"Being Religious" or "Being Spiritual" in America: A Zero-Sum Proposition?

Author(s): Penny Long Marler and C. Kirk Hadaway

Source: Journal for the Scientific Study of Religion, Vol. 41, No. 2 (Jun., 2002), pp. 289-300
Published by: Wiley on behalf of Society for the Scientific Study of Religion
Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/1388009 .
Accessed: 12/11/2014 05:08
Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at .
http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp

.
JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of
content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms
of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.

Wiley and Society for the Scientific Study of Religion are collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and
extend access to Journal for the Scientific Study of Religion.

http://www.jstor.org

This content downloaded from 92.81.223.65 on Wed, 12 Nov 2014 05:08:49 AM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

"Being Religious" or "Being Spiritual"

in America: A Zero-Sum Proposition?
PENNY LONG MARLER
C. KIRKHADAWAY

Recentdiscussionsof religious attitudesand behaviortendto suggest-and in afew cases, provideevidence--hat

Americansare becoming "mnore
spi-itual" and "less -eligious."Whatdo people mean, howeve,; when they sav
o- "religious"? Do Americanssee these conceptsas definitionallyor oper-ationallydifferent?
theyar-e"spir-itual"
If so, does that differencer-esultin a zero-sumdynamicbetweenthem?In this article, we explorethe relationship
between "beingreligious" and "beingspir-itual"in a national sample of AmericanPr-otestantsand compareour
findings to othe- studies, including WadeClar-kRoof's baby-booner-research (1993, 2000), 1999 Gallup and
2000 Spiritualityand Healthpolls, and the Zinnbaueret al. (1997) study of religious definitions.In addition to
pr-eseniting
quantitativeand qualitativeevidenceaboutthe waypeople thinkabout theirr-eligious/spir-itual
identity,
the article draws implicationsabout mode-nity,the distinctivenessof -eligious change in the recentpast, and the
deinstitutionalizationof -eligion.

Since the Herbergian1950s, the face of institutionalizedreligion in America changed dramatically(Herberg1960). The post-WorldWarII periodwitnessedthe dissolutionof a Protestant
hegemony,the steadyassimilationof the Catholicghetto,anda dramaticincreasein intermarriage
amongJewish Americans.More thanever before, Americansclaim no affiliationand "other"affiliationsto Easternreligionsor New Age practiceas well as allegianceto a burgeoningnumberof
small sects, cults, and large, "totalistic"nondenominationalchurches(Marleret al. 1997; Kohut
et al. 2000). What it means to be "religious"is clearly not what it once was.
Over the same four decades, the demographicsof Americansociety also changed:families
became smaller and more diverse; larger numbersof parentswork full time; and racial/ethnic
diversity steadily increased throughimmigration,intermarriage,and higher birthrates (Marler
1993). Whatit means to be an "American"is clearly not what it once was.
Socioculturaltrendstowardsdeinstitutionalization,individualization,and globalizationhave
been used by a numberof authors,includingPargament(1999), to explain increasedattentionto
"spirituality"andthe diminishedculturalpresenceof traditionalreligiousinstitutions.Sociologists
of religion, notablyRoof (1993), identify so-called baby boomersas the primarycarriersof a late
modern American religion that is self-reflexive, unabashedlyconsumerist,small-groupbased,
andcreativelysyncretistic.The 1960s are,consequently,viewed as the watermarkof 20th century
religious revitalizationand change: a "thirdDis-establishment,"a "thirdGreatAwakening,"or
even the "second Reformation"(Roof and McKinney 1987; Hammond 1992; Ellwood 1994;
Miller 1997;CiminoandLattin1998; Sweet 1999). An explosion of "spiritualseeking"is seen as
characterizingthe presentmoment-creating what Roof (2000) calls a "spiritualquest"culture.'
Cimino and Lattin(1998) echo this observationand go further,predictingthat the gap between
being religious and being spiritualwill widen.
In traditionalsocial science terminology,"spirituality"appearsto representthe functional,
moreintrinsicdimensionsof religion,whereas"religion"representsthemoresubstantive,extrinsic
ones (Pargament1999). This particularconceptualpairing,ironically,makes the contemporary

Penny L. Mar-leris Associate P-ofesso- of Religion, Samfor-dUniver-sity,Birminghanm,

AL 35229. Email: plma-le-@
samford.edu

C. Ki-k Hadaway is Ministerfor Researchand Evaluation,Officeof Gener-alMinistr-ies,UniitedChu-ch of Ch-ist, 700

ProspectAvenue, ClevSeland,
OH44115. Email: hadawayk@ucc.org
Journalfor the ScientificStudyof Religion 41:2 (2002) 289-300

This content downloaded from 92.81.223.65 on Wed, 12 Nov 2014 05:08:49 AM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

290

JOURNALFOR THE SCIENTIFICSTUDY OF RELIGION

spiritualityversus religiousness debate prone to the same kinds of ideological tendencies that
Robertson(1971) aptly identifiedin the ongoing secularizationdebate. Proponentsof "implicit
religion,"for example, arguethat as institutionalforms of religion eroded, noninstitutionaland
nontraditionalforms of spiritualityfilled the void. In this case, spiritualityas the search for
meaningis "good"andreligion as a stultifyinginstitutionis "bad,"or at least anachronistic.With
differentmechanismsbut similaroutcomes,rationalchoice theoriststake a substantive,extrinsic
approach.Institutionalreligiousdeclineis downplayedin favorof anemphasison conservativeand
sectarianstrength.Here,fuzzy andindividualisticspiritualityis "bad"or, at best, inconsequential,
and strong,strictreligion is "good."2
This article looks at the role survey methodology plays in this zero-sum approachto the
relationshipbetween being religious and being spiritual.First, we look at two well-publicized
surveys that operationalize"being religious" and "being spiritual"in slightly different ways:
one item from Roof's 1989 survey of Americanbaby boomers (Roof 1993) and anotherfrom a
December 1999 Gallup survey (PrincetonReligion ResearchCenter2000). Then, we compare
these items and their results with a 1995 study by Zinnbaueret al. (1997) that includes a more
comprehensiveversion of a similar survey item and our 1991 survey of AmericanProtestants,
which includeditems on "beingreligious"and "beingspiritual"similarto the Zinnbaueritem in
scope but patternedafterthe Roof item. Next we look at a follow-up study by Roof (2000) and a
replicationof the Zinnbauerquestionsconductedamong a cross-sectionalsample of Americans
in 2000 (Scott 2001) in orderto examine the effects of sampling on survey responses. Finally,
we review qualitativedata on the meaning of "being religious"and "being spiritual"from the
Zinnbauerstudy(1997), Roof's (2000) follow-up interviewsof Americanbaby boomers,andour
own face-to-faceinterviewsof marginalProtestants.
BEING SPIRITUAL(BUT NOT RELIGIOUS?)

Five differentsurveys conductedover the past decade asked whetherrespondentsconsider

themselves to be "religious"or "spiritual."Each took a slightly differentapproach,however,in
sample structureand questionwording.The two most widely referencedare Roof's (1993) study
of Americanbaby boomersand Gallup's 1999 nationalpoll (PrincetonReligion ResearchCenter
2000). These studies reinforceassumptionsthat "spirituality"and "religiousness"are mutually
exclusive;moreover,they areoften cited as supportfor the notionthatAmericansareincreasingly
spiritualand, consequently,less religious.
In 1989, Roof intervieweda subsampleof 536 baby boomers identified in a largercrosssectionalsample (2,620) from four states (California,Massachusetts,NorthCarolina,and Ohio).
The survey asked: "Do you consider yourself to be in any way religious?"and 86 percentresponded "yes."For the 14 percentwho said "no,"a follow-up question was asked, "Do you consider yourself to be a spiritualperson?"In response,65 percentsaid "yes,"21 percentsaid "no,"
and 14 percentdeclined to answer.Thatmost of those who said they were not religious indicated
that they consideredthemselves to be "spiritual"persons was interpretedas highly meaningful
by Roof-even thoughthey representonly 9 percentof all respondents.He called them "highly
active seekers" (Roof 1993). What was not asked and what did not figure into Roof's interpretationwas whetherthose who identifiedthemselves as religious also consideredthemselves
spiritual.
In 1999, the Gallup Organizationincluded a similar item in a national telephone poll of
1,037 adults, 18 years and older (PrincetonReligion Research Center 2000). In that survey,
respondentswere asked:"Whichof the following comes closest to describingyour beliefs?"
* You are religious-54 percent.
* You are spiritual,but not religious-30 percent.
* Are you neither?-9 percent.

This content downloaded from 92.81.223.65 on Wed, 12 Nov 2014 05:08:49 AM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

RELIGIONOR SPIRITUALITY

291

In the Gallupcase, respondentswere able to choose between being religious, being spiritualbut
not religious, or being neitherspiritualnor religious. However,they were not offered a choice of
being religious but not spiritual,nor of being both religious and spiritual.Even so, 6 percentof
all respondents"volunteered"that they were both. In both the Roof and Gallup surveys,thereis
an implicit assumptionthatbeing religious andbeing spiritualaremutuallyexclusive. Being both
is not expected;respondentsare one or the other,or neither.
BEING RELIGIOUSAND BEING SPIRITUAL

In 1995, Zinnbaueret al. (1997) surveyed348 respondentsin PennsylvaniaandOhio. Participantswere drawnfrom 11 organizations,includingChristianor otherchurch-relatedinstitutions,
mental health or medical professionals,and nursing-homeresidents.This survey asked respondents to "Chooseone statementthatbest defines your religiousnessand spirituality":
*
*
*
*

I am spiritualand religious-74 percent.

I am spiritualbut not religious-19 percent.
I am religious but not spiritual-4 percent.
I am neitherspiritualnor religious-3 percent.

The most obvious difference between this survey and the two discussed previously is the high
percentage of respondentswho said they were both religious and spiritual.Clearly, allowing
respondentsthis option ratherthan forcing them to choose between being religious or spiritual
producesa quite differentimage of the religiosity and spiritualityof the Americanpublic. The
"spiritualbutnot religious"optionin the Zinnbauerstudyproducesresultsapproximatelyhalfway
betweenRoof andGallup.Roof's initialscreeningquestionaboutbeing religiousis veryinclusive,
"Do you consider yourself to be in any way religious?"and since very few people said "no"
(14 percent), the "spiritualonly" category is necessarily small (only 9 percent). In the Gallup
study,however,the "spiritualonly" categoryis inflatedbecause people who might otherwisesee
themselves as both spiritualand religious were forced to choose between being "religious"and
being "spiritualbut not religious."
In 1991, we surveyeda randomsample of 2,012 Protestantsaged 21 or older drawnproportionately from four states that representedthe religious constituencyof their respective census
regions:Arizona,Connecticut,Georgia,andOhio.3Thatsurveyasked,"Do you consideryourself
to be a religious person?"to which 73.5 percentresponded,"yes."Respondentsalso were asked,
"Do you consider yourself to be a spiritualperson?"To this question, 82.4 percent answered
affirmatively.Cross-tabulationof responses producedthese proportions:64.2 percentboth religious and spiritual,18.5 percentspiritualonly, 8.9 percentreligious only, and 8.4 percentneither
religious nor spiritual.
Like Zinnbaueret al. (1997), we found that the majorityof respondentssee themselves as
religious and spiritual.Both studies also found that about 19 percent of respondentsclaim to
be spiritualbut not religious. However,proportionatelymore respondentsin Zinnbaueret al.'s
smaller institutionalsample claimed to be both religious and spiritualand fewer claimed to be
"religiousonly" or "neither."
AND A NATIONALREPRESENTATIVE
BOOMERS,PROTESTANTS,
SAMPLE

Twoadditionalstudiesallow a morecompletelook at theimpactof samplingon surveyresults.

The first of these was a follow-up study conducted in 1995 and 1996, in which Roof (2000)
reinterviewed409 of his original 536 baby boomer respondents.He replaced his original two
questions with the same questionsasked in our 1991 surveyof Protestants:"Areyou religious?"
and"Areyou spiritual?"However,the questionswerenot askedconsecutivelyin Roof's interview.

This content downloaded from 92.81.223.65 on Wed, 12 Nov 2014 05:08:49 AM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

JOURNALFORTHE SCIENTIFICSTUDY OF RELIGION

292

TABLE 1
BEING RELIGIOUS AND BEING SPIRITUAL WITH FOUR OPTIONS
Sample

Category
Religious & spiritual
Spiritualonly
Religious only
Neither
N

Boomers
(Roof)
1995-1996

Institutional
(Zinnbauer)
1995

National
(Scott)
2001

Protestants
(Scott)
2001

Protestants
(Marler/Hadaway)
1991

59%
14
15
12
409

74%
19
4
3
346

61%
20
8
11
487

67%
18
9
6
270

64%
18
9
8
1,884

The second studywas a replicationof the Zinnbaueret al. (1997) questionsin a nationaltelephone
and Health (Scott 2001).
poll conductedfor Spir-itluality
Table I shows responsesto these two polls andcomparesthem to Zinnbaueret al. (1997) and
our 1991 survey of Protestants.Comparingthe nationalresults from Scott (2001) conductedin
2000 with the 1995 datafrom Zinnbaueret al. shows the resultof using a nationalsampledrawn
randomlyratherthanconveniencesamplesdrawnfrominstitutionswherepeople were morelikely
to be more religiously active thanthe general Americanpublic. The proportionsaying that they
are bothreligiousand spiritualis muchhigherin the institutionalsamplethanin the nationalpoll.
Conversely,the proportionsaying they are neither religious nor spiritualis much higher in the
nationalsample.
Whenour 1991poll of Protestantsis comparedto the nationalSpir-ituality
and Healthresults,
we also see the effects of a sample that is somewhat more religiously active than the general
Americanpublic. This effect is all the moreclear when a Protestantsubsampleis extractedfrom
the Spiritualityand Healthdata.4ExcludingCatholics,"others,"andpeople who have no religious
preferenceincreasesthe percentagewho are both religious and spiritualfrom 61 to 67 percent
and decreasesthe percentagewho are neitherreligious nor spiritualfrom 11 to 6 percent.People
with no religiouspreferenceare most likely to choose the "neither"option,followed by "others,"
Catholics, and Protestants(in that order).When the Protestant-onlydata in the Spiritualityand
Health poll are comparedto our Protestantdata,it can be seen that the resultsare very similar
despite the fact that differentquestions were used. Still, both methodsallowed the respondenta
full rangeof choice, includingbeing both religious and spiritual.
Interestingly,the surveyof baby boomersconductedby Roof in 1995-1996 (which includes
Catholics, "others,"and "nones"along with Protestants)produces very similar results to the
Spiritualityand Health survey for the religious and spiritualoption and the neither religious
nor spiritualcategory (see Roof 2000:173, 321). It also should be noted that droppingthe more
inclusive screening question, "Do you consider yourself to be in any way religious?"reduces
Roof's "religious"respondentsfrom 86 to 74 percentof his baby boomersample(combiningthe
religiousonly responseandthereligiousandspiritualcategory).Wherethenew Roof surveydiffers
fromall otherpolls thatallow thefull rangeof religious/spiritualoptionsis-oddly enough in the
low percentageof personswho say they are spiritualonly andthe high percentageof personswho
say they are religious only. Is it possible thatbaby boomersare less likely thanotherage groups
to see themselvesas "spiritual"and morelikely to see themselvesas "religious"?Apparentlynot.
Inconsistentwith Roof's 1995-1996 surveyfindingsbutconsistentwith his conclusions,boththe
Spiritlualityand Health poll and our surveyof Protestantsfound thatthe baby boomercohortwas
morelikely to say they were only spiritualand less likely to say they were only religiousthanwas
the generalpopulation.

This content downloaded from 92.81.223.65 on Wed, 12 Nov 2014 05:08:49 AM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

293

RELIGIONOR SPIRITUALITY

TABLE 2
BEING RELIGIOUS AND BEING SPIRITUAL BY AGE COHORT
Age Cohort
Category

Oldest

Religious & spiritual

Spiritualonly
Religious only

66.8%
14.5
11.0

Born 1927-1945
67.1%
16.7
8.9

Baby Boomers
64.9%
19.8
8.0

Baby Busters
54.9%
22.6
8.3

Neither

7.7

7.3

7.2

14.2

310

496

761

288

Trenddataon being religious and being spiritualare not available.However,it is possible to

inferchangeusing cohortdatafromour 1991 surveyof AmericanProtestants.Twoveryinteresting
patternscan be seen in Table2. First,the baby bustercohortis more distinctfrom the baby boom
generationthanthe babyboomersarefromthe two oldest age cohorts.Bustersaremuchless likely
to say they are both religious and spiritualand much more likely to say they are neitherreligious
nor spiritualthan any other age group. Second, the percentageof persons who say that they are
spiritualbut not religious increasessteadily,albeit modestly,from the oldest to the youngest age
cohort. Among the baby busters,however,the rise in "spiritualonly" is more than offset by a
decline in those who say they areboth spiritualandreligious.The net effect is a cohortthatis less
"spiritual"thanany other.
THE MEANING OF "BEING RELIGIOUS" OR "BEING SPIRITUAL"

The majorityof Americansview themselves as both religious and spiritual,and age cohort
data indicates an increasingtendencyto respond"spiritualonly."The question that arises next,
however, is what do persons mean by "being religious" or "being spiritual"?Zinnbaueret al.
(1997) asked respondentsto choose among five statementsthat describe the ways they believe
the concepts of religiousnessand spiritualityrelateto one another.5They included:
* Spirituality is a broader concept than religiousness and includes religiousness38.8 percent.
* Religiousnessis a broaderconceptthanspiritualityandincludesspirituality-1O.2 percent.
* Religiousness and spiritualityare the same concept and overlapcompletely-2.6 percent.
* Religiousness and spiritualityoverlapbut they are not the same concept-41.7 percent.
* Religiousness and spiritualityare differentand do not overlap-6.7 percent.
Of the five statementsthat describe the relationshipbetween religiousness and spirituality,four
overlappedbut differedin some way. Analysis of the associationbetweenthe above items andthe
previouslydiscussedquestionaboutbeing religiousorbeing spiritualshowedthatthe only significant correlationwas betweenbeing "spiritualbut not religious"andrespondingthatreligiousness
and spiritualityare differentand not overlapping.
We also asked respondentsabout the relationshipbetween "being religious" and "being
spiritual."Following the two questions about religiousness and spirituality,our four-statepoll
asked, "Do you think that there is any differencebetween being religious and being spiritual?"
to which 71 percent answeredaffirmatively.Not surprisingly,respondentswho said they were
both religious and spiritualor neitherreligious nor spiritualwere less likely to say there was a
differencebetween the two (66 percentand 57 percent,respectively).On the other hand, those
who said they were only spiritualor only religious were much more likely to say there was a
differencebetween the two concepts (90 percentand 79 percent,respectively).Nevertheless,as

This content downloaded from 92.81.223.65 on Wed, 12 Nov 2014 05:08:49 AM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

294

JOURNALFOR THE SCIENTIFICSTUDY OF RELIGION

in the Zinnbauersurvey,the majorityof personsin all four categoriessaid therewas a difference

between "beingreligious"and "beingspiritual."
If most Americanssee themselves as both religious and spiritualand recognize some kind
of distinctionbetween the two, what is the natureof that difference?Already,we have shown
that the majorityof respondentssee the difference as overlappingin some way; only a small
proportionviews the two concepts as distinct with no overlap. Three of the studies examined
here also includedqualitativemeasuresof the relationshipbetween "beingreligious"and "being
spiritual."The resultsof more open-endedinterviewsreveal complexity as well as uncertainty.
The
Zinnbaueret al. (1997) asked respondentsto define "religiousness"and "spirituality."
responses were analyzed for overall content and for the natureof the sacred. The researchers
found that while the content of these definitions was significantlydifferent, the natureof the
sacredexpressedin them was not. As Roof (1993, 2000) also found, spiritualitywas described
in personal or experientialterms, whereas religiousness included personal beliefs as well as
institutionalbeliefs and practices.On the natureof the sacred,the definitionsof spiritualityand
religiousnessincorporatedsimilar(and traditional)concepts of the sacred(e.g., God, Christ,the
church).Roof also discusses the tendencyof most baby boomersto drawon traditionalresources
in new or renewed ways: they "reconnect,""reframe,"or "retraditionalize"experience (Roof
2000:164-72).
Zinnbaueret al. (1997) found that both religiousness and spiritualitywere associated with
frequencyof prayer,churchattendance,intrinsicreligiosity,and religiousorthodoxy.While most
personsin theirsampleintegratedspiritualitywith traditionalorganizationalbeliefs andpractices,
a small proportiondid not. Those personswho identifiedthemselvesas spiritualbut not religious
were less likely to hold traditionalChristianbeliefs and to attendchurchworshipservices, more
likely to be independentfrom others, claim an agnostic position, and see spiritualityand religiousness as differentand nonoverlappingconcepts. This smaller group is similar to Roof's
highly active (1993) or self-identifiedseekers (2000).
Our 1991 survey uncovereda picture similar to that of Zinnbaueret al. (1997) and Roof
(1993, 2000). Among AmericanProtestants,being religious and spiritualwas correlatedwith
moretraditionalmeasuresof religiosity (like closeness to God) as well as less traditionalpractice
(like worshipingGod throughnatureand Native Americanspirituality).On the otherhand,being
only spiritualwas linked exclusively to nontraditionalbeliefs and practices (like New Age or
Easternbeliefs and experimentationwith crystals).6
ARE THELESS RELIGIOUSMORE "SPIRITUAI'9?

In our 1991 surveyof AmericanProtestants,we identified736 marginalProtestants-persons

who claim a Protestantdenominationalidentitybut who attendchurch"severaltimes a year or
less." In 1992, 432 of these respondentscompleted a longer telephone interview.The results of
both surveys were analyzed,and a cluster analysis producedfour identifiabletypes of marginal
Protestants(HadawayandMarler1992;Marlerand Hadaway1993). By definition,these respondents were "less religious"based on institutionalmeasures;and by self-report,the majoritywas
less active in churchthan they had been in childhood. Did these marginalProtestantsidentify
themselves as "less religious" and "more spiritual"?More importantly,how did they interpret
theirown responses?
Compared to the general population of Protestants, we found that marginal Protestants are

much less likely to see themselves as "religiousand spiritual"(46 percent),more likely to see
themselves as "spiritualonly" (25 percent),slightly more likely to see themselves as "religious
only" (10 percent),and more likely to see themselves as "neither"(18 percent).The patternof
response to these items is similar to but more dramaticthan that of the youngest cohort in the
general sample of AmericanProtestants.Overall, marginalProtestantsare much less likely to
see themselves as religious or spiritual(in any way) than more "churched"respondents.Larger

This content downloaded from 92.81.223.65 on Wed, 12 Nov 2014 05:08:49 AM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

RELIGIONOR SPIRITUALITY

295

proportionsof "spiritualonly" and "religiousonly" are more thanoffset by the lower numbersof
"religiousand spiritual"and highernumbersin the "neitherreligious nor spiritual"category.
In 1993 and 1994, we conducted49, one-to-two hour,face-to-face interviewswith selected
marginalProtestantswhose responsesbest fit the types generatedthroughclusteranalysis. In an
effort to explore the meaning of "beingreligious"or "being spiritual,"intervieweeswere asked
(again)if they consideredthemselvesto be religiousor spiritual(or both) and, further,whatthose
termsmean to them. Contentanalysis of transcribedinterviewsrevealedthe following pattern:
* Being religious/beingspiritualare the same concept-28 percent.
* Being religious/beingspiritualare differentand independentconcepts- 8 percent.
* Being religious/beingspiritualare differentand interdependentconcepts-63 percent.7
The majority(63 percent)see "beingreligious"and "beingspiritual"as differentbut interdependent concepts. Not surprisingly,most of those who talked about the close relationshipbetween
spiritualityand religiousnessalso respondedin the first surveythatthey were "religious,""spiritual,"and thatthereis a "difference"between the two concepts.About a quarter,however,earlier
said they were "spiritual,"not "religious,"and thatthereis a "difference"between the two.
For the main, marginalProtestantstalk about the religious and the spiritual as different
but interdependentconcepts. They recognize the possibility of both a "naked"spiritualityand
an empty or "soul-less"religion. Most of those who see themselves as "spiritualonly" do so
by default; they are less religious ratherthan more spiritual.As with Zinnbaueret al. (1997),
spiritualityis typically conceived as a broaderconcept that includes religiousness. Spirituality
is, above all, about a connection between the individualand some larger,usually supernatural,
reality. Religion is the expression of that connection: it is, in the words of these respondents,
"organizedspirituality,""thepracticeof spirituality,"or "thatpartof spiritualexperiencethat is
institutionalized."
Most marginalProtestantsdescribe "spirituality"as a kind of internalmoral compass that
is directedand strengthenedthroughreligion. An older baby boomer from New Englandwith a
strongmainlinedenominationalheritagetalkedaboutthe relationshipin this way:
Spiritualityis more a personaldirection,a "how you look at life" with a lower-case "1"than a capital "L"[and]
religion can be the clothingfor that.Being a spiritualpersonmakesyou thinkof crystalsand stuff like that. . . [but
it's] not that [for me]. If pressed [I'd say I'm] more spiritual,but I like the trappings.

A suburban,ex-conservativeProtestant,marriedto a Muslim and living in Georgiamused,

I think I would consider being religious as active in the churchand all of that and then, spiritualprobablymore
your inner feelings and self [so] I guess I'm more spiritual,more a spiritualpersonthana religious person. [But]
I feel guilty aboutthe religious part,so maybe [it's] a bit morethanjust being spiritual... that [I] should be more
into the churchthanjust tryingto handleit on my own, I guess.

In the firstcase, religion was the recognized,formative"clothing"for the views of this marginal
Protestantbut active social justice advocate. In the second, there is less clarity about a current
life directionand/orany spiritualattributionfor it. For both women, however,a conviction that
religion enriches spiritualitypersists.
Othermarginalswho see religiousness and spiritualityas differentbut interdependenttalk
aboutspiritualitynot so much as a way of living but moreas an experienceof "beingconnected."
A lumberjackand environmentalistfrom Georgiawith a Quakerbackgroundexplainedthat"Religions are peoples' way of connecting to the Spirit... spiritualityis being in touch with God,
spirit-wise."An artistfrom Connecticutputs it this way, "I believe in a universalspiritand whatever we do, you know,the energyis somehowconnected.[So] the churchis not in itself necessary.
[Still] when you gatherthat much positive energy together,[there]has to be [a] good outcome,

This content downloaded from 92.81.223.65 on Wed, 12 Nov 2014 05:08:49 AM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

296

JOURNALFOR THE SCIENTIFICSTUDY OF RELIGION

and yes, I need a little bit of that power."A young medical technicianin Hartford,Connecticut
observed,"Spiritualityis morelike feedbackfromaboveor divineintervention.[Withspirituality]
you can skip the middle man and go right to the boss [but]you can get spiritualitythroughthe
church,too."
Close to one-thirdof marginalProtestantintervieweeseitherinsisted thatreligiousnessand
spiritualitywere identicalor were simply unableto talk aboutspiritualityseparatefrom religion.
On the earliersurvey,all of these respondentssaidtherewas no diffierencebetweenbeing religious
or being spiritual;40 percent self-identifiedas "religiousand spiritual,"another40 percent as
"neitherreligious or spiritual,"and the remainderresponded,"spiritualonly."Most, however,
admittedthatthey were not familiarwith the term,"spiritual."Interestingly,those who identified
themselvesas "spiritualonly" in the earliersurveywere less likely to say they were "spiritual"in
the face-to-faceinterview.
A retiree living in Arizona answeredour question in this way, "I never consideredit ... I
considermyself religious,just not organizedreligion. I very definitelybelieve in God ... and so,
I feel thatI am religious in spite of the fact thatI say I don't attendchurch."Similarly,a Lutheran
and admittedlyagnostic woman from Ohio said:
I don't know what the definitionof "spiritual"is ... being religious means that you believe in all of this [but] I
always thoughtthatyou could be religiousandbe very good andnot attendchurch,thatit was morean innerguide
for your life ... and then, I personallythink,in termsof religionand Christianity,I still thinkof an ideal or an idea
thatyou carrywith you inside thatmakes you kind to othersand understandingand good.

An olderwidow living in ruralConnecticutresponded,"Well,I realizethatyou get a training

in religion when you're younger and so forth and .. . either this becomes a part of you or it
doesn't become a partof you."In a similarway, an elderly African-Americanwomanraisedin a
conservativeProtestanthome interpreted"beingreligious"and "beingspiritual"throughthe lens
of traditionalreligious teachingsand practice.
[Being religious] is if you believe in God, you try to do to the best of your knowledge.. . you live basically
accordingto the Ten Commandments,you know, as well in your power as you can, you don't go arounddoing
no harmto people, you trustin God. I don't know what you mean when you say "spiritual"-they feel the Holy
Spirit?It kind of means the same thing ... some people phraseit one way and some people phraseit another.

For these older women, one Hispanicand two African-Americaninterviewees,"beingreligious"

and "being spiritual"was the same thing. Either you were religious and spiritualor you are
neither.
Only 8 percentof marginalProtestantintervieweestalkedabout"beingreligious"and"being
spiritual"as differentand independentconcepts.In the earliersurvey,half viewed themselves as
"spiritualonly,"whereasthe remainderwere dividedbetween "religiousonly" and "spiritualand
religious."A middle-agedcomputertechnicianfrom Arizona said that religion is "church"and
spiritualityis "one's awarenessof God in the world"and is experiencedmost stronglythrough
nature. Similarly, a grandmotherfrom a small town in north Georgia observed: "Religion is
ritualand from the head"while "spiritualityis what you feel from the heart."Accordingto these
respondents,neither"beingreligious"nor"beingspiritual"was prerequisiteto or necessaryfor the
other;they are,in fact, "totallydifferent."Two otherrespondentswere unclearaboutthe meaning
of "spiritual"but associatedit with "newage" nor "yoga"as opposed to "religion,"which had to
do with more traditional"beliefs"or "churchactivity."
DISCUSSIONANDCONCLUSIONS

Are Americansless religious andmore spiritual?The studiesdiscussedhere were conducted

from the late 1980s through 2000 and, considering the variationin questions, wording, and

This content downloaded from 92.81.223.65 on Wed, 12 Nov 2014 05:08:49 AM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

RELIGIONOR SPIRITUALITY

297

samples,no definitiveconclusionis possible. Whatcan be shown,however,is thatthe relationship

between "being religious" and "being spiritual"is not a zero-sum proposition. In fact, these
data demonstratethat "beingreligious"and "being spiritual"are most often seen as distinctbut
interdependentconcepts.8As such,theirseparationamongyoungerProtestantsandthe religiously
marginalsuggests thatbeing less religious is simply that.This is why some marginalProtestants
who readily admitthey are "less religious"say they are "spiritual"by default.It is whiatis left: a
residualspiritualitythatis describedas also somethingless, something"naked,"or less "powerful."
Similarly,the "religiousonly"eitherreactagainstpopularperceptionsof spiritualityor aresimply
unableto talk aboutreligiousnessand spiritualityapartfrom one another.
If this is the case, why all the attentionto "spirituality"in Americanreligion? First of all,
the degree and kind of attentionvaries. Some discuss interestand involvementin "spirituality"
as evidence of the transformedbut continuedvitality of religion in America (e.g., Roof 1993,
2000; Miller 1997; CiminoandLattin1998), whereasothersview current"spirituality"as "misty,
evanescent,wispy and,darewe say it, richin appealto narcissism"(Marty1996:439)or evidence
of "cardiovascularfixation, vegetarianlasagna and the twenty-minutesermon"(Noll 1987; see
also Bruce 2002). Second, as has been shown, the perceptionof an increase in "spirituality"is
reinforcedby survey methodology that does not give all respondentsan opportunityto choose
"being spiritual"or that forces them to choose between "being religious" or "being spiritual"
(Roof 1993; Gallup2000).
Third,theredoes appearto be a smallcontingentof personswho see themselvesas spiritualbut
not religious.These individualsarenot church-going,morelikely to be agnostic,and"independent
from others."They tend to experimentwith New Age or Easternpractices.Roof, as well as our
earlierwork (Marlerand Hadaway1993), labels this group, "seekers."However,as Roof (2000)
laterdiscovered,a largerproportionof baby boomersexpress theirspiritualityin continuitywith
religiousness.Oursurvey,Zinnbaueret al. (1997), and Scott (2001) had similarresults.The most
"spiritual"by a varietyof measuresare those who are also the most "religious."
The strongestpressureforinterpretingAmericanreligionas vital (withmeasured"spirituality"
as partof thatequation)is theory-based,however.Such theorieshinge on a numberof relatedpresuppositions:the continuingpoll-basedstrengthof Americanreligion,particularlyas it compares
with other Westernnations;the decline of traditionalreligious institutions,especially mainline
Protestantism;expressedrejectionof a "religionas decline" secularizationthesis; and increased
interestin a "freemarket"paradigmto suggest a robustand diverse religious economy. Despite
mixed evidenceof Americanreligiousstrength,two relatedcampshaveemergedthatnevertheless
supportit. One camp counts extra-churchparticipationin and public media fascinationwith the
"spiritual"as phenomenathatsignal somethingradically"new"in Americanreligion(Roof 1993,
2000; Warner1993; Cimino and Lattin 1998; Hammond 1992). The other camp views current
religious strengthnot so muchas an epistemologicalandpracticalbreakwith the modernbut as a
structuralconsequenceof America's"freemarket"of religion(Finke 1990;FinkeandStark1986,
1992; lannaccone 1991). Interestingly,this second camp finds little evidentiaryvalue in much
of contemporary"spirituality"to supporttheir version of "anti-secularization"theory. Recent
researchon evangelicalcongregationsthatareboth institutionally"strong"and, at the same time,
more "spiritual"than "religious"essentially combines insights of both camps (Miller 1997).
One might argue that theories focusing on the unique conditions of late modernity,take
seriously post-war social change, and attemptto explain evidence of vitality in American religion have a certainface validity in spite of quibbles about the measurementand meaning of
"beingreligious"and "beingspiritual."If this is the case, however,establishingthe strengthand
sourcesof the "spiritual"is critical.And if differentor contradictoryevidence is generatedby the
same or similarmeans, then the possibility exists that somethingelse is at work.Moreover,if the
revised facts do not fit the extantexplanation,is a betterinterpretationavailable?
Indeed,the most significantfindingaboutthe relationshipbetween "beingreligious"and"being spiritual"is that most Americanssee themselves as both. In fact, when possible change can

This content downloaded from 92.81.223.65 on Wed, 12 Nov 2014 05:08:49 AM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

298

JOURNALFOR THE SCIENTIFICSTUDY OF RELIGION

be tracedthroughexaminingsuccessive age cohortsor by comparingmorewith less churchedrespondents,the patternis towardless religiousnessand less spirituality.The youngestandthe most
religiouslymarginalaremuchless likely to see themselvesas religiousandspiritual,slightly more
likely to see themselvesas spiritualonly, and much more likely to see themselvesas neitherreligious norspiritual.The net effect is thatamongless churchedandyoungerAmericansthereis less
agreementaboutreligiousnessandspirituality,andchangeis observedmorein the decline of those
Roof (2000) identifiesas "strongbelievers,"the religious and spiritual,andthe increasein "secularists."These findingsare,of course, at odds with currenttheoriesof Americanreligiousvitality.
Are thereotherinterpretivepossibilities?Recent historicalwork emphasizescontinuitybetween the "popularreligion" of the late 20th and that of the late 19th century (Lippy 1994).9
If true, the 1960s may signal more continuity than currenttheories admit. Resurfacinga particularlyAmericanway of being religious, further,is only exacerbatedby social fragmentation
and diversity,a late modernreflexive focus on the self, and an explosion in media availability
and accessibility.The reappearance,then, of popularspiritualitydoes not necessarilyconstitutea
problemfor secularizationtheories.Indeed,Casanova(1994) makes a convincingargumentthat
thereis a growing "publicrole"for religion in structurallydifferentiatedsocieties. Privatization
of religion may occur but is not requiredas a partof largersecularizationprocesses.
The real anomalyin Americanreligious historymight be the periodof unprecedentedinstitutionalizationbetween the WorldWarsratherthanthe dissipationthat occurredafterward.That
being the case, what Finke and Stark(1992) take as a long-termchurchingtrajectorymay be, in
fact, a shorter-termchurchingphenomenon.The 1960s forward,similarly,may be not so muchan
instance of Americabecoming "morespiritual"as a process of becoming "less religious."Both
Beyer (1997) and Hervieu-Leger(2000) make this kind of argumentaboutreligious change. In
Canada,a period of rapiddenominationalizationdid not occur as the free marketmodel would
predictbut rose (and fell) because of other sociodemographicchanges affecting demandmore
thansupply (Beyer 1997). In France,deinstitutionalizationforces produceda breakin the "chain
of memory"thattraditionalreligion established(Hervieu-Leger2000). A change in the individual's demand for religion and the related erosion of the authorityof religious institutionsare
also reflectedin our interviewswith marginalAmericanProtestants(see also Chaves 1994). In
this case, the relationshipbetween "beingreligious"and "beingspiritual"is betterpicturedas an
additiveone.
ACKNOWLEDGMENT

This researchwas fundedby a grantfrom the Lilly Endowment.We also thankBradLandryfor assisting with this
research.
NOTES
1. In his work,Roof extendsthatof Bellah et al. (1985) in Habits of the Heart, findingevidence of a "Sheila"thatis not
her own "church"as much as her own "spiritualdirector."To do so, he dependson AnthonyGiddensfor insight about
identity and late modernityand Ann Swidler for the concept of a "culturaltoolkit"(see also Marlerand Hadaway
1997).
2. In the case of Miller (1997), "new paradigm"churches are both "strict"and "spiritual"and thus the best of both
worlds.
3. This was a 15-minutetelephonepoll conductedusing a set of randomlygeneratedphone numbersand an eight-callback procedure.The samplesize in each statewas based on the nationalproportionof Protestantsin the census region
representedby that state.
4. These data were not reportedin Scott (2001). The editors of Spiritualityand Health graciously provided us with
breakdownsof questionresponsesby religious group.
5. The Spiritualityand Health poll also replicatedthis set of questionsin a nationalpoll. The correspondingpercentages
are:26 percent(spiritualityis broader),8 percent(religiousnessis broader),22 percent(the same), 30 percent(overlap
but different),and 14 percent(different,no overlap).

This content downloaded from 92.81.223.65 on Wed, 12 Nov 2014 05:08:49 AM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

299

RELIGIONOR SPIRITUALITY

6. Roof's (2000) self-identified"strongbeliever"babyboomersareexamplesof the moretraditionalisticbutexperimental

"religious and spiritual"respondents,and Roof's (1993) self-identified "highly active seekers" are echoed in our
findingsrelatedto the "spiritualonly."
7. Content analysis of this marginalProtestantsubsampleresults, interestingly,in a distributionstrikingly similar to
Scott's (2001) findings on Zinnbaueret al.'s (1997) items on the relationshipbetween religiousnessand spirituality.
This was in sharpcontrastto the Zinnbaueret al. (1997) sample, which was, again, institutionaland religious. Our
marginalProtestantsample is more explicitly nonreligiousby institutionalmeasures.
8. The complementarybut overlappingrelationshipbetween religiousnessand spiritualityfound here is also consistent
with definitionsof spiritualityin worldreligions literatureandtheology (see, for example, King 1997, 1998;Sheridan
1986; Ingersoll 1994; Fairchild1987).
9. In fact, the first"scientific"studyof spiritualityappearedat the turnof the century(Coe 1900). Coe concludesthatthe
spiritualityof the churchesand "prayer-meetings"
tends not to nurturethe "altruistic,active or intellectualqualities"
but, instead, the "social, passive and contemplative."It is strikingthat Coe, like Marty and Noll at the end of this
century,characterizesspiritualityas superficial,faddish, and, in large part,a reflectionof weakness within religious
institutions.
REFERENCES
Bellah, R. et al. 1985. Habits of the heart:Individualismand commitmentin Americanlife. Berkeley,CA: Universityof
CaliforniaPress.
Beyer, P. 1997. Religious vitality in Canada:The complementarityof religious marketand secularizationperspectives.
Jour-nalforthe ScientificStudyof Religion 36:272-88.
Bruce, S. 2002. God is dead: Secularizationin the West.Oxford,UK: Blackwell.
Casanova,J. 1994. Public religions in the modernworld. Chicago, IL: Universityof Chicago Press.
Chaves, M. 1994. Secularizationas declining religious authority.Social Forces 72:749-74.
Cimino, R. and D. Lattin. 1998. Shoppingfor faith: American religion in the new millennium.San Francisco, CA:
Jossey-Bass.
Coe, G. A. 1900. The spirituallife: Studies in the science of religion. New York:Eastonand Mains.
Ellwood, R. S. 1994. The sixties spiritual awakening: American religion moving from modern to postmodern.
New Brunswick,NJ: RutgersUniversityPress.
Fairchild,R. W. 1987. Issues in contemporaryspirituality:The upsurge of spiritualmovements. Princeton Seminary
Bulletin 8:3-16.
Finke, R. 1990. Religious deregulation:Originsand consequences.Journal of Churchand State 32:609-26.
Finke, R. and R. Stark. 1986. Turningpews into people: Estimatingnineteenth-centurychurchmembership.Jour-nalfor
the ScientificStudyof Religion 25:180-92.
. 1992. The churchingof America, 1776-1990: Winnersand losers in our religious economy. New Brunswick,
NJ: RutgersUniversityPress.
Hadaway,C. K. and P. L. Marler.1992. What'sGod got to do with it? Religious marginalityamong young(er)protestant
Americans. Paperpresentedat the 1992 Annual Meeting of the InternationalSociety for the Study of Religion,
Budapest,Hungary.
Hammond,P.E. 1992.Religionandpersonal autonomy:Thethirddisestablishmentin America.Columbia,SC: University
of South CarolinaPress.
Hervieu-Leger,D. 2000. Religion as a chain of memory.New Brunswick,NJ: RutgersUniversityPress.
lannaccone,L. R. 1991. The consequences of religious marketregulation:Adam Smith and the economics of religion.
Rationialityand Society 3:156-77.
Ingersoll, R. E. 1994. Spirituality,religion, and counseling: Dimensions and relationships.Counseling and Values
38:98-111.
King, U. 1997. Spirituality.In A handbookof living religions, edited by J. R. Hinnells. Oxford,UK: Blackwell.
. 1998. Spiritualityin a postmodernage: Faith and praxis in new contexts. In Faith and praxis in a postmodern
age, edited by U. King. London,UK: Cassell.
Kohut,A., J. C. Green, S. Keeter,and R. C. Toth. 2000. The diminishingdivide: Religion's changing role in American
politics. Washington,DC: BrookingsInstitutionPress.
Lippy,C. H. 1994. Being religious, Americanstyle: A history of popular-religiosity in the United States. Westport,CT:
GreenwoodPress.
Marler,P.L. 1993.Lost in the fifties:The changingfamily andthe nostalgicchurch.In Work,familyandfaith:Newpatterns
among old institutions,edited by N. T. Ammermanand W. C. Roof. New Brunswick,NJ: RutgersUniversityPress.
Marler,P. L. and C. K. Hadaway. 1993. Towarda typology of protestant"marginalmembers."Review of Religious
Resear-ch35:34-54.
. 1997. Methodistson the margins:"Self-authoring"religiousidentity.In Connectionalism:Ecclesiology,mission
and identity,edited by R. E. Richey, D. M. Campbell,and W. B. Lawrence.Nashville, TN: AbingdonPress.

This content downloaded from 92.81.223.65 on Wed, 12 Nov 2014 05:08:49 AM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

300

JOURNALFORTHE SCIENTIFICSTUDY OF RELIGION

Marler,P.L., C. K. Hadaway,andK. T. Curtis.1997. Religious changearoundthe San FranciscoBay: A studyof religious

affiliationand churchattendance.Presentedat the 1997 meetingof the Society for the ScientificStudy of Religion,
San Diego, CA.
Marty,M. 1996. Gettingorganized.ChristianCentury113:439.
Miller, D. E. 1997. ReinventingAmer-icanProtestantism.Chr-istianityin the new millennium.Berkeley,CA: University
of CaliforniaPress.
Noll, M. 1987. Gettinginto the spiritual.ReformedJour-nalNovember:4-5.
Journalfor-the Psychology
Pargament,K. I. 1999. The psychology of religion and spirituality?Yes and no. Inter-national
of Religion 9:3-16.
PrincetonReligion ResearchCenter.2000. Americansremainvery religious, but not necessarilyin conventionalways.
EmergingTrends22(1):2-3.
Robertson,R. 1971. Sociologists and secularization.Sociology 5:300-10.
Roof, W. C. 1993. A gener-ationof seekers: The spiritual journeys of the baby boom generation. San Francisco,CA:
Harper-Collins.
. 2000. Spir-itualmarketplace:Baby boomer-sand the remakingof Americanreligion. Princeton,NJ: Princeton
UniversityPress.
Roof, W. C. and W. McKinney. 1987. Americanmainline religion: Its changing shape andfuture. New Brunswick,NJ:
RutgersUniversityPress.
Scott, R. 0. 2001. Are you religious or are you spiritual:A look in the mirror.Spiritualityand Health Spring:26-28.
Sheridan,D. P. 1986.Discerningdifference:A taxonomyof culture,spiritualityandreligion.JournalofReligion 66:37-45.
Sweet, L. 1999. Soultsumani:Sink or swim in new millenniumculture.GrandRapids,MI:Zondervan.
Warner,S. 1993. Workin progress towarda new paradigmfor the sociological study of religion in the United States.
Amer-icanJour-nalof Sociology 98:1044-93.
Zinnbauer,B., K. Pargament,B. Cole, M. Rye, E. Butter,T. Belavich, K. Hipp, A. Scott, and J. Kadar.1997. Religion
and spirituality:Unfuzzying the fuzzy. Journalfor the ScientificStudyof Religion 36:549-64.

This content downloaded from 92.81.223.65 on Wed, 12 Nov 2014 05:08:49 AM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions