Baltimore & Eisenach.

In the spring and summer of 1992, two important international Jewish-Christian conferences took place on two continents: one in the United States, the other in Europe. One was a Vatican-Jewish meeting, the other a consultation of the International Council of Christians and Jews (ICCJ). One was Catholic-Jewish, the other more broadly Christian-Jewish. How were they alike? How different?

From May 4 to 7, some sixty official representatives and invitees of the International Catholic-Jewish Liaison Committee (ILC), consisting of the Holy See's Commission for Religious Relations with the Jews and the International Jewish Committee on Interreligious Consultations (IJCIC), came together in Baltimore, Maryland. Hosted by Baltimore's Archbishop William H. Keeler at Saint Mary's Seminary and University, cochaired by Cardinal Edward I. Cassidy of the Holy See and Mr. Edgar Bronfman, president of the World Jewish Congress and current chair of IJCIC, it was the fourteenth meeting of the ILC, and the first to be held in the Western Hemisphere.

The meeting had three broad foci, intended for discussion and reflection in depth: the Shoah, its meaning for Jews and Catholics; education, with particular reference to the way Catholics and Jews teach about one another in their textbooks and educational institutions; and what both groups called Tikkun Olam, "healing the world," i.e., common action toward shared goals. Because of the ban on "theological discussion" by the Orthodox rabbinate, who make up a part of IJCIC, conference ground rules excluded explicit theological language from the proccedings. (Whether it is possible to impose this artificial condition on serious discussions between Roman Catholic and Jewish religious thinkers is another question, considered later.)

From July 12 to 16, an interreligious consultation of the International Council of Christians and Jews took place in "Haus Hainstein." a modest residence of the German Protestant church in Eisenach, in the fomerly East German state of Thuringia. Some eighty Catholics, Protestants, Christian Orthodox, and Jews came together for three days of intensive discussion. This meeting focused on the search for a "common religious basis" with particular reference to the contemporary European context, and was unabashedly free of restraints on "theological discussion."

Both conferences could lay claim to some "official" or representative status. The Vatican commission responsible for Catholic-Jewish relations considers IJCIC its international counterpart for purposes of Catholic-Jewish dialogue, but clearly, the two convening agencies are vastly dissimilar. Jews do not have a hierarchy and IJCIC, an umbrella organization consisting of the American Jewish Committee (AJC), the B'nai B'rith/Anti-Defamation League (ADL), the Israel Jewish Committee for Interreligious Relations, the World Jewish Congress, and the Synagogue Council of America - the latter itself an umbrella organization of the Orthodox, Reform, and Conservative wings of American Judaism - has no enforcement powers, no mandate within the United States (it was formed solely for the purpose of facilitating dialogue with international Christian bodies), and no budget of its own for substantive programs (although its constituent organizations may carry on vigorous programs under their respective institutional banners). The two convening bodies may affirm a counterpart relationship, but in respective clout they are something like the fabled elephant and rabbit stew: one elephant, one rabbit.

The ICCJ is also an "umbrella" organization of national Jewish-Christian dialogue organizations in twenty-four countries and four continents. Its member groups enjoy varying degrees of official status within their national settings. The Amitie Judeo-Chretienne de France, for example, is a voluntary effort with no official links with or funding from the church or synagogue establishments. The Dutch Council of Jews and Christians, by contrast, is an agency of the churches and synagogues, supported by both; all Jewish-Christian activities in the Netherlands are funneled through the council, OJEC. The British Council of Christians and Jews enjoys the patronage of Her Majesty the Queen and the leading prelates of Great Britain and Scotland, including the archbishop of Canterbury, as its presidents. Moreover, there are now functioning - if weak and vulnerable Jewish - Christian associations in Poland, Hungary, and the former Czechoslovakia; these were welcomed under the ICCJ umbrella at the organization's meeting in Prague, 1990. They have some measure of official status within their own countries. A fledgling Jewish-Christian association is emerging in Russia as well.

Clearly, a major distinction between the two organizations is that the ICCJ is largely grassroots - with interest groups of Christians and Jews carrying on programs of education, dialogue, or action in local communities - whereas the ILC is hierarchical, working from the top down. Thus, the participants at Baltimore were selected, rather than elected, and almost all of them were clergy; at Eisenach, ICCJ representatives were selected by their respective Christian-Jewish associations on the basis of some expertise in the subject. Most were clergy, but a number were laypersons. There are a few individuals with professional interreligious portfolios who cover both arenas; I was fortunate enough to be one of five persons who attended both meetings.

The Setting

Baltimore: Despite a sobering, preconference visit of some delegates to the U.S. Holocaust Memorial Museum in Washington, D.C., Baltimore's ambience was upbeat. Archbishop Keeler's gracious welcome to the ILC meeting at Saint Mary's - the first Catholic seminary established in the first Catholic diocese in the United States - called attention to the tradition of religious pluralism in the Americas, and the importance of religious liberty in Maryland, established for that purpose. He noted with pride that the Maryland Toleration Act of 1649 was the first in the Americas to establish any form of official religious toleration. (It should be noted that the much-heralded act, which did indeed establish religious toleration for Catholics, was not a brief for religious liberty as we understand that term today; it specified the death penalty and confiscation of property for anyone denying "the savior Jesus Christ to be the sonne of God." Never mind, it was a clause more honored in the breach than in the observance. The death penalty for "blasphemy" was never put into practice.) Further, the size and solidity both of Saint Mary's and Congregation Chizuk Amuno, where Rabbi Joel Zaiman hosted the final dinner, punctuated the message that Catholics and Jews had flourished in Baltimore. Both groups could feel they met on friendly ground, on a playing field made even by the U. S. Constitution.

Eisenach: Eisenach is another story. Here, Jews and Christians came together in earnest dialogue in a region rich in Jewish history, but emptied of Jews. The conference site is a fifteen-minute walk from the towering and somewhat kitschy restored Wartburg, where Luther translated the New Testament into

German while hiding out after excommunication. It is a fifteen-minute ride from the city of Erfurt, once the site of a substantial Jewish community. On Kristallnacht, in 1938, that community was decimated. The synagogue was destroyed, the Jews beaten and shipped off to Buchenwald. A panel of four German Christians from Erfurt - devotedly and somewhat inexplicably pursuing Christian-Jewish rapprochement with the lone Jewish leader in the area open to such an effort - reported with embarrassment that the events of Kristallnacht were publicly welcomed and approved by the Roman Catholic bishop of Thuringia at the time. The distinctive legacies of Luther's castle, the Shoah, and the resurgence of racism and xenophobic violence in Germany cast their long shadows over this gathering and lent a sense of urgency to the dialogue.

The Program

Baltimore: The Catholic delegation included an impressive array of hierarchs, scholars, and leaders in the church's national and international work bearing on Christian-Jewish relations: two cardinals, five bishops, participants from the Vatican, France, Israel, Poland, Canada, Brazil, Germany, and, of course, the United States, specialists in education - including seminary training - religious thought, ecumenism, and social action. Early dialogue pioneers such as Rev. Edward Flannery and Mgsr. George Higgins sat alongside current officials in Catholic-Jewish relations such as Msgr. Pier Francesco Fumagalli and his American counterpart, Dr. Eugene Fisher. It was a formidable team.

Moreover, major Catholic presentations carried forward the positive momentum established at the last ILC meeting in Prague, 1990. Cardinal Cassidy's opening statement marked, with appropriate solemnity and regret, the 500th anniversary of the expulsion of the Jews from Spain and the 50th anniversary of the Wannsee Conference, at which the mass murder of the Jewish people was planned. Cardinal Joseph Bernardin's keynote address reviewed the history of Catholic-Jewish relations in the United States, the prejudice encountered by both, their cooperation in the civil rights struggle. In a significant gesture toward Jewish sensibilities, he suggested that Vatican archives for the World War II period be opened to serious scholars on a case-by-case basis. But the main thrust of his remarks was directed outward toward the larger world, where global challenges cried out for Catholic-Jewish collaboration.

Rev. Bernard Dupuy of Paris offered a searching reflection on the Shoah, a subject on which the Holy See's commission will develop a statement addressed to the entire Catholic church. Additional papers on the Catholic side reported developments in Poland (Mr. Jerzy Turowicz and Bishop Stanislaw Gadecki), addressed joint social action challenges (Msgr. George Higgins), environmental issues (Msgr. Diarmuid Martin), and Catholic education about Jews and Judaism (Rev. Remi Hoeckman, O.P.).

The Jewish delegation's contribution included an address by Dr. Joseph Burg, former Israeli Minister of Religious Affairs, a response by Prof. Jean Halperin, Geneva, to Fr. Dupuy's paper, and reports on Poland (Prof. Israel Guttman of Israel), the rise of anti-Semitism and xenophobia in Western Europe (Mr. Jean Kahn of Paris), a more optimistic view of Latin America (Rabbi Henry Sobel of Sao Paolo). Papers traced the "teaching of contempt" in Catholic education, substantial progress and remaining problems (Judith Banki of the AJC and Rabbi Leon Klenicki of the ADL). The topic of health-care resources (Rabbi A. James Rudin of the AJC) and other social and ethical issues (Rabbi David Rosen and Dr. Geoffrey Wigoder of Israel) were also addressed.

With all this talent squeezed into a heavily-packed program, there was almost no time for discussion. Paper followed paper; substantive questions of great importance were raised with little opportunity to pursue them. Some of the delegates expressed frustration, commenting that they had hoped for a sustained sharing process rather than an exchange of positions. For others, the sense of frustration was compounded by the comings and goings of some in the Jewish delegation, a few of whom came for a day, or arrived to deliver a speech, but did not stay the course. The more disciplined Catholic delegation arrived together, prayed together, and stayed together. (There are some advantages to hierarchical structures. An invitation from the Holy See is not taken lightly.)

The meeting nevertheless had a strongly positive outcome. The ILC's concluding statement called for cooperation to "counteract new manifestations of anti-Semitism and racism of any kind" and to "fight sexual and economic exploitation of women and children." It asked that national bishops' conferences and Jewish communities devote one occasion each year to the dialogue. As befits a structure that works from the top down, these recommendations came out of a steering committee, headed by the two cochairs, that met separately from the conference proccedings. The steering committee agreed to meet henceforth at least twice a year.

Eisenach: The ICCJ consultation provided a rich contrast in style, not in positive outcome. Presentations by Rabbi Norman Solomon (England), ICCJ President Martin Stoehr (Germany), Rabbi David Rosen (Israel), and Dr. Simon Schoon (Netherlands) probed the conference theme. In addition to plenary lectures, six ongoing workshops explored different aspects of Jewish and Christian religious thought; these workshops provided the occasion for intense, sometimes passionate, exchanges. A draft statement by the ICCJ's Theology Committee was intensely argued, edited, reworked, and finally accepted as a basis for study and further development. As befits a structure that works from the grassroots up, ICCJ participants took their respective religious commitments very seriously as the basis for discussion, and laid them on the line. These are the people who study the Bible together, who give the courses, who fight hatred in the streets as well as in the classrooms, who do the hard, often frustrating work of Jewish-Christian relations in local communities.

On the basis of their titles alone, most of the workshops would have been considered off-limits at Baltimore: "Covenant as a Category to Determine a Common Religious Basis"; "The Ethics of the Torah and the |Lex Christi'...as a Common Religious Basis"; "The Jewishness of Jesus and the Jewish Elements of the New Testament" as a common religious basis, etc.

Yet those who fear that theological dialogue might lead to syncretism would be surprised to learn that there was no glib resolution of differences, no easy answers. Covenant was judged a dubious common religious basis, because it is central and fundamental to Jewish self-understanding but does not play the same central role in many Christian churches. The Jewishness of Jesus, it was noted, is not necessarily helpful in the search for a common religious basis. While it is important to correct the depiction of Jesus as hostile to his Jewish background, and to show him as a faithful Jew, rooted in Jewish values, such correction does not make him a unifying force; Christians and Jews still look at him from different sides of the abyss of faith.

There was not even a unanimous answer to the central question of whether a "common religious basis" for cooperation was necessary. There was, however, a boundless openness - even enthusiasm - in probing the questions, in letting the chips fall as they might, in eschewing artificial limitations on expression or language. The quality of engagement in the quest was remarkable. Indeed, some of the workshops bypassed coffee and meal breaks, so involved were their participants in the assigned topic. Rev. Dupuy and Msgr. Fumagalli - two of the five persons at both Baltimore and Eisenach - could not be torn away from their French-speaking workshop, whose members insisted on putting in extra hours, early morning and late evening.

Joint prayer is one of the itchiest issues on the interreligious agenda. At the Baltimore meeting, there were separate Catholic and Jewish morning services, and a brief, traditional service marking Yom ha-Zikaron, Israel's Memorial Day, honoring those who have fallen defending the country, to which Christians were invited. In Eisenach, there was no joint prayer service, but the morning sessions were launched by a brief reflection or meditation. One Christian and one Jewish participant were asked on successive days to choose a text and comment on it. The comfort level within this group is high. Without anxiety about hearing another's spiritual reflections, these moments were edifying and trod on no one's religious sensibilities. In one, Dr. Elliott Wright reflected on what it meant to him, an American Protestant, to stand within the shadow of Luther's work and physical presence. But his religious debt to Luther was tempered by the realization that for Catholics, Luther brought schism and conflict, and for Jews, a legacy of hatred and persecution. In the second, Marion Kunstenaar, a leader of liberal Judaism in the Netherlands, expounded on the Torah portion of the week.

Evaluation

How evaluate these very different consultations? If the Baltimore meeting results in more frequent cooperation and consultation between the Holy See and Jewish organizations, it will have accomplished a positive good. For the assembled representatives to know one another on a human, collegial basis, is helpful. But more time for the flow of human interaction, for reflection and feedback, even for argument, would have connected the valuable final statement organically to the papers and discussions that proceeded it, rather than emerging, deus x machina, on the final day of the meeting. A few of the Jewish participants gave the impression that they would have preferred the results without the process, that the Jewish-Christian dialogue was a necessary, but vaguely uncomfortable procedure, of instrumental value in achieving certain ends, but not as a process of mutual enlightenment, and certainly not to be enjoyed for its own sake.

The Eisenach consultation could have been better programmed. A visit to nearby Buchenwald might have been arranged. (Many of the participants went on their own and missed part of the proceedings.) More information about the local Jewish community wiped out by the Nazis should have been provided. (It took an American Catholic priest, Rev. Elias Mallon, to dig up such information on his own initiative.) Nevertheless, the spirit of the meeting was powerful, and the enthusiasm with which convictions, feelings, and ultimate values were exchanged, even argued, was palpable. The conference theme was organically connected to the papers, discussions, and workshops. The draft final statement was also more daring, plumbing traditional attitudes of Christians and Jews toward one another, their respective rationales for entering into dialogue, the asymmetry of the relationship; it searched for a common religious basis rooted in a shared view of humanity, the world and God, a specific set of common values, and a rich common literature; and it gauged the limits of pluralism in the context of "theological humility." That the paper was felt to need more work was not surprising; what was surprising was that it was ventured at all, and felt to be important by Christians and Jews alike.

Can Christians and Jews come together in a dialogue that self-consciously restricts the language of religious expression? They tried to adhere to such guidelines in Baltimore, and the meeting was productive in outcome, but somewhat hamstrung in process. In an essay probing the angst (his term) about the word "theology," British scholar Norman Solomon specifies some fears he believes underlie the traditionalist position. These include: "past centuries of Christian conversionism, disputation, and general browbeating" in which Christian theology was used to discredit Judaism; fear of the imposition of a Christian agenda; fear that an honest critique of certain Christian beliefs will cause offense, that the Christian "obsession with Jesus" will lead to futile and repetitive disputes and divert people from constructive work; that Christians will appropriate Jewish sources, in effect, "stealing our traditions and denying them to us"; that traditional Jewish teaching and training, focusing on textual study and halakha rather than broad principles of faith, is at a disadvantage in theological discussion; the fear of "not being able to do justice to the Torah itself" (see "The |Soloveitchik Line' on Dialogue," in Problems in Contemporary temporary, Jewish Theology, The Edwin Mellen Press, 1991).

These are not frivolous concerns, and there is an ample history of Christian abuse of the Jewish-Christian encounter to bully, harass, and cruelly punish Jews for their faithfulness to Judaism. But it is also important for Jews and Christians to know when the war is over, to distinguish present or potential friends from former enemies, and to find ways to trust one another.

Conclusion

For one who has participated in both kinds of dialogues, the exclusion of God-language from conversations among religious persons sets artificial boundaries and has a dampening effect on the dialogue. To share one's deepest faith commitments need not be threatening to others. One ground rule is essential: that dialogue should not be abused for purposes of prosyletism or religious one-upmanship.

A relevant point: the Baltimore meeting was almost entirely male. The Catholic delegation included one woman, a Sister of Zion. (What would we do without them?) The Jewish delegation included three women. (Viewing the assembly, the dean of a Jewish theological seminary remarked, "I haven't seen such a male-dominated conference in many years.") Of the twenty addresses, papers, and reports, one was given by a woman. There were no women on the steering committee. At Eisenach, about half the participants were women. Half of the resource persons and reporters were women. There are women on the theology committee and on the executive committee. They were not at Eisenach to press a specific feminist agenda, but to bring their own perspectives and opinions to bear on all the issues. Their presence more accurately reflected the real world in which Christians and Jews, men and women, strive together to overcome a bitter legacy of hatred.

Instances both of that legacy and of its denial punctuated our final day in the stark landscape of Thuringia. At a concluding dinner in the festive banquet hall of the Wartburg, with a large contingent of local VIPs in attendance, the minister of education for the state of Thuringia reviewed the history of the area, its beauty, its rich culture, its hopes for economic growth and increased tourism, skipping over entirely the years 1933-45. It was as if Hitler had never existed, as if the horror of the Third Reich had been neatly incised from the memory of the local government. This was too much for ICCJ President Martin Stoehr, himself a German, who rose to remind everyone what had happened there. Ruth Weyl, a German-born ICCJ staff member, asked this government official how he could have made such a speech to such a group. "I made a tactical error," he replied.

A few days after the conclusion of the consultation, the International Herald Tribune reported that three severed pigs heads were deposited outside the restored synagogue in Erfurt, wrapped in a paper demanding that the Jews must die.

Willful forgetting and willful scapegoating, the perennial plague of hatred, these are the challenges to Baltimore and Eisenach, to the highest leadership of our religious communities, and to the grassroots organizations whose members work in the trenches. This sick world needs the witness of both.

JUDITH HERSHCOPF BANKI, former interreligious affairs director of the American Jewish Committee, is a writer and consultant. Last November she was honored for her contributions to interreligious dialogue by the Thirteenth National Workshop on Christian-Jewish Relations.