August 25, 2005
-
So, earlier I asked folks to comment on the difference between 'religious' and 'spiritual.'
It was a trick question.
I've been thinking about this issue because of the rise of the religious right in this country. I've been trying to understand how you can ostensibly proclaim to follow the path of the World's Most Important Hippie and then, for instance, call for the assassination of Hugo Chavez because he potentially (not actually, mind you) threatens the US' oil supply. This single example of a certain kind of hypocrisy sticks out like a sore thumb, but there's an ambient temperature of similar minor hypocrisy in America. As a culture, we're choosing ignorance over science, and shouting matches over consensus, to our own detriment.
But those are all the physical manifestations of what I want to talk about. They exist in the world because the principle is not understood. And, according to me, the principle is that spirituality differs from religion in that it is work. It's hard. It requires effort. Religion you can just show up and get blessed.
So the difference between 'religious' and 'spiritual' is work. But it's not a necessary difference; some religions demand spiritual work, and are, in fact, quite effective vehicles for that work. But many are not.
When I asked the question before, most respondants made a distinction between internal and external. 'Spiritual' meant internal, whereas 'religious' meant external. There was also a line drawn between feeling and a sort of social ritual. Another line was drawn between a kind of spiritual formlessness and religious form. If spirituality is internal and unformed and feeling, and religion is external and active (and, by implication, unfeeling), where do the two meet?
To my way of thinking, the spiritual is just another aspect of being. I have thoughts and feelings and a physical and spiritual manifestation. In this sense, meditation is no different than brushing your teeth. Christians often talk about the soul, and this is their metaphor for the spiritual aspect; their spiritual hygiene program involves giving oneself over to the path of Christ, and thus salvation. Which is actually really beautiful and courageous. By doing this, one can (in theory) begin to see the spiritual implication of everything in reality. My critique of this form of Christianity, however, is that it's like teaching a little kid that learning to ride a bike with training wheels is the same thing as learning to ride without them. Which might be a little harsh, but I have to state it plainly.
The point here, however, is not to critique Christianity. Christianity is an easy target; there are some real... well.. I don't even know how to say it politely. I mean, start with Fred Phelps. There's a lot of creepy shit out there.
The point is that your garden-variety Fred Phelps (and let's hope there's no garden where these are growing) has done zero spiritual work. Spiritual awareness challenges you to operate with integrity. It's the judicial branch of your multicameral self. This applies to the huge glaring hypocrisies I mention (Phelps, Robertson), and the smaller, easier-to-digest ones (homophobia, racism, partisanship, you name it). These types of things are examples of a lack of spiritual exercise. They're examples of people trying to run the spiritual marathon without having trained a day in their life.
And I have to say that the training is available everywhere you look. Everything is an opportunity. All phenomena are a potential treadmill on which to test your spiritual cardio. That this goes unrecognized is, I think, the reason so many people have a spiritual spare tire.
Comments (5)
I think most people walkin' around here have a spiritual FLAT tire, actually.
And I'd like to argue semantics and say that homophobia and racism are NOT easier-to-digest than Phelps or Robertson. I'd also like to argue that Phelps AND Robertson are homophobia and racism personified. But yes. Hypocrasy. It's that flat tire of religion.
I know people who are religious who really ARE spiritual, as well. They walk the talk. Good for them. But I know too few and far between.
One thing I am always pleased with (and I mean this sincerely) is how good, thinking people can and will disagree.
I find it very interesting and though-provoking that you and I have nearly opposite views of what spirituality and religion do--I find religion to be more work that merely "being spiritual", and you come down squarely on the other side. That's pretty cool when you think about it.
What we're saying isn't opposite, Smarticus. We're both saying that religion can represent spiritual work. I'm refining the term 'spiritual,' changing it from 'being spritual' to 'accepting the challenge that spiritual awareness represents.'
And see, I'm refining the word religious. Like, your examples of Phelps and Robertson? To me, they are not religious, because they don't seem to have any spiritual foundation from which their works spring.
Anyway, my comment was mostly on how interesting divergent opinions can be--and how when they are handled well, one doesn't feel the need to get all frothy and defensive and OMG WE ARE ARGUING ON THE INTERNETS about it all.
I think a lot of people fall into the trap of thinking that being somehow invested in religion equates with spiritual awareness or development or whatever. This is obviously what has happened to Robertson and Phelps. It's a dark, dark path, and the tragedy is that it's dark because the person walking it keeps turning out the light.
Comments are closed.