The Left Hand of God - A Book Review

Chapter 3
“The Voice of Fear and the Voice of Hope”

Rabbi Michael Lerner has written a book entitled, The Left Hand of God---Taking Back our Country From the Religious Right. In Chapter 3, The Voice of Fear and the Voice of Hope, pages 77-92, he writes about two world views.

The first world view he describes, he calls the Right Hand of God. It is the view of fear, isolation and selfishness. The Left Hand of God he refers to as generosity and hope. The former he also refers to as the Cynical Realism view, and the latter as the Spiritually Conscious view.

Cynical Realism views each of us as looking after ourselves as we try to keep an advantage over all others. In fact this fear of others is considered just plain common sense. This is also the state of “heightened alert and fear.”

The Spiritually Conscious view, on the other hand, sees the human being as one who desires a loving connection with others and seeks ways to cooperate with one another. He or she is most fulfilled when we are needed by others and can provide generously to others. He or she feels that their state is intrinsically bound to all others. This state of consciousness Learner calls the “heightened generosity and hope.”

These two world views can also be seen as two opposite paradigms or cultures. The culture of hope is often viewed by the Cynical Realists as being “out of touch with reality, and just plain nonsense. These two world views can be viewed as existing on two opposite poles and on a continuum. Along this continuum at any given time in our history social, political and spiritual energy flows or oscillates back and forth between these two poles. During the Great Depression of 1929, The Joe McCarthy era, the Cold War, and more recently 9/11 Americans adopted a state of fear mentality. This can best be seen in the color codes and alerts, the suspicion, the spying and the assigning certain groups and nations with divine rights, and the others as part of the evil empire.

In contrast during the New Deal and the Civil Rights Movement eras the spirit of hope and generosity reigned. In this culture of hope and greater solidarity all humans are treated as being in this divine image and in our essence as all being good. We are gentle and compassionate with one another. We believe that evil and injustice can be overcome and that we need not to live in fear. We believe in the continuous transformation for a greater good for all. God commands us to pursue justice. God is caring and generous and so are we.

In the culture of fear, God is seen as an all powerful Warrior with a Strong Right Hand and strong judgment and combativeness.

Which view we choose to take is influenced by the following factors:

1. Our family legacy
2. The socialization process that we experienced at school and in our neighborhood
3. Our current life situation, i.e., do we feel left out, estranged, alienated, discriminated against, etc..
4. Our religious beliefs
5. Current popular ideas, i.e., the media, Hollywood, etc.
6. How the people closest around us act.

We can use this fear vs. hope paradigm to assess any phenomenon in our lives, including our own campaign finance reform project: Do public funded political campaigns create more generosity, goodness and compassion in this world, than privately funded campaigns? Which one is more likely to produce power over and which one will more likely produce power sharing with others? Will the marriage referendum bring about a greater generosity and hope for all or will it further isolate and create barriers to our democracy?

We can use the fear/hope or faith standard to assess the effect of a TV show, a sermon or speech, a movie, a news story, a commercial or advertisement, and a small group meeting like our own.

As a further standard or screening device, I would add here our own moral values. For example, we can use Talcott Parsons’ five pattern variables: Self vs. the larger collectivity; our family or tribe vs. more universalistic values; one’s performance and achievement vs. the diffuse quality of the person; seeing people narrowly for what they can do for us or more diffusely as divine beings; and seeing people only economically and rationally or also with feelings, or affectivity vs. affectivity neutrality.

At the small group level or at the nation state level we can survey the four functional requirements or functions and choose the more just direction.

1. Do we wish to spiral outward into the larger community and participate as full citizens in an ever more inclusive democracy or do we wish to assume a more insular and parochial role in our in-group or nation state?

2. Do we wish to participate in goal achievement as equals or should we abdicate or rights and influence to the elites of this world.

3. Do we wish to recognize the worth and divinity in each of us and see each person as a multidimensional and complex human being or only as a consumer or employee?

4. Are we to be satisfied within the narrow solidarity of our own special group or nation/state or do we wish to play a larger and more integrative and inclusive role in this universe?