How God may be drawing you, and why Christianity is better than vague spirituality

New York Times statistic/chart guru Charles M. Blow has noted that people who grow up in families with no religious affiliation are increasingly turning to religion, much to the chagrin of his “non-religious” friends. He cites evidence why this should be preposterous. The Bible, apparently, is full of contradictions, evolution is irrefutable, and neuro-research is beginning to suggest that God is merely a product of our minds. However, people have a vague since of spirituality that draws them to community, ritual and worship. To sum it up, Mr. Blow’s non-religious friends should accept at a distance the comfortable notion of a vague spirituality that might draw someone who was once perfectly reasonable through the doors of a church, mosque or synagogue.

First, I want to address his assumptions of the unreasonableness of Christianity. I cannot speak for any other religion, and anyone who takes religion seriously rejects the idea that they are merely different flavors of the same thing. But too many have accept Christianity based on reason to allow Mr. Blow’s crudely-dismissive generalizations to carry weight. I get it, though. I get why it’s cool to dismiss religion as a whole. The loudest voices seem to be the extremes – the Pat Robertsons and Osama Bin Ladins of this world, the violent and the reactionary. Perhaps religion was more palatable when the prophetic voices were those of Martin Luther King, Mother Theresa or Mahatma Gandhi. It takes a spiritual depth and a certain amount of patience, dare I say faith, to explore beyond the loudest voices, and I fear Mr. Blow’s hypotheses only add to the noise – an intellectually acceptable talk-radio on the pages of a national newspaper. Let me address his assumptions in turn.

There may very well something in our brain that makes in all-too natural for us to come up with the idea of a God. I have no intention in disputing the latest findings of neuroscience. To assume, however, that this proves that God does not exist is a philosophical fallacy. That science can explain why anyone would believe God exists does not explain away God any more than a scientific explanation of why I need and want love would explain away my wife. Any intellectually honest exploration of Christianity must separate the question of God’s existence from our ability to come up with the idea of him. Moreover, that our brains may have an innate God-picture could suggest that there is a creator who would want to be found by faith. It might be another way to look at these ideas.

The same principle applies to evolution. If evolution is irrefutable, is God disproved? Francis Collins, who led the effort to map the human genome and is a committed Christian, certainly does not think so. Neither did C.S. Lewis. The lines drawn on the creation vs. evolution debate are not the same as atheists vs. Christians. These are strands as Christian interpretation of scripture and understanding of natural history. A belief in science ought not dissuade anyone from a belief in Christianity.

I have the biggest beef with Mr. Blow’s assertion that the Bible is full of contradictions. Yes, there is scholarship that would support this. But it ignores twenty centuries of scholarship, including scholarship that has met, blow for blow, the skeptical writings of the last centuries. (N.T. Wright being one of the latest and most popular) As someone who has read the Bible daily for more than a dozen years, I find it most astounding that, with four excited evangelists and a few letter-writing apostles telling the same story, the Bible is remarkably consistent. If you want to explore Christianity, do not start with the dismissive statements of Charles M. Blow. Given that any provocative trend in Biblical scholarship is a sure best-seller, you probably should not start with books about the Bible, even those that I would recommend. Rather, explore the Bible itself – the Gospels, Paul’s letters. Read it with someone else. You might just find the spiritual nurture you have been longing for.

Finally, I want to say a few words about Mr. Blow’s nod towards a vague, comfortable spirituality. Spirituality is ultimately relational, and Mr. Blow acknowledges this. He notes that people are seeking community and religious ritual – things that seem establish relationship with God and other people. Should this surprise us that these spiritual needs are drawing people to the pews, rather than Damascus road experiences? Jesus said that the two greatest Torah commands were to love God and to love our neighbors. Paul writes to the Corinthians that his ministry is a ministry of reconciliation, that through Jesus we are reconciled to God. Spirituality needs to work in relationship, with God and neighbor.

This means that a vague since of spirituality, rounded out with good vibes, picnics and volunteer work, is not going to cut it, even if it is appealingly inclusive. A true relationship with God is a commitment, and a commitment has cost. The vague spirituality that Mr. Blow and others espouse, is a foretaste (sometimes a wonderful foretaste) that will not ultimately satisfy. The vague spiritualist reminds me of an immature young man in a long-term relationship who is afraid to commit to marriage. I know this young man, because I have been him before. The cost, the sacrifices, the changes, the entrance of this new person that will have a say in the way I act, think, wake and sleep. The dating can fulfill urges without actually changing me. But we know that ultimate intimacy will never work with one eye on the door. Like dating, vague spirituality is an important first step, and the immature, along with, often, with the rejected, the hurt and the broken, prefer to stay there. But intimacy with God awaits, a spiritual beckoning for the humble, leading where blood and body were broken with great cost, where we rise again, full, fulfilled, abundant.