As indicated in the last post, this one will look at the topics of Tradition and Ritual, and  Egalitarianism—Paradox, regretfully, will have to wait— as they are practiced and utilized in brief reviews of the first three religions we studied, then in more careful reflections on the last four, plus a nod to the Primals. So, let’s begin . . . .

The first topic, Tradition and Ritual, begins with brief references to the first three religions we studied. While Hinduism does not seem to address tradition specifically, it is clear that this ancient religion had a respect for its history and that some of its beliefs and practices—e.g. respect for the four stages of life, the yoga’s ritualistic eight meditative steps, ending in absorption in God—were “handed down.” Buddhism, on the other hand, specifically denounced six aspects of religion, tradition and ritual among them! Not much left to say, except, perhaps, how does one expect such denunciation to survive a generation unless it becomes a part of the religion’s “tradition?” Hmmm. The Confucian notion of Deliberate Tradition covers too many to list and were sufficiently if not fully addressed in the 2^nd post, but I will note relevantly here that ritual and moral example were among them.

Now we turn to the last four major religions we studied, the first of which is Taoism, which, one might recall, Smith noted “off the top” tends to be a bit “murky,” emphasized by words scattered throughout his narrative such as ineffable, abstract, cryptic, intricate, indiscriminate, and even “raggle-taggle!” That said, even though the concept of tradition isn’t strongly emphasized, it doesn’t necessarily mean that things weren’t “passed down.” There are three branches of Taoism—Philosophical, perhaps the most coherent; Religious, which Smith describes as “murky”; and a third, which Smith says is too diverse even to name. But in the interest of tradition, Smith tries to connect all three with the same concern—the Tao—through historical interaction. I’m certainly not informed enough to contradict Smith here, but I confess that, even on the assumption that tradition played some role, it did seem a bit of a stretch!

Islam, as we shall see, certainly enshrines both tradition and ritual in its history and practice, but, at the same time, presents an interestingly complicated picture. Tradition is strongly enshrined in its “Five Pillars:” Creed (which includes monotheism); Prayer, five times a day (with Praise, Gratitude, Supplication); Charity (especially help for the poor); the holy month of Ramadan; and the Pilgrimage to Mecca. Note as well, that the daily repeated prayers, observance of Ramadan, and the journey to Mecca each involve significant rituals. It would be simple if one left it there, but, alas, we have to confront the fact of some major historical divides in Islam. On the one hand, there are the Sunnis, representing about 87% of all Muslims, and located primarily in the Middle East, Turkey, and Africa, and on the other hand, Shiites, principally in Iraq and Iran. If that “horizontal” and geographic divide were not enough, there is the “vertical” divide of Sufism, the mystics of Islam, who can be found among both Sunnis and Shiites and are further divided between Exoterics—who are bound to the explicit meanings of the Koran and want to reach God directly and immediately—and the Esoterics—who seek “hidden meanings” in the Koran and find their path to God in such symbolic and cryptic narratives as “The Tale of the Sands”—which does not lend itself to summary, so I invite you to find  Smith’s account, or there’s always Google. To put a quick “button” on this, I will just observe that neither ritual nor tradition can find simple paths through these divides!

The role of tradition and ritual in Judaism is, as Smith puts it,  to “hallow” life—to consecrate it as sacred—and the basic manual for what and how this is done resides in the hallowed Law of Judaism, the Torah. To define/describe what this holiness involves, Smith references the blend of “mystery, ecstasy, and the numinous,” as developed in Rudolph Otto’s The Idea of the Holy. This revered gift permeates and protectively hovers over all of the good things in life sanctioned by Jewish law—such as eating, marriage, children, nature, etc.—all of which we should enjoy and share with God. This sanctity of all things is reflected in various ritual events—e.g. Sabbath eve, the Passover Feast, the Day of Atonement, the New Year—and preserved through tradition. It is clear, then, that both ritual and tradition have an important place in Jewish life and history.

As in most religions, one can find a place in Christianity for both ritual and tradition. That said, there are too many denominational splits for tradition to play a strong role across them all, except for Jesus, his life, and his teachings. But even there, much division exists over just what he said, what he meant by what he said, and the accounts of his life, death, and resurrection. The role of tradition is stronger in Roman Catholicism and in liturgical branches of Christianity, such as Anglicanism and Eastern Orthodoxy, as is ritual, for that matter, as it is carried forward by tradition. Ritual—defined simply as customary, routine ways of conducting worship or other religious practices—exists, of course, in virtually all churches, but they differ widely among denominations and/or independent churches and are less likely to be preserved/carried forward by tradition.

Depending on your point of view, these may be celebrated as evidence of freedom of choice and a feeling of comfort in one’s worship and religious practice, or perhaps mourned as the loss of a sense historical continuity and connectedness. Both, I am sure, exist!

The second topic is Egalitarianism, the principle, practice, and belief that all persons are equal and deserve equal rights and opportunities. Let’s begin by reviewing, as briefly as possible, the first three religions we studied. Hinduism has a long history with the concept of “caste,” a society divided into a series of groups, with the highest honor and privilege belonging to the top group—civilization’s leaders, known as seers—and descending incrementally through administrators, artisans and farmers, and servants, to the lowest group, often known as outcastes or untouchables. While contemporary Hindus are trying to clear their society of this destroyer of equality, there are many who still believe that the concept of caste warrants attention.  And, yet, at the opposite extreme is Hinduism’s belief, expressed clearly and strongly by Ramakrishna, that devoted followers of any major religion may reach the same path of eternal bliss. So, consistency not required.  Buddhism is easier and briefer, since from the mouth and heart of Buddha himself, it is egalitarian: for example, he believed that women were as capable of enlightenment as men, and he broke with the caste system, welcoming all to his order regardless of social status. With Confucianism, it’s back to a bit of confusion (forgive the pun!). On the one hand, Confucius’ Five Constant Relationships would seem to tip things away from an egalitarian society since he appears to “tilt” one person in each pair of relationships above the other—e.g. parents over children, husbands over wives, etc. But, on the other hand, Confucius himself insisted that authority in such relationships is not automatic—it must be earned—and, in a lean toward egalitarianism, he argued that even rulers retain the right to their subjects’ loyalty only if their welfare is his  chief concern and he has the talent to promote it. Complicity to unearned authority, then, is a human failing! And so we have a lean away and a lean in.

With an acknowledgement of “so much for brevity,” I’ll turn now to the place of egalitarianism in the final four major religions, with a brief nod at the end to the Primal religions.

Taoism can be a “murky” affair, as Smith was fond of saying more than once, and the concept of egalitarianism does not escape that description. That said, the familiar concept of yin/yang, which sums up all of life’s basic oppositions—e.g. good/evil, positive/negative, light/dark, male/female—posits that although they are in tension, they also complement and balance one another. So since masculine and feminine are complementary, inseparable, and equal, the implication is that Taoism was/is a gender neutral religion and through the yin/yang concept, the groundwork is laid for Taoism to shun sharp dichotomies, since opposites are no more than phases—“all is one and all is well.” And yet, others would point out that, historically, equality was an ideal, rather than the norm, and Taoism was, for example, certainly not able to transform the lives of Chinese women as a whole. And so we leave it at this: Egalitarianism embraced? Yes. Egalitarianism achieved? Yes and No.

Considering egalitarianism in Islam also brings a bit of a “mixed bag.” There are clearly several practices and beliefs arising from the Koran that lean toward equality. For instance, Islam’s democratic impulses strongly insist, in Smith’s words, that “material goods must be widely and appropriately distributed” in a healthy society. However, as long as wealth is strongly circulated, Islam does not object to the profit motive! Similarly, while women were once regarded as little more than “chattel,” the Koran opens the possibility of women’s full equality with men, requiring, for example, her free consent before being married, and marriage as the sole locus of the sexual act. There remains, however, the fact that the Koran also permits polygyny—i.e. allows a man to marry up to four wives. Further, one of the Five Pillars of Islam is Charity. Although the fact that the poor exist begins to undermine the notion of equality, care for them is addressed in several ways, including a graduated tax on the “haves” to relieve monetary pressure on the “have-nots,” and the tradition that those with upper incomes should annually give a percentage of their possessions to the poor. Finally, as covered several times, Universalism emerges in Islam, but only in the Sufi branch. Perhaps the best thing to say is that Islam “flirts” strongly but does not fully embrace egalitarianism.

Judaism also turns out to be at least divided, if not paradoxical, in its history, its teachings, and its practice with regard to egalitarianism. On the one hand, there is their legacy of social justice—from the Pre-Writing Prophets, such as Elijah and Nathan, who denounced kings to their faces on the grounds of injustice, to the Writing Prophets, who established what Smith calls The Prophetic Principle, that “the prerequisite of political stability is social justice.” Who can forget the words of Amos, “Let justice roll down like waters, and righteousness like a mighty stream,” and on to Isaiah, Hosea, Micah, and Jeremiah, all prophets of social justice. Since Jewish scriptures and holy writings teach the equality of all human beings, many Jews believe that all prejudice and discrimination offends God and that people should be encouraged to respect every human and be tolerant of difference. Reform and Liberal Judaism afford women an equal place to men in every way, but Orthodox Jews see women as equal in value but as having the different role of home-maker. Which leads to at least two issues that seem to fly more directly in the face of a Jewish acceptance and practice of an egalitarian social justice: one is the Jewish doctrine of “election” –that God has established them as the uniquely chosen people to receive the disclosure of the divine nature, even though they ostensibly refuse to regard themselves as special; and the second is that after having virtually taken credit for establishing the ideals of freedom and justice for all, they find themselves withholding these very rights from Palestinians. If it is true, then, that purity of practice on any ideal or belief is a rocky road, Judaism would appear to be among the company of those who qualify.

Finally (breathe a sigh of relief), when we come to Christianity, one turns first to the teachings and life practices of Jesus. He was, of course, born a Jew and in his time Judaism was divided into four groups—Sadducees, Essenes, Zealots, and Pharisees. Without getting too complicated, he was closest to the Pharisees, but there were important differences as well. The “holiness code” to which the Pharisees subscribed, tended to categorize people in ways that created social barriers—e.g. between people who were clean/unclean, pure/defiled, sacred/ profane, Jew/Gentile, righteous/sinner—that Jesus saw as an affront to God’s compassion and put him in sharp tension with the Judaism of his day. He emphasized his differences not only in what he said, but to whom he said it—Gentiles as well as Jews—and where he said it—crossing physical, territorial, and political boundaries to carry his message. In Smith’s words, he became “a social prophet, challenging the boundaries of the existing order . . . .” in ways that alarmed Roman authorities, leading to his arrest and crucifixion on charges of treason. Does modern Christianity, then, reflect this social prophet? To repeat a familiar message—Yes, and No. For one thing, Christianity comes under a number of historic divisions—Roman Catholicism and Eastern Orthodoxy, of course, and then there is Protestantism. While 85% of Protestants belong to only twelve denominations, there are hundreds of them—too many to generalize on this issue. Since Smith does not deal much with this topic in regard to historic or modern Christianity, my limited research outside his writings uncovered some helpful information, including the fact that the Christian approach to egalitarianism, at least institutionally, has seemed to embrace primarily gender equality, including an organization known as Christians for Biblical Equality, which  was established, interestingly, by evangelicals in 1987. Christian egalitarians are said to believe that the Bible mandates gender equality, which implies equal authority and responsibility for the family and the ability for women to exercise spiritual authority as clergy. Such egalitarian beliefs are usually subscribed to by Quakers, United Methodist Churches, The Presbyterian Church (USA), The Covenant Order of Evangelical Presbyterians (ECO), Northern Baptists, Church of the Nazarene, Wesleyan Church, The Evangelican Covenant Church, and some Pentecostal churches.  The opposing view, Complementarianism, is the belief that men were created for the headship role and women were created for the support role. Historically and presently, neither Roman Catholicism nor Eastern Orthodoxy, for the most part, would bow to gender equality in their ecclesiastical orders or their understanding of familial and social roles. All of this does not speak to the fact that there are, of course, many Christian individuals and, probably, organizations that support and address wider egalitarian concerns, such as discrimination toward the poor, other races, the LGBTQ community, etc., but, as noted before, it is difficult to generalize such practices among the Christian organizations and denominations. And so Christianity, like a number of the other religions, is a “mixed bag” on this issue.

Smith does not address egalitarian issues among the Primal religions other than to stress the supreme importance of the tribe. Other sources point out that for many tribes, the chiefs had strong authority and great respect, but they were not hereditary and ruled by the will of the people. To what degree such a democratic tone made its way into the larger social structure of such tribes is not as clear.

As noted in the Introduction, my original plan to end these blogs on World Religions with the topic of Paradox in this post will have to wait for one last but “briefer and final” blog—I promise!! If I haven’t worn you out, it wasn’t for lack of trying. If you have the fortitude,I hope you will hang in there on join me one more time.

Sources consulted other than Smith, World Religions.

BBC.Bitesize.Religious Studies. ”What Does Judaism Say About Prejudice and Discrimination?”

Traditional Social Structure, Early Settlers.nrcs.usda.gov/Internet/FSE_DOCUMENTS.pdf

Christian Egalitarianism.Wikipedia.org.

Christians for Biblical Equality.cbeinternational.org.

Let me reiterate that the series of reflections in these blog posts grew out of my study of Huston Smith’s classic book, The World’s Religions along with my friends, Jim Thomas and Kimberly Myers. I’ve chosen the topics on the basis of my own whims and interests and our periodic conversations. Sometimes to “fill in some blanks” I’ve consulted other sources based primarily on their availability, not necessarily their disciplinary status. The point is that this exercise in broadening my understanding and then writing about it, isn’t and was never intended to be held to the standard of a bona fide research project!