"Spiritual but not religious" and "I'm not religious, I just follow Jesus!"

[All Along The Watchtower]

These two viewpoints are strikingly similar in many ways.

Both are, at the very least, suspicious of traditional (Christian) religion and all that that traditionalism entails; denominationalism, more formal/traditional liturgy, confessionalism, an emphasis on religious communities' historical roots, and so on. Both put personal (emphasis) on spiritual "experience." Both are extremely individualistic - which, amusingly, leads to the situation where everyone ends up doing the same thing substantively in spite of superficial differences in personal expression and stylistic preferences. Both are rooted, fundamentally, in American evangelical Protestantism (and, despite the ahistorical consciousness of their adherents, both certainly have historical roots that go as far back as the Second Great Awakening). And both have grown rapidly in popularity within the past four or five decades in the United States, and among the same demographics, more or less: young, white, middle-class "seekers" who feel, for one reason or another, alienated from the historical local/regional cultural traditions (or frankly, what's left of them) of the United States.

Finally, neither perspective is particularly original or clever, although I'm sure many of the people who say these buzzwords feel otherwise. But from my perspective, secular, Western New Age "spiritualism" and contemporary, non-denominational, "I only need Jesus!" evangelical Protestantism are two sides of the same coin. And that coin is so utterly ignorant of history (even its own) and so lacking in self-awareness that it's actually rather hilarious. Though still obnoxious, of course.

Just remember: the Jesus movement started in the late 1960s and 1970s on the West Coast (particularly in places like San Francisco). As if we needed any more evidence...

jao

[World politics is up Schmitt creek]

FF OP. Don't really have much to add to this, except this relevant link.

[Antonio the Sixth]

I feel like "spiritual but not religious" is the sort of phrase that can mean a myriad of different things. There are probably many people who interpret it in the way Nathan's article satirizes, but I'm sure there are also many who take this a bit more seriously. Generally, I think that an individual quest for metaphysical meaning is a valuable thing, and I don't think it has to be antithetical to organized religion.

I guess that my own kinda weird and confusing (to myself firsthand!) attitude toward religion might get me lumped into this "spiritual but not religious" category, but that's not how I'd want to define myself., because he aspects of religion that I find most fascinating aren't those that are typically associated with "spirituality".

[MASHED POTATOES. VOTE!]

Personally I reject any spirituality.

[Famous Mortimer]

People who reject Christianity but respect Jesus are idiots. What about him do they like? His predictions about the apocalypse? His position against divorce? His saying you won't be with your spouse in the afterlife? Or just the stuff about being nice to people? Because plenty of people have said "be nice" without also claiming to be God. If you don't believe Jesus was God, that's fine, but if you don't believe he was God, nothing left about him is very compelling. He was either insane or trite.

[World politics is up Schmitt creek]

People who reject Christianity but respect Jesus are idiots. What about him do they like? His predictions about the apocalypse? His position against divorce? His saying you won't be with your spouse in the afterlife? Or just the stuff about being nice to people? Because plenty of people have said "be nice" without also claiming to be God. If you don't believe Jesus was God, that's fine, but if you don't believe he was God, nothing left about him is very compelling. He was either insane or trite.

That's not typically what 'I'm not religious, I just follow Jesus!' means in this context.

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

People who reject Christianity but respect Jesus are idiots. What about him do they like? His predictions about the apocalypse? His position against divorce? His saying you won't be with your spouse in the afterlife? Or just the stuff about being nice to people? Because plenty of people have said "be nice" without also claiming to be God. If you don't believe Jesus was God, that's fine, but if you don't believe he was God, nothing left about him is very compelling. He was either insane or trite.

That's not typically what 'I'm not religious, I just follow Jesus!' means in this context.

Yeah, it this context it typically means an aversion to ritual.

[FEMA Camp Administrator]

One of the regrettable, disgusting aspects of contemporary, "individualistic" Americanism.

[RFayette]

People who reject Christianity but respect Jesus are idiots. What about him do they like? His predictions about the apocalypse? His position against divorce? His saying you won't be with your spouse in the afterlife? Or just the stuff about being nice to people? Because plenty of people have said "be nice" without also claiming to be God. If you don't believe Jesus was God, that's fine, but if you don't believe he was God, nothing left about him is very compelling. He was either insane or trite.

That's not typically what 'I'm not religious, I just follow Jesus!' means in this context.

True.  Many fundamentalist/Evangelical Protestant Christians say something similar to this.  I remember Ray Comfort often would try to build rapport with atheists by saying, "I'm with you - I hate religion.  It's filled with hypocrisy and self-righteousness, there's nothing good that comes from religion."  I always found that bizarre that he would simply say "religion" instead of "false religion," because the book of James would refute his separation of Christianity from religion.

[World politics is up Schmitt creek]

People who reject Christianity but respect Jesus are idiots. What about him do they like? His predictions about the apocalypse? His position against divorce? His saying you won't be with your spouse in the afterlife? Or just the stuff about being nice to people? Because plenty of people have said "be nice" without also claiming to be God. If you don't believe Jesus was God, that's fine, but if you don't believe he was God, nothing left about him is very compelling. He was either insane or trite.

That's not typically what 'I'm not religious, I just follow Jesus!' means in this context.

True.  Many fundamentalist/Evangelical Protestant Christians say something similar to this.  I remember Ray Comfort often would try to build rapport with atheists by saying, "I'm with you - I hate religion.  It's filled with hypocrisy and self-righteousness, there's nothing good that comes from religion."  I always found that bizarre that he would simply say "religion" instead of "false religion," because the book of James would refute his separation of Christianity from religion.

I sincerely hope the atheists didn't buy it.

[Filuwaúrdjan]

I sincerely hope the atheists didn't buy it.

Particularly as its blatantly antisemitic.

[World politics is up Schmitt creek]

I sincerely hope the atheists didn't buy it.

Particularly as its blatantly antisemitic.

Yes, as is often the way with Christian rhetoric about 'legalism' or 'the Old Law' or even 'works righteousness'.

[DC Al Fine]

I sincerely hope the atheists didn't buy it.

Particularly as its blatantly antisemitic.

Yes, as is often the way with Christian rhetoric about 'legalism' or 'the Old Law' or even 'works righteousness'.

That's a bit of a stretch. The sort of Evangelical who says this stuff is prone to dispensationalism and therefore tends to loooovvee Jewish people.

I get the impression sometimes that people outside of the religious right's perception of Evangelicalism/Fundamentalism hasn't changed since the 1920's. e.g. People seriously concerned in 2012 about whether Evangelicals would vote for Rick Santorum, or finding antisemitism around every corner.

If anything Evangelical Protestants are too philosemitic, to the point where it conflicts with the Gospel.

[World politics is up Schmitt creek]

I sincerely hope the atheists didn't buy it.

Particularly as its blatantly antisemitic.

Yes, as is often the way with Christian rhetoric about 'legalism' or 'the Old Law' or even 'works righteousness'.

That's a bit of a stretch. The sort of Evangelical who says this stuff is prone to dispensationalism and therefore tends to loooovvee Jewish people.

I get the impression sometimes that people outside of the religious right's perception of Evangelicalism/Fundamentalism hasn't changed since the 1920's. e.g. People seriously concerned in 2012 about whether Evangelicals would vote for Rick Santorum, or finding antisemitism around every corner.

If anything Evangelical Protestants are too philosemitic, to the point where it conflicts with the Gospel.

I'm actually referring to the versions of this rhetoric I've encountered in liberal mainline circles more than anything else.

[DC Al Fine]

I sincerely hope the atheists didn't buy it.

Particularly as its blatantly antisemitic.

Yes, as is often the way with Christian rhetoric about 'legalism' or 'the Old Law' or even 'works righteousness'.

That's a bit of a stretch. The sort of Evangelical who says this stuff is prone to dispensationalism and therefore tends to loooovvee Jewish people.

I get the impression sometimes that people outside of the religious right's perception of Evangelicalism/Fundamentalism hasn't changed since the 1920's. e.g. People seriously concerned in 2012 about whether Evangelicals would vote for Rick Santorum, or finding antisemitism around every corner.

If anything Evangelical Protestants are too philosemitic, to the point where it conflicts with the Gospel.

I'm actually referring to the versions of this rhetoric I've encountered in liberal mainline circles more than anything else.

Interesting. Can't say I've ever heard a mainline talk like that. Could you elaborate?

[World politics is up Schmitt creek]

I sincerely hope the atheists didn't buy it.

Particularly as its blatantly antisemitic.

Yes, as is often the way with Christian rhetoric about 'legalism' or 'the Old Law' or even 'works righteousness'.

That's a bit of a stretch. The sort of Evangelical who says this stuff is prone to dispensationalism and therefore tends to loooovvee Jewish people.

I get the impression sometimes that people outside of the religious right's perception of Evangelicalism/Fundamentalism hasn't changed since the 1920's. e.g. People seriously concerned in 2012 about whether Evangelicals would vote for Rick Santorum, or finding antisemitism around every corner.

If anything Evangelical Protestants are too philosemitic, to the point where it conflicts with the Gospel.

I'm actually referring to the versions of this rhetoric I've encountered in liberal mainline circles more than anything else.

Interesting. Can't say I've ever heard a mainline talk like that. Could you elaborate?

Apparently it's most common in emergent circles but I've heard it from certain UCC types too and I'm more familiar with that side of things. It's essentially antinomianism with a makeover. In practice it becomes essentially a slightly more theologically sophisticated (or at least rhetorically adroit) version of the 'oh that's only in (((Leviticus)))'/'EVEN THE MOST CONSERVATIVE PART OF THE BIBLE [says or doesn't say X]' arguments you hear from the left wing of the Church. It's used in way more contexts than I'd have expected before I started attending a mainline divinity school; it's not just sex that gets discussed this way.

I disagree that conservative Evangelical philosemitism (which I have encountered, but mostly in the form of my ex-girlfriend's stories about her friends and family) is excessive as such; I'd contend it's the wrong kind of appreciation for Judaism. I don't want to extend this contention into some sort of 'appropriation' argument, only to say that actual Jews (in my experience) tend to find it off-putting and dishonest.

[RI]

It's not really the same thing, but I sometimes feel the Latin Catholic Church is too "legalist" and am drawn toward Eastern Rite mysticism.

[World politics is up Schmitt creek]

It's not really the same thing, but I sometimes feel the Latin Catholic Church is too "legalist" and am drawn toward Eastern Rite mysticism.

Same tbh, although I think the dichotomy here isn't so much legalist/not-legalist as juridical/therapeutic.

[Bojack Horseman]

I've been thinking about maybe joining the Episcopalian Church as they seem to be the most liberal and accepting to the views I have on religion (If there's a god, he is not all-knowing, nor all powerful. If he is, then he needs to start checking his spam folder more often.)

I really don't know what I am anymore. I don't believe in the virgin birth, I don't believe in Jesus' resurrection, I view him about the same as I do Gandhi: someone who gave really good life advice.

[FEMA Camp Administrator]

I've been thinking about maybe joining the Episcopalian Church as they seem to be the most liberal and accepting to the views I have on religion (If there's a god, he is not all-knowing, nor all powerful. If he is, then he needs to start checking his spam folder more often.)

I really don't know what I am anymore. I don't believe in the virgin birth, I don't believe in Jesus' resurrection, I view him about the same as I do Gandhi: someone who gave really good life advice.

Then don't join a church.

[The world will shine with light in our nightmare]

I've been thinking about maybe joining the Episcopalian Church as they seem to be the most liberal and accepting to the views I have on religion (If there's a god, he is not all-knowing, nor all powerful. If he is, then he needs to start checking his spam folder more often.)

I really don't know what I am anymore. I don't believe in the virgin birth, I don't believe in Jesus' resurrection, I view him about the same as I do Gandhi: someone who gave really good life advice.

Then don't join a church.

In fairness, this is probably what 80% of Unitarian Universalist-type Christians believe.  I acquiesce in saying there's probably a good number of Episcopal churches with the same attitude, though.

[World politics is up Schmitt creek]

I have enough respect and affection left for Episcopalianism/Anglicanism and still care enough about it to really not want it to go even further down that road, but I guess it's not really any of my business any more.

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

I've been thinking about maybe joining the Episcopalian Church as they seem to be the most liberal and accepting to the views I have on religion (If there's a god, he is not all-knowing, nor all powerful. If he is, then he needs to start checking his spam folder more often.)

I really don't know what I am anymore. I don't believe in the virgin birth, I don't believe in Jesus' resurrection, I view him about the same as I do Gandhi: someone who gave really good life advice.

Then don't join a church.

In fairness, this is probably what 80% of Unitarian Universalist-type Christians believe.  I acquiesce in saying there's probably a good number of Episcopal churches with the same attitude, though.

I'm fairly conservative as far as a UU goes and even as a UU Christian goes.  I'm an Adoptionist in my Christology so I don't see the need for a virgin birth, but I don't entirely discount the possibility. Of the two nativity stories, I don't believe at all in the one in Luke, but that's mainly because it sets up John the Baptist as Jesus' cousin.  Given that both Mark and Matthew name his brothers and mention his sisters, it's doubtful their writers would have omitted that John the Baptist was his cousin.

Jesus' resurrection is too central to the Christian faith to be discounted, tho my interpretation is not that God required the sacrifice of Jesus to reconcile God and Man, but that Man required it because of his inability to believe in the freely offered Grace of God.

[DavidB.]

One of the regrettable, disgusting aspects of contemporary, "individualistic" Americanism.

Hardly an American phenomenon. I hear this surprisingly often too.

[Figueira]

I could be considered the first one, but it depends hugely on one's definition of "spiritual."