Home Home / OU Press Release on Interfaith Dialogue…

Assorted

November 27, 1964

OU Press Release on Interfaith Dialogue (1964)

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

A Proposed Statement on Dialogue (1967)

Because of the recent surge of interest in dialogue between the various faith communities, and because of certain partly misleading press reports, we feel it necessary to restate the attitude of our groups, representing the bulk of organized Orthodox Jewry in America, to the question of intercommunal dialogue. We represent a peculiar religious community that has survived the most adverse vicissitudes in recorded history. Through national exile, social change, political suppression, and attempted genocide, we have remained alive to bear witness to the event at Sinai at which we were charged with the obligation to be a “kingdom of priests and a holy nation” (Ex. 19:6). As the former, we have endeavored to bring other peoples to God; our means have always been indirect – neither those of coercion nor even proselytization. As the latter, we have always strived to maintain our national identity and aspirations intact, and have resisted the inroads of assimilation, with greater or lesser success. During most of the years of our exile we have had little opportunity to pay conscious attention to our priestly function toward the other nations. Whatever influence we have had in introducing the world to ethical monotheism and to the universal precepts of Torah has been the result of example, of which we were often unaware, and of divine providence, which is inscrutable. We have usually had to devote our energies to safeguarding the integrity of our national identity and historic faith against those who sought to diminish and destroy them – both by hate and by love, by condemnation and by commendation. As Orthodox Jews, we are committed to these same verities and loyalties today. The blessings of freedom and opportunity which we experience in the democratic countries of the Western world – and for which we are eternally grateful to Heaven – bring with them the danger that that which we preserved in adversity will be dissipated in prosperity. We consider it our historic mission…
Interfaith

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 R. Samuel Press about "The Jews and the Ecumenical Council" (1964)

Dear Rabbi Lamm, I just read your article entitled “The Jews and the Ecumenical Council.” As a rabbi, once more I thank you for sharing with us your acumen and sagacity by articulating your convictions without reserve. It is often disheartening for the Orthodox rabbi to find his leaders failing in their obligation to give direction because of their reticence to verbalize opinions which we assume would be based on Torah. I always am skeptical that their silence is not as justified as they might contend. As Sandy Press, I am appreciative that I know you. You may not recall the letter you wrote me while I was in Alaska. At a time of disillusionment, when the way of the rabbi seemed so dark, your words gave much light to my path. I soon shall make plans for next year. That “mate” of mine must be in that new locale! Roz was married to an Israeli boy. The wedding was at Kodimoh with her brother as “M’sader Kiddushin.” My family is well and send you their regards. Hoping that you and your family are well. As ever, Sandy
Interfaith