Why interfaith dialogue cannot be viewed through the lens of academic discussion; Religious conversations are inherently emotional and unbalanced; The more committed Jewish leaders avoid dialogue while participants risk leading their congregants toward religious confusion and potential departure from their faith
By the Grace of G-d
15th of Iyar, 5725
Brooklyn, N.Y.
Prof....
Chicago, Ill.
Greeting and Blessing:
I am in receipt of your letter, in which you express your thoughts which led you to differ in your concept of the dialogue issue from mine.
I will take the liberty of expressing some thoughts also, which I trust may further clarify our differences.
I venture to say that in your academic position, as a professor, you are prone to visualize the dialogue set up in the form of an academic discussion, either on the faculty level, or as between professor and students, where the discussion is carried on more or less objectively and dispassionately, and where the debaters on both sides seek to ascertain the truth, leaving personal feelings aside. Indeed, to view it in this light may not be a conscious or unconscious propensity on your part, but it is likely to be formed on the basis of an actual experience.
On the other hand, when I think of interfaith dialogue, I am reminded of my impressions, as I recall from my adolescence, and I regret to say, also in later years, based on the experiences of the persons who visited me, who personally participated in dialogues, or were in the audience. To my knowledge, based on this firsthand information, the dialogues were generally conducted in an emotionally charged atmosphere, where the objective was not a dispassionate quest for understanding, but a determined effort at persuasion, at any rate on the part of the non-Jewish side.
Parenthetically I may add that if the opponents are qualified to engage in such dialogue, it could not be conducted in any other way. For religion cannot be discussed by religious persons in the same manner as, for instance, medicine or astronomy can be discussed by medics and astronomers. The deeply religious person is inevitably affected by his religious convictions, and he is affected not only in the area of his feelings, but also in his thinking; and emotionally even more than intellectually in the majority of dialogues insofar as the Jewish religious person is concerned. The laymen in the audience felt that the participants lacked adequate knowledge in the subject under discussion. Since those who visited me were Jews, of course, the lack of knowledge mentioned refers to the Jewish camp.
Paradoxically, the Jewish side in the dialogue seemed less emotionally involved than the other side. But the explanation is simple enough. It is an undeniable fact that the more frum a Rabbi is, the greater the number of years which he spent in Yeshivah, and the more deeply he is committed to the Jewish way of life in the daily life, the less likely he is to participate in a dialogue. In fact it is doubtful whether one can find even one Rabbi with such background who is involved in dialogue. Thus, the Jewish representative who does participate in dialogue is usually one who has had a lesser religious preparation, and is less deeply committed; hence he can be less emotional about his religion.
I, too, do not wish to engage in what may amount to “bickering” as you note in your letter. I must add, however, one point, which undoubtedly has an important bearing on my way of thinking:
I imagine that a spiritual leader nowadays participates in a dialogue on a voluntary basis (unlike in the Middle Ages, where religious debates were forced upon Jews). Quite often the participation is not only voluntary, but I presume, considered desirable. Thus the Jewish spiritual leader makes no secret about his dialogue with representatives of other faiths, but, on the contrary, often gives it publicity and, above all, in his own community. It is therefore only natural to expect that a considerable number of his congregants would be found in the audience, among them a larger percentage of such, whose religious commitment to the Jewish faith is not as strong as those of some of their other fellow congregants.
Consider also the fact that wherever there is freedom of religion, and freedom of expression, as in these United States, there is no way of precluding the members of the congregation who had come to a church to listen to the dialogue between their spiritual leader and the other clergyman, from going to that place again not in the company of their spiritual leader. Nor would it be possible to convince them that it is not permitted to do so or that it is not advisable, nor useful, to listen to the religious sermons of another faith. Moreover, it would even be impossible to preclude, in a more extreme case, a member of the congregation from his intention to acquaint himself more closely with the practices of the other religion for a trial period. All the more so, in view of the usual manner of such dialogues, where the Jewish representative, before pointing out the differences, or negative aspects of the other side, usually precedes it with a long introduction wherein he emphasizes the similarities and even advantages of the other side, which he describes in glowing terms and without any restraint. Whereas, when it comes to speak about the actual differences and negative aspects of the other side, he uses the utmost circumspection and restraint, for many reasons.
The results of interfaith dialogue, as it is actually conducted in the majority of cases, are too painful to elaborate. It is certainly unnecessary to do so to you who are a psychologist.
To conclude with a thought connected with the present days of Sfira. According to the sources in the Midrash, the first time when the Jews began to count the days and weeks of this period, dates back to our ancestors who were liberated from Egypt. As is well known, Egypt at that time was the most advances country in regard to culture, religion, science, philosophy, ethics, etc. The children of Israel had lived there for more than two centuries, and had not yet received the Torah to give them a standing of their own. As our Sages further tell us, their servitude had stopped many months before their actual liberation.
Yet when Moshe Rabbenu told them on the 15th of Nissan that the purpose of their departure from Egypt is to receive the Torah on Mount Sinai, they began to count the days and weeks to that auspicious day, with profound longing and anticipation. And on the basis of this, G-d gave us the mitzvah of the counting of the Omer for all generations, which emphasizes the extraordinary importance of the Jewish feelings for the Torah and mitzvot.
Like our ancestors of old, every Jew in every generation, should be inspired by this innate attachment which is to be found in the depth of every Jewish soul, to G-d and the Torah; an attachment which enables the Jew to ignore the whole civilization and culture around him, and to face extraordinary difficulties and privations, as our ancestors were willing to go into the desert, driven by their longing to reach the Divine Mountain, and to hear there the words of G-d, “I am your G-d” and “Thou shalt have no other gods”—regardless of what these “other gods” may be.
Our Sages emphasize this innate attachment, which is bound up with the very essence of every Jew by saying that the soul of every Jew, to the end of all generations, was present at Mount Sinai, and heard directly, and without any intermediary, “I am” and “Thou shalt have no other,” etc., providing the everlasting immediate union between G-d and the Jewish people, a union which, as mentioned above, is latent in every Jew, but often has to be brought to the surface, in order to find actual expression in the everyday life, and in every aspect of it.
With blessing,
