5 responses to “My Take: ‘I’m spiritual but not religious’ is a cop-out”
I like the effort this guy put in to the article. But he missed out on something. Here in the west, we think in an “either/or” dichotomy. And Christianity is a global religion, being applicable to all cultures. What we would benefit from, then, is taking an eastern view on this problem. It’s not “either/or”, but “both”. God is both the God of the masses, and of the individual. His holiness requires we live a sinless life, yet only he can judge the heart. Difficult to reconcile in our minds for sure.
The church has maintained a “high” view of God, placing him on a throne of domination and power. The past decades we’ve seen a development of “low” theology, where we’ve begun to understand God’s compassion for humans. The reason that these traits seem so opposite is because as humans, we very seldom are able to balance strength and compassion. Yet, is God human so that he should fall prey to the things which we get stuck on? I would argue, then, that a balanced and truthful Christian life honestly recognizes the difference between holy and unholy, without neglecting the inner need for truth. The role the church plays, then, is one of discipleship, teaching who God is, how to be in relationship with someone who is holy, while also learning to see the heart of God. This will change all perspectives. Either one of these movements without the other is an extreme, like a pendulum. An accurate theology will blend the truths from both perspectives.
I apologize that this is so rudimentary. So much can be said about this topic.
Micah, I wish you had a blog, because I would read all of it. Thank you thank you for saying this. You sound like you’ve studied with Kelly Brown Douglas and her “bottom up” thelogical approach. I miss hearing things like this.
I think this guy’s argument represents the most retrogressive aspects of religion. To put it nicely. I could go into a tirade about this but will not, for the sake of time and my blood pressure.
I agree with Micah that the “either/or” dichotomy set forth in the article is fallacious. We do not live in a fundamentally either/or universe.
Okay, now that I’ve had some time to think about this rationally:
It bothers me when people sneer at more intuitive forms of spirituality, saying that they are just based on “feelings.” As if sensing the presence of God was in the same category as being irritated at a bad driver! Direct experience of God is the only worthwhile experience of God. If you are simply following traditions and laws, you have no personal relationship with God. Religion, if used well, can enhance and develop a relationship with God, but it is not an essential component.
This argument is a cop-out to avoid scrutinizing religion and and asking ourselves why so many people find it distasteful.
What does someone mean when they say “I’m spiritual, but not religious.”? I can’t say exactly what that means for someone in any or every case, but I”m certain it doesn’t mean this:
“…the spiritual but not religious reflect the “me” generation of self-obsessed, truth-is-whatever-you-feel-it-to-be thinking, where big, historic, demanding institutions that have expectations about behavior, attitudes and observance and rules are jettisoned yet nothing positive is put in replacement.”
Really? Self-obsession is the only reason why someone might not agree with the author’s worldview?
Nor does it mean this: “At the heart of the spiritual but not religious attitude is an unwillingness to take a real position.”
So lack of positive Christian identity automatically equals a lack of moral fortitude?
I don’t understand the author’s motive in writing the article. All he’s done is chide the “spiritual” (i.e. the wishy-washy unbelievers) for not adhering to a strict denominational interpretation of Christianity and pronounced them all selfish air-heads. Not every human being on the planet has chosen to live their lives according to the doctrines of orthodox Christianity (who knew!?), they must deserve a stern wag of the finger.
5 responses to “My Take: ‘I’m spiritual but not religious’ is a cop-out”
I like the effort this guy put in to the article. But he missed out on something. Here in the west, we think in an “either/or” dichotomy. And Christianity is a global religion, being applicable to all cultures. What we would benefit from, then, is taking an eastern view on this problem. It’s not “either/or”, but “both”. God is both the God of the masses, and of the individual. His holiness requires we live a sinless life, yet only he can judge the heart. Difficult to reconcile in our minds for sure.
The church has maintained a “high” view of God, placing him on a throne of domination and power. The past decades we’ve seen a development of “low” theology, where we’ve begun to understand God’s compassion for humans. The reason that these traits seem so opposite is because as humans, we very seldom are able to balance strength and compassion. Yet, is God human so that he should fall prey to the things which we get stuck on? I would argue, then, that a balanced and truthful Christian life honestly recognizes the difference between holy and unholy, without neglecting the inner need for truth. The role the church plays, then, is one of discipleship, teaching who God is, how to be in relationship with someone who is holy, while also learning to see the heart of God. This will change all perspectives. Either one of these movements without the other is an extreme, like a pendulum. An accurate theology will blend the truths from both perspectives.
I apologize that this is so rudimentary. So much can be said about this topic.
Micah, I wish you had a blog, because I would read all of it. Thank you thank you for saying this. You sound like you’ve studied with Kelly Brown Douglas and her “bottom up” thelogical approach. I miss hearing things like this.
I think this guy’s argument represents the most retrogressive aspects of religion. To put it nicely. I could go into a tirade about this but will not, for the sake of time and my blood pressure.
I agree with Micah that the “either/or” dichotomy set forth in the article is fallacious. We do not live in a fundamentally either/or universe.
Okay, now that I’ve had some time to think about this rationally:
It bothers me when people sneer at more intuitive forms of spirituality, saying that they are just based on “feelings.” As if sensing the presence of God was in the same category as being irritated at a bad driver! Direct experience of God is the only worthwhile experience of God. If you are simply following traditions and laws, you have no personal relationship with God. Religion, if used well, can enhance and develop a relationship with God, but it is not an essential component.
This argument is a cop-out to avoid scrutinizing religion and and asking ourselves why so many people find it distasteful.
What does someone mean when they say “I’m spiritual, but not religious.”? I can’t say exactly what that means for someone in any or every case, but I”m certain it doesn’t mean this:
“…the spiritual but not religious reflect the “me” generation of self-obsessed, truth-is-whatever-you-feel-it-to-be thinking, where big, historic, demanding institutions that have expectations about behavior, attitudes and observance and rules are jettisoned yet nothing positive is put in replacement.”
Really? Self-obsession is the only reason why someone might not agree with the author’s worldview?
Nor does it mean this: “At the heart of the spiritual but not religious attitude is an unwillingness to take a real position.”
So lack of positive Christian identity automatically equals a lack of moral fortitude?
I don’t understand the author’s motive in writing the article. All he’s done is chide the “spiritual” (i.e. the wishy-washy unbelievers) for not adhering to a strict denominational interpretation of Christianity and pronounced them all selfish air-heads. Not every human being on the planet has chosen to live their lives according to the doctrines of orthodox Christianity (who knew!?), they must deserve a stern wag of the finger.