www.byzcath.org Forums Faith & Christian Life Faith & Theology "spiritual but not religious"

[1]
There are a lot of people these days who claim to be "spiritual but not religious." What does that mean? I have tried to understand it, but I am a loss. The most I can gather is that it means a kind of permission to believe and do whatever religious beliefs and practices a person wants to do and leave the rest alone. In your opinion, what does "spiritual but not religious" mean?

[2]
As a corollary, how necessary is religion in preserving a system of spirituality? In the Eastern Church, the services and mysteries and penitential practices (such as fasting) and so on all seem to be geared toward preserving and assisting the practice of theosis, which is the Eastern Church's system of spirituality. Question: could theosis as a system of theory and practice of spirituality continue to exist without the religious beliefs and practices? Personally, I don't think so: as I witness, by contrast, the secularization of certain parts of the Protestant and Catholic Churches which have jettisoned their religious tradition. But I'm curious for others' views. Can spirituality be preserved and practiced without religion?

[3]
Overall, I tend to think that spirituality is a dimension of religion and it can't exist for long (or for true) without the beliefs and practices of religion. But, what say you?

-- John

It's sort of like being pregnant, "but only a little bit".

Alexandr

John:

I once had someone tell me this same thing. He said he was spiritual but not religious and went on to try to justify some New Age practices.

I told him that the Devil is a spiritual being, too, so what did being spiritual have to do with anything if one's spirituality is not rooted in something. Lots of spirituality out there and lots of it is delusion that ends badly.

I also make the point that we are not in a "dress rehearsal," something we banter around in my family. This life is the real thing; there is no other place to be tested for eternal life; there is no second chance. We have a revealed Way. He is the Truth. If one wants to gamble like Pontius Pilate, so be it. We have that question "what is truth?" answered in the Church.

One ought to ask if there is anything else or any other institution that has survived for over 2ooo years. Then one ought to ask why. Then one ought to be at least curious about what makes this particular institution have such staying power and why have so many people been willing to die to witness to the truth contained therein.

You may get that other old excuse: look at all the sinners in the group. But the measure of the group is not its worst members but the ones who took its teaching and made it part of their lives--the saints. We don't measure a culture by its criminals but its heroes. So, too, the Church.

Comes down to the folly of the Cross. And to put the Gospel into a marketing slogan I heard once, "some will; some won't (believe)." Many are called but few are chosen.

In Christ Who calls all and invites all,

BOB

Those who claim to be "spiritual but not religious" generally believe in God and perhaps even Jesus Christ, but don't want to be "bothered" by little things like praying or belonging to and supporting a church. Perhaps they have been turned off by institutionalized religion at some point in their lives. Or they are uneducated and afraid of finding out what the Church has to offer because it might mean they have to put forth some effort.

Thus whatever spirituality they have now--as a free gift and invitation from God--will eventually die out. What isn't growing is in the process of decay. Theosis can only be achieved by the synergy between our own efforts in conjunction with divinizing grace. We are fed by the Holy Mysteries. If a plant is not fertilized it will never bloom and eventually it will wither and die.

This is the same sort of person who will tell you that they don't like organized religion (as if disorganized religion is somehow acceptable). Yet what they are really saying is that they do not subscribe to any creed at all, they have their own sense of "spirit" -- usually a sense that is heavily influenced by this age. It is a worldly sense. There is an underlying sense of right and wrong -- but situational ethics seems to prevail.

Fr. Deacon Edward

Hello,

I hope I'm not off the track, if I did, please let me know and maybe I can start a new thread...

Someone earlier here mentioned the verse "many are called but few are chosen."

What does that mean? I cannot imagine that only few go to Heaven and the rest go to Hell? Is that what it means?

Thanks.

As a Byzantine Catholic, I have to ask if you really consider our religion to be organized?

The Bible seems to say that very thing: many are called, few are chosen.

John 6
59These things He said in the synagogue as He taught in Capernaum.

60Therefore many of His disciples, when they heard this said, "This is a difficult statement; who can listen to it?"

61But Jesus, conscious that His disciples grumbled at this, said to them, "Does this cause you to stumble?

62"What then if you see the Son of Man ascending to where He was before?

63"It is the Spirit who gives life; the flesh profits nothing; the words that I have spoken to you are spirit and are life.

64"But there are some of you who do not believe" For Jesus knew from the beginning who they were who did not believe, and who it was that would betray Him.

65And He was saying, "For this reason I have said to you, that no one can come to Me unless it has been granted him from the Father."

66As a result of this many of His disciples withdrew and were not walking with Him anymore.

67So Jesus said to the twelve, "You do not want to go away also, do you?"

68Simon Peter answered Him, "Lord, to whom shall we go? You have words of eternal life.

69"We have believed and have come to know that You are the Holy One of God."

70Jesus answered them, "Did I Myself not choose you, the twelve, and yet one of you is a devil?"

71Now He meant Judas the son of Simon Iscariot, for he, one of the twelve, was going to betray Him.

Thanks, Wondering for presenting the verses in the Scriptures. But what does it mean?

I thought the disbelief in these verses were based on Christ's comments about eating His Flesh and Drinking His Blood...that if no one eats or drinks Him, he/she will not have eternal life. That is where people thought He was "nutty-case" dude and left him.

I read it to say that many people were called and even followed Him to a point, but when the going got tough, they all upped and left. Even among Jesus' 12 hand-picked apostles, one was a traitor. There he was, a witness to the miracles of Christ, talking and eating dinner with the Lord, and yet it would have been better for him had he never been born. For some it was over theology, others over logic, and others chose money over the Lord.

They were all called. So few were actually chosen.

Verses abound of this nature. There's also the sower and the seeds, the wedding feast, the net in the sea, the weeds and the tares, the narrow and wide gates, the list goes on and on.

From another perspective....

I would say the verses that seem to refer to the fewness of the saved must be balanced against those that speak of the multitude of the saved (multitudes that cannot be numbered). It seems to me that the fewness of the saved is an Old Covenant theme alongside that of "the chosen nation" of Israel contrasted with the "dogs", the gentiles. I realize I am on uncertain ground here, but my current thinking on the topic (to which I have given a lot of thought over the years) is that one of the reasons Jesus came was precisely because the "Old" way of salvation yielded so few results. He did not come to "love a lot, save a few" but to save the entire human race. Thus, this doctrine of the fewness of the saved is really something that belongs to the old covenant, not the new. Granted, many Fathers took it quite literally. St John Chrysostom is quoted (I forget where I saw the quote) as saying less than 10 people in his congregation would actually make it. St Augustine famously taught the massa damnata doctrine in which the mass of humanity is not only lost, but predestined to damnation. I think such thinking flies in the face of the generosity of the Gospel and the simple fact that NO ONE of us (our Lady and a few notables excepted)anywhere nearly approaches the holiness required by God. Either we are nearly all doomed or there is something greater to the gospel than we dare to dream.

Another thing, consider Jesus' parables about the Kingdom. I'll take the one about the soils for example. Some seed falls on shallow soil, some on rocky soil, some among thorns and some on good soil. (I think I got that right?)If we take Jesus' example as one that would have meaning to the agrarian society of the day, it only makes sense if the majority of the seed fell on good soil. Otherwise, what's the point of planting if most of the seed is going to be lost anyway? Why bother to plant seed if most of it is going to be eaten by the birds, die in the sun or get choked by the thorns? No, the point of the parable is not the poorness of the harvest, but the rich overabundance of the harvest. Jesus said the "fields are white unto harvest but the laborers are few". This doesnt sound like just a few seeds made it to life. It sounds like an incredible number of seeds made it to harvest...so much so that there were not enough laborers to gather it all in. Consider Jesus' teaching on casting the nets out and gathering in fish of all kinds. THe good are kept while the bad are discarded. If there are more bad fish than good fish, then why bother with the work? Again, I think this points to the abundance of the harvest. Much more could be said about this, particularly in regard to the growth of the kingdom.

Jason

Jason,
I like your thought process. My initial thought is that in the Old Testament, only the Jews were called, and only the Jews were the chosen people who knew the plan of salvation. In the New Testament, all of us are called and Jesus becomes that gate, that veil, that door, that path, narrow though it might be, which we are all called to walk through. No longer is this a closed community, but a path for all to follow. I don't see the balance between Old and New to be highlighting the number of those who are saved, but of those who are called. What is your thought on that?

Wondering,

I think that the offer of salvation, under the Old Covenant, was offered to all. There are a number of Old Testament saints who were not Jews. One very notable example was Melchizadek who was "Priest of Salem (later Jerusalem)" and "Priest of God Most High". The presence of a priest implies the presence of a worshipping community. Another example would be Jethro, Moses' father in law who was also named as a priest of Midia. He was not a Jew either. In all likelyhood he was of the negro race. And there is a strong tradition of Yaweh worship in Ethiopia from the time of Solomon on. The Ethiopian people were one of if not the first people groups to convert to CHristianity. This quite possibly flowed from their historic religion. My point in this is that salvation was not exclusive even in Old Testament times, to the Jews. Yes, the Jews enjoyed a special privilage in that the "Presence" or the Shekhinah dwelt among them as a people and not with other peoples. And, they are the race from whom ultimately the MEssiah was born. There is much here to talk about. For instance, the Israelites were a people set apart by God to be a "holy people a royal priesthood". In this they were intended to be Priests to the nations. However they misunderstood their role and became ingrown and self sufficient. This was true even after they were scattered abroad, which scattering I take as a divine attempt to push them into their priestly role to the nations. Had they not been scattered in the great diaspora the chances of Christianity spreading as it did would have been very slim. But, as it was, there were synagogs in just about every civilized place and thus the God of Abraham was known to the nations, even if that was not the intention of the Jews.

There will be folks here who take issue with this line of thinking, and that's fine. I don't present it with authority. It's just my opinion.

Getting back to the point, the nature of the "call" of God in the Old Covenant was such that it was "greater" for the JEws than for the gentiles. This is why there were so many holiness regulations and laws regarding physical things such as distance from the tabernacle or Temple. Those who ministered before God (the Priests and the Levites) were held to a much stricter code of life than the regular layman. And the gentile was held to an even yet milder code of life than the Jew. In short, the farther one was from the Temple, or from the Shekhinah, or from the Personal Presence of God, the less was his responsibility and the less he was held accountible for. For instance, the Priests and the levites ate the animals used in the sacrifices. The lay jew was forbidden to eat this meat. No jew was allowed to eat any animal that had 'died of itself' yet a jew was permitted to sell such a dead animal to a gentile who *was* permitted to eat it. All this to say that under the Old Covenant there was something of a divine caste system. All were called to worship the One True and Living God, but only the Jew had to follow His sacramental legislation. All men, gentiles included, were required to keep the moral law but gentiles did not have to abide by the holiness code of Leviticus and Deuteronomy.

What happened is that, rather than being a light to the nations, the Israelite people turned inward, either boasting in their "position" or, turning away from God and following the laws of the nations around them. Either way they displeased God. When Jesus speaks of "many are called" He is speaking specifically of the Jews. Notice his attitude toward gentiles when they approach him for something. To the one woman who's daughter was ill, he said, I have come but to Israel" to which she replied, Yes Lord, but even the dogs (gentiles) eat the crumbs which fall from the masters table. What she was saying was "I know you are the Living God and you have fed us through the tidbits we have gleaned about you from the Jews". Jesus "saw" her faith and rewarded it. But his initial statement "that he was sent but to the lost sheep of Israel" indicates that it was the Jews whom he had come to call. Remember, we think of Jesus as being in the New Covenant. But in fact, Jesus had to live and die under the terms of the OLD Covenant for the New Covenant to be established. The Old Covenant didn't end until the Resurrection (or Pentecost, there is debate here). It was definatively over at 70 AD with the destruction of Jerusalem and the leveling of the Temple. After that event the Old Covenant was finally and forever done away with.

So, I see that when Jesus speaks of "many are called but few are chosen" he is speaking most specifically about the Jews under the Old Covenant. The gentiles really arent in the picture at all until after Pentecost. That is when it becomes clear with Peter's sermon in Acts 2 that men of EVERY nation are now called and moreover, that men of every nation are in fact the recipiants of Divine Grace. The speaking in tongues of Acts 2 was the reversal of the confusion of languages at the Tower of Bable. At the time of Bable, men had only one language and there was only one race of men. When God confused their tongues it forced men to separate from one another and form different peoples. Under the Old Covenant there is a theme of diversity and breaking apart. In the New Covenant, there is a theme of reconciliation and unity. Under the Old Covenant, distance from God was emphasized, in the New, His Nearness in Jesus Christ. Of course there were hints of what was to come in the New Covenant present in the Old. Such as when God gave the law and said it is nearer to you than the breath in your mouths. But such language was few and far between in the Old Covenant. In the New Covenant it becomes replete. One of the major themes of the New Covenant is reconciliation between God and man while the Old COvenant emphasized how far apart they were.

So, It just seems to me that where God is now reconciling the world to himself in Jesus Christ, he cannot fail to do so. That is the nature of the New Covenant: reconciliation and reunion. If Jesus is telling us that few will actually be saved then it seems to go against the very nature of the new Covenant. Why emphasize reunion and reconciliation if the promise is bigger than the reality?

I know i've said a lot and probably not said much worth saying but there you have it. If someone vehemently disagrees, please dont landblast me as I am not attempting to pontificate. Im just stating my own opinion.

Jason