Religious Scholar

Do we expect confidentiality from our spiritual advisors? For many of us, this is a basic assumption. Nothing can be more private, no level of trust more precious, than that between the spiritual guide and the person seeking direction.

That may not be the case with celebrity advisors such as Rabbi Shmuley Boteach. Rabbi Boteach was on CNN during prime time this evening divulging a bewildering array of confidences entrusted in him by Michael Jackson.

Granted, Mr. Jackson is dead, information that has effectively replaced international news coverage in the American media this week. Is there a statute of limitations on the confidentiality of spiritual direction which ends immediately upon the death of the advisee? Would anyone confide their deepest, most personal thoughts and yearnings to a respected religious guide if there was the faintest chance that guide would “tell all” before the funeral? Is there a code of ethics for spiritual advisors? Or are they above the law of common human decency?

By definition, a guru is a respected teacher and mentor, particularly in the area of religious or spiritual education. But like leaders in other fields, gurus sometimes succumb to temptation and, at the worst, take their disciples and students with them as they slide down the slippery slope of moral and intellectual decline.

Some religious and spiritual sects go to great lengths to falsify or deny facts about their belief systems and their leadership. It almost goes without saying that anyone embarking on a specific pathway should be unstinting in his or her research before committing to a life of devotion, service, and financial support of a teacher or institution, even if one was immersed in a religious tradition since birth. After careful study, one may conclude that the occasional wayward priest, rabbi, preacher, or imam is no reason to discard the entire corpus of a particular religion's teachings. On the other hand, if the CEO and Founder Emeritus of a religious pathway turns out to be a quack of the first order, it may be time to take one's soul-searching elsewhere.

We need all the tools we can find to help us make what arguably is the most important decision of our lives: what path will we follow in the quest for meaning and understanding? I recently came across a useful book, Stripping the Gurus by Geoffrey Falk, with much documented evidence about famous gurus and other spiritual leaders of our time. While the book may be purchased online, the author has also made it available free for downloading, which is what I did, and what you may care to do as well. I don't suggest that this work contains the last word in advice on the subject, but you will find it a useful departure point for your own search for information about those who lead or mislead in matters of the spirit.

http://www.strippingthegurus.com/ebook/Stripping_the_Gurus.pdf

Thomas Berry, cropped from a photo by Gretchen McHugh

Thomas Berry, a priest who understood the nexus between nature and spirituality, passed away June 1, 2009, at the age of 94. He was the author of The Dream of the Earth (1988). May his greatest contributions be yet to come.

See: www.ThomasBerry.org

Organized religion has many virtues, but, in a secular state, it also may serve as a wedge to divide people from their civil liberties. This is currently what is happening in the gay marriage debate. One does not hear of "Secular Humanists Against Gay Marriage" or "Atheists for Male-Female Matrimony." The overwhelming number of people in the United States who oppose gay marriage do so because of doctrines rooted in a literal Biblical context.

The literal interpretation of the Bible, a treasure of religious guidance, spirituality and moral direction, is to blame for much in the way of gay-bashing as it has also been used to subjugate women and, at times, to justify the enslavement of human beings. When I think of literal interpretation, I am reminded of the Laurence Harvey character in the movie, The Manchurian Candidate, who has been programmed to have a Pavlov reaction upon seeing a certain playing card. If he sees the card and someone says, "go jump in the lake," he will do exactly that.

If only one could free individuals from mental programming of such power that it causes the very destruction it is developed to prevent. One can only applaud religious institutions and individual seekers who use reason and compassion in interpreting their spiritual heritage. We do not live in a theocracy, but in a society where diversity prevails and liberty is a Constitutional guarantee. We cannot impose our religious views--no matter how strong our convictions--on individuals in a free society. We cannot use the literal interpretation of the Scriptures of some to deprive others of basic human rights.

It was encouraging this morning to read a letter to the editor in The New York Times from a Lutheran minister vigorously attacking the hierarchical context that allowed the human rights abuses of the Irish Catholic Church to exist for so many years.

Lest we think for a moment, however, that the Lutherans are the unilateral good guys in this debate, we need to recall that one of the most conspicuous forms of human rights abuse is the relegation of women to subservient, often sexually-defined roles within the religious system. In this expression of sexual abuse, the Lutheran faith is not entirely blameless.

Depending on whose statistics we accept, from one-third to one-half of baptized Lutherans in the United States subscribe to the doctrine that women are not worthy to serve as professional ministers: that women who hear the “call to serve” in this vocation are either deluded or mistaken. Perhaps what they hear is a Divine call to host the covered dish supper!

In its favor, the branch now known as the Evangelical Lutheran Church of America has been ordaining women since the 1970s (still a paltry time span given the 2,000-year history of Christianity). Representing between 2.9 million and 4.7 million adherents, this branch may represent the majority of Lutherans in the United States.

In favor of discrimination against women and keeping them “in their place” are the Missouri Synod and Wisconsin Evangelical Lutheran Synod, representing between 2.8 million and 3.0 million baptized members. According to some statistical jugglers, the numbers of pro- and anti-female ordination supporters are about even.

Perhaps if we framed sexual discriimination as a form of sexual abuse there would be a greater hue and cry in the media against the oppression of women by male-dominated religious hierarchies. As it stands, we are grateful that the media acknowledge this disparity at all. They would probably rally even more behind the issue of female ordination and its immeasurable consequences for women, from the cradle to the grave, were they able to take religion in the least bit seriously.