Spiritual but not religious

"Spiritual but not religious" (SBNR), also known as "spiritual but not affiliated" (SBNA), or sometimes "more spiritual than religious", is a popular phrase used to self-identify a life stance of spirituality that does not regard organized religion as the sole or most valuable means of furthering spiritual growth. Historically, the words religious and spiritual have been used synonymously to describe all the various aspects of the concept of religion, but in contemporary usage spirituality has often become associated with the interior life of the individual, placing an emphasis upon the well-being of the "mind-body-spirit", while religion refers to organizational or communal dimensions. Spirituality sometimes denotes non-institutionalized or individualized religiosity. The interactions are complex since even conservative Christians designate themselves as "spiritual but not religious" to indicate a form of non-ritualistic personal faith.

Origins and demography

Historically, the words religious and spiritual have been used synonymously to describe all the various aspects of the concept of religion. However, religion is a highly contested term with scholars such as Russell McCutcheon arguing that the term "religion" is used as a way to name a "seemingly distinct domain of diverse items of human activity and production". The field of religious studies does not even agree on a single definition of religion, and because spirituality overlaps with it in many ways, there is also no consensus on the definition of spirituality.

The specific expression was used in several scholarly works, including an anthropological paper in 1960 and in Zinnbauer et al.'s seminal paper "Religiousness and Spirituality: Unfuzzying the Fuzzy". SBNR as a movement in America was delineated by author Sven Erlandson in his 2000 book Spiritual but not Religious. The phenomenon possibly started to emerge as a result of a new Romantic movement that began in the 1960s, whereas the relationship between the two has been remotely linked to William James' definition of religious experience, which he defines as the "feelings, acts and experiences of individual men in their solitude, so far as they apprehend themselves to stand in relation to whatever they may consider the divine".