Lillian Daniel. When “Spiritual But Not Religious” Is Not Enough: Seeing God in Surprising Places, Even the Church. New York: Jericho Books, 2013. See here to buy the book.
Lillian Daniel is a United Church of Christ minister in Glen Ellyn,
Illinois. In 2011, a Huffington Post article that she wrote, “Spiritual But Not Religious: Please Stop Boring Me,” went
viral. I did not care for the article for a variety of reasons: its
snarky tone, its judgmental attitude towards people who identify as
spiritual but not religious, its implication that people have to be
interesting to Lillian Daniel for her to listen to what they have to
say, and its insistence that people be a part of a Christian community,
where they will find others who disagree with them. “Heck, I have
enough assholes who put me down, especially on the Internet,” I
thought. “I don’t need to go to a place where people nitpick me for
falling short of perfection, as if they are so perfect.” (Note: Just to be clear, that does not describe the church that I was
attending at the time, but I have encountered Christian communities like
that.)
But I still shared the post because there was something about it that
I liked. Maybe, like Lillian Daniel, I was turned off by the SBNR
people who talk as if they are being earthshakingly original, edgy, and
profound, when actually they are sharing platitudes that I have heard
before. Perhaps what Lillian Daniel said about being part of a larger,
historical tradition spoke to me.
In any case, I saw her book at the library, glanced at a page, and
concluded that I might enjoy the book, while bracing myself for the
possibility that I will not like parts of it. The page that I looked at
was the one in which Daniel said that she cannot prove that Jesus
lived, died, and rose again, and I was curious as to the reasons that
she, as a mainline Protestant pastor, believed in the Christian faith.
She does not seem to believe in it because of any proof that exists, but
rather because she finds its values of grace, love, and service to be
compelling. I can identify with that. Of course, atheists can come
back with their snarky comments about the ill effects of religion past
and present, but I think any belief system can be taken in negative
directions, even atheism.
Essentially, as more than one Amazon reviewer has snarkily noted, the
book is not an expanded version of her Huffington Post article. You
will find some version of her Huffington Post article in it, and an
early chapter that is critical of a SBNR person she met on a plane. But
there are a lot of other essays in the book, about a variety of
subjects: exclusion and inclusion; God’s grace; how we wrongfully assume
that people in prison are among the dead rather than the living
(metaphorically-speaking), as if their opportunity to live and
contribute to life has passed; Daniel’s arguments with televangelists
who emphasize prosperity, when Jesus talked about other values; and the
plight of illegal immigrants. Daniel also tells endearing personal
stories: about her reluctant attempts to learn about her roots (i.e.,
she is descended from the Southern pro-slavery politician John C.
Calhoun); the time when she got to be the church to a man on his
deathbead, an eccentric man who helped her church out a lot but never
attended a service; the time when her class raised money for an
operation for her blind cat; how her parents’ separation brought them
closer together; and her parents’ religious journeys. The chapter about
that last two topics was my favorite.
Regarding the early chapter about the SBNR man on the plane, I did
not care for how Daniel trivialized that man’s story, and yet I agreed
with some of her critiques of what he said. The man was raised a
Catholic, but he did not feel that his questions were welcomed or that
its rituals were relevant to him. Later, after college, he attended a
conservative Baptist church, but he was put off by its rules against
dancing and sex before marriage. He later would attend a mainline
Protestant church with his wife, and he found it to be a “big warm
hug.” That church had an intellectual approach to the Bible and was not
shocked by his questions or doubts. When he and his wife divorced, he
left that church because it felt more like his wife’s church than his.
Now, he finds God in nature, and he was impressed by something that his
teenage son told him: that they are lucky that they live in the United
States and not the Third World, where there is starvation and war. The
man thought that his son’s insight showed profound gratitude.
Obviously, I agreed with Lillian Daniel’s critique of the man’s pride
in his son’s comment. We should be angered and want to do something
about the problems and injustice in the world, not simply be happy that
we are insulated from them. Of course, I would not be surprised if
there are SBNR people who would agree with Daniel on that, and I would
also say that, even in churches, there are people who are grateful that
they are away from the problems of the world, or who seem to be
blissfully unaware of those problems when they glibly talk about God’s
activity in their lives (though I will also say that, for myself
personally, my faith is challenged in church when I hear prayer requests
about people’s problems, more so than it would be were I to stay
home). I do agree with Daniel, though, that church can be a place where
people are challenged by the fact that there is suffering in the world,
where they are confronted by a sense that they have some moral or
spiritual obligation to care and to try to do something about it, and
where they can organize and muster resources to address the problems.
I could identify with the man’s story, especially the part about him
wanting a religious environment that was intellectual and that welcomed
his doubts and questions. Was his story earth-shakingly original? No.
Others have that story, too. But it was his story. He was sharing his
experiences and how he came to believe what he believes now. That was
meaningful to him. It should be respected, not casually dismissed.
Daniel is not the only person in the world whose parents separated, but
that experience still shaped her life and her perspective, and that
should be honored and respected, not dismissed because others have that
story, too. I wish that Daniel had expressed more respect for that
man’s story.
I hesitantly add another critique, and I say “hesitantly” because
this is not a critique that I want to make. Daniel talks about the
importance of being part of a tradition that we did not invent. That
being the case, there were times when I was hoping that she would
wrestle with Bible passages that, at least apparently, seem to
contradict her religious views. She talks about the divisions that we
have among one another, and she does so compassionately and with
understanding, which I applaud. I think of her story about the man who
refused to forgive his brother even when on his deathbed. Daniel seems
to believe that there will eventually be reconciliation, in an
afterlife. I wonder how she would address Jesus’ statement that God
will not forgive us if we do not forgive others (Matthew 6:15). Maybe
that can be harmonized with Daniel’s open view. In any case, there is
just a lingering sense within me that maybe the hard-core, strict,
fundamentalist picture of God is the accurate picture, whereas more
open, tolerant, understanding, compassionate, liberal versions are not,
as attractive (and psychologically healthier) as they may be. Daniel
may still find edification in the so-called “clobber passages” of
Scripture, but a discussion as to how she does so would have been
helpful to me, and probably other readers as well.
I was also a bit surprised by at least one statement about the Bible
that she made. She says on page 70 that Saul of Tarsus (who became
Paul) “collected taxes for the empire, which meant that he brutalized
poor people and skimmed off a profit for himself.” I have never heard
or read that about Paul. He was a Pharisee, not a tax-collector, as far
as I know.
My post is getting pretty long! I did enjoy this book. I was also
challenged by Daniel’s statement that worship is not directed towards
us, but towards God. Sometimes, people throw out that sort of statement
to put down people who feel alienated from organized religion, without
listening to what they have to say, and considering that organized
religion may be part of the problem, in areas. Still, self-centered
consumerism is out there, and inside of me, so I do need to be
challenged by that sort of statement, every now and then.