Jewish Voices in
Contemporary Christian-Jewish Dialogue
By Rev. Isaac Rottenberg

After decades of Christian-Jewish dialogue and a sizable body of literature on the subject, questions are still being raised about the basis, scope, purpose, value, and even the possibility of such a dialogue. Doubts about this approach to interfaith relationships are being expressed in both Christian and Jewish circles, especially among those who fear that basic tenets of faith will be relativized and compromised. It seems fair to say that the most frequent and articulate criticisms come from the Jewish side, and often from people who are personally involved in the dialogue or, at least, identified with the movement because of their writings. In contrast, Christian critics of the enterprise in most cases speak from a position of detachment and tend to belong to the more conservative/evangelical wing of the church. "Mainline" Protestants and Roman Catholics are by and large the most enthusiastic defenders of the dialogue approach and the most optimistic about its potential results.

Jewish ambiguity and hesitation are quite understandable, especially in view of a long history during which constructive Christian-Jewish encounters were rare and destructive Christian attitudes toward Jews and Judaism very common. Furthermore, outside the state of Israel, most Jews still live as small minorities in predominantly "Christian" societies.

The Basis of the Dialogue

As to the basis of dialogue, one could argue that in principle, a spirit of openness is all that is required for a genuine encounter to take place. Such openness would imply a willingness to listen as well as the ability to deal with a diversity of views and to show mutual respect. Some emphasize that an important element in the art of listening is to let members of the various faith communities define themselves.

For most participants genuine dialogue takes place at a level deeper than that of a mere intellectual exchange of views. It has an existential-relational dimension to it, the quality of an I-thou encounter in the Buberian sense. Hence the true basis for dialogue is sought in our common humanity. Dialogue is then seen as taking place from Jewish existence to Christian existence and vice versa, rather than from one academic or dogmatic position to another. In short, the meeting of faiths is very different from an academic exchange.

As a general theory such views about the basis of dialogue will find widespread approval. But in practice things are not always that simple. For instance, one can hear it said that there is no sense engaging in dialogue with people who believe in evangelizing adherents of other faiths, and Jews in particular. The issue then is not so much the person's behavior in an actual dialogue situation, but the individual's theological stance. It is simply assumed that anyone committed to evangelism is an unsuited candidate for open dialogue, even though such a person may well agree that that kind of encounter is not the proper occasion for evangelistic appeals, and confirm that conviction by his or her conduct. The issue becomes particularly controversial in the case of Jewish followers of Jesus who feel compelled by their faith to witness to their brothers and sisters.

Other illustrations could be given where it appears that the basis for dialogue is shifted from attitudes to views. For instance, some years ago Rabbi Henry Siegman proposed the much-debated thesis that "the starting point of Christian-Jewish dialogue must be a mutual acceptance of the ultimate incommensurability of Judaism and Christianity . . . "l While the previous position would seem to exclude millions of evangelically-oriented Christians from dialogue, this thesis would eliminate quite a few non-evangelical candidates for whom such an "ultimate incommensurability" is simply not acceptable.

Fortunately, except in the case of Jewish Christian proposals delimiting the basis for dialogue are often made in the context of an ongoing dialogue and in practice do not really turn out to be pre-conditions. Evangelicals and Jews do engage in dialogue and published volumes of the proceedings show the world what they talked about. And Rabbi Siegman, it turned out, remained very open to reconsider his thesis in view of counter arguments presented.

The Scope of the Dialogue

Questions surrounding the scope of dialogue tend to deal mostly with the issue of theology. For the majority of Christians, interfaith dialogue is, at heart, a theological matter because they are inclined to express their faith in confessional terms. In Judaism, with its halachic tradition, doctrinal formulations tend to play less of a role.

Orthodox Jews particularly, while being open to exchanges on common concerns of a social or cultural nature, do generally not approve of dialogue on matters of faith. Some see it as an endangerment of people's fidelity to Jewish traditions. Others hold that religious beliefs are so personal and private that communicating them to outsiders is impossible. In the words of the late Rabbi Soloveitchik, "the language of faith of a particular community is totally incomprehensible to the man of a different faith community. Hence the confrontation should occur not at a theological, but at a mundane human level . . . the great encounter between man and God is a holy, personal and private affair, incomprehensible to the outsider . . . "2

Others again point not so much to the lack of a common language, but to the antithetical relationship between the two faiths. Eliezer Berkovits, who sees neither reason nor need for Jewish-Christian dialogue, has stated this position quite bluntly when he wrote that "Judaism is Judaism because it rejects Christianity, and Christianity is Christianity because it rejects Judaism."3 When groups define themselves in opposition to each other, meeting grounds are usually turned into battlefields, which is not what dialogue is all about. There are other nuances of this position to which we shall return later.

Rabbi Leon Klenicki, for whom dialogue is a profession in the dual sense of that word, seeks to maintain at least a minimum of theological content by using phrases like "understanding the other as a person of God" and "acknowledging a common ground of being, that is God." Dialogue then becomes a tool to recognize each other as distinct in faith and spirituality but with a common humanity, "two peoples with valid religious commitments, vocations called by God."4 The goal of this process seems to be a respectful relationship in which confrontation is carefully avoided. Fervor is allowed as long as it is mindful of different vocations. Truly an "I'm OK, You're OK" situation.

The Purpose of the Dialogue

This all sounds rather charming, even enchanting, but is that really the purpose of dialogue? Should dialogue be considered a tool to arrange for polite meetings in nice hotels? The literature shows that different participants also have different purposes in mind for the dialogue. There are those who seek deeper mutual understanding. Others are looking for an encounter of equals which, in turn, can lead to a "theology of equality." Then there are people who say that dialogue has achieved its goal if Jews end up being better Jews and Christians better Christians. Others again (to the chagrin of some of their co-religionists) speak about mutual influence and fertilization, while some advocates of dialogue seek to establish a common faith against the forces of secularism and/or the paganization of society. Frequently people hope for a number of these as well as other purposes to be achieved.

But every once in a while a specific purpose is offered as the true validation of dialogue. For instance, in his contribution to the recently published book, Overcoming Fear Between Jews and Christians, Alan Segal states that "to be valid, the purpose of dialogue must be the converse of conversion; it must affirm Judaism as an equally valid response to the promises of the Old Testament God."5 In other words, it is not enough when Christian agree that the purpose of a dialogue meeting is not to evangelize the other party; there must be a further affirmation about equal validity, an assumption that runs counter to the basic self-understanding of many Christians as well as Jews. Again, for a Jewish follower of Jesus, such a position would make his or her often agonizing decision totally meaningless.

The Value of the Dialogue

The value of dialogue is most likely to be questioned by participants who have been disappointed with the results. All the effort and expenses have simply not paid off. Jewish leaders who have reached out in friendship to the Christian community have repeatedly found that in moments of crisis, support from their partners is not always forthcoming. Biased attacks on the state of Israel by some Christian leaders have been especially painful to Jews who had hoped for a more sympathetic understanding. So has been the silence in the past of most churches at moments when the survival of Israel seemed to be at stake.

The Possibility of Dialogue

Finally, challenges to the very possibility of dialogue between Jews and Christian seem the most striking of all, particularly when they come from people who have been involved in the process. Dialogue, as is the case with all relationships, is based on a positive recognition of the otherness of the other. But what if the other claims to be wholly other, so different that we not only deal with some irreconcilable differences, but with two irreconcilable or even antithetical faiths? In that case the devout desire of those who wish to avoid confrontation will be disappointed. For others, the encounter may become more interesting, because it has to struggle with convictions concerning perceived truths.

The Continuity/Discontinuity Debate

Are Jews and Christians speaking to each other as spiritual relatives? The imagery often used is that of a mother and daughter religion, or an older brother and younger brother relationship. Most commentators acknowledge both continuity and discontinuity between the two faiths, elements of commonality and elements of more or less radical differences. However, some scholars are inclined to accentuate the distinctions to such a degree that little or no room is left to establish a common ground. On the other hand, there are also well-known scholars who affirm such a close affinity between the two faiths that they feel comfortable declaring them to be essentially one faith.

To the question, "What have you and we in common?" Martin Buber gave the answer: "A book and an expectation."6 True, we interpret the scriptures that we hold in common differently, but still, "in this place we can dwell together, and together listen to the voice that speaks here."7 Furthermore, although our expectation is founded on different views of God's action in history, there are still moments when we can cooperate in preparing the way for the coming Kingdom.8

Polarized Views of Judaism and Christianity

In discussing the scope of dialogue we already mentioned the position of Eliezer Berkovits that a theological dialogue between Jews and Christians is futile, particularly since it tends to be based on the "fantasy" of a Judeo-Christian tradition, while in truth they confront each other in antithetical terms. Finally, says Berkovits, the very idea of interreligious understanding "is ethically objectionable because it makes respect for the other man dependent on whether I am able to appreciate his religion or his theology."9

We also noticed Rabbi Henry Siegman's statement about the "ultimate incommensurability of Judaism and Christianity." Sinai and Calvary are mutually exclusive. However, for Siegman, such contrasts have never precluded dialogue; rather, mutual acceptance of such radical differences is regarded as a good starting point for a constructive interfaith exploration. As a matter of fact, he has shown a willingness to put his own thesis up for debate and for possible reconsideration on his part. So, as distinct from Berkovits "' let's go it alone attitude,'" Siegman leaves the lines of communication open.

Levi Olan has presented a position somewhere in between Berkovits and Siegman. He could find very few Christian theologians with whom a modern Jew could "comfortably dialogue," since in order to qualify one must "unmistakably reject the proposition that Jews must or will become part of a united community with Christians to form the one Israel of God."10 So even an eschatological vision of Jews and Christians united as one people of God would seem to be an obstacle to dialogue.

But there is more. No dialogue with Jews is possible today, "unless Christians are prepared to understand Judaism as a self-contained religious community wholly unrelated to Christianity." In short, "Jesus and the New Testament are wholly outside the Jewish realm, Jews have no more or no less interest in discussing these than they do the founders and the scriptures of other faiths."11 Virtually all church declarations on Jews and Judaism issued over the past decades fail Olan's test. Furthermore, must the question be asked whether dialogue should be conducted on the basis of each participant's comfort level?

During the 1980s Gershon Mamlek emerged as a passionate advocate of an antithetical relationship between Judaism and Christianity. In a 1981 essay he contested the "claim of Christianity to be the offspring and heir of Judaism," arguing that Christianity belonged "within the syncretistic orbit of Hellas."12 A good deal of Mamlek's ire is directed at the "Jesus-is-a-true-Jew historical school" and Jewish intellectuals whom he accuses of having become "the vanguard of the myth about a Judeo-Christian civilization . . . the greatest hoax of modern times," which undermine the uniqueness of Judaism and the Election of Israel.13 Writes he: "It is precisely in the religious differences between the two religions that the essential uniqueness of Judaism is anchored."14

Mamlek finds this uniqueness in Judaism's recognition of man's dependence on God and God's dependence on man and human activity in a partnership aimed at the perfection of creation. Jesus and the later Jesus fellowship, on the other hand, are said to have rejected the law as a vehicle to redemption and, as a consequence, have turned a this-worldly religion into a totally other-worldly faith. Hence, Christianity must be considered the most comprehensive refutation of the Judaic idea which holds to the decisive importance of deeds, and the notion of Judaism being the "mother faith" to Christianity is a pernicious fiction.15 If there are Jewish elements in nascent Christianity, these are not due to the Jewishness of Jesus but simply reflect the syncretizing spirit of the entire Greco-Roman world.

Professor Jacob Neusner, following in the footsteps of Arthur Cohen, is today a leading critic of the idea of continuity.16 "The only authentic Judeo-Christian tradition," according to Cohen, "is that God bears both communities down to the end of time unreconciled. The Judeo-Christian tradition is that from a common source there should have issued such profound and shattering disagreement."17 We must confront each other in a contest of truth, honestly facing the enmity that is there, while at the same time laying the groundwork for a "Judeo-Christian humanism" that will allow us to "work within history to make the way smooth for the Kingdom."18

Cohen does not deny a certain confluence in doctrine, but sees it as the product of an artificial philosophical construct detached from the realities of fideist passions. At heart, the two faiths are utterly different, and those differences are irreducible and irreconcilable. Hence, a Jew who becomes a disciple of Jesus is considered to have severed all ties with his/her Hebraic heritage.

Professor Neusner too concedes that Christianity and Judaism episodically reach conclusions that coincide, but still holds that "in general the two religions share no common agenda and have conducted no genuine dialogue."19 Judaism and Christianity have developed into two entirely different religions; the abyss between the New Testament and the tradition of oral Torah is immense. Spiritually we literally live worlds apart, even though we affirm one God--the same God. Historical developments, however, have produced two faiths which--qua religions--have little to say to each other. Hence we are now and always have been basically engaged in monologues, even though at times on the same topics.

Christianity must reaffirm itself as "an absolute and autonomous religion on its own," wholly distinct from Judaism. At the same time the uniqueness of Judaism must be recognized. "This program," writes Neusner, "aims at allowing Christianity to be absolute, Judaism to be unique, and the two to define for the twenty-first century a shared range of genuinely religious discourse, one to which the facts of history are not critical, but the confrontation with God central."20 In short, what we need is "a theological theory of the other,"21 which leads us beyond mutual toleration and enables us to treat as legitimate and authentic a religion other than our own.

Reading Neusner certainly reinforces one's skepticism about claims in dialogue newsletters of how members of small group discussions during a conference were enabled to enter into the inner world of each other's faith. Just to begin to gain an insight into one another's authoritative writings is incredibly complicated and requires more time and effort than a thirty minute buzz session will allow. On the other hand, the idea of reclaiming Christianity's absoluteness along the lines of the church fathers, namely as totally unrelated to Judaism, while avoiding conflict by means of "a theological theory of the other," is simply not an acceptable option for most Christians. Return to a past, so rightly rejected by most theologians today, which detached the faith of the church from its roots in Judaism, would seem a dismal prospect indeed, and not one likely to improve interfaith relationships. Furthermore, as important as a recognition of the rights of other religions is, mutual declarations of "authenticity" do not seem to be the answer. Jim Jones and David Koresh too desired to be declared authentic expressions of religious beliefs.

A "Constructive Contrast of Harmony"

In the face of antithetical portrayals of relationship between Judaism and Christianity, some dialogue advocates plead for the acknowledgment of at least a "family resemblance."22 Others go much further than that. For instance, some years ago Pinchas Lapied expressed his belief "that Judaism and Christianity stand in a constructive contrast of harmony to one another, and that their inner tension can lead not to hatred but to a mutual spiritual fertilization."23 He further asserted that "the dialogue between church and Judaism can . . . remove much one-sidedness in our understanding of the saving realities, deepen our acknowledgment of God as ruler of world history, and reconcile apparent opposition in the world pictures of the two religions."24

One of the major voices against polarized views of Judaism and Christianity has been the Hebrew University scholar David Flusser, who has few equals when it comes to familiarity with both Jewish and early Christian sources. Many of his conclusions about Jesus, the early Jesus-fellowship, and the impact of Judaism upon Christianity run counter to those reached by some of the scholars mentioned above.

During a 1975 theological seminar held in Jerusalem on the theme "Jews and Christians Between Past and Future," Flusser presented fifty-eight theses on "The Emergence of Christianity from Judaism." Thesis no. 56 is stated as follows: "Christianity and Judaism are really one faith." In the published proceedings of the conference, Flusser is reported to have made the following comments during the discussion period: "When both Judaism and Christianity acknowledge that it is fundamentally one religion, one faith, and do not deny it, as still happens so much--either out of ignorance or out of dogmatic prejudices--then they really can debate with each other."25

Almost half a century ago the novelist Sholem Asch too wrote in his booklet, One Destiny, about the "Jewish-Christian idea,"26 which makes the two religions part of a single whole. He was more of a romantic than David Flusser, writing as a poet rather than a critical textual scholar. But neither author pulls punches when delivering their critiques of Christian history. Their views are based on a common vision regarding revelation, faith, the future--a vision that transcends theological diversity or even doctrinal incompatibility. In short, the search is not for a syncretistic mix that obscures sharp differences, nor for an accommodation in order to facilitate friendliness in dialogue.

The internal debates within Judaism guarantee that Jewish-Christian dialogue takes place on various levels, each with their own dynamics. Valuable contributions are made by people who reject any "establishment" dialogue agenda and who may not frequent interfaith meetings and conferences. The same is true for Christian-Jewish dialogue.

End Notes:
1 See "Jesus and Christians--Beyond Brotherhood Week," in Worldview (Dec. 1975), p.35.
2 Cited in Marcus Braybrooke, Time to Meet: Towards a Deeper Relationship Between Jews and Christians (Philadelphia: Trinity Press International, l990), p. 15.
3 Cf. Disputation and Dialogue: Readings in the Jewish Christian Encounter , ed. F.E. Talmage (New York: KTAV Publishing House, l975), p. 291.
4See his essay "On Christianity, Toward a Process of Spiritual and Historical Healing: Understanding the Other as a Person of God," In Dialogue (vol.l, no. l, Spring, l993), pp.21-36.
5 Cf. Overcoming Fear Between Jews and Christians, ed. James H. Charlesworth: (New York: Crossroad, l992), p. 96.
6 Disputation and Dialogue, p. 282.
7 Idem
8 Idem
9 Ibid, p. 293
10 Cf. "Christian-Jewish Dialogue-A Dissenting Opinion," Religion in Life (Summer, l972, vol. XLI, no. 2), p. 164f.
11 Ibid., p 176f
12 See, "How Jewish Was Early Christianity? A Symposium" in Midstream (December, l982), p.41. The original essay, "Was Christianity a Jewish Sect?" appeared in the June/July l98l issue of the same periodical. Hyam Maccoby has presented a similar argument by blaming the decisive break between Judaism and Christianity on "Pauline Gnosticism" and Christianity's adoption of a dualistic mystery-cult religion. See "Christianity's Break with Judaism" in Commentary (August, l984)pp.38-42. For letters and responses, see the November, l984 issue.
13 Cf. Gershon Mamlak, "The Ineluctable Uniqueness of Judaism," Midstream (August/September, l986), pp. 17, 19.
14 Idem.
15 Cf. "A Pernicious Fiction: 'Judaism as the 'Mother of Religions,' " Midstream (May l987), pp.20-24.
16 See Arthur A. Cohen, The Myth of the Judeo-Christian Tradition, (New York: Harper & Row, l970) and Jacob Neusner, Jews and Christians: The Myth of a Common Tradition (Philadelphia: Trinity Press International, l99l).
17 Op.cit., p.217.
18 Ibid., p.221
19 Op. cit., p.IX.
20 Ibid. p.22
21 Ibid. p. 110
22 Cf.Rabbi Allan Mittleman in response to Hyam Maccoby's article "Christianity's Break with Judaism," Commentary (November l984, vol. 78, no. 5) p. 5.
23 Cf. Journal of Ecumenical Studies (Fall l975, vol. 12, no.4), p. 49l.
24 Ibid., p. 492.
25 See Jews and Christians between Past and Present (Baarn, Holland: Instituut voor Internationale Excursies, l975), pp. 19, 30.
26 Cf. One Destiny: An Epistle to the Christians, (New York: Putnam & Sons, l945), p.83ff.

The article above is excerpted from Jewish Christians in an Age of Christian-Jewish Dialogue.

Rev. Isaac Rottenberg is a retired general official of the Reformed Churches in America. He has written extensively on theology and is a frequent contributor to various theological journals, often focusing on issues vital to the developing of Jewish/Christian dialogue. His wide range of relationships with scholars and leaders in Judaism and in mainline Christian denominations makes his insights informative, provocative, and well balanced. Isaac and his wife, Malwuina, live in Hawley, PA.