It is not often in this day and age that a religious leader profoundly shapes thought especially one from a faith which represents 0.2% of the world’s population. Rabbi Lord Jonathan Sacks was an acknowledged giant intellect having won the Templeton Prize in 2016 joining the elite company of Mother Theresa and the Dalai Lama. Even then other than the latter two and the Pope, few if any religious heads are known outside their own country. His passing this week drew eulogies from every walk of life including Britain’s Price Charles who stated unequivocally “…that the entire world had lost a leader whose wisdom, scholarship and humanity were without equal”.
Sacks wrote in two genres - one where he would interpret, often in a revolutionary manner, the text and subtext of the Hebrew Bible to convey the underlying message and the other where the content broadly related to the current status of secular society, his objective being to address a wider audience. Jay H. Ell will attempt to provide examples of both. The Rabbi was engaged in the world around him and believed that climate change was the central challenge to the future as well the current turmoil that had resulted in populism. He feared the extremist demagogue populists maintaining that those on the right promised a past that never was and those on the left a utopia that could never be. His final book entitled Morality - Restoring the Common Good in Dividing Times (an Amazon best seller) — was written predominantly for a secular audience and provided his analysis of the crisis the world faced today and as always a hopeful solution. (Sacks made a point of distinguishing between hope and optimism. The latter reflecting that positive change would just happen while the former aspired to improvement but required a concerted effort by mankind).
Sacks attempted to weave what he saw as the morality in religion, with liberal democracy and free markets. He had a great love for his native country where he was head of the Orthodox Rabbinate for over two decades and the United States of America whose constitutional government he greatly admired. After his retirement he spent prolonged periods in America as a visiting Professor.
BRIEF BIOGRAPHY
Besides an exceptional analytic, interpretive, and integrative mind, an ability to make complex subjects appear simple and possessing oratorial skills, it was Sack’s background and broad education that made his contributions unique to a wide audience both within the Jewish faith and society as a whole. His pre University education was conducted in Anglican Schools and his subsequent learning at Christ’s College Cambridge, King’s College London and finally at Yeshiva. He received his Ph. D. in philosophy wryly remarking that all his teachers were atheists. Besides an encyclopedic knowledge of everything pertaining to the Jewish religion, his vast experience included literature of all religions, economics, (his initial choice of vocation was to be an accountant), politics, history, sociology, science generally and on and on. His decision to finally study for the rabbinate and then teach while holding a pulpit was as a result of the transformative influence of the Lubavitcher Rebbe in New York who taught him that good leaders lead while great leaders create leaders.
Ascending to the post of Chief Orthodox Rabbi of the UK and Commonwealth at the age of forty - two elevated him to rock star status. Coming not via the traditional route from a long list of learned Rabbis and not having been steeped in religious study till he was in his third decade of age made him an outsider from day one. This drawback made Sacks at times controversial. What clashes he was involved in were not with the outside world and other religions but within the Jewish Religious Hierarchies themselves.
In the final analysis Rabbi Jonathan Sacks, who died at the age of seventy - two, was predominantly known among theologians, academics of multiple disciplines, philosophers, journalists, authors, students and those of religious faith through out the world. In the UK his regular BBC radio broadcasts, newspaper articles and popularity of books made him more of a public figure than elsewhere although in the United States through TED interviews, (millions of hits), and other media exposure his personage was known to a slightly wider audience. Notwithstanding the aforementioned, Sacks was a giant and the list of dignitaries paying tribute to his distinguished life in the UK include Prince Charles, British Prime Ministers including the current incumbent and leaders of all the other faiths. In America numerous obituaries were published including in the New York Times and The Washington Post.
SACKS’ CREDO
Rabbi Sack’s positions evolved over the years which was in sync with his paradigm of creation. Central to his belief system was obviously the Hebrew Bible, (Old Testament) - the key component being the Torah or Five Books of Moses but none of this was divorced from the world around it. It had to be understood and relevant n the here and now. He believed that the Hebrew Bible, (HB), had been written for the era it purported to represent. From the word go it was immediately modified through what was known as the Oral Torah and then reinterpreted at every turn through the Talmud to this day. In addition he viewed even the original HB as “progressive”. For example he pointed out that the slave was apportioned with rights in the HB a concept foreign to civilization in that era. He/she was not to work on the Sabbath and after seven years should be released, for example. When challenged as to why slavery wasn’t abolished all together the Rabbinic response was that that injunction would never been accepted as slavery was so entrenched in the system. Sacks pointed out it took millennia to achieve that objective.
It was in that evolutionary context that he integrated all knowledge into his world view. When challenged in a debate by atheist Richard Dawkins as to how he decided when and what was a miracle, he replied that the moment science provided proof or an explanation of how an event had occurred he knew the texts had to be reread and their meaning updated. He saw no dichotomy between science and religion - the former pulled the universe apart to explain how it worked while the latter detailed the purpose.
This is what he continued to do till his dying day. He will rank with the Jewish sages such as Maimonides. As a philosopher he will up there with the proponents of the Enlightenment.
ALL MEN WERE BORN EQUAL AND NO RELIGION IS BARRED FROM SALVATION
Sack’s interpretation of the fact that all men of all religious persuasions were born equal was derived from early on in Genesis, on the basis that all men were created in G-d’s image. This conclusion resulted in an attempt to try for him heresy by a group of fundamentalist clerics who believed that Jews were the ones chosen by G-d. While all this may seem trite his statement had enormous ramifications for the over four billion people that are still religiously affiliated. The upshot of all of this was that there were several equal pathways to G-d via the various religions. In fact each religion was entitled to its own interpretation. This did not alter the fact he understood that the Jews had received a separate Covenant and were answerable to G-d in their own unique way.
His thesis had tremendous impact among the lay public. Initially it was detailed in “The Dignity of Difference" and subsequently developed in his best seller “Not in God’s Name”. Sacks was in the forefront of interfaith co operation both in the UK and the World. The message was that we all may have different religions which we may adhere too but should join together in the brotherhood of man. Sack’s was more than aware of the growing number who registered that they had no religion whom he regarded as secular humanists. He believed they should be joined by the religionists in the endeavor for justice, reduction of poverty and equality.
JUSTICE FOR ALL
In his writings he emphasized again and again the “love of the stranger”. he quoted Moses who reminded the wandering Jews that should have this insight as “they were strangers in Egypt”. He stated that in one form or another that that sentiment was expressed in the Torah more than thirty five times while “Love thy neighbor as thyself” only appeared twice. He mentioned that Moses intervened physically for what was injustice in three distinct situations - between Egyptian slave master and Hebrew, between Hebrew and Hebrew and between non Hebrew and non Hebrew. Justice was universal. It is interesting to note that Francis Fukuyama, the renowned political scientist, argues that the rule of law which is a crucial component of liberal democracy was derived from religion.
Sacks in discussing the three types of authority that were evident in the Hebrew Bible referred to the Priestly which was akin to the strict interpretation of the law, (comparative to philosopher Kant’s approach), the throne which he likened as to decision making on the basis of wisdom to make the most people happy, (subsequently the basis of another Enlightenment philosopher Bentham) and finally the prophetic where truth was spoken to power, (David Hume). While the philosopher - rabbi saw the necessity of all three types of governance he obviously favored the prophetic. He referred often to challenges to G-d in the Hebrew Bible starting with Abraham, “Will you sweep away the righteous with the wicked……Will the Judge of earth not do right”, and referred to Moses’s defiance on crucial occasions and Job and Jeremiah.
The tradition of justice and equality has been handed down through out the millennia and Sacks claims that there were a disproportionate number of Jews in the anti apartheid and civil rights struggles, for example, for a reason.
There are many attributes such as the importance of education, questioning especially by children, community responsibility, the centrality of the family, charity and welfare that Sack’s delves deeply into their HB origins in his writings, all of which are the characteristics that define judaic law, culture and behavior.
THE AMERICAN DECLARATION OF INDEPENDENCE AND CONSTITUTION
The historian in the Rabbi noted the first few sentences in the Declaration of Independence, “We hold these truths to be self - evident , that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these were Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.” Sacks immediately points out that nowhere previously were these truths “self evident”. Plato and Aristotle had a hierarchy of mankind. No other constitution had enshrined the rights to “We the People” It didn’t bother the Rabbi that this was all aspirational as so was the HB. It took till 1919 for that aspiration of full citizenry to be fulfilled in the United States and to this day the issue is still being fought over. He saw in the American value system the influence of the HB both in the equality of all as well as the progression to that goal. Also the official separation of State and Church was in sync with his view that religion should “Render unto Caesar’s the things that are Caesar’s, and unto God the things that are God’s”.
SIBLING RIVALRY, ITS RESOLUTION AND ITS RELATIONSHIP TO INTER RELIGIOUS RIVALRY.
Sacks argued with Freud that the prime driving unconscious conflict in humanity was Oedipal. In fact he maintained that Freud had in his later less well known writings accepted it was sibling rivalry. As he had done in so many analyses of the texts and subtexts of the Torah he traced the evolution of the appropriate resolution of sibling rivalry. Starting with Cain and Abel it was settled by murder. Isaac and Ishmael appeared together at Abraham’s funeral, Jacob and Esau kissed, made up and went their separate ways. Joseph forgave his brothers who had repented. Finally Moses, Miriam and Aaron proved that relationships could be selfless, cooperative, complimentary and without rivalry or rancor.
He used this model to explain the destructive millennial old conflict between the three major monotheistic religions that contested as to which one was the true descendent of Abrahamic monotheism. With regard to Christianity he referenced Paul’s Letter to the Galatians, where Paul admonishes those Christians who in effect wished to continue Jewish imperatives such as the Sabbath and male circumcision. He believed that Judaism had been usurped and replaced by the “younger” Christianity. Paul maintained that the father of Judaism was Ishmael son of Hagar. The Muslim religion saw Ishmael as Abraham’s first born and hereditor of the mantle of the monotheistic religion. The Koran adopted large parts of the Torah, regarded both Moses and Jesus as prophets but believed that the Torah had wrongly named Isaac as Abraham’s successor rather than Ishmael.
Sacks hailed the breakthrough in the 1960’s by Pope John Paul XXIII who outlawed the labelling of Jews as perfidius. The pontiff was responsible for several initiatives at reconciliation asking for forgiveness for the Church’s anti semitism through the ages. Notably the changes in relationships to all religions followed in Vatican II in a document entitled Nostrae Aetate. The latter included the statement that the crucification cannot be blamed on Jews as a whole and certainly none of those today. Relationships have improved since each successive Pope. Particularly the current Pontiff is outspoken about the new wave of anti semitism that has been evidenced this past decade.
Sacks was invited to lecture in the Vatican. In 2010 at a meeting with Pope Benedict he outlined the shared vision of the two faiths, “In the face of a deeply individualistic culture we offer a shared community. Against consumerism we offer things that have value not price,..In the face of fragmenting families we believe in consecrating relationships.
ANTI SEMITISM ITS RATIONALE AND ITS EVOLVING GENESIS
The fact that anti semitism was emerging “within living memory of the holocaust” deeply distressed Lord Sacks who made historic addresses to the House of Lords and the European Parliament on the subject. Sacks reflected that this had occurred in a circumstance where Europe had gone to inordinate lengths to wipe out the scourge. He warned that anti semitism is not about Jews but rather about anti semites - if circumstances are bad, a people can either look to see what they had done wrong or how could they could correct course or seek a scapegoat. Invariably if they did the latter the jews were to blame. He further reflected that what begins with anti semitism never ends with anti semitism alone.
Sack’s theory as to why anti semitism persisted through the ages was that it mutated like a virus depending on the dominant belief system at the time. From time immemorial to late into the eighteenth century it was based on religion - Jews did not believe in Christianity and killed Christ. At least then there could be salvation via conversion. Then the argument turned to race - the Jews were an inferior race who schemed to takeover the world through capitalism and communism. The theory was based on Social Darwinism. Most recently the cleric offered that the discrimination arises out of the fact that the State of Israel exists. He has no beef with those argue with Israeli politics but rather with those that believe that it should not exist at all. Their alleged crime is that it is threat to world peace in that it is an apartheid state, commits humanitarian crimes even genocide. These allegations are a regular feature of the United Nations.
The outgoing Secretary General of the UNO put down as the main cause of the International body’s impotence was its obsession with Israel. The “bias” against Israel had, for example, lead in a six year period to the passage of two hundred and twenty three resolutions against Israel and six against Syria. In this climate murder is perpetrated by Islamist terrorists of Jews who have nothing to do with Israel such as in a kosher butcher shop in Paris while white supremacists still using the old canard that Jews are inferior and wish to take over the world can slaughter thirteen worshippers in a Pittsburgh synagogue.
CRITICISM OF SACK’S POLITICAL AND SOCIAL POSITIONS
Within the Jewish Community as might be expected Sacks was criticized for being too liberal by some of the Haredi establishment and even threatened once with being charged as a heretic for his position on other religions. The Chief Rabbi stuck to his guns altering his phraseology slightly but not his contentions. Then there was a bohaai when he did not attend the funeral of a Chief Rabbi of the Reform Congregation. The deceased’s widow cleared up the controversy when she stated that Rabbi Sack’s had not offended her at all and there was never any rift. The latter incident resulted in Sack’s negotiating a closer relationship between the various Jewish sects who would appear on the same platform on communal issues but not necessarily where religious services were involved.
Sack’s refusal to take party political positions evoked much anger by protagonists of various viewpoints who maintained they simply just flowed from his stated positions. For example his failure to take sides in Israeli politics when he had advocated a two state solution. He had been a close friend and supporter of Rabin so why was he not criticizing Bibi Netanyahu and the creation of settlements?. He was steadfast in his refusal stating that he belonged to organizations that promoted peace and he had contact with like minded Palestinians. His overall rationale was that men of the cloth should provide influence rather than become involved in power.
Lastly as the social revolution evolved the Chief Rabbi became more and more confronted particularly on the role of women in religious activities and same sex unions. At one particular forum Sacks begged off the issue of female participation in orthodox religion reminding the questioner that he was also Head of the Beth Din which was responsible for maintaining strict law. He has laid great emphasis on the role of the woman in the Hebrew Bible pointing out that the first recorded civil disobedience was effected by women. First and foremost was Pharaoh’s daughter, who in spite of her father’s edict, knowingly adopted a Hebrew boy, the two midwives who disobeyed Pharaoh’s decree to kill all Hebrew boys, Miriam for risking her life standing over Moses and finally Moses’s mother, Jochebed, for having the guts to have a child under those circumstances. He argued that the some of the most influential prophets had been women. His written position on same sex unions appeared to soften in answer to a questioner not long before his sudden passing. There he stated, akin to the Pope, “Who am I to decide what constitutes a family?”.
MORALITY - RESTORING THE COMMON GOOD IN DIVIDED TIMES
The essential gist of Sack’s final book was that the obsession with “I” as opposed to the “We” in the modern world is at root of our problems. There is an abandonment of the common good. He argues that individualism has gone overboard since the sixties with the modern icon now being the selfie. Personal greed has accelerated with the free market policies introduced by Thatcher and Reagan in the eighties going out of control. Put another way liberal democracy, which is under siege and free markets which are merciless, give choices but don’t guide us on how to choose. The latter factors together with growing inequality have given rise to “populism” as manifested in several countries and in the UK as BREXIT. He labels all these woes including rising suicide rates and drug overdoses as “Cultural Climate Change” and details the features that make it up. He notes that this type of societal convulsion is associated with media revolutions such as had been with the printing press and now the internet.
The solution to all of this is a common morality which he believes lies in a commitment to one another on every level. This can be achieved by society once again making a commitment to care for all and a return to the family as the central unit of society. Needless to say his salvation is the binding capacity of religion and its commitment to the “neighbor” and the “stranger”. However he welcomes what he calls the secular humanists in this struggle.
A common thread through all his writings was the difference between a contract and a covenant. The former involved an exchange which was dependent on each side fulfilling their commitment - for example the exchange of payment for service or goods or politically as with Hobbes where citizens swopped liberty for protection and safety. A covenant was more than a contract it involved trust and faith by both sides. The covenant required loyalty, steadfastness and not walking away when the going got rough. For example a marriage involves trust and growth. In political and societal terms a covenant implies care for others in the community. In religion he likened the relationship between God and the people as one between bride and groom.
While many will not agree with his analyses and interpretations they will be ad idem with his objective - the common good. He promised other insights via books but that was not to be……
AT THE END OF THE DAY
Rabbi Sack’s youngest daughter in her eulogy “—- I was not ready for this…..”.
No comments:
Post a Comment