It has a chance of becoming one of the defining characteristics of the present age. It even has an acronym: SBNR. And, of course, it has a web page and a Facebook page. Being “spiritual but not religious” is often an explanation, sometimes an excuse, but mostly it seems to be an attempt at self-definition meant to set a good many people apart from what I’m guessing are perceived societal norms.
Unlike a lot of what I’ve read about this trend, I suggest that 1) we can learn a lot from the SBNR trend, 2) the discussion of this topic has largely been limited by a false dichotomy, 3) there is a better way to talk about what is at stake, and 4) the church can and should respond.
SBNR is a reflection of our cultural worldview
Somehow the SBNR trend seems to have caught many of us off-guard. People ask, Where did this come from? What does this mean? What does it say about my faith?
First, we have no reason to be surprised that people align themselves with the spiritual-but-not-religious camp. In one sense it is a crystal-clear reflection of our cultural obsession with individualism. The American Dream has, in fact, become a matter of “doing whatever I want,” and “spiritual” people, following suit, simply want to define life, truth, and purpose for themselves. In addition, studies reveal that people who describe themselves as SBNR perceive that “religion” is all about rules, rituals and dogma that have to be accepted as-is. Living in a participatory culture (you don’t just watch TV anymore, you comment about the show online in realtime; you don’t just read the news, you are invited to share your opinion) people don’t want to swallow any party line hook, line and sinker. Considering all this, why are we surprised when people say, in essence, “Nobody is going to tell me what I believe; I’ll figure that out for myself, thank you”?1
Second, people don’t want to be perceived as being religious because, in our day, all religion is bad. I wish I knew how Christianity in the U.S. got painted with the mile-wide brush that says all Christians are conservative, fundamentalistic, closed-minded, anti-science, and exclusivist. It’s no wonder that people don’t want to be defined in that way. Neither do I. And it’s not just American Christianity that is seen as being bad; add in religious wars over the centuries, the perception that Islam=terrorism (talk about being painted with a broad brush!), and the inflexibility of the Church over the years (“The earth is round.” “No it’s not, it’s flat!”) and you’ve stoked a pretty good fire on which people want to burn all things religious.
Third, the SBNR trend is most pronounced among children of baby boomers. Boomers largely understand religious involvement as a personal choice rather than a cultural expectation. Since Boomers withdrew from religious participation en masse, and since Boomers left their children to find their own way in matters of meaning, purpose and faith, again it is no surprise that the SBNR culture has arisen. “As youth in America are increasingly raised in families where religious identity is absent or not actively enforced, the spiritual self—that within us which wonders about meaning beyond the mundane, physical, observable world—finds expression outside of the structures of belief and practice of traditional religious institutions.”2
Spiritual v. Religious may describe reality, but it’s not helpful
Much of what I’ve read about SBNR is framed as a contest between being “spiritual” or “religious” in terms that are, unfortunately, mutually exclusive. Even the phrase, “I’m spiritual but not religious” sets up polar opposites. Some wonder, If I can’t describe myself as SBNR, then I must be RBNS (religious but not spiritual). In addition, this polarization is often defended as being necessary in order to study and report on cultural trends. Perhaps that’s true (I’m certainly not a social scientist). Maybe we can’t picture or define anything without comparing and contrasting opposites. (After all, if you listen to the media, Americans are either liberal or conservative, and we either live in a blue state or a red state. Nuance is not one of our culture’s strong suits.)
And while people who use the SBNR label are telling us that they don’t want to have anything to do with things religious, the reaction they’ve received from many church leaders has been anything but helpful. A common first reaction is to dismiss “spirituality” as being too ambiguous or “new age.” Others chafe at the SBNR mentality, call adherents simplistic or synchronistic, or say, “Please stop boring me,” or “If you’re SBNR then I’m RBNS.” Others dismiss spirituality as navel gazing, as nothing more than easing one’s conscience or finding a way to cope with a suburban lifestyle. Still others, quick to indulge in self-criticism, heap piles of guilt on themselves and on the church for failing to meet the needs of the latest generation.
A better way to look at this
The more I’ve pursued this topic, the more I’ve grown uncomfortable with the either/or choices we’ve been given. I wasn’t able to frame any other way of thinking about this, until I read the senior thesis of a 2011 college graduate from Connecticut who wrote:
Because an attempt to define religion and spirituality as separate concepts will only result as an exercise in semantics whose results will not be applicable to all, I propose that both be understood as a process of meaning-making characterized by a concern for that which transcends the immediately sensible world of daily experience.3
In order to facilitate this both/and approach to the topic at hand, the student continues:
I examine the religion and spirituality of Wesleyan students through the lens of a psychology of self and identity. The self, conceptualized as the spirit or the soul by some, is our inner, subjective sense of being, which is continuous in time and remains relatively constant throughout our lives. Identity is how that self is presented to the outside world—the social roles we take on, with their concomitant names, relations, and rules of behavior, as well as the behavior and conversation we enact in our day-to-day lives (Scheibe, 1995).
This framework could be incredibly helpful for understanding and conversing with those who see themselves as SBNR. What if we approach this topic by looking at spirituality (like the self) as an inner and personal journey, searching for meaning and purpose? “Who am I?“ “Why am I here?“ “What is my purpose in life?” These are worthy questions! In a like manner, what if we approach religion (like identity) as an outward expression of our spirituality (self)? While much talk about SBNR lifts up spirituality as an internal, individual pursuit, we haven’t done much work in lifting up religiousness as an outward, communal expression. Both of these pursuits are good and helpful, each informs and shapes the other.
As a wise corrective, the student warns against using self and identity (and by association, spirituality and religiosity) as polar opposites:
Religion and spirituality are never experienced purely as self or identity in isolation, as a living person is always at the intersection of the vertical and horizontal dimensions. …[M]y definition does not eliminate personal experience from religion, or social context from spirituality. Both involve the experience and understanding of what is meaningful and valuable in life, and both involve selves navigating within various social contexts to construct this meaning.
I know what I am about to say goes against the caution just issued, but with the reminder that “The person lies at the intersection of these poles: she is not pure being, nor is she purely a presentation to others,” this framework can expand an either/or choice into a quadrant as follows:
The upper-left quadrant describes those who are earnestly searching for meaning and purpose, but may not have found an integrated way to practice and live out their self-understanding. The upper-right quadrant represents those who have found both. The lower-right quadrant may describe the plight of the mainline/oldline church: people who are well-practiced in the communal aspects of faith, but who have not addressed their inner selves or unique purpose. And finally, the lower-left quadrant leaves me a little puzzled (and, frankly, makes me wonder about the helpfulness of this quadrant approach): does this quadrant describe people who simply live each day with little or no concern for purpose, meaning, or community?
Once again, and carried further, the student’s thesis proposes:
The person lies at the intersection of these poles: she is not pure being, nor is she purely a presentation to others. To be human is to be a self embedded in this world, and to be spiritual or religious is one way of understanding the self and living in the world.
The church’s response
So how can the church respond to this? What can we learn from what SBNR people are telling us? What shortcomings need to be addressed? What opportunities are opening up?
Those questions will be the focus of Part Two of this post. I’m not sure when I’ll post that, as I’m still chewing on possible answers. What do you think? Am I on track? Is this helpful? Does this point to possibilities for your ministry?
Share this post:
1 For a helpful theological take on the SBNR trend, see the first chapter of Harvey Cox’s The Future of Faith. He describes three eras, the Age of Faith (as a way of life), the Age of Belief (enforced doctrines and dogma), and the coming Age of the Spirit. He maintains that the SBNR trend is an indicator of the end of the second age, and the beginning of the third.
2 Something Worth Believing In, Senior thesis by Meredith Steinman, Wesleyan University, Middletown, Connecticut, April 2011. You might want to know before you click that the thesis is 200 pages long. But if you’ve got the time, it is an amazing read.
3 ditto (Nobody is going to tell me that I have to conform to some arbitrary academic notation system!), italics added.
Dwight, this is both interesting and useful. I do sincerely look forward to your second writing on if and how the church should approach this cultural movement. Frankly, I am concerned that we have been caught off guard, as in many respects it is not surprising in that it follows an American culture that has been very difficult to define in terms of faith. In many instances I think that the church has tried too hard to be all things to all people. In my heart and mind I think if we were Christ Jesus to all people, we would be defined in such a manner that encourages becoming a part of the Body of Christ while showing the spirituality of being Holy as God is Holy. Jesus was never lacking in the love that He came to share and share abundantly, but He was never hard to define and His commandments always have been clear. Many seem to think that Christianity is a hard and rigid faith, when following the example of Jesus is not difficult to discern it can be difficult to follow. I think the “mainline church” has allowed itself to take on the image of our culture instead of the other way around. Hence the growth of non demoninational churches. The church is divided conservative from liberal and liberal from conservative. How did we allow this to happen? Where is our focus? I know of a United Methodist Church in Florida where communion is offered every week, healing services are common and the services are very spiritual, but seldom do they organize and offer Bible Studies. Spiritual but not religious?
Thanks for sharing, I look forward to reading and praying over this again.
Dwight, good thoughts. I’m at Convo at Luther Sem and this is the topic being addressed by the keynote speaker Diana Butler Bass. She said that religion is on the declined mainly due to 4 “shocks” to religion in 4 years: Sept 11 2001- where religion was associated with violence, 2002 Catholic Church scandal where religion associated with abuse, 2003 Mainline conflicts over ordination of gay Episcopalian bishop and the related incivility and exclusion and 2004, re-election of Bush due to Evangelicals and religion associated with partisanship and single political agenda.
Wow, Rick, thanks for the added insight! That’s a helpful addition to the “religion is bad” paragraph. I’d be interest to hear what she has to say to my closing questions…
Luther’s theology re: self and identity
The process of constructing the self and our outward identity is an attempt to use the Law to create what your Connecticut alumna calls a sense of ourselves “continuous in time and … relatively constant.” This is well and good, but it is really an illusion, because life under the Law continually causes breaks in our hoped for continuously existing self (especially in regard to our final enemy, death).
The work of the gospel is to enter into that breach with Christ’s benefits in a way that a new self and identity are created from outside our ongoing self-continuity projects. Both the SBNR and RBNS views miss the boat because they assume the continuity is true and can be gained through either spiritual practices outside organized religion or religious activity endorsed by dogma and tradition. When we make that assumption (however we live it out it), it becomes what Paul in Galatians calls a false gospel because it is bound up in living by the Law rather than being freed in Christ (see Gal. 5:1).
Thus, I think the church’s real work in the SBNR era is, first, to become absolutely clear about what is Christ and what is not Christ — that is, knowing that all other things (even good things like spiritual practices and traditional dogma) do not save. Second, we need to become so convinced of Christ’s actual gift of salvation that we can risk entering into the breaches of people’s lives with Christ’s promise (rather than a dreary, used-up demand or program spoken by either another religious asshole or goofball spiritual guru). That no doubt will mean meeting our own self/identity breach as our own continuity is laid on the line and the new self in Christ heeds the Spirit’s calling and actually speaks the Good News to real sinners.
So there! (And thanks for giving me such good food for thought.)
Hi Dwight.
Thanks for linking to our sites. Sadly, the SBNR.org site was hacked by a robot worm six months ago and we’ve not had the resources to repair it fully. We’ve left the site up to maintain our Google rankings while we raise money to rebuild the damage. However, the SBNR.org Facebook page remains active, although our page manager had a baby last week, so there has been a lull.
I’m speaking on this very topic this weekend. http://www.scarrittbennett.org/programs/wisdom.aspx#i
There are a lot of misconceptions about the SBNR trend. First is that the SBNR perspective is a single perspective. It isn’t. The SBNR community is a heterogenous group of diverse and often conflicting perspectives. It includes devout followers of Jesus who have found fault in the patriarchy of the church, as well as individuals from the recovery movement and AA’s Big Book and of course people found of New Thought or New Age. There are sub groups who tend toward the language and concepts of Eastern religions and a sizable group that describe themselves as ‘spiritual atheists’.
I think it is best to see the SBNR trend as people who are taking the classic ‘heroes journey’ ala Joe Campbell. Meaning, these people are leaving the confines of the known and structured, ie traditional religion, to go exploring in new territories.
The framework you’ve presented here is valid, but it is just one view in the SBNR trend and it isn’t inclusive of the totality of what is happening.
I do hope that religious people can find room to gracefully share the world with individuals who prefer to explore their subjective experience outside the confines of traditional doctrines.
Blessings,
Steve Frazee
Founder, SBNR.org and http://Facebook.com/SBNR.org
P.S. It should be noted that the sites we host are meant to service the SBNR community, but in no way do we represent the SBNR community or speak for them. We are a service organization offering support and encouragement to the SBNR community as best we can.
P.S.S. I just noticed that you linked to a FB page that was not ours.
Please visit http://Facebook.com/SBNR.org which is our FB page. We have almost 4000 active members on this page.
Steve
Steve: Thanks for your helpful and clarifying comments! I admit that what I wrote was for what I see as “an inside audience” (my work/audience is mostly with church professionals) and I didn’t think about how this might sound to folks outside the church. My bad. I did not intend to criticize or stereotype (though I may have succeeded in doing both?) but to lift up another way of seeing what is going on in our culture. Most of what I read is focused on the polarized, either/or view, and much of it seems to be cast “against” an experience of an unbending, monolithic “church”. Just as you say “that the SBNR perspective is a single perspective” so I would say there is no single way of being “religious” (specifically Christian), despite how the media portrays us—and I am weary of being tossed in the pit with people who approach religion differently than I do!
Anyway, thanks for the perspective that you bring to the conversation. I will fix the FB link and my comment about it. I should tell you though that I saw (somewhere) that there was a FB page, and I looked at length, but only found that one dormant one. Don’t know what was wrong with my FB search?
Hi, I am posting the beginning of this conversation from NP’s Facebook posting so that my response makes sense.
Stacy Yoakiem – “I found this article baseless, mainly because he doesn’t understand a person who defines themselves as spiritual but not religious. I do, and I would never capitalize it as an official term – that is something that someone else did who is trying to study me/us, and if they do that, they don’t get us at all. Also, the reason I define myself this way is a long, complex story which this person has no clue about. And lastly, he bases his worldview on a perfect way of following the Bible – there isn’t one, as evidenced by all the denominations, and sects within those denominations, and groups within those sects, etc.., there are out there. People like me respect and honor other people’s traditions, and we don’t need to be thought of as people who need fixin.”
Dwight DuBios – “Stacy: I apologize if I offended you or discounted your story. I certainly didn’t mean to do that, and I will review what I’ve said in that light. I would welcome your comments on the blog itself so that we all can be in conversation and learn from one another. You are right to say that people are studying the growing number of people who identify as SBNR. I am reading and trying to understand, not in an effort to fix anyone, and not in an effort to say “it’s my way or the highway,” but to help those, like me, who work in the church understand our own work. Blessings on your journey.”
Stacy Yoakiem – Thanks! I studied all this too, that’s how I got where I am in my view. But, I can understand people working for the church too, since my husband does, he’s a pastor for the Presbyterian Church (USA). I don’t mind explaining myself at all, I value understanding.
I decided that I cannot commit to one denomination, or even to one religion, since I see value in everyone’s traditions (well most, the healthy parts of any tradition is relevant for everyone in my view – and I can define healthy if you want me to, I kind of do below when talking about psychological health). But I see the value of having a tradition, I just know too much about most of them to make a commitment – that’s how most people who studied religion in a historical context feel, I know since I studied in a secular, public institution (UofMN) – we don’t start with a point of view in our research, we start with the evidence that is available and go forward from there. We understand that we come from traditions, and we are aware of our assumptions, and we are not afraid to challenge our beliefs. We want to understand the mystery too, that’s how our interest starts, but eventually we recognize that there is no real evidence behind any of these traditions, only belief, which is valuable, but still not “proof” of anything. But faith is valuable even though it doesn’t need to be proved, a good church leader would teach this.
We do believe in something, like, in making the world a better place for everyone, and this means following practices, both personal and social, that are based in being a healthy human being, in psychological theory – what is good for me and you can be in harmony if we know what is behind our actions – understanding your motivations and assumptions and being able to ask questions are the key to a happy life, and religious traditions start out trying to organize these psycho-social aspects, and then as the movements became more popular they become political, and then they become more complex and manipulative, and we see in history that religion is behind every war because people start fighting over what the “truth” is about their god or holy book, or they are just using the religion or the god as an excuse – it’s all about selfish interest and using the power of the religion to force an agenda. Religion has been the basis for manipulation and control in every society simply because people can say “God told me this” and for some reason people STILL believe this is a legitimate claim (Pat Robertson just did this the other day, and he collects millions of tax free dollars from his believers for doing it). I say all this because you may say “well who can define what is good or bad, only Jesus can…” or “if you don’t have a foundation in Jesus, you don’t have a moral foundation or any grounds for morality, etc…,” but we do. We would say, what did Jesus mean and who can tell us that? Then we hear 500 different answers. And then, since you cannot provide proof, we look for it, where did it come from, and then find it came from a guy or a group of guys who just decided it so there would be order. But that doesn’t mean I don’t respect faith or that I don’t have faith, I have my own faith and I respect people who have faith in the way that they want to have faith. I only begin to have problems when people like me are insulted and talked about like we need to be ‘dealt with,’ or when we are labeled as atheist socialist Nazis who hate America, etc…. as in the extreme climate that exists today. It also doesn’t mean I don’t like Jesus. Jesus was awesome! It’s his followers that really scare me most of the time. Jesus was not a Christian by the way.
What do I think is the solution? Basically, churches need to start educating their parishioners about the reality of the Bible. Right now, and when I grew up, there was an impression that it ‘fell from the sky’ the preacher knows the answers so listen to him and shut up. A lot of the Bible is extremely confusing and contradictory since it was not originally one text (I’m sure you know how it was individual texts that came together in the 4th century from autonomous communities with different cultures that cannot be fully understood today, nor at the time it was complied since there was fighting then too). Also, until a hundred years ago, over 80% of the population was illiterate – these texts had to be relayed to the people. Reading the Bible is impossible without having annotations at the bottom, written by the top scholars who honestly studied it for years and years in a scholarly context, using scientific method to study literature, archaeology, language, and history – like Oxford or HarperCollins. When people can’t understand the Bible, they make up their own interpretations, OR, they just say “this is stupid” – it may not be stupid, but giving them plain old Bibles IS!
If we are going to invest our lives and hopes in these traditions, you would think that we would want to take the time to learn about it. To me this is the fun part about it. As leaders in the church, I think that if we aren’t investing in teaching about it, then we are there to collect money from people who want easy answers to their problems and to be comforted about their immortality (cheap grace/indulgences).
I believe this is the key to your question about those who consider themselves to be “Lutheran” or “Presbyterian” or whatever, but at the same time who also identify as not being religious. Most people in the pews don’t understand ANY theology. Theology is from seminaries and it is constructed, old guys basically created it in order to…create order, and there are MANY.
Tell the people about the history and contexts, art and cultures, it’s the BEST reality series ever, at least it can be if it is told in context and open to questioning, because there are, and always will be, MANY unanswered questions. Also, many church leaders are hardly trained in church history right now, that would have to change first. There IS value in the Bible, but it has to be TAUGHT in CONTEXT, and people will find the meaning on their own – if church leaders really believed in the Holy Spirit, then this is what they would do. If they believe that people just need a constructed order and to “follow the Word,” then they give them short answers, verses, and sacraments. But it doesn’t answer all the questions and people are not going to “follow” perfectly how you want them to.
But then again, I don’t see a need to be religious, so if the focus of your church is to be religious, then this wouldn’t work for you at all. But I think that Jesus wasn’t “religious”; he was a witness to the power of grace and mercy. “Religious” is too organized for real life in my view, and it’s why it doesn’t work for many people, it only works for people who are uncomfortable, or scared, about their immortality. I am more scared of invented theories that don’t reflect reality then about following a religion.
Hi, I am working on a project and it came to my attention that the way I explain my self in the last paragraph here is highly confusing and even maybe offensive. Because I explain earlier that people like me respect and honor other people’s traditions and that’s why we do not subscribe to a religion.
I do respect others decision to be religious, but I don’t appreciate them trying to make everyone else be like them. This is what I meant by “religious” in this paragraph. It depends on how “religious” is defined and in this paragraph I define it as ‘order for the sake of convenience and for fear of death and of others’ – as is how I view this fear of SBNR. But it isn’t consistent with how I am talking about religion earlier.
Traditions are valuable and important, they give us meaning and purpose, and everyone deserves the right to have one. But religious in the sense of this article, that people who are “SBNR” as you put it, is a problem, is something that I believe is “too organized for real life…for people who are uncomfortable about their immortality.”
Dwight,
A friend sent me the link to your post this morning, and I very much enjoyed your well expressed perspective. I am not a church professional, just an ex lay leader. Your quadrant depiction reminded me of a class I used to teach on Situational Management years ago, and it made me smile! I would like to share an admittedly theologically uneducated opinion. It may actually speak as much, or more, to the escalating departure from the church that we seem to be witnessing these days, as it does SBNR. I do a considerable amount of work mostly in the lower sectors of society, and surprisingly I find a great number of volunteers who fall in SBNR category. Almost without fail, when asked, the disconnect for them has been the example the church is setting. Granted, this is sometimes a perspective from those who have not been deeply involved in a church at any point of their life, but quite often is from those who have spent a considerable part of their lives there, and have departed. What I hear, although expressed in many different ways, is that we (the church) do a wonderful job of bringing the message of salvation, but a very poor job of putting the example of Christ to work in the world. What they are saying to me is that while we preach God’s love for all people, especially those who are at risk, our actions depict quite a different belief. We are being seen not as a loving, all inclusive family that lives what it believes, but rather an exclusive group that spends most of its time locked away in worship or activities that are more about the pleasure of its membership than putting its faith to action. It is this lack of faith in action on a consistent, local level that fuels this perception, and fails to provide the connection between the church and everyday life for these individuals. This is, of course, only an opinion based on the perceived reality of those I come in contact with that fit the discussed profile. However, it is interesting that there seems to be dispropotionately more individuals who have disassociated themselves from the church, than members of a congregation, actually doing the work in the places you would expect to find the church. I do believe that if we spent more of our effort demostrating the example of Christ, in the places he would most likely be found today, monumental change would occur, not only in attendance, but in the spiritual lives of those of us in the SR quadrant!
Dwight, I guess I am firmly in the “SBNR” quadrant. As you know I was raised in a secular household with one parent Protestant and one Jewish. I guess the church I went to the most was yours. As a result, it was fairly easy not to be religious. And the spirtituality didn’t really come about till much later in life when I was faced with some very difficult times in my life. And my spirtuality continues to be a “work in progress” I continue to have a problem hitching my wagon to any group that claims to have a lock on the truth of any kind and feels the highest complement they can give is to call someone “a good christian, moslem, jew, etc.” And by saying that excuse a multitude of sins.
But that being said, I actually do consider myself religious in my on way and would describe myself as a Deist on most days. Afterall, if it was good enough for Thomas Jefferson and Albert Einstein who am I to second guess. LOL
I probably could join and go to church or synagogue if I didnt feel guilty and hypocritical for not believing ALL the specific dogma. Until then I will continue to try and find my way through life always looking for additional meaning in the small and large things I encounter everyday.
And of course I reserve the right to change my mind. As W. C. Fields neared death from cirrhosis of the liver(Really?!) he was often found in bed reading the Bible. When asked why since he was not known as a religious man he replied,”Looking for loopholes.” Gotta love it!
Dwight, Thank you for making me a little introspective this Saturday morning. Adds to my spirituallity. But then it all does.
I like the article. thanks very much. I will use at one of my weekly women’s Bible Study groups.
Dwight:
Thanks for the post. I like the connection between self/identity and spirituality/religion. And I think you are right to assume that this trend is “an attempt at self definition.”
As I listen to this statement about being spiritual but not religious, however, the attempt is not to move away from “perceived societal norms,” but is a move towards new societal norms. (I know that means away from current or older norms but one is a negative way of looking at the issue and the other a hope-filled way.)
My own experience with this sentiment is that the forms of religious expression of my youth are not adequately meaningful for younger generations. I believe the core message of our faith is relevant and meaningful but the forms in which we convey that message are not.
The reason for this is the new culture that is taking shape around us. We are discovering that the digitally enhanced self is a different way to be human. Our networked communities are different than the geographically based and genetically connected communities of the past (even though the former ways influence the newer ways considerably).
The attempt at self definition is necessary because religion (organized religion or the institutional church in my understanding) is not trying to make sense of these changes. Instead we become defensive. Because we can see the deeper meaning behind religious forms and expressions we know there is something of value. But many of us who are leaders in the church (religion) were born and bred in the former culture. We are just learning to speak the language of the new culture in rudimentary ways if at all. (Does your congregation have a Facebook page? A Twitter account? An actively updated website? Do you text reminders of events to congregation members? If you aren’t doing these things you are not speaking the language of the emerging culture. If you don’t see why you should do these things or think they are wastes of time you are probably entrenched in the former culture.)
Right now the church needs both kinds of people; those who can speak in the language of the preceding culture and those who are willing explore new ways of expressing the core values and message of the faith. My experience is that exploring these new ways from within the church is next to impossible because it is too much of a threat for those who are not native to the developing culture. That’s why so many people are leaving. It’s easier to explore the self and express a new identity where it is not greeted with suspicion or hostility. It takes too much energy to constantly rationalize and defend the exploration which then keeps you from the reflection that leads to a sense of self.
I believe the day will come when we will discover new ways of expressing our spiritual self. In many ways it will appear to be a new religion in the same way that Christianity grew out of Judaism but was “new” and Protestantism grew out of Catholicism but was “new.” And the religious expressions of the preceding culture will not completely be lost as there will always be people who find an attachment to and value in them.
This was a wonderful post and very helpful. I would love to hear more on the idea that it really boils down to a type of moral relativism. I see our society moving to where “truth” is defined by popularity or by fiat…as in a jury decision instead of by an objective standard. Likewise the SBNR crowd seem to be defining God by their own experience instead of also utilizing the experiences of the past. Likewise, we see our history books being re-written to tailor the past so that it does not insult the PC sensibilities of today.
Doesn’t this really come down to the philosophical bs from years ago that we create our own reality? What then of God?
Personally, I’ll stick with God’s reality instead of trying to create my own, thank you very much.