Difference between religion and spirituality

Introduction

It is obvious that the difference between religion and spirituality can be understood only after acquiring clear ideas on what religion is and what spirituality is. After considering all the confusion, false informations and self-styled masters circulating everywhere, that deal with spirituality, I have to say that the difference between religion and spirituality cannot be understood just by reading this post: I have written many other posts to say what spirituality is and to correct misconceptions about it: we cannot expect to understand how it differs from religion without a previous work to get correct ideas on the subject. Only such a patient work makes us equipped to orient properly and without too much difficulty about the difference between religion and spirituality.

Difference between religion and spirituality

The first, most obvious, difference is the fact that spirituality is universal, at the point that even atheists claim their one, while practicing a religion is limited to those who adhere explicitly. In this context, religion can be considered a part, a subset of the universe of spirituality. As a consequence of that, it would be more appropriate to talk about the similarities between religion and spirituality, rather than about the differences. However, we can also find several differences that we are going to examine.

Every religion asks its members to be firmly convinced of its truth; spirituality, instead, is self-critical, always willing to question itself about everything. Actually, there are attempts to organize religion as well in non dogmatic ways, such as non dogmatic theology or postmodern Christianity. I think, however, that these efforts, sooner or later, have to acknowledge that no self-criticism can withstand the problem of theodicy; in other words, an experiential faith in a God, who does not give answers about evil, is exposed to the criticism of being a faith too divorced from critical reflection. I have gone through several stages in all of this and I cannot claim that what is problematic for me has to be problematic for everyone; the debate remains open.

Another feature of religions, though not all of them, is a relationship with a God, or Gods, treated as persons. In another post I have pointed out that, if the personification of God protects us from other idolatrous personifications, on the other side we need something to protect us from the idolatry of God. Spirituality, as I said, is not a person; from this point of view, it may be perceived as less comforting, but only by those who are accustomed to certain patterns and find difficult becoming familiar with different ways of living, we can better say with different spiritualities.

Religions usually contain rites, liturgies, observances to follow; spirituality is not linked to any practice, except any activity that each person freely chooses to follow. This may seem not comforting as well, but this feeling can also be nothing else than the discomfort of freedom felt by those who have got used to live like slaves for too long.

Every religion has its representatives, both living and belonging to the early history, who define, at least outwardly, membership; in this context, those who really belong to a certain religion are not those who claim it, but those who are officially recognized as such by the reference representatives; this structure has the function of maintaining a certain order within the religions. Spirituality has no representatives; all efforts we do to define it are not to establish who belongs to it and who is excluded, but exactly the opposite: they allow us to realize that the whole world is spirituality and the distinctions within it are nothing more than the equivalent of the distinction we make between a person and another one, an object and another one.

If every religion has its own history and its own way of dealing with history, the history of spirituality coincides with the history of the universe and its way of being related to history is nothing but the inner aspect of our living and experiencing history. In this context, considering spirituality a hermeneutic does not mean that it is a very precise hermeneutic that we have to depend on: it is a hermeneutic as a method and as an exploration of all hermeneutics; among all, none of them has to be embraced specifically.

Additional note

A curious thing happens in history: spirituality can even become a victim of religion. Spirituality is characterized in history by its tendency to be creative. The spiritual person feels an experience within themselves, they wants to develop it and therefore they want to explore unknown fields, they want to know all the possibilities given by their human faculties, in short they want to experience existence. This need for creativity shows itself particularly as someone’s difference. That is, there is someone who has a particular sensitivity to inner life and this person, in addition to living this experience, at a certain point feels the desire, the need, to show it, to communicate it. Here some problems are already starting to arise. We can notice that a spiritual experience cannot be decanted, poured from one person to another: we can only say words that try to make the other person remember their own experiences, which in our opinion will help them to understand what we feel, but the other person does not enter into us. They trace experiences of themselves within themselves, which we consider similar to those we want to communicate. So, when somebody who lives a spirituality would like to communicate it, the first problem that arises is precisely the difficulty in communicating it. What happens when communicating? It happens that communication is entrusted to words and behaviors. That is, I say something, I do something, in the hope that the other person, by referring to these words of mine, to what I have done, realizes what I want to communicate. This way what we can truly call religion begins to be born. That is, unlike spirituality, which is something intimate, not specified, not defined, the moment I try to put it into words, to express it even with behaviors, the birth of a religion begins, that is, something more defined, more expressible, more referred to with more precise concepts.

At this point, in addition to the problem of communication, some other difficulties arise. A function of words and behaviors is to have control of communication. That is, I want to control what the other is understanding, the other wants to control what I want to communicate and this control is got by referring to words or behaviors. Control means power, which also suggests an institution. This way, a situation is created: somebody starts living an experience; they wants to communicate it; in order to be able to communicate it, they create a third thing, that is to say, the block, the baggage, of words, behaviors, which make a reference point: the institution. At a certain point, those who have received that message, that spiritual experience, the same way I was creative in my spiritual experience, wanting to communicate it, even to others, they feel the same need for creativity. But the institution wants to conserve.

This is what we can find in history, already in the Old Testament, for example, in the tension between the prophets and the temple. The temple is the guardian, the institution that preserves the written words, but the prophet would like growth and this way problems arise. Within Christianity, heresies were born along history. There was the founder, Jesus, but, at a certain point, his message, in addition to the will to preserve it, arouses the desire to make it grow, carry it forward, develop it. The institution, in its attempt to define the authenticity of the founder’s message, says: No, those are heresies. This is how problems arise. Actually Jesus was also born as a heretic in turn. Coming from the Jewish religion, he says: Why shouldn’t I be creative in my turn, like others have been creative? So the problem arises with the institution, which instead wants to preserve traditions.

In Christianity, a similar phenomenon happened with religious orders, which were also born from people who wanted to create. Let’s think, for example, of Franciscanism, saint Francis. He has his specific sensitivity and wants to give his imprint to Christianity, but the institution says: Christianity is based on Jesus, it is not based on you, so you have to adapt. Saint Francis says: But your one doesn’t seem to me the most authentic way of interpreting Jesus, I want to have my say. And tensions arise. This happened not only with saint Francis, but with all religious orders, which however have the characteristic, unlike heresies, of staying within religion, so that the tension has been resolved. Something similar can be found in current Christianity, in the “movements”. We can think, indicatively, of the Neocatechumenals, or the “Renewal in the Spirit”, that is, people who feel the need to create. Why shouldn’t the Holy Spirit continue to create? But the institution wants to preserve things and so, here too, the movement, if a middle ground, a conciliation, can be found, is preserved, maintained within the institution, otherwise problems arise. Why problems? Because spirituality has within itself an instinct to create, while the institution wants to preserve the founder’s message. In summary, therefore, we can observe this important difference between spirituality and religion. In religion there is a founder and often it is a single person, while in spirituality as such there is not a founder, there is not a single person, because spirituality as such is a phenomenon that involves everyone, it is part of everyone, everyone has it, because every human being, and even not just humans, can be considered as a being who has an inner life, regardless of whether it is visible or not. In this sense, spirituality is not tied to a truth, to the spirituality of the founder, but it is a listening to the spirit of everyone. There is no track within which one must move, it is not pre-established what can be created and what cannot, everything is open, anything can arise from spirituality, even evil. In this sense spirituality is not characterized as only good. Even the inner life of the wicked, that too is spirituality. Here something similar to what is called “conventionalism” occurs. What needs to be carried forward is not, as in religion, what was established by the founder or what is preserved by the institution, but what is agreed upon, what derives from everyone’s agreement, or, at least, we can also say, the sensitivity that prevails, and which therefore, with history, can change, no one knows how. This, obviously, can create a fear of anarchy, disorder, but it has the advantage of freedom, of greater creativity for everyone, of not being bound to the thoughts of a founder, but to all the richness that each person contains within themselves. Everyone can decide what the advantages and disadvantages of religion and spirituality are, but, in any case, it is interesting, important, to be aware of this difference: spirituality as such does not have a founder, it does not have constraints, it does not have a pre-established truth to adhere to, while religion, instead, has these more specific characterizations.