Separation of Church and Interfaith

I heard Rev. Michael S Piazza speak at an Interfaith luncheon today.  He’s a respected and effective liberal minister.  He claimed that ‘spiritual not religious’ people need religion because it offers eternal life.  I raised my hand, but there’s never enough time at those things…

Dear Rev. Piazza:

Thank you for your talk today.  I loved your message that progressive religion should stand for something, until, of course, you raised the issue of ‘eternal life’.  I was encouraged to contribute because you mentioned people of ‘no faith’ in your opening remarks.  Thank you for including this minority!  Your topic concerned ‘spiritual not religious’ people who had left religion.  As you know, this group includes many people who don’t believe in an afterlife.

I love progressive religion for its potential to do good.  My worry is about the message we send to people we’d like to work with.  I’d like progressive religion to tell people:

“We are working for social justice.  You are already complete, loving, cool people.  We’d love to have you join us.  We need you.”

Rather than

“We are working for social justice and can possibly hook you up with eternal life.  You are missing a vital ingredient which we can provide.  You need us.”

Suppose we do outlive our bodies.  Wouldn’t this be true whether people joined our churches or not?  So the afterlife is not a reason to join progressive religion.  We don’t claim to have the only way to it.  If it exists, it is part of the heritage of all human beings.  So people don’t need us for eternal life, even if it is real.  We need to show that we are working to make sure people have one good life, whether they get a second one or not.  This we can promote with confidence.

And we don’t want to denigrate acceptance of temporality.  It is a beautiful part of naturalism and many faith traditions. The last thing you want to say is that your scheme is superior.  If you do, you can expect a response, or to see people walking away.  Each person will decide about eternal life based on their other values.  It can be hard for Christians to imagine, but millions of people don’t care about living forever.  Millions more might wish for an afterlife, but seeing no evidence for it, learn to accept that we are lucky to be here for a few decades, then depart forever.  When most humans have died by the age of 5 of disease and neglect, demanding a second life seems the height of ingratitude.  Besides, death can enhance meaning by serving as a deadline.  A life that didn’t end would be a prison.  This is where religion flirts with supremacy:  eternal life is an extravagant, even outlandish, thing to propose.  It would be doubly rash, and imperious, to claim special access to it.

Of course, believers might just like to hang out with others who believe in eternal life.  But are we an eternal life club?  I would like Interfaith to be inclusive, even of nonbelievers.  Anything less would create an unequal setting.  In order to be inclusive, Interfaith must avoid endorsing a position on the afterlife, or any other religious view, while welcoming all views.

We expect even-handedness from our government.  This is why we insist on separation of church and state.  Why don’t we insist on separation of church and Interfaith Alliance?  The answer seems to be that its members are primarily church people who are so accustomed to the fact that there is no expectation of equality in churches that they don’t notice it anymore.  Each church knows at least something about what God likes and if you disagree, well, you probably won’t be happy there.  Interfaith is not free of this kind of insularity.  I felt it today when I dared suggest we die when our bodies do.  I’m chalking the chilly vibe up to emotion and not taking it personally.  But I’m sure I would not have gotten the same reception if I let it slip that I’m transgender or asexual.  Liberal religious people are tolerant, but they have their limits.  And liberal religious tolerance seems to be a political position, not a universal value.  I see Interfaith as choosing its battles, and looking the other way on admittedly lesser issues that would bog it down.

The problem is that any exclusive attitude is not compatible with our work for social justice.  Churches are in a bind.  They can not preserve many of the tenets of their identity while being fully inclusive.  They have to choose, but Interfaith does not.  Interfaith could practice ‘separation of church and Interfaith’, but they are a long way from doing so.  It’s all very churchy, which means exclusivity, which is one of the major reasons people leave religion.

Back to the afterlife.  We must address death, but we can do it without committing to an afterlife.  You acknowledged it was uncertain.  What would a CPA say when the figures are uncertain?  She would say no more than she could justify.  We don’t have to say there is no afterlife; we can leave it open, but in your remarks you didn’t do that.  You said progressive religion is superior to the ‘spiritual not religious’ position because it offers the eternal.  I don’t think that approach will work with this audience.  They don’t need us to have an afterlife, and many of them don’t need an afterlife at all.  That’s why they left religion.  It is we who need them.

Of course we should discuss our hopes and fears, but advocating even a filmy doctrine of an afterlife divides people.  It leaves the naturalists, atheists, Taoists and many Buddhists out.  The Hindu afterlife is cyclical and doesn’t include continuity of consciousness.  It even leaves out many radical Christians and ministers.  And it is simply unnecessary.  Most who believe it will not leave if we are silent about it.  And by the way, there would be no issue here at all if churches were held to truth-in-labeling laws.  In that case, the lawyers would not let you talk about an afterlife.  It is an embarrassment that religion often excuses itself from substantiating its most basic claims.  Interfaith need not stand under the same cloud.

When the pitch strays into supernaturalism and eternal life, we lose many good people, people we need.  If such ideas are central to your identity, then you will just have to soldier on even if you lose people, as the Catholic church does.  But if such ideas are not primary, if social justice and equality are the real core of your identity, then liberal churches can grow by offering a place where people can see their efforts multiplied, while staying out of vague claims about eternity.  Such ideas are more trouble than they are worth.  Each church must decide whether they earn their keep.

Jesus was clear that following him wouldn’t make you popular.  So it shouldn’t be surprising to find we can’t push religious ideas and unite people.  We must push good, loving ideas whether they have a religious pedigree or not.  Of course each member can push whatever they wish, but as a group, we will be most useful if we avoid favoring a position on supernatural matters.

What often happens is that religious leaders make a political calculation.  “Will we lose more people by emphasizing eternity or by soft-pedaling it?”  I’d like to suggest there is a moral component that tips the scale.  Should we promote the afterlife, even while admitting it is only a possibility?  When we buy life insurance, they don’t say there’s a possibility they will pay when we die.  That’s how they do things in Vegas, except there they publish the odds and endure external audits.  Should liberal religion do less?

When asked about your own thoughts on the afterlife, you said, “I don’t know” and “We are recycled”.  Neither of these is much of a commodity.  It seems you want to offer eternal life without any certification as to what it is you are offering.  That seems unworthy next to your other achievements.  But, alas, it is the norm in religion.  I’m a nonbeliever, and even I want more for religion than that, particularly for liberal, progressive religion.  It is fine to offer hope, but it must be backed up better than this, or we risk running a casino, and an after-hours one at that.

Talk of divine benefits to membership is a very un-progressive aspect of much religion.  I honestly don’t know what will make Interfaith grow, but I’d like to see us stick to what unites people:  our needs for community, ecology and peace.  Religious faith claims are personal matters.  But in public, they work against our efforts to be as inclusive as possible.

Best,

Don Severs