Religious but not Spiritual

As a newly-single woman, I’ve had occasion to check out some of the computer dating sites: eharmony, match.com. It’s a fascinating world where people put forth a personal resume, hoping to attract the perfect mate.

Match.com doesn’t mess around, inviting clients to choose from a list of physical and personality attributes and writing some short descriptive essays. It depends totally on the person revealing the truth. I wonder if anyone marks themselves, for instance, as “overweight.” There are more prudent choices, such as “carrying a few extra pounds.” Why not? Check.

Eharmony has its own process, which includes an in-depth personality test. While clients have some room for brief essays, “matches” are chosen according to the survey questions. One would expect this to be an excellent tool, but the results are mixed at best, causing us to bend our heads around some rather curious prospective dates. Most of mine seem to enjoy mountain climbing, scuba diving, and traveling to new and adventurous places. It must be the up-and-coming trend. Brevard County is also apparently full of middle-aged surfers searching for “surfer girls.” Among the attributes described as “turn-ons” are body piercings and erotica.

This is all very interesting, but one profile question has especially caught my eye: a multiple choice selection about religion. One can choose Christian, Jewish, Agnostic, Atheist, Other, or my personal favorite, Spiritual but not Religious. This seems to be very popular, right up there with “traveling to new and adventurous places.” One problem is that the “Christian” designation draws a whole lot of the Jesus Freaks, for which there is no box, more’s the pity. My personal guideline is to discard anyone who mentions Jesus/God more than once in the brief essay answers. I expect some thought of God, some spiritual depth in most anyone. The person who has to harp on it in a dating site is suspect.

Which brings me to this question: why is there no box for “Religious but not Spiritual”? I know some will argue that there’s no such thing: we are all spiritual beings. Still, the more unorthodox designation would encompass most of the people I know, especially those who go to church. The institution seems a place to keep so busy that one’s spiritual life has little opportunity to intrude. I remember one Lenten season when we offered a series on spiritual practices. Despite the fact that dinner was also served, we only drew a half a dozen people out of a congregation of 300. Our leadership, the most involved folks, were nowhere in sight.

It’s not just the church laity but also the pastorate who fall victim. As clergy, we become burdened by budgets and Bible studies, Sunday school programs and stewardship drives. We only think of God once a week as we write our next dissertation about the Holy One. This serves to remove the Almighty to the distance of intellectual exercise.

Being spiritual, I would argue, is rarer than people would like to believe. Being religious, conversely, is easy. There are rules: show up, say the words, pay the tithe. Easy. Being spiritual is the real trick, requiring a vulnerability few wish to engage. There are no rules. It is the soul’s true answer to “traveling to new and adventurous places.”

As for me, being a 48 year-old woman “carrying a few extra pounds” and unencumbered by provocative piercings has left me on the margins of the internet dating scene. That’s okay for now. I have a lot of catching up to do with God.