This is not really a response to Q’s last post (Is Religion the Answer?), but more of an attempt to further the conversation.
I hear people say, and I read, and I see on the television and the internet, that they are “Spiritual, but not religious.”
I’m sorry, but I have a few problems with that statement, which I don’t have time to really delve into here, so I’ll just enumerate them and revisit it when I have the chance:
1) What is “spirituality?” Sorry, but a lot of times when I hear people saying this I picture some woman from a tampon commercial running through a field of flowers, a crown of daisies on her head or something, communing with Mother Earth.
2) Are “spirituality” and “religion” mutually exclusive?
3) What is their definition of “religion?”
A rant, I know, but this is just a jumping off point…
March 29, 2007 at 3:32 pm
In a rudimentary sense, spirituality, to me, is the intensely personal sensibility of one’s self set against something wholly greater than oneself. It may encompass a feeling of absolute dependence or awe or being held in the arms of the divine, etc. In many ways, the picture you paint of the tampon lady is not outside this definition of spirituality. It is many things under the guise of one word unfortunately.
I don’t think that spirituality and religion are mutually exclusive, but I would say that religion, while a necessary evil in many ways, is much more susceptible to idolatry than spirituality because of the number of people involved and the role of tradition, social psychological theory of diffused responsibility, etc. However, Wink says that collective groups have a spirituality all to themselves, so maybe I’m wrong on this.
I think one of the key distinguishing factors is the openness to mystery that spirituality entails and the insistent focus on certainty that religion seems so obsessed with. That’s why you don’t see trials over heresy in spirituality or on Oprah.
I personally don’t have a problem with people who say they’re spiritual but not religious. I have friends who are more Christ-like and spiritual (including praying for me, etc.) than many of my Christian friends who wouldn’t call themselves religious (or even Christian for that matter).
Religion is made by humanity, and as such has always, is, and will ever be lacking, but it is the best we can do in response to a sensibility of the Divine.
March 29, 2007 at 7:41 pm
I hear what you’re saying…I guess my *problem* is with those who would supposedly abandon religion in favor of spirituality. I come to that statement, of course, with my own understandings of those terms.
For me, my religion provides the framework for whatever spirituality I have. It’s a communal thing, and while I’m obviously being idealistic here (because there is no perfect religion), I can’t see a way to abandon religion without abandoning the religious community.
I really shouldn’t post or respond while watching The Office, so I’ll stop here.
March 30, 2007 at 5:03 am
What I’m wondering about is if spirituality separated from narrative and ritual is sustainable. Like M says above, religion is a framework. Of course it can be a vehicle through which to seek certainty, but then I’ve know people who have rejected religion in favor of non-religious spirituality who were more into finding certainty than most people in church I know.
The desire for certainty is an aspect of imagination that we have by being created in the image of God. The fact that we are intertwined in ritual and narrative in our daily lives is reflected in religion. Not sure if it’s possible to separate these things out very well.
I
March 30, 2007 at 6:32 am
I can definitely appreciate the emphasis on the need for community; in a way some of my friends who have “abandoned religion” in favor of a more personal spirituality have simply transferred their religious membership to another community (be it single mothers, the local pub, etc.). To respond to your statement, M, about abandoning the religious community, that does seem to be the implication in the abandonment of religion. This is most likely the biggest reason why I remain within our tradition (or any tradition for that matter). In some ways the community serves as a witness to my life and I serve as one to the lives of others, and it is this interconnected aspect of living life together around a few agreed upon beliefs/experiences that keeps me in the game.
In terms of sustainability, I think it depends on the person. The person I had in mind in my previous comment never goes to church, but she has a Babette’s Feast way of creating meals that have healing qualities and that reflect her spirituality that keeps her focused on others. I have a great appreciation for her spirituality–though I also feel sad that she lacks a community that shares her perspective and that could serve to encourage her wonderful instincts for caring for others.
I guess I see religion as a form which needs to be broken in order for the vitality of the message to continue. For this reason I see organized religion as a necessary evil, but if you look at the various times in church history, it is in the big events like Luther’s nailing the theses on the door, the development of the Pentecostal church movement in California, the creation of the emergent church movement, etc. where religion creates a new possibility of becoming transparent to the Divine rather than simply stifling the Spirit by becoming entrenched in traditionalism. This is Tillich’s whole point about the Protestant Principle, that we are to resist any absolute claims about a relative reality. Religion is more likely than spirituality to attempt to nail down claims to absolute truth/certainty through dogmatic assertions, doctrinal statements, etc., which flies into the face of the notion that we are to live by faith rather than certainty.
Spirituality divorced from or in addition to participation in a religious community (in my experience of others) leads to an openness to mystery rather than a narrowing of one’s mind.