I repectfully disagree with this writer's assertion that spirituallity can only come through religion (as he has defined religion).
Saul's conversion, by his own words was immediate (Acts 26:9-21). and came from Jesus, not religion. One COULD argue it was his persecution of christians that prepared him for his role, hence religion was responsible for his conversion.
I don't agree with that.
St. Paul had a spiritual experience or spiritual awakening or whatever you want to call it, that didn't first come through religion.
I only use Paul as an example of why I disagree with this writer.
In a sense perhaps. Wasn't Saul fully convicted that he was doing God's will in persecuting Christians? If that were the case, he may have taken his 'religion' as far as his human, or natural understanding could take him, qualifying him for the new paradigm.
Saul's conversion came from the power of the Cross, which is a religious act (unless you wish to argue that the Cross did NOT bind anything back together).
Now, Paul was blind until Ananias laid hands on him (a religious act). Immediately afterwards he was baptized (a religious act).
Paul was a teacher and prophet but he was NOT an apostle until Acts 13:3 when the Church laid hands on him. None of his speeches are recorded (it's acts of the APOSTLES after all), until after the Church laid hands on him, he is never called an apostle until after the Church laid hands on him.
Paul shows forth the importance of religion.