“I am spiritual, but not religious.”
You have heard people say this. You may have said it yourself.
In the evangelical church I sometimes heard a reaction against this kind of statement. The accusation was that the statement was self-focussed, a way of rejecting commitment or community or responsibility. Another criticism was that the statement put the self at the centre of understanding transcendence or the world, like a kind of spiritual smorgasbord, taking a little from here and a little from there.
The sentiment makes clear that many people want to reject much of what they have seen from religion without rejecting spirituality or God.
It may interest you to know that some committed Christian spiritual and theological leaders have also warned against religion. They have done this while still claiming Christian faith, even while deeply valuing and remaining part of the church. This way of approaching faith has been called, “subversive orthodoxy”, and I think that there is a need for it in our culture and world today.
Ivan Illich, who reflected this subversive way of properly believing said that it is wrong to make a fetish of the Church rule, but just as bad to reject the Church entirely.
Illich, who was a devoted Catholic, said that the Church faces the world, “with an obsolete structure designed to keep its members in childish thrall - a structure designed to replace the freedom of the laity (regular non-clergy) rather than encourage it.” Illich’s friend and colleague Barbara Duden once said about Illich, “A less religious man I have never known.” (quoted in David Cayley, “Ivan Illich: An Intellectual Journey”)
“Faith,” Illich said, “is not the acceptance of a doctrine, it is a commitment to search, with dedication and risk for personal and intimate identification with another person. This other person is ultimately, brother and friend, the Lord and Son of God.” Cayley said that in Illich’s faith “the gateway to this ultimate and comprehensive ‘other’ may be initially any other person.”
Christian theologian Karl Barth also warned about the dangers of religion. He said that religion is humanity’s attempt to evade the uncertainty and disquiet about God, history, and meaning. Religion placates this uncertainty by creating a kind of order. It adorns itself with feelings and symbols and morality and dogma in order to cover up its own relativity (and uncertainty). Against this, Barth issued a warning. He said that “religion’s existence is only justified when it continually overcomes itself”. I think that this might be a good consideration when choosing a church. You might ask, “Do you believe in just the same way that you used to believe?” If the answer is yes, this may not be a strength. Novelty for novelty’s sake or for “relevance” is not a virtue, but neither is traditionalism. Religion must always accept that it is dangerous to assume that it is right. It must seek to point BEYOND itself. God is wholly other and thus can be contained by no religious system.
So, maybe “I am spiritual, but not religious” can actually mean something real. I might put it like this, “I am religious, but not religious.”