Recently, I heard a priest summarize our religious problem quite well. He said, “Sometimes I wonder if the church’s main problem is that it points people to the church rather than God.” I don’t believe he was speaking exclusively of his tradition.

One of the most fashionable statements made by people here in the United States in recent years is, “I’m spiritual but not religious.” When I asked what they meant by that statement, most followed up with one of two statements.

“I’m not much for all those rigid doctrines telling me what I should believe.”

“I’m just not into organized religion.”

In my experience, the church is a rather unorganized mess, so I try to dissuade them on that front. If you want a disorganized, chaotic, or inefficient religion, I suggest they consider a local church. My attempt at humor is typically greeted with a smile and a dismissive “haha, but that’s not what I meant.”

What they mean is an aversion to church. These people view religion as restrictive on their personal beliefs and practices. Yet, they find the word spiritual to be broader, more open, and likely a word that leaves their experience of the sacred as relevant and accepted.

Engagement with institutional religion is in decline, especially among Christians. The Pew Research data reveal a decline in other religions as well.

However, interest in the spiritual (broadly defined) is holding steady and, in some ways, increasing. The Fetzer Institute recently reported:

• Engaging in prayer, art, and time in nature were the most frequent practices reported by nearly two-thirds of interviewees who consider themselves both spiritual and religious.
• Survey participants reported that almost every spiritual activity people practiced supported their spiritual growth and mental well-being.
• Seven out of ten people said being in nature gave them a sense of hope. Nearly three-quarters of people found prayer—however, they define it—helped them endure difficulties.

As Ted A. Smith, author of The End of Theological Education, quips during a recent Boston School of Theology lecture,“Sales of Tarot cards hit an all-time high recently.”

You may or may not consider Tarot card sales, the growth of Yoga studios, or an increase in conferences related to dreams as your kind of religion, but clearly, many US Americans do.

As we witness the decline of the institutional expression of religion, we may also be seeing a resurgence of the original meaning of religion. The word religion is derived from the Latin religāre, meaning “to tie back”—to reconnect. At the heart of the word is the Latin verb ligāre, “to tie,” which is also the root of the English word ligament. Are we going back to reconnecting with a more substantive aspect of the sacred?

“No matter what the world thinks about religious experience, the one who has it possesses a great treasure, a thing that has become for him a source of life, meaning, and beauty, and that has given a new splendor to the world and to [hu]mankind.” Carl Jung[1]

When we use “religion” today, we associate it with churches, synagogues, and temples. In a way, we are speaking of institutional aspects of religion. But I want us to broaden our understanding of that word. I am hoping we can return to the reconnecting experience of religion.

Have you ever had an experience where you sensed you were in the presence of God?

I’m guessing the answer might be yes, but perhaps you’ve never thought that what you experienced was religious. Much of life is an encounter with the sacred. These encounters are unexplainable and weird and involve phenomena that counter our everyday life experiences. Some people have wildly bizarre engagements with the holy, while others have more ordinary events, and still others may have had some sort of “thing” happen that they believe they cannot share with anyone. I’m convinced almost everyone has had some type of meeting with the Holy, but many are reluctant to describe the experience to another person.

An old joke by the comedian Lily Tomlin runs something like, “Why is it when someone says they talk to God, we call it prayer, but when God talks to them, we call it crazy?”

The 19th-century philosopher and psychologist William James discusses this idea in his classic book, The Varieties of Religious Experience. He distinguishes between primary religious encounters, which are direct personal experiences, and secondary religion, which involves teachings about the faith or its organizational aspects. Most of what happens today in the US American church is secondary religion – information, analysis, and description. I’ve come to believe this is one of the reasons for the decline in participation in institutional religion.

In contrast, primary religion is the direct experience of the holy, such as encounters with phenomena, hauntings, numinous creatures, conversations with angels, and experiences of gentle calm. Those encounters can be mountain-top experiences or subtle reminders of the blessing of being alive. They can be out in nature, inside a sanctuary, or around the corner from your place of work. Last fall, my interview with Dale Allison highlighted his research on the many people Encountering Mystery.

We may live in a modern world filled with antibiotics, supersonic jets, and indoor plumbing, but the religious function deep within each human being has not disappeared. People are hungry and starved for primary religious experience. I wonder if our religion problem is that it’s not religious enough.

Until next time,

James Hazelwood, writer, bishop, and spiritual director, is the author of Weird Wisdom for the Second Half of Life and Everyday Spirituality: Discover a Life of Hope, Peace, and Meaning. He has a new book in process, Ordinary Mysteries: Reflections on Two Worlds of Life. It is due out in April.