Fall 2023 · Vol. 52 No. 2 · pp. 147–158
Can Christians Who Disagree about Homosexuality Still Get Along? What We Can Learn from the Inclusivism of Rabbi Jonathan Sacks
What do you do when changes in culture make an outsider of you? You find, for example, that expressing a view of marriage which yesterday was universally affirmed can get you fired and denounced for bigotry. Well, nobody likes to be expelled or shunned. You may decide that it is not very important what marriage is, so why speak up? Or, you may change your mind: the new understanding is correct and the one you had held is wrong. Or, you may condemn the people promoting the new view. This essay suggests another response. You can condemn bad ideologies but not the people holding them. Rabbi Sacks shows how.
I am recommending that everyone adopt inclusivism to avoid othering Christians who decide differently.
For centuries, says Oliver O’Donovan, Anglicanism negotiated internal disagreements within the liberal paradigm according to which doctrine divides but ethics unites. Stubborn opposition was synthesized within a p. 148 central, undogmatic stream of opinion. This paradigm has failed in present disputes over blessing same-sex marriage and ordaining persons in active homosexual relationships. 1
The importance of a disagreement is not determined by the matter itself, but how it stands in relation to wider agreements and disagreements. We must take seriously that homosexuality has become a dividing issue in the church today. 2 O’Donovan identifies two New Testament positions. First, we are never justified in breaking communion within the church of Jesus Christ, for schism is sin. But communion requires fundamental agreement in the gospel, so any disagreement is potentially communion breaking. 3
At the time O’Donovan published these thoughts in 2009, I was participating in a monthly potluck and hymn sing which drew Mennonite, Brethren, Quaker, and other participants, including from Yale Divinity School and the Overseas Ministries Study Center. Most of us attended Sunday morning worship services in various denominations (Mennonites being rare in New England).
Our gatherings eventually ceased due to retirements or deaths, and because we ran out of returning students to recruit new ones. Among our last students was a punished Mennonite pastor in a same-sex marriage who was training for Unitarian ordination. In recent years he served another Mennonite congregation and was on the denominational advisory group that repudiated membership guidelines.
Meanwhile same-sex marriage became law in America, and I left an American Baptist Church congregation for one in the Evangelical Presbyterian Church (which had exited Presbyterian Church USA).
Actions from one side offend consciences on the other. When the liberal side obtains power, it cannot extend forbearance to the conservative side on what it sees as a justice issue. As I write (October 2023), leaders in the Anglican Communion’s Global South have declared the Archbishop of Canterbury unfit to head it. United Methodists are choosing whether to affiliate with the LGBT-affirming or with non-affirming bodies created from their split. Congregations and districts of Mennonite Church USA are deciding whether to stay or leave after delegates voted to drop guidance that defined marriage as between a man and woman, claiming the definition was causing harm to gay people. While all schisms of God’s people are lamentable, those that are presently unfolding evoke more emotion than the separations of centuries earlier, which seem to have a givenness and permanence to them.
The fall 2022 issue of Direction explored issues arising from the Mennonite Brethren Confession of Faith. Some pastors take the Confession as descriptive of what MBs presently believe; others, as prescriptive of what they should all believe. Lynn Jost advocated description and p. 149 belonging, rather than prescription, which he connected with excluding and “othering.” He called for replacing the Confession of Faith with a simple, centered-set identity. 4 Lee Kosa looked to the Jerusalem Council’s admission of Gentiles as a model for Mennonite Brethren today. Believing that Paul had renegotiated the Apostolic Decree, Kosa called on MBs to renegotiate their identities. 5 I have elsewhere made analogies from the Apostolic Decree to welcoming LGBTQ+ people; I think Paul supported the Decree. 6
The late Jonathan Sacks, Chief Rabbi of the United Hebrew Congregations of the Commonwealth from 1991 to 2013 and recipient of many academic honors, examined the history of modernity’s threat to Jewish unity. He proposed a response of Jewish inclusivism, which includes all Jews but not non-Orthodox Judaisms. 7 The orthodox Christian who adopts an inclusivist posture would maintain a precarious unity with Christian revisionists by affirming them but disaffirming some of what they consider their deepest convictions.
Sacks’s account illumines the challenges facing churches that disaffirm same-sex sexual behavior, churches that were until recently united with churches now affirming that behavior. Sacks’s account of both Jewish history and contemporary church schisms involve revisionist moves that the orthodox consider departures from the faith. 8 Both revisionist and orthodox respond to modernity’s pervasive effects. The rabbi’s strong sense of Jewish unity can be appropriated in the church through what George Lindbeck termed an Israel-like identity without supersessionism. 9 Sacks’s urging that Christians and Jews contribute to the common good in modern secular culture models how orthodox Christians can relate both to separated Christian revisionists and secular culture.
The degree of separation required to maintain fidelity to one’s beliefs will vary with the situation. I use religion as an example of inclusivism with separation at the congregational or denominational level and politics as an example of inclusivism with possible separation into parties but not self-exile from one’s native land. I presume, as did Rabbi Sacks, the possibility of a common patriotism among citizens. I am not advocating that anyone among the Canadian Mennonite Brethren leave their congregation or denomination. I am recommending that everyone adopt inclusivism to avoid othering Christians who decide differently.
THE RESPONSE OF JUDAISM TO MODERNITY
Entering the eighteenth century, the majority of Jewry had lived for generations in Christian or Islamic cultures. Jewish unity was ensured by external constraints and internally by rabbinic law and tradition. Tradition p. 150 held that God, Israel, and the Torah are one. But European emancipation challenged Jewish belief and practice intellectually, socially, and politically.
The disintegration of Jewish peoplehood and the ideological fault lines of the nineteenth century haunt the present. Aspirations for freedom, equality, and integration in the Diaspora, and Jewish sovereignty in the land of Israel have come to pass. Yet the same questions are asked today and receive the same conflicting answers. Key words remain, but the meanings attached to them differ systematically from group to group in the Jewish world. Since emancipation, there is no common Jewish consciousness for any Jewish experience to be integrated into. There is no common understanding of the meaning of the Holocaust, the State of Israel, or Jewish peoplehood. Famously, the State of Israel’s Declaration of Independence used ambiguous phrases to bridge the gap between religious and secular beliefs. Reliance on the “Rock of Israel” could be understood as trust in God, the Jewish people, or the military.
Both tradition and modernity have adequate means of managing conflict, but they systematically exclude one other. This makes the pursuit of unity inherently divisive. Sacks rejected the non-religious foundations of unity in territory, politics, ethnicity, and culture that have been proposed since emancipation. But since Jewish unity is an inherently religious idea, it is a perennial possibility. 10
Modernity is associated with urbanization, individualism, and secularity. Sacks classed Reform Judaism, Conservative Judaism, and Jewish Reconstructionism as religious movements for accommodation, although recognizing they are also strategies for preserving the Jewish people without accepting the totality of Jewish law. Orthodox Judaism accepts traditional religious law as binding, but splinters over how much to accommodate to secular culture.
Orthodoxy is a language in which an infinite number of sentences are possible. The logic of Orthodox flexibility has been to preserve the covenant in situations where some of its major institutions had been destroyed. Some aspects of modern consciousness were unacceptable. Orthodox Judaism objected to Reform Judaism’s abandonment of the binding authority of Halakhah (Jewish law), Conservative Judaism’s historicization of the halakhic process, and Reconstructionism’s removal of the category of revelation. Sacks considered each a secularization of the concept of covenant. 11
In England and France, Reform never became an appreciable phenomenon in the Jewish community. In Germany and Austria-Hungary, by contrast, it did. In principle, Orthodox leaders of the nineteenth century preferred communal unity and abandoned it only when, for example, forced to support Reform schools. Moses Mendelssohn argued in 1783 p. 151 for the freedom of religious conscience. His critics, rabbis Moses Sofer and Samson Rafael Hirsch, later repurposed his argument to support their secession from Reform Judaism. Though they had differed between themselves about Zionism and secular culture, their movements began to converge in attitudes. However, separatist groups find it difficult to agree on joint action. In the modern situation, the price of intensity is disunity. Secularity presses toward the sect as the vehicle of religious continuity.
The realm of Jewish law where unity of practice is necessary to sustain the unity of the Jewish people is Halakhah. Matters where uniformity is not necessary for the unity of the Jewish people comprise Aggadah. In law, the accepted ruling displaces others in a time and place; in Aggadah, multiple conflicting interpretations coexist, and one view does not displace others. Aggadic pluralism does not mean that its subjects are unimportant.
Secularization destroys tradition as a source of authority, replacing it with the individual. In the search for lost structures, some Orthodox Jews gave their rabbi prophet-like authority to announce the divine will in matters which were not traditionally considered Halakhah, such as what political party to support. Sacks considered this contrary to aggadic pluralism.
Where Halakhah governed the behavior of all Jews, a new practice could not be imposed unless the majority of Jews could observe it. Communal norms aimed at moderation, while extreme piety was permitted to an individual if it did not weaken the communal norm. But with widespread modern abandonment of Halakhah by non-Orthodox and secular Jews, some rabbis making legal decisions (poskim) began considering only what the faithful remnant could observe. Individuals and poskim might prefer the most stringent halakhic rulings and consider the observance of previous generations inauthentic or compromising. With modern mass communication there is also a trend to reject local custom in favor of a uniform practice from a written source. Moderation as a religious norm disappears where society is irretrievably degenerate. 12
The Lubavitcher rebbe Menachem Mendel Schneerson taught that even the most estranged Jew possesses intrinsic holiness, which it is Chabad’s mission to reveal, returning such souls to their heritage. Some Orthodox recognized the value of even a secularized notion of peoplehood. However, secular Zionism and secular culture have been less hospitable to tradition than hoped. At the same time, there is less and less common culture to accommodate to, leaving particularism, community, tradition, and separation as a religious strategy. Yet Jewish unity and peoplehood are too constitutive of Judaism to be abandoned. 13
Denominations by definition accept the existence and legitimacy of religious alternatives to their group. But Jewish Orthodoxy by definition p. 152 denies these: it is inclusive of all Jews but exclusive of other Judaisms. As a result, Orthodox and non-Orthodox Jews mutually misunderstand each other. Orthodoxy can take Reform Judaism seriously as heresy but can keep Reform Jews within the fold by invoking mitigating factors for their convictions. 14 Heresy is dangerous, but a fellow Jew who espouses and practices heresy is not treated as a heretic. Inclusivism is just this move.
BELIEF-BASED SCHISMS
While the Talmud devotes few of its pages to doctrine, the major Jewish schisms—with Samaritans, Christians, Karaites, and contemporary Orthodoxy with non-Orthodoxy—involve beliefs. The Talmud regards leniently the Jewish child brought up by gentiles (tinok shenishbah) whose early environment excuses their present violations of the Torah’s commandments. Gentiles themselves, by one opinion, are not culpable idolators, but merely following ancestral customs. Each was under duress and so lacked true intention to sin. Later rabbis applied these concepts to permit wider social relations with heretics and outsiders. Maimonides ruled that Karaites after the first generation were not deliberate rebels against rabbinic Judaism and should be drawn with words of peace so that they repent. In the nineteenth and twentieth centuries, Orthodox poskim decided that the category of heretic was inapplicable today because traditional social structures have disappeared. We no longer know how to rebuke, obligation to the Torah is no longer taken for granted by all Jews, God’s providence is hidden, coercion and persuasion lack power. When authority wanes, there can be no rebellion as traditionally understood. With modernity, tradition lost its self-evident plausibility. Orthodoxy became voluntary.
Orthodox innovators recognized that desire to identify with the Jewish people could co-exist with desire to throw off the commandments. Such Jewish identification had value in itself. It was a costly choice in the face of modern alternatives. Raising Jewish children was another costly choice. 15
The early period of Reform was marked by radical accommodation to modernity and opposition to tradition. Orthodoxy and Reform each saw itself as sole inheritor of the future. But each has survived to the present. Early Zionists thought the Diaspora would disappear, but both the State of Israel and Diaspora continue. In secular modernity, religion is relegated to the private sphere, and in the mid-twentieth century was predicted to disappear. Yet religion has not disappeared.
Sacks defined pluralism as the view that there can be several mutually valid but incomplete perceptions of a common truth. Each of the branches of Judaism today are pluralist in some ways. Denominational pluralism appears when groups have to compete in an open market. Shared experience p. 153 of modernization brings the realization that religious groups have much in common, compared to no religious commitment. Issues that had been central to denominational self-definition are re-classed as marginal. Jewish Orthodoxy is the refusal to reclassify specific traditional aspects of Judaism.
Classically, Judaism allows pluralism with regard to other faiths. Paradoxically, the Reform request that the Orthodox grant Reform legitimacy can be met by classing it as a different religion. Pluralism, when translated into the categories of tradition, achieves the opposite results to that sought by liberal Jews. But the alternative, Orthodox inclusivism, in Sacks’s words, “assaults the self-respect” of liberal Jews. It marginalizes central virtues of modernity: authenticity, integrity, and deep congruence between the self and its expressions. Orthodoxy recognizes sincerity, authenticity, and integrity as values, and accepts the sincerity of the non-Orthodox, but sees the virtues differently.
In traditional societies, the individual is identified by membership in a variety of social groups and occupying a set of roles. Habits are acquired like a native language. By contrast, in contemporary urban society, identities are self-chosen, open-ended, and transitory. As a result, virtues may be untranslatable from one social context to another. Contemporary moral theory values individual freedom, authenticity, and rights. This collides with the traditional Jewish view that a Jew is born into the obligations of God’s covenant with Israel. Jews do not choose the commandments with which they are bound. The modern virtue of doing what is right in one’s own eyes is the archetypal biblical vice.
Reform Judaism does not promote unmediated freedom. Yet one is permitted to break with tradition for the sake of conscience. At best, Reform is tradition without Halakhah. In a conflict between society and self, the self prevails. Halakhah is turned from community-creating law to a catalogue of resources to meet personal needs. Orthodoxy may recognize the integrity of principled dissent in the abandonment of tradition but cannot consider it a virtue. Orthodoxy might grant that Reform has some beneficial consequences while dissenting from its ideology. 16
Although the non-Orthodox Jew is alienated from Halakhah, the law is unavoidable for Jewish continuity. Franz Rosenzweig and Emil Fackenheim each tried to close the rift between Orthodox and non-Orthodox by attempting to observe Halakhah even while questioning it. Neither tried to form a denomination. Both acknowledged that not everything will be doable, but how much is doable cannot be known ahead of time. Deviation from Halakhah was not legitimated, so no alternative communal norms were created.
From the Orthodox side, Chaim Hirschensohn, Yeshayahu Leibowitz, and Eliezer Berkovits each tried to move Orthodoxy from being the p. 154 religion of a minority of Jews to the law of all Jews in the State of Israel. Halakha must innovate to fit democracy, cover essential state functions that otherwise required non-observant Jews or Gentiles, and in issues affecting women and conversion. Others sought to reconvene the Sanhedrin. However, none of these efforts from Orthodox or non-Orthodox succeeded. In Israel, secular and religious separated more widely, due to fragmenting forces. Orthodoxy has moved toward more sectarian forms and thought. Rabbi Abraham Kook believed Halakhah cannot function with full flexibility until Jews again become a people of Halakhah. 17
Sacks highlighted sibling rivalry in biblical stories from Cain and Abel to Joseph and his brothers. The love which is choice is experienced as rejection by the ones not chosen. Genesis ends with a new thesis: the rejection of rejection. All Jacob’s descendants are chosen. Israel is henceforth indivisible, and the covenant cannot be broken. However, the idea endures several crises. The righteous and unrighteous both suffer. From Israel’s rebellions and dispersions, not all return. In the prophets, the idea of an accidental remnant dominates. The idea of true Israel emerges in the Dead Sea sect, Christianity, and rabbinic literature. Sacks, instead, favored the more common rabbinic position that the covenant is inclusive.
After the Holocaust, public rhetoric continually asserts that the Jews are one people. But it is myth rather than reality. Not since the second century have they been less united. Yet Sacks viewed the future with hope. Israel is not threatened by the Diaspora, nor the Diaspora by Israel. Reform is not endangered by Orthodoxy, and Orthodoxy is not threatened by assimilation. One People concluded with ten inclusivist imperatives, such as care in speech and devotion to education. This inclusivist impulse in religious affairs aligns with Sacks’s approach to the common culture in the West.
RESTORING THE COMMON GOOD
In Not in God’s Name (2015), Sacks argued that those who forget what it feels like to be a stranger will eventually come to oppress strangers. This is why the Hebrew Bible speaks primarily not of knowledge, reason, or emotion, but of memory. “Remember that you were slaves in Egypt.” Do not harm the stranger because you were once where he is. Our common humanity precedes our religious differences. 18 This warning ought to reach orthodox Christians now separating from revisionist Christians and encountering disrespect and worse for their sexual morality. It also covers gay and lesbian Americans among both orthodox and revisionists, who have memories or present experiences of exclusion and persecution.
In Morality (2020), Rabbi Sacks sought common ground in the larger culture. 19 He argued that a free society, a liberal democracy, cannot be p. 155 sustained by market economics and liberal democratic politics alone. It needs a concern for others and active commitment to justice and compassion. Morality documented the problems of modernity and offered a solution.
Alexis de Tocqueville coined the term “individualism” to identify what he saw as the greatest threat to democracy in America. Warnings of threats to liberal democracy are today sounded with greater frequency, both by political leaders and others. One sign of the threat is the rise of populism in the West, fueled by “have-nots” who feel that political, economic, and other arrangements treat them unfairly, and believe they cannot gain relief within the system. Populists may support authoritarian leaders. Some of their attitudes are widespread. Compelling data show widening economic and health inequalities, declines in happiness, rising morbidity and mortality related to anxiety, depression and despair, drug use and suicide, plus declines of trust and participation in the political system, marriage, and the church. Accompanying these changes are restrictions on free speech in universities. Governments have responded poorly to these and other problems, such as climate change. Sacks argued that these inter-related phenomena illustrated a societal shift from a morality of “We” to “I.” 20 Sacks surveyed these problems under chapters titled “Loneliness,” “The limits of self–help,” “Unsocial media,” “The fragile family,” “Markets without morals,” “Consuming happiness,” “Identity politics,” “Post-truth,” “Safe space,” “Victimhood,” “The return of public shaming,” and “The death of civility.”
Rabbi Sacks employed science for telling the story of humanity from the dawn of our species. Upright walking requires a pelvis that makes childbirth more difficult than among other mammals. When combined with a large adult brain, a human must be born in immaturity and be cared for over many years. The prolonged cooperation of father and mother for child raising is unlike other creatures. Charles Darwin and Émile Durkheim each reasoned that individuals survive as members of groups, and that group survival is improved by cooperation. Human altruism is compatible with natural selection. 21
Within a hunter-gatherer kinship group, people knew each other. Cooperation and altruism were rewarded and free riding, punished. Modern game theory shows that a strategy of initial altruism followed by repaying “tit for tat” is most adaptive for success. But groups in which a person does not know most of the other people require something other than kinship or familiarity to sustain cooperation. Religion has been the essential enabler of cooperation in large groups. 22
Christianity’s unifying role in Europe was challenged by the wars of the Reformation, in which a section of what was previously “Us” became p. 156 “Them.” Enlightenment universalism attempted to abolish identity, but was followed by violent national, racial, and class-based identities in the nineteenth and twentieth centuries. A new flight from identity began in the 1960s in the name of the individual and dedicated to sexual revolution. Soon came the rebuttal that we are social animals. Multiculturalism, while intended to integrate minorities into society, instead provoked exclusionary reactions. Identity politics further fragmented us. Sacks warned that it turns difference into exclusion and suspicion. One symptom of the problem is the resurgence of anti-Semitism worldwide. 23
Sacks proposed instead that by being what we uniquely are, we contribute to society what only we can give. He lifted human dignity, meaning, morality, and religion as constituent of being human. A contract is about interests, but a covenant is about identity and creates a moral community. America was founded on the idea of covenant. Sacks advocated restoring that sense, which brings shared responsibility. It has been done before in America, in the Second Great Awakening in early nineteenth-century America and in the early twentieth-century Progressive Era. However, a common religion will not play the role it had in these earlier movements.
Sacks explored different lenses for viewing morality: thin (abstract) and thick (storied) descriptions, honor and shame, righteousness and guilt, the meager values of Western, educated, industrialized, rich, and democratic (WEIRD) cultures (fairness, avoidance of harm), the additional three values of traditional cultures (loyalty, reverence, respect), inner-directed, other-directed individuals, and more. He thought we need to speak in a way that can be understood and so need to live in a community with fellow speakers of the same moral language. We need to make a commitment to some moral community and code, which means we need to choose the right restraints: freedom for, not just freedom from. Sacks noted several moral values that are practically universal across all cultures and named commitments important for an enduring civilization. 24
On the subject of same-sex marriage, Sacks was silent in Morality. He cited evidence that a stable marriage is generally better for children than alternatives. Same-sex marriage is too recent to provide much of an evidence base for its effect on children raised in that context. Non-affirming Christians might separate from congregations that celebrate it, while maintaining a sense of unity with Christians in those congregations. They could jointly promote common religious and secular interests and speak with civility.
America’s covenantal founding identity led Sacks to invoke it in Numbers: The Wilderness Years. 25 Exodus is about freedom from; Numbers, about freedom for. It is law-governed liberty. The distance from Egypt to p. 157 the Promised Land is geographically not far. But the journey is not just physical, it is psychological, moral, and spiritual. It always takes longer than you think. It takes as long as the time needed for human beings to change. Political change cannot be brought about by politics alone. Freedom is a difficult ongoing task, but Numbers ends with order and hope.
There is an assumption in the West that liberal democratic politics and market economics are self-sustaining, part of a process that, once achieved, can never be lost. Nothing could be further from the truth, said Rabbi Sacks. A free society is a moral achievement. Without a shared morality, a strong identity based on memory and narrative, without training in character, self-restraint, and the ability to defer the gratification of instinct, civilization will suffer a decline. A free society depends on habits of the heart. Sacks hinted that the foundations of free societies in the contemporary West are unsustainable without the religious foundation of the Bible.
CONCLUSION
The pervasive, unrelenting effects of modernity on religion suggest that most Christian denominations in the West will experience schism whose occasion is disagreement about sexual sin. They can learn from the Jewish experience as narrated by Rabbi Sacks. Any Christians who need to separate from religious brethren concerning sin could preserve an attenuated Christian unity through inclusivism, which affirms fellow believers and does not treat them as heretics but disaffirms same-sex sexual union. Inclusivist Christians should seek ways to cooperate with other Christians and with non-Christians in moral matters of common interest, as modeled for Jews by Rabbi Sacks.
NOTES
- Oliver O’Donovan, A Conversation Waiting to Begin: The Churches and the Gay Controversy (London: SCM, 2009), 1–17.
- O’Donovan, 47–48.
- O’Donovan, 30–31.
- Lynn Jost, “Using the MB Confession of Faith for Identity, Biblical Interpretation, and Discipleship,” Direction 51, no. 2 (2022): 165–70.
- Lee Kosa, “Identity, Anxiety, and the Holy Spirit,” Direction 51, no. 2 (2022): 171–79.
- Jon C. Olson, “The Jerusalem Decree, Paul, and the Gentile Analogy to Homosexual Persons,” Journal of Religious Ethics 40, no. 2 (June 2012): 361–85; Jon C. Olson, “Paul Employing Leviticus: Same-Sex Intercourse Considered amongst Torah Commandments,” Kesher: A Journal of Messianic p. 158 Judaism 27 (2013); Jon C. Olson, review of Bible Gender Sexuality: Reframing the Church’s Debate on Same-Sex Relationships, by James V. Brownson, Kesher 30 (2016): 105–14; Jon C. Olson, “Intertextuality, Paul within Judaism, and the Biblical Witness against Same-Sex Practice,” Evangelical Quarterly 89, no. 3 (2018): 222–39; Jon C. Olson, “Post-supersessionist Analogy between Welcoming Gentiles in Scripture and Homosexual Persons Today,” Kesher 33 (2018): 73–94; Jon C. Olson, “Self-Identity after Supersessionism: My Story,” Kesher 42 (2023): 71–87.
- Jonathan Sacks, One People? Tradition, Modernity, and Jewish Unity (London: Littman Library of Jewish Civilization, 1993).
- Jon C. Olson, “Idol Food, Same-Sex Intercourse, and Tolerable Diversity Within the Church,” Anglican Theological Review 95, no. 4 (Fall 2013): 627–47; Darrin W. Snyder Belousek, Marriage, Scripture, and the Church: Theological Discernment on the Question of Same-Sex Union (Grand Rapids: Baker, 2021).
- David J. Rudolph, “Describing the Church in Relation to Israel: The Language of George Lindbeck and Ephesians 2–3,” in Covenant and the People of God, ed. Jonathan Kaplan, Jennifer Rosner, and David J. Rudolph (Eugene, OR: Pickwick, 2023), 227.
- Sacks, One People, vii–xii, 2–17.
- Sacks, One People, 44–52.
- Sacks, One People, 88–116.
- Sacks, One People, 52–87.
- Sacks, One People, 31–35.
- Sacks, One People, 117–40.
- Sacks, One People, 141–68.
- Sacks, One People, 169–95.
- Jonathan Sacks, Not in God’s Name: Confronting Religious Violence (New York: Schocken, 2015).
- Jonathan Sacks, Morality: Restoring the Common Good in Divided Times (New York: Basic Books, 2020).
- Sacks, Morality, 1–20.
- Sacks, Morality, 68–72, 252–53, 285.
- Sacks, Morality, 257–60.
- Sacks, Morality, 130–39.
- Sacks, Morality, 266–75.
- Jonathan Sacks, Numbers: The Wilderness Years, Covenant & Conversation: A Weekly Reading of the Jewish Bible (New Milford, CT: Maggid Books & The Orthodox Union Press, 2017).
