Timothy Stoner

“Spiritual–but NOT Religious!”

Posted on 14. Nov, 2009 by Tim Stoner in Blog, Culture, Essays, Life

If there were a flag that best symbolizes the prevailing value system of our culture it would be the rainbow. It declares: we are for a generous tolerance, a sympathetic affirmation of difference, a non- judgmental celebration of diversity. I don’t think many would argue that among all the options it best represents the spirit of our age. That is why I find it ironic that under that banner breed so many stark, sometimes hostile, polarities: “I am liberal not conservative”, “I believe in love not war”, “we are open-minded not narrow fundamentalists”, “we pursue questions not answers”.  And then there is one of the most popular, “I am spiritual not religious.”

To say that is to enter the world of exclusivity. There is nothing wrong with that. It is the way our brains are hard-wired. We think in categories and we ally ourselves emotionally and intellectually for or against what we love and what we hate. It is not generous, nor is it very tolerant, but there you have the irony–we just can’t help ourselves. It is what it is. Jesus, being a very smart guy, said it this way: no man can serve two masters, either he will love the one and hate the other, or hate the one and love the other. This is true philosophically as well as socially. The rainbow flag may not be so appropriate after all.

But let’s get back to the spiritual-but-not-religious (SBNR) dichotomy. What is declared in that phrase is that we are for something and, just as importantly, against something. We are for the delicious delights of transcendence and against the restrictive constraints of tradition, duty and rule-keeping. We are planting our flag proudly on the side of liberty as opposed to legalism. We are coming out of the closet and admitting that we have made a distinct choice, we are members of an open, loving community and we disavow the soul-crushing burden imposed by the rigid system of establishment Christianity—what I sometimes call, Churchianity.

The problem is that it to say I am spiritual not religious, is a false or inappropriate antithesis, like me saying, “I am married but not a husband.” Or, since those are actually linguistically indivisible, it is more like my children telling me, “Dad, we believe in sex not marriage.” This is establishing a polarity where none ought to be. It is truncating what belong together. In the language of the Bible, again, it is tearing apart what God has brought together. The syllogism is simple: marriage is to sex as religion is to spirituality. Marriage tames the wild, undisciplined (ultimately selfish), free-spirit and provides beneficial boundaries which help direct the flow of life-energy in a strong, focused, disciplined (less self-centered, anarchic) and societally healthy direction. (Or at least it is meant to.)

Marriage, to put it starkly, places boundaries and restrictions (rules, if you will) around the irresponsible sexual drive that runs amok in pursuit of personal pleasure rather than committed love. By now it has become obvious, hasn’t it?  that sex restricted to marriage is much, much better for a society than limitless orgasmic experiences unobstructed by any moral or social constraints. Religion similarly benefits spirituality. It helps the savage become a saint.  It establishes the boundaries within which the spiritual longings and ecstasies are to be enjoyed. Like traffic signs, road markers and stoplights it provides helpful and essential parameters that keep millions of speeding vehicles from becoming instruments of death and destruction.  Again, is it not now well-established that indiscriminate (“free”) sex is not only not free it is not even a social or biological good? Actually, it is dangerous and potentially lethal, like letting my sixteen year-old take my car without teaching him the rules of the road.

What SBNR is at war against is rule, obligation–imposition from Outside. What it opposes, at the heart, is not churchliness, or ritual, (not even hypocrisy, per se) but restriction. Like C.S. Lewis, what it finds utterly repugnant is authority. As he had the grace to admit in Surprised by Joy, what he most hated was “to be interfered with”. What made the God of the Bible so repulsive to him was that He was more than just an idea. He was a domineering King who demanded “All”. Whereas what the Oxford don preferred were delightful conversations about the Absolute, over beer and a good cigar, for it “(to be blunt) never made a nuisance of Itself. . . . There was nothing to fear; better still, nothing to obey.” That is what the SBNR finds so wonderfully reassuring–a safe and comfortable non-Interferer.

In contemporary language, “I am for the delicious delights of sex but hate the imposition of marriage vows by fanatical fundamentalists.” “The best sex is free sex.”  It is now sociologically and psychologically beyond question that the reverse is actually true. Likewise, the best spirituality is religious and the only authentic religion is spiritual. That is because we are spiritual beings who are in revolt, against ourselves, our creation, our fellow man, and, what is most important in this context, against God. That may be harsh but it is nonetheless true, at least, if we take seriously the empirical data and the Inspired Scriptures.

Given that reality, how are we to know how to worship, much less, whom, if we are not told? How can my son place his foot on the gas pedal if he has never bothered to read the Driver’s Manual?  But that is putting things too mechanistically. A more apt analogy is to ask how can we claim to be dancers but resist the interference of technique? How can we call ourselves writers but deprecate the rules of grammar that makes intelligible writing possible? How can we describe ourselves as pilots who soar on the winds but despise restrictive weather and wind charts, and submitting to the inconvenient laws of physics?

The uncomfortable truth for those who would wave the rainbow flag of a tolerant spirituality is that spirituality needs religion. Authority and submission to authority is at the heart of true spirituality. That is if we define spirituality both as having an encounter and entering into a relationship with God, rather than merely reveling in happy thoughts and nice feelings. And, as long as we recognize that obedience is not to a set of rules but to a Person. Religion, after all, comes from religere, “to bind up”. So, if our dilemma is that we have become disconnected from God and need our spiritual arms re-ligamented, to reject religion is to choose to remain dislocated.    

Nietzche would have applauded the SBNR project. He also hated the authoritarian God of the Bible. And he understood better than most that the traces of this Divine Meddler appear wherever there was the slightest hint of inherent authority. This is why he declared that we have not gotten rid of God until we have gotten rid of grammar. Likewise, SBNR is like an author who yearns to write a novel but finds the basic principles of syntax and language intrusive. It says, “I want to relate to God on terms of my own making.” But, the unavoidable reality is that if God is God he will be related to on His terms or not at all. Otherwise, He is no God.

There was a guy early on who I think should be canonized as the patron saint of SBNR. As it happens, interestingly enough, he was the second human being born on the planet. He also hated (feared, resisted, was threatened-by) authority, but still wanted to make a connection with God. He said, “to heck with animal sacrifices. They are brutal, violent and cruel, and I find them distasteful. I will offer God vegetables instead as a means of atoning for my sins.” This despite the fact that according to the religion passed down from his authoritative father, Adam, (and a Merciful but Imperious God behind him) sin was deadly, so much so that it required the death of an innocent animal.

In Genesis we are told that the God who established the spiritual protocol for relationship was displeased by this more gentle, creation-affirming offering. Cain took offense at this unforgivable intrusion upon his freedom and restriction of his ability to express his spirituality in creative and innovative ways.  He became so angry that he eventually murdered his brother Abel. So the rainbow banner became a blood-red banner. Tolerance became the breeding ground for savagery. This would become a common pattern, for anti-authoritarianism frequently opens the door to the omni-authoritarianism of the individual. The headless victims of the French Revolution who waved the tri-colored banner of liberty, equality, fraternity are eloquent proof. The laudable motivation to remove restrictions for the common man to live “fully and with depth” (in that case, an oppressive monarchy) led to horrific bloodshed.   

This is not to argue that religion is the antidote to authoritarianism. The Inquisition and the Crusades are an awful testimony to the capacity of religion to oppress and destroy. The point is only to warn of the danger of separating what God has joined. It led Cain to kill his brother and it led Cain’s spiritual progeny to throw live babies into the burning arms of Moloch in a mad quest for spiritual fulfillment. Ultimately, not only must spirituality not be divorced from religion, it must bow the knee to that religion revealed by the God who created us spiritually religious beings and, one time, and one time only, became a human being who was spiritual and religious (a Torah-keeping Jew). Anything else opens the door to spiritual anarchy and the possibility of a rainbow flag spattered in crimson.  

Tags: authority, French Revolution, Inquisition, religious, rules, spiritual, submission