Sermon by Rev.Dacia Reid, December 1, 2002
Noam Zion and Barbara Spectre authors of, A Different Light: The Big Book of Hanukkah open their book with a reflection on Rabbi David Hartman's observation/assertion that Judaism is a "community of interpretation."
Zion and Spectre go on to clarify the differences between a community of common dogmas and a "community of interpretation," noting that, "in celebrating foundational events of their communal history, Jews re-describe the past in light of their analysis of the present and their blueprint for the future. . . . Jews share the events, texts and rituals of their collective past, but each sub-community [and generation] of Jews carves out its own particular interpretations of that past. . . . [they energetically discuss,] argue and persuade the others to accept his/her version as the authentic, official account of what happened and therefore of what lessons must be learned."
Our Unitarian Universalist congregations share this valuing of interpretation over dogma although our goal in the end is less about interpreting a particular history and the lessons that "must" be learned than it is about the quest for an ever expanding understanding of truth and justice. Our UU congregations could be described as communities of exploration and interpretation.
The Hanukkah story is rich with possibilities for exploration and interpretation.
Set in ancient Judea, the Hanukkah story begins when the relatively benign rule of the Greek conquerors shifts, with the crowning of King Antiochus IV, to include the demand that Jews forsake their faith and worship in the "Pagan" way of the ruling Hellenistic Greeks.
The story suggests that those living in urban areas, already highly assimilated and therefore distanced from their Jewish faith didn't really care all that much about this turn of events. . . . It was the country cousins . . . who had remained closer to all of their traditional ways both culturally and religiously who reacted against this newly decreed expectation that they erect statues in their temples and sacrifice swine to Zeus.
Initially, Hanukkah was the celebration of a significant and unlikely military victory . . . within the next 100 years it became a much quieter - down played event when self-preservation under Roman rule necessitated extreme moderation of any and all urges to rebel.
Rabbinic leaders of the times urged their people to avoid conflict with the Roman rulers and instead stressed the "rabbinical power not of rock but of water. Water, fluid and soft from moment to moment and yet irresistible over the long run."
Hanukkah wasn't forgotten but it remained a "minor" holiday for many centuries.
Within the "community of interpretation" the Hanukkah story took on new depth as story after story emerged from the Nazi created Holocaust of WWII. Always these stories are about moments of hope and determined commitment to the values, ethics, light and faith of Judaism despite unimaginable obstacles. Stories like the little girl with the potato that was this morning's reading.
The chances that any of us will ever face the conditions described in those boxcars are, gratefully, extremely slim.
This does not mean, however, that we never encounter circumstances and situations that test our endurance, and challenge our faith. And within this community of interpretation we can choose to explore the themes of Hanukkah in relationship to our current circumstances rather than simply viewing them through the shifting prisms of the past.
Culturally & politically we seem, now, to be in a significant time of transition. As I listened to the election results on November 5th and 6th I thought about the happy relief with which my politically and religiously conservative relatives would be receiving this news.
In the weeks since the November 5th elections, here at USNH, as we have gone around the circle at various meetings; practicing the ritual of "check-in," I have heard again and again deep distress and alarm about our currently changing political realities.
That distress was well summarized, for me, in a Bill Moyers essay on Election 2002 - recently forwarded to me by a colleague, but posted on the PBS Website on November 8th.
Moyers wrote, "Way back in the 1950s when I first tasted politics and journalism, Republicans briefly controlled the White House and Congress. With the exception of Joseph McCarthy and his vicious ilk, they were a reasonable lot, presided over by that giant war hero, Dwight Eisenhower, who was conservative by temperament and moderate in the use of power.
That brand of Republican is gone. And for the first time in the memory of anyone alive, the entire federal government - the Congress, the Executive, the Judiciary - is united behind a right-wing agenda for which George W. Bush believes he now has a mandate.
That mandate includes . . . using the taxing power to transfer wealth from working people to the rich. It includes giving corporations a free hand to eviscerate the environment and control the regulatory agencies meant to hold them accountable. And it includes secrecy on a scale you cannot imagine.
Above all, it means judges with a political agenda appointed for life. If you liked the Supreme Court that put George W. Bush in the White House, you will swoon over what's coming.
And if you like God in government, get ready for the Rapture. These folks don't even mind you referring to the GOP as the paryt of God. Why else would the new House Majority Leader say that the Almighty is using him to promote 'a Biblical worldview' in American politics?
So it's a heady time in Washington - a heady time for piety, profits, and military power all joined at the hip by ideology and money. Don't forget the money. It came pouring into this election, to both parties, from corporate America and others who expect the payback.
Republicans out raised democrats by $184 million dollars. And came up with the big prize - monopoly control of the American government, and the power of the state to turn their ideology into the law of the land. Quite a bargain at any price."
As I've listened to the post election distress here and thought back over years of conversations with my conservative relatives I realize that there is a significant distinction between the objections and concerns raised by my relatives and the objections and concerns coming up now.
The distinction . . . my relatives always objected on moral grounds. I don't recall a single conversation that involved concerns about restriction of civil liberties or the on-going stability of our government.
All of the concerns that I hear being raised here and elsewhere, since November 5th , revolve around exactly these issues.
I was particularly interested last Sunday when Hannah Nyhart explained to us, in her first decade response in The Wild and Precious Life service, what kind of president she would be. She said that she was sure that there would be plenty of times when some of the people would disagree with her but that some of the time . . . they would look at her decisions and even if they disagreed they would acknowledge that she was doing the right thing.
I think that is the primary distinction between my current experiences and concerns about our political culture and the concerns and experiences of my conservative relatives.
In this community of exploration and interpretation . . . how do we respond to our political and cultural concerns? What might we do to make and keep our world a place in which a Hannah Nyhart might really be elected President of the United States?
I have discovered two, new to me, aspects of Hanukkah that have deepened my understanding and enriched my fairly peripheral participation.
First that it is a common practice that each member of family - every individual, have their own Hanukkah Menorah. Not one per family as I'd always assumed. The implications of each of us lighting our own Hanukkah Menorah . . . is that we each have within us the possibility of dedication to a cause or causes we hold dear and that equally we are responsible for kindling the light of our values for all to see.
We will each find our own ways and times to kindle those lights but we don't have to do it alone. It now seems particularly fortuitous that the UUA General Assembly - this summer chose "Civil Liberties" as the study action issue for the next three years.
Specifically: "What can Unitarian Universalists do to protect civil liberties against governmental violation in the name of "homeland security" and in the wars against terrorism and drugs?"
The Commission on Social Witness has compiled a 21-page starter document that you can download from the UUA website. You can buy (and presumably read) Wendy Kaminer's Free for All: Defending Liberty in America Today from the book-cart the next time its open and you can participate in the discussion group that the USHN Denominational Affairs Committee is planning to launch in February.
The second insight/understanding about Hanukkah that was new to me comes from a summary of Herman Wouk's "Hanukkah Today", originally published in 1959 and excerpted in A Different Light: The Hanukkah Book of Celebration also by Noam Zion & Barbara Spectre. In the essay Wouk is exploring the challenges of celebrating Hanukkah in a predominantly Christian culture. His conclusion: "The two festivals have one real point of contact. Had Antiochus succeeded in obliterating Jewry a century and a half before the birth of Jesus, there would have been no Christmas. The feast of the Nativity rests on the victory of Hanukkah." (A Different Light - HBC pg 227)
"The feast of the Nativity (i.e. Christmas) rests on the victory of Hanukkah." Now that really got my attention. It seems fairly obvious once pointed out - but it had never actually - consciously - occurred to me before reading the Wouk essay.
The relationship between Hanukkah and the existence of Christmas reminds me that our actions have unforeseen consequences. The Macabees did not stand up and fight to make the future safe for Christmas. They stood up and fought for their belief in "one God" and their right to worship as their faith and their consciences dictated.
Likewise - we cannot know the ultimate consequences of the ways we choose to stand up for the cultural and political values we treasure. Maybe we will help create the culture in which we elect our first woman President, perhaps even Hannah Nyhart. Maybe in hind-sight; 25, 50 or 100 years from now others will look back on our action/s of conscience and observe that we did, somehow significantly help to preserve the values we held dear. We don't get to know the outcome . . . we can only strike the match and light a candle.
Blessed Be, Amen.