Spiritual vs Religious

Why pretend? It's confession time. I've never really thought of myself as all that deep. Peers have said they thought I am, but I think they're just acknowledging my attempts to sound like I'm deep. Seriously. It's probably some sort of compensation mechanism. Freud would have a field-day with it. I think I like to sound deep...it sounds deep when I can really come off sounding deep. Do I think I'm really as deep as I can sound? Oh heck no! Yeah, yeah. I know. Kind of a funky self-image for someone bent on an academic career. TELL me 'bout it!

Here's a problem that goes with that though...Spirituality is deep.

At least it is in experience-driven North American evangelicalism. The inward experience, the transcendent journey, the connection to the Divine is viewed as paramount. For this reason, the person of exceptional piety, of regular Bible study (I'm speaking within the Christian context), of verse memorization, of ubiquitous artwork and inspirational reminders following an uplifting saturation principle, of negligible faults and flaws is lauded as the greater believer.

Now, don't misunderstand. Those traits are all quite positive. But when they are juxtaposed against the "religious" person that finds the trappings, traditions, gatherings, history and structure of Christianity comforting, that's when spirituality - unfortunately - can actually be net negative.

How could I assert such a "heresy?"  Isn't life all about my personal relationship with Jesus Christ and my assurance that I'm saved by grace through faith? Again, I say there is nothing wrong with that at all. However, it often is used as an excuse to perpetuate the triumph of individualism in the America, which has done more to erode the work of the Church in the West that perhaps all other exterior attacks combined.

Years ago, when I was becoming increasingly disillusioned with how little my spirituality resembled the "Christian experience" a millennium ago (American Evangelicalism often prides itself on being un-moored from tradition and history), a friend of mine admonished me to consider a different tack. I often spoke of martial arts as holding value far beyond the mere pragmatism of fighting skills, but also containing history, heritage, tradition and trainer successions that I was pleased to be a part of. I spoke of the necessity to find these things within The Art, as opposed to just learning some MMA moves and then calling one's self a "martial artist." He challenged me, saying, "Aaron, if you ever get to the point where you think of being a Christian the way you think of being a martial artist, you'll find yourself in a liturgical tradition (Anglican, Catholic or Orthodox)." He was right.

Developing as an Anglican Christian, some of the old individualism is starting to come into stark relief against the backdrop of the Church in its communal and historical (even "tribal") glory. Increasingly I am recognizing the interlinked needs to both believe AND belong. Growing in my faith is fine, so long as it runs parallel to growing in The Faith. They are two sides of the same coin. Heads=belief/tails=belong. A coin lacking the validating image on either side would not be legitimate. Both sides are needed for the coin to have value.

This "balance" of believing and belonging, though, is seldom the focus of those touting their spirituality. On the contrary, great pride is taken in the fact that "I can believe in Jesus without having to go to church." They typically don't like it when I reply, "Indeed. Similar to how I have encountered many a firefighter that can fulfill their dream of fighting fire without having to belong to a department." Yes, so foreign is the concept of considering one's self a part of "the family of God" (enjoying all the benefits) without any regard for belonging to the visible "family of God" that the idea of a Christian not belonging to a church would have stymied the ancient church fathers of the 1st millenium. Their bewildered glance would have conveyed the rhetorical: "Who would claim to be THAT who did NOT?"

Nevertheless, many who seek to be "deep" and "spiritual" often do so specifically to differentiate themselves from the rest of the mindless simpletons that blindly attend services week in and week out, just committed to a tradition and ritual that seemingly doesn't help them grow. What the "deeply spiritual" person fails to account for are the advantages that the simple, tradition-driven person (whom that often denigrate) has over them; namely, continuity, community and comfort. In those churches services whose praxi fide is all about the individual's spirituality, countless sermons on "achieving" a sense of community are constantly necessary. Whereas those that already have a sense of belonging through a communal faith find it happens more naturally anyway.

In the choice between being "spiritual" or "religious," a balance is always the bulls-eye. But in a culture that already champions individualism and personal autonomy, I don't benefit from my faith discipline echoing that message. Considering what is most often meant by "spiritual," I find I'm better off weighing more heavily as "religious." In that case, I can belong to something that transcends how I feel any given day, that has a sense of tribal ancestry (Church Fathers), and meets my needs of socio-cultural integration without even having to try very hard.

I encounter often the person that confesses, "I consider myself spiritual, just not religious." Without batting an eye, I declare back, "That's fine. I consider myself religious, just not very spiritual." In this way, I can quickly concede that they are the "deeper" of us two, and move on without much debate. Of course, in my mind, I know I have a sense of belonging (regardless of how my belief fluctuates any given day), and that they will likely struggle with that once the effort needed to maintain "their faith" all the time starts to wear on them.

Christians in the Academy

Early in the 20th century, as American Christian fundamentalists perceived a growing threat from modernism, the divide between science and religion, that started in the 19th century (thanks in no small part to the diverse applications of Charles Darwin's theory of evolution) began to rapidly widen even further. Having largely abandoned the arts as a "secular" pursuit following the Second Great Awakening, fundamentalism was already pulling away from higher education in the mainstream. The Scopes "Monkey" Trial of 1925, however, sealed the fate of hopes for the populist devout considering the bastions of science and art to be a welcoming environment. The perceived gulf betwixt science and religion was fueled by fundamentalist and atheist hostilities alike until it became clear that Christians needed their own "safe" schools; thus giving rise to the Bible college movement.

An interesting dynamic evolved from this mixture of antagonizing currents: both the "sacred" and the "secular" seemed to agree that neither territory was right place for each other. This informal truce resulted in science being held with suspicion in Bible colleges (after all, aren't all scientists just atheist, evolution evangelist bodysnatchers intent on undercutting everything our teens learned at Youth Group?), and Christian fundamentalists saw Bible colleges as the preferred (if other options were even considered) option for higher education following graduation from the private school conducted in the local Baptist church. "Don't send your kids to that secular college," grew the refrain, "they'll come home all eat up with the science and won't believe not'in you taught'em." The arts, the sciences and literature were fed them within the confines of the fundamentalist sub-culture of the Bible college movement. In like manner, because of the Fundamentalist pulling away from the universities, mainline institutions became progressively more accustomed to operating without them. Thus, a Christian behaving and thinking like a Christian on the university campus became increasingly counter-culture, out of place and odd.

My own experience is testifying to this rift between education and fundamentalist religion on various fronts. It's one thing to enter an arena deciding not to argue evolution with anyone, but it's another thing altogether to realize that the evolution they're teaching in the mainstream science disciplines doesn't remotely resemble the "evolution" I was taught to hate at the Bible college. To imagine a theological equivalent, it would be as if university professors teach that Christian preachers are still using Bible verses to argue in favor of slavery. The Fundamental Baptist response would be, "What? That hasn't been the case for 150 years!" And yet, Bible colleges similarly misrepresent universities as a means of demonizing the "other." The resulting effect is that when a Christian actually enters the university setting who can "play nice with others," it's something of an anomaly.  But surprisingly, it hasn't taken a lot of "bravery." The "attacks" to my faith simply have not materialized that I was taught were lurking around every marble-columned corner. The "monsters" of M. Night Shyamalan's "Village" just are not pouncing like I was trained to expect.

It's a shame that more Christians (that haven't also shed their faith in order to enter academia; thus confirming the fears of the parents sending their kids to Bible college) aren't moving back into the academic arena. Genuine faith has a legitimate voice among the messages of circulating around campus, and the "ivory tower" could use more input from those that didn't leave their piety at the entrance  - like shoes that are left in the lobby so as not to track dirt into the house. All it takes is an willingness to operate within the unique cultural dynamics of academia, which the proudly counter-cultural fundamentalism is ill-equipped to prepare you for. Many evangelicals are willing to do to this for the sake of missionary work. They adopt the language, fashion and many customs of the "culture" they wish in "infiltrate." The result might not be a rash of growing new churches in the target culture, but at least they will have demonstrated that Christians can function in that culture, being friendly and intelligent. Not that I think Christians should approach academia with the "hidden agenda" of converting those they find here; it would be enough just for more Christians to demonstrate they can function here, advancing the research and contributing positively to the education of young people off of the evangelical "reservation."

My experience is proving positive, and I haven't had to shed my faith to get it. I can only imagine that both academia and the Church would be served well by more having my experience also.

Inventing Your Religion

Regarding one's belief and faith, it recently occurred to me that at the philosophical level the choices are twofold: you either are (1) a devout and consistent Atheist - a materialist that considers that nothing exists apart from the matter and energy of the physical universe, or (2) in the most basic manner, accept that an immaterial, spiritual (even divine) reality exists that transcends the material universe. Since many don't want to place themselves firmly under the "Atheist" label, they fall into the "faith" category - willingly accepting that something may exist or be true that cannot be proven through experimentation with matter and energy.

Now if you fall under the "faith" camp, then the options become (again) twofold: to (A) adopt an established faith previously attested in history, which has likely organized itself into a codified believe system (typically represented by an organization as well), or (B) invent your own beliefs that will secure for you (i) positive interaction with the transcendent now (i.e. God, "gods," spirits, etc.) , (ii) a moral code satisfactory to those transcendent forces and works well in the world as it operates, and (iii) a favorable afterlife when the present existence transitions to it at the end of the body's life cycle. When I encounter people desirous to invent their own "religion," I encourage them that the belief system they develop really needs to meet the above criteria, and do it well enough to convince themselves they've arrived at something better than anything previous attested or practiced in history. They'll need to be confident that they're more spiritually attuned, theologically insightful and sensitive to the transcendent than any who have come before. They will need to feel a high degree of certitude regarding the afterlife and how one can be assured a pleasing one. It will help if they have the testimony of a credible witness who has been there and come back to describe it, and how one's "place at the table" is reserved.

If you're not a devout and consistent Atheist, and you eschew an established religion, then the religion you invent for yourself needs to have a way of including others, since it's unlikely you'll enjoy yours much in isolation. After all, how does one expect to relate well to a spouse that you cannot share at least some religious conversation with? Nevertheless, even if one doesn't share their religion with their spouse, the inevitability of our communal nature compels us to seek a group (or form one) in which people of like minds on a matter can gather to affirm pursuit of the common belief. Encouragement is a universal necessity, so people naturally "congregate" to encourage one another to pursue the common cause. All religions, whether attested since ancient times or recently invented mere years ago, develop followers (plural).

Your new religion will likely develop some type of natural hierarchy. Yes, I know, why the need for hierarchical structures? Isn't that the "organized religion" you're trying to escape anyway by inventing your own? Good question. But what will you do if, after a group begins to collect, an attendee seeks to persuade others in the group to think differently than you or in some manner inconsistent with your new belief patterns? Yes, even if the group gathers to affirm that each member has their own beliefs and that none can be the same, inevitably there is bound to eventually enter that one ornery person that loves to debate and hope to win others over to believing like him. Who will be the one to enforce the integrity of the group? Who will say to that person, "Look. Believe as you want, but you can't come here and spend the time upsetting others like that. Either tone it down or you'll have to leave." Who is entrusted with that kind of voice? that kind of (dare I say it) authority? *cringe*

Ok. Let's ask something else. This new religion of yours... is it all in your head, or does it interact with stuff such as symbols, talisman's, charms or fetishes? Does is have any spatial or geographical specificity? Does it involve accessing the vibes emanating from a mountain or field? Will you utilize a structure, a house or a meadow to facilitate your religious practice? ALL religions wind up developing SOME type of praxis. It's a natural human instinct. Don't worry about the money. Your basement could suffice, or you could build an ornate building. It's up to you. It is YOUR religion, after all.

What about times and seasons? Humans have historically regarded time as their most precious possession. It's a non-renewable resource that is heading toward total depletion. Therefore, religions have typically gravitated toward specific times and seasons when their practices were most effective at interacting with spiritual forces, or at least different times and seasons resulted in different nuanced interactions with the divine throughout the day, week and year; yours will be no exception. Whether it be the summer solstice, the winter solstice, a specific day in spring or a moveable date in fall, "high" days naturally will occur as the followers of your system believe they're having particularly meaningful experiences on those days. Oh, and by the way, is this religion more a daytime system or nocturnal system? Yes, I'm serious. You need to think about this. Do the spiritual realities you want to interact with seem to respond better in the dark or in broad daylight? No, it's not dependent upon whether you're a "night owl" or a "morning person."

What procedures or protocols will you invent to prepare adherents of your new religion for interacting with the divine or the spiritual? We all go through our little "rituals" of some type to "get our head in the game" concerning an important activity. Whether you're getting ready for work, going through security at the airport or respectfully witnessing the changing of the guard at the Tomb of the Unknown Soldier, we all interact with rituals here and there that convey the gravity of the occasion, adhere to protocols of approaching authority and get us in our right mind for participating. So what "rites" will you introduce in order to prepare your own mind, facilitate others with you doing the same, and invoking the presence of God, the gods or the spirits for your benefit? Will you standardize this set of "rites" so that others that believe as you do follow them to have the same effect that you do also? Will you right them down? What will THAT book be titled? Who can perform these rites for optimal effect? Anyone? Designated people? Is the designation gender specific? Many religions of the world have long standing reasons for why one is sex is preferred over the other in the context of religious rites? What would yours be?

Ok. We've covered the potential sacred times, sacred space, sacred offices, sacred objects and sacred rites of your new religion. What about a sacred text? Do you plan to codify into writing this belief system you're inventing? What will be the literary genre of this writing? Will it have one or many genres? Are you the sole author, or will you welcome the contributions of like-minded people? If a multi-author work, how will you ensure message continuity? Will you reserve full editorial authority to yourself? By what rationale do you claim such authority? Yes, I know, it's YOUR religion, but remember that it's bound to gain a following if you're serious about this. Will this "sacred text" contain poetry, history, myth, correspondence from you to like-minded people in another city? Does your religion attempt any predictions about the future? Does it express those predictions symbolically or with a high degree of detail? Do you include your rites in the sacred text, or are they contained in a separate companion volume? To what degree must your group of like-minded followers consider this sacred text "authoritative?" What I mean is, do they HAVE to believe, behave and practice according to what is written, or can they pick and choose according to personal preference? Just how "sacred" is this sacred text anyway?

Whew! That's a lot to think about. I don't mean to overwhelm you, but if you're going to invent your own religion, there's a lot to consider. I mean...if indeed you're really serious about this. Some may say that they have their "personal belief system" and "don't like organized religion" merely as a way of avoiding accountability and throwing a spiritual tantrum like some teen that refuses to grow up, but I don't think that's what you're doing. When you say that you have your "personal beliefs," I take you seriously and assume that you want to conscientiously approach the categories of religion we've considered above. If you're going to invent your own religion, there's a lot of work ahead. I don't envy you.

By contrast, I took the comparatively lazy route of simply being a Christian, and belong within that historic stream of Faith. Because I am a Christian, I derive comfort from finding my place in that "tribe," trusting those before me in history regarding the categories discussed here. Does it call for mindless adherence? Far from it, for each generation has to evaluate the extent to which tradition aligns with prescriptions and prohibitions of the sacred text (i.e. The Bible). Since I'm a Christian, the aspects of religion that you will have to invent are all pretty much invented for me already and are well attested in history. I suppose you could decide to take the "easy route" as I have, but I know you're committed to inventing your own religion.

You've sure got your work cut out for you.

Good luck with that.