Are there dangers to being 'spiritual' but not 'religious'? ? ?

[abelisle]

In light of the difficulty of reaching post-moderns in our evangelistic efforts, this is an important issue to both try to understand the thinking behind it and how to reach these people. Somehow I don't think our Revelation Seminars will work with these people but I might be wrong?

How do we reach out to these people in love without first telling them they're on the wrong track and/or banging them over the head with the truth?

Are there dangers in being 'spiritual but not religious'?

By John Blake, CNN

STORY HIGHLIGHTS

In survey, more "millennials" identify themselves as spiritual rather than religious

Jesuit author says spirituality without structure can "lead to self-centeredness"

Spiritual blogger argues organized religion inevitably leads to tussles over power

Being a spiritual Lone Ranger fits the tenor of our times, a philosophy professor says

(CNN) -- "I'm spiritual but not religious."

It's a trendy phrase people often use to describe their belief that they don't need organized religion to live a life of faith.

But for Jesuit priest James Martin, the phrase also hints at something else: egotism.

"Being spiritual but not religious can lead to complacency and self-centeredness," says Martin, an editor at America, a national Catholic magazine based in New York City. "If it's just you and God in your room, and a religious community makes no demands on you, why help the poor?"

Religious debates erupt over everything from doctrine to fashion. Martin has jumped into a running debate over the "I'm spiritual but not religious" phrase.

The "I'm spiritual but not religious" community is growing so much that one pastor compared it to a movement. In a 2009 survey by the research firm LifeWay Christian Resources, 72 percent of millennials (18- to 29-year-olds) said they're "more spiritual than religious." The phrase is now so commonplace that it's spawned its own acronym ("I'm SBNR") and Facebook page: SBNR.org.

But what exactly does being "spiritual but not religious" mean, and could there be hidden dangers in living such a life?

Did you choose "Burger King Spirituality"?

Heather Cariou, a New York City-based author who calls herself spiritual instead of religious, doesn't think so. She's adopted a spirituality that blends Buddhism, Judaism and other beliefs.

"I don't need to define myself to any community by putting myself in a box labeled Baptist, or Catholic, or Muslim," she says. "When I die, I believe all my accounting will be done to God, and that when I enter the eternal realm, I will not walk though a door with a label on it."

BJ Gallagher, a Huffington Post blogger who writes about spirituality, says she's SBNR because organized religion inevitably degenerates into tussles over power, ego and money.

Gallagher tells a parable to illustrate her point:

"God and the devil were walking down a path one day when God spotted something sparkling by the side of the path. He picked it up and held it in the palm of his hand.

"Ah, Truth," he said.

"Here, give it to me," the devil said. "I'll organize it."

Gallagher says there's nothing wrong with people blending insights from different faith traditions to create what she calls a "Burger King Spirituality -- have it your way."

She disputes the notion that spiritual people shun being accountable to a community.

"Twelve-step people have a brilliant spiritual community that avoids all the pitfalls of organized religion," says Gallagher, author of "The Best Way Out is Always Through."

"Each recovering addict has a 'god of our own understanding,' and there are no priests or intermediaries between you and your god. It's a spiritual community that works.''

Nazli Ekim, who works in public relations in New York City, says calling herself spiritual instead of religious is her way of taking responsibility for herself.

Ekim was born in a Muslim family and raised in Istanbul, Turkey. She prayed to Allah every night, until she was 13 and had to take religion classes in high school.Then one day, she says she had to take charge of her own beliefs.

"I had this revelation that I bow to no one, and I've been spiritually a much happier person," says Ekim, who describers herself now as a Taoist, a religious practice from ancient China that emphasizes the unity of humanity and the universe.

"I make my own mistakes and take responsibility for them. I've lied, cheated, hurt people -- sometimes on purpose. Did I ever think I will burn in hell for all eternity? I didn't. Did I feel bad and made up for my mistakes? I certainly did, but not out of fear of God."

Going on a spiritual walkabout

The debate over being spiritual rather than religious is not just about semantics. It's about survival.

Numerous surveys show the number of Americans who do not identify themselves as religious has been increasing and likely will continue to grow.

A 2008 survey conducted by Trinity College in Hartford, Connecticut, dubbed these Americans who don't identify with any religion as "Nones."

Seminaries, churches, mosques and other institutions will struggle for survival if they don't somehow convince future generations that being religious isn't so bad after all, religion scholars warn.

Jennifer Walters, dean of religious life at Smith College in Massachusetts, says there's a lot of good in old-time religion.

Religious communities excel at caring for members in difficult times, encouraging members to serve others and teaching religious practices that have been tested and wrestled with for centuries, Walters says.

"Hymn-singing, forms of prayer and worship, teachings about social justice and forgiveness -- all these things are valuable elements of religious wisdom," Walters says. "Piecing it together by yourself can be done, but with great difficulty."

Being a spiritual Lone Ranger fits the tenor of our times, says June-Ann Greeley, a theology and philosophy professor.

"Religion demands that we accord to human existence some absolutes and eternal truths, and in a post-modern culture, that becomes all but impossible," says Greeley, who teaches at Sacred Heart University in Connecticut.

It's much easier for "spiritual" people to go on "spiritual walkabouts," Greeley says.

"People seem not to have the time nor the energy or interest to delve deeply into any one faith or religious tradition," Greeley says. "So they move through, collecting ideas and practices and tenets that most appeal to the self, but making no connections to groups or communities."

Being spiritual instead of religious may sound sophisticated, but the choice may ultimately come down to pettiness, says Martin, the Jesuit priest, who writes about the phrase in his book, "The Jesuit Guide to (Almost Everything)."

"Religion is hard," he says. "Sometimes it's just too much work. People don't feel like it. I have better things to do with my time. It's plain old laziness."

Links referenced within this article

SBNR.org

http://www.facebook.com/SBNR.org?v=app_2309869772

Buddhism,

http://topics.cnn.com/topics/buddhism

"The Jesuit Guide to (Almost Everything)."

http://www.harpercollins.com/books/9780061432682/The_Jesuit_Guide_to_Almost_Everything/index.aspx

Find this article at:

http://www.cnn.com/2010/LIVING/personal/06/03/spiritual.but.not.religious/?hpt=C1

[phkrause]

Well that was interesting, not sure of what I think about that at the moment. I do believe that people are reached in all different kind of ways. Some like to go to meetings, some like friendship, some through medical help, etc.

pk

[Bravus]

I suspect a lot of it is because religion has done such a terrific job of demolishing itself with scandals and abuse in the past few decades. Why would idealistic young people want to associate themselves with that? They have spiritual yearnings, they have a need for meaning and purpose in their lives... and they have an inkling that God has answers but little confidence that organised religion has any. Can't say I blame them, at all...

(And the quotes in the article from the religious are... pretty much what you'd expect the religious to say on this topic.)

When Christ's church is more Christ-like, there'll be a revival. For right now, it's a wonderful thing that people are recognising their spiritual natures and needs, despite the ways faith has been dragged through the mud.

[olger]

Good topic. It is a question i asked a bunch of Anabaptist men at supper two months ago.

Dean (minister) stated that people who say they are spiritual (or christian) "but not religious" are more than likely struggling with unresolved spiritual abuse and recoiling from the term religion.

g

[karl]

Creeping socialism is certainly a factor in decreasing religiosity. In militantly socialist countries, Christianity has been outlawed - a tacit understanding that it is a competing religion. In the softer forms of socialism (Fabian socialism) religion just goes on the back burner. The churches of Europe are nearly empty. As socialism increases in the US, religion is losing ground. Who needs Jesus Christ when society is the provider and sustainer? Who needs a Creator when evolution is the mantra of society?

[abelisle]

It is truly amazing how you manage to sneak socialism into just about every thread I set up? But who knows, you might be right?

Materialism definitely is the bane of the existence of Christianity as a religion. As the Bible says "the love of money is the root of all evil".

But now that we have got this political piece out of the way, how do we adapt our approaches of evangelism to reach this growing minority of people. Surely delivering spiels about the dangers of socialism isn't going to be attractive to their spiritual yearnings?

Matter of fact, here's a question for you (or anybody): "Is Adventism too much of an entrenched religion that its spiritual truths are hidden from view?"

Alex (waiting to see how socialism will find its way into my World Cup soccer thread

[abelisle]

olger,

Do you think there will come a time when the Adventist church will break away from its large organized structure into smaller, more personal cell/home ministries? Places where people who have suffered abuse can feel more comfortable and safe.

Alex

[doug yowell]

I totally agree with the article. I've met too many people who view themselves (funny that no one else seems to validate this)as SBNR. My experience shows that these people used this label as an excuse to not be accountable to other people. They fancy themselves as actually being spiritually superior because they don't associate with those who, they claim, think that one needs to be a part of a believing group to be considered genuine. Given that true Christianity is all about being a part of one another, this is merely an open admission that one does not want to buy into that form of "spirituality".

[karl]

It is truly amazing how you manage to sneak socialism into just about every thread I set up? But who knows, you might be right?

Materialism definitely is the bane of the existence of Christianity as a religion. As the Bible says "the love of money is the root of all evil".

But now that we have got this political piece out of the way, how do we adapt our approaches of evangelism to reach this growing minority of people.

Reaching these people for Christ involves emphasizing genuine morality rather than relative morality, personal responsibility rather than collective responsibility, the personal nature of salvation rather than some corporate nature.

But you cannot simply address these issues and leave the rest of the package alone. Socialism is the social, economic, political, and spiritual system of Secular Humanism, and it was founded in the Garden of Eden. The founder, Satan, wrote their constitution when he said, For God doth know that in the day ye eat thereof (of the forbidden fruit), then you eyes shall be opened, and ye shall be as gods, knowing good and evil." (Rev. 3:5)

Secular Humanists believe they are their own gods, and they have decided for themselves what is good and what is evil. As the Bible says, they call good evil and evil good. This is the reason that religion goes on the back burner when socialism increases.

Secular Humanism is an antichrist system. Secular Humanism promotes big government and progressive taxation (robbing Peter to give to Paul and Mary,) it is pro evolution, pro abortion, and, ultimately, pro euthanasia.

Secular Humanism believes that the end justifies the means. This is antithetical to Christianity.

[phkrause]

Creeping socialism is certainly a factor in decreasing religiosity. In militantly socialist countries, Christianity has been outlawed - a tacit understanding that it is a competing religion. In the softer forms of socialism (Fabian socialism) religion just goes on the back burner. The churches of Europe are nearly empty. As socialism increases in the US, religion is losing ground. Who needs Jesus Christ when society is the provider and sustainer? Who needs a Creator when evolution is the mantra of society?

I might agree with you if you put it the other way Karl. I find that as religion as been taken out of our country that whatever you want to call it, socialism, communisism, etc. is slowly creeping in.

pk

[abelisle]

karl,

Hmm . . . ? Why do I think that your "Secular Humanism Seminar" wouldn't be that attractive to potential converts?

You started off talking about "genuine morality" - got me interested then you took flight ranting about socialism being a segue into secular humanism.

Dude - you need to take some chill pills!

Alex (we need to run together - lose some of that intensity)

[olger]

Abe,

the only Biblical solution to "spiritual abuse" is to release the pain and forgive the debt. Then healing will come.

Failure to do this will lock the heart in bitterness and defile the majority of people around us.

People who forgive discover that God never wastes pain, He turns it into a blessing and beauty.

Unforgiveness ultimately leads to suicidal thoughts (the final consequence).

"I am the Lord that blotteth out thy transgressions for My name's sake."

"Forgive us our debts as we forgive our debtors."

Go and do well,

g

[teresaq]

as long as that is not translated into "dont talk about it"...

[John317]

Quote:

abelisle (quoting):

But what exactly does being "spiritual but not religious" mean, and could there be hidden dangers in living such a life?

Did you choose "Burger King Spirituality"?

Heather Cariou, a New York City-based author who calls herself spiritual instead of religious, doesn't think so. She's adopted a spirituality that blends Buddhism, Judaism and other beliefs.

"I don't need to define myself to any community by putting myself in a box labeled Baptist, or Catholic, or Muslim," she says. "When I die, I believe all my accounting will be done to God, and that when I enter the eternal realm, I will not walk though a door with a label on it."

BJ Gallagher, a Huffington Post blogger who writes about spirituality, says she's SBNR because organized religion inevitably degenerates into tussles over power, ego and money.

Gallagher tells a parable to illustrate her point:

"God and the devil were walking down a path one day when God spotted something sparkling by the side of the path. He picked it up and held it in the palm of his hand.

"Ah, Truth," he said.

"Here, give it to me," the devil said. "I'll organize it."

Gallagher says there's nothing wrong with people blending insights from different faith traditions to create what she calls a "Burger King Spirituality -- have it your way."

...Ekim was born in a Muslim family and raised in Istanbul, Turkey. She prayed to Allah every night, until she was 13 and had to take religion classes in high school.Then one day, she says she had to take charge of her own beliefs.

"I had this revelation that I bow to no one, and I've been spiritually a much happier person," says Ekim, who describers herself now as a Taoist, a religious practice from ancient China that emphasizes the unity of humanity and the universe.

...."Religion demands that we accord to human existence some absolutes and eternal truths, and in a post-modern culture, that becomes all but impossible," says Greeley, who teaches at Sacred Heart University in Connecticut.

It's much easier for "spiritual" people to go on "spiritual walkabouts," Greeley says.

"People seem not to have the time nor the energy or interest to delve deeply into any one faith or religious tradition," Greeley says. "So they move through, collecting ideas and practices and tenets that most appeal to the self, but making no connections to groups or communities."

A major theme I see running through the article is that these people pick and choose what they like and throw out what they don't like. Their decisions as to what to keep and what to throw out don't seem to be based on any very deep studying or thinking. I agree with Greeley, and I disagree with BJ Gallagher. Being "spiritual" is another name for confusion & selfishness. It seems to me that it's an attempt to ignore that fact that there are important doctrines involved and that some doctrines are false and others are true.

I think the only way to attract these people is through being their friend and showing them Christ through informal conversations, readings in the Bible, and praying with them as well as for them. They need to realize that those various religions contradict each other and therefore can't all be from the same source or leading people to God. But they won't believe this just because someone points it out-- they have to have their eyes opened so they see it themselves. It requires the Holy Spirit to convict them of the truth of the Bible.

[John317]

Quote:

abelisle: Matter of fact, here's a question for you (or anybody): "Is Adventism too much of an entrenched religion that its spiritual truths are hidden from view?"

If you had the power and the ability to change Adventism, what changes would you make?

I don't consider Adventism as a "religion." I think of Adventism as a movement and as a message, primarily the Three Angels Messages.

Its spiritual truths aren't hidden at all but some people want them to be hidden.

[olger]

as long as that is not translated into "dont talk about it"...

Not a bit Terese,

courage,

og

[abelisle]

"If you had the power and the ability to change Adventism, what changes would you make?"

1)I would trim down the overall structure of church, maybe consolidating conferences and/or unions putting top administrators back in the field as pastors

2) Encourage more Bible, less SOP

3) Repeal the rule where new baptisms automatically become church members

4) Do away with our black conferences

5) De-emphasize Daniel and Revelation Seminars for major evangelical outreaches. Focus more on Christ, health message and vehicles that appeal to young postmoderns

6) Emphasize health reform. Put church leaders on notice if they physically don't represent what they preach e.g. obese and gaunt looking ones need to try to look more healthy

7) Have more think tanks that can help make prayer meetings more interesting like EGW suggested they should be

8) Allow church employees to create CV's (curriculum vitaes) for themselves so that delegates will know who they are voting for at constiuency meetings. This is NOT campaigning.

9) Encourage/mandate a higher proportion of younger delegates and non-employee delegates at the GC

10) Have the Geoscience Research Institute do more research that is free of making the scientists apologists for the church

Alex (thanks John - this should be a separate topic- what do you think?)

[lazarus]

Reaching these people for Christ involves emphasizing genuine morality rather than relative morality, personal responsibility rather than collective responsibility, the personal nature of salvation rather than some corporate nature.

I actually think it involves emphasizing Christ, who he is and what he has done. The drawing power of Christianity is Christ himself. He is the central attraction. The morality comes as a result of encountering Christ. The life and teachings of Jesus clearly reflect a balance between personal and collective responsibility. Similarly, the New Testament has a strong emphasis on the body on Christ.

Quote:

Secular Humanists believe they are their own gods, and they have decided for themselves what is good and what is evil. As the Bible says, they call good evil and evil good. This is the reason that religion goes on the back burner when socialism increases.

History clearly shows that "Christian" political an religious powers have done the same thing. Revelation teaches that it is not secular humanists that have and will be the problem. It is apostate religion.

[karl]

History clearly shows that "Christian" political an religious powers have done the same thing. Revelation teaches that it is not secular humanists that have and will be the problem. It is apostate religion.

So which are you in favor of, Lazarus? Secular Humanism? Or Christianity? Should we oppose Christianity because we know that Satan can and will subvert some of the leaders and followers in the Christian church? He has already subverted everyone in the Secular Humanism camp. Shouldn't we stick with Christianity because there might be 7,000 or more who have not bowed the knee to Baal?

[lazarus]

So which are you in favor of, Lazarus? Secular Humanism? Or Christianity? Should we oppose Christianity because we know that Satan can and will subvert some of the leaders and followers in the Christian church?

Does Revelation oppose Christianity when it raises the ugly specter of apostate religion? No. The book of Revelation reveals (apocalypsis) the nature of the battle. Revelation also elevates Jesus Christ as the answer to every challenge that devil presents.

Jesus was not afraid to criticize the religious/political leadership of his day. We should not be afraid either. History is full of examples where true Christianity was sacrificed for the sake of nationalism, profit, political power. etc. Many people reject Christianity because of Christianity not becasue of secular humanism.

People want the spirituality without all the conflict that being "religious" can bring.

Secular humanism with join with the religious establishment to destroy the followers of God in the same way that Rome joined forces with the religious leaders to destroy Jesus.

My I humbly suggest that your anti-socialist fever, which I admire for it persistence, gets the better of your theology

[karl]

Hmmm, Lazarus, there appears to have been a bit of a change in your thinking. A couple of posts ago you said that Secular Humanism is NOT the problem. Now you admit that apostate Christianity will confederate with Secular Humanism (I agree with this conclusion - and it will probably be in collusion with the UN.)

[lazarus]

Hmmm, Lazarus, there appears to have been a bit of a change in your thinking. A couple of posts ago you said that Secular Humanism is NOT the problem. Now you admit that apostate Christianity will confederate with Secular Humanism (I agree with this conclusion - and it will probably be in collusion with the UN.)

Not at all. You are saying that Secular humanism is the problem. I am saying that Apostate religion is the problem. Indicating that secular humanism will join forces with religion does not suddenly make secular humanism the problem. Rome's collusion with the religious leaders of Israel did not make Rome the problem.

[karl]

You are saying that Secular humanism is the problem. I am saying that Apostate religion is the problem. Indicating that secular humanism will join forces with religion does not suddenly make secular humanism the problem. Rome's collusion with the religious leaders of Israel did not make Rome the problem.

Of course it did. A collusion or conspiracy makes all the participants THE problem. It doesn't matter who the main protagonist is, when groups join forces THEY collectively are the problem.

When Christians adopt the teachings of secular humanism as some in our church are doing today, this does not absolve secular humanists of the guilt of denying God and His principles.

[lazarus]

Of course it did. A collusion or conspiracy makes all the participants THE problem. It doesn't matter who the main protagonist is, when groups join forces THEY collectively are the problem.

I have no problem accepting that both are part of the problem. My objection is with the focus on secular humanism since the weight in Revelation is on apostate religion. In fact apostate religion, in the past, has used secular humanism as the reason for numerous and blood persecutions.

[karl]

In fact apostate religion, in the past, has used secular humanism as the reason for numerous and blood persecutions.

I can't think of an example of what you are referring to above. Perhaps you could enlighten me. Or are you including all secular authorities as Secular Humanists? The term "Secular Humanism" was first coined in the 1930's.

The persecuting papacy of old is being echoed by the mindset of secular humanists today. It is the attitude of those who exchange the truth of God's revelation for a lie, and worship the creature rather than the Creator. (Romans 1:25). It is a willful determination on the part of man not to allow the God of the Bible the pre-eminence in his life, and instead to replace God with something — anything — non-divine, non-supernatural. A pope, a priest, a council of men, government. "We've got this one this, God. We don't need to follow your Word. Man is capable of being and doing good without You. We'll just make up our rules as we go along. Absolute morality is too restricting for our society today."