Responses to the Dialogue

Responses to the Dialogue RESPONSES TO mE DIALOGUE Re-Thinking the Tradition-A Response James F. Moore 95 The experiment worked even more beautifully than we had imagined. We had hoped that our attempt to talk together about our sacred texts would provide a format for how theology can be done in this post-Shoah world. The assumption is that we are at the point in our dialogue that such talk, such talking with seriousness about our respective traditions, is now possible. Of course, we still have to consider seriously the implications of this dialogue. Of course, the task is a different matter for Christians than for Jews. Of course, we are not sure, especially those of us from the post-Shoah generation, just how this is going· to work, this applying our sensitivity to the Shoah. Still, the experiment worked. Having shared our papers and talked together about them we can move beyond the preliminaries to the sort of constructive conversation that is rare; that is, we can challenge each other to write responses to our initial reflections. So now I sit and think about the how, how I think this worked, and the what, what does this mean? In the following pages I aim to offer my reflections to add to the reflections of my colleagues as an after-the-fact assessment on the one hand and a projection for the future on the other. Thus, I begin with the how, and to talk about this I need to think about the how as I see my own involvement and the how as I see the involvement of my compatriots in dialogue. No simple answers will do because of this dynamic nature of dialogue, maybe even more this dialogue. My Own Development in Dialogue I honestly believe that such conversations have a chance to work only for some, at least for now. Steve's struggle with the question of reading Christian scripture as scripture is a serious question that needs more from us, but Steve can ask that question fully and openly now. He is able to come to this conversation willing to make his struggle a public matter, one for us to talk about. Now, our dialogue is not the only one to accomplish this sense of trust. We would not be so arrogant as to claim that. In fact, we are hopeful that the circle of those able to make public in dialogue those critical personal matters of religious commitment is quite significant. 96 SHOFAR Fall 1996 Vol. 15, No. 1 Let me spell out, though, the basic parameters that make such conversation possible, at least for me. First of all, we enter dialogue with a deep commitment to think about and take seriously our traditions. So, why not talk about scripture? The obvious stares us in the face; we can talk about scripture because we have reached the point of personal devotion to honoring each other, to respecting the genuine authority ofeach other's tradition. How can it be otherwise? Still, we know that such a level of trust is something to be cherished, that it is not so common as most of us would hope. From my vantage point, this particular discussion works because we are theologians. I don't mean that in the terms that are often meant in Christian circles. What I mean is that each of us approaches the traditionS with specific questions, theological questions that are central for the meaningfulness of our respective traditions. In fact, we share quite remarkably this set of questions, and we will progress in the future as we draw even closer in the sharing ofquestions. Naturally, there will be others who will be drawn to this discussion because they have also been enticed by these questions. In the end, the sharing of questions may be far more powerful as a basis for dialogue than the sharing of answers. In fact, perhaps we will never reach a point where obvious answers are the result of our discussions. Instead, we will have reached a level of significant dialogue when we converge on these questions. Of course, the questioning theologian is an open theologian. That is to say...