Let’s say that your friend says to you that he (or she) is “spiritual” but not a “religious” person.
What is the problem with that statement?
As I had stated elsewhere, the devil is "spiritual."
Good point, Karen.
One other aspect on the problem of being simply spiritual is the idea of a desire to avoid relationship; to be unwilling to do for the sake of another. Lack of commitment is written all over that hollow assertion. It's like saying, "I love apple pie, but I want mine without the apples". Or, "I'm a marital person; I love the married life, but I prefer to be that way without a spouse". This is maybe still a growing trend in certain forms of more non-denominational church goers (if there really is such a thing as "non-denominational" - but hey, if there is, I guess we Catholics have the distinct privilege to say we are "pre-denominational" since we were first! Ha! Take that, Protestants!). Anyway, about a decade ago, or so, it became hip to say, "I don't need religion, I only need Jesus". Sounds pure, eh? Why should someone be bogged down with rules and criteria to meet established by some group of guys who say, "Jesus wants you to do this"? it is no mere coincidence that this same sentiment builds as the rate of marriage drops. Lack of commitment; lack of sacrifice - wait - lack of sacrifice? Isn't that what Jesus asks of us? "If any man would come after me, let him deny himself and take up his cross and follow me" (Mk. 8:34). Do what Jesus would do - DWJWD (Hmm, I wonder if that might go well on a wrist band?). What did Jesus do? HE WENT TO CHURCH (synagogue) AND FOLLOWED A RELIGION! Luke, chapter 2 begs the question: "Did you not know that I must be in my Father's house"? Two chapters later we see him not only in the temple, but actively participating in the liturgy. This wasn't just a passing thing for Jesus either because in John, chapter 2 we hear of Jesus' indignation towards those who were making his Father's house "a house of trade". Jesus was a faithful Jew even knowing the priests weren't always living their vocation rightly. He told his disciples, "practice and observe whatever they tell you, but not what they do; for they preach, but do not practice" (Mt. 23:3). So Jesus was actually instructing his followers to belong to a religion? That makes so much sense now with what he says in Mt. 16 when he tells Peter that upon him he will build his Church. A church would serve no purpose if it weren't necessary to belong to.
This is in one sense similar to the sola fide (we are saved by faith alone) argument. "I don't want to be held to account! I shouldn't have to demonstrate my faith"! Can you imagine this setting in a marriage? "What do you mean 'if I loved you I would come home and spend time with you at least once a week'? Geeze, you're asking a lot from me. And then you would probably want me to recognize you for who you are too, I bet, and actually get to know you! Well that's a bit much to ask from me! I will be in a relationship with you on my terms, when I feel like it and I expect you to be okay with that"!
Yuuup, that's pretty much just being spiritual.
