Have it Your Way?

Burger King has a famous slogan: "Have it your way at Burger King now!", meaning, they will make your burger any way you like it.

Today, CNN put a new meaning to that slogan in their article "Are there dangers in being 'spiritual but not religious'"?

Here in Oregon, we are touted as the "roll your own religion" experts. Here, you are more likely to meet someone who has amalgamated beliefs than someone who sticks to one doctrine, or even one faith. You will meet a pagan Buddhist or a Christian Muslim more readily than someone who considers themselves traditionally observant of any singular religion.

So, CNN asks, "Is this a problem"?

According to the CNN article, Jesuit priest James Martin thinks it is simply born of selfishness and laziness, saying, "[If the] religious community makes no demands on you, why help the poor?..."Religion is hard," he says. "Sometimes it's just too much work. People don't feel like it. I have better things to do with my time. It's plain old laziness."

Then again, BJ Gallagher, spiritual blogger for the Huffington Post, says, "there's nothing wrong with people blending insights from different faith traditions to create ... a "Burger King Spirituality -- have it your way." She conitnues with a parable, "God and the devil were walking down a path one day when God spotted something sparkling by the side of the path. He picked it up and held it in the palm of his hand. "Ah, Truth," he said. "Here, give it to me," the devil said. "I'll organize it."

After over five years of being "spiritual but not religious", I feel I have a bit of authority to comment here. And while I agree with Gallagher, I suspect both Gallagher and Martin are off track. Or, shall I say, missing the point? Because before we can have the discussion about whether or not there is a problem with spiritual variance, we have to ask, "Why has this happened?"

Until relatively recently, religion was limited to organized and traditional systems. Generally, those who didn't subscribe to a particular religion were either atheists or spiritual kooks living in communes. There was a distinct monopoly on spirituality, born primarily of control.  Then again, we asked for it. The age of reason and the birth of modernism created in humans the need for authority and objective truth in their spiritual pursuits. Rationale and evidence became gods of sorts. Religion was kind enough to answer with a renewed penchant for law, and it worked for generations, but is quickly becoming antiquated.

Today, for numerous reasons, postmodernism has moved into the neighborhood. More a philosophical evolution than an industrial one, it is commonly characterized by relativism and the social equality movements -- women's liberation, racial equality and gay rights, for instance. It's only natural that our spiritual taste preferences would follow suit. Religious institutions have a vested interest in meeting society at large right where they are. If not, religion loses money and power, and the two are dependent upon each other in a circularity. However, it is blindingly obvious that religion hasn't seen the light.

On another note, this new view of equality has spawned a renewed care for "the other". Social justice, poverty, under-education and ecological responsibility are significant priorities for today's generations, and religion has failed almost entirely to step up to bat in these issues. People are weary of churches are not taking an active role in the things that are important to them. Protecting their own interests seems to be the primary motivation for many religious institutions. Yet, churches possess so much power and so vast of resources, their failure in this is notable.

Essentially there are two problems at work here. One is that religion is still mandating conformity and status quo in a time when people are choosing their own definitions of spirituality and the greater good. The other is that religious institutions, as a whole and in general, have failed at moving forward with the social movements we have embraced as a culture. With  any issue of equality, it's only a matter of time before concern for the other will outweigh religious convention, and a new level of equanimity among people is born. Religion is defined by eagerness to hold on to the status quo and sluggishness to conform to changing society. It is my personal opinion that because religious power has generally been held by a few good men, religious institutions' adaptability and fluidity is frighteningly limited. When power is held by a select few, maintaining control is not particularly challenging. Any dilution of that control spells trouble.

However, the entire nature of postmodernism is steeped in ideals such as sharing wealth, sharing power, and sharing responsibility. Because of this, it goes against any logic that the status quo can be maintained. Instead, religion, anxious not to change, is seen as judgmental, narrow-minded, and manipulative. This simply won't continue to work. Yes, for some people, it is still working, but for the masses, they are exiting religion in haste, no longer interested in bigotry, sexism, and discrimination. Gender, racial and sexual inequality is beyond prejudiced, it's downright primitive.

However, with few viable options for true acceptance and equality inside religion, people are forced to look elsewhere, out in the world, or inside of themselves, to satisfy their spiritual needs. The options, with a few exceptions, are either to continue to live in brainwashed fundamentalism that shuns anything outside the "normative" religious expression and marginalizes entire segments of society, or to live "off the grid", so to speak. At this point, for many people, solitary spirituality is the more desirable alternative. 

This is the nature of present society. It cannot be avoided, it cannot be undone. We cannot go back to modernism, and any attempt to look in the mirror will cause religion to run off the road entirely. Eventually, a new evolution will take place and we'll move on to some new philosophy. But for now, it seems like religion will have to adapt to survive. This adaptation will mean a new flexibility, and a willingness to not only accept the new perspectives of an enlightened society, but to embrace them. The collapse of modern religion is clear evidence of their unwillingness to change. But change they will, or they will face extinction. 

So is "Burger King" spirituality a problem? I don't think the answer to that question is relevant. The relevant question is, "Why do people see this as their best option, and what will the religious institution's response be?"

Pass the pickles.