Home Home / A Proposed Statement on Dialogue (1967)

Article

March 22, 1967

A Proposed Statement on Dialogue (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

Letter from Dr. Dienstag about "The Case Against Dialogue" (1967)

Dear Norman: During the last few years I have been tormented by this disease of "ecumenicalism." It is not nice to say it, at least not in writing, but I believe Pope John XXIII is more dangerous to us than Pius XII. To some crawling Jewish "leaders" any goy who is not an Eichmann, automatically becomes a saint. You can imagine how embarrassing it was for me to listen to Mowchowitz's Mai-Yofis remarks in tribute to John XXIII when he appeared on television, Sunday, April 11th with Father Flannery whose unfriendly attitude toward Jews was pointed out by Dr. Trude Rosmarin in her review of the latter’s "The Anguish of the Jews."It was therefore very refreshing to reread your brilliant analysis of this "dialogue" obsession. I am grateful to you for unburdening me of a heavy heart. You expressed what I have felt for so long. In fact, I couldn't resist reading aloud some of the striking paragraphs to my secretary.It is pathetic that "in 1967 – Auschwitz – plus 26 –" Jewish scholars and thinkers of your caliber should have to engage at all in a discussion against this ״dialogue" calamity. What will future historians think of this generation? Never was there a time in our history when the most ignorant had the chutzpah to dare to represent the Jewish religion, and in open confrontation with Christian leaders. All this in order to make headlines!In my opinion, this is the most serious problem we are facing. It is interesting that these same Jewish clergymen who have broken down the Mechitzah in the Synagogue venture now to a more ambitious task: the removal of the Mechitzah between the victims of Auschwitz and those most responsible for it. This thing is too important to allow it to rest upon an article by you or Rabbi Soloveitchik. I believe an international Jewish congress should be convened on this matter where our most articulate people could be heard. It should be known to the world that none of these nubile relations establishments reflects in any way our thinking, a…
Interfaith

Correspondence

Letter to Isidore Bookbinder about "The Case Against Dialogue" (1967)

Dear Is: I was truly delighted to hear from you, and not at all displeased to receive your gracious and enthusiastic endorsement of ray views on Dialogue. Your neighbor, Msgr. [redacted], is a real ״tachshit.״ In two previous articles I had done for Jewish Life, I made a number of references to him and his overt missionary efforts. We are in complete agreement on this point. Once again, my devoted thanks and my warmest personal regards – as well as from Mindy and my folks – to you and yours.I look forward to not only hearing from you again, but to meeting you personally. Of course, if you decide to attend the Talmud lectures next year, plG., it will be a great source of pleasure to me.Warmest regards,Cordially yours,Rabbi Norman LammRNL/fz
Interfaith