Confronting The Religious Deficit

July 17, 1991

Dealing with the religious deficit is a more difficult task than our Government has in its futile gestures toward balancing the Federal dollar deficit. By “religious deficit” I mean the vast gap that exists for almost everyone between what we say religion is and how those sayings substantially affect our behavior in the social order. There are exceptions, of course. In the 20th century one can point to such persons as Gandhi, Schweitzer, Dorothy Day, the Berrigan brothers, Mother Teresa, James Reeb, Martin Luther King, Jr., others, who acted out their religious convictions without counting the cost. But most of us compromise in larger or smaller measures to protect our security, comfort, family, reputation, or status.

Two literary allusions stimulated these comments: E. M. Forster, in his fine novel, A PASSAGE TO INDIA, comments about Ronny, the supercilious, shallow, conforming civil servant, “Ronny approved of religion as long as it endorsed the National Anthem, but he objected when it attempted to influence his life.”

Arthur Koestler, a contributor to THE GOD THAT FAILED, the essays of prominent literary persons who had been members of the Communist Party, only to become thoroughly disillusioned, commented, “Faith is a wondrous thing; it is not only capable of moving mountains, but also making you believe that a herring is a race horse.”

These quotations represent extremes, but in some degree they touch base for many people, who would of course deny any application to them. The Forster quotation would be labeled a slander; Koestler’s comment as religiously irreverent.

Both of these observations about religion omit any claim that what one believes demands ethical behavior in the social interaction of family, friends, nature, state, nation, world. Any ethical imperative is absent.

Consider the teachings of Jesus. (One could choose the prophets of other great world religions, but Jesus is the pre-dominant example in our part of the world.) “The Sermon on the Mount” (Matthew, chapters 5-7) was probably not a once-delivered sermon, but a later gathering of teachings that would be shaking to most Christians if they were to take Jesus’ admonitions seriously. If you are not averse to being upset, read carefully five through seven of Matthew with the question in your mind, “if this ethic was a mainstream, what would happen in the world?” Just a few citations that I hope will whet your mind to read more and reflect:

“Blessed are the peacemakers for they shall see God.” (5/9) But is not our prevailing attitude, “Hooray for the warmakers (when they win)?” Take any of the last 16 centuries, Christians have killed more Christians than any others. (Not that Christians have spared members of other religions.)

“Again you have heard that it was said to men of old, ‘You shall not swear falsely, but shall perform to the Lord what you have sworn.’ But I say unto you, do not swear at all, either to heaven for it is the throne of God, or by the earth for it is his footstool, or by Jerusalem, for it is the city of the great King. And do not swear by your head, for you cannot make one hair black or white. Let what you say be simply ‘yes’ or ‘no’; anything more comes from the devil.’ (5-33/34) But we require that you swear an oath when testifying in court; on his inauguration, a President must swear an oath; a notary requires an oath before affixing seal and signature; there are many examples. I don’t know whether Jesus would be amused or discouraged.

“You have heard that it was said, ‘you shall love your neighbor and hate your enemy.’ But I say unto you, Love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you, so that you may be sons of your Father who is in heaven; for he makes his sun rise on the evil and the good, and sends rain on the just and on the unjust.” (5:43). How about that! Love your enemies! One main patriotic stimulus is the propagation of hate in war. Hate the Iraqis and Hussein; hate the Communists; hate the North Vietnamese; hate the Germans. Love your enemies? That’s really subversive and will get the F.B.I. on your case.

“And when you pray, you must not be like the hypocrites, for they love to stand and pray in the synagogues and at the street corners, that they may be seen by men. Truly, I say to you, they will have their reward. But when you pray, go into your room and shut the door and pray to your Father who is in secret; and your Father who sees in secret will reward you.” (6-5/6). But verbal prayer in the public schools seems for many to be the answer to all kinds of individual and social evils. Congress opens with prayer; the TV evangelists broadcast prayers to millions of their followers. How often do they quote Jesus that one should pray in secret?

“Do not lay up for yourselves treasures on earth, where moth and rust consume and where thieves break in and steal, but lay up for yourselves treasures in heaven, where neither moth nor rust consume and where thieves do not break in and steal. For where your treasure is, there will your heart be also.” (7-19/21).

Treasures on earth? That’s the principal message of the stock exchanges, retirement plans, savings accounts, real estate, nest-eggs, books, antique collections – what have you! There are very few who do not want to accumulate treasures on earth. I have wanted to, even though my accumulation is minimal. We want security; we dread going broke.

No wonder the crowds were astonished (6-28); [they] would be even more astonished today. Rather than follow such difficult ways, it is much easier to recite a creed, celebrate a rite, obey a dogma, have a discussion group or just chat about the pity of it all. The vast majority has always taken the smoother road. After all, we do respond to our genes, upbringing, national ethos, desire not to make waves, like not to be named among the trouble-makers. The ethical code of Jesus has been and still is an embarrassment.

In reviewing this radical ethic, I hope I am not hypocritical. I do not subscribe to the heaven and hell Jesus emphasized. His “Father God”, for me, is at best a metaphor of hope amid the oceanic mystery of conscious existence. G.K. Chesterton, in contrast to the Arthur Koestler statement quoted at the beginning, wrote, (and this is a paraphrase): when one stops believing in God, the difficulty is not that one believes in nothing but that one will believe anything. I believe Chesterton wrong when I reflect on the weird beliefs, shameful behavior and arrogant prejudice of many who assert belief in God. The same would apply to some non-believers.

The radical teachings of Jesus are an impossible ethic. “To dream the impossible dream” was the theme song of the musical “Man of LaMancha.” One could interpret the hero as an idealistic, silly, tragic clown. Some of Rouault’s famous paintings of clowns have been interpreted as Christ figures.

But don’t you think, if in our better moments, there was determination to live in harmony with even one of these disturbing teachings, anyone of us might become a more happy (“blessed”) and decent person? There is also a LIVE-ly song, “Be a clown, be a clown, be a clown.”