Spiritual But Not Religious

As this is my first blog post in an eternity, I have a bizarre desire to write on a perspective I actually have very mixed feelings on. Recently, an article in the NY Times was published by a Jewish Rabbi, assessing the topic of spirituality and religiosity. According to the article, 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.

I think I must have this allergy.

In fact, I am certain I developed this allergy at a very young age. Perhaps it's like peanuts and eggs, where it is argued whether early introduction creates tolerance or an allergic reaction. The jury is still out on that.

The rabbi goes on in the article to discuss the advantages and disadvantages of being religious. The idea of being part of a religious institution involves submitting your will to others, especially those you disagree with. According to the rabbi, institutions can be slow, plodding, dictatorial. They can both enable and shield wrongdoers. I have experienced and seen this on a broad level as well as on a very personal level.

Yet the rabbi argues that it is only through the lens of a community organized by religious institution that we can effect change and mobilization on spiritual matters. I have also experienced and seen this.  There is something profoundly, well, spiritual about a meeting.  It involves individuals trying together to sort out priorities, to listen and learn from one another, to make a difference.

I uphold this completely! Individuals coming together for a common good is powerful! What do you do, though, when the premise does not allow for discussion? Or if there is discussion, it is only to point out your wrongdoing, to gently and lovingly correct your missteps. Does "listening and learning", as he says, only work within strict parameters in religion? I have a feeling that as a reformed Jew, he probably does in fact encourage healthy debate. Nothing negative, I'm sure, as that would squash any positive spirit about a religious meeting. With more traditionally static institutions, though, what avenue for listening and learning should instead be traversed? Is it impossible in very large institutions? Should we merely accept that change can only be very, ponderously slow? That may be reasonable, as anything large and structured is generally slow to change.
Peering a bit further, however, what if it is assumed that dynamism in thought might actually corrode at the strength of the institution to enact positive change? I have a feeling that by "submitting your will to others", this rabbi did not mean to never hope for something different. What light can be shed on this seeming dilemma?

He says, spirituality is an emotion. Religion is an obligation. Spirituality soothes. Religion mobilizes. Spirituality is satisfied with itself. Religion is dissatisfied with the world.
What do you do when this dissatisfaction with the world is not in line with your own dissatisfaction? And how does one balance dissatisfaction with the institution over its potential for good and improvement?

His last statement is beautiful. If only all religious institutions could espouse this viewpoint: 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.

I do not want to pose my own feelings too much on this issue, rather would like to hear your thoughts on this topic. I mostly have questions I would like answered! Haha, or help in answering, as I don't think there really is one solid answer. I will ask one particular question that is most important to me, then hope that you will expound on your own feelings on everything, not just this question. How does one reconcile these two: accepting that you won't be able to agree with the institution on everything, while at the same time not sacrificing those who are marginalized or put to spiritual isolation?

Have at it, brainiacs of most brilliant introspection!!! ;)

---------
Here is the article, if you want to read the full length version.

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

A new start: let's be sober

Hello friends,

I know all of you who are authors on this blog, though you may not all know each other. That's fine: you'll get to know each other here!

I thought I would get our juices flowing with something of a cop-out post mixed with a healthy degree of shameless plug: instead of sharing a provocative, thoughtful article I found on the interwebs, I'm sharing one of my own posts, from my blog :P read it here.

As the one of the purposes of the Salon is to seek truth, I thought it was relevant. I mean it when I say that we're never completely right about anything. We see through a glass, darkly. The perfect light of pure truth won't come until the next life. So while we're sharing our thoughts and beliefs and making our voices heard, let's keep a spirit of humility, admitting the limitations of our understanding, and an openness to additional light and truth.

As always, comments actively encouraged! Feel free to check out the rest of my blog if you wish (another shameless plug!). It's just my personal musings, so read at your own risk :)

Cincinnatus