Today, together with a few others from College, I went to hear the chief Rabbi of the UK and Australia, Lord Jonathan Sacks. He addressed the topic of religious plurality. He’s an engaging speaker and had some intriguing exegetical suggestions, some insightful comments on society, and a controversial approach to pluralism. Here’s a window into each:
Exegesis
Noticing that the confusion of language at Babel (Gen 11) occurs after God has already divided people into different language groups (Gen 10), he sees the story as affirming God’s desire for diversity, rather than domination. This view is not entirely new to me – I know that my dad (a linguist!) views Genesis 11 as being God’s liberating response to monolingual dominance.
Society
Chief Rabbi Sacks reflected that the most abominable abuses of human liberty in the twentieth century happened in the centres of the so-called enlightenment – Berlin, Paris, etc. He suggested that the twenty-first century will undoubtedly be more religious than the twentieth.
Pluralism
He rightly argued that the God of the Bible stamps his image onto each person in a unique way – and that the God of the Scriptures enjoys and approves of biological and cultural diversity. So far so good – great in fact! But then he went from here to make two logical leaps: 1) Such a God approves of soteriological diversity – that people can be saved through a variety of faiths; 2) Therefore – because God approves of different means of coming to him – those of us of different faiths can embrace each other in ties of friendship that cross boundaries.
I have a problem with both of these leaps: 1) Why would God’s approval of biological and cultural diversity lead us to think he approves of soteriological diversity? This is far from obvious. 2) Why do we need to believe in a pluralistic soteriology in order to embrace others in ties of friendship that cross boundaries? I find the very idea somewhat patronising – as though I can only be expected to love people who, deep down, are really the same as me. That’s not the message of the Good Samaritan.
Disappointingly, Rabbi Sacks was at his most passionate at the end of the lecture when he insisted that those who deny such a pluralistic understanding of God are fanatics and fundamentalists, and should be opposed with as much passion as can be mustered. Despite enjoying much of his lecture, then, I was left with a bad taste in my mouth – the intolerance of pluralism.
