Have you ever noticed how some opinions say more about the opiniators themselves than the thing they’re opiniating about? God would be one such example. The opinions people have about God often say more about who they are than they do about who God is. But, uncharacteristically, God is not the topic of this post.
“Spiritual but not religious” is the topic at hand. And according to the work of Heinz Streib, a psychologist of religion at the University of Bielefeld in Germany, the ever-more popular phrase, “spiritual but not religious,” mostly reflects ambivalence about organized religion.
Surprising? Maybe not. If you’ve paid attention, folks out there who label themselves “spiritual but not religious” usually add a wave of the hand and a shake of the head to indicate their disapproval of religion in-general and their level-headed decision to embrace ‘spirituality’ instead.
While spiritual and religious are different words, the difference may end there. At least, that’s what was revealed by a recent study conducted by another psychologist of religion, Peter Hill (as reported by Streib). Participants in the study identified themselves as either religious or as spiritual but both groups ended up with equivalent scores on a test for ‘religiosity.’ In essence, then, the test-subjects who considered themselves ‘spiritual but not religious’ actually qualified as ‘religious.’ Yikes. Probably not something the ‘spiritual’ types wanted to hear.
But spirituality and religiosity both refer to the feelings, thoughts, and experiences that arise during one’s search for the sacred. In fact, Streib ended up wondering whether it makes any sense for scholars of religion to spend time studying spirituality in addition to religion. Better, he concluded, to stick with the single category of ‘religious.’
Too bad, really, that members of organized religions, including non-doctrinal ones like Unitarian Universalism, call themselves ‘spiritual not religious.’ They’re members of organized religions after all; but, instead of claiming, with pride, their chosen faith, they use a label that underscores their ambivalence toward any religion, including their own.
Sure, they may have trouble putting down the burden (bad memories, anger at clergy, rejected teachings) of their previous religion(s). But, who knows, reclaiming the word ‘religious’ might just indicate a healthy level of healing. It would announce that they’ve moved on. As for those who have always been unchurched, the willingness to call themselves ‘religious,’ in this most pluralistic of times, would announce a desirable respect for religion (with a capital R).
So, “spiritual but not religious” people of the world, here’s a challenge. Try calling yourselves ‘religious’ for a couple of weeks. No handwaving or headshaking please. See how it feels. You might just discover the label fits after all.
The Naked Theologian 
An interesting point. I think you’re right, people shy away from the term religious, because it has become the domain of highly dogmatic fundamentalists, with whom the sane and rational would prefer not to be associated with. The problem is, in surrendering the term “religious” to the Fundies, we further the disintegration of organized religion outside of fundamentalism.
I think a lot of people reject the label “religious” because they mistakenly think that being “religious” is essentially like being”spiritual” except that it also means believing in certain unbelievable or extraordinary claims. So according to this view, if you embrace Christian spirituality in some sense but you don’t believe certain claims such as that Jesus was bodily resurrected from the dead, then you can’t really be religious, because “religious” means believing in things that you find lacking in credibility.
I think this is an unfortunate distinction, and I don’t believe that it is true. I think it is perfectly possible to be “religious” without having to be credulous.
My take is that I find it interesting as well, but I believe the inconsistencies come from a confusion regarding the terms spiritual and religious and how they relate to religion. The term ‘religion’ refers to the Latin “to bind fast”, a notion easily applied to religious-based institutions. The term ‘religious’, I suggest, is the impulse towards the spiritual, which in turn, is a focus on the fundamental questions of meaning, place and purpose. Traditional religions are really only prospective answers to these questions, but have for the most part asserted themselves as being the source of spirituality. So, if people become uncomfortable with the doctrine or institution of a religion, not realizing this fact will produce such statements, as “I’m spiritual, but not religious.” However, what I do think is interesting and encouraging is though it can be said the phrase is conceptually muddled, it nevertheless reveals a growing search on the part of people for more fertile spiritual ground than what is available.
And some of us chose to be committed to a private relationship with the Divine visible in all things and everyone (spiritual) and refuse to be bound to groups and dogma that represent constriction of the soul and whose participants exhibit, in word and deed, the highest levels of personal cruelty we’ve ever experienced or seen. Some turn to atheism and personal responsibility. Some of us cannot take that route, because from the beginning we have felt the tug at the heart to rest ourselves in the Spirit and Beauty of the Earth and the Cycles of Nature and to work toward a whole ecology.
Perhaps instead of critiquing those of us ‘who don’t play well’ those in favor of religion should look at the examples so often set by your comrades in religion. I, for one, want nothing to do with such a limited, and quite frankly, cruel and destructive view of the Divine. I would never associate myself with such a small Spirit.
As one pastor harangued in a sermon long ago, “We are not put here to feed the hungry. We are put here to save souls.” Rather, give me Gandhi – “To those who are lucky to get one bowl of rice per day, the only form in which God dare appear is food.”