“Resolved: Jesus was (and still is) the Jewish messiah.”
Nachmanides and the Jews of medieval Spain believed that silence was the best option even though it wasn’t an available one.
I once believed that interfaith dialogue was a good thing because…
… the free exchange of ideas leads to awareness, empathy, and mutual understanding;
… the diversity of values and viewpoints from all faith traditions makes us stronger and wiser; and…
… All Paths Are Good.
Problem is, some paths are horrible. Diversity is not always our strength. And although the free exchange of ideas can lead to empathy, it can also lead to rage and violence.
Interfaith dialogue is extraordinarily demanding. It asks people to question assumptions they’ve long accepted as true, and to interrogate the coherence of the Stories they live by. When competing narratives collide and contradict each other — e.g., Jesus was the Jewish messiah vs. No, he was not — something must give: If that other guy’s story is true, then mine must be nonsense. As participants in the dialogue struggle to resolve these contradictions so their own stories still make sense, temperatures rise. With the pillars of their identity showing some cracks, people can become frustrated, frightened, or angry.
And so what began as a friendly ecumenical exchange can gradually cut deeper and deeper until it hits painfully close to the bone.
I was recently reminded of this dynamic when I discovered a movie called The Disputation. It’s a dramatization of the Disputation of Barcelona, a formal debate held at the royal palace of King James I of Aragon in July of 1263. It lasted for five days and then ended… badly.1
“I promise you the safety of your people…”
The participants: Dominican Friar Pablo Christiani, a convert from Judaism to Christianity, and Nachmanides, a renowned medieval Jewish scholar, philosopher, physician, Kabbalist, and biblical commentator.
The audience: King James, his court, officials of the Catholic Church, and, by word of mouth, the people of Aragon.
The central question: Was Jesus the Jewish Messiah?
Just before the disputation begins, King James promises Nachmanides that no topics are off limits, honesty is paramount, and the truth matters most. Share your thoughts and comments, said the King. Your Story matters. Join the conversation!
Reluctantly, Nachmanides participates, telling the Jewish Story to his Christian interlocutors without fear or favor. The King is impressed by the rabbi’s evidence and argument, but Church authorities seethe with anger over Nachmanides’ blasphemous claims. As the disputation wore on, the Catholic faithful became enraged too.
With tensions rising in the streets, the Jews of Aragon feared what might happen next. They begged the rabbi to stop arguing and withdraw. Nothing good will come from this debate, they told him. Nachmanides agreed, but the King insisted the disputation continue.
Which brings us to this scene: (The video will auto-start at 41:36, watch until 43:18)
When the disputation ended, Nachmanides worried that his positions would be publicly misrepresented by the Church.
So he published a pamphlet containing a detailed account of the debate, which authorities quickly confiscated and burned.
Nachmanides was then exiled from Aragon for two years. In 1267, seeking refuge from Christian persecution, he made aliyah to Jerusalem.
In 1492, the Jews of Aragon were given a choice — convert to Catholicism or face expulsion. Many converted. More than 100,000 were expelled.
I share this history not so I can emit another garment-rending howl of Woe unto us, the Jewish people! There’s no victimhood like our victimhood!
I share this because “join the conversation” — especially when the discussion is about the questions that matter most — can be a dangerous invitation and a losing proposition, especially if you’re in the minority. Nachmanides and the Jews of Aragon (re)learned this lesson the hard way.
It’s a lesson worth remembering.
I once wondered why most Orthodox Jews don’t participate in interfaith dialogues. I don’t wonder that anymore.
A lot of people advocate “interfaith dialogue” without realizing the incredible demands it places on us. Many interfaith people would be uncomfortable with minority religions and sincere discourse at the table.
I still believe that such dialogue is necessary and vital for a functioning society, if only because we live in a pluralistic world and talking is a substitute for fighting. But it should be approached *very, very carefully*.
Don’t forget that those who converted continued to be persecuted- by the SpanishInquisition- that is, it became about race, not just religion, for the first time.