Sick of spirituality, or Who needs religion?
Eric hits the nail on the head:
Frankly, I’m sick of “spirituality” - this natural inclination towards moralism and amorphous, touchy-feely mysticism. I am in no way religious by nature. I don’t get my kicks from transcendent experience and feel-good messages. I am not nice, bubbly or happy. Left to myself, I like to smoke, drink and offend people. I have no desire to fool myself about life or its ugliness, and am completely disinterested in trying to deceive myself or others with fairy-tales. I am most assuredly not a spiritual person…
...I am a Christian because Jesus was God. If he wasn’t, don’t give me empty platitudes and Oprah-style bull. Light me up a joint and buy me a hooker, because if He is not who He claimed to be, I’ve had all the spirituality I can stomach.
On a related note, I’m always befuddled when someone claims that they’re “spiritual” but not “religious” (and this almost always seems to be within the context of Christianity, not just religion in general). I’m not exactly sure what they mean by that, but I think it usually means that they like the “therapeutic” (for lack of a better term) aspect of thinking/hoping/believing that there’s more to this life than the physical, that there’s a way to tap into something bigger than themselves, whatever that might be. But they have no interest in doctrine, liturgy, discipline, or ceremony.
And yet, it’s impossible to have one without the other. There’s a symbiotic relationship between the two that you break only at your own peril. If you focus solely on “spirituality”, I don’t see how you can end up with anything but a limp milquetoast belief system, one that is merely content to trade in “feel good” platitudes and warm fuzzies (or “amorphous, touchy-feely mysticism”, to use Eric’s words). All of which may sound wonderful, but really have no ability to address the real, honest, hard, dirty, complex truths of life in this world.
On the other hand, focusing too much on “religion” and its side of the equation leaves you with nothing more cold and callous ritual, with ceremonies that have no power or passion but simply get by the mere repetition of words and genuflections. And these ceremonies have no ability to speak to the passion, warmth, and light of life. (To be honest, this is the side on which I tend to err. Give me old-timey ritual and liturgy, I say! Which, of course, just exposes flaws in my own understanding of such matters, and reveals how much growing I still have yet to do.)
The one needs the other. “Spirituality” needs “religion” to give it orthodoxy—a foundation that provides structure and order lest it be left swaying in the wind, tossed to and fro by whatever feels good or is popular, regardless of its real merit. And “religion” needs “spirituality” to keep it fresh, vital, and in full fighting trim—to remind it that it’s still alive, and hasn’t reached the pearly gates yet.
If you choose one over the other, for whatever reason, you end up impoverished, experiencing only a fraction of the whole truth.
Comments
neil
March 28, 2008 9:49amYep, so true. I like the way you put it, though. Eric’s article misses out on the fact that we need both religion and spirituality. In fact, he’s wrong; he is a spiritual person whether he knows it or not. We all are. Yeah, I get what he meant by spirituality, sort of, but then again maybe not. He needs… WE ALL need the “therapeutic” aspect of a truly spiritual religion. If Jesus is God, then I need to believe that His Kingdom is real, as well; a kingdom that is here, that is now, that is more real for being spiritual than we are for lack of the same. And if Jesus is God then we need to take Him and his Church seriously. There is a change we need to undertake through our effort in cooperation with God’s working Grace. There is a therapeutic method (perhaps a little different for everyone) for making this change, and that is found in God’s true and spiritual religion.
Jon
March 28, 2008 12:35pmwhoa.. pretty preachy
I guess I have no problem with someone with a lack of understanding about Christianity and/or religion in general calling themselves “spiritual”
I know many good, decent, kind people who believe in God, but do not believe the bible to be a literal document.. Additionally, many distinctly non-Christian religious people likely consider themselves and call themselves “spiritual”
calling all self-anointed “spiritual” non-Christians “impoverished” is pretty presumptuous
Jason
March 28, 2008 2:32pmLet me try to clarify some things.
I have no problem with someone calling themselves “spiritual” either, no matter what their understanding of Christianity might be. After all, we are all spiritual creatures, as Neil points out. What I do have a problem with is people implying that disregarding Church tradition or doctrine, or lacking understanding of such things makes them *more* spiritual somehow.
Also, I was only referring to people who make that statement within the context of Christianity. I wasn’t pointing fingers at “distinctly non-Christian religious people”. As I said, it’s usually been my experience that when someone says that they’re “spiritual” rather than “religious”, there’s an implicit disdain for specifically Christian “religion”. And that’s what I was addressing.
Also, I find your focus on the Bible’s literalness interesting. I know a number of Christians who hold a wide range of views and opinions on that topic, and I would never consider someone to automatically be more or less Christian (or “religious”, or “spiritual”) than I am, merely because of where they land on that spectrum of viewpoints.
What *is* the primary religious issue is not how literal it is, but rather, whether or not you believe it to be the one and only inspired word and revelation of God, and that it has primacy over all other religious documents.
But that could, and probably should, be a topic for a whole series of blog entries.
And if “impoverished” seems a strong word, than keep in mind that I’m also using that term to describe myself as much as anyone else. As I said before, I tend to err on the side of being “religious” rather than “spiritual”, and viewing with disdain, those who seem to embrace mushy therapy (blame it on my highly structural Emergenetics profile, I suppose). But that’s certainly doesn’t make me more “religious” than anyone else. And in that regard, I can be as impoverished as anyone.
Hopefully that clears a few things up…
Eric
March 28, 2008 3:28pmJason,
Nice to know someone as cool as you reads the blog :) If you’re interested, I just posted a clarification of what I was trying to get at. Take care, brother, and may your religion be deep and your spirituality true.
Jon
March 28, 2008 3:37pmthanks Jason.. that helps
keep up the great work.. I really love the varied aspects of your site