Throughout Rabbi Jonathan Sacks’ academic work, an apparent contradictory pattern emerges regarding the future role of Judaism. In this he wishes for Judaism to encompass two separate ideals which initially appear to be paradoxical in nature. However, on closer examination I believe that the two can be held together. For he wants the faith to move away from the growing isolation it has experienced in the modern world and impart its vast knowledge onto all others. Therefore, he wishes Judaism to be more open to society to enable the creation of a reciprocal relationship with other faiths and ideas. However, this liberalisation of the faith is counteracted by Sacks’ equal desire to reinforce the practices and beliefs of Judaism. For the danger is that the knowledge held by the faith will be lost if Judaism abandons its traditions by compromising too much to the desires of the modern world.
I would argue that three areas best illustrate this paradox. The first being morality and how secularism over the past 50 years has eroded this key social foundation. For Sacks the insights provided by an open Judaism can help to reverse the atomisation of society. However this moral insight can only originate from a Judaism that has knowledge to impart, which to Sacks can only be done if Judaism preserves its traditions. The second area is pluralism and interfaith dialogue. Again this would appear to be more inclining towards an open Judaism, however Sacks argues the requirement of Judaism should not be to dilute its beliefs in its quest to work with others. The final way that Sacks’ thinking highlights this paradox is through the future of Judaism with how the faith must work together to avert a disaster. For whilst Judaism holds immense potential to better all of society the internal divisions that have emerged due to responses to the modern world, alongside the re-emergence of anti-Semitism threaten this hope for the future. All three of these elements are key to help society, which is the ultimate goal for Sacks and are strongly interlinked together. The Paradox of how Sacks manages in this way to balance between liberal and yet conservative views without appearing to be indecisive nor from a fear of angering either side. In an era of politics and ideas that are becoming ever more divided this ability of Sacks to walk a tightrope between these two states offers a refreshing perspective.
Morality and individualism:
Jonathan Sacks’ ability to balance between an open and yet entrenched set of beliefs is first illustrated through his ideas on morality. For morality is a crucial area in which Sacks believes Judaism can help bolster its waning importance within society. Sacks strongly believes that over the last 50 years, humanity has been losing its moral foundation crucially needed in the creation of a strong society due to secularisation. The wish has been to edit God and religion out of moral language whilst keeping society unchanged, which according to Sacks, is an impossible feat. (Sacks, 2005 p.27). For although the origins of morality may not be reliant on faith but comes from an evolutionary factor, Sacks argues that religion and morality are intrinsically linked.
Throughout his book Morality: Restoring the Common Good in Divided Times, Sacks refers to two thinkers, Alexis De Tocqueville and Charles Darwin (Sacks, 2020 p.261-271) who both argue that a basic form of morality was created to allow groups of individuals to work together to form a community. As Darwin explains where the individual would have perished if they had stayed alone, the group bound by morality enables a greater change to wider survival. (Sacks, 2020 p.263). This cooperation found in the group was essential for ensuring the individuals survival. De Tocqueville similarly believed that the origins of morality were found within the community, or more specifically in the family. (Sacks, 2020 p.266). Morality whilst a natural process is not hardwired into our minds and is rather a process of how communities work better together. Basil Mitchell would agree that the origins of morality were due to a social rational, and were meant to provide a meaningful purpose to humanity; showing a need to assist one another and promote the desire for peaceful co-existence. (Mitchell 1980 p.138). Religion enabled more groups to work together, expanding communities and eventually forming nations and states. Religion is the foundation in Sacks’ view to how societies coexist together for as he explains, “moral community was created on a far larger scale than could have been achieved on the basis of kinship or reciprocal altruism.” (Sacks, 2020 p.269). Religions were a way to allow groups of people to come together under a shared vision via a shared moral code. The importance of religion with morality is further justified by showing moralities origins; as Sacks highlights the importance of morality and religion for our social development and its integrity for how nations and states operate.
Jonathan Sacks also highlights the philosopher Nietzsche to provide an explanation for why morality was inherently important. While Nietzsche disliked religious morality, he understood that its elimination from society and the transitionary process towards a secular based form of morality would be a difficult feat. (Sacks, 2005 p.36-37). For although Nietzsche thought it could be done Sacks strongly refutes this with what has been witnessed within the social breakdown and atomisation of society. Nevertheless Nietzsche believed that religious morality was simply another form of tyranny and more over this form of morality was a way to pacify the individual. (Nietzsche, 1885 p.34). He goes on further to explain that “morality is nothing other than obedience to customs.” (Nietzsche, 1997 p.10). This led arguable to how and why society has tried to secularise moral language and ignored the crucial foundation that religion holds in the sustainment of morality.
Sacks explains that since the 1960’s there has been an increased want to speed up the process of secularisation, especially in relation to morality. It was believed that we could outsource morality onto two differing political factors, the market and the state. (Sacks, 2018). This demoralisation of society, as Sacks phrases it was initially seen as being able to liberate the West from the social constraints previously imposed by religious traditions. This belief was especially prevalent in the Western world, and the understanding that we had moved beyond the need for religion which was replaced by laws and infrastructure. This led to the rise of the individualist mindset. The move as Sacks expresses is from a ‘we’ based culture to instead to be focused solely on the ‘I.’ With him showing how language in the twentieth century changed from ‘I ought’ to instead ‘I want’ and ‘I choose.’ (Sacks, 2003 p.3). Morality is founded on the ideas of community and the collective. The move to the individual would lead to a degradation of overall morality as it would no longer be a perceived requirement. And whilst may seeming to not be a problem at first when you realise the interconnectedness of morality to many other processes, you come to realise the severity and threat the rise of humanities focus on ‘the self’ does hold. To De Tocqueville, morality has a connection to overall democracy, which if abandoned would lead to the degradation of the democratic processes. As Sacks explains, De Tocqueville believed that Liberty “cannot be established without morality nor morality without faith.” (Sacks, 2020 p.265). It is however only through the secularisation of the moral language that this has been able to occur. To Sacks, the demoralisation of our language and overall society via secularisation is the reason our politics has become more divided. This alongside the fractionalisation that has arisen, may explain the marked increase in populism in the West. Without the guidance that can unite people together, it is likely that the greater divisions we are currently seeing will only increase, leading to further strife.
Moreover social media has been linked to increasing problems of mental health and can be claimed only heightens the increasing vanity humanity has for the self. For whilst as Sacks examines social media can enhance human life, strengthen education and provide greater connectivity around the world; it has also been connected to decreasing life satisfaction with those born after 1995. (Sacks 2020, p.51). By the very nature of social media it exposes ourselves to a wider audience leading to people becoming more self-centred and focusing solely on the betterment of how the self looks. This alongside globalisation which although allowing greater connection between worldwide communities has however led to a rise in factionalism and hatred. (Sacks, 2003 p.7). No longer can the individual look towards the community for moral guidance but rather as Sacks emphasises has a plethora of differing types of morality from differing places which has meant that commitment to morality is a hard process and finding the morality that is right for you is more difficult. (Sacks, 2020 p.284-285). The strength found from morality to Sacks is to have committed to a set of rules to live a good life, which globalisation makes harder to achieve. Nevertheless Sacks highlights that whilst social media and globalisation have increased the focus on individualism it does not mean that these forces should be exorcised out of our social framework. Rather Sacks understands there needs to be a balance of all things, not focusing solely on globalisation or faith but a balance of each voice with a strong foundation of a moral code.
Therefore, Sacks suggests that the best way to restore social order and alleviate the issues facing humanity in the twenty-first century is for the restoration of morality and to increase the passive voice of religion within all aspect of life. The most obvious way Sacks believes that this can be done is to look towards faith itself, specifically found through the Hebrew Bible. The covenantal relationship between the Jewish people and God as Sacks argues is the best way to emphasise how morality can be viewed to a wider audience. In that the covenant is understood to be a loving relationship between God and his chosen people with the framework being an agreement of social and institutional rules. (Sacks, 1993). The very nature of the covenant is to try and create a foundation of compassion and justice which is the main purpose in Sacks’ view of morality. Sacks also argues that the covenantal bond between Judaism and God is one of freedom and independence whilst still holding rules and obligations. (Sacks, 2000 p.87). By viewing morality in this covenantal way, it further alters the way we see overall relationships as not simply a set of interests but rather moral commitments, which Sacks points out will turn the individualist mindset to be one of communal common good. (Sacks, 2020 p.336). This will further end the stigma perceived that morality is a constrictive force that limits our freedoms, we can then view it as an agreement with the rest of humanity to ensure the betterment of all. Therefore, it will transform the overarching idea of our moral obligation to a moral commitment.
Another important part in the restoration of morality is ensuring that the nature of morality moves from a private, individual responsibility to a collective duty. Even if morality is re-established, it may be too late to reverse the damage inflicted by the rise of individualism. For as individualism has now been a primary focus in society since at least the 1970’s two generations have not truly experienced community-based morality. Which would only increase as more and more generations do not experience this force. It is therefore understandable if future generations are unable to know any difference than the self-centred focus reinforced by society and are not provided with an alternative way to view the world or would want to know a different way of life. The community would not be there to enable the passing on of knowledge to these generations. Therefore Sacks concludes that the greatest way for morality to be passed on is through the family and shared language that they have. Whilst it would at first seem to contradict Sacks’ initial argument that morality needs to move away from a private setting back to a public area, Sacks understands that the family can be a better tool to spread this moral wisdom from the past. (Sacks, 2000 p.120-121). It is therefore the responsibility of the family to spread moral knowledge which intern will help the overarching community as that’s where initial moral guidance has originated. This further highlights how Sacks desires Judaism to be an open force and allow its teachings to be utilised by the secular world. Parallels from this can be made to the Jewish tradition and the ceremonies such as Passover and the four-questions asked typically by the youngest member at the Seder meal. This aspect alongside other practices such as the Sabbath are both understood to help aid in the teaching of Judaism and intern ensuring it carries on through future generations. Similarly morality must be passed on through the family so that it may be better expressed to the next generation.
The emphasis of restoration of morality and therefore the restoration of the voice of religion can also been seen to link with ideas of public theology. Public theology is typically deemed to be a theology originating from Christianity with the specific aim to try and help those around them. Rather than using theology to discuss doctrine and belief, the desire of public theologians is to show how the faith can be practically applied to help remedy many social issues within society. The main driving force for public theology is the community, which aims to enable all people to participate. (Kim, 2011 p.15). What Sacks is trying to do is very much in line with this train of thought as his desire is to see the restoration of morality to aid in supporting the overall community and the wider country. Rowan Williams echo the fears of Jonathan Sacks regarding the increasing levels of secularism in all aspects of life. As Williams states “without the willingness to listen to the questions and challenges of the church, liberal society is in danger of becoming illiberal.” (Williams, 2012 p.80). Which is why Rowan Williams believes religion must reacquire its voice within the secular society, which now holds a monopoly on public discourse. As such religious pluralism is needed to ensure a wide range of ideas from differing faiths can be expressed within society. Moreover, Sebastian Kim believes that the future of Christian public theology needs to open to differing ideas whilst still connected to scripture. (Kim, 2017 p.62). The combination of these two areas would further help to strengthen public theology and intern arguably the moral foundation that Sacks desires to be re-established. Mary Doak argues that one of the many objectives of public theology would be to create a public narrative to help unify communities. She emphasises that in America the national narrative should include religion into the conversation. (Doak, 2004 p.20). This belief is similarly expressed by Sacks and how he wishes for all religious voices to contribute and to be heard in the community to help aid in the recreation of morality.
For Jonathan Sacks, morality provides the best foundation to allow communities and eventually nations to come together; but only though all religions having a voice and participation in the community can this be truly realised. Further secularisation of not only moral language but the removal of religions from the world will only further fragment what has already been broken. (Sacks, 2005 p.97). It is by bringing the faith back into the world can this process be hopefully reversed. Throughout morality, Sacks’ paradox is plainly visible for whilst he wishes for Judaism to be open and impart its moral knowledge onto the rest of society which requires religions to hold a more visible place within societal and political discourse. However, at the same time Sacks emphasises how religions should conserve their traditions in order to preserve and recreate morality.
Religious Pluralism and interfaith dialogue:
To Sacks pluralism is interwoven throughout the Jewish narrative and as such is a crucial part of his discussion. The aim is an open Judaism to help not only other faiths but all of society, which can be achieved through religious co-operation. It can also be understood that Sacks wishes for this emphasis on tolerance also originates from a fear of if nothing is done the voice of extremism will only dominate all religious narratives. (Sacks, 2021 p.4). Without religions working together in a pluralistic way it can be argued that Sacks other important priorities such as morality would not fully be able to come to fruition. This demonstrates Sacks’ desire for an open yet entrenched Judaism. In addition, he wants religions to have a more public face within society and reverse some of the influences of secularism, this can only be done if religions come together and work constructively for the betterment of all people.
One way in which Sacks emphasises his wish for religions to work together was through his initial claim, before controversially having to withdraw such a suggestion, that the diverse faiths found in the world may in fact originate and share the same divine being. In this he questions whether or not the God of the Jewish faith could not only be the same God of the other Abrahamic faiths but also being the God of more diverse faiths such as Hinduism. In the first edition of The Dignity of Difference Sacks suggested that “God has spoken to mankind in many languages: through Judaism to Jews, Christianity to Christians, Islam to Muslims… No one creed has a monopoly on spiritual truth; no one civilisation encompasses all the spiritual, ethical and artistic expressions of mankind … In heaven there is truth; on earth there are truths …” (Cited in Judd 2002). This belief is reinforced with the initial Noahide covenant given to all of humanity by God, in which the seven commandments found within it are very often common features within other faiths. This along with the unknowable nature of God can allow God to have differing covenants with different cultures; showing how Sacks wishes to open Judaism to other people and share the insights of the faith. In addition Sacks is emphasising that all faiths, traditions and commandments deserve to be listened to and respected, which is crucial for successful interfaith dialogue. However Sacks later had to alter his meaning after claims of heresy were levelled against him. As such he had to change the overall idea to instead, suggest that God had created a covenant with all of humanity with the express purpose of allowing differences to be accepted. (Sacks, 2003 p.53). Sacks further expresses this idea by explaining that the “unity of God is found in the diversity of creation.” (Sacks, 2003 p.53). Whilst not being as strong as his initial claim, the belief that all faiths hold a covenantal link to the same God does try to rectify some of the issues facing interfaith dialogue of who’s beliefs and practices are correct. Now all beliefs hold equal merit and can be used to enhance each other’s faiths. By making not only Judaism inclusive but also suggesting that other faiths similarly have the embedded capacity to be pluralistic, Sacks is also saying that religions should by their very nature work together to help improve all communities. All these elements tie into Sacks’ belief in a Judaism that should be engaged with the religions and cultures around them instead of isolating themselves.
Where issues could arise with Sacks claim of God having a covenant with other faiths is that it may question the sacred idea of the Jewish faith holding the responsibility of being God’s chosen people. This sacred belief is connected to the covenant, however if God has therefore made other such agreements with different faiths this may jeopardise the initial covenant with the Jewish people. Whilst the reform tradition holds less of a precedent on the ideal of the chosen people, the more Orthodox side to Judaism still holds this tradition as sacred. However, Sacks argues that the very nature of a covenant is meant to be pluralistic. (Sacks, 1997 p.120). Therefore the role of Judaism is not only to be God’s chosen people but also to spread his teachings to everyone so they may gain insight; which is done by sharing the teachings of the covenant. Through this Sacks shows that whilst he wishes for Judaism to be open, there is still a need for the sanctity of Judaism’s beliefs and not compromising its traditions by watering down the faith. Other thinkers like Cohn-Sherbok would agree with Sacks claim that Judaism should look at other faiths and realise the possibility of other covenants with those traditions. However to Cohn-Sherbok the nature of God totally transcends humanity’s own knowledge and covenantal relationships can never be truly explained. (Noake, 2013 p.28). Cohn-Sherbok would go further and suggest that the idea of the chosen people needs to be revisited. For whilst Sherbok does agree that Judaism has gained great strength from this part of the covenant; the idea that the Jewish faith is believed to hold a sacred right and relationship with God does not take into consideration the complexities of the nature of God. This alongside with how the ideas of the chosen people can be construed to appear that Judaism holds a superiority over other faiths, does not again allow the unknowable nature of God to be found. Cohn Sherbok also argued for Judaism to listen to other religious texts such as the Qur’an or Vedas for although the written and oral traditions of the Jewish faith hold vast knowledge, he would argue that it does not possess the full truth of humankind. (Noake, 2013 p.27). This can enable a more pluralistic approach by seeing the value of each faiths spiritual insights.
Sacks believes that for pluralism to truly work religions need to settle differences and divisions between themselves. One possible solution often encouraged is the concept of face-to-face dialogue. Thinkers such as Hans Kung would express this dialogue through the success of the ‘Parliament of World’s Religions,’ which has the fundamental aim of attempting to cultivate harmony between all spiritual communities. The aim of this parliament is also represented by all faiths allowing them to come together in the same place to champion their religious causes to one another. (Kung & Kuschel, 1993 p.81). This then helps to enact the overarching aim of the parliament to change the world for the better. (Kung & Kuschel, 1993 p.36). However, Sacks would argue whilst this form of co-operation does promote stronger interfaith dialogue, it does not go far enough to help in promoting greater co-existence. In the book The Home We Build Together: Recreating Society, Sacks emphasises his frustration with how face-to-face dialogue is often unsuccessful in achieving a common united front against secular influences so that religion can have a voice in society. Therefore, Sacks believes the best way to enable religions to work more closely together which intern will allow greater harmony between faiths whilst respecting their differences is through a side-to-side approach. He explains it’s a way of expressing that we as a group are facing the same problems and are unable to solve such issues alone, so the best way to fix this is to solve it together. (Yarrow, 2016 p.54). Sacks further explains this with the example of an experiment carried out by Muzafer Sherif titled the Robbers Cave. In the experiment two teams were created and a series of competitions were organised to stoke rivalry. Eventually this got to the point where neither side would talk to the opposite team. The experiment then tried to rectify the division though face-to-face interactions with little success. It was then decided to try a side-to-side approach by placing obstacles that would affect both sides. This eventually managed to resolve the tension and meant that both teams no longer saw each other with hostility. Sacks himself believes that whilst face-to-face discussions had its merits, it can possibly promote an unequal relationship, whereas a side-to-side approach was more effective due to how it promotes an equal relationship and forces groups to come together to deal with a shared threat. (Sacks, 2007 p.176). This type of approach also changes the terminology we use for differing groups; for it is no longer “them and us” rather it simply becomes “us” facing the shared problems. (Sacks, 2007 p.181). This simple change in terminology is to Sacks the key part needed for turning enemies or strangers to friends and allowing pluralism to succeed.
Whilst Sacks does emphasise that Judaism is by its very nature a pluralistic religion; for throughout all of Jewish history Judaism has welcomed other faiths, from Islam to Christianity to eventually Rabbi Menahem ha-Meiri declaring all members of a culture governed by a religion to have equal rights. (Sacks 1997 p.121). Sacks does not want however for the diversities found within faiths to be lost, especially those found within Judaism. To him the greatest way to implement religious pluralism is if one understands and appreciates one’s own faith as it will enable you to appreciate others. (Sacks, 2003 p.209). This to Sacks should be how pluralism operates, by accepting peoples differences whilst ensuring that the sanctity of one’s own faith is ensured. For a threat to this is the melting pot of assimilation and how it can remove the uniqueness of individual cultures. Once again this highlights how Sacks manages to balance two conflicting approaches of how Judaism should act. For whilst it should be open and pluralistic it also needs to hold a strong difference in identity compared to other faiths. Other thinkers such as Bhikhu Parekh would similarly argue that the diversity found in faiths should be found in a pluralistic society. For as he emphasises, the strongest communities are only created if there is diversity within that community. (Parekh, 2000 p.196). However unlike Sacks who is opposed to assimilation, Bhikhu Parekh does believe there is justification in assimilation if the group wishes to do so. He suggests that the way for a multicultural society to succeed relies on several factors; a structure of order to try and promote a peaceful society, the promotion of justice to ensure that citizens have equality which also makes certain that collective rights are preserved. This alongside an overarching culture and national identity for the diverse communities to unite behind whilst having an education system that teaches all about the majorities and minorities history, as a shared collective memory. (Parekh, 2000 p.207-230). The approaches to pluralism of both Sacks and Parekh desire religions and cultures to work together closely while also retaining their unique identities, values and traditions. However unlike Sacks, Bhikhu Parekh arguably holds a more liberal approach to pluralism and does not view assimilation as much of a threat. Sacks realises the dangers that assimilation poses to not only Judaism but the insights it provides. For without the customs of the faith, Judaism will not be able to impart the knowledge needed to better all of society.
It is often thought that pluralism is a secular concept and that religions cannot set aside their differences to help those around them, however Sacks would disagree. To him the dignity of others is in fact a spiritual proposition where the best way to ensure that this carries on is through religion. (Sacks 1997 p.144). Only through strong religious communities with a pluralistic acceptance of all people alongside ensuring the sanctity of their own traditions, can we provide a stronger future for all. Jonathan Sacks belief regarding pluralism also illustrates his desire for an open Judaism. He wishes for the faith to listen to new ideas, accept differing beliefs and intern help by contributing to the world, so long as the foundation of Judaism does not alter. Again reinforcing this paradoxical nature found throughout Sacks’ work and his ability to balance two competing ideals.
The Future of Judaism:
The paradox of Sacks’ work relies on Judaism being simultaneously outward looking and yet inwardly protecting. Whist morality and pluralism arguably reveals how Judaism can be more open in nature, Sacks’ emphasis throughout his beliefs on what the future of Judaism must be highlights the importance of the preservation of the faith. Sacks argues that a strong Judaism is a crucial factor for the success of both morality and pluralism due to the insights the faith brings to these areas. This inwardly looking aspect of Sacks’ understanding is therefore critical throughout his work.
Judaism’s role with humanity for Sacks is not to be isolated but rather has the express purpose from God to impart knowledge onto all of humanity. For as he strongly states throughout his academia “Judaism is not for the Jews alone.” (Sacks, 2010 p.231). Sacks believes it’s foolish to think otherwise due to the Noahide covenant which was given to humanity alongside how all humans are made directly in Gods image. To limit his blessing and teaching onto only his chosen people would be foolish to believe. It is therefore Judaism’s role to spread its knowledge to others and create a better world. As Sacks emphasises “Our uniqueness is our universality, and it is precisely by sharing our uniqueness that we enlarge the heritage of humanity.” (Sacks, 2010 p.252). The ultimate truth, therefore, for Judaism is to inspire others to do great deeds. (Sacks, 2010 p.257). However Sacks asserts without a Jewish faith that keeps not only traditions but the Halakhah intact, the ability for Judaism to bestow its knowledge onto others is lost.
Jonathan Romain and David Mitchell argue that it is not through the preservation of traditions that Judaism can be saved, rather through further liberalisation and accommodation to the modern world. Their belief is that if Jews already interact with society and have accepted liberal values, why shouldn’t Judaism adapt to their beliefs and be in harmony with their values. (Romain, 2020 p.27). They wish for Judaism to become more inclusive by listening to outside influences and it becoming easier to participate for new and old members alike. For example with the Sabbath, they argue the reform tradition has modernised to allow the use of certain electronic equipment in the aid of worship or the use of cars to enable the easier access to the synagogue. They go so far as to say that there is nothing wrong with the use of technology during the Sabbath for recreation purposes such as watching football. (Romain, 2020 p.56). Yet by abandoning aspects of sacred tradition, the slippery slope argument can be made that over generations this will only result in the neglect of such practices. I would argue that rather than preserving the faith, Mitchell’s and Romain’s suggestions for further liberalisation would only accelerate the decline of Judaism. It is a capitulation of what Judaism means, as what makes the distinct identity of Judaism visible compared to other faiths and the secular society would be lost. For what is lost can never truly be recovered; and Judaism would lose its very soul by stripping key aspects or even removing traditions entirely. The insights that Judaism holds originates firmly though these traditions and it has only been through practicing such ceremonies has the knowledge been able to keep going, by abandoning them you are in turn abandoning the moral wisdom they provide.
Anti-Semitism to Sacks is one of the ultimate external threats facing Judaism, which in recent decades has grown in severity. Sacks highlights how this blight has evolved and changed throughout the centuries in order to ensure that it can continue to attack the Jewish people. In this way Sacks uses the metaphor of a mutating virus, continually adapting to ensure its continued survival at any cost. From originally focusing on the Jewish faith, it adapted to focus on the Jewish race once pluralism and religious equality became a mainstream ideal. Today Sacks would argue that it has mutated to focus on Israel and Zionism. (Sacks, 2014 Times). Through this complex issue, anti-Semites have been able to disguise hatred behind genuine criticism for the State of Israel. Sacks would also highlight that anti-Semitism is often an early warning sign for threats to freedom and tolerance. (Sacks, 2017 a). For as the past has shown, hatred for the Jews never simply ends there. But whilst Sacks does see anti-Semitism to be one of the gravest external threats for the future of Judaism, he believes that the divisions internally that have been emerging throughout the Jewish tradition is more problematic. He would argue that the only way anti-Semites have ever come close to destroying Judaism is when the Jewish people have been divided. Twice before have the Jewish people been divided, once following the death of Solomon where the kingdom split in two and between the Maccabean revolt until the destruction of the second temple where the people inside the city were more busy fighting one another than the army at their gates. (Sacks 1994 p.197). To ensure that history does not repeat itself Sacks lists seven areas in which Judaism needs to maintain its identity and avoid a schism of beliefs. I would argue the most crucial of these points are that Judaism needs to keep talking between themselves to resolve internal divisions. Whilst at the same time listening to others; it needs to be realised as Sacks states that “all Jews are responsible for one another” (Sacks 2017 5:39 b). In this Sacks sees Judaism as a collective family and whilst Judaism often doesn’t agree with itself, which is shown through divisions of belief in the Orthodox and Reform tradition, it needs to care for its members. Judaism therefore should not compromise its faith for either anti-Semitism nor modernity but instead protect its traditions, for this is the greatest way to fight both aspects and ensure that Judaism still has a voice in the future to provide the world much needed insight.
Conclusion:
Throughout all of his academia, Rabbi Lord Jonathan Sacks manages to balance two conflicting ideas that on paper would appear to totally be adverse from each other. On one side of this paradox is how Sacks desires an open Judaism that holds the ability to provide insight to all others as well as being able to learn from both other faiths and the secular world. But you also find the desire of Sacks to preserve tradition and keep the faiths beliefs secure. All three areas best highlighted Sacks’ paradox alongside his overarching aim to help society.
In morality Sacks shows the destructive power secularism has caused, especially in regards to the de-moralisation of society. Whether that be through the gradual destruction of social aspects to the rise of the individualist focus. It is the role of Judaism therefore to help re-introduce morality back into society through providing the insight and teachings learnt from the faith. By moving faith back from a private matter to a public discussion with the assistance of the Jewish ideas of the covenant, Sacks emphasises how Judaism can help to provide insight from the faith to all people. Sacks paradox is further illustrated throughout his discussion regarding pluralism which again shows a balance in his academia of an open yet inwardly protecting Judaism. Through his ideas of interfaith dialogue, he explores the belief that the God of Judaism could have made covenants with other faiths, highlighting an open Judaism that holds all faiths with equal respect. However whilst Sacks desires this pluralistic approach he does not want it to compromise the integrity of Judaism and weaken its strong traditions such as the ideas of the chosen people or especially the Halakhah. He also is aware of the encroaching nature of assimilation and the threat it can bring to Judaism’s continuation. Finally, within the future of Judaism Sacks’ more conservative, inwardly protecting nature is visible. With his fears of modernisation and weakening tradition coupled with a growing fracturing nature found within the Jewish faith; further reinforcing Sacks’ belief that Judaism needs to maintain its traditions. For the insights provided by the faith can only be given if the traditions of Judaism are preserved as this is where they originate from. As Sacks emphasised, the two are inseparable from each other and if the beliefs and traditions are lost, so too would be the knowledge held within them.
All of these elements feed into a greater desire of Sacks to help aid society and ensure the divisions that have emerged throughout our way of life are reversed. It is also highlighted how Sacks and this paradox are deeply connected to the wider ideas of public theology. Which aims are to utilise the faiths teachings and apply them practically to aid the community, which Sacks emphasises through his understanding that Judaism’s role in the world stage is to transform the material world to create a home for God. (Sacks, 2005 p.98). This to Sacks is the overarching purpose of Judaism, which is illustrative for how and why he balances between an open yet entrenched faith. Jonathan Sacks strength therefore is his flexibility of understanding whilst not compromising key traditions. His desires are to not only help ensure that Judaism has a future on the world stage but humanity as we know it also has a future. And even after his death, Rabbi Lord Jonathan Sacks’ legacy is one of how the world can live in balance with traditions and new ideas, without compromising either. His teaching should not, nor will be forgotten as his wisdom holds a better future for all of humanity.
Bibliography:
Doak, M (2004). Reclaiming Narrative for Public Theology. State University of New York Press, New York.
Judd, T (2002). Chief Rabbi recants after ‘heresy’ claim. Independent, 27 September 2002. Available from: https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/chief-rabbi-recants-after-heresy-claim-178257.html (Accessed 05/01/2022).
Kim, S (2011). Theology in the Public Sphere. SCM Press, London.
Kim, S (2017). A Companion to: Public Theology. Brill, Boston.
Kung, H & Kuschel, K (1993). A Global Ethic: The Declaration of the Parliament of the World’s Religions. SCM Press LTD, Great Britain.
Mitchell, B (1980). Morality: Religious and Secular. The Dilemma of the Traditional Conscience. Oxford University, New York.
Nietzsche, F (1885). Beyond Good and Evil. Chump Change.
Nietzsche, F (1997). Daybreak: Thoughts on the Prejudices of Morality. Cambridge University Press, United Kingdom.
Noake, R (2013). Religion, Society and God: Public Theology in Action. SCM Press, London.
Parekh, B (2000). Rethinking Multiculturalism: Cultural Diversity and Political Theory. Macmillan Press LTD, London.
Romain, J & Mitchell, D (2020). Inclusive Judaism: The Changing Face of an Ancient Faith. Jessica Kingsley Publishers, London & Philadelphia.
Sacks, J (1990). Tradition In An Untraditional Age: Essays on Modern Jewish Thought. Vallentine, Mitchell & Co, Ltd, Great Britain.
Sacks, J (1993). Law, Morality and the Common Good (Warburton Lecture). Available from: https://rabbisacks.org/law-morality-and-the-common-good-warburton-lecture/ (Accessed 05/01/2022).
Sacks, J (1994). One People?: Tradition, Modernity, and Jewish Unity. The Littman Library of Jewish Civilization, London & Washington.
Sacks, J (1997). Faith in the Future: The Ecology of Hope and Restoration of Family, Community and Faiths. Mercer University Press, USA.
Sacks, J (2000). Radical Then, Radical Now: On being Jewish. Bloomsbury, London.
Sacks, J (2003). The Dignity of Difference: How to Avoid a Clash of Civilizations. Bloomsbury, London & New York.
Sacks, J (2005). The Persistence of Faith: Religion, Morality and Society in a Secular Age. Bloomsbury, London & New York.
Sacks, J (2007). The Home We Build Together: Recreating Society. Bloomsbury, London & New York.
Sacks, J (2010). Future Tense: A Vision for Jews and Judaism in the Global Culture. Hodder, Unites Kingdom.
Sacks, J (2014). The hate that starts with Jews never ends there. The Times, 16 August 2014. Available from: https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/the-hate-that-starts-with-jews-never-ends-there-7pcf8rm8p9v (Accessed 05/01/2022).
Sacks, J (2017 a). The Mutation of Antisemitism. Available from https://rabbisacks.org/the-mutation-of-antisemitism/ (Accessed 05/01/2022).
Sacks, J (2017 b). Seven Principles for Maintaining Jewish Peoplehood.25 July 2017, Available from: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iABRa9h8vC0 (Accessed 05/01/2022).
Sacks, J (2018). Morality matters more than ever in a world divided by fear and faithlessness. Available from: https://rabbisacks.org/morality-matters-ever-world-divided-fear-faithlessness/ (Accessed 05/01/2022).
Sacks, J (2020). Morality: Restoring the Common Good in Divided times. Hodder & Stoughton, London.
Sacks, J (2021). The Power of Ideas: Words of Faith and Wisdom. Hodder & Stoughton, United Kingdom.
Williams, R (2012). Faith in the Public Square. Bloomsbury, London.
Yarrow, R (2016). Reconciling Religions Role in the West: An Interview with Rabbi Lord Jonathan Sacks. Harvard International Review.