Neutral No More: A Defense of Religious Pluralism Within Healthcare
Jackson McNeece, Theology, Medicine, and Culture Fellow, Duke Divinity School
Healthcare practitioners once practiced without awkwardness within the walls of the Christian Church. The likes of St. Basil, those who followed the Rule of St. Benedictine, and other Christian monastics did not find the integration of care for both the soul and body to be an incompatible practice. As the nature of healthcare has evolved, so also has the nature of spiritual care. The latter has increasingly been sequestered away from the bedside as medical institutions have come to prioritize religious neutrality as the primary outlook for so-called spiritual care. However, religious neutrality, a framework that refrains from invoking any substantively religious practice or language, yields deficient care for the patient because it neglects a patient’s soul. In this paper, I argue that religious pluralism, a framework that invites and engages diverse religious perspectives of both patient and practitioner, fosters a form of care which more adequately addresses the needs of the patient than what religious neutrality can provide.
The idea of religious pluralism elicits controversy, not least among those who are religious themselves. Certainly, in my own corner of evangelical Christianity, I would expect a near vitriolic objection to the notion of healthcare provided from a pluralistic approach. Many Christians who feel called to the vocation of medicine might worry that pluralism requires that they transgress a boundary of accepting the faith of their patients as epistemologically true. Further, pluralism also evokes problematic associations with universalism and postmodernism. Neither are valid accusations. Instead, I will argue that the Christian tradition, particularly in its history of healing practices, invites and provides a template for physicians to offer healthcare within a pluralistic framework.
I will first tease out the differences between religious neutrality and religious pluralism to argue that the latter offers the better approach for genuinely holistic patient care as it invites the entirety of the patient and healthcare practitioner to be present. Next, I will explore three instances of healing within the Christian Scriptures—Elisha and Naaman in 2 Kings 5, Peter on his missionary journeys in Acts 5, and Paul on the Island of Malta in Acts 28—to propose a specifically Christian defense of religious pluralism within the healthcare setting. Finally, I will focus on the religious history of the Island of Malta as evidence that religious pluralism within a healthcare context not only benefits the patient but contributes to the flourishing of an entire community - the base unit of health.[1]
Christians who express a spiritual calling to the practice of medicine might feel as though their purpose of vocation is lost when they cannot expressly speak of their faith to their patients. My aim is to demonstrate that the practice of religious pluralism within a healthcare context is healthy and biblically permitted. Further, I intend to communicate to healthcare practitioners of all faiths that pursuing a model of religious pluralism assists in the subsequent flourishing of the communities such healthcare providers serve.
[1] Berry, Wendell. “Health is Membership.” Speech, Louisville, KY, October 17 28, 1994. Science and Society. https://scienceandsociety.duke.edu/wordpress/wp-content/uploads/Berry-Health-is-Membership.pdf
The idea of religious pluralism elicits controversy, not least among those who are religious themselves. Certainly, in my own corner of evangelical Christianity, I would expect a near vitriolic objection to the notion of healthcare provided from a pluralistic approach. Many Christians who feel called to the vocation of medicine might worry that pluralism requires that they transgress a boundary of accepting the faith of their patients as epistemologically true. Further, pluralism also evokes problematic associations with universalism and postmodernism. Neither are valid accusations. Instead, I will argue that the Christian tradition, particularly in its history of healing practices, invites and provides a template for physicians to offer healthcare within a pluralistic framework.
I will first tease out the differences between religious neutrality and religious pluralism to argue that the latter offers the better approach for genuinely holistic patient care as it invites the entirety of the patient and healthcare practitioner to be present. Next, I will explore three instances of healing within the Christian Scriptures—Elisha and Naaman in 2 Kings 5, Peter on his missionary journeys in Acts 5, and Paul on the Island of Malta in Acts 28—to propose a specifically Christian defense of religious pluralism within the healthcare setting. Finally, I will focus on the religious history of the Island of Malta as evidence that religious pluralism within a healthcare context not only benefits the patient but contributes to the flourishing of an entire community - the base unit of health.[1]
Christians who express a spiritual calling to the practice of medicine might feel as though their purpose of vocation is lost when they cannot expressly speak of their faith to their patients. My aim is to demonstrate that the practice of religious pluralism within a healthcare context is healthy and biblically permitted. Further, I intend to communicate to healthcare practitioners of all faiths that pursuing a model of religious pluralism assists in the subsequent flourishing of the communities such healthcare providers serve.
[1] Berry, Wendell. “Health is Membership.” Speech, Louisville, KY, October 17 28, 1994. Science and Society. https://scienceandsociety.duke.edu/wordpress/wp-content/uploads/Berry-Health-is-Membership.pdf