Judeo-Christian

• 1. Introduction

  ›

  Judeo-Christian is a term that carries enormous political and cultural weight, yet it began its life with a surprisingly narrow meaning. In a letter dated the 17th of October, 1821, Alexander McCaul used the phrase "Judæo Christian" simply to describe Jewish converts to Christianity. That original, technical meaning has almost entirely vanished. In its place stands a term that has been claimed by politicians, theologians, military chaplains, and critics, each pulling it in different directions.

  How did a word for religious converts become a pillar of American national identity? Why do many Jewish thinkers reject it as a form of disguised supersessionism? And what does it mean that the same phrase used to forge unity against fascism in the 1930s is also used today in debates about immigration and LGBT rights? Those questions run through the history of this deceptively simple compound word.

• 2. From Converts to Cold War

  ›

  Joseph Wolff used the term in 1829 to describe a proposed church that would keep certain Jewish traditions as a tool for converting Jews. Mark Silk traced its French and English usage in the early 19th century to refer to the early followers of Jesus who wanted to restrict his message to Jews and insisted on maintaining Jewish law and ritual.

  Friedrich Nietzsche then bent the term toward philosophy. His German rendering, "Judenchristlich," appeared in The Antichrist, published in 1895 but written several years earlier. Nietzsche used it to highlight what he saw as neglected continuities between Jewish and Christian worldviews. A fuller version of his argument had already appeared in On the Genealogy of Morality.

  George Orwell gave the concept its ethical dimension in 1939, writing about "Judeo-Christian ethics" and "the Judaeo-Christian scheme of morals." Theologian Richard L. Rubenstein later defined what he called the "normative Judaeo-Christian interpretation of history" as the view that human suffering, such as a plague, represents punishment for human guilt.

  Historian K. Healan Gaston traced the term's transformation into an American identity marker to the 1930s, when the country was trying to distinguish itself from European fascism and communism. By the 1940s it had become part of American civil religion, and during the Cold War it was deployed explicitly to express opposition to communist atheism.

• 3. Chapels in the Field

  ›

  During World War II, the term found one of its most vivid expressions not in political speeches but in the field. Jewish chaplains worked alongside Catholic priests and Protestant ministers, addressing servicemen who, in many cases, had never heard a rabbi speak before. At funerals for the unknown soldier, rabbis stood beside the other chaplains and recited prayers in Hebrew.

  A wartime tragedy became the most publicized symbol of this collaboration. When a ship sank, its multi-faith chaplains gave up their lifebelts so that sailors could escape, then stood together arm in arm in prayer as the vessel went down. A postage stamp issued in 1948 commemorated their heroism with the words: "interfaith in action."

  In the 1930s, before the war, precursors of the National Conference of Christians and Jews had already begun building this cooperation. They created traveling teams consisting of a priest, a rabbi, and a minister, running programs across the country to reduce antisemitism and promote a more pluralistic vision of America, one defined no longer as a Christian land but as one nurtured by three traditions: Protestantism, Catholicism, and Judaism.

• 4. Jewish Voices Against the Term

  ›

  In the 1950s, a spiritual and cultural revival washed over American Jewry in response to the trauma of the Holocaust. American Jews became more confident in asserting their distinctiveness, and a number of major thinkers turned a critical eye on the very phrase that had championed their inclusion.

  Two books published in that period confronted the problem directly: Abba Hillel Silver's Where Judaism Differs and Leo Baeck's Judaism and Christianity. Both were motivated by a desire to clarify what separated the two faiths in a world where the term Judeo-Christian had, in their view, blurred critical differences.

  Rabbi Eliezer Berkovits put the critique in stark terms: "Judaism is Judaism because it rejects Christianity, and Christianity is Christianity because it rejects Judaism." Arthur A. Cohen, in The Myth of the Judeo-Christian Tradition, argued the concept was essentially an invention of American politics rather than a genuine theological reality. Jacob Neusner, in Jews and Christians: The Myth of a Common Tradition, wrote that "the two faiths stand for different people talking about different things to different people."

  Law professor Stephen M. Feldman argued that the term, when applied to European history before 1950, functions as supersessionism in disguise. In his reading, invoking a Judeo-Christian tradition implies that Judaism progresses into Christianity and is somehow completed by it. He wrote that the belief "implies, first, that Judaism needs reformation and replacement, and second, that modern Judaism remains merely as a 'relic.'" Natan Sharansky observed in 2019 that he was encountering, for the first time, a situation where nations offered strong governmental support for Israel while Jewish populations themselves showed disinterest or overt hostility.

• 5. The American Right and Israel

  ›

  By the 1970s, the term had shifted again, becoming particularly associated with the American Christian right. Evangelical support for Israel had been building since the late 1940s, when proponents of the new Judeo-Christian approach lobbied Washington for diplomatic support of the new state of Israel.

  The scriptural basis for this evangelical philo-Semitism is located in Genesis 12:3, where God promises to bless those who bless Abraham and curse those who curse them. Evangelicals interpreted this promise as extending to Abraham's descendants. Other factors included gratitude for Judaism's contribution to Christian theological foundations, remorse for the Church's history of antisemitism, and the belief that God would judge nations at the end of time based on how they treated the Jewish people.

  From the 1990s through the 2020s, positive attitudes toward the Judeo-Christian movement became mainstream among evangelicals and within the broader American political conservative movement. Yet the position contains a paradox noted in the source: evangelical support for Jews as God's chosen people with a special biblical status coexists with the belief that Jews need conversion to Christianity for salvation.

  In contrast, by the 1970s, mainline Protestant denominations and the National Council of Churches had moved toward greater support for Palestinians over Israel. American Christian support for Israel was further complicated by the October 7th attacks and the subsequent Gaza War in 2023, though it remained strong among the Christian right. In the 21st century, critics have also noted that deploying the term Judeo-Christian in political discourse can function as a vector for Islamophobia by excluding Muslim communities from its implied circle of belonging.