taykair
Member
- Messages
- 363
This is another oldie of mine, from about ten years ago.
"I am a very spiritual person, but I don't care for religion."
We've all heard statements like this. Perhaps we've even said something like this ourselves. But do we really mean it? Is such a thing - the divorce of spirit and religion - even possible?
I maintain that religion is the natural result of spirituality. Although it may be possible to be religious without being spiritual, it is (I think) very unlikely that a person can be truly spiritual without, in some way, being religious.
Let's begin by taking a look at the origins of the words religion and spirit:
Spirit is derived from the Latin word for breath, breeze or wind - SPIRITUS. In the Bible, the words which are usually translated as spirit are the Hebrew word ruach (or, sometimes, neshamah) and the Greek word pneuma (sometimes pnoe), which also mean breath, breeze or wind.
From the time of their origin, in all three of these languages, the word which is known to us today as the supernatural thing which we call spirit was also used to describe the natural things which we call breath or wind.
Why should this be? What does a breath or a breeze have to do with a spirit?
The connection should be as obvious to us today as it was to the ancients: A spirit is like a breeze because neither can be seen, yet both can be sensed - both can be felt. The wind can be gentle, and it could also be powerful. Because it was unseen, it was also mysterious. As a breath, it gives life to man. For the ancients (as well as for us today) a breeze or a breath provides the perfect metaphor for spirituality - which can also be peaceful, profound, mysterious, and life-enhancing.
So, we see that the transition in meaning from a simple meteorological or biological phenomenon into the word we know today as spirit was a rather natural and logical one. The word religion, however, is a bit more tricky, as its original meaning (at first glance) seems to have very little to do with what we call religion today.
Religion is also derived from a Latin word - RELIGIO. Whereas SPIRITUS was a noun (a thing), RELIGIO was a verb (an action). The action, in this case, involved the binding of separate things together so as to form a single thing. RELIGIO was, most often, used to describe the process whereby individual stalks of grain were bundled together in order to form a sheaf. A single stalk of grain was not a RELIGIO, nor was an entire bale of wheat a RELIGIO. Rather, it was the process of RELIGIO which transformed the former into the latter. It was what we, in our day, would call the organizing principle - the action which, for example, changes separate pieces of a jigsaw puzzle into a completed picture.
(As an aside: The term "organized religion" would seem to be rather redundant, since religion cannot be anything other than organized - at least as far as the original meaning of the word is concerned.)
Given what we know about the etymology of the words spirituality and religion, what can we say about the relationship between the two? Simply stated, it is this: Religion is the visible action whereby invisible spirituality is made manifest. Or, to put it even more simply: Spiritual is what you are; religion is what you do.
This is why I say that a religious person may or may not be spiritual, but a spiritual person cannot help but be religious. It's quite possible for someone to perform certain rituals, or take part in a religious ceremony of some kind, and yet not be spiritual. In fact, it is just this kind of hypocritical, going-through-the-motions type of religion (which many confuse with genuine religion) that is the reason why many folks find religion to be so distasteful. However, a spiritual person will feel naturally compelled to do things which reflect his spirituality. He may pray, or meditate, or perform acts of kindness for others, or a host of other things (whether they are ritualized or not) which his spirit leads him to do. These things - these actions - are religion. And the absence of these actions is proof of a lack of spirituality.
To make this a bit more clear, let's look at two people who both claim to be athletes. The first athlete enjoys sports, takes part in physical activity (exercise), and has a healthful lifestyle. The second athlete can't stand sports, hates to exercise, drinks like a fish, smokes like a chimney, and eats like a pig. Exactly in what way is the second person - by any stretch of the definition of the word - an athlete? Merely because he says he is? Because he occasionally feels athletic? No, of course not. Unless that athletic feeling which he claims to have prods him into some kind of athletic action, then he is just a hypocrite - a poser. He is lying to himself.
As are we, when we glorify spirituality while denying religion. Whether we deny our own religious tendencies or scoff at the practices of others, when we try to separate spirituality from religion, we are like the non-athletic athlete. We are like a breeze which does not blow.
"I am a very spiritual person, but I don't care for religion."
We've all heard statements like this. Perhaps we've even said something like this ourselves. But do we really mean it? Is such a thing - the divorce of spirit and religion - even possible?
I maintain that religion is the natural result of spirituality. Although it may be possible to be religious without being spiritual, it is (I think) very unlikely that a person can be truly spiritual without, in some way, being religious.
Let's begin by taking a look at the origins of the words religion and spirit:
Spirit is derived from the Latin word for breath, breeze or wind - SPIRITUS. In the Bible, the words which are usually translated as spirit are the Hebrew word ruach (or, sometimes, neshamah) and the Greek word pneuma (sometimes pnoe), which also mean breath, breeze or wind.
From the time of their origin, in all three of these languages, the word which is known to us today as the supernatural thing which we call spirit was also used to describe the natural things which we call breath or wind.
Why should this be? What does a breath or a breeze have to do with a spirit?
The connection should be as obvious to us today as it was to the ancients: A spirit is like a breeze because neither can be seen, yet both can be sensed - both can be felt. The wind can be gentle, and it could also be powerful. Because it was unseen, it was also mysterious. As a breath, it gives life to man. For the ancients (as well as for us today) a breeze or a breath provides the perfect metaphor for spirituality - which can also be peaceful, profound, mysterious, and life-enhancing.
So, we see that the transition in meaning from a simple meteorological or biological phenomenon into the word we know today as spirit was a rather natural and logical one. The word religion, however, is a bit more tricky, as its original meaning (at first glance) seems to have very little to do with what we call religion today.
Religion is also derived from a Latin word - RELIGIO. Whereas SPIRITUS was a noun (a thing), RELIGIO was a verb (an action). The action, in this case, involved the binding of separate things together so as to form a single thing. RELIGIO was, most often, used to describe the process whereby individual stalks of grain were bundled together in order to form a sheaf. A single stalk of grain was not a RELIGIO, nor was an entire bale of wheat a RELIGIO. Rather, it was the process of RELIGIO which transformed the former into the latter. It was what we, in our day, would call the organizing principle - the action which, for example, changes separate pieces of a jigsaw puzzle into a completed picture.
(As an aside: The term "organized religion" would seem to be rather redundant, since religion cannot be anything other than organized - at least as far as the original meaning of the word is concerned.)
Given what we know about the etymology of the words spirituality and religion, what can we say about the relationship between the two? Simply stated, it is this: Religion is the visible action whereby invisible spirituality is made manifest. Or, to put it even more simply: Spiritual is what you are; religion is what you do.
This is why I say that a religious person may or may not be spiritual, but a spiritual person cannot help but be religious. It's quite possible for someone to perform certain rituals, or take part in a religious ceremony of some kind, and yet not be spiritual. In fact, it is just this kind of hypocritical, going-through-the-motions type of religion (which many confuse with genuine religion) that is the reason why many folks find religion to be so distasteful. However, a spiritual person will feel naturally compelled to do things which reflect his spirituality. He may pray, or meditate, or perform acts of kindness for others, or a host of other things (whether they are ritualized or not) which his spirit leads him to do. These things - these actions - are religion. And the absence of these actions is proof of a lack of spirituality.
To make this a bit more clear, let's look at two people who both claim to be athletes. The first athlete enjoys sports, takes part in physical activity (exercise), and has a healthful lifestyle. The second athlete can't stand sports, hates to exercise, drinks like a fish, smokes like a chimney, and eats like a pig. Exactly in what way is the second person - by any stretch of the definition of the word - an athlete? Merely because he says he is? Because he occasionally feels athletic? No, of course not. Unless that athletic feeling which he claims to have prods him into some kind of athletic action, then he is just a hypocrite - a poser. He is lying to himself.
As are we, when we glorify spirituality while denying religion. Whether we deny our own religious tendencies or scoff at the practices of others, when we try to separate spirituality from religion, we are like the non-athletic athlete. We are like a breeze which does not blow.
Last edited:
