Responding to “Spiritual but Not Religious” Christians

Over the last several years I have encountered a fair number of Christians who claim they are “spiritual but not religious.” In other words, they do not identify with a particular Christian denomination, using the Bible alone to guide their faith. It’s an ideology that says religious institutions are outdated and unnecessary.

People may reach this conclusion for a multitude of reasons. Some are disillusioned by what they perceive to be corruption and hypocrisy in religious institutions. Others may feel like they are not being “fed.” Others yet may feel that these intuitions teach something contrary to their beliefs regarding political and social issues.

Whatever the reason may be, we must reach out to these people and take their concerns seriously.

Most dictionaries define religion as “the belief in and worship of a superhuman controlling power, especially a personal God or gods.” It is abundantly obvious from Scripture that Christians are called to worship the one true God (cf. Matthew 4:9, Mark 5:6, Luke 4:8, John 4:23). I’m sure most “spiritual but not religious” Christians will agree with this.

The issue is whether or not one can do this privately, reading only Scripture and coming to their own conclusions on theological matters, or whether one must submit to some authority outside of themselves.

In Matthew 16:18, Jesus says to the apostle Peter, “you are Peter, and on this rock I will build my church.” Catholics believe that in this verse Jesus is bestowing on Peter a position of authority from which the office of the pope is derived. But even if the “spiritual” Christian has problems with this belief, there is no escaping the fact that Christ intended his Church to be both visible and authoritative.

If your brother sins against you, go and tell him his fault, between you and him alone. If he listens to you, you have gained your brother. But if he does not listen, take one or two others along with you, that every word may be confirmed by the evidence of two or three witnesses. If he refuses to listen to them, tell it to the church; and if he refuses to listen even to the church, let him be to you as a Gentile and a tax collector (15-17).

If Jesus did not intend his Church to be authoritative and visible, then what Church is he talking about in this verse? It’s clear in the text that this Church is communal.

It is also evident from Scripture that Jesus intended this community to gather regularly for worship:

Let us not give up meeting together, as some are in the habit of doing, but let us encourage one another—and all the more as you see the Day approaching (Heb. 10:25).

This verse indicates that, even in the first century, there were Christians who did not think it was necessary to gather for worship. This runs contrary to the idea that one can be a church unto himself as long as he has accepted Jesus as his personal Lord and Savior. The Lord intended his Church to be a community.

On his way from Jerusalem to Gaza, Phillip the Evangelist encounters a eunuch reading the Book of Isaiah:

So Philip ran to him, and heard him reading Isaiah the prophet, and asked, “Do you understand what you are reading?” And he said, “How can I, unless someone guides me?” And he invited Philip to come up and sit with him(Acts 8:27-31).

The point of this passage is that the clear meaning of Scripture is not always evident. This is reinforced again in 2 Peter 1:20:

First of all you must understand this, that no prophecy of scripture is a matter of one’s own interpretation,

So also our beloved brother Paul wrote to you according to the wisdom given him, speaking of this as he does in all his letters. There are some things in them hard to understand, which the ignorant and unstable twist to their own destruction, as they do the other scriptures.

Clearly, just picking up the Bible and interpreting it for your self is not recommended. A teacher is necessary; preferably an authoritative one.

As my colleague Tim Staples is fond of saying, “You don’t leave Peter because of Judas.” From a Catholic perspective this means you don’t leave the Church because someone didn’t live up to its teaching.

I came into the Church during the height of the priest abuse scandal. I was certainly concerned about it (as most Catholic laypeople were), but ultimately the number of people out in the world doing good work far outweighs the number of people who have abused their positions. For more on this I recommend reading our special report, A Crisis of Saints.

Many “spiritual but not religious” Christians have also expressed concerns about events in history. It’s true that Christians throughout time have acted contrary to the faith, but like the abuse scandal, it should be remembered that history is filled with good and holy missionaries.

It’s also worth pointing out that many of the events in history have been blown way out of proportion in the popular imagination. Catholic Answers has dozens of great articles about this available at this link.

It’s clear from the Bible that Jesus did not intend Christians to live out their spiritual lives in a vacuum. He founded a Church, gave it authority in the areas of faith and morals, and guards it from teaching error (Mt 18:17-18).

At Catholic Answers, we have a mountain of great resources making the case that the Church Jesus founded is the Catholic Church. If you or someone you know is “spiritual but not religious,” please consider reading what we have to offer.

Yes the Holy Spirit indwells all believers but the passage AF Vet quoted has Jesus speaking to the Apostles. So what He was saying, and describing, was meant for them. Now, are we to believe (since all the apostles have passed on) that the Holy Spirit no longer teaches us all things?

Of course not. He still does today through the successors of the men Jesus originally spoke to in that passage. So as it was then, it is today.

It’s either that, or we have Jesus (and His Holy Spirit) teaching and guiding his church in different ways throughout time. It’s either as I describe above, or there is no way to truly have the same experience as the early church.

I chose to believe the former. I chose to believe God is consistent.

One thing I haven’t seen discussed on this thread (even though it’s mentioned in the OP) is the matter of the church handling disagreements in its ranks.

Sure, I guess some here have conceded that occurred (it must be conceded because it’s in Scripture) but apparently there isn’t any belief this type of action requires an authority above the “lay” members. But it’s obvious it does.

Why doesn’t someone explain to me (or to anyone) how the early church expelled believers and why? Why were early church members expelled (for what purpose) and how was it done? Was it an effectual “anathema” (excommunication) or did it have a loophole or holes?

That is (and this is the point, the main question to answer): if a member was cut off from the body (the church) back then, could he just go down the street to “another church” and be a member there? Without repenting of the thing (whatever it was) that got him kicked out in the first place?

Does anyone here honestly believe that was the case back then? That even back then, there were so many different “churches” that if you didn’t like the pastor of one, if you disagreed with his interpretation of Scripture, all you had to do was to down the road, or go to another town, and find another?

Does this really make sense, to anyone, that this is what happened even during the time the Scriptures were written, much less later?

Cuz if it DIDNT happen that way THEN, that kind of behavior is, by definition, a more modern invention of MAN.

Think about it, and explain to me how I’m wrong (if you can). Anyone.

"Yes the Holy Spirit indwells all believers but the passage AF Vet quoted has Jesus speaking to the Apostles. So what He was saying, and describing, was meant for them."

No, it was meant for all Christians. Jesus knew the Gospels would be written and his words were intended for all believers who read them. Just as Paul's epistles were not just for the specific recipients of the letters.

"the Holy Spirit no longer teaches us all things? Of course not. He still does today through the successors of the men Jesus originally spoke to in that passage. So as it was then, it is today."

No the Holy Spirit teaches through those he indwells. There is absolutely no reason he just teaches "through the successors of the men Jesus originally spoke to".

"That is (and this is the point, the main question to answer): if a member was cut off from the body (the church) back then, could he just go down the street to “another church” and be a member there? Without repenting of the thing (whatever it was) that got him kicked out in the first place? Does anyone here honestly believe that was the case back then?"

Arius (father of Arianism) was excommunicated by Bishop Peter of Alexandria in 311, but under Peter's successor Achillas, Arius was re-admitted to Christian communion and in 313 made presbyter of the Baucalis district in Alexandria. It looks like sometimes in the early church the heretics could just wait for a new Bishop and be readmitted without repenting of their heresy. Arius didn't have to "find a new church down the road" - it looks like he could just wait for the Holy Spirit to change his mind and communicate it to the sole interpreters of scripture you are so fond of. /s

Of course the Holy Spirit (a "he" by the way, not "it") was meant for all believers but as we know by even reading Scripture alone, he brings forth and gives different gifts (charisms)'to different people. Not all are "teachers" but that's what everyone has to be in the "invisible church"

Of course you will disagree here but I don't care. I don't care about your personal opinion of Scripture. So you already have the "last word" here, go ahead and post something more in response to the above if you want. Again, I don't care.

As is typical for many Protestants/anti Catholic Christians around here you only give a partial account of what happened in Church history.

"In 306, Arius sided with Meletius, an Egyptian schismatic, against the Bishop of Alexandria, Peter. But their dispute was soon reconciled, and Peter ordained Arius a deacon. Having fallen out anew with Peter, Arius gained the friendship of Peter's successor, Achillas, who ordained Arius a priest in 313, thus giving him official status in the Church. Achillas was succeeded by Alexander of Alexandria; it was under this bishop that Arius first ignited the controversy now that bears his name. This argument centered upon the precise nature of the Son of God, and His relationship to God the Father, and it struck at the very heart of the Orthodox Christian faith.

...

"According to Church historian Socrates Scholasticus, Arius entered in 318 into a dispute with Bishop Alexander of Alexandria over his teachings about God's divine Sonship and substance. "

source: http://orthodoxwiki.org/Arius

If you don't like that source post another.

You'll note though the following: during the time period you're describing, Arius was going about spreading another heresy, another one he apparently DID repent of, and that's why he was re-admitted to the Church. It was only after he started the whole heresy that bears his name was he kicked out again, this (that?) time for good.

It's history and fact. So you haven't shown anything at all with your example of Arius other than to show exactly what happens to a man when he disagrees with Church teaching. He's out. Unless he repents.

I read your response and am not persuaded

As expected. For the weight of Scripture is not the basis for the veracity of RC teaching, but Scripture is a servant to be compelled to support traditions of men, and RCs have a great deal of liberty to adopt interpretations of Scripture to support Rome, resulting in such wresting as you engage in.

I also note scripture in the follow up epistle by the same author dealing with those who wrest the Scriptures to their own destruction.

And 2pt. 3:16 is a warning to you, who seeks to employ this text to support the premise that this forbids private interpretation, meaning that all beliefs must conform the infallible magisterium of Rome, and as long an RC holds to this than they cannot be persuaded otherwise no matter how strong the evidence is against RC teaching.

“All that we do [as must be patent enough now] is to submit our judgment and conform our beliefs to the authority Almighty God has set up on earth to teach us; this, and nothing else.” “He is as sure of a truth when declared by the Catholic Church as he would be if he saw Jesus Christ standing before him and heard Him declaring it with His Own Divine lips.” —“Henry G. Graham, "What Faith Really Means", (Nihil Obstat:C. SCHUT, S. T.D., Censor Deputatus, Imprimatur: EDM. CANONICUS SURMONT, D.D.,Vicarius Generalis. WESTMONASTERII, Die 30 Septembris, 1914 )]

For neither 2Pt. 1:20 or 2Pt. 3:16 is censuring determination of Truth by individual interpretation or teaching reliance upon an infallible magisterium, but both are making Scripture the supreme authority by which both false prophets and teachers are exposed.

For indeed, you will always have misuse of authority in this world, and your error is in taking warnings of that as meaning relying on Scripture for assurance of Truth, and reading and understanding Scripture without an infallible magisterium. But while the office of the teacher is critical as is administration, yet the Scriptures were and are the supreme authority, and the church began in dissent from the historical instruments and stewards of Scripture, and inheritors of promises of Divine guidance, presence and perpetuation.

And instead they followed an itinerant Preacher whom the magisterium rejected, and whom the Messiah reproved them Scripture as being supreme, (Mk. 7:2-16) and established His Truth claims upon scriptural substantiation in word and in power, as did the early church as it began upon this basis. (Mt. 22:23-45; Lk. 24:27,44; Jn. 5:36,39; Acts 2:14-35; 4:33; 5:12; 15:6-21;17:2,11; 18:28; 28:23; Rm. 15:19; 2Cor. 12:12, etc.)

Thus it is not the word of the Roman magisterium that is set in contrast to false prophets and teachers, but Scripture, and thus Paul's writings are invoked for support, (2pt. 3:15) while it is the misuse of Scripture by the unlearned and unstable that is warned of, not that of reading and understanding without an infallible magisterium, or reliance upon it.

I compare and contrast this with the case if what heresies could infect the churches of the holy catholic apostolic church that Jesus build on the apostles and prophets, himself being the chief cornerstone.

But reliance upon an assuredly infallible magisterium is not Peter's answer, and instead you must read it into Scripture. Under the Roman model, how and why should the common people follow a couple of itinerant Preachers whom the magisterium rejected?

Moreover, as said, this takes the problem of wrong interpretation to a higher and wider level, as it means one individual can declare Truth by fiat, even without the consensus of the bishops, and with the magisterium being supreme, most all the flock can be led into error, as is the case with papal infallibility.

How could sheep follow a wolf in sheep's clothing unless said wolf was misinterpreting the scriptures to lead them astray.

Indeed, but which does not mean an assuredly infallible magisterium is what it set forth as the solution, and instead it is substantially a case of the wolf being over the chicken house.

And an infallible magisterium is needed so the flock will not be lead astray, then again, how did the people rightly judge John was a prophet indeed when the established magisterium rejected him?

With the thousands of denominations, sects, and even virtual websites that cloak the background and ordination of the teachers, I can see how sheep are led astray by false teachers who misinterpret the scripture, Knowing this first, that no prophecy of the scripture is of any private interpretation.

Indeed, Rome has her schism and sects, and has engaged in much labor cloaking those who were exposed by the world, while you have joined the ranks of false teachers by making 2pt. 1:20 to be about interpreting Scripture, when it is about written prophecy, and which is judged by reading Scripture. Which also exposes those who misuse Scripture under the pretense of being infallible, as according to her interpretation/decree, only her judgment is correct in any conflict.

The divisions among those who hold Scripture as supreme do not disallow it as being so, as those who most strongly hold to it have the strongest unity, versus the fruit of Rome.

Meanwhile divisions are a judgment upon the church under the model in which Truth is established upon Scriptural; substantiation, as it requires establishing Truth upon that basis, not self declaration as under Rome and cults.

"But I will come to you shortly, if the Lord will, and will know, not the speech of them which are puffed up, but the power." "For the kingdom of God is not in word, but in power." (1 Corinthians 4:19-20)

But grow in grace, and in the knowledge of our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ. To him be glory both now and for ever. Amen

Indeed, and it was not the Eucharist that nourished them with graced, but

"If thou put the brethren in remembrance of these things, thou shalt be a good minister of Jesus Christ, nourished up in the words of faith and of good doctrine, whereunto thou hast attained." (1 Timothy 4:6)

"And now, brethren, I commend you to God, and to the word of his grace, which is able to build you up, and to give you an inheritance among all them which are sanctified." (Acts 20:32)

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.