Michael Lerner’s book, The Left Hand of God, has a great deal to say about worldviews. And his assessment of Modernism has much in common with my own. Lerner attributes Scientism as the root of our social ills.(130) Scientism, is granting naturalistic facts of “might makes right” and “kill or be killed” prominence in every aspect of our relationships, from economic to familial. Politically, this manifests itself as policies driven by Fear, symbolized by the Right Hand of God. The result is a society which is antithetical to neighborliness and which has a sacred/secular split.(133) Lerner advocates we recognize and choose to give prominence to values derived from spirituality. We should adopt Hope, the Left Hand of God, as the primary political force.
I agree with Lerner that our society has been hurt by our nation’s politics which reinforces a secular/sacred split and ultimately communicates a reduced importance of the spiritual aspect of reality. However, while he rejects Scientism (Modernism), Learner ultimately accepts the Cartesian Mind/Matter dualism and reductionist thinking which gave it rise. According to Learner, reality is not primarily about facts, it is primarily about values derived from spirituality. When we give prominence to values over facts, for example Hope over Fear, we are better aligned with reality. Lerner does recognize that Fear can be appropriate. He writes, “Of course, there are times when fear is necessary. But even in moments when the Right Hand of God is needed to inspire struggle against fascist oppression, it must be balanced by the Left Hand of God.” (165) This idea of balance is important. If we correctly apprehend that right relationships result in shalom, then we would affirm that both Fear and Hope, when rightly understood and applied would contribute to human flourishing. We would also acknowledge that the inverse is true. Incorrectly understood and applied, either the Right Hand (Fear) or the Left Hand (Hope) could be a detriment to humanity. Yet Lerner consistently attributes Fear as the source of negative social realities, such as racism and sexism, and Hope (and/or Love) as the source of positive social movements, such as civil rights and environmentalism.(167) Fear is the cause of the world’s illnesses, but Love is the cure. Instead of advocating for a proper understand and application of Fear, Lerner simply advocates for less Fear. And instead of advocating for a proper understanding and application of Love, Lerner advocates for more Love. And ultimately, Lerner declares himself Hopeful. He is convinced that Love will prevail. Learner’s worldview involves a reductionism in which the spiritual aspect of reality carries more weight than others, and in which Love trumps Fear in its value to humankind.
What is the source of Learner’s Hope? In order to understand Lerner’s concept of spirituality, we must first understand his concepts of divinity and humanity. Lerner’s conceptualization of divinity is that of a positive transformative power. He write, “From my standpoint, YHWH, the God of the universe, is the force of transformation that makes possible the healing of the world, the shift from what is to what is ought to be.”(110) For Lerner, God is a spiritual being, a cosmic force, who made the world good and wants us to experience peace. And yet, evil and brokenness exist. Why? What is preventing God’s transformation power from achieving its goal? Lerner states that “God wants us to care not only for ourselves but for everyone else on the planet.”(83). What does Lerner mean by the statement “God wants”? What is the meaning of God’s desire? Should one understand this to mean that God has the capacity to accomplish the work, but that his will is that you and I join him? Or does this mean that God’s capacity to act is impeded lest you and I join him? This distinction is important. In the former, God’s will shall be accomplished, regardless of your or my involvement. In this view, God does not require our participation to bring about his goals, yet he gracelessly involves us. In the later, God’s will cannot be accomplished unless you and I (and perhaps everyone) is involved. In this view, God requires our participation to bring about his goals. God wants because God is needy. Lerner answers this question for us, “Although ultimately God cares for us, has compassion on us from straying from our mission, God desperately needs us to get back on the path of healing the world.”(83, emphasis mine) What can be inferred is that God, on his own, is not all powerful. Indeed, God appears to lack a great deal of power. Apparently the sacred/secular split of reality is too big for God to cross. Ultimately, it is individuals who must cross this divide. Individuals work to provide the material goods that enable the transformative power to work; individuals have mouths to speak and arms to move. This work even includes choice. Each individual can choose Fear or choose Hope. Upon an individual’s decision to make the choice for Hope, God’s power become accessible. Lerner write: “The Talmud (Yoma 86a) tell us that when the Torah says, ‘You should love the Lord your God.’ this means that God should become beloved through you.”(249) By his own volition, God cannot renew the world, or even make someone love him. God needs individuals in order for him to become beloved and in order for the world to be renewed. Ultimately, Lerner’s Hope rests on humanity’s capacity to make good decisions. Or, in other words, to take Responsibility.
Politically, Responsibility takes the form of social contracts. Lerner proposes several, but I’ll focus on one the Contract of Personal Responsibility. Lerner challenges us to take more responsibility for our neighbors. Lerner presents the story of Moses as a man who took responsibility. It didn’t matter about his abilities. The result was that others joined him and together they overcome the oppressive, fear-mongering power that enslaved the Jewish people. (247) In Lerner’s view, the Exodus is a story about the radical impact of responsibility, of caring for others. Yet, like Cornel West, fails to explain why the care for another is not as valid when it is dictated and enforced, when it involves authority. On the issue of sexism, Learner writes, “to allow for the flourishing of sacred sexuality, we must challenge the commercialization and misuse of sex.”(261) This “challenge,” however, should not be prescriptive or enforced; “I am completely opposed to any form of governmental power being used to constrain speech or sexual expression.”(262) Evidently, my care for my neighbors is negated if I restrict their choices. Even if that choice would hurt them and others. And my neighbors’ life is not a full if he or she does not have the opportunity to reject a choice. The worldviews of Lerner and West share a conception of humanity. One in which the individual is sovereign. Actions are valid only when a person takes responsibility, in other words when he or she makes a willful decision. A person’s will legitimatizes.
Caring for my neighbors, therefore, must mean giving them more choices. With increased freedom of choice, Lerner states “I believe the most objectionable uses of sexual imagery would soon disappear.”(262) Learner believes, has hope, that people will choose wisely, will act responsibly. Sadly, this is not the reality we experience. We are often irresponsible and fail to act on the behalf of others. People don’t always make the right decisions, and frequently the decisions people make hurt themselves and others. Complete freedom of choice does not guarantee responsibility and the best society. Moreover, responsibility for decisions can come from a source other than from one’s will. We have responsibilities which are NOT the result of our choices. We don’t choose our parents or our neighbors, yet we have some responsibilities toward them that they cannot free us from. We are held responsible for acts of others with whom we are associated, regardless of whether we acknowledge our responsibility or not. We do not exist independently from our neighbor, and so our neighbor must play a significant part in our lives. This significant part includes a responsibility for me, and me for him or her, regardless of our acknowledgment of this responsibility or our decision to honor it.
Finally, I do not believe Lerner’s conceptualization of divinity is supported by the biblical texts. The picture scripture reveals of God is of a being that does not need me or anyone else to accomplish his will. God is actively doing, independent of others. Persons are privileged, blessed, to be used by Him. The story of the Exodus is not one of Pharaoh freeing the Israelites because of something Moses did, but rather because of something God did. Moses was blessed to be used by God. Moreover, the biblical texts often attribute righteous acts to valid fear of God. Abraham willingness to sacrifice his son is attributed to fear (Gen. 22) as well as Joseph’s promises to his brothers (Gen. 42). God is even given the name Fear, and is the object of an oath of Jacob. (Gen. 31). In short, proper Fear, like proper Authority, is a crucial component of shalom. A non-reductionist view of reality would acknowledge the good proper Fear can work in our lives.
Lerner writes, “we need to affirm this central truth: every human being is the manifestation of the most holy and precious sacred energy of the universe, or in biblical language, is created in the image of God.”(260) For Lerner, Love and God are approximately synonymous, a positive spiritual power that cannot act independent of individuals. It requires incarnation, a joining of the spiritual power with a material body. Incarnation is achieved through responsibility – a personal choice. Positive transformation of the world is achievable by human will. Through the exercise of our wills we work for humanity’s “evolution of consciousness.”(257)
Love, but Not the Love of God
Citizenship Education
Michael Lerner’s book, The Left Hand of God, has a great deal to say about worldviews. And his assessment of Modernism has much in common with my own. Lerner attributes Scientism as the root of our social ills.(130) Scientism, is granting naturalistic facts of “might makes right” and “kill or be killed” prominence in every aspect of our relationships, from economic to familial. Politically, this manifests itself as policies driven by Fear, symbolized by the Right Hand of God. The result is a society which is antithetical to neighborliness and which has a sacred/secular split.(133) Lerner advocates we recognize and choose to give prominence to values derived from spirituality. We should adopt Hope, the Left Hand of God, as the primary political force.
I agree with Lerner that our society has been hurt by our nation’s politics which reinforces a secular/sacred split and ultimately communicates a reduced importance of the spiritual aspect of reality. However, while he rejects Scientism (Modernism), Learner ultimately accepts the Cartesian Mind/Matter dualism and reductionist thinking which gave it rise. According to Learner, reality is not primarily about facts, it is primarily about values derived from spirituality. When we give prominence to values over facts, for example Hope over Fear, we are better aligned with reality. Lerner does recognize that Fear can be appropriate. He writes, “Of course, there are times when fear is necessary. But even in moments when the Right Hand of God is needed to inspire struggle against fascist oppression, it must be balanced by the Left Hand of God.” (165) This idea of balance is important. If we correctly apprehend that right relationships result in shalom, then we would affirm that both Fear and Hope, when rightly understood and applied would contribute to human flourishing. We would also acknowledge that the inverse is true. Incorrectly understood and applied, either the Right Hand (Fear) or the Left Hand (Hope) could be a detriment to humanity. Yet Lerner consistently attributes Fear as the source of negative social realities, such as racism and sexism, and Hope (and/or Love) as the source of positive social movements, such as civil rights and environmentalism.(167) Fear is the cause of the world’s illnesses, but Love is the cure. Instead of advocating for a proper understand and application of Fear, Lerner simply advocates for less Fear. And instead of advocating for a proper understanding and application of Love, Lerner advocates for more Love. And ultimately, Lerner declares himself Hopeful. He is convinced that Love will prevail. Learner’s worldview involves a reductionism in which the spiritual aspect of reality carries more weight than others, and in which Love trumps Fear in its value to humankind.
What is the source of Learner’s Hope? In order to understand Lerner’s concept of spirituality, we must first understand his concepts of divinity and humanity. Lerner’s conceptualization of divinity is that of a positive transformative power. He write, “From my standpoint, YHWH, the God of the universe, is the force of transformation that makes possible the healing of the world, the shift from what is to what is ought to be.”(110) For Lerner, God is a spiritual being, a cosmic force, who made the world good and wants us to experience peace. And yet, evil and brokenness exist. Why? What is preventing God’s transformation power from achieving its goal? Lerner states that “God wants us to care not only for ourselves but for everyone else on the planet.”(83). What does Lerner mean by the statement “God wants”? What is the meaning of God’s desire? Should one understand this to mean that God has the capacity to accomplish the work, but that his will is that you and I join him? Or does this mean that God’s capacity to act is impeded lest you and I join him? This distinction is important. In the former, God’s will shall be accomplished, regardless of your or my involvement. In this view, God does not require our participation to bring about his goals, yet he gracelessly involves us. In the later, God’s will cannot be accomplished unless you and I (and perhaps everyone) is involved. In this view, God requires our participation to bring about his goals. God wants because God is needy. Lerner answers this question for us, “Although ultimately God cares for us, has compassion on us from straying from our mission, God desperately needs us to get back on the path of healing the world.”(83, emphasis mine) What can be inferred is that God, on his own, is not all powerful. Indeed, God appears to lack a great deal of power. Apparently the sacred/secular split of reality is too big for God to cross. Ultimately, it is individuals who must cross this divide. Individuals work to provide the material goods that enable the transformative power to work; individuals have mouths to speak and arms to move. This work even includes choice. Each individual can choose Fear or choose Hope. Upon an individual’s decision to make the choice for Hope, God’s power become accessible. Lerner write: “The Talmud (Yoma 86a) tell us that when the Torah says, ‘You should love the Lord your God.’ this means that God should become beloved through you.”(249) By his own volition, God cannot renew the world, or even make someone love him. God needs individuals in order for him to become beloved and in order for the world to be renewed. Ultimately, Lerner’s Hope rests on humanity’s capacity to make good decisions. Or, in other words, to take Responsibility.
Politically, Responsibility takes the form of social contracts. Lerner proposes several, but I’ll focus on one the Contract of Personal Responsibility. Lerner challenges us to take more responsibility for our neighbors. Lerner presents the story of Moses as a man who took responsibility. It didn’t matter about his abilities. The result was that others joined him and together they overcome the oppressive, fear-mongering power that enslaved the Jewish people. (247) In Lerner’s view, the Exodus is a story about the radical impact of responsibility, of caring for others. Yet, like Cornel West, fails to explain why the care for another is not as valid when it is dictated and enforced, when it involves authority. On the issue of sexism, Learner writes, “to allow for the flourishing of sacred sexuality, we must challenge the commercialization and misuse of sex.”(261) This “challenge,” however, should not be prescriptive or enforced; “I am completely opposed to any form of governmental power being used to constrain speech or sexual expression.”(262) Evidently, my care for my neighbors is negated if I restrict their choices. Even if that choice would hurt them and others. And my neighbors’ life is not a full if he or she does not have the opportunity to reject a choice. The worldviews of Lerner and West share a conception of humanity. One in which the individual is sovereign. Actions are valid only when a person takes responsibility, in other words when he or she makes a willful decision. A person’s will legitimatizes.
Caring for my neighbors, therefore, must mean giving them more choices. With increased freedom of choice, Lerner states “I believe the most objectionable uses of sexual imagery would soon disappear.”(262) Learner believes, has hope, that people will choose wisely, will act responsibly. Sadly, this is not the reality we experience. We are often irresponsible and fail to act on the behalf of others. People don’t always make the right decisions, and frequently the decisions people make hurt themselves and others. Complete freedom of choice does not guarantee responsibility and the best society. Moreover, responsibility for decisions can come from a source other than from one’s will. We have responsibilities which are NOT the result of our choices. We don’t choose our parents or our neighbors, yet we have some responsibilities toward them that they cannot free us from. We are held responsible for acts of others with whom we are associated, regardless of whether we acknowledge our responsibility or not. We do not exist independently from our neighbor, and so our neighbor must play a significant part in our lives. This significant part includes a responsibility for me, and me for him or her, regardless of our acknowledgment of this responsibility or our decision to honor it.
Finally, I do not believe Lerner’s conceptualization of divinity is supported by the biblical texts. The picture scripture reveals of God is of a being that does not need me or anyone else to accomplish his will. God is actively doing, independent of others. Persons are privileged, blessed, to be used by Him. The story of the Exodus is not one of Pharaoh freeing the Israelites because of something Moses did, but rather because of something God did. Moses was blessed to be used by God. Moreover, the biblical texts often attribute righteous acts to valid fear of God. Abraham willingness to sacrifice his son is attributed to fear (Gen. 22) as well as Joseph’s promises to his brothers (Gen. 42). God is even given the name Fear, and is the object of an oath of Jacob. (Gen. 31). In short, proper Fear, like proper Authority, is a crucial component of shalom. A non-reductionist view of reality would acknowledge the good proper Fear can work in our lives.
Lerner writes, “we need to affirm this central truth: every human being is the manifestation of the most holy and precious sacred energy of the universe, or in biblical language, is created in the image of God.”(260) For Lerner, Love and God are approximately synonymous, a positive spiritual power that cannot act independent of individuals. It requires incarnation, a joining of the spiritual power with a material body. Incarnation is achieved through responsibility – a personal choice. Positive transformation of the world is achievable by human will. Through the exercise of our wills we work for humanity’s “evolution of consciousness.”(257)