In Restless Souls: The Making of American Spirituality I encountered the term “Spiritual Left.” It is presented by the author as the counterbalance to claims of moral superiority by the “Religious Right.” I have mixed feelings about language that encourages polemic polarization (instead of dialogue), but I think that it has some uses. It highlights the spectrum between religious conservatism and spiritual progressivism.
The religious right values tradition. Family values, belief in God and healthy respect for traditional political and religious authority figures is encouraged. Institutional religion is important. These conservatives are more likely to take scripture as literal and/or authoritative. It tends to look to the past (for example, to the Church that Jesus established). Religious institutions are seen as the defenders of traditional morality. The individual is in many ways subordinate to the community, and membership in a religious community is considered very important. Moral codes are more absolute.
The spiritual left values positive change, often against the pull of tradition. Abolition of slavery, the Civil Rights movement and gay rights advocacy all were/are against tradition and the status quo. Religious institutions are often seen as limiting individual spiritual growth. Scripture contains metaphoric and mythical truths nestled among human cultural artifacts. The individual is often placed above the community. Communal identity is often sacrificed in favor of diversity and toleration. Individual conscience and unmediated access to the divine is emphasized. There is more moral relativism.
There is no doubt that my personal bias is towards the spiritual left, but I tried to present the two sides of the spectrum using language that valued each on their own terms. You can tell me how successful I was. Can you place yourself on the spectrum somewhere, or is this too simplistic?
5 responses so far ↓
1 Miko // Jun 14, 2006 at 7:02 am
I can & do. I’ve often thought of myself as more spiritual than religious in the sense that I felt I had immediate access to my god/dess & if someone felt a different connection to The Divine, that was fine with me & just as valid. You did a great job of explaining the halves: I don’t think either side could complain. I also like the word—maybe it will give progressives more bite come election time when the CR blasts the SL for having no values…framing the debate.
2 John // Jun 14, 2006 at 8:08 am
maybe it will give progressives more bite come election time when the CR blasts the SL for having no values
I hope so. The Religious Right has some powerful political assets in its abilities to form strong group identities and to organize and mobilize. The Spiritual Left has as much claim to values and morality as the RR (but we emphasize different values: tolerance, diversity, pacifism, anti-poverty, anti- discrimination, environment, etc.), but we have fewer options for mobilizing and disseminating information. Our respect for diverse opinions also hamstrings our abilty to act in a unified manner.
One example: the Sunday before the Senate vote the LDS hierarchy urged congregations all across the U.S. to write their political leaders. The Church can reinforce unified opinion as well: when a BYU professor wrote an op-ed piece against the FMA, he was essentially fired. The Spiritual Left has to depend more on less formal, grassroots mechanisms (MoveOn isn’t religious, but is one positive example), and doesn’t have the ability or inclination to discipline dissenters.
3 Johnny // Jun 14, 2006 at 12:21 pm
I really liked this post! I consider myself part of the “spiritual left.” I feel like the religious right gains a lot of ground by playing the “godless liberalism” card. I also think that the spiritual left is trying to find its contemporary voice. Now for my minor quibble…
The individual is often placed above the community. Communal identity is often sacrificed in favor of diversity and toleration.
I can only speak (somewhat) informed on movements within Christian Political Theology. There I find a lot of arguments against classical liberalism’s focus on the individual. The religious community is often emphasized as a source of authority and the context of social change. This focus of community contrasts with both the focus of the individual and the authoritarian ecclesiastical structure.
Religious institutions are often seen as limiting individual spiritual growth.
Liberation Theology provides a good counter-example. It sees the institution of the church as a potential ally in the fight against oppression. Even though there have been some tensions with Liberation Theologians and the Catholic Church, the theologians themselves see the institutional aspect as important.
So I guess I agree with the spirit of your thoughts on the individual. Most Spiritual Leftists are more egalitarian and less concerned with orthodoxy, which can easily be understood as a focus on the individual.
4 Rich // Jun 15, 2006 at 3:06 pm
The older I get the lefter I lean, and the more frustrated I become with the RR.
I’m ready to buy one of these
5 John // Jun 16, 2006 at 9:50 pm
Johnny, I’m glad you liked it–I enjoyed your response!
You bring up a great point. When I first started writing the post, I found myself including qualifiers and caveats, but ultimately I decided in favor of going with less nuanced definitions (using the word “often” to cover my generalizing butt).
I especially struggled with the individual v. community, and I’m glad you’ve suggested an alternative to my binary view, which fused the institution and the community. Many spiritual liberals I know have a heightened sense of community that drives much of their ethical and spiritual life. My wife has a strong sense of connection to the people who provide the services and goods we consume and feels that even her smallest choices can have an impact on their lives.
It seems to me that in the U.S., “conservative” policies tend to defend the individual’s ability to consume and to protect the individual from responsibility to the greater community.
Liberation theologians are also strong on the concept of social/communal sin, which again problematizes my liberal = individual emphasis above. I’ll have to chew on these thoughts for awhile.
Leave a Comment