Posts
I hardly know where to start with this one. Our last book was great, and full of things to think about, but compared to this book it was pretty easy to zoom in on something and pop it out for discussion. Rabbi Sacks' book is much thicker; every time I try to dive in and bring something up to look at more closely I end up spending half an hour under water and come up with my empty fingers all wrinkly.
Perhaps I'll just start by stating one of Sacks' central themes--one that informs most of the other things he has to say in the many pages to come. In the very first chapter he writes, "One of Judaism's most distinctive and challenging ideas is...the idea that God invites us to become...his 'partners in the work of creation'". It is this intimate involvement in making the world better that I find so compelling. It's not that we can save the world (or ourselves for that matter) without God, but we do have a role to play. There's a sense that God needs us to do something about the way the world is. I find this empowering and encouraging. You can find similar sentiments in Christian thought of course, but the way Rabbi Sacks puts it makes it clear.
Are there others out there reading along? There are three of us reading the book and meeting Sunday afternoons at my place. We've been wrestling along and would love to hear from another voice!
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Which of the four of us meeting together is not reading the book?
ReplyDeleteI'm reading along. I find it requires a lot of reflection. I've read the first 4 chapters. I like the apparent overall theme of we each have a responsibility to ourselves and to others. I agree we each have a role and responsibility to play in making this world God entrusted to us a better place. God isn't going to "fix it" without our help and is waiting for us to take the initiative.
ReplyDeleteIt's a good read.
Lynn Sissel
I know it is jumping ahead a bit. We have not yet had a discussion of the third section (coming up on the 25th), but I am puzzled by Sack's reference to "sages" and "saints."
ReplyDeleteHe talks about "sages" being at the "median" and "saints" being at the extremes. I guess the mathematician in me interprets the extremes from the median as being at both positive and negative ends. That he equates "saints" with positive and negative extremes is puzzling.
It does seem to run cross-grain with the customary Christian concept of a "saint."
I understand and can agree with his concept of a "sage": a wise person involved with the community.
However, his concept of a "saint", one who is totally removed from the community, is a bit hard to comprehend.
Definitely going to be discussed in the next session.
Jim Monteith