Live by the Spirit

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.