Does the descriptor “interfaith” help us or harm us?
Joel
Last Name Pacyna
Terminal Degree(s) MA
Title/Position Research Analyst
Institution/Organization Mayo Clinic
The concept of “interfaith” has grown in popularity as a descriptor of religious services in medicine. At face value, the term conveys a recognition of the diversity of religious experience and a respect for different religious identities. When used to describe individual professionals and religious programs within medicine, it promises an egalitarian culture supportive of all permutations of religious experience.
Within medicine, however, there is a risk that the term may reinforce the secular notion that all diverse expressions of religion and spirituality are, at bottom, nothing more than instantiations of the same universal human experience. Now, this characterization of religion and spirituality, even though inaccurate, may actually perform a rhetorical function by enabling the full spectrum of religion to mount a unified case for its presence within secular medicine.
However, this mischaracterization of religion and spirituality could also be problematic. For example, the secular establishment could interpret the term “interfaith” as an affirmation by proponents of religious expression that religion and spirituality have a purely naturalistic origin and impetus. In turn, secular medicine could see in this construal an opportunity to contain or manage the impact of religion within the healthcare institution by holding religious expression to a narrowed set of norms.
The imprecision of the term “interfaith” and its potential to support a secular account of religion and spirituality raise the question of whether the term helps or harms efforts to promote diverse expressions of religion within secular medicine. Does the term communicate little more than a culture of religious inclusion? Does the contemporary rhetorical force of the term enable the diverse religious community to make a unified case for its presence in medicine? Or might the term actually exert a secularizing force within religion—a Trojan horse, so to speak, that threatens to filter religious expression so that it conforms to naturalistic accounts of spirituality?
By highlighting these divergent ways the term “interfaith” may be viewed and invoked by those touched by religion’s presence we can also bring nuance to the larger question of how religion should be situated in medicine.
Within medicine, however, there is a risk that the term may reinforce the secular notion that all diverse expressions of religion and spirituality are, at bottom, nothing more than instantiations of the same universal human experience. Now, this characterization of religion and spirituality, even though inaccurate, may actually perform a rhetorical function by enabling the full spectrum of religion to mount a unified case for its presence within secular medicine.
However, this mischaracterization of religion and spirituality could also be problematic. For example, the secular establishment could interpret the term “interfaith” as an affirmation by proponents of religious expression that religion and spirituality have a purely naturalistic origin and impetus. In turn, secular medicine could see in this construal an opportunity to contain or manage the impact of religion within the healthcare institution by holding religious expression to a narrowed set of norms.
The imprecision of the term “interfaith” and its potential to support a secular account of religion and spirituality raise the question of whether the term helps or harms efforts to promote diverse expressions of religion within secular medicine. Does the term communicate little more than a culture of religious inclusion? Does the contemporary rhetorical force of the term enable the diverse religious community to make a unified case for its presence in medicine? Or might the term actually exert a secularizing force within religion—a Trojan horse, so to speak, that threatens to filter religious expression so that it conforms to naturalistic accounts of spirituality?
By highlighting these divergent ways the term “interfaith” may be viewed and invoked by those touched by religion’s presence we can also bring nuance to the larger question of how religion should be situated in medicine.