“I am a spiritual practitioner rather than a religious one.”
Someone I know told me this recently, a person who grew up in the church but who has been away for many years.
That comment always rankles me.
(It’s also a cliche that is really beneath the person who said it, but that’s a topic for another time.)
To me, “spiritual but not religious” implies a dichotomy. You are one or the other. Otherwise you’d say, “I practice my spirituality outside of a particular religion.”
If I were to pick twenty adjectives to describe myself, “religious” wouldn’t make the list. And yet apparently to this person, I am religious. But not spiritual? It didn’t occur to me to ask the person where the comment left me.
What I would say is, I nurture my spiritual life within the confines of a particular religious tradition. Yes. Of course I do.
And there are plenty of people who are in the church more for the excellent children’s programs and the lovely music than to follow the way of Jesus. Sure, I will grant that.
Just as there are “spiritual but not religious” people who self-identify as such because they want to sleep in on Sunday mornings. Or not be challenged to think differently than they want to think.
I don’t downplay the damage that religious communities have wrought on some who have left “organized religion.” Nonetheless, “spiritual but not religious” often seems to come wrapped in a very smug package. Like the person has found something pure and unsullied by us religious folk, still believing those silly things, enacting those silly rituals, hanging out with people who believe some hopelessly backward things that, thankfully, the spiritual-but-not-religious have long evolved beyond.
On the other hand, Huston Smith, who has studied world religions for years, describes the “cafeteria-style” spirituality that some people practice as digging a bunch of really shallow wells. Yes you will keep yourself busy, but you’ll never find water.
For a variety of reasons I both understand and don’t altogether understand, I chose (and didn’t altogether choose) to dig this particular well. I can’t be certain it’s the absolute best place to draw water. I’ve surveyed the landscape, somewhat, but I also ended up here by circumstance of birth. If I’d been born in India I’d probably be drinking from a different well. But here I am.
It’s pretty good water, too.
24 Responses to “RM shares a(nother) pet peeve”
Leave a Reply
Search
Asides
» I’m looking for some new online reading materials–blogs, zines, whatever. Creative yet accessible, inspiring but not schmaltzy, smart but not impenetrable. Recommendations welcome.
» The latest on SBJ: at one year, he weighs 30.5 pounds (99%), is 32 inches tall (97%) and is 100% cute.
» I have been remiss in posting SBJ’s latest stats: 23 pounds and 27 inches at six months. Yes, I’ve got the big mama biceps.
Links
Join | List | Prev | Next Random | Prev5 | Next5
Skip Prev | Skip Next
Join | List | Prev | Next |
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Noncommercial-No Derivative Works 3.0 United States License.
I faced this one a short while back. My conclusion: I am a religious person.
This is what religious looks like.
To me, the problem with it is that it implies someone out there is “religious, but not spiritual”. After all, if the two vary independently, then that combination must exist. But I’ve never met anyone who would say, “I come to church just so other people see me here, I really don’t care about the music, the message, the mission, or anything else. It’s just a religious devotion - I come to church because it lacks all meaning.”
Maybe I’m missing something.
At the same time, I don’t consider myself to be that religious about religion. I go to Bible study, I attend and participate in service, and even began taking communion again recently. Heck, I’ve even been roped into the executive board. I think someone outside of my body would say I’m fairly religious.
I think often “religious” gets used as a polite form of “intolerant”. Which means i’ll have to figure out if that’s how I’m using it in regards to my self.
My reaction to such comments is that the spiritual life is one that requires community. Yes, I know about contemplatives, but since the years after the desert fathers and mothers, most contemplatives aren’t anchorites, they live in community.
Whether one says they are part of the Great Divine Essence or the Body of Christ, the implication is that we are a PART of something larger than ourselves. We don’t function as spiritual beings in isolation.
That said, living a spiritual life within a religious tradition means I draw on the wisdom of generations of thoughtful spiritual people who have preceded me. They were (blessedly) human, and struggled with much of what I struggle with daily. Knowing others have done some of the groundwork for my own journey, and probably have gone much further than I could on my own, gives me the ability to forgive that which went before that was less than inclusive, less than gracious, less than hospitable, less than forgiving. My job is to help it be more inclusive, more gracious, more hospitable, more forgiving. And that job is directed not only to my faith community but also to the larger world.
Saying one is spiritual but not religious seems to be missing the point of both.
I admit, I used to say I was spiritual but not religious; but I always used it with the following interpretation: I believe in God. I believe that Christ was a man the was crucified on the cross as predestined by God. I believe in the holy trinity. I believe the Virgin Mary gave birth and the apostles preached. Then there are a whole lotta saints that did good things (Nicene Creed anyone?)
I was raised in the Catholic faith, but fell away from it, when I could no longer support the man made ideas of the church. I have gay friends and I believe abortion is a choice a woman should have and not be condemmed for. I had friends tht practiced what could be considered Pagen religions and attended many a ceramony, under a full moon. But still continued to pray the prayers I was taught under my religion.
Recently, my family and I have been welcomed most lovingly into an Open Episcopalian church (Catholic Light - all the love non of the guilt). I look forward to service, I go to bible study and gain greater insight into the Bible. I think I make startling revelations, while the vicar indulges me graciously. I participate in theparish and look forward to being invited into the ECW (I thinK I am too young right now
- comparitively).
So now I say I am religious and spriritual and proud of it. I finally found a place where it all comes together for me. I think the dichotomy of the statement for my interpretation, is the fact that people still want to follow the golden rule, but are put off by the hard core “religious” that get the most attention. So there is prayer and a believe in a God, just not the God that the 700 club expounds upon.
Beth
I think there’s no other word anyone can use besides “spiritual” if they feel the presence of a greater force and try to live in harmony with good, but decline to participate in dogma or institutionalized belief systems.
And of course people can be religious but not spiritual. No one says it of themselves, but in my more cynical moments, I’d call it the overwhelming rule.
I’ve never detected any smugness in the statement. I miss stuff sometimes, but I’d tend to suspect “defensive” more frequently than “smug.” Try telling people you don’t subscribe to an organized religion some time and you’ll generally be three of the following:
1. Ridiculed
2. Proselytized
3. Dismissed
4. Pitied
5. Prayed for
So yes, you’re going to put a little something into your attitude when yet again, you drag out the truth again and set yourself up for that. But something may not be offensive. It may be bracing for impact.
“And of course people can be religious but not spiritual. No one says it of themselves, but in my more cynical moments, I’d call it the overwhelming rule.”
Based on…?
Based on watching how people act.
Based on the notion that spiritually enlightened people–or those honestly trying to attain that enlightenment–would be incapable of the pettiness that rules most of the human interactions I’m aware of, combined with my impression that the majority claim not only spirituality, but a variety of it that’s superior to other people’s.
Quantities aside, here’s an example of how the terminology isn’t inaccurate:
How many of the current administration are card-carrying members of organized religions?
How many would you call spiritual?
Spirituality and religion are just not the same thing, in common English usage. Spirituality can exist within religion, but religion is not necessary for spirituality. All arguments I can think of to the contrary are semantic.
For the record, I call myself neither, and neither term describes my beliefs. But I sympathize with those who try to express, in the current climate, that there is a non-doctrinal but God-related aspect to their lives. If God is everywhere, or God is love, or God is all things, or God is some mysterious thing, or life force, or whatever conception you prefer, then while a religious community has value to many, it is not necessary for the simple, primal connection with God. If it were, then only one religion would connect people with God. However, they all serve that purpose; which I think shows–with really no wiggle room at all–that the bulk of each religion is about other things besides God.
But they all have that common element, the connection to the Great Something.
What word can be used for the connection but “spiritual?”
And how each church, synagogue, or doctrine possibly be called anything besides “religious?”
I never said that spiritual wasn’t the correct term for what you’re/I’m describing. What I am saying is that an explicit or even implicit juxtaposition of spirituality over against religiosity is simplistic at best and insulting at worst.
I actually don’t follow the logic of your long paragraph at all—you’re saying that many paths claim to point to God, and all claim some level of exclusivity, and that is somehow proof that they are about things that are tangential to the search for or experience of God?
Last question first:
I’m saying religion is not necessary for the main thing it purports to be for: Connection with God. The bulk of religious practice seems really to be cultural practice. The mores, the traditions, the choices of which myths to believe; and I suppose also the bureaucracy, the politics, the compromises for the sake of the community.
I’m saying there is connection with God (which term I wiill not define here) both within and without religion, and there is no other word to use for that thing besides “spirituality.” Then I made a side point about how if all religions can serve as paths to God, but they’re all mostly different in the bulk of the contracts and legalities, then the differences aren’t really about the path to God. But that wasn’t my main thought.
Someone who rejects religion but seeks and feels that connection and tries to live by it, and doesn’t have the time or inclination to compose twelve semi-literate paragraphs about it has no choice but to either say “I am spiritual but not religious” or keep her mouth shut. There ain’t no other way to speak about it.
First point last:
I think you’re hearing things in the juxtaposition that aren’t there. Simplistic… maybe. Insulting… I suppose if some jerk means it to be, then it is. In my experience, the jerk doesn’t generally mean it to be. Generally the jerk is tensing up and waiting to get patronized.
What I’m reminded of is how irate some published writers can get when people who use vanity presses refer to themselves as “published.” I think that’s because dues haven’t been paid, and quality generally hasn’t been attained. The title hasn’t been earned.
But can you really say the same thing about “spiritual?” The two most spiritual people I know are a devout Catholic and a mostly-unproclaimed and non-theological believer in an ineffable life force. Can someone say the latter’s way of belief is simplistic without rejecting the overruling importance of connection to God and the attempt to be in harmony with good?
I mean… is there something else?
Thank you for clarifying. I understand now. The fact that religions are different from one another, and yet all claim to be about the experience of God, could suggest that there is a lot of not-God stuff to them. And/or, it could suggest that the Great Whatever is so great and so whatever that no one faith tradition has got it all covered. Because yes, there are differences in “contracts and legalities,” but there are also deep theological differences too. I’m not saying all religions are equally right; maybe they are, but I’m not saying that. I’m saying that all might be straining to say something authentic about God, in addition to (or instead of) saying, “We do things differently from *those guys*.”
Yes, sometimes you just need a shorthand. However, the comment that sparked this post was part of a long discussion—with a writer, no less—in which such nuance was certainly possible. And big issues of faith (or no faith) are worth a little nuance, are they not? I’m suspicious of bumper stickers, regardless of where they originate.
And sure there are ways to say it other than the cliche. I suggested one; I can think of others. 12 paragraphs not required.
It is interesting how different the conversation looks from different vantage points. The self-affirmed “s-but-not-r” crowd is bracing for judgment; I feel written off by the comment; hum the theme for Diff’rent Strokes?
I think that religions do “strain to say something authentic about God.” My conception is a bunch of small windows on something that doesn’t fit and really can’t be seen. I feel that way even about using the word “God” in this conversation, but I figure we have to meet somewhere in order to have it.
Do you really feel written off? Sorry. Here I was thinking I did a decent job of avoiding that.
I distrust bumper stickers too, but I disagree that this is one–or that a dichotomy is implied by “spiritual but not religious.” If it’s not assumed up front that the terms are mutually exclusive (which, in my understanding of them, they’re not), then the idea that the person you’re talking to would take the phrase that way could be hard to foresee.
If I’m reading the situation right, each of you has different understandings of the two words. From my perspective, that’s pretty much what they did say.
a couple of things…
I had a friend at my Unitarian church that was an atheist but always described herself as a spiritual person…I never understood that.
And I saw a headline yesterday that said “Values voters have not yet found their candidate for ‘08″… aren’t we all “values” voters?…I know what they meant by the headline, but still…
These 2 points probably have nothing to do with the topic but I just had to get them off my chest.
I often try to parse the difference between “religious”, “spiritual”, and “faith”. The connotation of the first relates to legalism, it seems. As an ordained person, you are of necessity concerned with maintaining tradition. This is the “priestly” function, as we consider the difference between J and P in the Torah. How “legalistic” you are in preserving tradition is a separate question.
I think “spiritual” and “faith” connote relationship. They are a process, rather than a static observance of rules or tradition.
You make an excellent point when you suggest this is a false dichotomy. The same sort of false dichotomy exists when we talk about Martha and Mary; we assume that it is an either/or choice, rather than both/and.
We may be “religious” in our spiritual practices, or we may find spiritual fulfillment in our religious observances. We may listen, like Mary; but we are also called to action, like Martha.
“Do you really feel written off? Sorry. Here I was thinking I did a decent job of avoiding that.”
I was speaking generally, which I realize wasn’t clear from my use of “the conversation.” I meant, conversations such as this one.
Reflecting further on my own reaction, I think the phrase rankles me less when it comes from someone who never grew up within a faith tradition, vs. someone who was very much a part of it and who now wants, basically, nothing to do with it. The person I’m thinking about is definitely in the latter category. There has been an intentional rejection of that tradition. And to say “I’m a spiritual practitioner now, not a religious one,” goes beyond “I disagreed with its tenets” and into “I don’t want to practice a religion, I’ve decided to be spiritual instead.” And while dichotomy may be too strong a word to describe that perspective, it’s in the same ballpark.
I am willing to grant the possibility that others may presume no dichotomy when they use the phrase, but given what I know of the situation in question, it seemed a clear enough either/or.
I think who says something, and in what context, is usually more indicative of meaning than the words alone. I can’t say the person you’re talking about didn’t mean to be insulting. For all I know, it was a barb aimed right at you.
If I may ignore that context for a minute…
From within a religion, spirituality, religion, and faith are necessarily pretty much the same thing. You can’t really say “I’m religiously Christian, but spiritually Hindu, and my faith is Islam.” As I see it, when you choose a religion, you’ve chosen to deal with your spirituality and faith within it.
From outside religion, though, each means something different. You can, entirely properly, say “My life has a spiritual component, and I have faith in the existence of God and right action, but I subscribe to no traditional doctrine and so cannot call myself religious.”
Having just bought and started reading the Joan Chittister book, Welcome to the Wisdom of the World, http://spiritualityandpractice.com/books/books.php?id=17141
in the Chapter, “What does it mean to be a spiritual person?”, which she has in a section entitled Hindu wisdom, she says among many other things and quotes from Hindu masters that, “Religion without the spirit it is meant to preserve can become positively irreligious…..Religion is not for its own sake. It is not for the sake of the organization or hierarchy, social order or social status. The purpose of religion is to lead us beyond even itself to union with God, to that all-pervadng awareness of the spirit of life and truth alive in us now and toward which our lives are directed.”
Yeah, that.
Okay, no long comment from me. I’ll just say a loud AMEN!
I am spiritual and extremely religious, but have heard more judgment of people who call themselves sbnr from churched people than the other way around. Churched/religious people take it as an insult, I think, as you do (and as Keith said the person who said it might have meant it that way and maybe you picked up some real judgment on her part) but not everyone who says they are sbnr means it that way. I don’t think we should assume it unless they follow up with explicit attacks on religion. It just means that they haven’t found a religious community that nourishes their spiritual journey (or have had to leave one because it has been so damaging to their spiritual journey).
And they do have community and things to learn from outside themselves, even if it’s not one minister and one particular group of people that meets on Sunday (or Saturday or Friday, pick your religion). They have friends and family, and some read lots of really good books and do spiritual practices, each in their own way. I learned to respect and have a heart for people like this when I was temporarily driven out of church and often celebrate their weddings, and when we suffered and struggled to find someone to baptize Katie who recognized that we had an awesome and diverse spiritual community that would be our real support long term even though we were not members of a parish.
religious is a word we need to get back in touch with, my very first post was on just this subject- it means to reconnect- what can be better- great post thanks.
That’s an interesting thought, Sally. Kinda relates to the quote that gmommy shared.
“Religious” is a funny word. Have you ever heard anyone outside of a faith tradition use it admiringly? I don’t think I have. It is usually neutral at best. Which is a part of all this for me. Don’t get me wrong; I’m not seeking anyone’s admiration, and would say that a rote, unexamined religiosity is not a virtue to be admired. But when people say they are “sbnr” to an adherent of a religion, what are they assuming or implying about the person to whom they are making this statement? That’s the point I’m driving at. I think.
actually, I remember a long time ago C.S. Lewis addressing the concept of spirituality, as if being “spiritual” was inherently good. He said something like, maybe it depends on what spirit you are following, or adhering to.
That’s something akin to the problem I have with people who are “spiritual” but not religious. Absolutely, there’s a lot of hypocrisy in churches. There’s also a lot of hypocrisy outside of churches. What Keith says about things “spiritual” people are incapable of… hmmm.
Anyway, Christianity is a faith which values incarnation. Matter matters to us. So, if people think I’m not very “spiritual”… I’d much rather be incarnational.
I think caring whether people having enough food and clothing and shelter is profoundly spiritual. And material.
I really don’t think you can accurately generalize an answer to this. It’s exactly like asking “When people say they are religious to someone who isn’t, what are they assuming or implying about the person to whom they are making this statement?”
Unless there’s some sort of history, I assume the answer to be “nothing.” What does someone telling me something about themselves have to do with me?
I come from a family in which there was always plausible deniability for neutral statements used as weapons. Some people in your life can say “Pass the salt” and make it sting for a week. Others can say “Man, your entire value system is entirely fucked up,” and somehow it doesn’t sting, and you know they love you.
So to answer your question better… the person speaking thinks the same of you as they did before the conversation started.
Religion looks good on you Cheese
seriously though religion has got a bad name - for that matter so has spirituality (new age comes to mind) and I don’t know what to make of it.