Abstract
Historical theologian Linda Mercadante provides thoughtfully formulated, carefully researched investigation into the beliefs of spiritual but not religious (SBNR) persons and offers fresh insight on this important topic.
Whereas there have always been some SBNR persons in American culture, the numbers have grown vastly. According to surveys, it was about 6% in the 1940s but grew to 11% in 1990, 16% in 2008, and to 20% and growing in 2012. Any who care about religion have reason to wonder who they are, what they believe, and why their numbers are increasing so much.
Mercadante set out to gain insight into those questions. She interviewed ninety SBNRs, each for a 1- to 2-hour recorded interview that was transcribed, analyzed, and reported, using pseudonyms. She asked them about their spiritual journey and their beliefs on four major topics: transcendence, human nature, community, and afterlife. Hers was a “convenience” but also a “snowball” sample of persons eager to talk about this. She found some interviewees from each of the adult generations from The Greatest Generation (born 1901–1924) to Millennials (born after 1981).
She discovered that there is a common mistaken assumption about why SBNRS left—that it was because persons were emotionally or even physically hurt by religious people. There was little evidence of this in her interviews—“most of their objections to religion tended to be conceptual or theological” (p. 18).
SBNRs interviewed were in a variety of places in their quest. Mercadante categorized them in these groupings: dissenters, casuals, explorers–syncretists, seekers, and immigrants. Among these, she found a number of themes common, or at least widespread, among those interviewed. One theme was freedom: “each interviewee … felt very free to adopt, adapt, discard, and change any spiritual or religious beliefs they encountered” (p. 68). There is an increase in individualism, and the locus of authority had shifted from outside to oneself. There was widespread resistance to distinct western religious concepts—a questioning of the “all or nothing” stance they perceived some religions to hold. There was a “detraditioning” and an exhilarating embrace of alternative spiritual practices. Nature was embraced as a resource for spirituality.
Mercadante devotes a chapter to the responses to each of the four designated theological categories. She conducted these interviews in a nontechnical, nonjudgmental, open-ended manner. An astute theologian who recognized the philosophical–theological precedents and categories a person might be using, she did not introduce those in the interview, but did engage them to interpret what she heard.
Regarding transcendence, many interviewees rejected not only a male paternalistic God but all personal references to God. Some still reached for some sense of a God who guided them but not with wrath or judgment. Most voiced some form of “monism” where “all is one”—that could be energy, consciousness, or some other form. The goal of the SBNR would be to unite with this Ultimate Reality.
When asked about human nature, respondents had general agreement on human inherent goodness, some even asserting that humans are divine. They saw this as contrary to western religion, which they inaccurately perceived as teaching that humans are inherently evil. Many strongly believed in human freedom to choose one’s actions, and avoided value judgments on behavior, seeing these judgments as arbitrary. What about when things go wrong? The answers seem to vary along psychological, physiological, and mostly environmental explanations. Personal well-being and happiness was seen as the “gold standard” for assessing human behavior.
As regards beliefs about community, although interviewees affirmed community, they were very critical of religious community. Mercadante summarizes their views as “a prioritizing of personal growth over group identity, a relocation of authority from the external to the internal, a belief that all religions teach the same thing, and an abhorrence of the triple religious “sins” of judgmentalism, dogmatism, and exclusivism” (p. 192). One-third of the interviewees had participated in twelve-step groups to their benefit, but even these groups did not hold them long.
Beliefs about the afterlife were even more diverse. Some avoided the topic, and others affirmed belief in “something” after this life. Many rejected their perception of Christian teachings of heaven and hell, seeing this view as exclusivist and unfair. A good number of them believed in reincarnation, with the idea of a continuing and expanding consciousness a vital part of that belief.
The author concludes this study with a chapter on implications—for SBNRs, for society, for religion, and for the church. Her research goal in this study was “to hear how ‘spiritual but not religious’ people construct and express their faith and beliefs” (p. 227). Given this focus, a most important implication is that when people had questions about their religious heritage, they lacked theological method and tools to reflect and grapple with their questions. This created a theological vacuum, which was filled with a variety of views and practices. There are many more implications, but this is a basic one.
This reviewer experienced the book as painful, but important. As one who has given his life to religion as a clergy member and theological school professor, it is hard to hear of rejection, and what people have put in its place. He tried (not always successfully) to read these various views as openly and noncritically as the author did. He encourages others to do the same, for she has important discoveries to share with us.