Spiritual but not Religious - commentary

Note: In the previous posting we offered statistical information provided by an independent source. This is a followup commentary to the subject of "Spiritual But Not Religious".

If one is to be truthful, “spiritual but not religious” (SNR as it may be referred to here for brevity) is a status a person adopts based on a personal view in opposition to the participation in an organized Christian faith or system of beliefs, but firmly absent of credible consideration to both the essence of true spirituality and theology. Sadly, the adoption of SNR is most commonly determined by and reflects one’s own significant lack of true knowledge in the theology of their faith if they had previously been a practicing Christian in their past. Others who have adopted this status may have been raised in the practice of their faith but have since determined the responsibility of that practice inconvenient or too much of an interference with what they perceive as enticing “self gratifications” available in today’s liberal society. Some just refuse to acknowledge the responsibility of what is good and evil claiming "God loves us all and does not judge" and "there's no such thing as sin or hell". In all cases the significant lack of knowledge and understanding of the presence of God, Scripture and the Christological teachings of His Church remain the factors most notorious in the adoption of SNR as a standard ideology. It is this lack of awareness that permits one to adopt SNR with minimal conflict in the quieting of conscience.

Man was created with the ability to rationalize and make determinations of feasibility yet in today’s society in matters of theology it is not uncommon for one to abandon rational thought for self contrived notions. The adoption of such a notion as SNR serves well as an example of such a condition in that it can have no credibility at all when compared to the devout practice of one’s Christian faith if properly founded upon an accurate theological understanding grounded in the fullness of Scripture and the teaching body that provided The Holy Bible to the world, the Catholic Church.

A mature person will acknowledge that in order to enter into a truly intimate relationship with someone, he or she must seek to learn about the other person in order to come to know them. In matters of a lasting, loving relationship this becomes a life long commitment with faith as a necessary investment. It is our degree of interest that determines the level of attention we invest in pursuing a relationship. The same is true when seeking a relationship with God. Our initial interest in God comes from our likeness to Him as He created us but it is subtle and must be pursued in order to flourish. Through Jesus Christ we have been provided the direct means to come to know Him to the level of intimacy we pursue.

Some who hold the position of SNR claim their spirituality to be grounded in one of many philosophies offered by various men throughout history. Other adopters of SNR claim to derive their spirituality through nature, some the universe, and so on, rather than in God Himself. Some claim to believe in a higher “spirit”, “being”, “source”, “entity”, “force” “intelligence” or other non-authoritative designation adopted to avoid the use of the designation of “God” as though we are so intellectually advanced today it would be embarrassing to acknowledge we could claim to be intelligent and believe in the existence of God at the same time. Then again to acknowledge the existence of God we must also acknowledge the importance of a relationship with Him. To develop a relationship with God we must come to know Him and that leads to learning Him from the recorded historic relationship between God and man in Scripture, hence back to organized religion.

Finally we would have to acknowledge there is good and evil, sin and repentance. Could SNR be as simple as a denial in accepting responsibility; a denial in the existence of good and evil and an accountability for how we live and relate to others? The fact remains that spirituality has no valid foundation when removed from God. Spirituality has no history separate of a relationship with God other than what is contrived because it has no direction or source. Nothing would exist had God not created it and man can not create but only derive from God’s creation. We can utilize and manipulate what we have available to us and nothing more. Man would not have the capacity to philosophize had he not been created in the likeness of God. We know that all elements have a source and must trace back to an origin but many of us refuse to accept that sooner or later that trail leads to one source, a Creator, God.

Today we find more scientists in advanced fields of study such as astrophysics and cosmology adopting such theories as the “Final Anthropic principle” contending the universe must have been intentionally brought into existence to support mankind and that there is no way we came to exist by chance occurrences. In trying to determine the source of origin, we come closer to recognizing that only a “higher being”, God, could have set forth from nothing the process and design of the universe and all physical elements. Nature and the life of the universe reflect God in their very creation inspiring a thoughtful man to seek truth. Truth can only be recognized when pride and bias are eliminated and truth can not be changed to anything else.

(Wisdom CH13; v1, v7-9) “Foolish by nature were all who were in ignorance of God And who from the good things seen did not succeed in knowing the one who is, and from studying the works did not discern the artisan...

...For they search busily among his works (the universe and all of creation), but are distracted by what they see, because the things seen are fair. But again, not even these (distractions) are pardonable. For if they (man) so far succeeded in knowledge that they could speculate about the world, how did they not more quickly find its Lord."