It’s no secret that young people aren’t as likely to practice their faith, or any faith at all, as their parents, but this trend appears to be growing across large swaths of other demographics as well. Diana Butler Bass explores this phenomenon in her new book Christianity After Religion: The End of Church and the Birth of a New Spiritual Awakening. She gave an interview to NPR’s On Point, explaining how these trends might be the beginnings of a new reformation.
The author suggests that the people in the pews are demanding different, fresh, and new spiritual experiences than their religious leaders are able or perhaps willing to offer. She says that as a result, many are fleeing traditional churches and forging their own paths. The future, she claims, holds the potential for spiritual zeal fueled by conversation among the religious, the seeking, the unaffiliated, and the unbelieving.
Listen to the interview here.
Anyway, I listened to the the first 10 minutes of the program, and heard a lot of stuff that I agree with and found hopeful. So many in the media and mainstream Church bemoan the fact that their pews are emptying, especially of young people, but that doesn't mean that these people are not interested in God/spirituality. It might even be a good thing.
I think that following this path, the seekers will discover anew the profound truths that are held in the Catholic tradition. For example, contemplative prayer retreats at Trappists monasteries are filled up months in advance these days. Many of those attending are young and non-Churched.
While I agree it may not be a bad thing and the question was long overdue to be asked about the content of our faith etc I think that it is very optimistic to imagine that there will be a springtime of the soul.
Most people will get lost in the desert.
The mechanical religion of yore served as a great mental crutch and when that is gone make way for the fall.
I can only think of one catholic writer of the last 50 years who can make Christ relevant to me.
There is a chasm between the experiences of people and the presentation of Christ and the result is that people are no longer going along to get along but bringing their spiritual longings elsewhere.
Everybody has spirit but spirit without method is lost and the most unholy Church at least has method to it's name.
The problem is when the structure becomes rigid and non-responsive. If it is a living thing, a structure can and will change. In my opinion, the dialogue between the liberal and conservative factions of the Church is a crucial part of steering this human institution into the future.
Being lost in the desert is not necessarily a bad thing, either.
It seems Diana Butler Bass's thesis is that the future of religion is to lose all the difficult, time-consuing, tedious parts and only keep the parts that are easy and fun and can be done when one has nothing important to do. No more memorizing prayers, no more studying abstruse doctrines, no more sitting through endless, repetitive, incoherent homilies, no more getting up early to go to mass on Sunday mornings, no more pressure to restrain one's carnal appetites, no more envelopes and baskets, no more groveling to stinky old men in silly costumes, no more sitting around over soggy donuts and tepid coffee listening to the parish bore tell you about the good old days. Instead, we'll all just sit down on our yoga mats once in a while and say "ommmmm" for a bit and God or Whatever will come give us a "mystical experience."
Who isn't in favor of that? It sounds great. But how come nobody ever thought of it before? Through all those centuries of saints praying and fasting and mortifying their flesh and keeping all-night vigils, did it never occurred to a single one of them that it would be simpler just to sit down and say "ommmmm" for a bit?
Good question you pose.I guess people were just not that smart in the past.I tried the ommmm thing and it really works.I did it for 20 minutes on a mat and then stopped .
I feel whole.
And it's not as if any religion holds the copyright on spiritual practice - you can appreciate and practice centering prayer or Ignatian imaginative prayer or lectio divina or do the examen or pray the hours without becoming a Catholic.
The Onion once had a kind of funny reverse aericle on this -"Priest Religious But Not Really Spiritual" ..... http://www.theonion.com/articles/priest-religious-but-not-really-spiritual,17373/
Maybe then we will awaken to the sacredness of everything, not just Church-stuff.
Where are they? Places like this, for a start: http://www.epicsf.com/?gclid=CNrA8dKRzq4CFQUZQgodPW-wuQ
Is is just a nonsnese term or does it have some specific definition? Is it a way of putting other people down by saying I am spiritual and you apparently are not. Is it a flow of serotonin in the neurons or a dopamine transmission?
What are people actually seeking when they say they want spiritual experiences? We have all had very powerful emotional experiences, sometimes bordering on the ecstatic but how does one classify something that is spiritual with something that is just emotional? We can all concentrate on our navel have a mental experience but is that spiritual? Are we just witnessing differences in human due to DNA differences and gene expression or are we actually describing some state that has no physical explanation?
And an aside based on the OP. What is being reformed? and what is it being reformed to?
See, I wasn't jesting - just trying to find the needle in the haystack!
I hope this sort of problem grows for us.
It's all quite interesting. I will listen to her interview when I have 45 minutes.
These ideas are flawed, but they should be treated seriously if only because they point to deep discontents and longings that need to be addressed. The spirituals were dismayed by what they (rightly) felt was the betrayal of the ideals of St. Francis by his immediate followers among the "moderates." They felt that the moderates were selling out to the institutional church, seeking the kinds of possessions and power that Francis had turned his back on. It was understandable (sad, but still understandable) that they would gravitate to the quasi-apocolyptic vision of Joachim of Fiore to explain their situation.
We need to figure out what about our own Church alienates the young, and we need to show them that we provide a positive, viable alternative to the vapid amalgam that often passes for the "new spirituality."
At first I thought it seemed reasonable but then I remembered my Nietzsche and his depiction of the early Christians was hardly as "Angelic" as we imagine.
Reading the Didache also dispells any ideas of a doctrine free existence.Of course there are grades and shades in everything.
David gives a very balanced optic of the great franciscan struggle of which the Holy Father wrote his dissertation.
St Ignatius of Loyola also famously had to deal with such prophecies.
I think that if we see a true Saint like St Francis and those who adhere to his spirit we are less inclined to be fastened to dogmas but it is the exception and not the norm.
I have always thought of spirituality as a watered-down version of mysticism. Mysticism is the process of getting to know God through visions, like the one in Isaiah 6 and Ezekiel's Merkabah vision. That sort of thing has been fairly popular in Christian history. St. Anthony and St. John of the Cross went in for it, and a lot of other saints too. But visions like that usually require starving oneself and/or sleep-depriving oneself in a big way, so it's not for everybody.
Instead, a lot of modern people seem to go for a less arduous, more accessible sort of "premonition" of divine presence. They say one can get this kind of vision-lite by sitting on a yoga mat and saying "om" or by sitting on a mountain and contemplating the view or even just by sitting in a church repeating repetitive prayers. Occasionally this results in visions or voices, but usually just a kind of nebulous "feeling." But it's not an emotional "feeling." It's a "feeling" like somebody is there. Or sometimes a "feeling" like one is part of some larger universal system of togetherness and cooperation. (Probably the E. Coli in my intestines get that feeling sometimes too.) That's "spirituality."
I personally think this is mostly bunk. Of course, it would be very encouraging to have a vision that Somebody exists and is watching over us. But even if I had one, I would be inclined to doubt it was anything more than an unusual but unexceptional neurological phenomenon.
An extremely interesting insight on these kind of neurological phenomena is Jill Bolte-Taylor's description of her massive stroke. It's about twenty minutes here:
http://www.ted.com/talks/jill_bolte_taylor_s_powerful_stroke_of_insight.html
She's a lot more interesting than Diana Butler Bass, IMHO.
I tend to think of spirituality simply as one's realtionship with God, however one decides to express that.
For others the relationship with God develops more easily away from the ''madding crowd'' - in small communities and/or in silence - usually both because this type of spirituality also usually works on human relationships which are part of the whole divine relationship. This understanding of spirituality often has contemplative prayer such as centering prayer at the heart of it. Seldom, if ever, does this definition of ''spirituality'' involve visions or mystical experiences or hearing voices!! ;) And it is not meant to. Centering prayer opens us to listening - it gets our own chattering voices out of our heads just a little bit so that we can hear God's voice instead - but that is not to be taken literally! It clears the mind so that what Amy prefers to call ''insight'' can become unburied with some of the clutter cleared away. And it doesn't require experiencing a massive stroke.
For reasons that are a little difficult for me to understand, some who live their spiritual lives within the context of traditional religion and traditional church life sometimes seem a bit defensive and to feel somewhat threatened by those whose spiritual journey has taken them in a different direction. It is doubtful that traditional churches will ever completely pass away. But, there is an evolution going on in christianity that is very interesting, revealing, and also exciting to many who had despaired of finding spiritual companionship and communities within the traditional churches.
This bifurcation and editing phenomenon appears to extend to the professionals as well. It seems like many in the Jesus Project have edited the Biblical texts in such ways as to promote their belief preferences, at times couching their preferences in what they like and don't like in scripture by arguing that Christ said this and not that. And they are so well-informed and bright that, like a good debater, they could convince most readers of their arguments no matter what text they chose.
We as mature Catholics have had the fairly rare experience of having lived through the papacies of two popes highly regarded by both Catholics and non-Catholics worldwide. Yet very few commentors here have been Catholic enough to express gratitude for having both of them in their lifetimes.
Is there anyone here besides Father Martin open enough to the fulness of our faith to embrace and celebrate both John XXIII and John Paul II, or are they mutually exclusive? Individual and common liturgy, spirituality and faith tradition? In other words, are there enough Catholics catholic enough?
I'm very glad, though, that it is and accepted, and even treasured, "way" in the Catholic tradition.
Don't be patting yourself to hard on the back for "accepting" Popes.Our Faith is not in a mishmash of papalism, it is in Christ Jesus.
There is no catholic measure there is only a human measure.Many People of other faiths and of no faiths are probably closer to Jesus without any need to have a papal cocktail poured for them.
Be the best christian you can be and don't worry about the Popes.
I wish I could pat myself on the back on these issues. I did not because Frs. Rolheiser and Martin seem far further along that path than I am from what I have read of them.
But the different emphasis of two prominent popes is just one particular aspect of the far larger issue which I attempt to sugggest with the several examples.
Who, David, who????? Tell me who he (or she) is so I can read everything he's written!
Do you know any non-Catholic authors that do that, too? Give me their names, too, I'm not picky!
I do not know if you are jesting or not but I will have a go anyway.
The writer that has stimulated me the most and made Christ beautiful and real is an Italian Priest called Luigi Giussani.
I don't buy into every word he says and am ambivalent about the group that he formed but he is the only writer that has avoided jaded apologetics and gone right to the point which is Jesus Christ.He is novel.
Start with the "Religious Sense" and also his books "Is it possible to live this way" it may be that he is too oblique for you or else he will be the breath of fresh air to you that he is to many others.
Good luck !