2 of 5

Rosen: I think that Jesus would have understood—as all Jews would have understood—that it is not possible to understand all of the biblical text totally literally. Interpretation is necessary.

As you wrote this book, both of you remained firm in your own traditions. Why is it important in inter-religious dialogue for people to be rock solid in their beliefs?

Rosen: I believe that a real dialogue is most authentic when people are deeply committed to their faith. To say that my truth is my truth does not mean that my truth is the only truth, but it is truth.

Kendall: I don't see this as only dialogue. I had one sincere desire, and that was to present the gospel to David with the love I feel for him so that the Holy Spirit would arrest him like Saul of Tarsus on the road to Damascus.

Who knows whether God can use a man like this to precipitate the lifting of the blindness described in Romans 11. I know that's grandiose, but I thought what if, somehow, God got to this wonderful, learned, world-famous man. Of course, I annoyed him a bit along the way, though we stayed friends.

Rosen: Our motives were different. For me, dialogue doesn't mean, as some people suggest, any kind of relativism. And it certainly doesn't mean any weakness in one's own tradition. Communication is a value in and of itself. But I want R. T. to be a good Christian. I don't want him to change. I just want him to let me be a good Jew and to be satisfied that that's my way to God and that God is very happy with me living the way I live.

Kendall, as a Reformed Christian, you approach evangelism a little differently than do many Christians.

Kendall: I know that only God does the saving. So I can only pray that the Holy Spirit would do the job. I did all I can do—and I haven't given up, by the way. I pray for you every day. If I'm right, you will go to hell when you die, and I don't want that. And so I want to do everything I can. Though you are adamant and lovingly hostile to all that I believe, remember that Saul of Tarsus was as well.

Rosen: I wouldn't call myself hostile. I just don't understand what you're talking about. But there is a history that could naturally lead to hostility. And certainly most Jews probably would be hostile to it.

Kendall: There's a double blindness upon a Jew. First, 2 Corinthians 4:4 says the god of this world blinds the minds of those who don't believe—that's everybody. But when it comes to a Jew, there's something over and above that. God has given them a spirit of stupor—eyes so they cannot see. But I think the day will come when you will say, "Where have I been? I can see it! It's so clear to me!"

Rosen: If there is something that I'm not seeing that is of essential importance, then I pray that the Almighty will reveal it to me.

But as I said also in the book, central Christian ideas, such as the concept of Incarnation, completely defy my religious understanding. Moreover, we use common terminology that we understand very differently. The term Messiah, for example. If you mean that Jesus is the individual who will be the wise, human ruler at the time of God's era of universal peace, then there would be no objection to that on principle. Otherwise, there just doesn't seem to me to be any logical reason to think that's the case.

I'd like to know what each of you may have learned from the other.

Kendall: I've seen that David has no conviction of sin. He sees himself as basically righteous. The thought of being sinful before God, like Isaiah in chapter 6, is alien to him.

next page... |  2 of 5

share this page

October 2007, Vol. 51, No. 10