St. Paul, in the Letter to the Galatians says that we are to “live by the Spirit.” He then lists what the results of living this way include: “the fruit of the Spirit is love, joy, peace, patience, kindness, generosity, faithfulness, gentleness, and self-control.” Those who live by the Spirit have been called to freedom, a freedom that comes directly from observing the second commandment, freedom as the result of loving one’s neighbor as one’s self.
Beginning in
September I will be teaching a philosophy course at Rhode Island College titled "The Idea of God." I have found that
when I teach courses about the philosophy of religion or God I sometimes get
into a discussion with students about their understanding of what it means to
live by the Spirit and whether this is different from their understanding of
religion. More often than not,
students respond by telling me they are spiritual but not religious. Religion for them invokes an
institution, one that is hierarchical and authoritative. They question authority and they see
hierarchy as hypocritical and old fashioned in response to the many social and
cultural issues of our day.
Maybe because I am older and my experience is different, I do not see a clear
distinction between religion and living by the Spirit. These two terms used to be understood
as synonymous, but today their common usage has separated them into categories
of what is communal or public and what is individual or private.
In his book
titled “Spiritual But Not Religious,” the author, Robert C. Fuller says, “A large number of Americans identify themselves as ‘spiritual
but not religious.’…. This phrase
probably means different things to different people. The confusion stems from the fact that the words ‘spiritual’
and ‘religious’ are really synonyms. Both connote belief in a Higher Power of some kind. Both also imply a desire to connect, or
enter into a more intense relationship, with this Higher Power. And, finally, both connote interest in
rituals, practices, and daily moral behaviors that foster such a connection or
relationship.”
Robert Fuller then discusses
the forces that have caused a separation between religion and spiritual
life. “Before the 20th century the
terms religious and spiritual were used more or less interchangeably. But a number of modern intellectual and
cultural forces have accentuated differences between the ‘private’ and ‘public’
spheres of life. The increasing
prestige of the sciences, the insights of modern biblical scholarship, and
greater awareness of cultural relativism all made it more difficult for educated
Americans to sustain unqualified loyalty to religious institutions. Many began to associate genuine faith with the ‘private’
realm of personal experience rather than with the ‘public’ realm of
institutions, creeds, and rituals.”
In responding to Fuller’s
explanation of the difference between spiritual and religious, between the
private and the public, Lillian Daniel, the author of a United Church of Christ
online publication says, “Being privately spiritual but not religious just
doesn't interest me. There is
nothing challenging about having deep thoughts all by oneself. What is interesting is doing this work
in community, where other people might call you on stuff, or heaven forbid,
disagree with you. Where life with
God gets rich and provocative is when you dig deeply into a tradition that you
did not invent all for yourself.”
I like this statement. Being in relationship within a dynamic tradition
that has survived the test of time and has also been challenged and has changed
with the developments of science, art, and culture, is important for
understanding what it means to be part of a community. This is very different from being in an
institution that is static and resistant to change. A dynamic tradition is also important for developing self-knowledge
and identity as a child of God. It
is about living in relationships within a community. I do not understand how a person can truly be a follower of
Christ without being engaged with other Christians who also live by the
commandment to “love your neighbor as yourself.”
As
Paul wrote in his Letter to the Galatians, we are “called to freedom,… only do
not use your freedom as an opportunity for self-indulgence, but through love
become slaves to one another.” In his comment about this, the Biblical
scholar and theologian, Walter Brueggemann says, “Jesus does
not sugar-coat his call to discipleship. There were many candidates to become his followers. But he tells them… discipleship is not a
picnic.”
“Discipleship
after Jesus does give freedom, of a very peculiar kind. It is … freedom that enhances the
neighborhood…. The new freedom of the gospel refuses the ordinary ways of the
world that include quarrels, dissensions, carousing, and fornication. New life is under new freedom and new
mandate. Life with Jesus is indeed
another way in the world.”
Brueggemann
makes an important point.
Discipleship, following Jesus, is no picnic. No-one can do this alone; it takes a community committed to
caring for one another and for those outside the immediate community. It is our mission and the mission of
the Church to reconcile all people to God and each other in Christ. Being called to freedom is about
serving others. As Paul said, the
life-giving fruits of the Spirit are "love, joy, peace, patience,
kindness, generosity, faithfulness, gentleness, and self control.” Relationships within these fruits of
the Spirit are those that give peace and hope for our common future. Amen.