I have often argued that one should not confuse tolerance with apathy. For this reason, Orthodoxy’s refusal to compromise on its own principles so as to appease the Reform and Conservative movements should only be honored and respected. Even unity cannot always be the final arbiter.
This does not mean, however, that no dialogue could take place between Orthodoxy and these movements. Objections may be raised that such dialogues could (and have) not been successful since the parties involved have too many ideological differences; that any reconciliation would be utterly impossible. This may very well be true, but it is not only the desire to find an ideological solution that makes a dialogue meaningful. There are several other important dimensions to a dialogue which should be carefully considered.
The Dimensions of Dialogue
While we cannot expect to solve all our differences, this does not obviate the need for dialogue to take place between Orthodoxy and these other movements. Objections have been raised that such dialogues inevitably prove unsuccessful. Since the parties involved have too many ideological differences, any reconciliation is utterly impossible. This may very well be true, but it is not only the desire to find an ideological solution that makes such dialogue meaningful. There are several other important dimensions that should be carefully considered.
First of all, there is the purely psychological dimension. When two people bitterly disagree, much animosity can be prevented simply by making sure they meet. Human experience shows that as long as two people do not actually physically interact, look each other in the eye or see each other smile, they often develop in their minds completely distorted images of their opponents. In such a case, an important component for proper dialogue is missing. One should never forget that the success of a dialogue lies not only in the strength of the speaker’s arguments, but also in the purely physiological impressions conveyed – a smile, a laugh, the way one sits, how one looks at his opponent or how one lifts one’s eyebrows.
It may even be the case that both parties will come closer through such dialogue. Each may start to understand why the other happens to maintain a very different stance on the subject at hand. On a significant number of occasions, Orthodoxy was not only able to explain its position to the other parties, but actually succeeded in gaining some respect for its point of view.
Further, it is important to remember that all forms of pietistic obscurantism ultimately lead to one’s own defeat. We would do well to bear in mind the wise words of the Maharal of Prague (1525–1609) who was perhaps the greatest thinker and defender of authentic Judaism of his time, and whose words continue to be studied to this very day by many of those who believe in Orthodox Judaism. After quoting Averroes, one of the greatest Islamic philosophers and Aristotelian commentators, the Maharal writes:
It is proper, out of love of reason and knowledge, that you do not [summarily] reject anything that opposes your own ideas, especially so if [your adversary] does not intend merely to provoke you, but rather to declare his beliefs.… And even if such beliefs are opposed to your own faith and religion, do not say to him, “Speak not and keep your words.” Because if so, there will be no clarification of religion. Just the opposite, tell him to speak his mind and all that he wants to say so that he will not be able to claim that you silenced him. Anyone who prevents another from speaking only reveals the weakness of his own religion, and not as many think, that by avoiding discussion about religion you strengthen it. This is not so! Rather, the denial of one who opposes your religion is the negation and weakening of that religion.… For the proper way to attain the truth is to hear [others’] arguments which they hold sincerely, not out of a desire to provoke you. Thus, it is wrong simply to reject an opponent’s ideas; instead, draw him close to you and delve into his words.[1]
This statement of the Maharal is in no way a concession. It is rather, as Dr. Norman Lamm puts it, “a heroic assertion of self-confidence in his faith as a believing Jew, one ready to meet all challenges.”[2] Religious Jews have nothing to lose when confronting the truth, and it may quite well be beneficial to hear the views of those who oppose traditional Judaism. It could only prove constructive to re-think and re-formulate the traditional positions so as to make them more palatable and intellectually sophisticated. As Logan Pearsall Smith once remarked, “For souls in growth, great quarrels are great emancipations.”[3]
It is no doubt true that not everybody is able to confront heretical views and defeat them as the Maharal was able, but it would be a major mistake to believe that all dialogue should therefore be condemned. Only when the opponent is motivated by spiteful polemics should one refuse to enter into any discussion.
Notes
[1] Be’er HaGolah, end of last chapter.
[2] Torah Umada (Northvale, New Jersey: Jason Aronson, 1990), p. 58.
[3] Afterthoughts (1993), p. 1.
