Volume 67, Issue 8

Embracing Differences Between Faiths
In his recipe for peaceful coexistence,
Rabbi Jonathan Sacks stirs up controversy
by Jamie S. Hirsch

The Dignity of Difference: How to Avoid the Clash of Civilizations
By Jonathan Sacks
Continuum Books, 2002
Hardcover; $19.95; 216 Pages

In his 1996 book, “The Clash of Civilizations and the Remaking of World Order,” Samuel Huntington argues, “World politics is being reconfigured along cultural and civilizational lines.  In this world the most pervasive, important and dangerous conflicts will [be]… between peoples belonging to different cultural entities.”  Prior to September 11, 2001, popular sentiment favored Francis Fukuyama’s theory that we are approaching the end of global conflicts due to a worldwide trend towards liberal democratic capitalism.  When once unimaginable terrorist attacks shocked the United States, Huntington became a prophetic genius.

With September 11 in mind, Rabbi Dr. Jonathan Sacks’ “The Dignity of Difference” lays the groundwork for avoiding Huntington’s prediction.  The clash of civilizations can be prevented, writes Sacks, the Chief Rabbi of the United Hebrew Congregations of Britain and the Commonwealth, but “we need nothing less than a paradigm shift in our understanding of our commonalities and differences.”

Ideas and phrases that once adequately described societies – for instance, Horace Kallen’s “cultural pluralism” – are not sufficient in today’s age of globalization.  Rather than celebrate diversity and difference, these antiquated expressions merely recognize its existence.  Indeed, part of this paradigm shift should, according to Sacks, result in a greater appreciation for those unlike us.

In advocating a new form of coexistence and understanding Sacks seemingly accepts a pluralistic ideology, sparking major controversy.  The proof of his arguments aside, the effect of his position resulted in the alienation of many readers, specifically in the Orthodox Jewish community.  While his assertion that “God is God of all humanity, but no single faith is or should be the faith of all humanity” jives with Jewish ideology, Sacks makes several other statements that, coming from an Orthodox rabbi, are especially surprising.

“There is a difference between God and religion… Religion is the translation of God into a particular language… In the course of history, 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.”  This statement ostensibly equates all religions, an idea that mainstream Judaism rejects because it implies that Judaism does not encompass the entire truth.  Sacks writes, “[God] is only partially comprehended by any faith,” and therefore, we must converse with and learn from members of all faiths.  Truth on Earth is fragmented, and “each person, culture and language has part of it; none has it all.”

I found myself stunned by Sacks’ assertions of a fragmented truth.  We, as members of one religion, can learn to respect other faiths and cultures, even if we don’t believe they are correct.  Granted that Sacks ambitiously targets this book towards all faiths – perhaps these statements might constitute an attempt to attain legitimacy from that audience.  But it might be too ambitious; though I tried to appreciate his contention of equality between faiths, I couldn’t bring myself to accept such a radical proposition on ideological grounds.

It’s a shame that so much attention has focused on this single idea, as it overshadows many more important and provocative concepts.  These few revolutionary sentences undercut the work’s chief objective.  Sacks would have been better off leaving the controversy out, thereby enlarging the book’s influence.

Due to the backlash regarding these passages, the Chief Rabbi’s office issued several press releases attempting to assuage the critics.  “Nothing I have written should be taken as implying… that all religions are equally true,” explained Sacks.  A subsequent press release said that the second addition will “reformulat[e] the phrases and passages that have been misunderstood.”  It will certainly be interesting to see what clarifications he makes in his upcoming edition and how that affects his overall message, though the central idea will likely go unscathed.

Arguing for an ethical approach to worldwide economics, Sacks explains that although integral to society, civilization cannot rely on globalization, capitalism, and freedom without morals.  In fact, while economic and political superpowers come and go, Sacks explains that the major world religions – Christianity, Islam, and Judaism – have survived thousands of years because “they remind us that civilizations survive… by how they respond” to the powerless, the poor, and the needy, thereby maximizing human dignity.  Indeed, religion’s popularity has soared precisely because globalization brings with it destabilization, and religion’s stability combats this anxiety by answering questions of why? in an age of uncertainty.

Globalization and an open market economy, according to many, have proven to be the best means of acquiring the overall good of the world while countering the “human instinct to fight.”  Market economies survive because they promote free society while ensuring human dignity.  In fact, Sacks asserts, “Market exchange is the supreme embodiment of the idea of the dignity of difference.”  By virtue of our deficiencies, we rely on others; because we are different, people possess what we lack and vice versa.  Through this interdependence and need for trade, markets not only survive but flourish.

When left to its own volition, the market, though efficient, is not equitable.  Problems of inequality arise, as evidenced by the profusion of poverty, sickness, and illiteracy that pervade all corners of the world.  According to Sacks, the remedy lies in what he calls the six Cs – control, contribution, creativity, cooperation, compassion, and conservatism – which all lead to “a new global covenant of human solidarity.”

Buttressing his six Cs with a plethora of proofs from the Bible, as well as the writings of Aristotle, Rabbi Samson Raphael Hirsch, and Adam Smith, among others, Sacks makes a convincing argument for a moral and equitable world.  However, I find it ironic that he begins his book promoting equality between faiths, whereas many of his six Cs vaunt the supremacy of a Judaic society.  For example, Sacks says that in order to create an evenhanded society we must abolish poverty.  How does he suggest we do that?  By adopting tzedakah.  How about eliminating illiteracy?  Sacks proposes that we look toward the superior model of Jewish education.

It’s almost as if Sacks is saying that all faiths, cultures, and religions are equal, but Judaism is better.  While I believe that Judaism’s forms of justice and morality are ideal, the intent of this book – and its basis – is equality among all faiths and cultures, and this inconsistency detracts from the book’s intended message while questioning its premise.

Throughout history social injustices have been an undeniable fact.  Today, however, our moral obligations spread to the world at large.  What once “applied socially, today applies globally... The scope of our interconnectedness defines the radius of our responsibility and concern.”  Using religious values, we can collectively create a “vision of human solidarity,” a moral, fair, and decent world.

But, religion’s power works both ways.  If all faiths acknowledge and allow for difference, religion can become a delegate for peace and fairness.  Conversely, “Until the great faiths not merely tolerate but find positive value in the diversity of the human condition, we will have wars, and their cost in human lives will continue to rise.”  Although all religions theoretically advocate peace, each culture or religion currently maintains that it must be “peace on our terms.”  In order to combat this mindset, Sacks explains that public morality is constructed through conversation – communicating and listening.

Towards the end of the book, and on the back cover, Sacks makes a statement that adequately sums up his overall objective: “The duty I owe my ancestors who died because of their faith is to build a world in which people no longer die because of their faith.”  Regardless of who’s right and who’s wrong, we make do with what’s served to us.  The world is diverse and we must respect and embrace the differences between us, because the fate of the twenty-first century may very well rely on it.  “The opportunities posed by global capitalism and the power of technology are vast and potentially benign… The risks, however, are immense.”

Its ambiguous theological statements aside, this short book is a relatively quick read, written in a refreshingly simple and clear fashion.  Although I was somewhat disappointed by several inconsistencies and some unpersuasive arguments, “The Dignity of Difference” is worth reading.  If nothing else, it will open readers’ eyes to a peaceful global vision and a future of coexistence in an otherwise unruly and chaotic world.

What do you think? Click here to send a letter to the editors.
All content is copyright © Yeshiva University Commentator.