Those of you who are generally familiar with the history of Christianity know that, within the past 500 years, Christianity has splintered into approximately 30,000 sects. No, not that is not a joke. There are more flavors of Christianity now than Baskin Robbins could have ever hoped to match with ice cream flavors.
Religion in Western society is now the new Baskin Robbins: You can choose the flavor that best suits you, or mix and match flavors, or even sample several until you find the perfect (or as close as possible to perfect) choice.
After all, we humans have been on an intense road to progress over the past 500 years: the dawn of modern science in the 16th century , the Enlightenment age in the 17th and 18th centuries, the abolition of slavery in the 19th century, the industrial and technological booms in the 20th century — and now, in the 2020’s, a hyper-convenient, super technologically driven world that science fiction writers from the 1950’s could only dream about.
Yet our progress has been hampered, and almost completely handicapped, at times: Devastating, ideological wars, leading to authoritarianism and genocide were all the rage throughout the 20th century.
On the flip side, the Civil Rights movement here in the U.S. started as a beacon of hope for ending discrimination based on race, sex, national origin, or religion. However, that has now unfortunately morphed into a self-absorbed “it’s all about me” (and quite a bit about group identity as well) – which has further morphed into shaky, fallaciously subjective philosophies of “Do whatever makes you happy”, and that egalitarianism will somehow solve all of the world’s problems.
This is where spiritual-but-not-religious and agnosticism enter the picture. The people who wear these labels are often similar in the following ways: They reject organized religion; they generally avoid any spiritual movement that has guard rails; they like having the freedom to have doubts; and they tend to take a more secular approach to morality and ideological thinking, including the following arguments against religion:
*I am a good person – Why do I need religion?
*If only one religion is right, then why are there so many different religions, all of which claim to be the true religion?
*Don’t we all have our own personal truth, which is what matters most?
*I think the central figures (Jesus, Muhammed, Buddha, Krishna, etc.) from the various religions were all basically wise teachers whose purpose was to show we are all divine.
*The Universe is the real agent behind spirituality, and we all connect to this spirituality through energy and the Law of Attraction.
*I believe Jesus was a special person, but his story is not original; it is borrowed from many other ancient religions formed in the Mediterranean / Middle East.”
*Figures like Jesus and Buddha represent consciousness – that we need to learn how to transcend into a Nirvana-like consciousness.
*I believe in a mix of ideas: chakras, nature, healing crystals, energy work, reincarnation, and communicating with ghosts.
*Spirituality is ultimately about empowerment and personal growth.
*I simply don’t know whether God / a higher power exists
OR
*I simply don’t care.
So, where exactly did we as humans go way off the rails – in dozens of different directions – about spirituality? Sure, we are all entitled to believe what we want to believe. I certainly do not agree with forcing people into belief systems. However, we have a serious mess of semantics on our hands: Truth is now a wonder wheel of exciting, mystical ideas presented as all being equally valid paths to connecting with the Divine. Did I not say we are living in the age of Baskin Robbins truth?
Yet what exactly defines truth? Carl Jung, the well-known depth psychologist from the 20th century, proposed that the truth about our spirituality, how we should engage with other humans and the world around, how we can find our archetypal purpose in life, is embedded in what is called the “collective unconscious”. The idea is that, from the earliest stages of evolution, humans have had an inherent understanding of transcendental thinking, morality, and spiritual pursuits. In other words, we are hardwired to be spiritual beings. Moreover, we all, at some level, subscribe to universal truths about human existence.
The collective unconscious idea helped influence many historians of religion – most notably, Mircea Eliade and Joseph Campbell. While these two historians have been mistakenly lumped into New Age thinking, it is not so surprising that their ideas would get conflated into “just believe in whatever works for you”.
If you are familiar with Joseph Campbell’s works and lectures (including interviews with Bill Moyer in “The Power of Myth” television series), Campbell does deserve props for well articulating the psychological components of spirituality and religion. Yet one of the biggest takeaways that spiritual-but-not-religious and agnostics embrace is Campbell’s now famous advice: “Follow your bliss”. In fact, that is also the central message in the popular novel “The Alchemist” by Paul Coelho.
Not that the advice is all bad: Yes, we should all strive to have an Earthly purpose that connects to our spirituality. However, when it turns into more of “this is what I deserve”; or “If I keep thinking I am meant to have that shiny new car, the Law of Attraction will provide”; or “the Universe will guide me”; or teetering on arrogant, self-congratulating platitudes, such as “I am blessed!” or “I am a spiritual warrior”; or that morality is forever malleable – then how is spiritual-but-not-religious a healthy path to truth?
As with our current, sadly broken situation with dating and relationships, the spiritual-but-not-religious and agnostic movements have centered more around rights and privileges, and less about deep responsibility and accountability to each other. Hence why so many people run from organized religion: On one hand, the Christian faith, for example, strongly encourages personal responsibility and being structured about that. On the other hand, we are all individuals – meaning that some people are more orderly, while others are more carefree, and still others are somewhere in-between.
Yet, while it is important that we each have our own individual identity, *everyone* needs a bit of structure to their life if they plan on exercising responsibility. Even Taoists have recognized this – for the past 2000 years now – that we must not devolve completely into chaos, that order must not be subverted to a disarray of irresponsibility and recklessness. But that IS our current situation: We are not making responsibility and healthy order a top priority. Yes, people do demonstrate some of this in their professions (though the money incentive usually goes along with that), and there is no shortage of parents (albeit single) who shout from the rooftops that their kids are #1 and get great care. However, what about how all humans, in all forms of relationships, interact with each other? Why are terms such as “ghosting” or “flaking” so popular nowadays?
Ok, you may be asking: How does this relate to spiritual-but-not-religious and agnostic folks? Answer: It circles back to personal views superseding all other necessary components to society. Here in Western society, Individuals are now so staunch about their individuality, or even bizarrely about group identity, that they have now ironically developed biases towards systems they think have an agenda against them (though that is often not the case).
Case in point: Views about the Catholic Church: “There are too many rules”. Or that devout Catholic Christians are “religious nuts who drank the Kool-Aid”. Or “If God is everywhere, then I don’t need to go to a church to connect with Him.” And so on and so forth.
And just like dating and relationships now, we can boil much of this down to a blatant fear of commitment. Many people have become so fearful of the words “organized religion”, they are grasping for any outlets that accommodate their needs over the commitment itself.
Now, this is not to dismiss the people who have faced disgusting behaviors in religious sects, and they are now having to sort through all the seriously disturbing trauma that can go with that. But most people who leave religion do not leave because of abuse: They leave because they want religion to work for them and not the other way around.
This is a fundamental problem to all of humanity. And it is why the Biblical story of the “fall” is the story that keeps on giving – and not in a good way. Namely, the more we keep focusing on our individual entitlement, the more we keep supporting the same grave mistake depicted in the story of Adam and Eve: It was Adam and Eve’s turn to arrogant entitlement that became the very bane of human existence.
Even many atheists and agnostics understand well that self-absorbed, entitled behaviors can take a wrecking ball to morality and interpersonal relationships.
And this all leads to a crucial point when dialoging with spiritual-but-not-religious and agnostics:
When defending the Catholic faith, show that, at the minimum, Catholicism is rooted in *responsibility*.
Our faith is not about beliefs that work best for us. And it is not just about the “personal relationship with Jesus” mantra perpetuated by other Christian denominations.
It is about *giving* our spiritual nature to God. It is about connecting His Son’s sacrifice and resurrection for everyone one of us. It is about honoring that sacrifice and resurrection by embracing the Sacraments. It is about following a Catechism that the early Church fathers painstakingly compiled, so that the Magisterium can effectively – and consistently – teach a Gospel that has not changed within the Church for now 2000 years. (That alone is practically a miracle to human social evolution!)
And finally, it is about the Mass. The time where we gather to turn ourselves outward to God, to make the Mass about Him. Yes, I just said that. The Mass is about God. It is about celebrating our Salvation. It is NOT the “What’s in it for ME” show.
Yes, it is about *responsibility*. And you can see that strong sense of responsibility in most devout Catholics. When we reach that kind of responsibility, we become stewards to each other. We make a point of caring for one another’s well-being. We think deeply about how our actions will affect others, and how they will affect our relationship with God. We truly do not want to leave anyone abandoned. We embrace the sanctity of life. We strive – everyday – to be responsible.
Responses to Spiritual-but-not-religious
(Keith Nester): https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jv09Hvjcebg
(Catholic Answers): https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2NiPmRly4ps
(Bishop Robert Barron): https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tSVlZDnu-Uw
Were the Gospel writer’s lying about Jesus?
(Catholic Answers): https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DT7umeSoEJY&t=208s
Does the Resurrection rip-off pagan myths?
(Catholic Answers): https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SmAmoN5hOio
Is Jesus a rip-off of earlier pagan gods?
(Trent Horn): https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jCAn21dUgrs