"the Problem With Being 'spiritual But Not Religious'"

[GregorMendel]

Hey Everybody! I found this great opinion piece by Rabbi David Wolpe on Time concerning the pitfalls of claiming to be spiritual but not religious, something that I have struggled with myself on my own faith journey. Its fairly short and has too many "quotables" to post individually, so I'll just leave the article in its entirely below for your viewing pleasure :)

 

Viewpoint: The Limitations of Being ‘Spiritual but Not Religious’
by Rabbi David Wolpe

 

 

Do you like feeling good without having to act on your feeling? Boosting your self-esteem no matter your competence or behavior? Then I’ve got the religious program for you.

 

According to the latest Pew report, almost 1 in 5 Americans identify themselves as “spiritual but not religious.” In other words, they have some feeling, some intuition of something greater, but feel allergic to institutions. Yet as we approach Passover and Easter, it’s important to remember that it is institutions and not abstract feelings that tie a community together and lead to meaningful change.

 

All of us can understand institutional disenchantment. Institutions can be slow, plodding, dictatorial; they can both enable and shield wrongdoers. They frustrate our desires by asking us to submit to the will of others.

 

But institutions are also the only mechanism human beings know to perpetuate ideologies and actions. If books were enough, why have universities? If guns enough, why have a military? If self-governance enough, let’s get rid of Washington. The point is that if you want to do something lasting in this world, you will recall the wise words of French Catholic writer Charles Péguy: “Everything begins in mysticism and ends in politics.” Got a vision? Get a blueprint.

 

Spirituality is an emotion. Religion is an obligation. Spirituality soothes. Religion mobilizes. Spirituality is satisfied with itself. Religion is dissatisfied with the world. Religions create aid organizations; as Nicholas Kristof pointed out in a column in the New York Times two years ago: the largest U.S.-based international relief and development organization is not Save the Children or Care, it’s World Vision, a Seattle-based Christian group.

 

Aid organizations involve institutions as well, and bureaucracies, and — yes — committee meetings. There is something profoundly, well, spiritual about a committee meeting. It involves individuals trying together to sort out priorities, to listen and learn from one another, to make a difference. I have found too often that when people say, “I stay away from the synagogue — too much politics,” what they mean is that they did not get their way. Institutions enable but they also frustrate, as do families and every other organized sector of human life. If you want frictionless, do it alone.

 

To be spiritual but not religious confines your devotional life to feeling good. If we have learned one thing about human nature, however, it is that people’s internal sense of goodness does not always match their behavior. To know whether your actions are good, a window is a more effective tool than a mirror. Ask others. Be part of a community. In short, join. Being religious does not mean you have to agree with all the positions and practices of your own group; I don’t even hold with everything done in my own synagogue, and I’m the Rabbi. But it does mean testing yourself in the arena of others.

 

No one expects those without faith to obligate themselves to a religious community. But for one who has an intuition of something greater than ourselves to hold that this is a purely personal truth, that it demands no communal searching and struggle, no organization to realize its potential in this world, straddles the line between narcissistic and solipsistic. If the spirit moves you to goodness, that is wonderful. For too many, though, spirituality is a VIP card allowing them to breeze past all those wretched souls waiting in line or doing the work. Join in; together is harder, but together is better.

 

http://ideas.time.com/2013/03/21/viewpoint-the-problem-with-being-spiritual-but-not-religious/?iid=op-article-mostpop1

 

 

Edited March 25, 2013 by GregorMendel

[T-fish]

I think that rabbi just wants to fill pews. lol

 

If only they could separate the chaff from the wheat, then more people would be filling the seats.

 

Modern day Pharisees and Scholars do not practice or preach what Jesus was sent to teach.

 

It's come so far from what the real meaning of it was. What did Jesus the Christ tell the Samaritan woman?

And did He not say we were the Church?

 

How bout the Stylite or Desert Monks? 

I bet Jesus didn't have to teach the Essenes anything since they already got what it meant to be touched by the Ruach Elohim.

And who made Melchizedak a High Priest?

 

[dUSt]

People don't know the truth so they make it up.

[Oremoose]

I think that rabbi just wants to fill pews. lol

 

If only they could separate the chaff from the wheat, then more people would be filling the seats.

 

Modern day Pharisees and Scholars do not practice or preach what Jesus was sent to teach.

 

It's come so far from what the real meaning of it was. What did Jesus the Christ tell the Samaritan woman?

And did He not say we were the Church?

 

How bout the Stylite or Desert Monks? 

I bet Jesus didn't have to teach the Essenes anything since they already got what it meant to be touched by the Ruach Elohim.

And who made Melchizedak a High Priest?

Not to hijack this thread I just think this is cool!

I read that some scholar think that Melchizedek could have been one of Noah's Sons (I think it was his eldest). So to answer T-Fish I would say God did since He promised Him So much, and general Awesomeness!

[T-fish]

People don't know the truth so they make it up.

That would be good old Joe Smith. He really made up some stuff and called it the "truth".

But dang, they sho can fill up some pews.

[Tony]

I don't claim to be "relgious" because to me it's a "holier than thou" prideful attitude. " This attitude also increases the chances of Non-Cathoics/Christians of hearing you out because there are plenty  of people with a "I Hate relgion"/"I hate religous people" mindset. I don't see "Spirital, not religious" as a compromise to ur faith at all.

 

The term Religious" belongs to those with priestly/religious vocations anyway. (if they wish to take it)

[Socrates]

I don't claim to be "relgious" because to me it's a "holier than thou" prideful attitude. " This attitude also increases the chances of Non-Cathoics/Christians of hearing you out because there are plenty  of people with a "I Hate relgion"/"I hate religous people" mindset. I don't see "Spirital, not religious" as a compromise to ur faith at all.

 

The term Religious" belongs to those with priestly/religious vocations anyway. (if they wish to take it)

 

The phrase "spiritual but not religious" seems to invariably be used by trendy new-agey, wishy-washy types who don't want to be atheist, but can't be bothered with the discipline or commitment of following an actual religion.  (As in,"I'm spiritual, not religious.  I don't like church or organized religion, but I do yoga and like to commune with nature.")  I've never heard an orthodox, practicing, mass-going Catholic self-describe in this way.

 

We aren't saved by being "spiritual" or "religious," but by Christ through His Church.  And as Catholics, we do follow the true religion.  Most of the "spiritual, not religious" types want nothing to do with the Catholic Faith or any other "religion."

 

(I heard a talk by Peter Kreeft, in which he made some good points about the whole "being spiritual" thing, noting that Satan himself is pure spirit.  Being "spiritual" in itself does nothing to make you holy.)

[Fidei Defensor]

(I heard a talk by Peter Kreeft, in which he made some good points about the whole "being spiritual" thing, noting that Satan himself is pure spirit.  Being "spiritual" in itself does nothing to make you holy.)

So is the Holy Spirit  :spike: