The University of Bamberg, Germany, and The Center for Christian-Jewish Understanding
Sacred Heart University, Fairfield, Connecticut

Bamberg, Germany: March 18-20, 2002
“What Do We Want the Other to Teach About Our Historical Traditions?”
Jewish-Catholic-Lutheran Dialogue

Introduction

On March 18-20, 2002, the Center for Christian-Jewish Understanding (CCJU) of Sacred Heart University, Fairfield, Connecticut, in cooperation with the University of Bamberg, Germany, sponsored a conference where Jews, Catholics and Lutherans participated in a dialogue at the University of Bamberg entitled "What Do We Want the Other to Teach About Our Historical Traditions?" This is the fourth conference to be conducted under a similar theme. The conferences thus far have taken place in Jerusalem; Edmonton, Canada; and Rome and the remaining conference is scheduled to take place in Fairfield, Connecticut, March 2003, on “What Do We Want the Other to Teach About Our Ethical Traditions?”

More than 30 scholars from Austria, Germany, Great Britain and the United States attended the proceedings with the additional attendance of students from Bamberg University and dozens of observers who joined two of the sessions spread over the three days. The conference included presentations by distinguished scholars with prepared responses, followed by discussion, critiques and suggestions by all of the participants. Presentations included an examination of the place and tradition of history from the Jewish, Catholic and Lutheran faith traditions on "What Do We Want the Other to Teach About Us?"

Bamberg, Germany, was chosen as the site of the conference because of the warmth and hospitality offered to the CCJU by the University of Bamberg community as well as Bamberg's varied and rich history. The city was founded in the Second Century CE and in 1007, Bamberg became a bishopric, when the Emperor Heinrich II (973-1024)-the only German emperor ever canonized-created an imperial residence. Of special interest to the organizers of the CCJU conference was the fact that many crusading parties left from Bamberg to fight against Muslim invaders in lands to the south and east, including Hungary and Austria, as well as the more infamous crusades to the Holy Land.

Second, on the highest hill of the city is one of the great cathedrals of Europe (built 1215-37) called the Dom. It contains both Romanesque and Gothic elements and is rich in sculptures and history. In particular, near the southeast end of the nave of the cathedral is a statue of two women depicting the “Church Triumphant” and the “Synagogue Defeated.” A young, richly clad and beautiful woman represents the church, while a blindfolded, poorly dressed woman holding a broken rod symbolizes Judaism. Also, directly opposite is a statue of a beautiful young woman representing Mary, the mother of Jesus, and her cousin Elizabeth, who is portrayed as a tired old woman. For medieval Christians, these two pair of women symbolized the triumph of the New Testament and Christianity over Judaism and the Old Testament and contributed to the notion that Christianity had superceded Judaism.

Additionally, outside the Dom on its north portal, near the majestic sculpture of the 12 Apostles, who are standing on the shoulders of the 12 Prophets, is a figure in a pointed cap (which in medieval art signified a Jew), with a devil pulling his ears. This derogatory depiction of what was then a contemporary Jew vividly illustrates the contradictory attitude of many Christians towards Judaism. On the one hand, Jews were seen as a devilish people who rejected the Church. On the other hand, Christians realized that the Church was founded on the Jewish religion, without which Christianity would be meaningless.

The CCJU works to further interreligious dialogue by living the principles outlined in the 1965 Vatican II document, Nostra Aetate, which encouraged interreligious dialogue and understanding and positively asserted the ongoing validity and common spiritual heritage that Jews, Christians and Muslims share. After learning of and observing the concrete images of supercessionism, the conference topic as well as the conference site was deemed to be a significant sign of hope for the future of interreligious dialogue.

Executive Summary

Day I: Monday, March 18, 2002

The conference began with greetings and introductions by Professor Dr. Godehard Ruppert, President of the University of Bamberg, and Professor Dr. Alfred E. Hierold, Dean of the School of Theology, University of Bamberg, followed by a keynote address by Rabbi Joseph H. Ehrenkranz, Executive Director of the Center for Christian-Jewish Understanding, called “What Can We Learn From History? Paths to Dialogue.”

Professor Ruppert began by lamenting the attacks of September 11, noting sadly that some of the perpetrators were graduates of German universities. He said, “Universities have to act as role models for people of different origins and different cultures. In these times it is more important than ever that we should not let ourselves be divided. . . we must foster the healthy cohabitation of religions.”

Professor Ruppert outlined how the University of Bamberg was uniquely situated to be an integral part of Jewish-Christian dialogue because of Bamberg's place as one of the most important Jewish communities in Germany before World War II. The current faculties in philosophy and theology are also leaders in research of cultural, ethnic and interreligious study. He thanked all of the participants for giving of their time and insights to further understanding.

Professor Hierold offered the participants welcoming remarks on behalf of the theology faculty. He noted how Christians and Jews had influenced each other's theology for 350 years in Bamberg before the Nazis came into power. He said, “Christians must never forget their roots. There has been and remains a profound spiritual link between Jews and Christians. . . . Christians have always prayed the same Psalms and it is the Spirit of God who speaks to all of us today.”

Rabbi Ehrenkranz began the keynote presentation by inviting the participants: “Teach me, or this will be an exercise in futility and we will waste our precious time. It is not our duty to complete all the work, but we must do our part. We must work for peace. There can be no peace without religious peace and no religious peace without religious dialogue. Peace requires a process. Conferences are important to spread the word and create paths to dialogue. In dialogue we can listen and learn. What I know is that no one should commit violence in the name of God. If we all joined together in a combined religious voice that we must preserve the dignity of all God's creation, maybe tyrants would reconsider their tyranny.”

The rest of Rabbi Ehrenkranz' talk discussed the recent history of Christian-Jewish dialogue beginning with the 10 points of the 1947 Seelisburg Statement by the newly formed International Council of Christians and Jews. He also presented the key points of some of the documents of the Second Vatican Council-especially Nostra Aetate (1965)-as well as several Protestant statements including those from the Lambeth Conference (1988) and the World Council of Churches (1988). Rabbi Ehrenkranz highlighted the importance of Pope John Paul II's actions and the Vatican document “We Remember: A Reflection on the Shoah” (1998) and “Dabru Emet: A Jewish Statement on Christians and Christianity” (2000).

Rabbi Ehrenkranz concluded by saying, “We can make this world a better place. Although we believe in one God, God has many nations. We have gathered to clarify our vision and pray for a world that will heal its history and look forward to a place where God's peace will reign.”

Discussion following the presentation focused on the document Dabru Emet and the importance of engaging believers of Islam in a more concerted way.

Day II: Tuesday, March 19, 2002

The second day of the conference began with a lecture by Rabbi Michael Dushinsky, Brisbane Hebrew Congregation, Australia, on “What Do We Want the Other to Teach About the Jewish Historical Tradition?” Responses from Jewish perspectives were then offered by Rabbi David Fox Sandmel, Beth Tfiloh Community High School, Baltimore, Maryland, and Rabbi Bonita Nathan Sussman of the Staten Island Rabbinical Association, New York.

Rabbi Dushinsky delivered a wide-ranging paper that began by exploring the hermeneutics of identity and how a moral reading of history is inseparable from the present conditions that people find themselves in. He said, “Judaism is a living and dynamic organism that is inextricably linked back in an unbroken chain, since time in memoriam.” He then shared what he called his “short sacred list.” He said that the list's aim was “to emphasize my view that this astounding phenomenon of the handing down of the halachah and customs through the generations is a living history to every Jew. We would not and we shall not exist as a unique people, a unique belief and a unique entity without this list.” He named important ideas, stories, values, laws, prophets, holy people and leaders who have contributed to the living Jewish history that has been passed on from parent to child.

Rabbi Dushinsky discussed Maimonides as an excellent example of one who was able to receive the historical and philosophical tradition, live it faithfully and hand it on with wisdom. Rabbi Dushinsky noted, however, that Maimonides did not succeed in making his Code the only way to be a follower of the Talmud. Nonetheless, he remains a great inspiration to Jews to this day. He concluded by saying, “For me, history is the survival of my people through four millennia.”

Responses and Discussion

In responding to Rabbi Dushinsky's paper, Rabbi David Sandmel commented on the importance of the topic at hand, namely the value in being offered the opportunity to shape how the other is taught-both the religious other, the other's religion. Rabbi Sandmel said that it is “essential to allow the others to define themselves, their own topics and their own categories. We stand before each other now, and it is impossible to duplicate the living breathing presence of the other. The ideal is to have the other teach about himself or herself in person, but when not possible, this process of gathering papers for others to learn from is very valuable.”

Rabbi Sandmel emphasized the diversity and variety in Judaism and said that the term “Judasims” was a healthy counterbalance to the caricature of a petrified and monolithic Judaism. He cautioned that one should be careful of any statement that begins with “All Jews believe,” which could impose a false unity that may not be desirable in the same way that perhaps Christianity may understand or even desire unity. Rabbi Sandmel said that part of the dynamism of Judaism is the frequent debate and diversity of opinions, which the Rabbis throughout the centuries have legitimated. As an example, Rabbi Sandmel noted that even Maimonides' work was burned by some Jews in the 12th and 13th centuries because he attempted to synthesize neo-Platonist and Arabic ideas with Judaism.

Turning to contemporary Jewish identity, Rabbi Sandmel said that after the experience of the Shoah, the Jewish people are moving to a self-understanding of being “a community of fate, to a community of faith.” He said, “An important key to understanding Jewish history is that Judaism is not only faith and belief, it is belonging to a people.” He mentioned the example that if a person becomes a Jew, “it is more like becoming a member of the citizenry or family than being converted. Loving and defending the members of the family is different from liking them.”

Rabbi Sandmel concluded by saying, “There are many ways we teach about the other. It does not only happen in our religion classes but also in worship and art. We need to be attentive to the words we use in songs such as ‘ransom captive Israel' or that some of the songs are based on German drinking melodies. . . . The Lectionary contains difficult texts too. Teaching about the other does not cause us to compromise our commitments. There are differences in our traditions that are humanly irreconcilable.”

Rabbi Bonita Nathan Sussman offered what she called “10 comments” in relation to Rabbi Dushinsky's paper. She said that Jews and Christians must enter dialogue “with a sense of humility, trust and honesty,” and she raised the distinctions between the exegetical and rabbinic styles, highlighting the need to be clear in what one says because “the same words may mean different things to the dialogue partners.” She also pointed out that focusing one's life on the Shema Israel and obedience to the Law brings salvation to a Jew. Concurrently, holidays, festivals and life-cycle events “have been shaped by history and continue to shape our history-they are our history.” Additionally, “everything about Scripture is holy-even the crowns of the letters.” The historical tradition of Judaism weaves these elements into its fabric of faith, but there is always “a complex relation to the texts-that which appears in Scripture and that which the Rabbis have declared or believed,” she said.

Rabbi Sussman also briefly discussed Revelation, community and messianic expectation. She said that the basis of Jewish revelation comes from Exodus 19:9-25, which describes “a God who intervenes in human history. How one understands Revelation is how a Jew lives his or her life.” She continued, “History is also how my people managed to live. Jewish stories and ties are strong. . . and there are national, religious and political dimensions to our faith.” Our understanding of history is formed by what has happened but also by messianic expectation and eschatology. Rabbi Sussman also discussed the succession of revelation from Sinai through Moses and Joshua to the present. She highlighted that the post-Biblical tradition is “an endpoint of an unfolding tradition. Judaism did not end with the Biblical tradition. Jews are pro-active in today's world and are profoundly influenced by our past.”

After a break, the participants engaged in discussion on the problem of modernity and post-modernity as well as the question of diversity and pluralism and how these issues relate to remaining faithful to one's beliefs. Several participants noted that it is difficult enough to teach one's own congregations about themselves let alone the beliefs of other religions.

Another topic of discussion centered around the historical-critical method and the importance of taking history seriously while also integrating Revelation, mystery and contradiction into the life of a faith community. All agreed on the value of the historical-critical approach as a starting point, but acknowledged the shortfalls of this approach in adequately describing all of religious experience. For example, those Christians who wished to teach about Judaism and its history were asked by the Jewish participants to recognize the complex and diverse expressions of Judaism and without falling into describing Jews merely as victims, to acknowledge that difficult challenges remain for contemporary Judaism as “a wounded community still in the process of healing.”

The session concluded with the participants affirming that history is important but so too are theology, spirituality, aesthetics and liturgy.

Day II: Tuesday, March 19, 2002

Afternoon Session

The afternoon session of the second day of the conference began with a lecture by Professor Dr. Hans-Joachim Sander of the University of Salzburg, Austria, on “What Do We Want the Other to Teach About the Catholic Historical Tradition?: God's Own History: The Semiotic Process of Revelation.” A response from a Catholic perspective was offered by Dr. Christoph Heil of the University of Bamberg.

Professor Sander said, “Until recently, Catholics have tended to view themselves as trans-historical and avoided historical debates especially theology and philosophy around science. It is quite new to respect history as a primary category.” One reason for this is that history could be used as a way to portray another's beliefs as relative and set the ground for acceptance of dissenting opinions. Scholasticism was not able to deal with history except from the position of authority. It was not until well after the Protestant Reformation and Vatican I and the 1943 document by Pope Pius XII, Divino Afflante Spiritus, which opened the door to Catholic scholars to study the Scriptures in their original languages with scholars of other faiths, that the framers of Vatican II dealt with history seriously.

Professor Sander said that at the Second Vatican Council, the Church “looked at herself from the inside and outside in the documents Lumen Gentium and Gaudium et Spes and saw God's history with his people beginning with the people of Israel. For Christians, Jesus Christ is God's history in time and without of time after the resurrection.” He explained that the basis for this reexamination is the conviction that all people are called by their vocation to act as full human beings. “The Church's history is in concert with all other histories and its task is to shape religion in a way that is faithful to the signs of the times. This requires a transformation from religion to the pastoral. The Church cannot understand herself without understanding others. . . . Whatever historical ground Christianity may have gained, is not a test of the power of God. Real religious power is not afraid of being powerlessness.”

Professor Sander noted that the historical irony about Christianity is that “the founding historical figure stands outside the community. Jesus was a Jew, and the strategy of power was to eliminate Jews then. But by means of powerlessness, this can be overcome. Christians must accept historically and systematically the otherness of Jews and Jews from Christians. Jews can live religiously without Christians. But Christians cannot exist outside their historical traditions, without Jews and Judaism. This is historical powerlessness.” He continued, “Jewish history is not past history. Jesus is standing on the Jewish side historically. The power against Jews and Christians is violence. In either of their hands, the power of violence is our downfall. There is no future for Christians without clearing up their history with the Jews.”

Professor Sander said that Revelation is a key concept for history. “There is no language without contextuality and representation, and history describes real relationships and meanings.” Scripture and Tradition are languages of Revelation, and according to the 1965 Vatican II document, Dei Verbum, “both languages need to be understood in terms of powerlessness. Therefore, Revelation is God Himself and must be powerless. When the Church is empowered by Revelation, this is a pastoral strategy, not the manipulation of powerful owners of a tradition. Dogmas should represent powerlessness and attempt to express belief in faith concepts.”

When speaking about leaders and in particular a pope's responsibility to teach the truth as he understands it, Professor Sander said, “A pope is a historical figure who is able to represent the people. Something is not true because a pope says so, it is true because it is true and the pope must say so. Papal infallibility must be rooted in historical reality.”

Addressing the issue of pluralism, and the plurality of religions, Professor Sander said, “Religious freedom is a religious right. If we do not respect the rights of every human being, then we are ruined. They [religions] are not the products of historical power. They come out of the powerlessness and struggle to know God.”

Response and Discussion

Dr. Christoph Heil said that it was important for the Catholic Church's growth to humbly recognize its own limitations, powerlessness and ignorance. The importance of such humility was attested to in Divino Afflante Spiritu and Dei Verbum, and is a good reminder that history must play a decisive part in theology, he said. “It is to be regarded as a great progress that the Catholic Church has realized the historical distance between herself and Jesus the Jew, His proclamation of the kingdom of God and the Holy Scriptures. Only after the Catholic Church allowed for new insights given by God in the course of history was the acceptance of human rights and religious pluralism possible.”

Dr. Heil noted that with a growing respect for history, a new challenge presents itself in regard to exegesis. He said, “new temptation lies, however, in the attitude that there is nothing else in the Biblical texts than their author's theologies and contexts.” He continued, “The Biblical texts did not fall from heaven, and the religious institutions that are based on those texts have no exclusive copyright of them. The historical approach is best suited to enhance understanding and cooperation. The historical dimension challenges us to accept the developmental and human character of our faith, which corresponds to a God who reveals Himself in history to average people like you and me.”

In the discussion period that followed, participants explored the relationship between Scripture and Tradition and the ways that Revelation language can bring these together to stop violence in the future. One participant said that it was essential to institutionalize our religions' memory together with the other in the room so that creation, the seven Noahide laws and religious faith can lead people closer to peace and salvation.

Issues of canonicity and inerrancy and inspiration were also discussed. Professor Sander expanded his earlier theme slightly and said, “The quest for the historical Jesus or any authentic revelation cannot be mixed with power.” Others noted how Christianity and Judaism are now uniquely positioned for dialogue. They are in a creative mode partly because of the necessary re-examination of Christian and Jewish identity after the terrible crimes of the 20th century, not least of which was the Shoah. In particular, for Christians, the "teaching of contempt" towards Judaism may not have comprised the Church's entire or even primary theological and historical tradition, but it was an important and pervasive teaching. It was noted that in addition to bishops, saints such as Ignatius or John Chrysostom who condemned contacts between Christians and Jews, councils also promulgated anti-Jewish teachings including four ecumenical councils, Lateran III and IV; Lyons; and Basel/Florence.

Later that afternoon, a reception for the conference participants was hosted by Mr. Heinrich Olmer, president of the Bamberg Jewish Community Center. He described the history of the Jewish community in Bamberg and the many positive contributions by its members to the town until the Second World War when every Jew was imprisoned or killed. He described with renewed hope the growth of their small and slowly growing community as well as its present challenges to educate and support the new Jewish immigrants from Russia. He said, “We first need to teach many of these new comers to read and help them find jobs. After that, we have to work hard to keep them and their children coming to learn more about the Torah.”

After dinner on the evening of March 19, an interfaith concert by the “Inspiration Choir” was performed for the conference participants and interested members of the town at the 13th century building, Renaissance Hall, which had been newly restored. The concert theme was "Meeting Jewish Music." Nearly all of the members of the group were Christian and had committed themselves to understanding Judaism better by learning and performing Jewish music. The group was chosen as an excellent match for the conference theme because it had dedicated itself to “teaching” about the other by learning and performing the other's music. The evening was filled with warmth and celebration and some of the conference participants also contributed their musical talents by singing and dancing.

Day III: Wednesday, March 20, 2002

On the third day of the conference, Wednesday, March 20, the morning session focused on “What Do We Want the Other to Teach About the Lutheran Historical Tradition?” The principal paper was delivered by Professor Dr. Wolfgang Kraus of the University of Koblenz at Landau.

Responses from Lutheran perspectives were offered by Professor Dr. Walter Sparn, Dean of the Protestant Theological Faculty, University of Erlangen, and Professor Dr. Martin Rothgangel of the University of Weingarten.

Professor Kraus' lecture synthesized the last 50 years in Christian-Jewish historical understanding in the writings of Protestant Christianity. He said that the Holocaust was not only a time in history but “a date in theology where naïve anti-Judaism gave way to violent anti-Semitism.” He said that it was not easy to overcome old traditions. Only a complete examination of the Church's theology would make authentic dialogue possible.

Professor Kraus reflected on the early days of dialogue as “stiff and clumsy,” beginning with the 1945 Stuttgart Confessions, which were a list of shortcomings, not a confession, followed by many writings over the next 25 years which affirmed such convictions: Jesus was a Jew; the early Church was both Jews and Gentiles; God's promise endures to the Jewish people; acknowledging Christian responsibility for the persecution of Jews; rejecting anti-Semitism, coming together in support for Israel; and affirming that the Covenant has not been revoked.

In the 1970s, most of the study and teaching focused on the common roots and parting of the ways between Jews and Christians as well as the need for recurring development for future work together. Professor Kraus characterized the numerous discussions in the 1980s as departures from safe statements. In the 1990s, covenant and mission were honestly discussed, and the Church arrived at the position that testimony to the Jewish people and mission to the Gentiles were most faithful to the biblical and theological tradition. He said, “Most of the Churches have re-thought their ideas of mission with a small minority who still want to convert Jews. On the whole, the Church recognizes the continuing election of the Jewish people and the Church is necessarily part of this relationship.”

Professor Kraus said that there were still many challenges to Christian-Jewish understanding, namely, 1) the enduring problem of anti-Judaism; 2) Israel's continuing election as a fundamental concept in the hermeneutic of Scripture; 3) Israel as an integral part of Christian ecclesiology; 4) the Jewish aspects of Christology; and 5) the transformation of absoluteness into eschatological terminology.

Professor Kraus concluded by saying, “Judaism is not only the historical precursor, but also a continuing partner in a growing relationship. It is one thing to acknowledge one's roots, it is another to articulate the continuing relationship. Jesus was a Jew. Artists have tended to portray Jesus and Mary as one of the people of their (the artist's) time and cultures. This is fine in communicating that he was a human, but not to forget his foundational elements. The search for the Jewish Jesus is not a quirk of a few theologians, it is a theological necessity. Additionally, eschatology is a way for Jews and Christians to come together” (cf. Zechariah 14 and 1 Corinthians 15).

Responses and Discussion

Professor Sparn spoke from his experience as both a scholar and Lutheran pastor. He characterized Professor Kraus' paper as “a correct and fair picture of the development of Christian statements.” He noted in particular, that the discussion is complex because of the many layers of reflection and scholarship that exist between declarations by religious leaders, university scholars, and community leaders. He highlighted the convergences and challenges that remain for dialogue. He said that there is strong convergence in the election of Israel as the people of God. “I personally do not know anyone who holds the substitution theory or negation theory. But the next critical step is that the discussion must filter to ecclesiology. The hermeneutic problem has not yet been solved, which poses still further challenges to understanding mission and witness.”

Professor Sparn related that Protestant Christians begin with Biblical theology as a most important part of theology. He said, “There is a tendency of some Churches-especially Roman Catholics-to push back their identity to the life of Jesus. Protestants would prefer to start after Easter. The New Testament contains anti-Judaism. We can not deny it, but we must use a hermeneutic that is authentically Christian and not anti-Jewish and seriously considers the Jewish identity of Jesus Himself.”

Professor Sparn suggested some common tasks for Jews, Protestants and Catholics including: 1) a revision of a centralist and essentialist conception of our identities; 2) further study into the many factors such as time, place, practice, diversity and the place of law at the time and shortly after the death of Jesus; 3) continued theological discussion on the State of Israel and what it means for Christians.

A second respondent, Professor Rothgangel, spoke from his experience as a religious education expert and responded by discussing the problems that still exist in religious education texts, especially in graphic presentations in books. He offered an observation from cognitive psychology and demonstrated that if one divides a series of lines into two groups, then the observer will perceive a real separation even if it is not so. He offered suggestions for improvement in the ways that some Christian textbooks illustrate the other-especially Jews.

Similarly, he briefly presented some research on social identity theory and noted that if one belonged to one group, then that person always has more motivation to be better than other defined groups. He said that it is Christianity's responsibility to describe itself as it is rather than over and against others. He said, “Anti-Judaism began in Christianity but easily made its way into politics. The Enlightenment stood for reason and intelligence, and the Jews were perceived and portrayed by the Nazis, on the one hand, as superstitious and stubborn in their beliefs, and, on the other hand, Jews were suspect because many were connected with progressivism and rapid social change. The politicians of the day said the Nazis were strong; therefore, the Jews were weak. By cultivating such Anti-Judaism in the religious culture, it was not difficult for politicians to manipulate such impulses for their own terrible ends.”

Discussion centered around the problem of conceiving of Jesus as too abstract. The Lutheran presenters said that Christology has a social and political impact. Often pastors or teachers know what one should not say about Christology, but have difficulty in knowing what ought to be said. It was noted that a special challenge for Christianity-and especially Lutheranism-is the strong connection between Church and State.

Participants also discussed the challenge of dialogue in Germany because the relationship of Christians to practicing Jews is asymmetrical inasmuch as the Jewish partners are too disadvantaged in numbers. Professor Kraus said that he has taken his classes of 25 students to visit a synagogue that only has a membership of 20-and most are from Russia.

Dr. David L. Coppola, Director of Programs and Publications of the Center for Christian-Jewish Understanding, summarized the conference in the afternoon and facilitated discussion. This session was followed by a tour of the city by Mrs. Chriss Fiebig who paid special attention to the influence of Jews in the life of Bamberg throughout the centuries.

Connections and Conclusions:

Several themes and issues for future discussion emerged from the conference proceedings that were discussed at the summary session. First, as was the case at the March 19-21, 2000, CCJU conference in Edmonton, (link to conference) the participants agreed that Jews and Christians and Muslims recall and hand on their history because God has been revealed to them and they want to interpret and share that message with present and future generations. In this sense, the 1998 Vatican document, We Remember, is accurate in saying, "there is no future without memory" (p. 6). But participants at this conference also made it clear that remembrance is never neutral and recalls the choices, actions and events from the past that are meaningful and essential for a community's present identity and intended future destiny. There is an astonishing amnesia on the part of some historians about the collective crimes of the last century, as if these crimes were normal and to be expected in the normal course of wars. All agreed that the human community cannot forget the mistakes of religion, but neither can the past prevent peace from happening in the future. The historical memory of pain and hurt cannot be removed by rational arguments alone. Only a gradual building of trust and understanding through friendships and relationships will allow healing and progress to occur.

Second, the group left unanswered whether or not historical studies are the proper starting point for Jewish-Christian relations, or is spirituality or theology? This is a difficult question because the locus of study must also be the relationship of Jews and Christians with God, their texts and each other.

Third, in the course of discussion it was noted that although significant historical events occurred in the Middle Ages and Renaissance, a most important occurrence in Christianity had been its dealings with the Enlightenment and modernity. Participants discussed how Christianity had been exposed through the Enlightenment to a more dynamic view of history, which contributed to the notions of personal and religious freedom that opened the doors to reform and even the present climate of positive interreligious dialogue.

Fourth, several people asserted that the work that Jews and Christians can and must do together is for the purpose of restoring the primacy and centrality of God in the world. A challenge to this conviction is whether our more organized and institutionalized religions still welcome a legitimate place and role for the prophetic tradition to influence our actions?

Fifth, Some participants also asked whether teachers of the other should emphasize more the teaching of the history of Judaism and Christianity or the history of particular Jews and Christians. One person suggested especially for children that religious history is primarily understood through the lives of holy people and how those people added to the presence and understanding of Jewish or Christian identity and faith.

Many questions remain and will provide the continuing agenda for interreligious dialogue. These include: How does one understand events and experiences? What is the place of wars, people, art, ideas, economics? Who decides what is important? What is the process or method by which one accurately expresses through limited language what is most important to the greatest number of people? Are present events less important than past? How do we interpret the signs of the times such as: secularization, industrialization, economic disparity among people, immigration, urbanization and the rapid expansion of information?

The conference concluded with a lunch and prayer affirming that place and history are important to Jews and Christians and Muslims. Time and space are the paths where God walks. Historians and teachers are important because they act as witnesses for those who have died and also as witnesses to the truth of life.

--David L. Coppola, Ph.D.

“What Do We Want the Other to Teach About Our History?”

Conference in Bamberg, Germany

List of Invited Participants

• Dr. Ulrich Bauer, University of Bamberg
• Rabbi Gilles Bernheim, Chief Rabbi of Paris, France
• Professor Dr. Klaus Bieberstein, University of Bamberg
• Dr. David L. Coppola, Center for Christian-Jewish Understanding, Fairfield, Connecticut
• Dr. Jon Gower Davies, University of Newcastle upon Tyne, Great Britain
• Rabbi Michael Dushinsky, Ostrava, Czech Republic
• Rabbi Joseph H. Ehrenkranz, Center for Christian-Jewish Understanding, Fairfield, Connecticut
• Mrs. Chriss Fiebig, Bamberg
• Dr. Christoph Heil, University of Bamberg
• Professor Dr. Alfred E. Hierold, Dean, School of Theology, University of Bamberg
• Professor Dr. Paul Hoffmann, University of Bamberg
• Professor Dr. Wolfgang Klausnitzer, University of Bamberg
• Professor Dr. Wolfgang Kraus, University of Koblenz-Landau, Germany
• Ludwig Krempl, Focolare Movement, Nurnberg, Germany
• Professor Dr. Verena Lenzen, University of Luzern, Switzerland
• Dr. Herbert Loebl, University of Newcastle upon Tyne, Great Britain
• Reverend Dr. Friedhelm Pieper, Martin Buber House, Heppenheim, Germany
• Professor Dr. Martin Rothgangel, University of Weingarten, Germany
• Professor Dr. Dr. Godehard Ruppert, President, University of Bamberg
• Professor Dr. Hans-Joachim Sander, University of Salzburg, Austria
• Rabbi David Sandmel, Beth Tfiloh Community High School, Baltimore, Maryland
• Mrs. Barbara Schmitz, University of Bamberg
• Professor Dr. Walter Sparn, University of Erlangen, Germany
• Rabbi Bonita Nathan Sussman, Staten Island Rabbinical Association, New York
• Rabbi Gerald Sussman, New York Theological Seminary, New York
• Professor Dr. Lothar Wehr, University of Bamberg
• Professor Dr. Erich Zenger, University of Munster, Germany

Back to 2002 Programs and Conferences    Next Page