Saturday, June 5, 2010

SPIRITUAL (BUT NOT RELIGIOUS)?


This blog was inspired by a friend who posted a link to the following CNN article. Here is the link (checking it out first may be helpful in understanding my thoughts on the subject):
http://www.cnn.com/2010/LIVING/personal/06/03/spiritual.but.not.religious/index.html

I absolutely agree with some of the article. It does a good job of taking a snapshot of the "cultural pulse," so to speak. It also left me thinking about a lot of spiritual things regarding community and accountability, and that was meditational time well spent, I think. 

That said, I find the article fairly problematic too. In showing us a glimpse of the religious-cultural climate, it reminds me a lot of the American-cultural climate in general: Extreme opinions without a satisfying and sensitive middle ground. Being who I am and coming from the Evangelical history I stem from, I was particularly annoyed with those representing the "religious" perspective here. This "side" of the debate takes the opportunity of this article to idealize "religion" while painting "spirituality" in a non-ideal light by semantic default. The thing is, that's not a fair estimation of what we know and experience daily within humanity. It lacks the intricacy and nuance found in real human hearts and real human actions, which cannot be neatly contained by what anyone claims.  When it comes to religion, peoples' lives tell the truth about them, regardless of what they might claim with words. And that goes both ways. Affiliating (or not affiliating) with a position, or subscribing (or not subscribing) to a label doesn't make you a genuine anything... And really, how can it? It's just a label. And where do labels apply? ...On the surface.

Here's my problem with the "religious" position taken up by those featured in the article: "Accountability to a community" is not something that's made easier or more likely for simply by being "religious." Why? Because there are just as many isolated and ultimately selfish people with their butts in seats at church, week in and week out. In fact, the church institution of our time is more geared toward and focused on the INDIVIDUAL than ever before. And the aim of most church organizations would clearly be understood to be "growing bigger" (size being equated with success), to the point where relationship isn't even necessary to "fellowship" there. Attendance grows, and eventually, no one can tell if anyone knows anyone else. Then comes the place we find ourselves now, where a huge percentage of religious people attend their big and shiny churches anonymously, because it's part of THEIR week and THEIR routine... The same way THEIR time at the gym is... THEIRS. 


But if "church" is something you merely attend as a consumer recipient of religious goods and services, that doesn't necessarily make you "accountable to a community" at all. The simple reality of things is that much of "church" in our time has been specifically and intentionally redesigned to appeal to the selfish. So to suggest that people without "religion" have a hard time being accountable to a community strikes me as incredibly unfair. EVERYONE has a hard time with that. And no label can save you from contending with it yourself. 

The article says, "Being spiritual but not religious can lead to complacency and self-centeredness," ...But the reverse is just as easily true. In fact, complacency and corrupt focus is what has caused such a great migration AWAY from churches. People began to leave as a matter of conscience, by and large. Like the Pool of Bethesda in John 5, they found themselves in a place with a pretense of healing which ultimately proved to foster very little of it. They had to look for Jesus on the perimeter - outside of the system - specifically because they wanted to be made whole. Many of those people learned to define church correctly - as "people" - while those still dependent on the four-walled, Sunday attendance model typically do not.

Sure, there are a lot of cases of shallow people who claim "spirituality" as a copout so they can be left alone... but no more than there are people who cling to "religion" as a copout. As a pastor, my big issue with Evangelical culture in general increasingly became a huge lack of care for those Jesus might call "the least of these." I found the following quote in the article frustrating along those lines (and other lines), personally:
 

"Hymn-singing, forms of prayer and worship, teachings about social justice and forgiveness -- all these things are valuable elements of religious wisdom," Walters says. "Piecing it together by yourself can be done, but with great difficulty."

I agree with Walters' statement, but what she's missing is that the church as a SYSTEM is making all those things incredibly difficult anyway. True religious wisdom is hard to come by whether you attend church services or not. The road is narrow and it seems there are few who find it. Life is full of delusions and distractions, and they're just as easy to find within a church system much of the time. I'd argue that it's often easier to find them there, actually. 


 Hymn-singing? Forms of prayer and worship? Teachings about social justice? Teachings about forgiveness?

Is there neglect in those areas? Yes, of course. Is there automatically less of it within "religion?" Of course not. Let's look at those pieces, one-by-one:

- The church system is neglecting to sing real and impassioned songs of depth, instead opting for 'top 40 worship' and jumping the bandwagon of worship leader rock stars in our image-obsessed culture (the same inside the church as it is outside). Worship lyrics are full of trite and selfish sentiment that goes unchallenged and depends on tired cliches. Joining up with "religion" is not guaranteeing that any of us can walk into a religious gathering and be involved with music that is beautiful and true. The Arts are incredibly stunted within the church, in fact.

- The church system is neglecting to embrace past forms of prayer and worship, and is neglecting to be open to future ones at the same time. Most churches I visit seem more interested in making a parody of things they like that are currently going on elsewhere. It's a circular cycle of insecurity, and it lacks real and honest vulnerability in approach. Church leadership typically seems more interested with placating expectations and utilizing templates than it does fostering an environment of devotional communion with God. We're full of programs and formulas and other phony things that are fundamentally NON-genuine, and yet we expect genuine results from them. There's a huge disconnect between our chosen means and our desired ends.

- The church system is neglecting social justice - actually, the church system has even gotten to the point of MOCKING and DOWNPLAYING social justice. Benevolence and charity play second fiddle to large church staffs and bloated salaries, and people vote with their dollars for favorite religious CEO at whatever megachurch is the current big deal. Many of us have learned AT CHURCH that things like caring for the poor or the environment is some silly, "liberal" thing to do (and we all know Jesus is a Republican, since we learned that at church too.) We learned all of it at church. Not so much outside of it. 


Outside of church, all we had was conscience, and conscience was pretty simple in revealing to us what God expects... But it was religion which came in and stole that away, and for many, even seared it - so they can no longer be moved by any spiritual thing which isn't dispensed by the institution. They can't engage God or God's mission apart from what they're told to do or be by someone who has become a mediator between them and Jesus. They are not God-inspired, God-moved or God-taught, so much as they have become subscribers of a particular institution. They aren't revolutionary in faith, because, for them, faith is a means of safety and fitting in. "Pastor" has become the stand-in for old covenant "priests," with people dependent upon them - to do the communing with God, the sacrificing, the interpreting, the relationship-having... Religious people refuse accountability all the time, and live their lives of faith more vicariously than they'll admit. So many of them are pleased enough to simply affiliate somewhere they feel "represented" by. 

Let's not kid ourselves: This "church" isn't about real, vulnerable transparency and accountability to a community... It's about routinely showing up somewhere that other people routinely show up to as well, perhaps singing together and listening to someone speak together, and then walking away with that whole experience cleanly compartmentalized... And this whole practice of religion does not by default mean that communal accountability exists, or is even encouraged, in such a place. I mean, obviously... right?

- The church system is neglecting forgiveness. In establishing social classes for sinners and hierarchies amongst the people, the 'Body of Christ' takes a shape more and more akin to that of a pyramid scheme. And while forgiveness is often talked about in regards to private lives where no one is accountable outside of their innermost attitudes, it's never brought up in regard to collective and corporate wrongs (even though the prophets consistently called Israel out for its collective brokenness in this regard). For instance, "forgiveness" isn't something that's really even grappled with by the church when our nation has warring to do... It isn't brought up as a possible path to reconciliation. We're quicker to violence and preemptive strike than we are to peace, love and forgiveness, and we're quick to follow our national interests as though they were automatically the interests of God's kingdom. I'm not saying we couldn't conceivably make a legitimate decision that destructive response is our only option in some circumstance... But the fact that it's so seldom discussed? The fact that to even bring it up or challenge the church's automatic embrace of that kind of policy? I think that's unfortunate, to say the least. Shameful, to say a bit more.


As I mentioned above regarding the forms of worship... We seem very slow to appreciate the disconnect between means and ends where the things we seek to accomplish are concerned. If you're trying to make a SWEET cake but use only SOUR ingredients, you should expect a sour cake, right? James said, "The fruit of righteousness is sown in peace by those who make peace." The means bring about the ends. Forgiveness requires a measure of love, but if we cannot love people without agenda, and when we think certain types of sinners or certain cultures are somehow BEYOND the response of love, and when we maintain such rampant hate for pet moral issues we hear blasted from the pulpit each week... It's very difficult to walk in forgiveness - the way we would if all we had to consider was God's heart, and not the incessant, thumping drum of our own religious culture.

To many, it just seems like everything carries an agenda. "Religion" has lost its way. To a lot of people, "going to church" has become like pulling a curtain in front of God's light and love. It's as though Jesus tore the veil of the temple down... and church went on to sew it right back up there again. The "spiritual but not religious" designation did not arise as a copout - it arose as a means of distancing oneself from the religiosity infecting institutional churches - a religiosity which so obscures the person of Jesus.
 

There are many, many legitimate concerns, complaints and issues people have with "religion." And simply pointing them back to "religion" does not even begin to address their problems. This is why "I'm spiritual but not religious" took hold as a way to articulate something that, for many, is very much a conscientious choice. And conscientious choices like that should be embraced and applauded (not minimized and made light of).

Of course, there are others just looking to sound deep (or whatever else) when they claim, "I'm spiritual but not religious." For some people, sure, that's just a way to be left alone. A way to not open up any vulnerable discussion, which might reveal that they're really just selfish and shallow (or completely apathetic) when it comes to spiritual/religious matters.

But that's not at all particular or specific to this crowd of people. By now, we should all be well aware of the fact that phony people are all over the place - both inside and outside of our tidy classifications, and inside and outside of "religion" too. Then again, the same is true of genuine beauty - it's all around us as well, refusing to be bound by the very same barriers we create. 
 

Huge issue. Huge implications. Lots to consider.


To anyone who read this... Thanks. I'm thankful to Kaley especially, since she took the time to give me a nudge in actually posting something here. I setup this blog in November of last year and this is my first real post in it.

I'd love to read any comments or further discussion you might add.

9 comments:

  1. yeah...

    "It's as though Jesus tore the veil of the temple down... and church went on to sew it right back up there again."

    ouch.

    I'm speechless, for now.

    ReplyDelete
  2. both "spiritual" and "religious" are literally meaningless apart from the G-d they represent.

    in the case of this article they seem to have been equivocated to merely the title of two slightly different cultural mindsets. both of which seem to be leaving out a true and unwavering devotion to G-d

    we are told what true religion is: to server widows and orphans.

    why would anyone trying to listen to G-d try and define them self as "not religious"

    and isn't that same need to define and label that is at the root of our problem in the first place?

    surrender to G-d, listen constantly, pray constantly


    P.S. just because a building looks like a church, and people call it a church; doesn't mean its a church.

    ReplyDelete
  3. and in response to chris: i forget what belief system it comes from but ive heard the term "veil of maya"

    "maya" translates more or less to "name" and the consept of transending the veil of maya is to move past your mind/egos desire to name and label things and box them into something that you can "comprehend"

    breaking through this mindset is so important to worshiping G-d and all of his creation in its infinite nature.

    accepting, embracing, and interacting are our true forms of worship. not hierarchically labeling and understanding.

    anyway veil of maya is worth googling imo.

    ReplyDelete
  4. I agree with Maxx (if I'm understanding right); I've always been curious why "religion" left such a bad taste in peoples mouths. Well, I mean, I know WHY, but why does it HAVE to? To simply disregard religion as a spiritualist is the same as a religion disregarding spirituality. The two are mutually exclusive. I always disliked telling people about my religion because it shuts them down because of preconceived notions, and that IS entirely the churches fault, but it does NOT mean the church is inherently evil. I think church is just a place to grow and fellowship for someone that is spiritual.

    The church needs to bring back spirituality, else people continue to think there is none (and, as Kevin said, stop parodying spirituality).

    Kevin: excellent blog. Look forward to more.

    ReplyDelete
  5. Kind of.

    After reading the article, the blog, and all the comments I come away thinking I "kind of" agree. But I "kind of" disagree (respectfully).

    In response to Maxx and Thom; "Spiritual" and "Religious" both have meanings, and they are not mutually exclusive; on the contrary. "Spiritual" literally means "of spirit" and I believe it's safe to assert that it needs to be used in reference to a greater incorporeal reality. "Religious" would literally mean "of religion" and, based on it's original root meaning "to reconnect." I believe it's safe to assert that the word needs to be used in reference to our efforts to reconnect with whatever greater incorporeal reality we deem we are attempting. And make no mistake, they are mutually necessary.

    My first decent addition to this conversation is that we need to make this distinction and correctly impart it. I think those of us involved in this discussion understand that both of those words have been hijacked. An honest, humble, radical, and impassioned effort to reconnect humanity with Jesus is RELIGION and is beautiful! Anyone who wants to bandy something else around and call it religion has really only captured a reflection at best, and a manipulative parody at worst. Don't give in to the cultural temptation to use "religion" as a dirty word. Even a well-meaning compromise in this case flirts with undermining the importance of our journey.

    In my experience, I see 2 camps using phrases like "I'm spiritual but not religious." Those who desire (for any number of reasons) to appear or be spiritual without being vulnerable or accountable. The other camp tends to be Jesus Lover's who (for any number of reasons)do not want to be associated with those Christians who do not love Jesus (ironically not Christians).

    We can probably spend all day coming up with the "any number of reasons." I think its valid to assert that many of these "reasons" are good reasons, and many are bad. Thom already brought up some, as did Max, Kevin, and the article.

    But I don't think the reason ever truly justifies it. It tends to be a stale, worn-out phrase at this point that avoids the reality of the issue (not to mention it's entirely inaccurate no matter who you are). If you mean to say that there are those who call themselves Christians and that you believe their actions may not represent the person of Jesus, let's be a people with the courage to say as much. Regarding those in the former camp (the ones who wish to avoid personal accountability or vulnerability), well, we should expect that. The way is narrow, as they say. Let's be a people with the courage to exemplify the Love that Jesus has for all that He might be honored. In doing this I believe Jesus the best opportunity to heal the damages of humanism, hedonism, and some of the other -isms.

    I believe it to be a failure of church leadership that these issues arise. There are too many leaders leading their churches, as opposed to leaders leading Jesus' church. We as leaders are responsible to be Christ-like examples to the saints. We must purpose to do this with an extraordinary focus on Jesus and an indelible propensity toward honesty. We will reproduce who we are, after all, and not who we would like to.

    Finally, I agree with most of the statements about the "church system." I know your heart and know your Love, so I know you will not fall into the trap speaking ill of the Jesus' bride. I find myself treading too close to that trap sometimes, though. I wonder if others might as well then. So let's remember the church of Jesus is His beautiful bride.

    ReplyDelete
  6. I believe that a HUGE dose of simplicity is what the "Church" as a whole would benefit from greatly. As discussed above the heart is to follow Jesus and seek deeply, honestly, and without fear (as much as possible)in being transformed to His image and as His bride.

    Jesus starts his Sermon on the Mount talking about happiness (Matthew 5:3-12). The people I know who are happy/content/encouraged always have a simple belief system. And by simple, I do not mean mindless, or without passion and reflection.

    It’s very concrete, it’s personal, and they don’t refashion it every week according to the new polls or the cultural mood. The happiest people alive usually believe one or two things really well, and base their whole life on that.

    It is essential to share the simple beliefs one holds in community as well to remain balanced, encouraged and challenged in healthy ways. As said above the "church" is not and never supposed to be a building or empty rituals. I feel that some of the "best" church time I have is spent over a delicious Mexican meal with discussion and hearts seeking the Lord...

    Enjoyed processing everyone's thoughts and reflections...I do believe "church" is happening here.

    ReplyDelete
  7. Right on Kev.
    I've always sort of divided the Christian camp a bit differently... Spiritual and Cultural. Spiritual meaning those that have a real and honest relationship and fellowship with God through Jesus. They also practice the harder things... self denial, repentance, humility, feeding and clothing the poor, prayer for and ministry to the sick and afflicted, planting churches, establishing community, forgiveness, etc.
    The "cultural" cannot really Biblically back up their "dailyness", relationships, selfishness, ethics, self absorbtion, etc. Nevertheless, they DO show up for the show on Sunday morning, and smile along with everyone else. They may also participate in programs outlined for them in the Sunday am bulletin. And if they have happened to put in their 10% to the offering plate, they somehow believe that they have fulfilled their obligation to the Christian walk, not realizing that they have just put themselves under the LAW without satisfying the other laws. After all, it's HIS money, not ours.
    Some friends of mine use to say that these folks whole aim in life is to "have it all, and still make it to heaven".
    I'm grateful to say that we are currently attending a church that truly is in the first category. That's because of the fine pastoral leadership. There is a much higher percentage of true disciples in this church that I have ever experienced before.

    ReplyDelete
  8. After moving up to Portland I found myself for the first time in my life, truly watching how I presented my beliefs. Surrounded by a large group of non-like-minded friends, I quickly realized that claiming any particular religious group as my own, can and did prompt negative connotation from those inquiring.

    I started claiming spirituality as a necessary way to avoid implications that others may make due to bad experiences with religion. I've found it to be a way to stay independent and lovingly open to those you wish to reach.

    I agree with what you've stated here, in the end we are all a broken species, and will never be unbroken no matter the structures surrounding our lives.

    Thanks for sharing Kev.

    -Michael

    ReplyDelete
  9. The title of the article is “Are there Dangers to being Spiritual but not Religious” And the answer is YES…I like the way Kevin worded it at the bottom when he said, “Of course, there are others just looking to sound deep when they claim "I'm spiritual but not religious." For many people, that's just a way to be left alone. A way to not open up any vulnerable discussion, which might reveal that they're really just selfish and shallow (or completely apathetic) when it comes to spiritual/religious matters."

    Now let’s re-word the title, “Are there Dangers to being Religious, but not Spiritual” and the answer is YES…I like the way Kevin worded his whole blog…

    There are Dangers on both sides…because we’re human, because we’re not perfect. And this article (although making some good points) did not fully represent the whole picture. Kevin touched on this when he wrote…"It lacks intricacy and nuance of the kind found in real human hearts and human actions, which cannot be neatly contained by what anyone claims."

    I believe this blog…and all the comments that follow are a good compliment to this article because together they are representing what the article could not do by itself…a WIDER spectrum of thoughts of REAL HUMAN HEARTS!

    The article brought up the idea of organized religion, community, and being alone…and discussed these ideas in the realm of being religious or spiritual...

    Setting aside the Religious versus Spiritual terms…this is what I know to be true.

    We are relational beings…who need community…that’s just how God created us. And it’s EASIER, for some, to isolate themselves, live outside of community…WHY? It takes less work, all there is to think about is YOU, no worries of being hurt, mistreated, taken advantage of…and no having to invest LOVE, TIME, and ENERGY into other people.

    Experiencing this true community, the kind the Lord designed us for is necessary and can be/has been/is being lost on all ends of the spectrum. Whether it’s in an Organized Religion where what has become most important is the number of “butts in seats,” or because someone chooses to isolate themselves in the name of Spirituality, or because being a “Christian” has become no more than a “Sunday Routine”…COMMUNITY IS LOST!

    I believe that terms and words like RELIGION, CHRISTIANITY, SPIRITUALITY, CHURCH will forever be challenged, because they will be misrepresented. They are not corrupt in original meaning, but can become negative due to what people do in the name of these terms. And, as generations change over years and years, so will be the “terms” that followers of Christ most identify with.

    BUT what I do believe will NEVER change is the fact that God made us a relational people who need community, and our faith boils down to following Christ and LIVING out His truths…which largely requires us to be invested in people’s lives…for how could we “Let all know that we are His disciples by our LOVE for one ANOTHER” if we isolated ourselves from His people?

    The brain is stirring with much thoughts…but I will break for now. It’s so refreshing to engage in these discussions…been longing for it A LOT more recently…and hoping the Lord makes a way for us to do this face to face on a regular basis. Looking forward to reading more comments to come…

    ReplyDelete