Rabbi Chaim Ingram wrote this week on the portion in the Bible concerning Abraham and the people of Sodom and Gomorrah. He alludes to tolerance and intolerance and same-sex marriage. It's a very good read. Tell me what you think, won't you?
Judaism’s
ideological approach vis-a-vis the world is a unique and remarkable
one. It is absolutist when it comes to belief in G-D but pluralistic
with regard to how
G-D should be worshipped by the world’s family of believers. It is
absolutist in its belief that Torah is G-D given and therefore the
repository of absolute truth to the exclusion of all other ideologies;
but pluralistic with regard to how Torah is to be
embraced by the world’s family of nations - by Jews via the 613 mitsvot,
by Gentiles via the seven universal laws of humanity which would mean
that even pre-Messiah a nation could live by broad Torah ideals and be
deemed righteous. Judaism is not tolerant
of those societies who breach these broad Torah ideals; but it is
compassionate of all those within these societies who find themselves
without anchor, caught up in a maelstrom not exactly of their making and
seeking safe haven in a tempestuous world. Anyone
demonstrating such compassion is a true disciple of our father Abraham." -Rabbi Chaim Ingram
Others' thoughts:
Barbara Lardinais lives in Toledo, Ohio, (I think) also writes about Abraham's prayer of negotiation here:
Prayer
Also from Bible "Got Questions" website:
Sodom and Abraham
And from my teaching series on the book of Genesis, you might like to read the whole sermon on Genesis 18:
Guess who's coming to dinner
"Why is the famous passage of Abraham’s plea for the inhabitants of Sodom and Gemorra such a seminal statement of Jewish ideological outlook?
Abraham’s series of entreaties to G-D to spare the populations of five wicked cities including Sodom and Gemorrah if even 50 then 45, 40, 30, 20 or even 10 righteous inhabitants are to be found there(Gen. 23-32) is often cited by thinkers of a leftist-libertarian persuasion as a seminal example of, as they put it, “the Jewish value of tolerance”.
Actually
nothing could be further from the truth. What Abraham does not do
– and what he would do were he “tolerant” in the leftist-libertarian
sense – is to ask G-D “Please tell me – what is the nature of their
sin? And anyway, ‘sin’ is such a judgmental
word is it not? Why do You wish to destroy them? Is it because they are
pursuing alternative lifestyles to mine? Perhaps G-D, You ought to
embrace their diversity. Isn’t multiculturalism a wonderful thing?
After all, surely it is arrogant to suppose there
is only one absolute truth in the world! Can You not see their actions
as equally valid truths? After all, I am pursuing my mission and they
are pursuing theirs as they see it. Please can I go and investigate
their culture and then I will call a meeting and
propose a detailed resolution on what I believe is the best way to
proceed.”
That would have been a “tolerant” response. It would also have meant the end of Abraham’s unique moral influence and mission as
av hamon goyim the father of a multitude of nations and the end of his special relationship with G-D.
Abraham’s greatest virtue is not tolerance. It is
unconditional compassion.. He is not the least bit
interested in learning about the “alternative lifestyle” of the citizens
of Sodom and Gemorrah. If G-D says that their actions (which included
the shedding of innocent blood, corruption, perversion
of the course of justice, sodomy, same-gender marriage, robbery with
violence and forced eviction) are sins then sins they are. But that
does not mean that Abraham is about to give up on the perpetrators of
these sins. Maybe they had no parental example.
Maybe they can be helped to change their ways. Even if there were just
ten people there who could help to change the culture, surely, pleaded
Abraham to G-D, you must give the cities another chance!
It
is fascinating that those people who are the most passionate advocates
of ‘tolerance’ as we have illustrated it above are the most
vitriolically intolerant of those
who dares to challenge their particular set of values. Anyone who
disagrees with their approach must be a ‘fundamentalist’ or a
‘reactionary’ or ‘obscurantist’ (to cite just a few of the tolerant
brigade’s intolerant epithets). Abraham on the other hand,
because he chooses compassion over tolerance ends up being neither uncompassionate nor intolerant of any soul.
Others' thoughts:
Barbara Lardinais lives in Toledo, Ohio, (I think) also writes about Abraham's prayer of negotiation here:
Prayer
Also from Bible "Got Questions" website:
Sodom and Abraham
And from my teaching series on the book of Genesis, you might like to read the whole sermon on Genesis 18:
Guess who's coming to dinner
No comments:
Post a Comment