KI TAVO 5767
September 8, 2006
Two weeks from tonight, most if not all of us will gather here again—if not in this exact space, then in one very much like it—to usher in the year our people names 5767. So I was thinking about what I could say to you tonight by way of a sermon, without giving too much of a sermon. That is to say, I promise to keep my remarks succint—though, it should be noted, not so much as Salvador Dali, who, in what has been called the world’s shortest public speech, once said, “I will be so brief that I have already finished.”
I have not already finished, so let me get on with it. It turns out this Torah portion contains an appropriate message for the season. We’re nearing the end of the Torah, and Parashat Ki Tavo contains some of Moses’ final remarks to the Israelites. With promises of abundant blessings and threats of hideous curses, Moses exhorts the people to obey God’s commandments, to the end that they will live long and prosper. But Moses is old and, truth be told, crotchety, and he can’t help periodically blurting out his frustration with a people that over the past forty years of wandering in the wilderness has given him more than a few grey hairs. He says, “…You have seen all that the Eternal did before your very eyes in the land of Egypt . . . the wondrous feats that you saw with your own eyes, those prodigious signs and marvels. Yet to this day the Eternal has not given you a mind to understand or eyes to see or ears to hear” (Deut. 29:1-3).
Poor Moses! Forty years of schlepping this people from wilderness to promised land, and they can’t even recognize a good thing when they see it. Within minutes of their deliverance from Pharaoh and his murderous slave captains, they’re begging to go back to Egypt. Within minutes of manna dropping at their feet, they’re begging for meat. Within minutes of arriving at Mount Sinai they’re building a golden calf, that monstrous idol, and dancing around it in a frenzy. Within minutes of scouting out the land of milk and honey, they’ve declared it unsuitable on account of its inhabitants, who are, by at least one account, big. So Moses derides them: “You lack the eyes to see!”
Which takes me to my very simple theme, what I would wish for us in the new year, if I could have only one wish. My wish is that we would have eyes to see, in this new year.
Thousands of years ago, the Bible’s gentle cynic Kohelet famously declared, “There is nothing new under the heavens,” and how well we know the feeling. How easily we say that we’ve seen it all before, that we’ve “been there, done that.” Our colleague Rabbi Charles Sherman, whose congregation is in Tulsa, Oklahoma, says that “the real enemy of religion is not atheism but boredom. Being jaded is the opposite of being religious. The great Yiddish poet Aaron Zeitlin wrote: ‘If you look at the stars and yawn . . . I created you in vain, says God.’”
Rabbi Sherman also shared the story of Bob Edens, who was born blind but who, thanks to a delicate and complex operation which involved attaching a detached retina and implanting a transplanted cornea, has gained the ability to see.
This is how he describes his new world.
“To me, yellow is amazing, but red is the best; although, I haven’t seen anything yet that I don’t find wondrous.
I never would have dreamed that yellow was so, so yellow. I don’t have any words with which to describe it. I am amazed by yellow. I am simply dazzled by yellow.
But red is my favorite color. I just can’t believe red,” said Edens who says that the first thing he ever saw in his life was an eyedropper in the hands of a nurse, a week after his surgery.
“Grass is something I had to get used to,” he said. “I always thought it was just fuzz. But to see each individual stalk, and to see the hair on my arms, growing like trees, and to see birds flying through the air, and everything, it’s like starting a whole new life. It’s the most amazing thing in the world to see things you never thought you’d see.
I saw the purple and orange recently in the face of a tiger. I could see the individual hairs and the color of his eyes.
I can see the shape of the moon now and I like nothing better than seeing a jet plane flying across the sky, leaving a vapor trail. And of course sunsets and sunrises.”
“I can’t wait to get up each day to see what I can see. I am still seeing most of it for the first time.”
“And at night I look at the stars in the sky and at the flashing lights on the highway. And I am learning how to read and write like a first grader. Everything is like a constant high. You could never know how wonderful everything is!”
Edens had been blind from birth and yet he managed to graduate from Furman University, learned Braille, married and had a daughter. He even coached a Little League baseball team, while working as a masseur! He claims that every single governor of South Carolina since 1963 has come to him for a massage. But right now, he would rather talk about what he can see than about what he has done.
“I saw some bees the other day,” confided Edens, almost as if telling a secret. “And they were incredible. And I jumped a covey of quail too. I had heard of quail before, but to actually see them, what an experience!”
“And I saw a truck drive by in the rain the other day. It threw a spray into the air. It was marvelous!”
“And did I mention,” he said, genuine rapture in his voice, “did I mention that I saw a falling leaf, just drifting in the air! What a wonder that was!”
I was moved by Bob Edens’ account of what it is like to see things for the first time, and I hope you are too. And I hope we could spend a few minutes on the cusp of this new year, just trying to recapture the feeling. Maybe you keep safe somewhere deep within the thrill you felt the first time you saw something magnificent, like the Grand Canyon with its sunset-hued striations plunging a mile beneath your feet, or you saw Israel, its low coastline breaking through the clouds as the airplane descended, or you first set eyes on the person you would someday marry.
The Psalmist was right when he exclaimed, “Ma rabu ma’asecha Adonai” – O God, how wondrous are your works. And Abraham Joshua Heschel was right when he said that the religious experience begins when we learn to cultivate a sense of sublime wonder at the universe. That, in its most literal sense, is why we call this season the Days of Awe. And that is why my wish for us is to open our eyes in wonder and, just two weeks from tonight, stand in awe, alongside Bob Edens, and Heschel, and the Psalmist,
. . . and this child:
Kevin was in the first grade of school and his teacher asked the class, “What is the color of apples?” Answers were red and green. Kevin raised his hand and said, “White.” The teacher explained that apples could be red, green and sometimes golden, but never white. Kevin was insistent and finally said, “Look inside.”
I wish we’ll all have eyes like Kevin’s in this new year, eyes that can’t wait to get up each day to see what they can see, eyes to see the majesty and the mystery of this world, shot through with God’s presence.
What do you mean by, "shot through with God's presence"?
ReplyDeleteIn fact, can you define for me what you mean, once and for all, by "God"? Please don't point me to books to read to understand what you mean. Just please simply define the term in layman's terms.
Because whenever you use the term, it's as if you throw into your talk an illogical monkeywrench. After all, you have said, more than once, you DO NOT BELIEVE IN GOD AS A SUPRANATURAL POWER. So please define simply what you DO mean by God.
Dear Richard,
ReplyDeleteIt's sometimes hard to gauge one's "tone of voice" in a forum like this, but you sound frustrated to me, and your tone strikes me as a bit aggressive. If I am misreading your tone, please accept my apology. If not, I would gently invite you to nurture this conversation in a less confrontational manner. We are all here to learn from one another.
Now, to your question. I have reflected at length on my theology and much more on my "ASK THE RABBI" page, and I invite you to follow the thread on "Faith" for specific points on my theology. Follow the link here:
http://www.formspring.me/rabbiblake
Questions and Answers are printed on this forum with the most recent questions at the TOP of the page, so the best thing to do is to scroll all the way to the "end" and read in reverse order if you're really a glutton for punishment.
Yours with shalom,
Jonathan
Sorry - but I'm not aggressive. Maybe my manners need some refinement. But we all need that. Just want to understand your articles, but then I find what you say and mean confusing - when you inject that word - because I don't understand your definition of that term. Frustration is a better adjective than aggressive. I do learn from your articles and appreciate them.
ReplyDeleteI went to that link, and found, after reading a lot of irrelevant stuff, that I hoped you'd spare me, I found this telling definition:
The way I use the word "God" goes like this. "God" is the what-ness of the Universe. The Universe IS God and God IS the Universe. There is nothing that is not God. You could call me a pantheist, one who believes that All is God.
As for God the Creator: Many a person's theological outlook is based, first and foremost, in a philosophical axiom that goes like this: "Because the Universe exists, it must have been created; because it must have been created, there must have been a Creator" --> hence, God. Note, by the way, that God's primary dimension of being, in this axiom, can be described only in the past tense, a feature that I find problematic and inaccurate as pertains to the way I experience God.
Firstly, God can be recreating the world continuously. Nobody can claim that creation was an event of the past and that now God sits around and lounges. After all, there's an infinite number of particulate, finite events and things, and the relationships among them, to be in control of, incessantly, ongoingly.
If the beauty of nature is that which enchants you, you would use the tern "nature". But you don't. So I still don't know why you use the term, or mean by it.
Dear Richard,
ReplyDeleteI appreciate this comment and I thank you for sending it.
Essentially I speak of God the same way that Albert Einstein did. In Walter Isaacson's book, "Einstein: His Life and Universe," he presents this passage to elucidate Einstein's belief in God:
"Einstein tried to express these feelings clearly, both for himself and all of those who wanted a simple answer from him about his faith. So in the summer of 1930, amid his sailing and ruminations in Caputh, he composed a credo, "What I Believe," that he recorded for a human-rights group and later published. It concluded with an explanation of what he meant when he called himself religious: 'The most beautiful emotion we can experience is the mysterious. It is the fundamental emotion that stands at the cradle of all true art and science. He to whom this emotion is a stranger, who can no longer wonder and stand rapt in awe, is as good as dead, a snuffed-out candle. To sense that behind anything that can be experienced there is something that our minds cannot grasp, whose beauty and sublimity reaches us only indirectly: this is religiousness. In this sense, and in this sense only, I am a devoutly religious man.'
"People found the piece evocative, and it was reprinted repeatedly in a variety of translations. But not surprisingly, it did not satisfy those who wanted a simple answer to the question of whether or not he believed in God. "The outcome of this doubt and befogged speculation about time and space is a cloak beneath which hides the ghastly apparition of atheism," Boston's Cardinal William Henry O'Connell said. This public blast from a Cardinal prompted the noted Orthodox Jewish leader in New York, Rabbi Herbert S. Goldstein, to send a very direct telegram: 'Do you believe in God? Stop. Answer paid. 50 words.' Einstein used only about half his allotted number of words. It became the most famous version of an answer he gave often: 'I believe in Spinoza's God, who reveals himself in the lawful harmony of all that exists, but not in a God who concerns himself with the fate and the doings of mankind.'"
So there you have it. "I believe in Spinoza's God, who reveals himself [if we could indeed speak of God as a "himself"] in the lawful harmony of all that exists, but not in a God who concerns himself with the fate and the doings of mankind."
Thanks Rabbi Blake.
ReplyDeleteSo this, then, is your definition of God. What you're saying is: The awesomeness of nature, as revealed by your musings and feelings, defines G-d.
To those of us, however, who happen to believe the God as Creator and Infinite Overseer, your limiting my definition to concern with the fate and doings of mankind - to the exclusion of "the lawful harmony of ALL that exists, is arbitrary, for ALL that exists INCLUDES the fate and doings of mankind.
Perhaps, then, your personal definition of God is "The awesomeness of nature, as revealed by your musings and feelings - that has nothing to do with human thought and activity." But then, that very definition holds its own contradiction!
Without trying to simplify things too much or stifle debate, I posit that a Jew is not mandated to define God in any particular way or even believe in God at all. In this vein I particularly recall Rabbi Jacobs' sermon about Mother Teresa's lack of belief in God and his essential message that the Jew who does NOT believe can still call him/herself a Jew by learning and practicing mitzvot. My prayer for the new year is that all people--Jewish and otherwise--expend less effort parsing our differences and, instead, learn more about the things that unite us. Who among us would not be happier in a world with less war, less suffering, cleaner air and water, and a brighter future for our children? Call me a dreamer or an idealist, but most of all call me a Jew.
ReplyDeleteAmen to your prayer, HRM! And thank you for the spirit of shalom that animates your comment.
ReplyDeleteOne last response to Richard on the subject of my belief in God which seems to meet with persistent "frustration" --
Richard, you use terms like "musings and feelings" in a pejorative way, to contrast my experience of God with your own. But I would humbly submit that EVERY person's understanding of God is necessarily mediated by his or her "musings and feelings" -- and just as much if not more, by his or her reason, intellect, and received wisdom.
I certainly accept that such is the case when it comes to my belief in God. My understanding of God is indeed mediated primarily through my own musings and feelings, as well as my capacity for reason and logic. It is also guided by the insights provided in the wisdom I have received from our sacred literature (Bible, Rabbinic Literature, etc.), our theologians, philosophers, scientists, artists and poets....
If you believe that you have access to an understanding of God that is somehow NOT mediated by human experience, by human "musings and feelings," by human reason and intellect, but that rather stands outside of these domains, I would suggest that even this notion of yours is itself motivated by deeply human feelings -- by a perceived NEED to insist that your God, by virtue of being "supernatural," is not subject to individual perception, intellectual scrutiny, or something so ambiguous and fickle as human emotion.
Either way, though, I can appreciate the place for your kind of belief within the amazingly diverse and pluralistic spectrum of Jewish thought, and the counterpoints to my own perspective are a refreshing tonic for my blogging, so I appreciate your continued readership.
L'Shalom,
Jonathan
Thanks gentlemen. I really enjoyed this conversation.
ReplyDeleteBy the way, I never meant to belittle you Rabbi, when I spoke of your musings and feelings. You thought I was aggressive at first too, which I was not - or felt no such thing. This time I was merely repeating your own words to arrive at your definition.
I too, of course, muse and feel. It's just that that too, I believe, is controlled by G-d (despite the fact that I have free choice, for G-d's past, present and future is but one, not 3), and is not separated from Him - as you differentiate between two phenomena - as you define here:
"I believe in Spinoza's God, who reveals "himself" in the lawful harmony of all that exists, BUT NOT in a God who concerns himself with the fate and the doings of mankind."
Which still leaves me confused about your definition - but never mind, I see I'm wearing you out. Wishing you guys a great Elul and Tishrei.
I agree to the paradox you raise -- that as a part of Nature, I am an expression of God. Not CONTROLLED by God, at least not entirely (there are many fundamental aspects of my being that are, as it were, "out of my hands," but an expression of God, to be sure. We are all exactly so.
ReplyDeleteA blessed New Year to all!