Time to examine what religion means to humanity at this point in history
There is renewed concern about the Catholic church, thanks to a grand jury’s diligence. But the Catholics are not alone. Religion is in serious trouble everywhere. And that may not be a bad thing. Ironic, since so much of the trouble is self-inflicted.
This is a discussion that will make a lot of people uncomfortable, if not downright unhappy. Still, it is one we need to have. I note that this post has some tough things to say about religion writ large. But know that I support the right of people to choose their religion. I just expect more of such institutions.
Catholics describe themselves as amazed, dismayed, and angry. They find that sexual abuse in the church is as troubling a presence as ever. The bad news is not only the crimes but continuing institutional protectionism. This latest moral failure has shaken the beliefs of many dedicated, life-long Catholics.
At some point, you have to face what is before you, and people are doing that. I don’t think the Catholic church is likely to fully recover from this round. That is a shame, given the promise of the current Pope, but this is a tipping point for many.
Is this only a Catholic problem? No, of course not. Not in its specifics, nor in the general trend of bad behavior and dogged coverups. I have lost track of the number of evangelical luminaries who have run afoul. There have been sexual peccadillos, abuses of power, lavish lifestyles, etc.
Prominent evangelicals have overlooked Donald Trump’s life choices to get agenda victories. Many go even further saying that Donald Trump as president was God’s will. This rationalization will be a major factor in their decline.
That much hypocrisy is unsustainable, as their younger members are telling them. The very term evangelical now has a negative connotation for millions. At some point, character counts.
I would not follow national evangelical leaders to a free lunch, much less in search of truth. They have proven themselves morally unsound and deeply dishonest. When your “movement” is led by the likes of Jerry Falwell Jr, Jim Bakker, and Franklin Graham, you don’t have much of a movement.
Problems extend to doctrine and theology as well. The Episcopalians have had near civil war over homosexuality and the role of women. Similar turmoil continues in the Church of England. Lutherans, Methodists, Baptists have all had similar doctrinal debates. In some cases, a mix as well of scandal and long-standing abuses of power are also present. The Mormons have a rising LGBTQ movement in their midst. And so on. These are differences that cannot compromised.
Small wonder that in much of the developed world religion is in steep decline. Mainstream religions in America have double digit membership losses. The fastest growing “denomination” in the United States is “None.” More open movements, like Unitarian Universalism, are holding ground or are growing a bit. Fewer than 15% of the population of England identify with the Church of England. Similar levels of nonalignment are found throughout Europe.
Where religion is robust, it is often plagued by extremism. Think about the Middle East, Africa, and the American right wing. Others are corrupted by government ties (Russia, for example). These are not new phenomena.
If someone wishes to believe in one or more gods, that should be their right to do so. This is for many people an important part of their spirituality. Others do not find the concept of a god/gods necessary for spirituality or morality, but many do.
It is also a truism that people like to celebrate their beliefs in community. That is generally expressed in religions. This is something related to, but not the same as, spirituality. Which takes us to the crux of the matter, as this is where the trouble begins.
Any human organization has both potential and risk. The more concentrated and unchecked the power, the greater the abuse that will follow. The less transparency there is, the greater the temptation to corrupt. It is human nature to run off the rails from time to time. If there are no counterweights in place, we are off to the races towards disaster.
No matter how pious individuals may be, the simple fact is that religions – all religions – are human institutions. Followers may well believe that their religion serves the one Truth, but religions are not Truth – they are simply groups organized in search of their truth.
Just how many religions and subdivisions are there? Take a look at the list Wikipedia provides: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_religions_and_spiritual_traditions.
Don’t forget to hit the tabs for all the spin offs and variations of the main groups.
By some counts, there are over 4,000 religious affiliations. Do we actually think one of them (the one we follow, of course) has the answers and all the others are wrong?
Consider the fallibility of all human institutions – even the best of them. Now, add a power structure that is answerable only to an unseen, other worldly power. Add further that the only people who speak to that unseen power are the ones who exercise earthly power. You can figure out where this goes.
It is the same with governments, dictatorships, cults, and others. It is more lethal and more problematic with religion because the safe guards are fewer. Those in power seek self and institutional preservation as first priority. We see examples of this almost daily, and certainly not just in the Catholic church. It is even worse when some who are culpable convince themselves that they are doing the right thing to save the institution by covering up.
If we want to have religions, fine, but let’s be candid and knowledgeable about what that means. Religion has done much good for the world. The human tendency to create religions in our early days is understandable. The world was dangerous, frightening, often capricious, and not understandable. Religion seemed to offer some answers.
That was then, this is now. Remarkable amounts of harm and cruelty have also been done in the name of religion. History has enough examples of this to tell us that these are institutions like any other. They are fallible and potentially dangerous.
People who wish to come together under a religious banner should be able to do so. But they need to take responsibility for their organizations. Recognize their leaders are humans, with all the inherent foibles of humanity.
You may revere your leaders, you may cherish the institution. But if you choose to believe that all they do is directed by the god(s) you worship, and no crosschecks or transparency are required of them, your heart will eventually be broken. People will be hurt. These are human organizations. No more, no less. There needs to be a willingness to accept these are human, not “holy” institutions that can run free of balancing forces.
We are approaching the middle of the 21stcentury. We can do better than religion is today.
Bill Clontz
If you find this blog worthy of your time and curiosity, I invite you to do two things:
(1) Join the conversation. Your voice counts here.
(2) Share the word about this post with friends and colleagues. Share a link in your emails and social media posts. Let’s grow our circle.
Bill,
Your opinion piece here appears to be preaching to the choir of skeptics with a taste of perhaps, “what they want to hear.” Will this satisfy their craving for truth? Will this bring us closer to a harmony that we seek? Or, is this just the ticket they need to turn off from this part of their lives with a ticket to the next “agenda du jour?”
As a “professional skeptic” myself in a search for what is true, I try to remind myself that there are risks to being too guarded or cautious of religion or my faith, just as there are risks to being gullible and being taken in by charlatans and those betraying truth. Which would I prefer to be wrong about is a key question?
Noticeably missing from your piece as you describe the lack of “counter-weights” are the words Love. True enough, we will find that all humans and worldly entities fall short of perfection in a broken world. You called out a cursory list of those names and institutions whom you ascribe that condition to.
To my point, there is a chapter (1 John 4) found in a book, written by approximately forty different authors spanning many centuries inspired by witness and belief, that provides a quick guide on how to test for truth. One just has to “lean in,” take a little risk to consider this and other similar methods of discerning truth. The great “unseen worldly power” you mention seeks to distract us from giving this test.
If we simply encourage skepticism and retreat from this important part of the lives of people, are we not just looking at the “glass of water” as being half empty? If we take the measure of a man based on that philosophy, who then will we look to speak on behalf of truth.
You are right to raise this topic, and I hope much good can come from it. Thanks for your Blog.
Stan, thank you for a thoughtful response and reflection. I find much to agree with, and some to respectfully disagree with – but that is exactly what this platform is for, and I thank you for enriching our dialogue. That from one professional skeptic to another!
While I would surely agree that more love would do us all serious good in many settings, including religion, the point I was attempting to make in the blog was that the institutions of religion are human creations and even with the best of intentions, will from time to time go awry, sometimes catastrophically. In a sense, I suppose I was repackaging that old motto, “Hope for the best, plan for the worst.” My call was not to skeptics, but to the faithful. By the way, I do not personally know all the readers of this blog, but of those I do know, we have a pretty diverse readership in terms of faith and religion. I know we have both dedicated Atheists and Humanists and well as deeply committed Catholics and Protestants. I hope this will always be the case. I know I personally need to hear other perspectives regularly.
I am hoping that believers who are members of religions will indeed base their actions and decisions on love but put in place systems that will protect them when their leaders fail them, as they will at some point. More importantly, I would draw great satisfaction from their leaders putting such processes in place, in recognition of their own fallibilities and in dedication to protecting those who trust them so much. To me this is not a matter of skepticism, but simply recognition of the reality that history shows us over and over. If there is an exception, I am unaware of it.
For what it is worth, the fact that I find such institutions sure to fail at points in time does not mean I think they are inherently evil. Good people can run afoul of moral and ethical principles and still at heart be good people supporting a noble cause they believe in. For me, that makes having the protections and checks I mentioned all the more important to have in place.