Spiritual and Religious
People still say it: “I’m spiritual but not religious.” It's an old expression, but it's also very modern and still in vogue. Wikipedia shortens it to SBNR. You probably don't need me to explain what it means, but just so we're on the same page: it's used to describe someone whose spiritual life is divorced from organized religion. And it's usually used in such a way as to make the argument that the two are mutually exclusive, or at least should be. In any case, people who say, "I'm spiritual but not religious" usually think that God is just fine with that.
Not long ago, the spiritual and the religious were understood to be happily wed. To be religious meant you were living a spiritual life, and if someone referred to you as spiritual it was understood that you were also practicing some religion. As it is, the breakdown of formal societies like the family, the school, and the State, has led also to a distrust of organized religion simply because it is organized; it is a formal society, and formal societies are out.
The trouble with this way of thinking is that it can alienate us from our humanity, because man, by his nature, is not only spiritual but is also religious. We are not angels. Angels, because they are purely spirit, see God face to face. We, however, come to know God through the physical world. That is, we experience the world through our senses and through signs. By the use of our intelligence (the spiritual life) we can learn to recognize God, and we can love Him and even worship Him (the religious life) now - in this world - even before seeing Him.
This is why, for example, we not only like music, but also buy tickets to concerts; or why we not only enjoy baseball, but also follow professional teams; or why we not only feel love for a person, but also move in with one another. And this is why we not only believe in God, but also go to church. Liking music, enjoying baseball, and the feeling of love are spiritual realities. Going to concerts, wearing a team jersey, and sexual intercourse are expressions of the religious sense.
To say, therefore, “I’m spiritual but not religious” is not enough. It will never satisfy us, because what it really means is, “I believe in God, but I don’t go to His concerts, follow His team, or live with Him.” There are many traumatic events that could lead to this kind of separation between a person’s spiritual and religious nature, all of which can be forgiven. But it is a rupture nonetheless, a division, and it shouldn't be celebrated, much less presumed to be pleasing to God.
The really strange thing is to hear a Catholic say, "I'm spiritual but not religious," because isn't Christianity the belief that God's love became a human life for us? Doesn't the birth of Jesus mean that God isn't just spiritual, but that He is also religious? And doesn't the Catholic Christian profess that the Church is the historical continuation of that Incarnation? Consider the Resurrection of Christ, for example: Can there be any greater sign to us that God Himself is both spiritual and religious? Why then would a God who raised His Son from the dead be content with our being spiritual but not religious? It doesn't make sense.
In any case, if the human person has been created to love God and to worship Him for all eternity, then one can just see that this false dichotomy between our spiritual and religious life is precisely what the Risen Christ comes to heal, saying “Touch me and see; I am not a ghost. A spirit does not have flesh and blood.” That is, “Come and see. I am not only spiritual; I am also religious. I am a real human being.” This is satisfying. This alone is worthy of our humanity. +