Home Home / בין דיאלוג לשיחה בטלה (1967)

Article

October 4, 1967

בין דיאלוג לשיחה בטלה (1967)

Interfaith
View The Text

This content is currently available in its original PDF format. As we expand the library, we plan to add a text version as well.

RELATED CONTENT

Article

The Case Against Dialogues (1967)

Dr. Jacob Agus’ advocacy of “The Case for Dialogues” (NJM September 1966) is a welcome relief from the torrent of saccharine and slightly breathless propaganda to which we have been subjected these last several years by the professional “dialogicians” who have taken it upon themselves to represent “the Jewish side” in addressing the Christian community. Dr. Agus’ presentation is calm, reasoned, and persuasive — albeit, in my opinion, his thesis is fundamentally and even dangerously wrong. To a large extent, we have become the willing victims of semantic legerdemain. I confess to being bewildered at the sudden urgency with which “dialogue” is being pressed upon us, and wonder in what essential ways it is different from intelligent conversation which we have carried on in the past. I suspect that for some people, to whom we shall return later in this article, the word is not much more than a linguistic disguise for the old "good will” activities which I thought we had hopefully outgrown. Yet words have fashions and fates, and the recent prominence given to “dialogue” in the writings of Martin Buber, and the recommendation of “fraternal dialogues” in the Vatican schema, have made it an acceptable “in” term. "EVERYTHING IS RISKED" Certainly this is not the sense that Dr. Agus seeks to convey in his article. Were it nothing more than the old, vacuous, superficial camaraderie with a face-lifting, it would merit neither the determined opposition nor even the worried attention given to it by those of us who dissent from the popular trend. I prefer to think that by "dialogue” its serious proponents mean more than polite interfaith conversation or interreligious scholarly colloquia, both of which have not been lacking in the past. Dialogue means a two-way logos, the encounter of the most intimate and cherished commitments. Dialogue is a total engagement of two personalities, a no-holds-barred confrontation in which everything is risked, no predetermined results assured, and …
Interfaith

Correspondence

Exchange with Dr. Talmon about Meeting Each Other at Interfaith Meeting in Geneva (1972)

Dear Shmaryahu, Just a quick note to tell you how happy I am to have gotten to know you and your wife during our brief stay in Geneva. It was, as I mentioned to you, the one definitely positive result – indeed, the high point – of my participation in the "consultation." I've called our New York people to report briefly on what happened, and I assume you and they will be in contact too. Please give my very best regards to Mrs. Talmon. I do hope you will call me during your next visit to New York, which I trust will take place soon.Cordially,RABBI NORMAN LAMM
Interfaith

Correspondence

Exchange with Max Borgenicht about "The Case Against Dialogue" (1967)

Dear Rabbi, I would like to have you know that I read your article last night in the Bnai Brith magazine on the Dialogue and agree with you so heartily that I feel that I should let you know my feelings. What annoys me particularly as does you, in the fact that our German Jews like Judge Proskauer either through ignorance or deliberately are arisen and ready to give the Gentile world credit for the five moral teachings which out Prophets gave to the world.Its the old story of Shtadlanut when we have to constantly battle again.May you have the strength and vigor to take up the good fight for many years.I am with kindest regards,Sincerely,Max BorgenichtP.S. I am sure you won't mind my calling Rabbi Alan Miller's attention to your article.
Interfaith