Dabru Emet at 20: Questioning the Centrality of the Shoah in Jewish–Christian Dialogue
by Malka Z. Simkovich
Almost immediately after its publication, Jewish academics and clergy leaders accused the authors of Dabru Emet of committing historical and theological errors which derived from their interest in reaching common theological ground rather than confronting the core doctrines which distinguish Judaism and Christianity. The document’s most controversial claim was its fifth statement, which asserted that “Nazism was not a Christian phenomenon,” and that “if the Nazi extermination of the Jews had been fully successful, it would have turned its murderous rage more directly to Christians.” Jon D. Levenson and David Berger were among those who declared this claim in particular to be astonishingly dismissive of the anti-Jewish theological teachings which, in their view, have been central to normative Christian thought and helped to buttress Nazi portrayals of the Jewish people as social pariahs.
Two Jewish documents published well after Dabru Emet—To Do the Will of our Father in Heaven (2017) and Between Jerusalem and Rome (2018)—also engage with the question of Christian culpability for the Shoah, though less controversially. These documents commemorated the 50-year anniversary of the Second Vatican Council’s production of Nostra Aetate, and placed an increasing burden of responsibility on the Roman Catholic Church, inviting it to reckon with its role in the destruction of European Jewry.
To Do the Will of our Father in Heaven opens with the declaration that “the Shoah ended 70 years ago. It was the warped climax to centuries of disrespect, oppression and rejection of Jews and the consequent enmity that developed between Jews and Christians.” Between Jerusalem and Rome goes further, asserting that “the Shoah constitutes the historical nadir of the relations between Jews and our non-Jewish neighbors in Europe. Out of the continent nurtured by Christianity for over a millennium, a bitter and evil shoot sprouted forth.”
Perhaps ironically, the increased blame upon the Roman Catholic Church for the atrocities of the Shoah within the realm of interreligious engagement can be partly understood through the framework of the improved relationship between Jews and Christians over the past two decades, as both faith communities have grown more comfortable articulating theological differences without worrying that these articulations might threaten the stability of Jewish–Christian friendship and dialogue.
But the more mundane reason why Jewish documents foreground the Shoah in their documents on Jewish–Christian dialogue is that these documents are constructed as overdue responses to Christian overtures toward reconciliation, and so take up the same themes which are featured in Christian documents concerning the Jews. The 1998 Roman Catholic Church document, We Remember: A Reflection on the Shoah, for instance, evaluates whether Christian theology contributed toward the destruction of European Jewry (though some have argued that its conclusions are far from satisfactory).
Different Ways Into Conversation
As we approach a future reality in which not all living Jews and Christians lived through the Shoah, the time is ripe to reevaluate the merits and challenges in making the Shoah a cornerstone of Jewish–Christian dialogue. Among these challenges is that such discourse affirms the common Christian perception that Jewish identity is best understood by reckoning with Jewish experiences of suffering. Perhaps even more problematically, positioning the Shoah as a Jewish–Christian issue suggests that the catastrophe should be studied as a challenge to Christian self-understanding and, consequently, as an obstacle to Jewish–Christian relations that needs to be overcome. This can serve to minimize the event as one of the most monumental events in Jewish history and perpetuate another widespread Christian perception—that Jewish history comprises a series of events which occurred on the backstage of Christian history. Finally, speaking about the Shoah as a problem that requires a Jewish–Christian resolution eclipses the ways in which contemporary global realities continually affect Jewish–Christian relations.
Some might seek to resolve these problems by suggesting that Jews engaged in interfaith and intra-Jewish dialogue should marginalize such discussions altogether as a way of mitigating what Salo Baron called a “lachrymose conception” of Jewish history (Ghetto and Emancipation). After all, millions of Jews today do not have biological ties to the Shoah, such as those with Sephardi or Mizrahi lineage or Jews from Eastern Europe whose ancestors emigrated prior to the Second World War. But, given the historical precedent suggesting that Jews have the right—and even the moral responsibility—to view themselves as having personally experienced something that they did not actually live through, I would strenuously discourage this solution. Biblical texts and rabbinic laws mandate that Jews collectively remember the exodus from Egypt, as well as the destruction of the first and second Temples, providing all Jews with the historical precedent which allows them to speak of the Shoah as a transformative cultural touchstone, regardless of their lineage. The reference among survivors to the Shoah as the Hurbn—the same word that Jews use to reference to the destruction of the Jerusalem Temple—hammers this point home.
The contemporary Jewish commemoration of the Shoah invites a reconsideration of the Roman Catholic Church’s role, but I would discourage Jewish–Christian dialogues from making this reconsideration their major focus. Instead, I recommend that Jewish commemoration of the Shoah take place within an intra-Jewish realm, and that Christian reckoning with the Shoah take place within an intra-Christian realm. This would avoid showcasing the Shoah as a major feature of Jewish–Christian dialogue and would prevent the potential problems outlined above.
Dabru Emet laid the groundwork for an ever-deepening friendship and dialogue between Jews and Christians by focusing on their commonalities. In less than two decades, this groundwork was expanded into a solid foundation that invites Jews and Christians to freely express their differences and carefully discern which subjects are best suited to the realm of interreligious dialogue. For this achievement, all Jews and Christians should be grateful.
Malka Z. Simkovich, Ph.D., is the Crown-Ryan Chair of Jewish Studies and director of the Catholic–Jewish Studies program at Catholic Theological Union in Chicago. Simkovich’s books include The Making of Jewish Universalism: From Exile to Alexandria (2016) and Discovering Second Temple Literature: The Scriptures and Stories That Shaped Early Judaism (2018). Twitter: @Malka_Simkovich.