Last week’s post about Ryan Burge’s categories of non-believers led me down a different rabbit hole, the category of “Spiritual but Not Religious” (SBNRs). For many people who attend churches, they conflate the categories of “religious” and “spiritual” in ways that are not warranted. When you separate the categories, it’s pretty easy to see that some people are great at performing in the religious structure (socially, following the norms and rules, and feeling good feelings about their compliance) but not necessarily spiritual. My first thought was “Is the difference between being religous and spiritual one’s empathy?” The people I know who are religious but not spiritual often do fit that description, but that’s not to say that everyone who identifies as spiritual but not religious is above-average in the empathy department.
So let’s dig in a little more. Those who identify as SBNRs usually have one or more of three deeper orientations:
Internal authority. “Truth comes from my experience, not an institution.” These are people who rely on their own wisdom and insights over the traditions or authority of an external source like a church. Here’s a Mormon example for you. If asked “What is the greatest gift you have as an LDS church member?” a person who prizes internal authority might answer “the gift of the Holy Ghost” or “direct access to God through prayer,” but a religious person might say “the counsel of prophets and apostles” or “the Book of Mormon.” If a man said “access to the Priesthood,” it could mean either depending on what he really means by that. If a woman said “access to the Priesthood,” it would not mean the same thing.
Meaning without structure. This refers to the feeling of awe in nature or in contemplating the universe or even science. It can also refer to personal intuition and wisdom. For some it includes personal rituals that are meaningful to the individual but didn’t originate in a structured environment (a tattoo, a special place, talking to a loved one who has died).
Identity and autonomy. “I’m not part of a group that tells me what to believe.” This is that libertarian streak that is prevalent among those who have left religion. Not being labelled in a social group that isn’t a perfect fit is something they reject because it infringes on their sense of self, their authenticity.
People who leave or reject religion take the SBNR path usually due to the following factors. See which ones are familiar:
Disillusionment with religion. They see the hypocrisy, harm, or control exerted by religion. They want a life of meaning, but don’t like what instiutions are offering because of all the accompanying baggage.
Need for flexibility. They may feel discomfort with rigid truth claims or dogmatic teachings. They would prefer a more exploratory approach that embraces ambiguity.
Trauma or negative experiences. Some who came from authority or shame-based systems ultimately reject that controlling atmospere, but still retain their own ability to find meaning.
Cultural shift. Sometimes the culture within a church changes over time, or the individual’s needs changes, and this results in a shift away from religion. We’ve talked a lot here about how some church members have become alienated as the church’s MAGA affiliation was revealed.
Back to my original question, empathy is a part of spirituality in that it’s how one relates to other people, but SBNRs choose that path because of how they relate to meaning, existence and the unknown. While there’s often overlap, they are not the same thing. Additionally, when someone says they are spiritual but not religious, it may be mostly about boundary setting–with religion on the outside of their spirituality. They believe in something, but they have found religion to be untrustworthy in defining the spiritual. It’s not so much an affirmation of what their spirituality is as it is a rejection of what their religion was.
Within SBNRs, there are several sub-categories to consider.
The Recovering Religious. These are most common among those raised in a high-demand religion. They usually left due to disillusionment, harm or a mismatch with their values. They still believe in a higher power and have a moral framework and sense of meaning. They can be very emotionally charged in their rejection of their religion of origin because they are focused on healing and reclaiming their identity.
The Intuitive Mystic. These folks focus on their own felt experience to define their spirituality. They are open-minded and exploratory. They seek energy, interconnectedness, elevated consciousness, and sometimes metaphysical ideas. They are likely to use meditation, mindfulness, and connecting to nature as well as personal rituals. They are less likely to care about a set of beliefs or logic or doctrine, instead enjoying experiences that resonate for them.
The Ethical Humanist. This is probably the group I was mostly thinking about when I posited my theory about empathy. They may not actually have any specific belief in a higher power, but instead are focused on how people can help other people. “What really matters is how we treat each other.” Their key focus is on ethical behavior, not metaphysics. They care about human dignity, compassion and connection.
The Agnostic Seeker. “I don’t know what’s true, but I’m open.” They aren’t sure about God or anything supernatural, remaining curious rather than committed. They are comfortable shrugging and saying “I don’t know” when asked religious questions. They can use religion as a Whitman’s Sampler, skipping what they don’t like, and trying new things when offered.
The Anti-Institutionalist. Their core belief is that institutions are corrupt and have a corrupting effect on the people in them. They may believe in God or spirituality, but they distrust organized systems, particularly religion but perhaps extending to other systems like government. They value their autonomy and independence and react poorly to any perceived control or manipulation. They are defined more by what they reject than by what they believe.
The Wellness Spiritualist. Tik-Tok and the current CDC are full of these guys, and they have got supplements to sell you! I kid, but there is overlap here. They are usually interested in yoga, breathwork, mindfulness and self-improvement. They may also have ideas about energy, healing and alignment. This group is very common in Western culture, and they are not always deeply philosophical.
The Cultural Adapter. “I inherited some beliefs, and I interpret them in my own way.” They are still culturally attached to a religious tradition but don’t fully accept its doctrines. Cafeteria Mormons (or Catholics, or whatever) fit nicely into this category. They are selective in their beliefs and practices, using what works for them and discarding what doesn’t. There is some acceptance of this approach even at the highest levels in the church–I’ve heard leaders encourage people to pay attention to the talks that resonate and ignore the ones that don’t. That’s basically what this group does.
The Detached Non-Believer. They have little or no belief in the supernatural, but are too non-confrontational to claim the label “atheist.” They prefer to call themselves SBNR to avoid stigma or conflict.
In short, people who claim to be “spiritual but not religious” may mean many different things, so you can’t paint them with a broad brush. Consider how they may feel across these dimensions:
Belief in the Supernatural
- Strong – maybe an Intuitive Mystic
- Weak or Uncertain – maybe an Agnostic Seeker
- Minimal – Ethical Humanist or Detached Non-Believer
Relationship to Authority
- Rejecting – Anti-Institutionalist or Recovering Religious
- Neutral – Agnostic Seeker or Wellness Spiritualist
Motivation
- Healing – Recovering Religious
- Meaning – Mystic or Seeker
- Ethics – Humanist
- Well-being – Wellness
- Identity/social positioning – Detached
When someone says they are SBNR they might mean “I believe in a universal consciousness that guides reality” or they might just mean “I try to be a good person, and I don’t like organized religion.”
- Have you interacted with individuals in these groups?
- Do any of these sound more appealing to you personally?
- Do you think some who are in religion also exhibit these tendencies?
Discuss.
Wheat & Tares 
This is a wonderful post. As usual, Ms. Hawk has done a fantastic job.
I would say there is an overriding concern for many these days that fits into Muriel categories listed above. There are many who are Spiritual, but not Religious, because they are fed up with the Church’s refusal to speak out on the important issues of the day.
Abraham Lincoln famously stated “Whenever the vicious portion of the population shall be permitted to gather in bands of hundreds and thousands, and burn churches, ravage and rob provision stores, throw printing presses into rivers, shoot editors, and hang and burn obnoxious persons at pleasure, and with impunity; depend on it, this government cannot last.”
All of these things are happening today, but on a global level. While the Pope does not hesitate to speak out against these evils, all we get from Church leaders is crickets.
This silence has convinced many these days that they are better off forging their own Spiritual path. The Church must be a leader if it wants people to be Religious. Being as silent as a croc that is missing its partner won’t be enough.
Ultimately, truth matters in religious practice as it anchors faith in something greater than habit or tradition. Within Mormonism, the idea of being SBNR simply doesn’t fit. The Church emphasizes both personal spirituality and organized religious practice. Mormon theology teaches that spirituality is something that must be strengthened through religious commitment, not separated from it.
Truth plays a vitally important role in all religions because it shapes belief and behavior. Religion is concerned with questions about reality. If the foundations are not grounded in truth, religious practices become empty ritual and misplaced devotion.
Mormons are quick to claim their version of truth gives direction and meaning. Ironically, it is a relatively simple process (from both unbiased academic and logical perspectives) to prove the BOM is not a translation from ancient plates. It is simply a 19th century treatise packed with inconsistencies and historical anomalies. Therefore, the entire house of cards called Mormonism collapses due to the foundation not being based on truth.
Organized religions can provide community, shared practices, and ethical frameworks. But without structure, it becomes vague and inconsistent. It’s too easy to selectively choose comforting ideas without a critical examination. Being SBNR and Mormon is an existential struggle filled with unending tension and questions. Believe me, I’ve tried.
John Charity Spring:
Muriel categories??
Also, I’m sure you must have some original thoughts that would be interesting! So please stop posting the exact same Lincoln quote for almost every single post! Yes, it’s good, but once is enough, isn’t it?
There was a sociologist back in the 1980 who studied Mormonism from a sociological point of view. I can’t remember his name. He was teaching a class at my university, as a senior my final semester, with my husband already overseas and me taking 19 hours to finish up so that I could graduate, 4 year degree in less than three years and double major, I could not fit his class in. So, I bought his book. He divided things instead of spiritual and religious, into pious and humanist (??) As DeNovo says above, the Spiritual religious divide in Mormonism doesn’t work, because one proves the other. We are taught early on that the warm fuzzy is telling us that going through the Mormon rituals is the way back to God. As opposed to loving God and our fellow man as the way back to god. So, separating them is a no-no. He put the ceremonies, baptisms, sacrament, covenants, rituals and meetings into “pious” and the emotional, caring for others, and spiritual experiences into “humanist”. He had a little quiz to determine which type you were and said nobody was a pure type, so just do not expect 100 out of 100 of these questions. He stressed that 99% of people *feel* moved/emotion with the rituals like being baptized. They are designed to evoke spiritual feelings. Well, I did get 100 out of 100 on his little quiz. I am pure humanist type, or spiritual. I felt nothing but unloved and unwanted at my baptism, and was horrified by the endowment. But I also emotionally puked over Catholic ceremonies, so it isn’t just Mormon rituals that I reject. There is something about having any kind of ritual that rings false to me. So, I actually react negatively to the pious stuff. I think I still have his book, but if so it is at my summer home in Idaho, not here.
Anyway, I think this was a slightly different way of looking at this divide. And as this sociologist said, most everyone is some of each and feel a spiritual connection with the rituals. After all, the woo-woo people have rituals too.
Great post. I definitely feel I am an SBNR in many ways. Here’s how I’d rate myself on each of your types of SBNRs on a scale of 1-5 (where I feel I match strongly, and 1 I don’t feel I match at all):
The Recovering Religious. 4
The Intuitive Mystic. 2
The Ethical Humanist. 4
The Agnostic Seeker. 5
The Anti-Institutionalist. 3
The Wellness Spiritualist. 2
The Cultural Adapter. 3
The Detached Non-Believer. 1
De Novo, I fully respect that being SBNR and Mormon is an incompatibility and an undesired existential struggle for you. It seems you might say, in the spirit of the 11th article of faith, that your conscience is dictating for you another path. I support you. I agree that truth matters, maybe even that it’s all that matters.
My compatibility between being SBNR and Mormon is rooted in the notion that
a) Truth is greater than ANY institution.
b) Truth is being restored and the restoration is ongoing (Eyring, April 2020) and that the Church of Jesus Christ plays a vital, but non-exclusionary role. You can find plenty of mistaken church leaders who claim an exclusionary role. You can also find plenty that speak and embody an aggregative approach (Hinckley, Oct 2002).
c) all truth may be circumscribed in one great whole.
Another way of saying this might be that all honest paths lead to the same destination, eventually. When we say Jesus Christ is the Way, the Truth and the Light, it doesn’t mean that other ways are wrong, it means that all ways are Christ. Mahayana Buddhists may say that all ways are toward Buddhahood, or rather that there is One Vehicle. To me they are saying the same thing. Whether it’s reincarnation, eternal progression, multiverses, or come what may, we will get there.
So, even if Joseph Smith was inventing, he can still be furthering truth. Anything false will dissolve and anything true will endure. Everything is a house of cards, some are forgotten experiments, some are blueprints.
This does raise conflicts with orthodox or historical interpretations (of any institution). The “existential struggle filled with unending tension and questions” is a beneficial feature. This is part of continuing to engage in a religious system even if I’m unorthodox.
The more important part to me is the grounding/centering of my mystical/spiritual tendencies in the flesh and blood of other human beings. Service, learning, pain and love. Of course you can find these benefits areligiously, more power to you.
My sister is a prime example of SBNR. She formally resigned from the LDS Church almost 20 years ago after a severe falling-out with the Church and its teachings/doctrines, and has had nothing to do with it since, nor does she belong to any church now or subscribe to any specific set of religious teachings. Despite this, she considers herself very spiritual; she prays regularly (to who or what I don’t know), believes in an inclusive afterlife, believes in some form of metaphysical universal connectedness of all living things, and she dabbles in woo-woo and superstitiousness, though not totally invested in that. She claims to feel “connected” to deceased loved ones, and uses terms like “karma” and “vibes” and “the Universe” when speaking of her spirituality. Her spiritual beliefs merge well with her core ethical/moral beliefs of kindness and empathy. Her belief system is entirely her own, so she doesn’t have a specific community of fellow believers to share it with, for better or worse, but she is welcoming and accepting of people of all faiths. Overall, it works for her.
By contrast, I am still a mostly-active Mormon, but very much nuanced/PIMO/non-literal in my belief. You could say I’m “religious but not spiritual”. After my years-long deconstruction, I don’t consider myself to be a spiritual person and never was; supernatural explanations and justifications just don’t resonate with me. I like staying involved in the community, and it’s good for my family, so I play along, but I don’t care for the dogmatic teachings and fear-based doctrines. I’m comfortable with the fact of the Book of Mormon being a 19th-century work of fiction, and I don’t care if I never set foot in another Mormon Temple as long as I live. I don’t need that framework to be a decent, law-abiding, moral human being, and I’ve found that I’m a better person without it. Unlike my sister, this doesn’t always work well for me because of the inauthenticity, as it sometimes requires me to masquerade as an active believing Mormon in order to maintain acceptance.
It’s fascinating that she and I grew up in the same TBM household and this is where we landed, so very different but in some ways quite similar.
JH:
Appreciate your thoughtful comment. You reference: “…it sometimes requires me to masquerade as an active believing Mormon in order to maintain acceptance”. That hits home. I have been biting my tongue for 12 years since being released as bishop of the same ward. For me, it is becoming increasingly difficult to maintain appearances. The inauthenticity in the name of maintaining friendships and community gnaws at my soul.
Being SBNR and outwardly a Mormon is not sustainable. I welcome learning more about similar experiences by W&T readers.
I had an initial shock to my belief (avoiding the loaded term “faith”), about 22 years ago. Studied church history, secular history, more science, and ethics to make sense of my new world. As I’ve learned more, I’ve grown more and more PIMO over time.
I stay because the church provides a built in support group wherever we happen to move. I stay because my wife wants to stay (for now). I stay so I can connect with other nuanced members so we can be there for each other. I stay to gently remind my fellow members that there is more than one way to view the world.
I don’t care about being “authentic” in a church context. The church hasn’t been honest to me, why should I be honest with the church or its agents? We all have masks and hats to wear. If the harm to my loved ones and me start to exceed the benefit, I will retire my church hat and discontinue the use of my church mask.
mountainclimber: I liked your idea of rating how appealing each of these descriptions is on a scale of 1-5, so I thought I’d play along:
– The Recovering Religious. 3. I’ve been up and down on this one, but I have enormous sympathy–to a point–for people in this phase. It feels like a phase, and life is better after this phase.
– The Intuitive Mystic. 2. This one fits in that I do think my own ideas are more valid, at least for me, than someone else’s ideas. I try to be a thoughtful, contemplative person, just like every English major I know. But that word “mystic” is a turn off.
– The Ethical Humanist. 4. To me (and seemingly to Clayton Christensen based on his book about how to invite people to join in church activities), this is the whole point of church–coordinating charitable efforts.
– The Agnostic Seeker. 2. I definitely did my share of reading Eckhart Tolle (mostly while ignoring the pablum on offer at church), and I do still revisit his writings from time to time, so sometimes this one fits.
– The Anti-Institutionalist. 5, even as a full-on Mormon I believed that being in leadership was always a corrupting influence. My mission journals were full of this observation. Unfortunately, I think this makes me a bit of a libertarian, but I still pay taxes and see the benefit of some regulations in polite society, so maybe not.
– The Wellness Spiritualist. 1. Definitely not me. This stuff just seems like snake-oil nonsense 90% of the time, and no, I’m not buying your magical supplements!
– The Cultural Adapter. 2. I am certainly comfortable doing this, but it’s also probably not my first choice for how to spend my day. I enjoy it when I do it, but left to my own, I wouldn’t bother.
– The Detached Non-Believer. 4-5. This has been me at many points in my life. I’m just not that interested in stuff that is unknowable and feels largely made up by other people. (If I’m the one making it up, at least it’s more appealing to me, but even so, that feels kind of pointless).
Hmm, an interesting exercise in self reliance. Here’s my take.
The Recovering Religious. 2
My disillusionment has been slow and gradual, like a boiled frog, so I’ve been in a low boil recovery mode for a couple decades now.
The Intuitive Mystic. 1
Never been into woo woo stuff. I don’t begrudge those who do though.
The Ethical Humanist. 4
I’m more interested in doing the right thing than identifying with any particular group or philosophy.
The Agnostic Seeker. 4
I’ve had several experiences that defy conventional scientific explanations. I am open to divine causes as well as natural causes. But if a natural cause can be found, I prioritize that explanation.
The Anti-Institutionalist. 2
Institutions aren’t inherently evil, but the organizational imperative and charismatic bad actors can render them more harmful than beneficial to the wellbeing of people and society. So while necessary, institutions require robust guardrails.
The Wellness Spiritualist. 2
I practice yoga, but strictly as a form of exercise. I’m open to there being a kernel of truth behind some of the woo woo, but please back it up with science.
The Cultural Adapter. 5
I would like to keep ties with the church and the members, but only on my own terms. I cannot accept polygamy as divine, church leadership is (for the most part) doing their best but have no special connection to God, & a truly benevolent god would establish as many viable paths to return to him as possible.
The Detached Non-Believer. 2
I think most “supernatural “ phenomena can be explained through natural mechanisms and I express that POV regularly. No need to hide that by pretending to be spiritual.
As I was reading this I was anticipating writing a gotcha comment about entire groups missing from the analysis or that the groups provided would be somewhat obtuse or falsely described.
I’m impressed! This listing is robust and pretty complete. As a graduated Mormon I identify with all of them in some way, shape, or form, except wellness spiritualist. And actually I do enjoy yoga and breathwork and do believe they help but if you are going to lump that in with RFK Jr and the doTerra people then I have no choice but to reject that grouping and I’ll fit my yoga and breathwork into a different category because I refuse to wear jeans at the gym =).
I feel like “spiritual but not religious” has been around a long time, and in my interactions where it’s come up, it has always come across as a sort of preemptive attempt to deflect potential arguments, or even may sound a bit like an apology. Like a lot of W&T writers and readers, I’ve been on either side of it. It’s seemed a way of saying, “I’m not churchy, but I have values.”
In practice, an openly church-going believer broaches the topic of belief in God and/or religious affiliation. The person invoking “spiritual but not religious” is trying to avoid potential argument/debate and the discomfort of being preached to or assumed to be also devout. It’s the same thing as saying, “I’m not here to debate or offend. I do my own thing and respect others.” In a tactical sense, it’s said to avoid being pinned down. It may be the case the person saying it hasn’t really done much inner work on defining themselves. I’ve been navigating these issues all my life, but maybe it’s only been the last couple of years I’ve tried to define what agnosticism really is for me. Very interesting and helpful post for such exploration.
The Recovering Religious: 3, I think this is Fowler’s Stages of Faith Stage 4. So it is a stage that some pass through while others are embittered by the pain in the process. I went through it when I realized that my own spiritual values were more grounded than what the Church taught and that church leaders were about control. LOTS of control.
The Intuitive Mystic: 3, I relate to this because I am interfaith in my approach to religion. But I do try to be rational with my beliefs, so I appreciate theological structures within various faiths. I really like the “high church” forms of Christianity.
The Ethical Humanist: 4, I have strong spirtual beliefs and experiences but for me serving humanity is the highest calling. One of my pet peeves about the LDS Church is that institutionally, this is not as emphasized as much as it should be. It is was, we’d have more social workers and teachers in the Q15 than lawyers.
The Agnostic Seeker: 2, I’m open and willing to say “believe” rather than “know” in testimonies, but I believe fervently in a higher power.
The Anti-Institutionalist: 4, The institutional LDS Church, their employees and zealous members damage their case when they conveniently ignore their own teachings when protecting their authority and turf.
The Wellness Spiritualist: 1, Meh. Spirituality isn’t cheap and easy.
The Cultural Adapter: 3, I am selective, I ignore much of cultural Mormonism. Privately, of course.
The Detached Non-Believer: 0, I believe, just not in an institutionally-approved way.
I think you have to think of this on 3 planes. There’s the ethical business of conducting yourself like a civilized person. The do-unto-others thing that is just baked into social intercourse.
Then there’s the spiritual business of recognizing that, as individuals, we’re a minute part of things that are far larger than our comprehensions. Science guides us here with information about what’s out there and how things operate apart from human intervention and so does art which helps us experience non-verbal truths and can uplift us.
Then, finally, there’s the business of religion which gives us “truths” and methods to live in accordance with it.
I’ve lost my belief in second-hand “truths” which come from very imperfect and often very authoritarian people whose concept of methods can be very manipulative and even cruel to suit their views of life. That said, I still hold civilized and thoughtful behaviors and subscription to those things that helps us understand and be part of things larger than ourselves in very high regard. I do my best to live in accordance with them when it enhances my own self-regard and, equally, when it demands that I limit and discomfort myself for the sake of larger goals and for the sake of others.
I am going to disagree with Jake. I think values and ethics are a different thing than spirituality. Yes, he is correct that some people use SBNR as a way of saying, “I am still a moral person even though I have left formal religion, so don’t bug me about being a bad person.” But that is moral, but not because God told me to be moral. That is an internal set of principals. Not spirituality. So, I think spirituality is a very different animal than morals or values.
I also feel like there are different things that we call “spiritual.” There is aww, there is woo-woo of talking to your dead grandma, and there is a non Abrahamic kind of spirituality of being part of earth, or earth being a living thing.
There is “spiritual” that means that deep connection to the universe and other humans, of looking at a gazillion stars, or a newborn baby. Aww. The feeling of being part of something bigger.
Then there is the unexplainable stuff. The woo woo stuff. NDE, ESP, communicating with the dead or not yet conceived. Or visions, dreams, and all that stuff listed under mystic. These things show up in all cultures, unlike Bigfoot that just shows up enough to be creepy. Once you have some of these weird things you can’t explain as coincident happen to you, you just might call yourself “spiritual” because “weird things happen.”
My other thought along the lines of different kinds of spirituality, is that no where on the kinds of SBNR is any kind of non Abrahamic religious spirituality. Those on the list are all very “American culture”. Now, what I am talking about borders on the “Mystic seeker,” but comes from other cultures, and is not listed there on that list, such as all the pagan religions or Native American/Pacific Islander native religions. So, it kind of starts from a different cultural perspective. There is a kind of spirituality to those traditions that many keep even after “converting” to Christianity. Or that people choose after rejecting Christianity.
For example, my pagan daughter calls herself SBNR rather than “other” because she doesn’t adhere to any one pagan religion. If fact, I suspect she doesn’t really *believe* in the pagan gods because she has switched from one cultural god set to another a few times. It is the spirituality of paganism that attracts her. Reverence for life, earth, universe. The idea that women are as important as men. And I am kind of in that area or alternate cultural spirituality more than any on the list above. I am kind of pantheist in the same way Joseph Smith was when he taught that our earth has a spirit and has been baptized in Noah’s flood. I cheer for New Zealand when the Maori win and get a river designated as a living being with rights that need to be protected, because I believe rivers ARE living things that need to be protected. I listen to native Hawaiian music because the spiritual ideas speak to me. I like Native American culture because it feels right spiritually. Ideas like when I die, I will not be gone, or go to a different place, but will become part of the wind and ocean. To me, this makes a lot more sense than Jesus was brutally killed to pay a vengeful God for the sins we commit. Yuck. That is more woo-woo weird to me than my dead grandmother visiting me or that a river is a living thing. One feels right and the other just feels out of balance. Yeah, I know, I am into the woo-woo stuff.
The Recovering Religious: 1. I left with minimal fanfare and haven’t looked back. Well, apart from occasionally visiting this blog and being tempted into a religious personality quiz.
The Intuitive Mystic: 2. I do find some meaning in nature, but I shy away from any path that would allow my ego to begin to believe it is communicating with a higher power or the universe or whatever. Many of my family members in the generation before mine fell into delusions from this type of thinking, and I’m afraid it’s genetic.
The Ethical Humanist: (aspire to be a) 4. When I’m feeling OK about humanity in general.
The Agnostic Seeker 4. I prefer to embrace the unknown rather than pretend to know.
The Anti-Institutionalist 2, maybe 1. This was a hard one because I really, really should be higher, but I just don’t care that much about what church leadership is up to, and I think that disinterest carries to other leadership structures as well. While I’m deeply frustrated by the current US administration, that’s less about being an anti-institutionalist and more about being anti-whatver-on-earth-that-is. I’d like to tell myself that I’m just more focused on the victims than the oppressors, but really I think I’m just all outta angst.
The Wellness Spiritualist: 1.
The Cultural Adapter: 1.
The Detached Non-Believer: 5.
It’s a bit ironic that the group of people who generally reject labels (that’s why they are “spiritual but not religious… man”) are now being meticulously sub-labled. Anyway, a lot of these categories apply to me in some way, but I would label myself “religious, not spiritual.” Despite being an extremely nuanced Mormon, I just don’t think spirituality can fully happen without community. Christianity definitely does not work without community. If you are one of those Christians – or spiritual people – who authentically feels “in community” with all people and all living things, then congratulations, you’ve reached guru status. (I know a couple people who make this claim btw, and they are A-holes). But for me, I need a built-in community – flaws and all – in which to practice being a Christian. To me, spirituality in isolation eventually leads to corporate “woo.” If you have a meaningful spiritual practice outside of an organized community (religious or otherwise) and you are not an A-hole, then more power to you. I went decades thinking there was something wrong with me because I wasn’t having all of these profound spiritual experiences other people were (supposedly) having. I’ve worked really hard to work through that. I’m now in a place where where when I choose to see “God” in other people and in nature, I feel a sense of belonging, I’m more generous and open, and more comfortable in my own skin. That’s about as “spiritual” as I tend to get.
mat,
I like how Neal A. Maxwell put it: we’re each other’s clinical material.