|
There are lots of messages and depth in the Hannukah story,
which means it’s not just a story, or holiday, for kids.
Last year I spoke about zealotry, how it was in the people in
the Hannukah story just as it is in us and what do we do with
that, with both the courage and cruelty that zeal can yield?
This year what speaks to me is how much it is a story of challenge
of multiculturalism—about which we’ve already spoken
a lot this year. Hannukah reminds us, among other things, how
perennial and deep a challenge cultural differences and encounters
are, for everyone. Maccabees, which we heard earlier, reminds
us how much, on the other hand, we irresistably do influence
each other and are influenced by each other—it purports
to document the successful resistance of Hellenization by the
Jews, but reads like a Greek philosophical treatise!
I want to tell you about my most personal multicultural challenge
that has come out of the combination of Judaism and Unitarian
Universalism in my own life, because to my surprise, even the
painful aspects have helped me in the end.
Some of you have heard me mention an essay about Jew-U’s,
Jewish UU’s, and me in particular as a representative. “The
Problem with Salad Bowl Religion” is the title of an opinion
essay by Prof. Jon Levenson, a teacher of mine at Harvard Divinity
School, which appeared a few years ago in First Things, a conservative
academic theological journal. In it, Levenson begins by quoting
anonymously a young Unitarian-Universalist minister whose sermon
was excerpted in the Burning Bush, the newsletter of the UUJA
(Unitarian-Universalists for Jewish Awareness) and then excerpted
again from the Burning Bush for a story in the New York Jewish
newspaper the Jewish Daily Forward on Unitarian-Universalism.
As an enthusiastic former student of Prof. Levenson’s and
a continuing admirer of his work and teaching, I wish I had known
that his essay would be appearing, because I was that young Unitarian-Universalist
minister he was citing when I naively wrote: I wonder what my
rebbe ancestors would think of me now, a woman religious leader,
a minister, a UU… you get the picture. Would they be glad,
proud, shocked at me and what I am?
Levenson used that sentence, which also opened the Jewish Daily
Forward article, as the crux of his response. And some of it
was painful. He wrote: “I know what her rebbe ancestors
would think, they would be repelled and appalled.” Well,
that part was tough, but in the end helpful in that it pushed
me to make my own peace, supposing that he is right—and
I’m not asking for comfort in telling you about this now—because
that was an important part of my spiritual journey and I’m
really fine with it—if they were appalled, I’d be
glad to argue it with them. But his larger essay was of course
about Unitarian-Universalism itself, and I found his critique
insightful, challenging, and provocative. I wrote a response
that was published in another journal, and I want to share some
of it with you today, because this is a time of year when our
own sometimes nebulous faith is highlighted by the range of celebrations
we hold among us—solstice, Hannukah, Christmas, Kwanzaa… and
when renewing our own sense of identity, neither derived from
nor in opposition to these holidays and themes they lift up,
we are inextricably linked to them and yet apart, reviewing all
this is important. So this is my theme this morning, with perhaps
extra attention to Judaism since this is our Hannukah service
and this is a response to my Judaism professor’s viewpoint.
So—to the essay. Early on, Prof. Levenson reviews some
usual defenses of “salad bowl” or “syncretistic” religion.
He cites the values of open-mindedness, inclusiveness and free
thought, the high percentage of Jews who participate in Unitarian-Universalism
(8 or 9 %) thus potentially justifying the addition of (in his
example) Jewish traditions to activities and holidays, the timeless
tendency of ritual and tradition to permeate and influence from
one religion and culture to another. He discusses the attractiveness
of a faith community whose worldview requires no one to renounce
their past in order to find affirmation, and the attraction of
this for mixed marriages, which halakhic Judaism condemns. He
mentions post-modernist mindsets, which with their deconstructivist
understanding of the world, challenge the often singular authority
and identity of traditional religions.
His critique of such defenses of Unitarian-Universalism occurs
on many levels. In terms of mixed marriages, Prof. Levenson considers “by
far the easiest resolution...the additive one—to include
elements of both traditions giving little or no thought to how
they fit together to form any sort of integrated structure.” Let’s
think about that. I agree with him in so far as he articulates
a challenge to which Unitarian-Universalism has so far risen
only weakly, sporadically and congregationally, rather than denominationally.
Indeed I believe the greatest challenge facing Unitarian-Universalism
today, and the one we must heed to ensure the future of our faith,
is how to address our religious and cultural diversity more deeply.
Being myself half-Jewish, close with the Jewish side of my
family, fairly well-educated in Hellenistic and modern Judaism,
observant of the holidays, and possessing a smattering of Hebrew,
I have heard too many stories like the one about the UU church’s
Yom Kippur potluck (Yom Kippur being a Jewish holiday observed
fasting and attendance at synagogue), or the doughnut holes brought
to a UU congregation’s Passover seder (always marked by
the consumption of unleavened bread, usually ‘matzoh’)
or the minister’s December sermon which left the congregation
feeling that essentially Hannukah, Kwanzaa, Christmas and the
solstice are all about the same things: freedom, hope, light
in darkness and faith in the face of adversity. Presenting these
holidays so superficially as to suggest that they are essentially
the same in theme and import keeps us from struggling with all
their distinctions and fundamental differences, ultimately keeping
us from truly understanding and dealing with the stories of our
heritages: Hannukah is not only about lighted menorahs and the
rededication of the Jerusalem temple, it is not about a miraculous
candle, and it is certainly not about a struggle for religious
freedom. The Hannukah story is complicated and challenging because
it is founded on a legend about Jews (the Maccabees) who were
zealots as well as heroes, killing not only their persecutors
but also other Jews who were not courageous enough to die for
their faith, brave warriors who imposed their faith on many when
they won dominion over Judea.
When it comes to Judaism I know enough, identify enough and
care enough to be able to engage with all of you in worship,
events and discussions that I believe are not just additive solutions
with “little or no thought” involved. And I know
a number of ministers who put a lot of thought and research into
the work they do with the world’s religions. But no minister
can know every background, every religion, every heritage, deeply
and with personal authenticity. And when it comes to Kwanzaa,
or just this path month’s Ramadan, I know I know there
are many stones I am leaving unturned. Prof. Levenson’s
point about our easy solutions must be well-taken.
This is this is the kind of burden some interfaith folks are
carrying when they find Unitarian Universalism. When we, as a
faith movement, settle for feel-good interpretations of religious
history and scripture, or refrain from working in a deep way
and on a denominational level to wrestle with the questions and
challenges which do not cease in an interfaith family, couple
or individual, the ministers and lay leaders of Unitarian-Universalism
are failing many of our members. Either we are abandoning them
to flounder in a morass of conflicts and misinformation, or we
are healing them lightly with superficial treatments and lofty
phrases leaving the dark and difficult issues of families, theologies,
and traditions untreated by the individuals and communities which
are called and expected to resolve them.
My disagreement with Prof. Levenson arose around some of his
opinions where they were not so much critiques of particular
instances or tendencies as assumptions about the nature of liberal,
pluralistic religion as represented by Unitarian-Universalism.
His argument was built on these suppositions:
1) his aforementioned description of the “additive solution”
of pluralism as easy and ill-considered;
2) that in contrast to halakhic Judaism, the ruling ideology
behind what Prof. Levenson terms “hyphenated religion” is
merely personal preference, obedience to nothing larger than
“self-expression, aesthetic pleasure, familial nostalgia, ethnic
identification, whatever;”
3) that this results in the semblance of observance paired with
a denial of (ie. Sinai’s) covenantal claims, mistaking “the
appearance of a religious act for the act itself.” Prof.
Levenson ends his opinion with some pointed questions regarding
religious practices: “in what structure of authority have
they become embedded, and in the service of what affirmation
do they now stand? And will that authority still be obeyed and
will that affirmation still be made when the price of doing so
is inconvenience, monetary loss, personal anguish, persecution
or martyrdom?” He answers them himself with his conclusion; “Hyphenated
obedience is no obedience at all.”
There are many Unitarian-Universalists whose turn to pluralistic,
liberal religion was neither easy nor ill-considered. Often such
a break with one’s heritage strains or destroys family
relationships. People struggle, sometimes for decades, before
they come to such decisions. And even interfaith individuals,
couples or families find that the challenges of such a life are
ongoing and change over time, requiring tremendous energy, time,
honesty and study in order to integrate differences. To be sure,
not everyone gives religion, liberal or otherwise, such consideration
and priority. Just as there are shallow Jews and Hindus, clinging
to the superficial elements of the faith, there are shallow UU’s
rejoicing in their newfound religious freedom only, and not the
responsibility. But I am talking about our faith as we are called
to live it, not as some live it. For Unitarian-Universalists
who do put in the energy, time, honesty and study, to integrate
differing religious backgrounds, to living their faith, to examining
their lives and understandings for new elements and the revelation
that we affirm is ongoing, it may be deeply satisfying and worthwhile,
but it is not easy.
A common critique of Unitarian-Universalism is that it answers
to no higher authority than the self. But this can be a superficial
criticism. Modern Unitarianism and Universalism, drawing on roots
in transcendentalism and earlier movements, grew out of the shaping
of theologians like the 19th century’s Ralph Waldo Emerson
and in the 20th century, James Luther Adams. Emerson’s
heretical injunction delivered in his Divinity School Address: “Obey
thyself.” reads like theological narcissism unless one
believes, as Emerson preached, that God, the divine, shows in
the self, fortifies the self, admonishes and illuminates the
self, which would otherwise be meaningless, so blind to goodness,
virtue or the sacred as to have no justification for upholding
and obeying commandments from deep within. As for the affirmation
to which Unitarian-Universalists give service, the best of these
is laid out by James Luther Adam’s Five Smooth Stones of
Liberalism:
- Revelation is continuous.
- All relations between persons ought ideally to rest on
mutual, free consent and not on coercion.
- There is a moral obligation to direct one’s effort
toward the establishment of a just and loving community.
- The form of virtue is not immaculate, rather it requires
social incarnation.
- Resources, divine and human, are available for the achievement
of meaningful change, justifying an attitude of ultimate
optimism.
I know an orthodox Jew who left Judaism, because he no longer
believed. This caused a long estrangement, and permanent condemnation
on the part of his family, even unto death. If he had stayed,
believing nothing of orthodox Judaism’s truths, daily a
hypocrite, then indeed he would have been entrenched in the “mere
semblance of a Jewish observance without sustenance from the
deepest sources of Judaism.” But he left, intermarried
with a lapsed Catholic, and they joined the Unitarian-Universalist
denomination, which they perceived as a pluralistic faith which
in its very syncretism, its conflict, its attempt at religious
even-handedness, and in its failures, was ultimately truer to
their understanding of the world, people, culture and God than
Judaism or Catholicism. In doing this, yes, both were ultimately
obedient to a morality and authority which stood at odds with
the religions in which they were raised. But this should not
be confused with obeying no structure of authority, recognizing
no affirmation to serve, and certainly not with thus ducking
inconvenience, monetary loss, personal anguish, persecution or
martyrdom. Our own liberal religion has its martyrs and persecuted
too, from Michael Servetus many hundreds of years ago, dying
at the stake with his heresy “On The Errors of the Trinity” strapped
to his thigh, to Joseph Priestly, the discoverer of oxygen, whose
home and laboratory were torched by a mob angry at his Unitarian
religion so that he fled, in fear for his life, to America, to
the Unitarian-Universalist killed a few years ago in Florida
while serving as an escort at a women’s pregnancy and abortion
clinic, or my own former parishioner who was shot by John Salvi
at the Brookline Ma. Planned Parenthood clinic where she worked
because of what she believed.
Ultimately, much as I respect and am influenced by his teaching
and insights, Prof. Levenson’s and my theological differences
are irreconcilable, because his are those of an absolutist, and
mine are not. As he joked more than once in class, “Relativism
may work for you, but it doesn’t work for me.” And
perhaps any pluralistic solution to religion’s diverse
truths and texts may seem to some superficial or self-concerned.
But I trust that in Prof. Levenson’s recognition of the
belief that most religions have in their own validity, he would
at least believe me when I witness as a minister to tears shed,
lives and families wrenched apart, shots fired, courage lived,
on account of people choosing to live and work according to Unitarian-Universalism’s
unequivocal commitment to the inherent worth and dignity of every
person, to justice for all, to acceptance, to searching, to democracy.
When I look out at you, in all your multiplicity and unity, gay
and straight, female and male, white and brown, hearing and deaf,
Jewish and Christian and humanist and pagan, individuals and
families, linked across every identification of gender, sexual
orientation, race, culture and religious heritage, everyone here
because we believe we belong and we want to be here, together,
with each other, learning from each other, I am proud of you
and your openness and love for each other, and I am proud to
be your minister.
Happy Hannukah. Amen.
|
