We often hear it said these days; “I’m spiritual but not religious.” People who identify themselves in this way now have their own category and are known as SBNR’s (Spiritual But Not Religious). What lies behind this phenomenon, what does it mean and what are SBNR’s really trying to say?
In seeking answers I have come across some literature on the Spirituality v’s Religion subject that is more ‘opinion’ than it is academic. There’s not much that is substantial. The majority of ‘opinion’ seems to be emotionally driven or reactive (anti -institutional); and is compiled by those who like to hold polarised views, dividing religion and spirituality as though they are opposed to one another. What seems to be implied, but never said in a straight-forward manner, is that ‘God has left the church.’ I think that is partially correct as the church has become anxious about it's own decline and preoccupied with preserving an institution that provides income to those who control it's halls of power. It is also true that the SBNR people unwittingly threaten to discard the depth and meaning of religious symbolism, the mystery of a sacramental tradition, and the ordering of a revelatory faith. In other words the church may have controlled faith, but the mainline churches at least, have kept it sensible.
Religion tends to be institutional, incorporates public rituals / worship, and at least to some extent organises itself and its creeds. All religions are about God and in this sense all religions are spiritual because they are God based.
Spirituality tends to be more personal and private. Spirituality has greater emphasis on the individual and exists in the realm of the undefinable. To exist in the undefinable seems to be a chosen preference in so far as spirituality often sees itself as reacting to religion. If religion organises creed and spirituality opposes religion, it must also oppose creed, and therefore exist as undefinable.
The number of self-identifying SBNR’s in the western world leads us to now classify SBNR as a movement. The expression ‘spiritual but not religious’ was first coined by author Sven Eraldson (I Steal Wives) but perhaps made popular by William James as he examined ‘spiritual’ experiences beyond institutional religion.
I find it interesting that the advocates of spirituality say; “Ambiguity is in, Dogma is out.” I just wonder what church they’ve attended? In my experience I have rarely encountered any heavy handed promotion of dogma within the Christian Church. Did that happen historically – yes, but is dogma a dominant tenet of modern church – no. Yet the misconception that dogma characterises religion seems to be the driving force behind the SBNR movement, and appears to be what makes the SBNR movement reactionary in nature while is saddles religion with everything negative and exalts itself with everything positive. I also notice that ‘dogma’ gets loaded up with negative connotations.
To be fair, and speaking from the Christian religious perspective, I believe that precepts such as ‘do not kill’ and concepts like justice, community, divine Grace and love are still good things.
Perhaps the true value of spirituality is that it points to something beyond the three dimensional physical world. Despite being monopolised by the SBNR’s spirituality is not exclusively theirs.
The fruit of the spirit is love, joy, peace, patience, kindness, generosity, faithfulness, gentleness, self-control. There is no law against such things .... If we live by the spirit let us be guided by the spirit, let us not become conceited, competing against one another (Galatians 5:22-26). Spirituality is about becoming more like God, who is spirit (John4:24).
I feel no need to defend the Christian Church. I know as well as anyone else that it is far from perfect and has things to answer for. However it does irritate me when the SBNR’s imply that religion is not spiritual. It is a popular idea that is incorrect. I have met many genuine people of faith (spiritual people) in churches over the years. Some are gold; kind, decent, genuine warm people. I have also met genuine spiritual people from other faiths whose lives and demeanour reflect the tenets of the spiritual life listed above. I do not condemn people who claim to be spiritual and do not wish to associate with institutional religion, but that is different to when spirituality becomes a movement that actively opposes religion.
A 2012 study by Pew Research in the United States identified that about 37% of adults under the age of 30 identified themselves as SBNR’s with no religious affiliation, whereas only 8% of adults over the age of 65 had no religious affiliation. Sociology considers that the shift toward SBNR is a phenomenon called Generational Replacement. Of those born between 1990-1994, 37% are SBNR compared with 21% of those born 1965-1980. In the US that is a significant number of people. Amongst all people who are classified as unaffiliated with any religion, 56% are men and 44% are women.
Another interesting point in discussing SBNR is what Episcopalian Theologian Owen C Thomas describes as Linguistic. Thomas puts it that a new romantic movement began in the 1960’s and has since been nurtured by cultural shifts in neo-conservatism, consumerism, and is associated with the spirituality movement. He says that throughout history romantic movements (which are primarily literary) tend to disparage orthodox religion and affirm the unorthodox, the individualistic, the exotic and the mystical. In romanticism, imagination dominates reason. There is an emphasis on the unorthodox and non-compliance. Thomas says this is true of the current spirituality movement and that is consistent with the romantic movements of history. SBNR is called linguistic because it is limited to English and North American cultures (rather unlike the 18th – 19th century European and American Romantic Movements).
Thomas also notes that the meaning of the word ‘spirit’ is narrower in English than in other languages. I refer here to the fact that the meaning of “spirit” (and thus “spirituality”) in English is much narrower than its equivalents in the Germanic and Romance languages, in which it refers to all the uniquely human capacities and cultural functions.
Catholic Theologian Paul Tillich attributes this difference to the impact of the British empirical tradition which separated the cognitive functions of the mind from the functions of emotion and will, and identified “spirit” with the latter. Thus Geist became “ghost” and esprit became “sprite.” This may have led some to see a clear difference between religion and spirituality.(Thomas, O. The Influence of the Current Romantic Movement).
The spirituality movement seems to be suspicious of institutional structure, places a high value on personal freedom, and that it views spirituality with positive connotations and religion with negative connotations. The word spirituality certainly allows many people the freedom to discuss their relationship with God, and that may not be a bad thing.
Linda Mercandante categorises SBNR’s into different categories;
Dissenters are the people who make a conscious effort to avoid religious institutions
Casuals use spirituality as an instrument on an as-needs basis to improve health, relieve stress and find emotional support
Explorers are people with an unsatisfied curiosity, spiritual tourists who have no inten=on of ever making a commitment or building a spiritual home.
Seekers seek to find a spiritual home and usually have earlier religious identities. They seek a new religious identity to move on from the old one.
Immigrants are people trying on a radical new spiritual environment. For the immigrant, the desire is sincere but they struggle to acclimatise.
The use of the word ‘spiritual’ requires context. Spiritual as opposed to religious is only one context. Another relevant context, for example, is the search for a neutral non offensive word in government. In this context the word spiritual is applied in government chaplaincy programs being one example. In this context spiritual refers to personal meaning and fulfilment that transcends all religious cultural and ethical boundaries. It may and it may not transcend all boundaries, but we have to pick a word and start somewhere. In seeking a term without offence and that is best-fit, spiritual is the one most popularly used at this point in time. It does have the effect of tailoring the work of chaplaincy to meet the requirement of the individual, it makes the intent of chaplaincy all inclusive, and it also has the effect of retaining the chaplaincy presence in government agencies. It is acceptable to use the word spiritual but not acceptable to identify the work as emerging from a religious institution. So it is a nuanced context and a little different to the SBNR context, yet not so different either. We are keeping religion acceptable in a corporate environment by relinquishing the institution with our words; albeit the reality of the situation is that the chaplain still arises from a religious body. The corporate environment does not oppose the religious institution, it is just a little nervous about how it is perceived by the wider community.
In summary, I believe that Professor Thomas has a valid point and that the western world is progressing through a romantic movement in which imagination is of higher value than reason. That this movement needs to be ‘against’ something and what greater institution to be against than religion. I wonder how sustainable SBNR is though without any structure or definition. Is it just a warm fuzzy that cannot be perpetuated over a long period of time, and is at risk of losing momentum? Yet the word spirituality should not be bastardised as it is the core business of mainline institutional religion. It is useful though, I believe, for the institutional church to have the humility to ask itself what 37% of young Americans are seeking. They may be non-affiliated with institutional religion but they are not rejecting the concept of God. What does this say to us as church?