On the 'Religious vs Spiritual' Debate

We often hear people define themselves not as 'religious', but 'spiritual.'

What does this mean?

In my own ministry, I have found this to mean that their general spiritual world view and values have been intrinsically shaped by Christianity. However for various reasons, they are not churchgoers, nor do they identify with any particular denominaion, i.e., 'Non-practicing Anglican.'

So rather than defining themselves by the absence of religious identification, it is far more common to turn a negative into a positive; For instance, the person who is more accurately something like a 'Non-practicing Anglican' self-identifies as 'Spiritual' instead.

The misnomer however is that the Non-practicing Anglican is often not someone dabbling in Wicca, Athiesm or Zorastrianism. Rather by and large, this hypothetical 'Non-practicing Anglican' is usually an Anglican in core beliefs and values, but who has simply stopped going to church. This is something I have learned through extensive ministerial conversations with such individuals, and here is a snapshot of what I usually encounter:

1) That they believe in some form of Higher Power.
2) That they recognize something special about the teachings and person of Jesus that sets him apart from all other holy persons.
3) And finally, that meaning in life derrives from being good and helping others.

This is not at all different from what people who regularly attend church would say.

So my point then is that by and large, the difference between someone who self-identifies as 'Religious' vs. someone who self-identifies as 'Spiritual' is predominantly church attendance.

Perhaps then a more accurate way of understanding this trend in North American culture is to say that the divide is not so much 'Religious' vs 'Spiritual', but 'Formally Christian' vs 'Informally Christian.'