The Problem of ‘Religion’ in Medicine: Addressing a Theology of Religions in Medicine
David Le, Master's Student, Theology, Medicine, and Culture Fellow, Duke Divinity School
Harold Koenig’s Handbook of Religion and Health defines religion as “a belief in divine or superhuman powers… and the expression of such belief [or] any specific system of belief, worship, conduct, etc. often involving a code of ethics and philosophy. (p .18)” Within a 21st century pluralistic society, this use of the general term “religion” is problematic when considering the relationship between religion and modern medicine. More specifically, when making claims about religion and medicine, differences between religions are being neglected at the cost of furthering the moral, spiritual, and faith-based endeavors of religious communities. What can be said about religious diversity in medicine? How should a medical practitioner understand and confront the problem of religious diversity within their respective tradition? What could make a particular religious medical practice different from another medical practice founded on different religious beliefs? How do the differences in the “world religions” highlight the differing practices to medicine? How does one respond to these differences in the pluralistic environment of medicine?
In this paper, I will attempt to engage with these questions of religious diversity as a Christian in a way that challenges the objectivity of the modern term “religion”. First, I will argue that communities must develop adequate definitional apparatuses for “religion” in order to properly engage in, manage, and conduct certain projects that fall under their auspices of “religion”. Secondly, I will discuss relevant problems involving the study of religious diversity as well as spirituality as it is related to medicine. Contrary to defining the term religion for the sake of making medicine a religious enterprise, I will argue for an understanding of religion as a ‘form of life’ for a particular religious tradition. I will accomplish this second goal using the example of Koenig’s work on religion, spirituality, and health to highlight the inefficiencies of current models being used for addressing questions of religion and medicine. I will then use a counterexample from St. Augustine of Hippo in order to encourage a more nuanced understanding of the term, “religion”.
I believe a theology of religion will be helpful for three reasons: For my own religious tradition (the Christian Church), I will argue that a Christian theology of religion will help Christian healthcare practitioners, ethicists, and scholars be wary of possible distortions within a more secular framework of medicine and religion. In reference to the first example used, this theology could act as a careful corrective and supplement to the impact of Koenig’s work. I also hope to encourage persons of other faiths to engage their own particular traditions in order to develop a more faithful way of asking their particular questions surrounding the topics of religion and medicine. Lastly, inter-religious cooperation within the realm of medicine against more secular trends in medicine that are antithetical to core beliefs could greatly benefit from this endeavor. With these three effects, practitioners and scholars can broaden the scope of their ethical reflection, scholarly work, and medical practice in creative and faithful ways.
Harold Koenig’s Handbook of Religion and Health defines religion as “a belief in divine or superhuman powers… and the expression of such belief [or] any specific system of belief, worship, conduct, etc. often involving a code of ethics and philosophy. (p .18)” Within a 21st century pluralistic society, this use of the general term “religion” is problematic when considering the relationship between religion and modern medicine. More specifically, when making claims about religion and medicine, differences between religions are being neglected at the cost of furthering the moral, spiritual, and faith-based endeavors of religious communities. What can be said about religious diversity in medicine? How should a medical practitioner understand and confront the problem of religious diversity within their respective tradition? What could make a particular religious medical practice different from another medical practice founded on different religious beliefs? How do the differences in the “world religions” highlight the differing practices to medicine? How does one respond to these differences in the pluralistic environment of medicine?
In this paper, I will attempt to engage with these questions of religious diversity as a Christian in a way that challenges the objectivity of the modern term “religion”. First, I will argue that communities must develop adequate definitional apparatuses for “religion” in order to properly engage in, manage, and conduct certain projects that fall under their auspices of “religion”. Secondly, I will discuss relevant problems involving the study of religious diversity as well as spirituality as it is related to medicine. Contrary to defining the term religion for the sake of making medicine a religious enterprise, I will argue for an understanding of religion as a ‘form of life’ for a particular religious tradition. I will accomplish this second goal using the example of Koenig’s work on religion, spirituality, and health to highlight the inefficiencies of current models being used for addressing questions of religion and medicine. I will then use a counterexample from St. Augustine of Hippo in order to encourage a more nuanced understanding of the term, “religion”.
I believe a theology of religion will be helpful for three reasons: For my own religious tradition (the Christian Church), I will argue that a Christian theology of religion will help Christian healthcare practitioners, ethicists, and scholars be wary of possible distortions within a more secular framework of medicine and religion. In reference to the first example used, this theology could act as a careful corrective and supplement to the impact of Koenig’s work. I also hope to encourage persons of other faiths to engage their own particular traditions in order to develop a more faithful way of asking their particular questions surrounding the topics of religion and medicine. Lastly, inter-religious cooperation within the realm of medicine against more secular trends in medicine that are antithetical to core beliefs could greatly benefit from this endeavor. With these three effects, practitioners and scholars can broaden the scope of their ethical reflection, scholarly work, and medical practice in creative and faithful ways.