Jews the world over start their day with the words, "Modeh ani l'fanecha." "Thank you." "Thank G-d I can see. Thank G-d, I can use my hands and feet. Thank G-d I can stand up straight." Because if you can master the art of noticing, appreciating and consciously enjoying what you al ready have, you'll always be happy."

Perhaps Lisa Aiken (1996) describes the whole of Jewish the ology and culture best in a chapter of her book Why Me, God?

called "The Purpose of Life". While I will explore the Jewish cultural mindset she reveals a bit further below, her comments better integrate the culture and the God-central minset I have addressed above. She notes that:

"A man only hurts his little finger in this world if it has been decreed Above.

Everything that God does is for a good purpose.

Traditional Judaism teaches that God is a totally good and powerful Being who knows and controls everything except our moral choices. He planned and created a purposeful world for us to live in and put each of us here to fulfill a spiritual mission. He constantly oversees and directs the details of our lives so that we can live meaningfully. Suf fering is an important part of that plan."

As I move into a summary of the Jewish mindset, with an eye to eventually applying that summary to a theory of counseling, I cannot think of a better structure around which to build our dealings with the hurting. Westerners may initially balk at what they feel is a measure of over-control, but a focus on the meaning of that control will give even the most nihilistic in our society pause for thought.

A Summary of the Jewish Mindset/Culture

During counseling, it is often considered sound policy to check with the counselee to see that he or she has understood perfectly just what has been said. Since our conversation with the Bride has been long, this is a good point to recap, before moving on to her other half. Can mindset and theology in Judaism really be separated as I have done, or have I done this for convenince? I believe that if the media (the form required in this paper) had been more forgiving, we might have been better served by merging the two, since all sources indicate that they are indeed merged.

Perhaps the best way to begin this section is with some quotes and discussion from Mark Zborowski's (1976) fun, (dare I say that in a scholarly work?) yet extremely thoughtful and

thorough book Life is With People. Zborowski probes, in the course of his book, various facets of more-or-less modern Jewish culture. But because the bulk of that culture has not changed, and is inculcated in personality, it is worth dis cussing here as transcending time. Zborowski opens a chapter called "As the Shtetl Sees the World" with this paragraph:

The shtetl views the universe as a planned whole, designed and governed by the Almighty, Who created it from original chaos. It is a complex whole, but basically is characterized by order and purpose. Every-thing has its place, its cause, its function. Apparent contradictions, inconsistencies and irregularities fall into place as complements rather than incongruities. (p. 409)

What a refreshing contrast to the intellectual West, in which the scientific method, instead of providing answers, merely creates more questions. What a change also, from Western intellectualism, in which everything is questioned, either out of boredom, or the desire to make a name for oneself (counter to the Torah...), resulting in today's nihilism. And finally, what a change from Western contention, in which every fact must either fit in a pigeon-hole, or be considered in contention with other facts, rather than merely awaiting a companion, or yeilding more information by virtue of its lack of fit or seeming contradiction.

Zborowski continues:

The dynamic whole extends in time as well as in space, so that the apparent inconsistancies of the present may be inter preted as parts of a long-term process building toward ulti mate integration. (...) Whether it be the wailing of a baby, the fund collecting of a community leader, or the affliction of Job, any act must have takhlis (yiddish for a goal, a purpose, sense). (409)

The question will arise below with reference to an apparent dearth of Jewish counseling resources. I believe this quote goes a long way toward answering it. What a powerful stabil ity is created by a mindset in which no matter how bad things may seem, they are considered to have a purpose, especially

considering the range of incident which fall into the realm of this mindset, from the simple, to the broad, to the Biblical. Inherent in this is an allusion Zborowski makes what he notes that "Life is to be enjoyed, ... and life is desirable, despite hardships and trials" (p. 411). How this speaks to today's needs.

Zborowski makes one more comment worth noting:

A real Jew is known by his heart and by his head. The 'Yiddisher kop' is keen and powerful. It must have not only abstract intellect but ability to see all possibilities and to apply them with lightning speed. 'He grabs it in the air,' they say of such a person. A Yiddisher kop does not make one a real Jew, however, unless it is combined with a Yiddish heart, for a 'Jew is known by his pity.' The real Jew does not merely sympathize, he acts on his feelings. Nor does he have to be told, he feels the need. He thinks, feels, acts, communicates for a real Jew is always part of a group. To be withdrawn and isolated is to be disqualified." (p. 424).

This is a loaded paragraph, when placed in contrast to a potential summary of a Western individual. In today's Ameri can culture, (often considered the epitome of Westernism, and the defender of ancient Greek ideals) such a mindset is often in danger of being labelled as "intellectual elitism, and liberal do-gooderism". The last sentence is especially strik ing in light of today's stark individualism.

Opposites create new data, and build teaching, as opposed to Western bases, where opposites must all be given credence and studies in isolation. The Jew believes that because God is the only one who knows everything, no human can have a complete answer for anything. For that reason, not only are no doctrines which are ever considered "dogma", but debate on any idea is considered constructive. At the same time, "(t)he Jew's creative forces are set aflame by his striving for unity; his creative action is rooted in the unification of his soul." Buber, 1967, p. 29) What defines that unity? "... unity within individual man; for unity between divisions of the nation, and between nations; for unity between mankind and every living thing; and for Unity between G-d and the World." (Buber, 1967, p. 27)

Jews believe that life, and the living of it is an art form. Do Westerners pay attention to how life is lived, or merely what is done with it? Remind the reader to pay atten tion to this in the next section, with regard to how philoso phy might influence art, either for good, or for ill. I'm reminded here of how Franklinian we seem, in terms of "time is money", as opposed to a possible Jewish response that "time is Torah" or at least that time saved should not be spent chasing after more money, but after more Torah to input into one's life.

If the reader gains nothing else from this section, it should be that as opposed to what is shown below, Jewish religious theory, mindset, and practice are all wrapped up in two important concepts: the concept of time and duration to the extent that things exist if they are active, and to a greater extent, and and outgrowth of that time-focus, the concept of being, tied up in the improvement therefore, and that being is more important than anything else out there. Jews do not attempt to control space in any sense, at least not as I will show that Hellenic and Western culture do. Nor is their focus to be primarily upon what they do, but rather upon what they are. It is these differences which will create the richest vein for exploration as we continue "therapy".

CHAPTER THREE:

The Mindset and Theology of Western Christianity

... a truly Christian mind is not ... to be the use less appendage that is often thought, a mind that en gages in theological debate, but never enters the realm of life as lived.

James Sire, Discipleship of the Mind , p.17

"It is not accidental that during the first founda tion-laying centuries of the Christian Church, Plato was its philosophical authority, and that the mental decline which clearly sets in at the beginning of the Middle Ages coincides with the rising authority of Aristotle."

Thorlief Boman, Hebrew Thought Compared with Greek . p. 53

The development of the Christian Mindset.

We find our first indication of how far into the first centuries AD/CE Christianity remained a part of Judaism in Louis Berkhoff's remark that "... for (the early Church Fa thers,) Christianity was not in the first place a knowledge to be acquired, but the principle of a new obedience to God." (Ferguson, HOCD, p. 39) Christianity's transition from a Jewish flavor to a profoundly Greek flavor from this point was not sudden, nor was it likely intentional. A summary factor, however, did contribute to the change. This key factor was likely something as simple as Christianity's translation to a Greek audience.

That audience may have been familiar with Jews, but not necessarily with Judaism, perhaps even antagonistic to it to some extent, due to a critical cultural problem: the Jews had the right to live according to their own ancestral laws (Tcherikover,1975, p. 301), but they lived, by and large, in enclaves. "The Jewish community did not exceed restricted limits ... and therefore lacked any political power..." (Tcherikover, 1975). Inside of it, everything was Jewish, and Christianity, where accepted, could flourish. Outside those "walls", however, where Judaism's influence was desperately weak, Christian converts either had to journey into a Jewish enclave, or develop much of their Christianity solely from the Jewish Bible and the evangelists, as they could. Conversely, there was no incentive for Jews to leave their politeuma, for when they did, they lost their right to be peacefully allowed to follow their own rites and history (Tcherikover, 1975).

Even so, the Hellenic world was likely taught Christianity in its initial form, consisting of "completed Judaism, by Jewish evangelists, not the least of whom was the Apostle Paul". Unfortunately, however, it was likely assumed that Judaism was not necessary to the experience, and perhaps at the outset when many would have been familiar with aspects of Judaism, and at the very least with concurrent culture, it was not. In the century or so which followed its rapid introduc tion, however, one key lynchpin was pulled, while another support was installed, a support which was much more rep resentative of Greek thought than of Hebrew.

C.P. Theide (1992) notes that it was "a changed Christendom that arrived (in Jerusalem in 326) and encountered the changed traditions of those who had never left. It had gained forms and structures which enabled it to become a power...". To fully under stand the transition from Hebrew flavoured Christianity to Greek flavoured Christianity, however, we need to more fully understand four further influences which grew out of the above primary factor:

1) Greek language,

2) Greek culture,

3) The threat of heresy, and

4) perscecution and death of Jews.

The Greek language and Greek philosophy . Using the same sort of analysis I used above on the Hebrew language will yield some idea of why the "Caretaker" of the parable was unable to completely assimilate the true purpose of the mes sage. The results will also be critical farther on in ex plaining some perceived weaknesses in much of Western counseling practice, especially the secular sort. I must be careful though: Boman (1970) notes that

"the Greek interpretation of being does not permit of being established by a linguistic analysis directly; however, in this case, we can pursue a direct method since all Greek philosophers from the Ionian (...) on have discussed the problem of being and non-being."

However, while we have seen that the Hebrew thought patterns and speech patterns were dynamic, according to Boman (1970), "the kind of thinking employed by the Eleatic school (...) was not only diametrically opposed, but contradictorily so." According to Boman (1970), Greeks considered being "not only as the essential point, but even more, as the only one since they flatly denied the reality of motion and of change . Only what is immovable and immutable exists; all becoming and passing away is mere appearance and is equivalent to what is not." (italics mine) I would simply ask the reader to stop and ponder the following question at this point: How is it possible for the full impact of a religion and a culture whose major thrust is the crafting of the individual via internal change to be carried accurately and successfully over the centuries in such a culture as the Greek philosophical culture discussed in this paragraph?

Central also to our discussion is the contrast between the Greek and the Hebrew conception of the spoken word, since both

the OT and the NT speak of G-d as "the Word". Hebrew, according to Boman (1970), uses the word dabhar , while Greek, after a long struggle with how to render dabhar, finally settled on the the word 'logos' which, unfortunately for later generations and cultures, proved to be a less than perfect choice. According to Boman, however, dabhar and logos still express different concepts within their usual contexts. "...dabhar is a power-laden word", while Boman (1970) quotes Kleinknecht (1941) as saying that for the Greek, "The logos says 'how a being is'".

Boman (1970) makes an interesting point in this regard during a discussion of how dabhar and logos combined can adequately show much more than simply two cultures attempting to describe the thought and communication process. He notes that

"when the Fourth Evangelist pronounces the word logos at the beginning of his Gospel, the many different profound meanings of dabhar as well as of logos harmonize into a beautiful and mysterious unity for him as well as for his Greek-speaking readers familiar with (the Hebrew) and the Old Testament."

If understanding two languages made the Greek New Testament so much richer, than what damage would the loss of (the most critical) of those languages do? What if, instead of under standing John's "the Word" as both power to change, and as a present state of being, it were to be simply understood as "how He is right now."? Such use of language will force most to descriptions similar to those found in criminal robbery reports: surface impressions of attitude, clothing, dis guises, rather than anything which requires time to discern.

The Greek culture and mindset. As was noted in the discussion of the inter-relatedness of Hebrew language and cul ture, language and culture are more or less locked in a cycle of interdependance and influence. Everett Ferguson (1987) makes some interesting comments with regard to the place, and content of religion in Greek culture, the very Greek culture

into which Christianity was about to be plunged. He notes that

"(t)he religion of many in the Hellenistic ... periods, especially among the educated, was philosophy. Philosophy at that time was not the critical discipline it is in our day nor the theoretical and metaphysical study it has been through much of its history; it was a way of life. Philosophy ... offered its own moral and spiritual direction" (p. 255).

Ferguson goes on to note that "the aim of the Hellenistic philosophies was to teach people how to live." (p. 255).

Something interesting happened to this religion of phi losophy in the early years of Christianity. "Certain psycho logical-religious needs came to prominence (...): a feeling of helplessness before Fate, uncertainty of the hereafter, and inquisitiveness about the supernatural" (Ferguson, 1987, p. 165). Interestingly, none of these were very real before the arrival of a still more or less dynamic Jewish Christian ity in the culture, a Christianity which asked these ques tions. Greek philosophy, and to some extent even today's philosophy, as I noted above, was merely accustomed to dealing with issues of tangible, every-day-living.

There is, however, another very cultural issue involved here, one which has grown more pronounced over the centuries, but likely was present even in the days of Christianity's birth, as evidenced by the thinking patterns brought down to us in such Greek writers as Plato, Aristotle, and others. The issue of which I speak involves what we value in terms of our thought patterns. T. Gladwin (1953) expresses it very clearly: "(i)n our culture we value ... relational or abstract think ing, in which bodies of knowledge are integrated together and related to each other through unifying symbolic constructs." Gladwin (1953) elaborates on this by saying later that "the European begins with a single unifying plan which is often then implemented piecemeal with minimal further reference to the overall goal synthesized within it." How close this comes to describing the average church-goer's year, and the average

preacher's (dare I say counselor's) calendar. However, Gladwin notes, the other strategy, one which he notes is used by most of the rest of the world, "operates with a reference to its beginning and particularly its ending points, and a point in between." This, I daresay, and Gladwin follows in another way, requires a much greater attention not just to the master plan, but to intimate details of where one is at any given time.

There is yet another side-effect of both the inter-depend ence and the inherent character of Greek language and culture on Greek philosophy. Because, as I noted above, Hebrew cul ture encouraged imagination, while writings like Plato's Re public made sure Greek culture did not. Greek philosophy was far more prone to literality than was Hebrew, which made interpretation of dynamic literature far more difficult. As noted in the parable at the start of this paper, it is quite possible, although conjecture at this point, that the arrival of Gnostic "Christianity", colliding with Judaism and a newly separated Christianity, touched off the vicious cycle of seeming heresy and counter-heretical dogmatism which has taken Chris tianity to the very Hellenized state in which it today finds itself. Instead of viewing differing opinions as healthy, Hellenic Christianity, deprived of the dynamic imagination and chained by hyper-literalism, sought to survive by using the only tools at its disposal: hyper-literal interpretation and creedalism.

We find an example of, perhaps even an indication of the roots of, this cycle in the admittedly biased language of Louis Berkhof (1937). I note the bias because of Berkhof's language in the quote which follows reflects his roots. Berkhof notes that "a ... characteristic of the teachings of the Apostolic Fathers is their want of definiteness." Berkhof's language, however, seems to show that he finds it disconcert ing that in letters and preaching only half a generation out from Christ's resurrection, that there are three different emphases on "the truth" (p.39). Now to me, this is not

surprising. Since, as we've learned, Hebrew is a very dynamic language, and that anything which does not change might as well not exist, I can easily understand that Peter, John, and Paul, as they struggled to matriculate a totally new kind of salvation into a very ancient and clear, but yet dyanamic system, would find slightly different ways of describing it. What is also likely is that Jewish converts at the time would have, if they had copies of the multiple writers, likely woven the multiple views together, rather than viewed them as com petitive.

A good example of the effects wrought by the Church's reaction to heresy is found in Berkhoff's discussion of the effects of Gnosticism on the Church. Berkhoff (1937) notes that the Church "learned to mark off clearly the limits of divine revelation, and to determine the relation of the Old Testament to the New. (...) it became keenly aware of the necessity of drawing up short statements of the truth." We see a sad transition as Berkhof notes that now "... the intellectual element in the Christian religion was emphasized ..." This marking off, instead of protecting Christianity, more likely insulated it from any attempt by its new culture to understand it, and perhaps even wound up alienating its adoptive culture.

Bruce R. Shelley (1982) confirms two things for us. First he confirms the intellectualization of Christianity, and sec ond, he confirms its occurrance within the context of Hellen ism. He notes that:

The voice of the apostles had scarcely fallen silent when the church faced the need to define the faith in terms that intelligent men could understand. A clear presentation of the gospel calls upon the powers of reason. God has made men to think so the truth advances, at times, as Christians defend the Gospel against pagan arguments and the errors of profess ing disciples.

Men can reason, however, only with the knowledge and con cepts they have. In the ancient world this meant Hellenic (Greek) philosophy and pagan authors. So Christianity was forced by the needs of men and the mission of the church into the wolrd of pagan thought" (p.93).

This would not have been quite so bad, had not the Roman Empire insisted on removing the only culture whose philosophy of life might have kept the Greek focus on thought, logic, and philosophy, necessary in their quarters, from taking over completely: the Jews.

The growing anti-Semitism of the era.

Originally, Judaism contributed heavily to Christianity, not only in the form of values, but in giving Christianity something from which to "step off". Wilken (1980) notes that the first Christians lacked perspective, distance and memo ries, which he considers integral to the creation of a history (p. 28). They had lost the past, deemed so basic and neces sary by the Jews. Even by the end of the first century C.E. though, "most men would not have recognized the name Christian, and if they did, they probably would have had difficulty dis tinguishing Christianity from other ... Jewish cults " (p. 29).

Anti-Jewish sentiment only began to tear the two apart when the Roman Church began to invent its own history and "apostolic lineages" of the kind about which Bauer (1977) speaks below, something it wasted little time doing. Insecure in the differences which Roman dogma began to create, a scape -goat became increasingly necessary. Says Joel Carmichael (1992),

"In the universe framed by Christian theology, the conepts of "Jews" and "Christians" have an undeniable balance that, while statistically absurd, reflects the fundamental theme of Christianity the world of God and the world of the Devil. Since the Jews have not accepted the Christian God, they have ipso facto been arrayed alongside the Devil in Christiandom."

I will, unfortunately, show this dichotomy in many other places before this study is completed.

On the legal side, The Council of Elvira (304 CE) bears this out with unfortunate clarity in several of the Canons

which reflected council decisions. Canon 16 bears out with perhaps the greatest clarity the already present divide be tween Christianity and Judaism, more importantly, the "ei ther/or" path described above by Charmichael, when it notes quite starkly that "the daughters of Catholics shall not be given in marriage to heretics... the same is also ordained for Jews..." (Lindo, 1848, p.10). Equally portentious, the ques tions discussed by first and second century Greeks differed from those discussed by Jews of the same period. This disso nance eventually grew to become the rift which tore the two apart. Perhaps the assertion that the church was now Israel was the first cut to the cloth. But for whatever reasons, Jewish impact began to drop sharply.

On the more "spiritual" side, by the time of The Epistle of Mathetes to Diognetus, the suspicion and the rending was already playing itself out as well.

"SINCE I see thee, most excellent Diognetus, exceed ingly desirous to learn the mode of worshipping God prevalent among the Christians, and inquiring very carefully and ear nestly concerning them, what God they trust in, and what form of religion they observe,(1) so as all to look down upon the world itself ... while they neither esteem those to be gods that are reckoned such by the Greeks, nor hold to the super stition of the Jews; and what is the affection which they cherish among themselves; and why, in fine, this new kind or practice (of piety) has only now entered into the world..."

Mathetes shows his true ignorance of the Bible as a whole when he attempts to amplify on what he means by "super stitions of the Jews".

CHAP. III.SUPERSTITIONS OF THE JEWS.

And next, I imagine that you are most desirous of hear ing something on this point, that the Christians do not ob serve the same forms of divine worship as do the Jews. The Jews, then, ... deem it proper to worship one God as being Lord of all; but if they offer Him worship in the way which we have described, they greatly err. For while the Gentiles, by offering such things to those that are destitute of sense and hearing, furnish an example of madness; they, on the other hand by thinking to offer these things to God as if He needed them, might justly reckon it rather an act of folly than of divine worship. For He that made heaven and earth, and all

that is therein, and gives to us all the things of which we stand in need, certainly requires none of those things which He Himself bestows on such as think of furnishing them to Him. But those who imagine that, by means of blood, and the smoke of sacrifices and burnt-offerings, they offer sacrifices (ac ceptable) to Him, and that by such honours they show Him respect,these, by(2) supposing that they can give anything to Him who stands in need of nothing, appear to me in no respect to differ from those who studiously confer the same honour on things destitute of sense, and which therefore are unable to enjoy such honours.

CHAP. IV.THE OTHER OBSERVANCES OF THE JEWS.

But as to their scrupulosity concerning meats, and their superstition as respects the Sabbaths, and their boasting about circumcision, and their fancies about fasting and the new moons, which are utterly ridiculous and unworthy of no tice,I do not think that you require to learn anything from me. For, to accept some of those things which have been formed by God for the use of men as properly formed, and to reject others as useless and redundant,how can this be lawful?

Despite the fact that they are done in observance of laws given by God Himself.....

"And to speak falsely of God, as if He forbade us to do what is good on the Sabbath-days,how is not this impious? And to glory in the circumcision(4) of the flesh as a proof of election, and as if, on account of it, they were specially beloved by God,how is it not a subject of ridicule? "

If his knowledge of the reasons for Jewish sacrifice is as deficient as it seems, then his knowledge of the reason for Christ's coming must be similarly deficient. How then, can someone with such deficient knowledge of a main tenet of the way in which Judaism informs Christianity do anything but convey a rootless Christianity? What is unfortunate is that such epistles were all too common for their era.

One of the 'cardinal' reasons for Judaism's decline on the 'world' stage was a decline in numbers. "During the first and second centuries the Jews suffered greatly at the hands of the Romans, and their numbers were significantly depleted, espe cially in the eastern provinces" (Wilken, 1971, p. 9). Wilken (1971) notes that the Jewish Diaspora's share of the ancient Roman population started at about seven percent, while Carmichael (1992) puts the number at between ten and twelve percent. In

any case, this would have been enough of a significant number, a number perhaps equal to the size of the popluation of the United States who are fluent in the Internet in 1997. While the other ninety percent do not necessarily surf, they have heard the lingo, and are, for the most part, familiar with its concepts.

As the number of gentile Christians increased steadily over the first centuries, however, the number of Jews, both Christian and "standard issue", were falling steadily in re lation. At the same time, "by the end of the first century, Christianity had become an independent religious force com peting with other religions and philosophies across the Greco -Roman world" (Wilken, 1980). Equally unfortunate, a series of rebellions in the Jewish homeland were occurring about the same time as the explosion of Christianity as a religious force. A major drop in the ratio of Jew to Greek in the Roman Empire followed, since Jews rapidly became personae non grata. This persecution, though, likely fostered a different atti tude, however, among Hellenized Christians.

Quite likely there was a subtle urge to distance oneself, as a Christian Greek, from any Jew in the area. Lawrence Epstein (1994) indicates that due to persecution by Chris tians over time, "Jews came to see Christians as an enemy, and so came, over time, to think of Christians less and less a people to whom it was possible to teach the Torah" (p.32). The Epistle Of Ignatius To The Magnesians Shorter Version shows this distancing clearly: "It is absurd to profess Christ Jesus, and to Judaize. For Christianity does not embrace Judaism, but Judaism Christianity, that so every tongue which believeth might be gathered together to God." Over time, unfortunately, that may have led to the beginnings of a pro found theological ignorance, as shown above, which would in turn have led to a profound theological shift.

This shift can be dramatically illustrated in several decisions by Roman Emperors in the fourth and fifth Centuries C.E. Two examples will serve for now to illustrate. The

first example can be found in the edicts of Constantine, the 'great' ruler who legitimized Hellenistic Christianity. Jacob Marcus (1938) notes that "within two years of the legitimiza tion of Christianity, Constantine made it a capital crime for Jews to seek out new converts. The Church continued this policy..." Marcus (1938) quotes Constantine himself as say ing that "if any one of the population should join their (the Jews) abominable sect and attend their meetings, he will bear with them the deserved penalties."

Little more than a century later, in 439 C.E. the change was complete. Theodosius II, in an edict concerning Jews, Samaritans, Heretics, and Pagans, states that "no Jew ... shall obtain offices and dignities... (or) have the power to judge or decide as they wish against Christians, ... and thus, as it were, insult our faith." (Marcus, 1938). How judging against a person, in a court of law, is an insult against that person's faith, is difficult to divine, but what Theodosius' thinking does show is the already apparent infil tration of Hellenistic thought into Christianity, in the identification of a person by what he does, rather than what he is.

That shift had its roots in the very mutability of what seems to be an immutable law. That law concerns the differ ence between modern "scientific" thinking, as based on the "empirical method", and the philosophy of the classical Greek period and of the Middle Ages, and in the lingual discussion elsewhere in this paper. Mortimer Adler (1985) makes several key statements in this vein in a book appropriately titled Ten Philosophical Mistakes. First, he notes that "The ... great achievement and intellectual glory of Greek antiquity and of the Middle Ages was philosophy" (p. 191). However, "(c)ommon experience, or more precisely, the general linea ments or common core of that experience, which suffices for the philosopher, remains relatively constant over the ages" (p. 191). Because of this, Adler says, philosophy is not

subject to the rigors of change, which forces other schools of thought to stay fresh and current. While the Christian may find this a comfort with respect to pure doctrine, I would submit that one of the dangers of Hellenization is a tendancy to include all thought pertaining to religious life and life style in the same category. I will show below just what those dangers are.

One more concept loomed large in the Greek mind. Its Greek name is "deus ex machina", which interprets as "the god, out of the machine". It is a concept with which they would have been bombarded constantly by their plays. It would have been an issue as important as catharsis. The only thing to which it might compare today is our (movie and television generated) desire/demand for a "happy ending". Perhaps the two are still related, for in the same manner as a 'savior' would have swung in on a crane to save the Greek hero, special effects often still save heroes today. Christianity's re deemer would have fit nicely into that pattern, especially since He was all that was needed for salvation, as opposed to the much more difficult Jewish version.

Essential Christian Theology.

"What is Christianity? Is it chiefly a lifestyle or chiefly an institution? Is Christianity the Church historic, present or possible?" So asks Henry C. Vedder (1923), opening a chapter which asks the same questions. (p. 209). This is the same question which I have asked in a different context above, but a question which bears asking in this context just as well. Vedder (1923) moves rapidly to provide a quick summary answer to his question. He notes that "according to Jesus, Christianity is the Kingdom of God. (...) a social ideal, a vision of a reconstructed world, a new human society, composed of regenerated men, a society of which good will to others, mutual service and helpfulness, was to be the law" (p. 209). This is indeed Christianity at its essence, as it

was likely intended to be. More importantly, it is a state ment of Christianity's core which we will find useful in our attempts to establish a psychological theory based on Chris tianity's core.

If, however, Christianity at its core is so close to, and therefore merely an extension of Judaism, then why look at it in contrast with Judaism? Remember the parable: we are not after a contrast. We are merely attempting, in this section, to map the changes in the Groom, so that we might more effec tively serve those influenced by his changes. Again, it comes down to the fact that contemporary Christian Theology, com bined with Greek mindset, in all reality will produce a very different psychological theory.

How then will we be certain what institutes a good summary of the core issues? Again, as with our interview with Judaism, I will examine only what seem, historically, culturally, and psychologically to be the most important issues, over and above, (and apart from) those issues discussed above. These will be issues which either deal directly with how the Chris tian "does" relationship with his Lord, or with how (s)he perceives reality, with the understanding that most Chris tians today seem to not to make the distinctions which I am making here. The most expiditious route will be to look at the evolution of Christian theology over the course of its history. Not only will this present a picture which is more fair, but it will provide an idea of which points remained salient throughout Christian history, and which points changed. (Not to mention that such a view will be consistant with the parable).

But one must beware with Christianity, as with Judaism, that one does not create too simple a picture. The Caretaker must be asked penetrating questions, to get beyond the simpli fications and summaries which seem to provide the easy traffic of modern popular theology. These simplifications will be examined, but examined by looking to the past for a better idea of where the Groom's changes occurred, and why. Only

then will the necessary information surface, so that I can better point up the psychological theory I seek.

Traditional Christian theology does not always garner high marks, even from its closest adherents, with respect to its concern for men over intellect and correctness. Henry Vedder (1923), a disciple of Dr. A. H. Strong, notes that

"(i)n its zeal for things, historic Christianity has ignored men. And so far as it has concerned itself with men, it has held up to them a wrong ideal. Its conception of Christian character has long been mainly a series of nega tives," which he puts into words as "...'quit your meanness,' give up your vicious practices, and stop neglecting your business" (p. 211).

Vedder continues to note that the Church is "laying emphasis on the unessential things, the negative virtues, and slur ring over the essential and positive..." Such comments make it clear that we must uncover exactly what the Church is propounding, and what theories might come of it. On the other hand, however, if the church did not make things sim ple, it would be caught in the kind of trap of which C.S.Lewis (1960) speaks: "When you try to explain Christian doctrine as it is really held by an instructed adult, (people) com plain that you are making their heads turn round and that it is all too co