healthyreligion.com

The columnist from Las Vegas who writes on mental health matters once again writes about his thoughts on healthy spirituality and religion. Check it out here.

Peter Berger, in The Sacred Canopy, writes about humans as “world-builders.” Our societies assign meanings to the various elements of the world we live in, and in this way we end up with culture. Human beings also assign cosmic and sacred meaning, and we do this through religion. All of this activity results in cultural and religious worlds that people experience as objective realities - prefabricated whole worlds that were created by humans, yet which exist before our birth, so that we come to encounter them as objective realities “outside” ourselves. Cultures and religions are then taught to children systematically, and children (and later, adults) learn to develop an active dialogue with them.

Read the rest of this entry »

Perhaps one of the questions for determining whether an expression of religion is healthy or unhealthy is whether it tends to present its understanding of human life as a melodrama or as a drama. Let me ramble on this a little.  Just read this in Forrest Church’s book, Freedom From Fear:

The difference between melodrama and drama is both simple and telling. It has nothing to do with plot. Both drama and melodrama can feature a plot with many twists and death-defying turns. But in melodrama, as the plot develops, the characters remain static. [The characters in a melodrama] are as two-dimensional after their ordeals as they were before. [The characters in a drama] are not. In the course of the human drama, whatever the plot may be, character develops. - pp. 118-119

What this reminded me of is how I perceive the difference in the way that fundamentalist or ultra-orthodox religious groups tend to look at things, such as the conflict in Israel and the Palestinian territories. When I listen to the way the religious right wing of each of the Abrahamic faiths characterizes the conflict, I feel like I’m hearing a melodrama described. When I listen to how moderates and progressives within the Abrahamic religions describe the conflict, I feel like I’m hearing a drama described

The groups viewing the conflict from the perspective of Church’s “melodrama” seem to share in common a vision of “final victory,” with the defeat of the evil Others. The various “players” in the melodrama are starkly defined in two-dimensional renderings. The outcome of the “melodrama” is as certain as the fixed nature of the various players.  God is on one and only one side in the “melodrama.”  God may love the people on the “other side,” but God’s hope for them is that they switch from the evil side to the good side.  If they don’t, they’ll be punished eternally.

The groups viewing the conflict from Church’s perspective of “drama” may differ somewhat on their political goals, but they seem to share in common a vision of human transformation - co-existence, mutual respect, justice, forgiveness, and the transcendence of violence.  The various “players” in the drama are defined as human, complex, fallible, tragic, and yet capable of growth and change.  The outcome of the “drama” is unknown, and there is more than one possible road ahead towards peace or further suffering.  In the “drama,” God is on everyone’s side and is in everyone and present everywhere.  No one side is all good or bad.  God is found especially in the potential for human transformation - from violence to peace, from hatred to respect and ultimately trust.

Just saw this from a pastor who seems like he’s aiming for similar things with his approach to religion. I’m also fascinated that he weaves into this piece 2 major Jewish elements: a kabbalistic creation story and a Hasidic tale as well. Just food for thought.

Something beyond obvious is that unhealthy approaches to religion dominate the landscape of conflict in the Middle East. For almost 20 years, I’ve been an activist and supporter of groups trying to forge Israeli-Palestinian reconciliation and peace. Lately I’ve been very troubled by fundamentalist and apocalyptic approaches to religion that continue to push for absolutist political positions that will lead only to more war and injustice. Just this Thanksgiving morning I read news reports about the Jewish settler community in Hebron. The religious settler movement has an uncompromising and absolutist interpretation of Torah, and this is at the root of their insistence on viewing the entirety of ancient Israel as the sole inheritance of Jews today. There’s no room for questioning sacred texts in their approach, and no room for acknowledging that another people, the Palestinians, has an equally profound attachment and rootedness to the same land. From my view, a healthy religious approach is always willing to question sacred texts, and seeks to listen to the claims of others with a spirit of openness, respect, and a willingness to seek out solutions that combine respect for one’s own sacred story with respect for another’s. Similarly, in the Islamic community, uncompromising interpretations of the Qu’ran continue to fuel a position that rejects the very notion of a Jewish homeland being part of the fabric of the Middle East. The use of Islam to promote violence and hatred of the Other is also a sad and shocking reality.

Something that’s been on my mind a lot lately is the so-called Christian Zionist movement, as energetically led by CUFI - Christians United for Israel, Rev. John Hagee’s group. This is, in my view, a Christian manifestation of an unhealthy approach to religion, combining several forces that I believe can be very dangerous: biblical literalism, absolute certainty, and apocalyptic fantasy. I’m especially bothered by the fact that some in the Jewish community, in part moved by CUFI’s emotionally warm overtures to Israel, have decided to support CUFI’s work.

Right now I’m pondering whether the US needs a new major organization to campaign across the land in the name of a healthier approach to Judaism and Christianity vis-a-vis the Middle East. (I also support this kind of movement within Islam, but right now my instinct is that a Jewish-Christian joint endeavor could be powerful as a counterweight to CUFI’s agenda.) Could it be called something like Jews and Christians United for Israel and Palestine (JACUFIP)? JACUFIP would organize churches and synagogues, rabbis and pastors, and lay leaders too in support of a set of principles that affirm Israel’s right to exist, the right of the Palestinians to a sovereign homeland too alongside Israel, and common religious values that represent the healthiest, most life-affirming elements of our faith traditions. JACUFIP would make a concerted outreach effort across the land to Jews and Christians who might be subjecte dto CUFI’s message, offering a clear critique of the unhealthy elements of their message, and providing a different way to show love and support to Israel (which, needn’t and in fact mustn’t exclude showing love and support to the future state of Palestine). Just sharing some thoughts here….

Steven Kalas wrote this piece on the subject of healthy vs. unhealthy religion in the Las Vegas Review-Journal.

As I led Shabbat services yesterday morning, I had with me Marge Piercy’s book of Jewish-related poetry, The Art of Blessing the Day. One of the poems within, “The Fundamental Truth,” caught my eye. It presents a harsh critique of fundamentalists of all religions. I read it and had a multi-layered reaction. Part of me angrily thought, “Right on!” Another part of me experienced a pang of doubt as I noticed myself feeling this intense bitterness and resentment towards fundamentalists. I was asking myself the question, “Does my emotional reaction lead me towards expressing my highest values? How do I deal with people or movements that I strongly disagree with in a way that reflects my highest ethics?” I happened to find a sermon that responded to Piercy’s poem on line. Rev. Kathleen McTigue, a Unitarian minister, tackles this question for herself in an April 2000 talk she gave at her church. I’ll be thinking about her ideas for a while. I’ve copied Rev. McTigue’s sermon here:

The True Believer

Rev. Kathleen McTigue
Sunday, April 16, 2000

The polarization that characterizes so much of American life is risky business in [any setting], but especially so in a monastic community. The person you’re quick to label and dismiss as a racist, a homophobe, a queer, an anti-Semite, a misogynist, a bigoted conservative or bleeding-heart liberal is also a person you’re committed to live, work, pray, and dine with for the rest of your life. Anyone who knows a monastery well knows that it is no exaggeration to say that you find Al Franken and Rush Limbaugh living next door to each other. Mother Angelica and Mary Gordon. Barney Frank and Jesse Helms. Not only living together in close quarters, but working, eating, praying and enjoying…recreation together, every day, often for fifty years or more…. How do they do it?…They …have the wisdom of St. Benedict, who [taught]…that there are two types of zeal; one which is bitter and divisive, separating monks from God and from each other, and another which can lead them together into [more abundant] life. [Benedict defined] this ‘good zeal’ as acts of love…[and taught] that this means ’supporting with the greatest patience one another [through all] weaknesses of body or behavior.’

From Kathleen Norris
Amazing Grace

When I was on sabbatical last year, part of my discipline of spiritual exploration was a series of retreats in different settings. One of these, a four-day retreat, was at a Benedictine Abbey in Bethlehem, CT. I discovered on my arrival that a part of the rhythm of monastic life offered to retreatants, no matter what their faith or their reasons for retreat, was the assignment of a member of the community as a kind of guide or liaison. The person I was assigned was a nun in her seventies, about four and a half feet tall, with the unlikely and deeply incongruous name of Mother Placid. She spoke rapid-fire and nearly nonstop with a strong New York accent, although she had Read the rest of this entry »

I’m about 10 chapters into Neale Donald Walsch’s Tomorrow’s God: Our Greatest Spiritual Challenge. It’s written in the same format has his “Conversations With God” books, which I haven’t read. Walsch critiques what he calls “Yesterday’s God” - a God that humanity has created as a “Super Being” - a larger than life version of a human being. Yesterday’s God doesn’t lead us to the kinds of human behavior patterns that will make our world peaceful and sustainable for human life. This is the major flaw of organized religions - and Walsch especially critiques the three major Abrahamic ones. Walsch’s other problem with Yesterday’s God is that, he says, this God isn’t really the true God. Tomorrow’s God is Life itself, including not just what biologists would call living (versus inanimate) things, but all of existence, which is pulsing with movement and living energy, and varying levels of consciousness. We are a part of this God, and in Walsch’s pantheistic theology, there is nothing that is not a part of God. Tomorrow’s God openly invites us to substitute the word “Life” for the word “God” - one of the ideas in the book I find the most thought provoking and, for the moment, appealing.

To get things started, I’ll post some excerpts from a sermon I gave in October, 2004 at Yom Kippur. Yom Kippur is the holiest day of the Jewish year, and it is common for rabbis to give their most significant talk of the year to their congregants on that day. In this particular sermon, I was doing some personal sharing about how I have explored and wrestled with Judaism over the years. Here are the excerpts:

I became a rabbi because I couldn’t stop wrestling with Judaism. Not because I found uninterrupted joy in Judaism, not because it always felt like home, and not because I was drawn like a moth to its spiritual flame. For me, it was the path of Jacob - of Ya’akov - our Read the rest of this entry »

Hello, my name is Maurice Harris, and my “day job” is that I serve as one of two rabbis at a progressive synagogue in Eugene, Oregon. For quite a long time I have been thinking, and to some extent, writing and speaking, about the notion of healthy religion. My plan for this web site and blog is to flesh out some of my ideas on this subject. At this point, I don’t have a concrete idea of exactly what I want to do with this blog. I hope that that will become clearer in the future. One thing I will say: because I’m Jewish and a rabbi to boot, a lot of my writing about what I think makes an approach to religion healthy or unhealthy is specifically discussing this question regarding Judaism. My intent in sharing or linking to any of those writings here is for readers - should there be any - to apply the principles and values I discuss to religions in general.

I don’t presume to hold the key to knowing for certain what makes an approach to religion more or less healthy - I want to make that clear.  For now, this blog is a place for me to jot down some of the things I’m exploring.  I’m also new at blogging, so I expect a very choppy and uneven start.