W,
Just before I read your post I was writing about the idea of being
"spiritual, but not religious." I see an unthoughtful, inherent neo-gnosticism in such a sentiment. Do you think that the elevation of "spirituality" over religion has anything to do with our denigration of things physical?
Jason Kranzusch
I felt that this deserved an entry on the main blog, so here it is.
It is my belief that what people mean by the statement, "I'm spiritual, but not religious," is usually "I crave some kind of deep fulfilment beyond the reach of my physical life but I refuse to be bound by any commitment to an established belief which threatens my own way of thinking." If I'm wrong, then please correct me.
This belief manifests itself mainly in the picking and mixing elements of various religions, a bit of Buddhist meditation together with a smattering of the Rosary and a dash of Dervish dancing, despite the fact that these religions teach very different things. And why is it that people who are spiritual but not religious (SBNR for short, I think) always attach themselves to old established expressions of spirituality, instead of inventing their own? I suppose that they see the spirituality that they crave manifested in a particular activity which they then adopt, being careful not to adopt any belief which is incompatible with their own thought.
Now that, as Jason says, is Gnosticism since many SBNRs will be looking mainly for an escape from the physical world (a salvation if you will) through a certain knowledge and practice, and hence involves the notional separation of the spirit from the body "spirit-good, body-bad", though I wonder how SBNRs would have fared in a Decian-style persecution. Are they willing to die for their beliefs?
However, just what is the spirituality that an SBNR seeks? It can only be a spirituality of the self, since the spirituality is put together by the self from elements that appeal to the self. In these matters, the spirituality is largely an aesthetic commodity that seeks to lift the soul from the consideration of things physical and yet is based only upon what gives the best spiritual high in life. Now, this doesn't stop the SBNR from possessing some wonderful altruistic properties.
Many SBNRs are fond of the idea of Karma, which drives them to demonstrate proper acts of respect and consideration of others. But still, the adoption of Karma apart from Buddhism and Hinduism, is the adoption of something that feels right, but there is still the refusal to commit wholeheartedly to being a Buddhist, or a Hindu.
It's the refusal to commit to anything which punctuates SBNR belief, and why this belief is largely self-justifying, self-orienting, and self-obsessed. It's a belief that cannot be shared with others; there is no koinonia, communion, or coherence, so this cannot be a belief that is truly societal. In some sense, an SBNR ought to regard Satre's "l'Enfers, c'est les autres" as being very true, for it is the existence of others that threatens the sheer individuality of SBNR belief. Since we live in a society, and have to live in a society, we can only conclude that SBNR belief, along with the great modern doctrine of Individualism, is not for the good of society. Indeed, Individualism and synchretism (essentially the method of compiling SBNR belief) have been great concerns of Pope Benedict.
We are human beings, body, mind and spirit (or body and spirit for dichotomists) and to ignore a part of our make up is a great mistake, for we ignore part of who we are and how healthy we are. Since we are truly unable to see who we really are, we have to rely on others' interactions. I can't tell how healthy my teeth are, I need someone (a dentist) to look into my mouth and tell me if there's anything wrong. If I refuse to see a dentist and declare everything to be okay, despite a niggling pain in my tooth, then it's me I'm hurting ultimately, and needlessly. Likewise, in order to know that my eyes are healthy, i need an optician, an other to help me.
We will only find true fulfilment by committing to beliefs in which other people form a vitally important part in sharing in that commitment. This commitment will involve difficulty, wrestling, searching, and much discomfort, conforming to rules, and praxes of that society, but can only contribute to our growth as human beings. However, such a commitment will constitute a religion, and the SBNRs will not like that.
9 comments:
I caught that also in the original blog. If people ask me if I am "spiritual", I almost invariably answer with a flat "NO!". If they ask if I am "religious", I will usually tell them, "Not really." Both terms reflect a concept that one 'religion' is pretty much like another.
I am a "Christian", more specifically, a "Catholic Christian". I reject all other gods but the Holy Trinity. I do not place flowers before Ganesh, nor do I bow toward Mecca, nor do I chant Buddhist mantras. Yes, God has so arranged it that wisdom is sometimes found outside the Church, but, if it is true, it will be absolutely and entirely in accord with the Scriptures and with the Catholic Tradition, providing neither contradiction nor diversion to the Faithful.
I fancy myself something of a mystic, but that does not make me a 'spiritual person' in the sense of the New Age/Gnostic culture we inhabit. I am Christian. I seek union with the Christian God and no other. And (if I remain faithful) I will die rather than compromise that exclusivity at all.
Furthermore, the Christian Faith is not in a disembodied spirit, but in the 'resurrection of the body'. A very few of the saints are complete in heaven, with body and spirit together, as is Jesus.
Scripture gives us Enoch, Elijah, and perhaps Moses. Tradition gives us the Blessed Virgin. If there are others we don't know of them. The saints, like us are now incomplete, waiting for the completion of the resurrection. That fullness (not some 'spiritual' la-la land) is the objective of Christians.
ed
W,
I'm still working on the SBNR post for my own blog but will be sure to link yours when I publish it. You came at it a bit differently than I did, so I want to supplement what I am doing with your observations. BTW, you employed the exact same title I am using, even down to the quotation marks.
I appreciate your taking the time to answer my question at length. I've read through your archives and have been quite edified. I enjoy your narrative approach to sermonizing. I (failingly) attempt to utilize some narrative in my own ramblings on each Sunday's Propers.
All the best,
Jason Kranzusch
I am religious, not spiritual.
One of the disputed etymologies of the word is that it comes from the Latin "religare": to rejoin, to re-bind. When I look into my life, into my heart, I feel that I am separated, broken, alone. All who deny that they are this way deep down are only deceiving themselves.
I am not spiritual because I am separated from the spiritual. Let us take the "spiritual" in its original meaning: "spiritus".... vital breath, life itself. Nascentes morimur.... the main goal of the Christian life is life without death. And this goal is not attainable by ourselves. I am a sepulcher being built if I do not have Christ.
I am religious. I need to be rejoined with the source of life. I am not yet spiritual, but I hope one day to be.
Just to let readers know that Jason "axegrinder" Kranzusch has published an article with the same title here.
Ideed, I agree to some extent with both our poetreader and Pseudo-Iamblichus.
I am religious, in that I seek to be conformed to God through His Church and to be ruled by Him. However, that is my intention. The truth is that I'm not very good at it. I want to be religious, but i have some way to go.
Let's pray for ourselves and each other that we obtain grace to be religious.
I suppose these are those who have given up on "religiosity" as a bad thing. There are several stripes; I am not that concerned by those who say this, and mean by it that they are "saved by grace and not by works." I am more troubled by those who abandon all organized faiths and try to strike out on their own, or by those who are trying to have it both ways -- to be seen as "good," without ruffling the feathers of any.
PS: I'm not only a math teacher, but an active student of math, esp. probability and statistics. So nice to meet another "scientist" for whom Christ is not a stumbling block!
Hi. I would firstly like to establish the fact that I am not here to stir any trouble, I merely want to disagree with you (whoever you are). I would also like to warn you all that I may devise some incoherent sentences given my mental state.
Moving on. I essentially (though not in every minute detail) agree with you up until about the point where you try to infer that refusing to commit equates 'self-obsessed' behaviour. Saying it is a belief that cannot be shared with others is saying a hermit's mannerism cannot be duplicated by other such hermits. I would also underline some irony in the fact that quite a few generalizations have been made concerning the SBNR which in fact creates something of an agglomeration. But yes, I disagree because refusing commitment to a single thing is, as interpreted by some, a commitment to all things. To say no one thing takes priority over all things isn't necessarily exclusively saying that all things are important, but it certainly implies it. Even if it is just a hesitation. This is, to me, conscientious behaviour -- saying "I have not witnessed all things and so I cannot be certain of one thing." Of course, certainty is not an issue for all.
I also disagree with your notion of SBNRs agreeing with Sartre's Huis Clos quote. The hermit exists only conditionally as an opposition of societal behaviour, likewise the SBNR's agency is directly relative to the existence of others. To presume a single person may have notions of religiosity or spirituality having existed exclusively alone is absurd.
Also, we do not 'have to' live within society. Hobbes' conception of society as a social contract stipulates a measure of agreement (greater rather the wholly). The idea of a social contract remains to this day true (perhaps not in its primordial form) - so why not conclude that 'modern individualism' is an ill omen, foreshadowing change? I realize that suggestive thinking isn't very productive, but it seems like you are willfully disregarding other options.
After that point you seem to reach a conclusion, which I wholeheartedly disagree with. At first, you seem to be twisting a psychological theory into oversimplified logic (Does a dentist need another human being to go in his mouth to know that his teeth are healthy? No).
Your final paragraph begins with fallacious logic (I am right because everybody agrees with me; correctness is not relative to how many people think it is thus, it is absolute an unrelated). Conversely, you aren't different from the SBNR you chide in that you practice peculiar things rather than commit to spirituality indiscriminately. More over, your conclusion reads as a set of personal beliefs concerning spiritual ascension.
I acknowledge the fact at this point that I am shooting you down without presenting my own side of the story for you to shoot down, but let it be assumed that which you criticized in this post was my story.
Marc.
Hi. I would firstly like to establish the fact that I am not here to stir any trouble, I merely want to disagree with you (whoever you are). I would also like to warn you all that I may devise some incoherent sentences given my mental state.
Well, of course, you are perfectly welcome to disagree with me, though I don’t really understand why you feel the need to comment on a blog post that’s three years old.
Moving on. I essentially (though not in every minute detail) agree with you up until about the point where you try to infer that refusing to commit equates 'self-obsessed' behaviour.
Are you then saying that you are able to determine that by taking bits and pieces from other religions you arrive at a coherent version of the truth? Well how do you know? Is it just you who has the ability to say what is true?
But then if you take bits from Christianity and Hinduism, you have an inconsistency in the search for the Truth. The bits of this spirituality which are specifically Hindu will be disagreed with by Christians and the bits that are specifically Christian will be disagreed with by Hindus. Hence it will be only you who claim to have found the path to enlightenment. While adherents of the major religions may disagree with others of the same religion, they seek the Truth in parallel and with a common spiritual language of communication which they are trying to communicate with the world.
To say that we and we alone have the truth is hubris.
Saying it is a belief that cannot be shared with others is saying a hermit's mannerism cannot be duplicated by other such hermits.
A hermit always follows that calling or desire in patterns learned from others.
I would also underline some irony in the fact that quite a few generalizations have been made concerning the SBNR which in fact creates something of an agglomeration. But yes, I disagree because refusing commitment to a single thing is, as interpreted by some, a commitment to all things. To say no one thing takes priority over all things isn't necessarily exclusively saying that all things are important, but it certainly implies it. Even if it is just a hesitation. This is, to me, conscientious behaviour -- saying "I have not witnessed all things and so I cannot be certain of one thing." Of course, certainty is not an issue for all.
I cannot but think that a universe that possesses a truth without some order would not be the universe that can be studied scientifically, or even philosophically. If all views are the same then this points to an entirely homogeneous universe. It isn’t.
I as a Christian suffer from doubt, indeed some difficult uncertainties, but I believe strongly that by following the Tradition and committing to the faith that I possess that I will find some way of living with my doubt. It is the same faith as Blessed Mother Theresa of Calcutta, and if her doubts were conquered by the Traditional Christian Faith then I have some hope too. Commitment to my religion gives me the coherence to deal with uncertainty. I am certain of very little, but my faith is built on a Rock.
I also disagree with your notion of SBNRs agreeing with Sartre's Huis Clos quote. The hermit exists only conditionally as an opposition of societal behaviour, likewise the SBNR's agency is directly relative to the existence of others. To presume a single person may have notions of religiosity or spirituality having existed exclusively alone is absurd.
Did I say that? What is your supreme authority? You?
Also, we do not 'have to' live within society. Hobbes' conception of society as a social contract stipulates a measure of agreement (greater rather the wholly). The idea of a social contract remains to this day true (perhaps not in its primordial form) - so why not conclude that 'modern individualism' is an ill omen, foreshadowing change? I realize that suggestive thinking isn't very productive, but it seems like you are willfully disregarding other options.
You were right when you said above that you would be rather inconsistent and I think you’ve shown it here. John Donne said “No man is an Island entire of itself” and the same is true of the Christian Hermit who lives in Communion with the saints, in a commitment to a Christian way of life. He is still concerned with humanity and more deeply so than those of us who live in society because he sees it with greater clarity.
After that point you seem to reach a conclusion, which I wholeheartedly disagree with. At first, you seem to be twisting a psychological theory into oversimplified logic (Does a dentist need another human being to go in his mouth to know that his teeth are healthy? No).
Your final paragraph begins with fallacious logic (I am right because everybody agrees with me; correctness is not relative to how many people think it is thus, it is absolute an unrelated). Conversely, you aren't different from the SBNR you chide in that you practice peculiar things rather than commit to spirituality indiscriminately. More over, your conclusion reads as a set of personal beliefs concerning spiritual ascension.
I’m not convinced that you’ve read this paragraph at all. I’ve mentioned nothing about majority viewpoints. I have chosen not to define truth on my own terms at all but in obedience and trust in a Tradition that spans the ages, which has had experience of every human interaction, every human emotion and every human success and failure s far and possesses the mechanism whereby it can deal with those yet to come. My Christian Tradition has met with all of these things and has found some way of speaking to each human being who has chosen to listen carefully to what it says. I do not have sufficient wisdom on my own, but I trust in a coherent system which seeks to understand life in relationship with the Divine Creator whom I have the underserved honour of calling “My Father”, except I don’t say “My” Father: the words I have been taught are OUR Father.
I acknowledge the fact at this point that I am shooting you down without presenting my own side of the story for you to shoot down, but let it be assumed that which you criticized in this post was my story.
Marc.
I’m not here to shoot down, but to call into question. It is not my intention to convince you to change your lifestyle and believe system which I must confess seems rather chaotic and makes decision making and understanding rather tricky. If that’s the way you choose to live life, well that’s your choice, but I cannot help but see that there are fundamental problems to such an approach.
Have a happy and fulfilling life! I’ll gladly wish you that!
Post a Comment