Spiritual but not religious — Not so fast!
Making the case for moving beyond your own personal God
- (28)
- Follow us:
No place for humility
More problematic than Sheilaism are spiritualities entirely focused on the self, with no place for humility, self-critique or any sense of responsibility for the community. Certain “New Age” movements find their goal not in God, or even the greater good, but in self-improvement — a valuable goal — but one that can degenerate into selfishness.
Religion can provide a check against my tendency to think that I am the center of the universe, that I have all the answers, that I know better than anyone about God, and that God speaks most clearly through me.
By the same token, religious institutions need themselves to be called to account. And here the prophets among us, who are able to see the failures, weaknesses and plain old sinfulness of institutional religion, play a critical role. Like individuals who are never challenged, religious communities can often get things tragically wrong, convinced that they are doing “God’s will.” (Think of the Salem witch trials, among other examples.) They might even encourage us to become complacent in our judgments. Unreflective religion can sometimes incite people to make even worse mistakes than they would on their own. Thus, those prophetic voices calling their communities to continual self-critique are always difficult for the institution to hear, but nonetheless necessary.
It’s a healthy tension: the wisdom of our religious traditions provides us with a corrective for our propensity to think that we have all the answers; and prophetic individuals can moderate the natural propensity of institutions to resist change and growth. As with many aspects of the spiritual life, you need to find balance in the tension.
Religion provides us with something else we need: stories of other believers, who help us understand God better than we could on our own.
To connect and correct
Isaac Hecker was a 19th-century convert to Catholicism who became a priest and founded the American religious order known as the Paulists. [FYI, the Paulists created and continue to sponsor Busted Halo. –ed] He summed it up best. Religion, said Hecker, helps you to “connect and correct.” You are invited into a community to connect with one another and with a tradition. At the same time, you are corrected when you need to be. And you may be called to correct your own community — though a special kind of discernment and humility is required in those cases.
Religion can lead people to do terrible things. At its best, though, religion modifies our natural tendency to believe that we have all the answers. So despite what many detractors say, and despite the arrogance that sometimes infects religious groups, religion at its best introduces humility into your life.
Religion also reflects the social dimension of human nature. Human beings naturally desire to be with one another, and that desire extends to worship. It’s natural to want to worship together, to gather with other people who share your desire for God, and to work with others to fulfill the dreams of your community.
Experiencing God also comes through personal interactions within the community. Sure, God communicates through private, intimate moments — as in prayer or reading of sacred texts — but sometimes God enters into relationships with us through others in a faith community. Finding God often happens in the midst of a community — with a “we” as often as an “I.” For many people this is a church, a synagogue or a mosque. Or more broadly, religion.
Transcending your individual understanding of God
Finally, religion means that your understanding of God and the spiritual life can more easily transcend your individual understanding and imagination. Do you imagine God as a stern judge? That’s fine — if it helps you draw closer to God or to become a more moral person. But a religious tradition can enrich your spiritual life in ways that you might not be able to discover by yourself.
Here’s an example: One of my favorite images of God is the “God of Surprises,” which I first encountered in the novitiate. My own idea of God at the time was limited to God the Far Away, so it was liberating to hear about a God who surprises, who waits for us with wonderful things. It’s a playful, even fun, image of God. But I would have never come up with it on my own.
It came to me from my spiritual director in the Jesuit novitiate, who had read it in a book of that same title by an English Jesuit named Gerard W. Hughes, who borrowed it from an essay by the German Jesuit Karl Rahner.
That image was amplified when I read the conclusion of one of the great modern spiritual novels, Mariette in Ecstasy. Ron Hansen, an award-winning writer who is also an ordained Catholic deacon, penned the story of the religious experiences of a young nun in the early 1900s, loosely based on the life of St. Thérèse of Lisieux, the French Carmelite. At the end of the story, Mariette, who has left the monastery many years before, writes to her former novice mistress, and assures her that God still communicates with her.
We try to be formed and held and kept by him, but instead he offers us freedom. And now when I try to know his will, his kindness floods me, his great love overwhelms me, and I hear him whisper, Surprise me.
My image of the God who surprises and the God who waits for surprises came from three Jesuit priests and the religious imagination of a Catholic writer and deacon. In other words, that idea was given to me by religion.
Overall, being spiritual and being religious are both part of being in relationship with God. Neither can be fully realized without the other. Religion without spirituality becomes a dry list of dogmatic statements divorced from the life of the spirit. This is what Jesus warned against. Spirituality without religion can become a self-centered complacency divorced from the wisdom of a community.
That’s what I’m warning against.
The Rev. James Martin SJ, a Catholic priest, is culture editor of America magazine the national Catholic Weekly published by the Jesuits. This essay is excerpted from his book — published this week — “The Jesuit Guide to (Almost) Everything.”
Pages: 1 2
- (28)
- Follow us:
Well said Rev. James! I was just having a discussion with one of my coworkers who is SBNR & she was complaining about how every church/religion seems to think they are better that every other church/religion. She said that she would join a church/religion when she could find one that is full of people who aren’t continually judging other people within the religion, or judging people from other religions in a negative light.
I was at a complete loss of what to say, except, “good luck finding an entire community of people wherein every single person is nonjudgmental & loving.”
After 73 years of Religion I find the path for me is Spirituality and not religion. Religions rules and regulations are written by man and as such are written with the bias of the writer.John 5-vs24 outlines the simplicity of the message as taught to us by Christ:Listen to my words and believe in He who sent Me.Nothing more is needed for eternal salvation.Merton was right on the money: Love and thank God all day long for the people we are surrounded with; the beauty of nature;for who we are :for what we have been blessed with and the joy of life as we know it.The Church of Rome is becoming more hypocritical every day and is losing intelligent people who see through the fallacy of her arguments in many areas that are in direct conflict with the actions and teachings of Christ.
As opposed to being spiritual, I am a devout Christian, but am a church alumnus. I left my church of 30 years as it grew intolerant, and my views were no longer acceptable. I am not the only one who has noticed this. In his 2006 book, Pres. Jimmy Carter notes how the Southern Baptists were becoming rigid in doctrine, intolerant of those of differ, and exclusionary if those who differ do not fall in line.
It is these characteristics and its corruption of the visible church that causes people to say they are spiritual. Yet, spiritual is the word they use for lack of another. I think they are like myself – Christian, but church alumni.
I am not Catholic! Yet, Catholic Bishops have threatened US congressman with exclusion if they do not adhere to abortion doctrine. Others have argued that the Catholic church is trying to keep secret both the doctrine of Probabilism and the idea that it is your conscience, not the Pope, that has the final say.
Sadly, the Christian good news – the idea that, aside from salvation, Christianity can maximize your happiness today is lost in the intolerance and exclusion which at times looks more like hate than Christian love. So I continue my Christianity with a loose net of other church alumni, and we wait. We wait for the visible church to once again tolerate the devout Christian who does not take the Bible literally and maybe, as an example, does not believe that the earth is 10,000 years old and believes that evolution really happened.
I agree with Christy. I’m 47 and searched for years for a church that would be as true to the Bible as many claim to be. Surprise to me, found it in the Catholic Church. Man has a fallen nature. Satan will use that to his advantage to divide us as expertly as he can. I applaud and encourage Tom and Pete in their quest for Christ, and in their continued study of Him. There IS something to be said for authority (as in that of the Catholic Church). I believe it is Biblical. If one believes it is flawed in some way, work to understand it and perhaps accomplish change. I see great and profound love in the teachings of the Catholic Church. Jesus called a spade a spade. He identified sin and said, “Now go and sin no more.” He didn’t say we could decide what was sin and what wasn’t. But he travelled and he ate with sinners. He loved to the point of sacrifice and death. That’s our example.
There is no church that is true to the bible.They all pick and choose what suits them at the moment to make a particular point. Example of hypocricy.No married priests. The first Pope was married.Thechurch is in direct conflict with the example set by Christ. Rome is violating the first command given to us by The Father”Go forth and multiply”. He didn’t say except for priests. Infallibility isn’t even in the Bible and is an impossibility anyway.The first Pope blew that when he denied Christ(matter of Faith).I could go on and on but it would show my frustration with the Catholic Church after 70+ years in dealing with it’s hypocricy.This is the only reason Christ got mad at the religious leaders of the times. Hypocrites!
@ pete,
Except that there ARE married priests in the Latin Rite, although if you ask one of them, they may tell you how much more difficult it is to balance wife and children. The discipline (not doctrine nor dogma) of celibacy is a gift in imitation of Christ. Something Jesus said about making oneself a eunuch for the sake of the kingdom.
I may be misreading you, but it seems to me you have a problem with authority, not hypocrisy.
Probably both.But as you say there are married priests in the Eastern Rite,any Anglican that comes over can be married and a large number of African priests are married as the flock would not accept them if they weren’t.So to say you have to celibate to be a good example is slightly hypocritical,especially as Christ Himself picked a married man as the first Pope and not a eunuch.The only reason for single men is that for the first 1000 years they had married priests,Popes and Bishops until they realized that when they died they were leaving the church property to their wives and children,so it had nothing to do with the imitation of Christ.
Pete, your arguments against priestly celibacy and the Church are quite flawed. I lovingly invite you to consider the matter more fully. First off, celibacy was not invented 1000 years after Christ. The Council of Elvira (between 295 and 302) ordered celibacy for priests and bishops. This was reaffirmed by the Council of Nicaea (325).
The whole argument about priests leaving church property to decedents is an old anti-Catholic slander that has no basis in fact. At the most basic level, it is impossible for a priest to leave church property to a son because, by definition, it is the property of the church and not the priest! The idea that a priest could take the land and buildings owned by the diocese and give them to an heir is ridiculous.
Now, the celibacy issue is just a discipline (like not eating meat on Fridays during Lent) and not an infallible issue, so its merits can be discussed in good faith, however, stick to the facts. In the past there have been a handful of really bad examples breaking the rules, but that does not convict the other 99% who are faithful to their vows. For more reading on the matter, I suggest Matthew 19:12, where Christ clearly commends those who, “for the sake of the kingdom of God”, have not pursued the married state. Also, St. Paul is more explicit in 1 Corinthians 7:7-8 and 32-35.
Regarding papal infallibility, if it is such an “impossibility,” can you please provide one instance in which a pope contradicted a previously-infallible teaching? It hasn’t happened. Surely if it were “impossible,” there would be something, throughout these 2000 years, that would support your case.
The thing to keep in mind about papal infallibility, is that it is a negative charism. It does not mean that a pope will be “right” or always do the right thing, but instead guarantees that he is prevented from teaching error. This does not mean that popes cannot sin (they do!) or that they will always do the right thing (Peter didn’t!). Instead, it just prevents the pope from teaching error under three (very limiting) circumstances: when he is speaking 1. as the pope, ex cathedra (he means to) 2. to the entire Church (not just privately to friends, or a particular region) and 3. on matters of faith and morals (his opinions about sports don’t mean squat). As you can see, Peter’s denial falls apart here because it fails to meet all three criteria.
Pete, I understand that one can become very discouraged because of hypocrisy in the church. However, the hypocrisy by individual members does not preclude the fact that the Catholic Church is the only church founded directly by Jesus Christ and has existed in an unbroken line of succession since Cavalry. I really recommend that you carefully and prayerfully consider the matter. Perhaps visiting a site like catholicscomehome.org and poking around for more information. Another good site for particular questions is catholic.com.
God bless
I believe celibacy for priests and bishops at the councils you suggested was implemented but not followed as Augustine who lived later than either council was married and prior to that had two mistresses. And I’m sorry but they did leave property to their wives and children and to the year 1000 we still had married priests and bishops.As a point of info it got so bad that Pope Benedict VIII forbade descendants of priests from inheriting property in 1018 and subsequently Pope Gregory forbade married priests from saying Mass.It finally became official doctrine in 1563 at the Council of Trent and has stayed that way ever since.
Name one infallible statement made by any Pope that can be proven.As a matter of fact the Pope that started the infallibility wanted every word he spoke to be infallible but thank god saner minds prevailed.I honestly don’t believe we had diocese’ in the early years of the church.
With Respect Pete
Pete,
Once again, I disagree. St. Augustine did have mistresses, but he also didn’t enter the church until he was in his 30s. After that, I believe he was celibate, at least from what I can gather from a quick internet search.
When it comes to the “inheriting the property” issue, the reason why I think we’re talking past each other is the distinction between things owned by the priest and the things owned by the diocese. From my understanding, often during post-Roman Europe, priests often took it upon themselves to purchase the things used during mass, sometimes even building churches themselves with their own money. Over time, this distinction got blurred and nepotism set it, with priests arranging the ordination of sons in a dynastic manner. We should also keep in mind that the fact that celibacy was introduced and argued for in the earliest writings of the Church and biblical documents and became mandatory in the during the early middle ages only applies to the Western branch of the Catholic church. To the day, celibacy is not required of most priests in the Eastern rites.
Regarding infallibility, take the doctrine of the Assumption of Mary, which is perhaps the clearest infallibly-defined dogma of recent years. This is clearly a matter of faith, directed at the whole church by the pope. This is also a statement of fact – Mary was either assumed into heaven like Enoch and Elijah or she wasn’t. That is a clear-cut right or wrong statement. Now whether it can be shown 2000 years later to be right or wrong is tough to say – I guess we won’t know until we get to heaven, though Rev 12 seems to suggest Mary definitely has a body…
The better question of infallibility concerns not whether a pope can be proven to be right, but if he can be proven to be wrong. Infallibility does not mean that a pope is always going to be completely right (even when the other requirements are fulfilled). Infallibility only guarantees that the pope is prevented by the Holy Spirit from teaching error to the entire church.
Also, whether or not a pope wanted everything he spoke to be infallible (if that is even a true story) is besides the point, as it does not fulfill the requirements for a statement to be infallible.
With regard to whether there were dioceses in the early church, the term “diocese” did not originate until much later. However, it is clear from Acts, as well as history that certain areas (read: dioceses) were overseen by particular individuals (read: bishops). For instance, after Judas kills himself, in Acts 1, he is replaced by Matthias and Psalm is quoted “And his bishopric let another take.” Additionally, there are historical accounts of very early bishops. In Acts, James is the bishop of Jerusalem. The Patriarch of Antioch was first Peter, St. Evodius (d. 67), and then St. Ignatius (d. 108). St. Polycarp was the bishop of Smyrna. Of course, the unbroken list of the Bishops of Rome can be found at any encylopedia (Peter, Linus, Anacletus, Clement…)
In a way, it seems kind of odd that we’re arguing about something as small as priestly celibacy. I cannot see why anyone cares about the subject who is not a priest, as it doesn’t affect them in the slightest. In my humble opinion, a celibate priest will always be able to devote himself fully to the church rather than to his family. When loyalties as strong as those are divided, neither the church nor the family are given the full attention they deserve.
Augustine had his first mistress for over 20 years and his mother insisted he get married,found a bride for him,but she was too young so he got another mistress for a short duration.
As to property going to family it got so bad that is why the Pope stepped in.Lands and buildings were going to families.This was not a question of personal property.
If we did away with celibacy we could end the shortage of priests and possibly solve some other problems which seem to be growing in Europe as we chat. A survey was done and showed that a good number of priests would come back if we did away with celibacy which is the way Jesus ordained it from the beginning by his very example.
I firmly believe that celibacy and infallibility are the areas that are keeping the christian religions apart when they are simply something man in his fallibility dreamed up without any basis in fact or scripture. I believe in simplicity and I guess my faith follows John5 vs.24 “listen(hear) my words and believe in He who sent me and you will have eternal life.” The rest is all dressing made up by man mostly for his own purposes(albeit with mostly good intentions).K.I.S.S. Keep it spiritually simple.
With respect Pete
A balance between the two, religion and spirituality, is necessary. To have one without the other is comparable to having a house without a home. Spirituality is a time with the God of my understanding and experience. Religion is a expression I share with other people sharing our journeys with each other. Each lack what the other offers. Solitude and community. Dick
Dick You are probably right. I guess after 73 years as a Roman Catholic I’ve come to the conclusion that I am being hypocritical and less than honest were I to attend services at a church whose very actions I consider hypocrisy in so many areas,some of which are above.The last straw was the decision of the D.C. archbishop to withhold dependent health coverage for it’s employees because they might have to provide it to same sex partners.Hurt the spouses and the children to make a point.Idiocy of the first magnitude in order to prove what?
The church has gotten away from the message of Christ and it’s simplicity.No wonder people are leaving in droves.
I get my community from my friends,family, work and everybody I come in contact with on my daily journey and it is indeed a magnificent one. Why can’t we get a Pope who walks the walk and not just talks the talk and bring the simplicity of the message to the faithful.We have made religion too complicated when it was given to us so simply,but then man never has been too bright when it came to religion.Look at where the world is today.He must be looking at us and shaking His head saying how could you screw up this bad on something so simple. God Bless Pete
That note on ins.coverage was just for new employees
We each have to decide. god either exists, or He doesn’t. Either god has revealed Himself, or He hasn’t. Jesus is either God, or He isn’t. Either Jesus built a Church, or He didn’t.
There is only one good reason to be Catholic – because it’s true.
Of course He built a church.It’s just that hypocrites are running it.
It’s just that people are running it.
Amen.
I completely agree with the article. It seems to me that many people chose to be SBNR simply because it’s not easy to be religious. They would then have to realize that someone else (God) is making the rules about what is right and what is wrong, and they might have to change something they like. It’s as if people want to treat their faith like a spiritual salad bar. “I’ll take some lettuce, and some forgiveness. Everlasting life! I like that. I‚Äôll take TWO helpings! Um… most of these commandments look pretty good, but you can hold off on the whole ‚ÄòHonor your father and mother‚Äô thing‚Ķ‚Äù etc.
I also hear people (not just Pete here, but many) say that the church is full of, and run by hypocrites, but what isn’t? The point is that we do our best, and God knows what’s truly in our hearts. If you only trust yourself with your religion, aren’t YOU now the one that fills and runs the You-religion you have just created? Are you saying that you’re the only person in the world who isn’t a hypocrite? Who isn’t judgmental? I doubt that. I think that to be SBNR is just as detrimental as being an atheist, but rather than out right rejecting God, you have determined that you now know the best way to approach faith, and that is down the path of making yourself and your knowledge on a pedestal. What are those other things we put on pedestals? Oh yeah, idols.
Finally, I hear a lot of people say, “It’s between me and God, and as long as I spend time with Him, read my Bible, and do what He wants me to do, I’m in good shape.” I, myself fell for this same argument for a time. But how often DID I actually read my Bible when I was not in church? I can answer that with a solid “never.” And how could I be sure I was doing what God wanted me to do, without verification from other Godly people? God may speak to me individually, but so does Satan (called the “Great Deceiver” in the book of Rev) and he can sound just as convincing if I’m not careful. (If I was the one in the desert when he starts throwing scripture at me about angels catching me when I fall, I probably would have jumped! I’m not going to pretend I have it all together all the time.)
God made us so that we would want to be with other people, and He was fully aware that we are all imperfect. But we had better chances of surviving this rough world together, paired with other hypocrites like ourselves, than to go at it alone.
I guess when someone tells me that you must be religious rather than spiritual it get’s my Irish up.There are many paths to the Fathers house. It is the journey that is important.And each of us has our own personal journey and has to choose the path that is right for us.
I don’t think anyone would have told the Desert Fathers,the Irish Monks/Hermits or the Russian Monks that they had to quit their solitude and become religious. To each his/her own path to eternal life as long as we follow the words of Christ and believe in the Father. Let’s keep it simple whatever your path might be-Religious or Spiritual.
God Bless Pete
Great comments! I would also add that we all end up in some kind of informal religion simply by saying that we are spiritual. In other words we develop our own systems of belief. This is even true for the formally religious who tend towards certain principles over others within their own tradition.
Thanx Mike I love your last sentence.I found this to be true of many priests I had as friends. God Bless Pete
Dear Martin.
Surely if religion or church would been essential to your spirituality Jesus would have left such an organisation here on earth in the first place. Instead these organizations with built in hierarchies and rules where developed later.
In my mind worst part of religion is not that you try to convince me about what God wants. But the same time you try to give the same rules to God.
You state that religion is even necessary and doesn’t damage your spiritual self. But if you yourself grow above dogma. Then how can you continue teach it to others?
This is the part of organized religion i don’t understand and i can only come up with negative reasons like power, money…
Please help me to see otherwise.
regards.
Pekka
I’m not a church goer but also not an atheist. I’m perplexed at the author implying that non church goers who may think of themselves as spiritual are atheists. Not that there is anything wrong with atheism, mind you. I’m sure many non believers live far more ethical lives than many church goers. If one is serious about living an upstanding, compassionate and moral life, I feel religious dogma is just not needed. In some instances it even gets in the way. One writer here mentioned catholic bishops threatening to ostracize or excommunicate catholic politicians who believe in choice for women. Or how about the midwestern bishop who excommunicated a catholic nun for her decision in allowing an abortion within a catholic hospital to save the mother’s life. These are, I believe, decisions born from compassion to fellow human beings, even when there are sorrowful consequences. In either case, where was the compassion from church hierarchy toward those whom they felt so violated church doctrine? I’m sure that decision by the nun was heart wrenching. Yet she made it based on the premise of better to save a life rather than watch as two people die. I don’t know. I grapple with faith and religion almost daily but for now am content with talking with my God in my own way and trying to live an authentic, moral life. That does not make me a non believer.
Interesting article, although you may be making assumptions. There are numerous reasons people deviate from organized religion. Some feel betrayed by religion, some just don’t feel like they “fit”. Some people don’t know what to believe & don’t want to pretend. Some people have tried to feel the connection for years & just never did. To assume that these same individuals become focused only on the self is unfair. I am spiritual, I question my behavior, my words, my thoughts. I am very charitable to food banks, animal rights & human rights because those are areas in life which resonate most with my heart. I don’t hesitate to offer a helping hand to my friends & neighbors, even at my own inconvenience. I believe, there is a spiritual place but the definitions organized religion have given do not make sense to me. Every living thing on this planet is both male & female, yet I’m supposed to believe the Creator is exclusively male? I have read numerous books from different religious disciplines to understand them all more & to seek the similarities because I feel the similarities draw us to the closest truth of what the Divine really is. And, if the medical field is unable to define the human body in a single book, how can we define the Creator that way? Does this sound lazy, indifferent or uncaring to you? We are given an inquiring mind, but religion seems to want to limit how we inquire. I think it’s beautiful that you are able to connect spiritually through your religion. But, “thou shalt not judge”…just because an individual doesn’t seek spirituality through organized religion, doesn’t mean they are lazy, self-absorbed or don’t care. Maybe that individual is more vested in their soul-purpose than individuals who blindly attend church one day a week. We are all individuals, we are all unique & one size does not always fit all.
Love the article, Martin, thanks
Thank you, Fr. Martin, Pete and Steve for their exchanges — keep searching..I have six spiritual children who do not believe in organized religion. I’ve asked them if they believe in unorganized religion — no answer. I love them all dearly and when they or someone they know gets in serious trouble, they ask me to pray for them, to which I will do but ask them to add their prayers. Seems this spirituality is a form of control — we cannot control when and how we are born, nor can we control when we die — we can only try to control what happens in between. I applaud those who question, but keep an open mind — this is the only way we can learn what God and religion is about. Keep up a healthy dialogue. Fr. — will see you at the Congress in a week.
JLK, I heartily endorse your comments. Human beings do not have the understanding and ability of how to create a universe. How, then, could any rational person claim in good conscience that any religion has all the answers?
Certainly there are non-religious people who do claim to have special knowledge. But you have only to look to religious people to find a great meny more of them.
“With or without religion, you would have good people doing good things and evil people doing evil things. But for good people to do evil things, that takes religion.” — Steven Weinberg
Please note that the editorial staff reserves the right to not post comments it deems to be inappropriate and/or malicious in nature, as well as edit comments for length, clarity and fairness.