Adherents to the traditionalist system (mostly) take an approach to God that stresses structure, dogma, social church context, and a system of belief that usually stresses God "out there" somewhere (with some small exceptions such as panentheistic religions). This group seems rather suspicious of the historical newcomer group and its view of them can be seen here: http://religion.blogs.cnn.com/2012/09/29/my-take-im-spiritual-not-religious-is-a-cop-out/
The "reactionary" camps consists of those who see themselves as practicing a spiritual perspective but who don't adhere to a traditional religious path to do so. The reasons for not doing so are as varied as the stars in the sky. Perhaps some fall into the laziness outlined in the blog above. Others are emigrants fleeing whatever pain was inflicted upon them in their experiences with the larger organized structures. Whatever.
To me the distinctions are irrelevant and both sides have things to offer. Much of this has more to do with our obsession to label and categorize and control than it does about experiencing authentic relationships with ourselves, our deity(ies), and finding the practices that bring us to happiness, satisfaction, enlightenment. For me that is the bottom line- what is advancing me? What can I glean from X experience? Religions offer history and thousands of years of experience in the nature of metaphysical ideas. Spiritualists for lack of a better terms offer the ideas of freedom from structure and invidiual thought. The whole thing is kind of like a mini-Reformation. For me the truth lays in transcending both and incorporating the underlying lessons.
0 comments:
Post a Comment