Sensible Religion ed. by Christopher Lewis, Dan Cohn-Sherbok (review)

Many people today view religion as either fanatical or fanciful. This book of essays by committed believers offers an alternative: “sensible religion.” Lewis claims that religious belief, when it is self-critical, is reasonable. Religion is also sensible when it is sensitive, “being mindful of the views of others and responsive to the world around us, both individually and collectively.”

Most of the contributors accept Lewis’s definition. Tim Winter, however, refers to three contemporary Muslim “role-models for millions”: Fethullah Gülen, named by the journal Prospect in 2008 as the “world’s leading public intellectual”; the Indonesian Abdurrahman Wahid (d. 2009); and Abdus Sattar Edi (sometimes called “Pakistan’s Mother Teresa”). None of them are “conventionally ‘sensible.’” “They have been risk-taking, boundary-breaking heroes of faith.” Winter adds, “Moses tapping the Red Sea with his staff, Jesus choosing the road to Jerusalem, Muhammad accepting persecution” were hardly sensible. Saints and mystics were often “strangers in a strange land.”

Keith Ward challenges the widespread stereotype that “atheism is reasonable whereas religious faith is unreasonable.” Most major European philosophers have believed in God for rational reasons and have held that reason is trustworthy. Many decisions are based on good evidence rather than absolute certainty. A broader and more supple definition of reasonable belief is needed. “It is not helpful to think of ‘reason’ as a faculty which tells us truths . . . Reasonableness is more a matter of the way in which we hold our beliefs rather than a way of deciding which beliefs are true.” Ward then gives reasonable (but not entirely orthodox) explanations of central Christian beliefs in Incarnation, the Trinity, and Atonement.

To the charge that religion encourages extremism, Michael Lerner, a Progressive rabbi who is editor of Tikkun Magazine, gives a strong defense of “A sensible Judaism of Love,” which he contrasts with “Settler Judaism,” a theology of domination. He warns of Israel’s becoming an idol or “a holy body” instead of being “‘a body of faith’ whose task as a kingdom of priests is to make a habitation for the divine presence.” His chapter—like Dawoud el-Alami’s “Reclaiming Jihad” or Dharmachari Subhuti’s “Is Buddhism Sensible?”—highlights the fact that the struggle for sensible religion is often a struggle against fellow believers rather than nonbelievers, which carries with it the assumption that we are sensible and they are not. Likewise, some chapters suggest that women were oppressed in faith communities because men ignored their religion’s original teaching.

I was particularly interested by Anantanand Rambachan’s nine-point summary of the social implications of Advaita Hinduism. “Seeing oneself in all, and freedom from greed are powerful sources of motivation for devoting our energies to the service of others.” They encourage “a deep sense of human community that transcends all boundaries.” All the essays serve this noble purpose.

At one dialogue meeting someone asked, “Would you die for your religion?” Thankfully, no one would kill for sensible religion, but would one be prepared to be killed for it? Was Bonhoeffer sensible?