It seems to be a common thing for many people my age and younger to call themselves, “spiritual but not religious.” While I can understand why so many people consider it to be appealing, I consider it to be a middle of the road, “I stand for nothing but being nice” kind of thinking.
Despite many Americans saying they don’t have religious convictions it still isn’t really socially acceptable to be an atheist. The idea of atheists suggests someone who is harshly against God. While some people say that science disproves God, that is an unsupportable argument. And most people like the idea that there is some sort of a supernatural being who oversees the universe and cares about us. Take away the idea of God altogether and life itself seems pointless.
However, people don’t want to be “religious” either; especially if “religious” means Christian. Being religious sounds like some combination of: obligation to a human institution, antiquated beliefs from the ignorant past, using faith as a crutch because you are emotionally weak, and probably some mix of patriarchy, misogyny, and nationalism. Plus there is the whole difficulty that religions require commitment. Religions want to be your priority. They want your time, your energy, and of course, your money!
So, “spiritual but not religious” it is. You get the best of all worlds at the lowest possible cost. The spiritual but not religious person gets to go to a spiritual experience when they want it. Otherwise they don’t want to be bothered.
While I want to be respectful of people and their busy lives with many demands, my experience of people who are spiritual but not religious as I look at their faith and their morality, it is this. You’ve probably heard me say this before. What I think they’ve really done is create a god in their own image. And that god is not capable of critiquing their self-made morality. In other words, they create a god and morality that just echo each other. They are never challenged and they are endlessly self-justifying.
There is definitely a belief that a person can be moral without having any religious affiliation. This seems very popular, but it is not true. Most of the morality without religious that I come across is basically just liberal Christianity. It believes that everyone is equal, that everyone should be treated with respect, and that everyone is basically good. While all of that sounds nice, again, it is not some sort of natural law. It is basically ‘Christianity lite.’
Let’s look at Jesus in the wilderness right after his baptism in light of the idea of being spiritual but not religious. First, let’s remember that in the verses immediately prior to the ones we read in our gospel Jesus has been baptized. We are told that he saw the Spirit of God descending upon him like a dove. How lovely. How nice. How “spiritual” an experience for him.
But then…
That same Spirit leads Jesus into the wilderness to be tested. Jesus fasts forty days and forty nights. The spiritual person would say, “Why do that, Jesus?” That’s not a nice thing to have to do for God. Surely God wouldn’t want you to do that! That’s the very problem with religion. It may make us hurt. And in the case of 40 days without nourishment, it would put you on the point of death. They’d say, “Jesus, surely you’ve misunderstood the Spirit. God couldn’t really want someone so beloved to suffer for no rational purpose. It’s fine to be out in the wilderness as a spiritual discipline before you start your public ministry, but to not eat is absurd. Jesus, you have the power to get your own food, so get it for yourself!”
Do you see where I’m going with this? The “spiritual but not religious person” can very easily speak for the devil in our gospel reading.
Then the devil takes Jesus to Jerusalem and places him on the pinnacle of the temple, saying to him, “If you are the Son of God, throw yourself down.” The devil cites scripture – and note that the devil can quote scripture quite effectively too when it suits! The devil says, “He will command his angels concerning you,” and, “On their hands they will bear you up, so that you will not dash your foot against a stone.”
Said like that it is clearly not something Jesus should not do. Jesus should not use his Son of God status to perform a spectacle to test it and to get himself attention. Surely doing such a thing would have drawn a crowd and incredible praise. But let’s tweak it just subtly. Let’s say it like this, “Jesus, you have things that make you special, make you stand out. Make use of them for yourself.” Do we not tell ourselves that we should make the most of ourselves? I can easily find myself saying something like, “Fulfillment in life will come from using your abilities to the fullest.” Don’t we encourage people to develop their talents to the fullest? Don’t we encourage people with music or artistic talents to go to school to develop them as fully as they can? Don’t we tell smart people they should go to college and become scientists and engineers? Don’t we encourage kids with athletic skills to be the best athletes they can be, possibly getting an athletic scholarship or going to the Olympics? Don’t the Army have the advertising slogan, “Be all you can be in the Army.” We say we should use what makes us unique to better ourselves the most, and then also bring about the most to society.
A spiritual but not religious person would be offended if a person had abilities but didn’t use them because God or some religious organization told them not to.
Jesus knew it was God’s will that he be in the wilderness and famished. He knew it was God’s will for him not to use his special status for any ends other than what God wanted them to be used for. When Jesus is in the wilderness there is no logical reason for Jesus to do what he does. The words of the devil are precisely what human logic would conclude. They are precisely what a spiritual but not religious person would conclude.
The third test. Jesus is shown all the kingdoms of the world and their splendor. They can all be his if he just falls down and worships the devil. Said like that it is pretty clear that it is wrong. But let’s say the same things a little differently. “Jesus, just play by the rules of the world. Think critically. Use what you have to get a good life for yourself. Make yourself comfortable. Make life easy. You don’t have to be a glutton. Just be reasonable. Why suffer when you don’t have to?”
Let’s make it even more subtle, “Jesus, you have great morality. You’re for: fairness, equity, inclusion, justice, and love. So use the moral high ground you naturally have in order to be an example that people will praise and look up to. Jesus, be the moral example the world wants and people will remember you and think highly of your forever for it.”
It sounds great when I put it like that, doesn’t it? It all sounds selfless and kind and righteous without being judgmental at all.
But it is wrong.
While I certainly think we should be moral. And I certainly think we should be for fairness, equity, inclusion, justice, and love, we then still have to ask ourselves why? Why would we do it? Would we do it so that we fit in with the current trends to be a socially acceptable enlightened person? Would we do it so that we can claim the moral high ground for ourselves?
It is so easy in our current political and economic situation to claim superior morality or logic for ourselves and our point of view. We associate with people like ourselves and look down upon others as ignorant or foolish. Perhaps you’re better than that, but I certainly catch myself doing it plenty.
The Spirit of God led the Son of God into the wilderness for intense testing before he began his public ministry. Would Jesus stay true to what God wanted him to do, and only what God wanted him to do, or would he be swayed by public opinion, fitting in, and making a comfortable life for himself?
We know that the testing of Jesus in the wilderness was hard for Jesus. But it was nothing compared to how hard the crucifixion was. How can letting yourself be captured and arrested, then tried and beaten, and ultimately executed in humiliation be God’s will?
No ”spiritual but not religious” person would do it. The spiritual but not religious person is ultimately out for themselves. They’ve collected what suits them for life and rejected anything that inconveniences them. Perhaps I’m being overly harsh. I don’t mean it to be condemnatory or judgmental. But for the most part I find it to be a self-serving way to live. It is the belief that humans can find fulfillment within themselves.
I make you no promises about longevity, ease of life, or even a sense of fulfillment if you are a truly committed Christian. But I do promise that, apart from God’s will, nothing that this world values is of any real consequence. This world will convince us that we are good people apart from God. God’s grace says that before you can be amazed at how wonderful God is, you must first realize that apart from God you cannot be a good person.
Religions aren’t perfect. Christianity certainly isn’t. Many people have valid complaints. So the spiritual but not religious perspective has some legitimate criticism to offer. But Christianity as a religion shows us the truth of our fallacies. Christianity reminds us that we are fundamentally flawed and sinful beings. That is not to be mean. It is just reality. It gives us genuine humility. And that with discipline, commitment, prayer, and discernment we seek the will of God. Sometimes God’s will makes sense. Sometimes it doesn’t. But following it draws us closer to God and keeps us from going astray into meaninglessness.
No comments:
Post a Comment