"Confrontation": A Mixed Legacy
Professor Marc B. Shapiro holds the Harry and
Jeanette Weinberg Chair in Judaic Studies at the
If
any evidence were needed of the centrality of Rabbi Joseph B. Soloveitchik in
contemporary American Orthodoxy, one need only look at the vigorous exchange of
ideas between Drs. Korn, Berger and Rabbi Klapper. These thinkers have focused
on a close reading of the seminal essay "Confrontation," and have
argued about its message and implications in a changed world. I would like to
call attention to some points that have not been raised, which I regard as
unfortunate results of the widespread acceptance in American Orthodoxy of the
perspective offered in "Confrontation."
My goal in these comments is not to criticize the essay, but rather to
clarify its impact. In fact, both in my personal and professional life (with
perhaps one exception) I have avoided all venues of interfaith dialogue, and
this despite being in my eighth year of teaching at a Jesuit university. I have
participated in numerous events where Christians were exposed to Judaism, as
well as some where I learnt more about Christianity, but it is unlikely that
Rabbi Soloveitchik's position has any relevance to these situations.
Rabbi
Soloveitchik's warning was directed against Jews dialoguing with Christians in
some sort of organized, presumably official,[1]
meeting, and the fears he expressed relate to this type of setting. On the other
hand, individual Jews and Christians discussing each other's religion has
occurred in every generation, and neither this, nor a Jew giving a lecture to
Christians about some aspect of Judaism, qualifies as dialogue of the sort that
the Rav was warning against. It is therefore not surprising that even the most
strident opponents of dialogue do not mention the subject of Orthodox professors
teaching at universities whose student body is primarily Christian.
I
have abstained from involvement in interfaith dialogue not because I regard the
Rav's essay as a binding halakhic decision, but because I would have felt
uncomfortable being regarded by the other side as a representative of Judaism.
(Despite being part of a department of theology and religious studies, I am
hardly a theologian.) In addition, I have always been sensitive to an aspect of
dialogue that the Rav was concerned with, namely, that Jews will feel pressure
to adjust their religious views in response to moves from the Christian side. In
calling attention to this point, I feel that the Rav was uncannily prescient
Yet despite the fact that I have lived my life in accordance with the
Rav's guidelines, I believe that his position has had certain negative
consequences. It might be that these are the sorts of consequences that Orthodox
Jews who follow the Rav's prescriptions must live with, but I hope not.
One
of these consequences is religious separatism, and when it comes to interfaith
relations the Modern Orthodox have adopted the same position as that of the
right-wing Orthodox. Thus, in the
In
today's Orthodox world, when it comes to Christianity the stress is on the
negative, beyond anything the Rav wrote about in "Confrontation." This
has brought about a broad refusal on the part of Modern Orthodox rabbis to have
even the barest of relationships with their Christian counterparts. I am not
blaming this on "Confrontation," since before the essay appeared such
relationships were also rare, but the essay reinforced the atmosphere of
distance between Orthodox Jews and Christians in all spheres, even though this
was not its intent. To put it another way, I would say that, despite its intent,
"Confrontation" reaffirmed Orthodox Jews' inclination that, in all but
the most negligible circumstances, they should ignore the dominant religion and
its adherents. A different essay by the Rav could have put an even greater
stress on the positive results of interfaith cooperation in "secular"
spheres.[5]
Instead, almost nothing was done to remove the fear of Christianity from
Orthodoxy, and while in the very shadow of Vatican II this might have been the
correct approach, by now I think we have moved beyond this. Yet even in our day
it would still be unheard for a Christian clergyman to address the members of an
Orthodox synagogue or group about matters of joint concern. A lay Christian
might be welcome, but any relationship with clergy is seen as dangerous, in that
it could lead to a compromising of traditional Jewish beliefs.
Another result of the lack of any theological dialogue between Orthodox
Jews and Christians is that in addition to the fear of Christianity, there
remains an enormous amount of ignorance. On numerous occasions I have heard
Orthodox Jews assert that according to Christianity one must accept Jesus in
order to be "saved." When I have pointed out that the Catholic Church
as well as most Protestants have repudiated this notion, the response is usually
incredulity.
It
is also significant that Orthodox Jews treat Christianity as an abstraction, and
medieval style discussions about its halakhic status continue to be published. I
find it strange, however, that in our post-modern era, people can write articles
offering judgments about Christianity based solely on book knowledge,[6]
without ever having spoken to Christian scholars and clergymen, i. e., without
having ever confronted Christianity as a living religion.[7]
There is something deeply troubling about Orthodox figures discussing whether
Christianity is avodah zarah without
attempting to learn from Christians how their faith has impacted their lives. I
would think that this narrative, attesting as it does to the redemptive power of
faith, must also be part of any Jewish evaluation of Christianity.[8]
Yet barring theological dialogue, how is this possible?
I
realize that the halakhic system prefers raw data to experiential narratives,
but certainly modern halakhists and theologians are able to find precedents for
inclusion of precisely this sort of information. After all, wasnt it personal
contact with Gentiles, and the recognition that their lives were not like those
of the wicked pagans of old, that led to a reevaluation of the halakhic status
of the Christian beginning with Meiri and continuing through R. Israel Moses
Hazzan,[9]
R. David Zvi Hoffmann, and R. Jehiel Jacob Weinberg?
The
concern with dialogue leading to attempted revisions of traditional Jewish
beliefs is of course well-founded, but the flip-side is that without any direct
contact distortions can arise in the other direction as well, namely, in how
non-Jews are viewed. Could Saadia Grama ever have written his infamous book[10]
if his Gentile neighbor, the Christian, was a real person instead of a
caricature? Of course, one does not need interfaith theological dialogue in
order to see adherents of other religions in a more positive light than Grama,
but as noted above, a current trend opposes even non-theological dialogue. When
all substantive contact with the Other is off-limits, it becomes much easier for
extremists to reawaken old prejudices that should have no place in a modern,
democratic society.
I don't have any illusions that the leaders of American Orthodoxy will
change their stance on this matter even after considering what I and others have
written. Yet this does not mean that all is lost when it comes to
Jewish-Christian relations. Even without theological dialogue there is still a
great deal that we can discuss, and thus ensure that neither Orthodox Jews nor
Christians are strangers in each other's eyes. There is a host of social and
political issues that affect both of our communities and a vast reservoir of
goodwill and respect among Christians for Jews and Orthodox Jews in particular.
Isn't it time the Orthodox responded in kind?
[1]
This point is stressed by David Hartman, Love
and Terror in the God Encounter (
[2]
In "Confrontation" the Rav writes:
"We cooperate with the members of other faith communities in all
fields of constructive human endeavor." See also the more emphatic Feb.
1966 statement of the Rabbinical Council of America, formulated by the Rav,
in Norman Lamm and Walter S. Wurzburger, eds., A
Treasury of "Tradition" (New York, 1967), pp. 78-79: "In
the areas of universal concern, we welcome an exchange of ideas and
impressions. Communication among the various communities will greatly
contribute towards mutual understanding and will enhance and deepen our
knowledge of those universal aspects of man which are relevant to all of us.
. . . When, however, we move from the private world of faith to the public
world of humanitarian and cultural endeavors, communication among the
various faith communities is desirable and even essential. We are ready to
enter into dialogue on such topics as War and Peace, Poverty, Freedom, Man's
Moral Values, The Threat of Secularism, Technology and Human Values, Civil
Rights, etc., which revolve about religious spiritual aspects of our
civilization. Discussion within these areas will, of course, be within the
framework of our religious outlooks and terminology." It appears that
this is precisely the sort of dialogue currently carried on by
[3]
See e. g., R. Hershel Reichman, "The Cardinals' Visit: Thoughts of a
Rosh Yeshiva," The Commentator (Yeshiva
U. student newspaper), Feb. 17,
2004; R. Herschel Schachter, "The Temple and the Mikdash Me'at," idem,
Am Hanivchar (audiotape of a shiur), R. Mayer Twersky,
"The Humility to Defer," idem,
"Living as a Jew in Gentile Society (audiotape of a shiur) , all
available at www.torahweb.org.
[4]
Even in the Middle Ages R. Bahya Ben Asher, commentary to Lev. 11:7, was
able to look towards Messianic days as a time when
[5]
In the final footnote to "Confrontation", the Rav writes:
"The term 'secular orders' is used here in accordance with its popular
semantics. For the man of faith, this term is a misnomer. God claims the
whole, not a part of man, and whatever He established as an order within the
scheme of creation is sacred."
[6]
This book knowledge is often very limited as well, and it is worth noting
that while Catholic universities routinely offer courses on Judaism, a
course devoted to Christianity or any religion for that matter
cannot be offered at
[7]
It must be noted, however, that information acquired in this fashion might
not reflect authentic Christian doctrine. An example of this is found in a
responsum of R. Joseph Messas (1892-1974), Mayyim
Hayyim (
[8]
Included as an appendix to "Confrontation" is a Feb. 1964
statement adopted by the Rabbinical Council of America and probably authored
by the Rav. It states: "Each religious community is endowed with
intrinsic dignity and metaphysical worth." This evaluation is far
removed from the notion that Christianity is nothing more than avodah
zarah.
[9]
Hazzan goes so far as to state that it is obligatory (!) for Jews to make
use of church tunes in the synagogue service, since these are so effective
in bringing one to love of God. He also testifies that in
[10]
Romemut Yisrael u-Farashat ha-Galut
(