Posts Tagged spirituality

“The unaffiliated” are the fast-growing religious group

August 15th, 2010 by

In today’s Opinion section in The Oregonian, William Lobdell cites the trend of opting out of organized religion.

According to a 2008 study by the Pew Forum on Religion & Public Life, he states, “the unaffiliated category of faith is the fastest-growing “religion” in America.

This is hardly surprising news. The most spiritual people I know generally don’t go to church on Sundays. Organized religion, in its rigidity, has failed a lot of people. Lobdell notes that “pollsters have reported repeatedly that they can find little measurable difference between the moral behavior of churchgoers and the rest of American society.”

Many of us who’ve left church or organized religion behind are still craving community, faith, and spirituality—and thus the “unaffiliated” may indeed be the “spiritual.” If you look at The Pew Forum’s key findings, unaffiliated is categorized as either “agnostic,” “atheist,” or “nothing in particular.” “New Age” is categorized under “Other Faiths.” I would love to see what the numbers would look like if “Spiritual” were an option. Just saying, it’s the wave of the future.

Permalink to this entry | Comment | Tags: ,

Get your woo-woo on

June 6th, 2010 by

Ever since Three Intentions launched, I’ve been more aware of how many people qualify their spirituality by saying it’s not “woo-woo.” I work with a lot of writers, especially, who are writing mind/body/spirit books, or who incorporate various spiritual practices into their work as therapists and coaches. A lot of these people are quick to assure me of their groundedness. They want their work to be accessible and they don’t want to be written off as woo-woo.

Here’s a definition for woo-woo (which can’t even be found in Merriam-Webster, by the way):

woo-woo
adj. concerned with emotions, mysticism, or spiritualism; other than rational or scientific; mysterious; new agey. Also n., a person who has mystical or new age beliefs.

Unfortunately, woo-woo has been co-opted and now has a much more negative connotation than just anything having to do with emotions, mysticism, or spiritualism. Deepak Chopra defines woo-woo as “a derogatory reference to almost any form of unconventional thinking, aimed by professional skeptics who are self-appointed vigilantes dedicated to the suppression of curiosity.”

Woo-woo, to me, is a lot like “liberalism” or “feminism.” It’s not an inherently bad or derogatory term, but people are quick to dis-identify themselves for fear of being put into a box. In the case of woo-woo, this box is full of flakes who chant and get messages from a Divine Source and aren’t particularly connected to reality. They might write poetry and wear flowing clothes. I know a lot of these people because I live in Berkeley. I actually think they’re just grown-up hippies.

But for those of us who are following a spiritual path, who are just average folks, many of whom grew up in religious traditions and have since expanded our horizons to include (often not at the exclusion of our religious heritage) some aspects of spirituality, we don’t need to distance ourselves from woo-woo.

If someone tells you they think your ideas are woo-woo, it’s probably an indication that that person, as Chopra says, is a “self-appointed vigilante dedicated to the suppression of curiosity.” Try saying that out loud, gently, the next time someone confronts you with your woo-woo ideas. I’m calling for all of us to embrace our woo-woo, and maybe someday woo-woo will take on a new meaning. Imagine the day when you say something profound and the person you’re in conversation with says, “Wow, man, that was so woo-woo. Thanks for your insights.”

Permalink to this entry | Comment | Tags: ,

Does spirituality need a definition?

April 18th, 2010 by

I think I know what spirituality is, but I also think its definition varies from person to person. Some people are religious and spiritual. Others are non-believers but still spiritual. Religion and spirituality are not mutually exclusive, but they’re also not the same.

I find that a lot of people who are spiritually oriented struggle with what being spiritual means. In part, that’s because spirituality is too broad. It has all sorts of different meanings and associations for people. Some people feel embarrassed about their spirituality because of the New Age movement of the 80s and 90s, while others feel like they can’t own it because they’re not Zen enough, or they don’t meditate on a regular basis, or they’re not hippies. I’ve heard all kinds of self-doubts.

In creating Three Intentions, I’ve thought a lot about spirituality, since it’s at the core of what we’re doing here. I read this article about spirituality being arbitrary and losing meaning, in which the author calls for a definition, saying that he proposes “we either give the buzzword a concrete definition or stop using it.” This guy is a senior in college, so part of me thinks he has a lot of life experiences before him and that he might be wrenched out of his rigidity at some point down the road, but I think this opinion is widely held.

As I read and realized that I disagreed with the idea that spirituality must be defined, it brought with it some relief. Professing that you’re spiritual can be burdensome, bringing with it a whole host of supposed-to’s: you’re supposed to be enlightened, not cuss, be in tune with nature, you name it. But spirituality is a feeling, it’s a connection with something bigger than us. It’s a way to be religious for many of us who have felt failed by religion, or for whom religion has simply not been able to provide the answers or be the support that we need—for whatever reason.

Having grown up in a Christian household, I find my current experience with spirituality is not so different from my childhood relationship with God. It’s a feeling. It’s a support. It gives me ground. And it doesn’t have to be the same as anyone else’s. How about you? What does spirituality look like, feel like to you? Do you have your own definition for what it means to you?

Permalink to this entry | 3 Comments | Tags: , ,