Responding to “Spiritual but Not Religious” Christians

http://www.jonsorensen.net ^ | July 22, 2014 | Jon Sorensen

[NKP_Vet]

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 It’s an ideology that says religious institutions are outdated and unnecessary.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.

Jesus started a religion

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.

Jesus started a Church

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.

In Matthew 18, Jesus says to his disciples:

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.

Is the Bible all you need?

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,

And yet again in 2 Peter 3:15-16:

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.

What about scandals in the Church?

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.

Get back to where you belong

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.

[Mrs. Don-o]

"First of all you must understand this, that no prophecy of scripture is a matter of one’s own interpretation,"...
This merely means that...scripture is the word of God not the word of man."

There I believe you are conflating two different things being explained by St.Paul: prophecy and the interpretation of prophecy.

Paul affirms two truths: that

• prophecy is the word of God, not the word of man; and
• that the interpretation of prophecy is not a matter of one's own individual insight or comprehension.

This Paul makes really clear in his discourse on the Body of Christ with its many parts and functions:

1 Corinthians 12:7,10
To each is given the manifestation of the Spirit for the common good. To one is given the working of miracles, to another prophecy, to another the discernment of spirits, to another various kinds of tongues, to another the interpretation of tongues.

1 Corinthians 12:28
And God has appointed in the church first apostles, second prophets, third teachers; then deeds of power, then gifts of healing, forms of assistance, forms of leadership, various kinds of tongues.

1 Corinthians 12:30
Do all possess gifts of healing? Do all speak in tongues? Do all interpret?

Obviously there are different people appointed by God in the Church with different gifts. Not all can teach, not all can govern, not all can interpret.

"First of all you must understand this, that no prophecy of scripture is a matter of one’s own interpretation,"...
Exactly. These things are manifestations of the Spirit, distributed by the Spirit to particular people He appoints in the Church for the common good. We're not just a bunch of in-DUH-viduals interpreting things on our own.

[cuban leaf]

“There were many mysteries then. There are very few mysteries today.”
That’s just flat wrong, absurdly wrong. Jaw-droppingly wrong.

---

I agree. My take is that the more we know, the more we know we don’t know.

Believing in “evolution” was easy until we found out just how complicated life really is. And then we discovered an actual computer programming language (called DNA) in every single cell of every single living thing. Suddenly it’s not so simple.

[circlecity]

Interpreting tounges and interpreting scripture are two totally different subjects so the verses you cite are not relevant to the issue. The verse about “private interpretation” is from Peter not Paul and I believe when read in context it is clearly saying that scripture comes from God not the private interpretation of the prophet who wrote the scripture. The point is that we can rely on scriptue because it comes from God not men. The word “for” (rather than “and”) which connects 1 Peter 1:20 and 1:21 makes it clear that verse 21 is continuing the same point being made in verse 20.

[Resettozero]

We try to watch one or more of these lessons during each week and find the instruction and encouragement beneficial:

http://www.intouch.org/broadcast/this-week-on-tv

R2z

[Iscool]

Written by a Catholic to a Catholic...Born again Christians who actually read and believe the scriptures will not fall for this Catholic propaganda...

[roamer_1]

Importantly, the spiritual Christians not in community with others cannot take communion. This is vital.

*shrugs* I have taken communion 50 miles past where the gravel roads end.

[Iscool]

*shrugs* I have taken communion 50 miles past where the gravel roads end.

If you wuz a Catholic, you'd have to turn around and head back to the pavement...Jesus ain't out there in the wilderness...

[Mrs. Don-o]

Iscool, your comment is similar to one made by Gamecock, so I'll ask the same question: What was "written by a Catholic to a Catholic"? What Catholic?

I'm not challenging you so much as I'm peplexed who or what you're talking about.

[TBP]

“The real trick to life is not to be in the know, but to be in the mystery.” — Fred Alan Wolf

[TBP]

Well stated, and on target.

[Resettozero]

Billy Graham used to say “...and go to a Bible-believing church this Sunday.”

This article’s writer, it turns out at the conclusion, is speaking to Roman Catholics to return from their absences in attending a Roman Caholic church.

[Mrs. Don-o]

"If you wuz a Catholic, you'd have to turn around and head back to the pavement...Jesus ain't out there in the wilderness..." You're so wrong. Why do you write such fact-free, nutrient-free stuff about things you don't know? It's, at the very least, bearing false witness against your neighbors.

[Mrs. Don-o]

"By a Catholic" to be sure: the author is a Catholic Answers apologist. But "to" could be to anybody who will consider these Biblical teachings.

I'm puzzled by people who think Jesus established a church for no reason in particular.

[Resettozero]

I was influenced by this line near the conclusion:

“Get back to where you belong.”

Since the article apparently intended to direct the readers only to the Roman Catholic church, I then understood why the progression of the article was being directed to only that one conclusion. I hope you can see that.

“I’m puzzled by people who think Jesus established a church for no reason in particular.”

If you were addressing that to me, then I’m puzzled how you could draw that inference from anything I’ve posted.

But thank you for replying.

R2z

[delchiante]

He literally drew me, physically, away from church... I was attending an orthodox presbyterian church at the time and enjoying the teachings and fellowship and was actually on my way to membership..

But at the same time He drew me away from church, He drew me closer to Him..

And what I have learned in just these two years since is not learned in church, nor practiced in church (or the world)...it isnt earthly based..

It is like the earthly church and the worldly systems it follows is foreign to the what scripture says the Kingdom will be like..

And I have to admit, I prefer preparing for His True coming Kingdom reign than being a member of any earthly counterfeit following traditions of men..

People may leave the ‘church’ for different reasons.
I have Him as my reason..

that isn’t explainable to people who have been members of a church or denomination for almost their whole life...

I am one who has never been a member of any physical church., and the one time I was on that path happily, He stopped me...

HalleluYah!

[ravenwolf]

The first dictionary I read on the meaning of religion was from one printed in the early 1900s and it said religion came from the word ritual.

Mathew 17
21 Neither shall they say, Lo here! or, lo there! for, behold, the kingdom of God is within you.

Meaning you don`t have to go any where to find the kingdom of God.

So I believe religion is just religion and may or may not have any thing to do with Christ.

I do not believe Jesus started any religion, ( he gave us the truth )some of it may have been started by the man Paul as he is the one most religious people get their ideas from.

I have nothing against going to fellowship meetings but I believe the only way to praise god is try to live the way Jesus said to live.

[Springfield Reformer]

Hello again. Rz and cc are correct. The passage in 2 Peter 1:20 is not addressing a problem of readers interpreting prophetic text. Rather, in context, Peter is building an argument for confidence in the promises of God contained in prophecy. Look back to verses 12 and 13. Peter is anticipating his soon departure from this life, and he wants his fellow believers to remember and believe the truths of the Gospel after he is gone. So he reminds them he was eyewitness to the glorified Jesus, even hearing the voice of God from heaven confirming Jesus as God’s Son. But then he says we have the more certain word of God in divine prophecy. He is building a case for certainty.

And what is the basis for us to be certain we can rely on the promises of God? Because those promises did not come to us through the private information dumps of the prophet’s own mind, but that prophet wrote as he was guided by God the Holy Spirit. Again, the point is, you can rely on these words at least as much as if you were eyewitnesses to the events themselves, because they are both of God.

As for your passages on teaching gifts versus interpretation of tongues, those are radically different domains. Tongues were actual utterances in languages unknown, for which an interpretation was essential, and not everybody in the assembly could do it. Teaching on the other hand necessitates some degree of ordinary interpretation by every single learner. You are using private interpretation right now, just to know what I am saying to you. You are also using it directly on Scripture every time you disagree with me or anybody what a given passage means. You have to. It’s how God designed the human mind to work. It’s not wrong, and it certainly does not conflict with this passage in Peter, or any other Scripture.

Peace,

SR

[roamer_1]

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

[circlecity:] This merely means that...scripture is the word of God not the word of man.

There I believe you are conflating two different things being explained by St.Paul: prophecy and the interpretation of prophecy.
Paul affirms two truths: that

• prophecy is the word of God, not the word of man; and
  
• that the interpretation of prophecy is not a matter of one's own individual insight or comprehension.

I will have to disagree. Paul interpreted his own visions, as did Peter.

The foremost thing that Paul is saying is that those who prophesy are accessing 'THE' Prophecy - That is, accessing one single monolithic thing. That is why it is left to the prophets to interpret prophets. Thus, even while Paul interprets his own vision (as given, of course), what he says, while it may be revelatory, cannot step upon the prophets and prophecy which have come before (lest YHWH is made to be a liar).

Think of an incredibly ancient brick wall, covered in dust and grime from the aeons it has been standing - Some have scraped off the years and revealed the writing on the bricks... Some large portions have been cleaned off contiguously because some prophets were equipped with a pressure washer... And others revealed but a brick or two, this one and that one, because they had nothing but a putty knife and a wire brush... But the wall, and every brick in it, has been there since the very foundation of the world.

It can be no other, as the spirit of prophecy is the testimony of Yeshua the Messiah (Rev 19:10). One thing, which cannot contravene or contradict. It describes a will, an intention, which has been actively carried out since the very beginning with exquisite accuracy.

So on the whole, I will have to agree with circlecity.

[NKP_Vet]

There is no such thing as the “Roman” Catholic Church. There is a Catholic Church. It is sometimes referred to as the Roman Catholic Church, but the correct title is Catholic Church. The Church’s hierarchy is headed by the Bishop of Rome, known as the Pope ,who is the leader of the worldwide Catholic Church composed of the Latin Church and the Eastern Catholic Churches in full communion with the see of Rome. If you’re a member of the Latin Church or Eastern Catholic Church, you’re a member of the Catholic Church.

[Springfield Reformer]

I doubt God would draw you away from obedience to His own word. We are under instruction from Scripture to not forsake the assembling of ourselves together. Furthermore, doing all that Jesus taught, as you say, is impossible apart from the community of fellow believers. We are given an extraordinary example of this, well before Paul entered the scene, in Acts, where we see the assembly Jesus created gathering regularly for teaching, sharing lives, sharing through bread and wine the remembrance of Christ, prayer, and so much more, all enlivened and directed by the Holy Spirit acting through Jesus’ apostles. To say that God would lead some individual to reject all that is to say the impossible. God’s mind is not divided.