SBNR much?
Would you describe yourself as spiritual but not religious? In English, this has even become a slogan of sorts: SBNR (Spiritual But Not Religious). I'm not here to convince you otherwise. This site is not proselytizing or apologetic: I am not trying to convert anyone (which is exactly what a missionary would say!) nor to defend organized religion. I'm not hiding my intentions, and I don't think I'm deceiving myself. Here’s the path I propose for exploring this topic.
Good Reasons to Be Wary of Religion
Many people feel aversion toward religion, and their reasons are often rooted in personal experiences, historical observations, or philosophical analysis. A few key reasons include:
Institutional abuse of power: Religious institutions, as organized structures, have sometimes been criticized for abuses such as corruption, financial exploitation, or the imposition of rigid dogmas. Scandals in various churches, for instance, have fueled widespread mistrust.
Historical conflicts and violence: Organized religions have been associated with conflicts (crusades, holy wars, persecutions) or oppressive practices (the Inquisition, discrimination), prompting some to reject these systems entirely.
Social control and restriction of freedoms: Religious hierarchies can impose strict moral, sexual, or lifestyle norms, perceived as limiting individual freedom—particularly by those who value personal spirituality or secularization.
Inconsistencies and dogmatism: Some criticize organized religions for their rigidity in the face of scientific progress, modernity, or philosophical questioning, which may seem incompatible with a rational or critical approach.
Negative personal experiences: Individuals may have endured trauma within religious communities (rejection, judgment, exclusion), deepening their aversion.
Preference for personal spirituality: As discussed by thinkers like Weber and Durkheim, many people contrast organized religion with personal spirituality, seen as more authentic, freer from dogma and institutions.
Breaking Away from Organized Religion
However, rejecting organized religion doesn't necessarily mean rejecting spirituality or belief altogether. For many, it’s a critique of the structures rather than of spiritual ideas themselves. The notion of rejecting organized religion (as opposed to all forms of belief) became prominent through thinkers like Max Weber and Émile Durkheim. Several contrasts have emerged:
Individual spirituality: Organized religion, with its institutions, dogmas, and hierarchies (such as churches), has been contrasted with personal, eclectic, or non-institutionalized forms of belief. This often involves contrasting collective religious practices (worship services, mass, processions) with personal or mystical experiences.
Popular or informal religiosity: Organized religion is also contrasted with popular religious practices—local rituals, ancient beliefs (often labeled "superstitions"), and uncodified cults without formal structure or official clergy.
Non-institutional spiritual movements: In the 19th century, thinkers observed the rise of spiritual currents (such as Romanticism or certain forms of mysticism) that rejected the rigid frameworks of established religions, seeking a more direct connection with the divine. This touches on the question of mediation.
Secularization and modernity: Religion has faced secularizing trends in modern societies, with religious institutions losing influence to more rationalist worldviews.
In short, organized religion has been contrasted with more fluid, personal, or non-institutional forms of belief, often seen as more authentic or spontaneous.
When Theologians Critique Religion
Distrust of religion isn't limited to SBNRs, free-thinkers, or philosophers. Some theologians, at the heart of religious traditions themselves, have profoundly challenged "religion" as a human construction. Karl Barth is perhaps one of the most striking examples.
For Barth, religion is not revelation—and may not even be a pathway to it. Rather, he argued, religion is often humanity's attempt to reach God by our own means: through systems, rituals, organized beliefs—whereas revelation is God's sovereign and free act, coming to us without our grasp or anticipation.
In his Epistle to the Romans (1919), Barth offers a radical critique:
"Religion is the enemy of faith."
This was not a mere provocation, but a structured thesis: even when sincere, religion remains a human work—and every human work is marked by the attempt to seize God, to fit Him into our frameworks.
True faith, for Barth, begins where our systems fail. It is born from revelation: an unpredictable, free event that overturns rather than confirms our constructions.
From this critique, another way of framing the question becomes necessary: it is not about choosing between "religion" and "spirituality," nor between abandoning institutions and pursuing individual quests (we can leave aside the "spiritual supermarket" metaphor). Instead, it is about understanding how religious and spiritual dimensions intertwine, judge one another, call out to each other at times, and often contradict—without ever measuring up to another dimension entirely: the divine initiative.
In Fact, This Is Where It Begins
Religion builds a framework. It crystallizes gestures, words, forms. It structures, transmits, stabilizes. But in doing so, it becomes vulnerable to fossilization: it can turn living responses into dead obligations. The temptation of religion is to sacralize its own forms, mistaking human institutions for divine reality.
Spirituality—as understood in the SBNR sense—in reaction or complement, seeks immediate freshness. It aims to restore a direct, personal, inward relationship to the divine or the absolute.
Acknowledging the limits of institutional religion, the limits of superficial spirituality, and recalling the radical nature of divine revelation—this is where we can truly begin the conversation.
