The Long View of L.A. Cathedral

There are two great divisions in American religion.

The first is between progressives and orthodox, in which there are greater similarities among Jews, Protestants and Catholics who are liberal or conservative than there are similarities within the ranks of any one of these major religious traditions, each of which is fractured by polarization. For example, as a liberal Protestant, I have more in common with a progressive Jew or Catholic than I do with a fundamentalist Christian.

The other great divide is between Americans who embrace spirituality but deny the validity of religion and those who accept religion.

Religion, in the popular mind, is associated with institutions, wooden rituals and archaic tradition, whereas spirituality is identified with an individual’s quest for connection with a higher power. These two sets of distinctions are useful in putting Los Angeles’ new cathedral in perspective.

The critics of the cathedral complain that too much money was spent on bricks and mortar--actually alabaster and concrete--and that this money could have been better invested in serving the homeless or addressing global issues of social justice.

Although this is a tempting argument, it falls prey both to extremist versions of progressivism and a radical emphasis on individual spirituality. Clearly, religion is wooden and even idolatrous if it ignores the poor and disenfranchised while it pursues ritualistic practice within opulent physical structures. The Hebrew prophets had some very nasty things to say about this form of religion.

Yet spirituality and social justice activities are sustained over the long term when they are integrally tied to a worshipping community that has deep roots within a religious tradition, and this means that a certain degree of institutional form is necessary.

While I am something of a mystic and believe deeply in the value of individual spirituality, I also affirm the importance of locating one’s individual quest within a framework of institutional practice and interpretation.

Without this point of reference, spiritual pursuits run the risk of being trite, self-indulgent and even narcissistic.

It is for this reason that I celebrate the opening this week of the Cathedral of Our Lady of the Angels. In a city known for crystal gazers, hip meditation practices and other exotic and trendy expressions of spirituality, it is appropriate to balance the scale by affirming the role of religion in its institutional form.

One would never want to lose the voice of the prophet in critiquing religion that lives for itself--perfecting ritual form at the expense of connecting individuals with the spirit of God. This polarity between religion and spirituality is false. Likewise, progressives who emphasize social action and ignore the heritage of their tradition are at risk of producing short-run efforts in social transformation that lack the staying power of a worshipping community that draws on the resources of an established institution.

*

Donald E. Miller is a professor of religion and the executive director of the Center for Religion and Civic Culture at USC.