The Cost And Value Of Religion

December 4, 1983
Lakeland
Port Charlotte

“Why not abolish religion?” asks John Bartlow Martin. The reality is that no one is going to abolish religion, ever. One can quibble with the definition that “men invented religion millenia ago because they found the human condition intolerable, and because being frail, frightened mortals, they needed assurance that they were immortal, and all this is still the case.” Mr. Martin seizes upon fear as the cause of religion, and immortality as its solace. Such a definition singles out only one color and form of the multi-hued kaleidoscope that is called religion. While Mr. Martin may be writing tongue-in-cheek and being deliberately provocative, if he is at all serious, I’m reminded of the observation “to get people to believe only part of the story is one definition of a propagandist.” [CJW note: 1st casualty, p. 197]

There is much more to the story, and if Mr. Martin does not know it, then he could be reminded of a note the late Groucho Marx send to humorist S. J. Perelman after the latter had published a book. Wrote Groucho, “From the moment I picked up your book until I laid it down, I was convulsed with laughter. Some day I intend reading it.” To Mr. Martin, it may be suggested that he read the whole story of religion.

Religion, although fear has been one persisting cause, is much more than that. People have experienced not only fear, but wonder in confronting the forces and mysteries of creation. However one labels oneself, can the experience of life in this universe be anything but awesome? Early religions deified the unexplainable forces – the gods of wind, ocean, volcanoes, mountains, water, and the creating abundance which gave people corn, fruit, and wine. Symbolic rituals were created, not only to placate these gods, but also to relate to them, to become one with the god, or gods. Such mystic embrace is more profound than fear. Being grasped by the experience of the All-In-All or the God beyond all the named gods and goddesses is so overwhelming that expressions of that experience never quite communicate the indescribable wonder, harmony, and beauty of the mystery. The philosopher Hegel believed that churches were needed to objectify the subjective feelings of awe that all persons feel. [CJW note: ... the Minds of Men, p. 228]

Furthermore, and just as vital, the columnist ignores the reality that most religions place upon its believers a code of human values – how must I behave to my family, neighbors, and the strangers beyond the gates. These are the expectations of ethical behavior that religion places upon us. Religion places expectations of ethical behavior upon its adherents.

I’ve forgotten which philosopher wrote, “History is the true demonstration of religion.” There has been much good as well as evil demonstrated by religion in history.

Would the world be a better place to live if there had been no Moses, liberator and law-giver, who placed an indelible stamp on one of the world’s great religions?

Would the world be a kinder place if Jesus had never lived and taught men and women that the Kingdom of God was in their midst, and could be realized by love, justice, and forgiveness?

Would the world be a healthier place if the gentle Buddha had not imprinted a humane ethic and gentleness on a culture?

The list of human saviors is long – Confucius, Lao Tze, Francis of Assisi, countless unknown and unsung men and women motivated by their religion who labored to make human living better.

Irrespective of how many of us would quarrel with creeds and are unmoved by the rituals and ceremonies of others, these beliefs and observances have sustained millions in their living struggles with disasters and tragedies. Would they have been happier without such resources and consolations?

Is the price of religion too high when it inspired some of the great artists, sculptors and composers?

Michelangelo’s superb sculptures, particularly his Moses and [his] David; his monumental creation in the Sistine Chapel.

Bach’s cantatas and fugues. Beethoven’s Missa Solemnis, Mozart’s Requiem Mass, to name only a few. All these remain as fine enduring values in the human heritage.

But there is another aspect of religion where Mr. Martin is quite correct. The Crusades, the Spanish Inquisition, the [Salem witch trials] were bloody adventures. His listing of Africa, Ireland, Lebanon, India, Egypt as scenes of religious violence is on the mark. The list of religious horrors could be infinitely lengthened beyond his short list.

According to the accounts, Joshua, Moses’ successor, led a cruel genocidal invasion of the land of Canaan. At Jericho, Joshua and his army killed all the inhabitants except the harlot, Rahab, and her relatives. The towns and cities of Makkedah, Libnah, Lachish, Gezer, Eglon, Hebron, Deber, were destroyed and all their inhabitants massacred. The Bible reads, “Joshua left none remaining and he completely destroyed everything that breathed, as Yahveh, the God of Israel, had commanded.” This, in the name of God and religion.

An historian remarks that “the later Roman Empire was given financial stability in the end by Constantine, who robbed the Pagan temples in the name of his conversion to Christianity.” (Thomas, p. 182)

[Theodosius], a later successor to Constantine, and famed as a Christian emperor and lawgiver, issued a decree in 380, “... let us believe in the one deity of the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit, in equal majesty and in a holy Trinity. We authorize the followers of this law to assume the title of Catholic Christians; but as for the others, since, in our judgment they are foolish madmen, we decree that they shall be branded with the ignominious name of heretics, and shall not presume to give to their conventicles the name of churches. They will suffer in the first place the chastisement of the divine condemnation and in the second the punishment of our authority which in accordance with the will of Heaven we shall decide to inflict.”

Catholics cannot be singled out for such cruel acts. I spoke a few weeks ago [about] how Martin Luther urged on the princes to slaughter the peasants. As a religious person, Luther argued one was subject to the law of love and the highest spiritual ideals, while as a citizen of the state one had to obey the laws and follow the customs that fell short of the ideals. Of Luther, R.H. Tawney concluded, “the logic of his religious premises ... riveted on the social thought of Protestantism a dualism which, as its implications developed, emptied religion of its social content and society of its soul.” (Ozment, p. 264).

So one can fairly say that if history is the true demonstration of religion, then one can say with Lord Acton, “history not a web woven with innocent hands.”

However, to conclude that John Bartlow Martin was both wrong and correct when he suggests that religion be abolished is to miss the central point. Socrates (?) commented, “when you know all the answers you haven’t asked all the questions.” Why has religion been both a blessing and a curse?

A substantial part of the answer to that question is [that] religion is a curse when it has unlimited power. Again, I turn to the wisdom of Lord Acton, “among all the causes which degrade and demoralize men, power is the most constant and most active.” Goethe commented, “the man of action is essentially conscienceless.” A contemporary of Acton used to say that a leader of a party, however virtuous his private conduct, could not, in his political positions, exercise the common virtues of the honest man. Truth, justice, and moral intrepidity came into play only when they were of service to the party. Acton’s most famous quote is “power corrupts, absolute power corrupts absolutely.”

Because Joshua had power, he corrupted the laws and example of Moses and led ruthless invasions of the Canaanites, who had not wronged him.

Because Constantine and Justinian had absolute power, they squelched dissent cruelly. [1] Because Martin Luther conceded all power to the princes, thousands of peasants were slaughtered. Defending some policies of the Roman Catholic church, Lord Acton, writing Bishop Creighton, noted, “My dogma is not the special wickedness of my own special superiors, but the general wickedness of men in authority – of Luther and Zwingli, and Calvin, and Cranmer, and Knox, of Mary Stuart and Henry VIII, of Philip II and Elizabeth, of Cromwell and Louis XIV ....”

Absolute power is a curse and terrible burden to the human family. The examples are too numerous to dispute that. But the reverse, lack of power, is no blessing either. Lord Acton, (again) “When the last of the Reformers died, religion, instead of emancipating the nations, had become an excuse for the criminal art of despots. Calvin preached and Bellarmine lectured, but Machiavelli reigned.”

It occurred to me to John B. Martin could have substituted governments, monarchies, or nations [in] every place he used “religion.” The article would be equally true and equally distorted.

Yet, we know that there is no escaping power in the human venture. Power is the gear box of human society. Except in rare instances, without police power and the power of the law courts, we would not be protected from injuries of all varieties. Without the power of governments, social life would be anarchy. But those necessary powers have a built-in temptations to reach for more power. The philosopher Hobbes observed, “Man seeks power in order to secure his own preservation, but that being a precarious affair, he must acquire more power to secure that which he has already won.”

The answer lies in a multi-plicity of social forces, all of which have power, but none with absolute power. Is it not true that in countries like our own where religious pluralism prevails, there is relative harmony between the many religions? Because of religious freedom, no one is coerced to be a church member unless he or she chooses. Would any of you want it any other way?

In our time, however, because of religious freedom, the dangers of a totalitarian religion are remote as long as we remain alert.

The distribution of power is just as necessary in the other social interchanges of which we are a part. Looking back historically, as well as in my own experience, the nation’s manufacturing, commerce, and trade are better, fairer, and more open because of the labor union movement. The unions, many times with suffering and sacrifice, forced management to share some power. And we are better off because of it.

We are governed by a nation where power is shared by the three powers: Congress, the President, and the Supreme Court. Many times we are dissatisfied with the action or non-action of these branches, but would you seek a dictator because all political decisions are not what you wished for and worked for?

The responsibility is ours for a multiplicity of powers, whether in religion or the state.

The novelist E.M. Forster has a character named Fielding say, “There is a truth in religion that has not yet been sung?” But the only way that such will be discovered or created is to maintain the opportunity for that truth to be heard. That is possible only when power is distributed.

Let me conclude with a reminder of what James Luther Adams wrote:

“The faith of a church or a nation is an adequate faith only when it inspires and enables people to give of their time and energy to shape the various institutions – social, economic, and political – of the common life.... The creation of justice in community requires the organization of power.”



[1] Editor’s note: in an earlier section, the Edict of Theodosius had been erroneously attributed to Justinian. Justinian is mentioned again here, but it is retained as it is not obviously an error or mischaracterization.