Monday, January 13, 2020

What If We Didn't Invent God—And Where SBNR's Go Wrong?

There was a time when I would have identified myself as SBNR—spiritual, but not religious. Now I'm more SAR—spiritual and religious; sort of an esoteric Catholic, semi-Buddhaholic, potential mother fakir. Not sure how to pin it all down beyond it being part of a branch in raccoonology. I became disenchanted with being SBNR, soon realizing that if you don't have a real religion, then you'll manage to come up with a pretty crappy one.

I'll go along that some need to find their own road to Shangri-la, but when I was on that path I found it best to read the signs where the trails have been blazed by greater souls than myself. And in those moments I cynically believed those greater souls (saints, sages, seers, super slackers) didn't exist, then I'd just find another off ramp to perdition. By not committing to a tradition, I began to intuit that I'd be wise to take religion more seriously than the cradled lightweights who have the label—but not the heart (see: me in my formative years).

At present, I take the catholic in Catholicism seriously—meaning I don't see any dissonance with exploring other spiritual views or practices, as long as I remain centered around tradition. Even the Roman Catholic Church, while seemingly believed to be rigidly dogmatic by the unlearned, embraces the definition of catholic: which is to be all embracing, allowing for a wide variety of things. This is the notion that nothing is to be excluded, yet put in its proper order of “both/and.”

G.K. Chesterton once said that Catholicism keeps its beliefs “side by side like two strong colors, red and white...[yet] it has always had a healthy hatred of pink.” With the SBNR disposition, there is way too much pink for me. And pink drowns the polarity/paradox of truths into bland half-truths.

I recently read a book by George Weigel in which he mentions his discontents with a shallow ecumenicalism that began to permeate during his formative years (ecumenicalism more broadly today could include the SBNR ilk). What helped bring clarity to his dissonance was a 2-page document by some of the most influential thinkers in North America at the time—called “An Appeal for Theological Affirmation” (a.k.a. the Hartford Appeal). This document highlighted some of the biggest errors that are made once we move away from tradition, with beliefs such as:
  • Modern thought is superior to all past form of understanding reality;
  • Religious language refers to human experience and nothing else;
  • All religions are equally valid;
  • To realize one's potential and to be true to oneself is the whole meaning of salvation;
  • The sole purpose of worship is to promote individual self realization and human community;
  • Institutions and historical traditions are oppressive and inimical to our truly being human;
  • The world must set the agenda for the Church;
  • The struggle for a better humanity will bring the Kingdom of God;
  • An emphasis on God's transcendence is at least a hindrance to... social concern and action; and
  • The question of hope beyond death is irrelevant.

While these themes were written in 1975, they appear even more relevant today with the SBNR movement. While there may be an impulse with the SBNR follower to rebel against religion in order to return to the essence of the teaching, there is often a lack of spiritual adeptness that often leads to a confusing eclecticism. We can see how this confusion creates an incoherent narrative where God is made a silent partner, religious differences and institutions are marginalized, experience is elevated over metaphysical rigor and revelation, cultural trends and novelty are privileged over a well traveled lineage, and human achievement is given more reverence than the grace of divinity.  

The Hartford Appeal turned this posture on its head when it claimed “We did not invent God; God invented us.” Therefore, it was not up to us to cherry pick what makes us feel good, or what allows us to continue with our lifestyle choices, or what doesn't make any demands of us. 

It began by challenging the view that “modern thought is superior to all past forms of understanding reality,” such that “modern thought” stands in judgment on tradition. This provocation opens us to consider the merit of this bias. While we are in some ways more clever than our ancestors, it can easily be debated as to whether or not we come close to their depth of being. Not to mention, that the modern notion that reason trumps faith is a limited view; where true faith is intertwined and prior to reason so that the mind is not closed upon itself. Our ancestors often saw reason beyond being merely instrumental and logical; but instead drawing on the whole of intelligibility.

By claiming “All religions are equally valid,” the Hartford Appeal notes that this “fails to respect the integrity of other faiths” and that “Truth matters; therefore differences among religions are deeply significant.” While there may be an esoteric core that the SBNR follower is aiming at with respect to the religions, the unique interpretations and revelations concerning that essence still do matter.

Weigel says, “And while worship is personally and communally enriching, it's a fundamental mistake to assume that the only purposes of worship are self-realization and human community. Worship is a response to God's initiative. We do not worship God because it makes us feel good or more connected; we worship God because God is to be worshiped, and doing so arises out of the fundamental human desire to know, love, and adore God.” The SBNR follower is more apt to worship something imminent, magical, or goddess-like than anything transcendentally omnipotent.

The Hartford Appeal goes further to take on the propensity toward modern thought with the notion that imperfect human beings cannot create a perfect society... God has his own designs which confronts ours. The modern pursuit of liberation from all constraints, including death, becomes a dehumanizing endeavor as it obscures our destiny to be with God. The SBNR follower is playing the modern game with pagan toys, and in the end falls short by distorting or watering-down the teachings, discipline, and structures that truly can be life changing! 

Instead, spirituality without religion becomes an insubstantial recreational attempt at “personal growth” that can be compartmentalized along with all the other current-day hobbyist pursuits. “No spiritual quest can progress very far without becoming religious” (May). 

And so if we can't even master ourselves, how do we expect we can master the right sort of path for ourselves? Weigel notes: It's not something we [can] make up for ourselves. It's something we can only receive as a gift.