Most people today understand the distinction between
spirituality and religion, and many make it frequently when attempting to
identify their own position. An
increasing number of people want to be associated with positive attributes of spirituality
but not with the negative connotations of the major institutions of
religion. One reason why is that major religions
are responsible for some of the greatest atrocities in history and continue to
be cultural wedges between people around the world. Spirituality, on the other hand, improves one’s
personal well-being, enhances a feeling of connectedness to others and to the
divine, and helps us understand ourselves better. Spirituality emphasizes the similarities and
connectedness between all people, while religion emphasizes the differences. Spirituality pursues harmony, and religion
pursues conflict. At least that is what many people feel about the major
religious institutions.
All of the world’s major religions are based on ancient
texts which are, for the most part, static. Many of these ancient texts included highly
divisive beliefs and prejudices against certain groups and demanded extreme
punishments for what today is considered acceptable behavior in many
places. This poses a dilemma for religion
because it prevents these text-based religions from adapting to the environment
and evolving with society. Instead, they
remain static while society evolves.
This creates a tension between the doctrine of the texts and the laws of
society, thereby requiring believers in the doctrine to choose between expressing
the tenets of their religion or conforming to the laws of civil society. As society continues to evolve toward greater
equality and social justice for all, believers in ancient doctrines are further
alienated: If they adhere to the laws of
civil society they are further alienated from their religion, and if they
adhere to the beliefs of their religion they are alienated from civil society.
The institutions of the major religions are in a position to
either exacerbate this conflict or ameliorate it. If they exacerbate it, we will see increased
division in society likely leading to civil unrest and tragedy, or if they
ameliorate it we will see increased harmony.
I predict that the survival of the institutions themselves rests on them
choosing the latter.
I believe the survival of the major religions requires they
move away from literal and dogmatic reading of their ancient texts and to an
interpretative modality where the institutions of religion can teach their beliefs
in a way which embraces modern cultural norms with a much higher element of
tolerance for those who do not follow the same beliefs. Stoning homosexuals and burning witches are
no longer acceptable ideas to preach in any religion. Any religion which still
embraces such ideas is doomed to be crushed by the revolution of equality that
is occurring before our eyes – and rightly so.
If left to their own devices without the leadership of a
religious institution, people will read the words off the page and usually accept
a literal meaning of the ancient texts.
This means that without the leadership of the religions to bridge the
gap between their ancient texts and modern society, this gap will widen,
increasing stress on the individual and on society until they are forced into a
mutually exclusive decision. These decision points can be dangerous and
violent. Individuals and groups who
commit atrocities in the name of their religion are examples of the danger
found from allowing continued division between religious dogma and modern
society.
The new purpose of the religious institutions needs to be as
the role of mediator, of reconciler in chief.
The role of these institutions needs to be to interpret their religious
doctrine in a way which fosters acceptance, tolerance and respect for others
who differ in many ways.
However, the religions also now have a crisis of faith. Due to the scandals and years of abuses in
many churches, people globally have lost their faith in the institutions of
religion. This is causing people to
withdraw more from the institutions and church leadership. While there may be many happy to see the
demise of the religious institutions, there remains the problem that without
these institutions in place to interpret the textual doctrine, individuals
reading the text for themselves are more likely to utilize a literal approach
to reading than interpretative, and this is more likely to heighten tension
between the individual and society rather than lessen it. We really don’t want the demise of the religious
institutions; we want them to change their approach.
If the religions become the arbiter, the mediator of ancient
and modern, of text with spirit, of beliefs with community, we will have made a
huge step toward world peace and harmony.
Now is the time for them to make this change in their approach. The
recent scandals and cover-ups have weakened the religious institutions to the
point of irrelevance. To make themselves
relevant again, they must offer believers hope and faith not only in their spiritual
beliefs, but in the value and purpose of human civil society; of the value of
peace and of the life found in every single person – even those of other faiths
or of no faith at all. This is where I believe
lies the future of the religious institutions.
