Best practice as I understand it is not to see a directee that you know already- I know of one director who does see such people but the consensus is not to do so. So seeing someone from one's own church would not be a good idea.
I also know of one director who does advertise as an individual but there are also networks of directors you can join.
I am going to be put on my the register of Directors for my diocese (once they have finished revamping it). That is also where I first found a director for myself.
Interestingly, my own spiritual director told me that she would be happy to refer people from her own church who have requested direction to me once I am up and running.
As with therapy I would personally steer clear of any director who is not part of a supervision group.........
That makes all kind of sense - I know friends who are therapists and counsellors, who I absolutely would never go to professionally, but would certainly ask for recommendations. And yes, the supervision group.
So what do you see your role as? There's been a lot of comments here about what you should and shouldn't do, but what would you actually do?
This is something I do with only a couple of people because time doesn’t really allow more along with my regular responsibilities.
First I try and provide a relaxed, hospitable and peaceful environment. I usually offer a cup of tea, coffee etc.
Then I invite the person to tell me how they/ things are. I try to listen carefully not just to what the person is saying, but also to the prompting of the Holy Spirit. I may ask questions like “Where do you sense God was in that situation?” or “What do you think God feels/ or might say about what you describe?” Those are both much more definite and fully formed than the rather feeling-my-way sort of questions I tend to ask, but that’s the gist of what I’m getting at.
Notwithstanding being called a ‘spiritual director’ I rarely, even if asked, actually direct someone to do something. Though, if a clear ‘gap’ emerges in the picture where I think trying or desisting from a particular discipline might be helpful, I will mildly suggest that the person might see if that is something they find helpful.
Sometimes simply the act of sharing their thoughts in the context of thinking about where God is in their life or situation is enough to bring clarity without me being more than a listening presence.
I don’t think I really do the work. I make a space in which the directee can stand aside from the torrent of daily events and do some work with God themselves.
I suppose I think of my role as being a confidential companion for a person on their faith journey, someone who stands outside their situation, and with whom they can be as frank as they feel able without the thought that it will go back to their congregation or local minister, or their bishop, archdeacon or rural dean, and without the thought that they are going to see me week by week in the course of their regular responsibilities.
I agree. And I'll just make it clear that:
1. I never, ever take offence at what people write or say; it is not in my character at all.
2. I very much apologise to anyone who has been offended at anything I have written in this thread.
3.
However, you give the strong impression that you do take offense at what people write or say when it is in disagreement with your own religious beliefs. If I may ask: Why is it so important for you to always express your opinions on these subjects, particularly when - as in the present case - it really does come down to straining at gnats or chasing one's tail?
I hesitate to respond to you, knowing what the answer is likely to be, but it seems to me that the gnat-straining is a distraction from the real point of the discussion.
If I may add a few words about spiritual directors: Around here, at least, all spiritual directors must have spiritual directors of their own. I asked one priest to be my spiritual director; she said, "I'd like to, but then I'd have to be in spiritual direction, and I just don't have time." (She did recommend someone else, who turned out to be excellent.)
If I may add a few words about spiritual directors: Around here, at least, all spiritual directors must have spiritual directors of their own. I asked one priest to be my spiritual director; she said, "I'd like to, but then I'd have to be in spiritual direction, and I just don't have time." (She did recommend someone else, who turned out to be excellent.)
That seems an excellent practice, and brava on her for being straightforward with you about why she couldn't take you on.
I agree. And I'll just make it clear that:
1. I never, ever take offence at what people write or say; it is not in my character at all.
2. I very much apologise to anyone who has been offended at anything I have written in this thread.
3.
However, you give the strong impression that you do take offense at what people write or say when it is in disagreement with your own religious beliefs.
Then that impression is in the mind of the reader. I stress again that I personally most certainly do not take offence. If I started having such feelings, I would stop reading and posting on message boards.
If I may ask: Why is it so important for you to always express your opinions on these subjects, particularly when - as in the present case - it really does come down to straining at gnats or chasing one's tail?
I absolutely realise that my opinions are not the least bit important here, or in life in general, but I am so restricted by sight loss and decreasing physical energy and strength that still to be able to be part of a discussion group,, where conflicting views can be put forward, is an important part of my life.
I hesitate to respond to you, knowing what the answer is likely to be, but it seems to me that the gnat-straining is a distraction from the real point of the discussion.
You're probably right! And for that - my apologies.
FWIW I don't get the impression that SusanDoris takes 'offence' when people approach things differently to her. Rather, she can sound exasperated at times that some of us continue to hold fairly traditional faith positions despite what she sees as incontrovertible evidence to the contrary.
She's not alone in that tendency aboard Ship.
At times there can be a 'literalism' about it that is reminiscent of some of the more fundie posts we get here from time to time. If someone believes God is 'speaking' to them then it must be some kind of audible voice or heavenly radio broadcast - rather than, as is generally the case, that person sifting and evaluating impressions and experience from a theist perspective informed by whatever spiritual traditions have formed their particular 'take'.
We all do that. The only difference is the weight and value we attach to these things and the way we interpret them - and that can and does change over time. You can hold to a theistic perspective and still take responsibility for what you think, do and say.
What I don't see here are people going round claiming that any idea that pops into their head has some kind of divine import or that God is like a puppet-master directing their thoughts and feelings. I know plenty of people like that but they'd get short shrift here.
It's not that anyone is questioning or challenging SusanDoris's right to hold to her particular perspective. Nor is it wrong or unwelcome for her to challenge those of us who hold to theistic positions. I would be happier if those challenges were presented in ways we've not seen before or which have ended up in arguments and Hell Calls in the past.
Anyhow, whatever the case, the discussion has given practitioners a platform to tell us more about 'spiritual direction' as understood within particular traditions. I've found that helpful.
I would see my role as supporting people who want to draw aside to focus on their inner journey. I only have experience of doing this with people who have have or who have had some sort of Christian background. But I'd hazard a guess that the contemplative wing of several faiths could well have their own equivalent of spiritual direction.
As I have said above one of my course tutors saw a young man who defined himself as atheist.
Were someone of another/ no faith to come to me I would do exactly the same for them as I would for a Christian:
The two most important things I can do are create a welcoming space and to listen. Really listen, listen with my heart.
My role is to support and encourage the directee in the inner work they are doing. One of the best things I can do is to ask the right questions, questions that go to the heart of the matter. It is about helping them hear themselves and find God and/ or the spiritual resources for where they currently find themselves. Sometimes I might make a suggestion of something to read/ think about/ do often based on something the directee has said themselves.
But they should not be impartial. I think we have the wrong definition of spiritual director here. Some one who is new to a belief system/denomination will not usually turn to a spiritual director. It is those who are wanting to move further into their faith that would go to one. So the spiritual director will not recommend other faiths.
I'm not offended, I guess nobody is. But if you are not offended and are not bothered, then why are you saying that you won't stop pushing your view until you die?
I don't understand. What is so important about atheists insisting that spirituality is not necessarily about belief in a deity?
Do you even believe in a spirit?
Seriously? I'd have thought the answer was blindingly obvious. We atheists and other non-theists don't want the theists hogging all the forms of spirituality.
What MrsBeaky describes is certainly what I have found most helpful in spiritual direction. Everyone has their own interpretation of God, but the role of a spiritual director is not to push their own view, but to help the person be aware of their own experience of God - to listen to the person, to observe where and how they are experiencing God, and draw their attention to that, and help them find ways to develop it. At least, this is so of Ignatian guidance, which I have found incredibly helpful in my own faith journey. The moment a spiritual director starts pushing their own views, it becomes unhelpful, and more about them.
I'm not offended, I guess nobody is. But if you are not offended and are not bothered, then why are you saying that you won't stop pushing your view until you die?
I don't understand. What is so important about atheists insisting that spirituality is not necessarily about belief in a deity?
Do you even believe in a spirit?
Seriously? I'd have thought the answer was blindingly obvious. We atheists and other non-theists don't want the theists hogging all the forms of spirituality.
How does one "hog" something you don't believe in?
I mean, fair enough Susan is using rhetorical flair and likes getting involved in discussions on the internet with theists. But the idea that atheists need to elbow into the understanding of "spirituality" because otherwise all the theists would get to discuss things without reference to people who don't believe it is totally crackers.
If you don't believe in a "spirit" in what possible sense can you be said to have a spirituality?
How does one "hog" something you don't believe in?
I mean, fair enough Susan is using rhetorical flair and likes getting involved in discussions on the internet with theists. But the idea that atheists need to elbow into the understanding of "spirituality" because otherwise all the theists would get to discuss things without reference to people who don't believe it is totally crackers.
If you don't believe in a "spirit" in what possible sense can you be said to have a spirituality?
It depends what you mean by spirituality. If we take the dictionary definition: the quality of being concerned with the human spirit or soul as opposed to material or physical things, then I certainly have a form of spirituality. It's there when I look at the stars, it's there when I stand in the rain, it's even there when I see a steam engine.
I don't practice astrology, or Tarot, or meditation, but all of theme are spiritual activities and none of them require belief in a deity.
Dictionary definitions are usually a bit iffy as far as places to begin reasoning are concerned. They just point to the semantic content of the word and do so in the broadest possible terms.
If you’re an atheist then I’d be somewhat surprised if you believe in a nebulous, rare thing called spirit. What you seem to be describing to me, Colin Smith, is a feeling of wonderment. That’s good, important, and something I wish more people felt, but I don’t see how that’s the same thing as spirit.
Sure, and as a theist, I'm completely comfortable with all of that as a form of 'spirituality' without the requirement for belief in a deity.
Obviously, though, as a theist, I do believe there is 'more' - and also that there's more where those came from, as it were. 'All good things come from above ...' as James put it in his Epistle.
As T S Eliot puts it in 'The Dry Salvages', one of his 'Four Quartets', we can experience 'moments of happiness' from a sense of well-being, from 'Fruition, fulfilment, security or affection,/Or even a very good dinner ..'
(The Dry Salvages: lines 90-92)
But he insists that beyond that there's the possibility of 'the sudden illumination', and that we can 'have the experience' but 'miss the meaning.'
Therein lies the rub. How do we interpret or assign 'meaning' to any of these things? Do we need to?
I'd suggest that as human beings we have no option but to assign some kind of meaning to these things. Even to declare them 'meaningless' is to assign them some kind of meaning or significance.
At any rate, whatever the case, I don't think anyone here is claiming that theists have the monopoly on 'meaning' nor that non-theists - or atheists (if there's a difference) are incapable of having lofty and transcendent thoughts, experiences or impressions.
Dictionary definitions are usually a bit iffy as far as places to begin reasoning are concerned. They just point to the semantic content of the word and do so in the broadest possible terms.
If you’re an atheist then I’d be somewhat surprised if you believe in a nebulous, rare thing called spirit. What you seem to be describing to me, Colin Smith, is a feeling of wonderment. That’s good, important, and something I wish more people felt, but I don’t see how that’s the same thing as spirit.
For me wonderment is the same thing as spirit. Or rather spirit is the thing and wonderment is my sense of that thing.
I'm not offended, I guess nobody is. But if you are not offended and are not bothered, then why are you saying that you won't stop pushing your view until you die?
I don't understand. What is so important about atheists insisting that spirituality is not necessarily about belief in a deity?
Do you even believe in a spirit?
Seriously? I'd have thought the answer was blindingly obvious. We atheists and other non-theists don't want the theists hogging all the forms of spirituality.
How does one "hog" something you don't believe in?
I mean, fair enough Susan is using rhetorical flair and likes getting involved in discussions on the internet with theists. But the idea that atheists need to elbow into the understanding of "spirituality" because otherwise all the theists would get to discuss things without reference to people who don't believe it is totally crackers.
If you don't believe in a "spirit" in what possible sense can you be said to have a spirituality?
Easily. Some Asian religions have neither gods or spirits in them, but it would be odd to say that they don't offer spiritual paths, trainings, rituals, etc. For example, transcendence is often used to refer to going beyond the ego, or beyond dualism. Some kinds of atheist spirituality are different from this, but there is plenty written about it.
Dictionary definitions are usually a bit iffy as far as places to begin reasoning are concerned. They just point to the semantic content of the word and do so in the broadest possible terms.
If you’re an atheist then I’d be somewhat surprised if you believe in a nebulous, rare thing called spirit. What you seem to be describing to me, Colin Smith, is a feeling of wonderment. That’s good, important, and something I wish more people felt, but I don’t see how that’s the same thing as spirit.
For me wonderment is the same thing as spirit. Or rather spirit is the thing and wonderment is my sense of that thing.
I believe in employing very broad terms.
The two are categorically different. Wonderment is a mental state; you are in a state of wonder. Spirit is a metaphysical claim upon the world; that there exists spirit.
You’re welcome to use words in non-standard ways, but then what you’re talking about when you talk about spirit isn’t the same as us, and your criticisms are about something we aren’t talking about. This is why precise definitions can be good, sometimes.
Reminded of the famous book, "Cutting through spiritual materialism", where Chogyam Trungpa argues that the task in hand isn't to improve the self, but let go of it. But he is not in search of a supernatural spirit, but rather the indescribable non-self, and "in search of" is incorrect in any case.
Dictionary definitions are usually a bit iffy as far as places to begin reasoning are concerned. They just point to the semantic content of the word and do so in the broadest possible terms.
If you’re an atheist then I’d be somewhat surprised if you believe in a nebulous, rare thing called spirit. What you seem to be describing to me, Colin Smith, is a feeling of wonderment. That’s good, important, and something I wish more people felt, but I don’t see how that’s the same thing as spirit.
For me wonderment is the same thing as spirit. Or rather spirit is the thing and wonderment is my sense of that thing.
I believe in employing very broad terms.
The two are categorically different. Wonderment is a mental state; you are in a state of wonder. Spirit is a metaphysical claim upon the world; that there exists spirit.
You’re welcome to use words in non-standard ways, but then what you’re talking about when you talk about spirit isn’t the same as us, and your criticisms are about something we aren’t talking about. This is why precise definitions can be good, sometimes.
Like I said, wonderment is my perception of the thing called spirit. But as I do not believe that spirit has any consciousness or awareness of my existence we are probably talking about different definitions of or different kinds of spirit.
Well I guess that invites the interesting question as to whether or not one can claim to be an atheist and believe in a metaphysical entity called spirit. I wouldn’t think so, as an initial reaction, but I suppose it’d depend on what one posits about spirit.
Well I guess that invites the interesting question as to whether or not one can claim to be an atheist and believe in a metaphysical entity called spirit. I wouldn’t think so, as an initial reaction, but I suppose it’d depend on what one posits about spirit.
It would depend on whether you worshipped it, surely.
Coming late to the discusssion and I’ve been reading the spiritual direction tangent with interest. @fineline, your post sums up my own approach well. I’ll maybe add my own two pennyworth, were it not that I’m due to see one of my own folk shortly.
...I absolutely realise that my opinions are not the least bit important here, or in life in general...
I don't think anyone here has said or would say anything along those lines, and I think you know it. The issue is, as noted earlier, the gnat-straining/tail-chasing aspects of hashing and rehashing and re-rehashing the same details multiple times. It's hard to pursue the discussion when it's constantly tugged back over the same ground.
One can be an atheist and still believe in the supernatural. The supernatural is not exhausted by God, so that if you take away belief in a god, all of the supernatural goes with it. That's a very narrow and hidebound view of what the supernatural is.
One can be an atheist and still believe in the supernatural. The supernatural is not exhausted by God, so that if you take away belief in a god, all of the supernatural goes with it. That's a very narrow and hidebound view of what the supernatural is.
Interesting idea - can you give any examples? I cannot think of anything at all which would come under the heading of supernatural that I would believe.
...I absolutely realise that my opinions are not the least bit important here, or in life in general...
I don't think anyone here has said or would say anything along those lines, and I think you know it. The issue is, as noted earlier, the gnat-straining/tail-chasing aspects of hashing and rehashing and re-rehashing the same details multiple times. It's hard to pursue the discussion when it's constantly tugged back over the same ground.
Would you then prefer that there were no non-faith views here? Would you apply the re-hashing aspect only to non-faith beliefs?!*
*written with smile, not confrontation!
Corrected quoting code to make it clear which words are whose. BroJames Purgatory Host
...I absolutely realise that my opinions are not the least bit important here, or in life in general...
I don't think anyone here has said or would say anything along those lines, and I think you know it. The issue is, as noted earlier, the gnat-straining/tail-chasing aspects of hashing and rehashing and re-rehashing the same details multiple times. It's hard to pursue the discussion when it's constantly tugged back over the same ground.
Would you then prefer that there were no non-faith views here? Would you apply the re-hashing aspect only to non-faith beliefs?!*
*written with smile, not confrontation!
Corrected quoting code to make it clear which words are whose. BroJames Purgatory Host
I don't know, Susan. I suppose if this was an atheist forum and theists came into every discussion insisting that the deity be brought into it and vowing to continue making these points until the day they die, that might start to get annoying.
In fairness, I can't think of an exact parallel for continued questioning of why "spiritual directors" are not open to a wider variety of option to suggest to people because non-theism is generally a minority or historically less popular view.
This discussion does remind me of M Scott Peck, who definitely did appear to advise clients to try different (possibly opposite) faith options depending on what he thought would help them. So that kind of view does exist.
But in the main, people working within a faith community understandably limit the options they suggest to those which they think are compatible with their faith.
I don't see why this is really a point of discussion.
One can be an atheist and still believe in the supernatural. The supernatural is not exhausted by God, so that if you take away belief in a god, all of the supernatural goes with it. That's a very narrow and hidebound view of what the supernatural is.
Interesting idea - can you give any examples? I cannot think of anything at all which would come under the heading of supernatural that I would believe.
I'm almost certain I never said that every atheist believes in the supernatural, far less that you do. I said it was a possibility. Not everybody has your unshakable faith in the unprovable and unscientific idea that all religious beliefs are 100% faith-driven and have 0% evidence. Let alone non-religious but spiritual or supernatural beliefs.
The example of supernatural atheists that used to be given were animists, who don't have a creator God. However, many people have expressed queasiness at this idea, since it seems based on a rather technical definition of atheism.
Percy Shelley believed in the supernatural forms and was an atheist. One might think that his worship of intellectual beauty was worship of God under another description, but that's not how he described himself.
One can be an atheist and still believe in the supernatural. The supernatural is not exhausted by God, so that if you take away belief in a god, all of the supernatural goes with it. That's a very narrow and hidebound view of what the supernatural is.
Interesting idea - can you give any examples? I cannot think of anything at all which would come under the heading of supernatural that I would believe.
I'm almost certain I never said that every atheist believes in the supernatural, far less that you do. I said it was a possibility. Not everybody has your unshakable faith in the unprovable and unscientific idea that all religious beliefs are 100% faith-driven and have 0% evidence. Let alone non-religious but spiritual or supernatural beliefs.
The only evidence I have is the earliest writings of the church. In believing them to be a valid reaction to the actual incarnation I am exercising faith. Where can science come in?
One can be an atheist and still believe in the supernatural. The supernatural is not exhausted by God, so that if you take away belief in a god, all of the supernatural goes with it. That's a very narrow and hidebound view of what the supernatural is.
Interesting idea - can you give any examples? I cannot think of anything at all which would come under the heading of supernatural that I would believe.
If I may, astrology, past-life experiences, ghosts, palmistry, clairvoyance, Tarot, telekinesis, telepathy, curses, out-of-body experiences, fairies, witchcraft, spirit guides, spirit animals, guardian angels....
I don't believe in any of them but countless people do believe in some of them.
One can be an atheist and still believe in the supernatural. The supernatural is not exhausted by God, so that if you take away belief in a god, all of the supernatural goes with it. That's a very narrow and hidebound view of what the supernatural is.
Interesting idea - can you give any examples? I cannot think of anything at all which would come under the heading of supernatural that I would believe.
If I may, astrology, past-life experiences, ghosts, palmistry, clairvoyance, Tarot, telekinesis, telepathy, curses, out-of-body experiences, fairies, witchcraft, spirit guides, spirit animals, guardian angels....
I don't believe in any of them but countless people do believe in some of them.
All of this is why I didn’t say the supernatural and restricted my wonderings to spirit. That’s the rub. I’ve difficulty in understanding how someone could affirm atheism and spirit at the same time, at least consistently.
The New Age stuff tends to have a fashionable trend, such as past lives or geomancy, that will disappear to be replaced by another fad. Crystals and witchcraft are perennials, if you are thinking of setting up a shop. But I don't know how atheist the purveyors or buyers are. I often stay in Stroud, which is quite hippy, and very mellow.
All of this is why I didn’t say the supernatural and restricted my wonderings to spirit. That’s the rub. I’ve difficulty in understanding how someone could affirm atheism and spirit at the same time, at least consistently.
But how important is consistency.
I don't make a distinction between the supernatural and 'spirit'. I understand them as perceptions of the same unknowable 'thing'. It follows that I think you are defining 'spirit' far too narrowly. In any case, Wikipedia's article on secular spirituality makes it clear that one can be spiritual without believing in any kind of 'spirit', at least as I think you are defining it. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Secular_spirituality
Wiki's article on spirituality starts with this: The meaning of spirituality has developed and expanded over time, and various connotations can be found alongside each other.
Traditionally, spirituality referred to a religious process of re-formation which "aims to recover the original shape of man", oriented at "the image of God" as exemplified by the founders and sacred texts of the religions of the world. The term was used within early Christianity to refer to a life oriented toward the Holy Spirit and broadened during the Late Middle Ages to include mental aspects of life.
In modern times, the term both spread to other religious traditions and broadened to refer to a wider range of experience, including a range of esoteric traditions and religious traditions. Modern usages tend to refer to a subjective experience of a sacred dimension and the "deepest values and meanings by which people live", often in a context separate from organized religious institutions, such as a belief in a supernatural (beyond the known and observable) realm, personal growth, a quest for an ultimate or sacred meaning, religious experience, or an encounter with one's own "inner dimension" https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spirituality
I suspect you are trying to restrict 'spirit'to its older meaning but it is not how it is presently used.
The New Age stuff tends to have a fashionable trend, such as past lives or geomancy, that will disappear to be replaced by another fad. Crystals and witchcraft are perennials, if you are thinking of setting up a shop. But I don't know how atheist the purveyors or buyers are. I often stay in Stroud, which is quite hippy, and very mellow.
I live in Glastonbury. I suspect it makes Stroud look like Suburbiton.
Apologies to those who think we are straining at gnats. From my perspective, the degree to which some Christians appear to wish to deny certain experiences to non-theists or see a contradiction between atheism and a spiritual outlook is very troubling.
If you look on Daily Meditations - The Center for Action and Contemplation there is an interesting reflection today:
Richard Rohr - A New Way of Thinking
'Our worldview will not normally change until we place ourselves or are placed in new and different lifestyle situations.
You do not think yourself into a new way of living, you live yourself into a new way of thinking.'
Food for thought.
I like that sentiment but the article's reading of history is bonkers.
The sentiment resonates with me because I have noticed changes in my attitudes to nominally spiritual beliefs has changed since I moved to Glastonbury at the end of last year. If you are unfamiliar with Glastonbury, it is a small town in the west of England and a fount of New-Age beliefs. Pretty much every form of spirituality is available here.
I remain someone who believes there is no God, and will always, I expect, do so, but I've lost any hostility towards or defensiveness to spiritual practices. In particular a series of guided meditations centred on the Akashic Records has provided a surprisingly useful method of investigating my own thoughts and creativity.
Apologies to those who think we are straining at gnats. From my perspective, the degree to which some Christians appear to wish to deny certain experiences to non-theists or see a contradiction between atheism and a spiritual outlook is very troubling.
What's troubling to me is that some people seem to think that Christian spiritual directors should be secular ones, rather than helping people to develop spiritually through Christianity as believers, which is a given as they have approached Christian spiritual directors.
The tangent has now moved to another thread, so hopefully there will no more gnat-straining here.
Apologies to those who think we are straining at gnats. From my perspective, the degree to which some Christians appear to wish to deny certain experiences to non-theists or see a contradiction between atheism and a spiritual outlook is very troubling.
What's troubling to me is that some people seem to think that Christian spiritual directors should be secular ones, rather than helping people to develop spiritually through Christianity as believers, which is a given as they have approached Christian spiritual directors.
The tangent has now moved to another thread, so hopefully there will no more gnat-straining here.
I thought that particularly tangent had been resolved some time back and the discussion had moved on.
Comments
Perhaps they aren't atheists, but simply a-gnat-stic.
I'll get me coat ...
Sir, I applaud both your courage and your wit.
So what do you see your role as? There's been a lot of comments here about what you should and shouldn't do, but what would you actually do?
First I try and provide a relaxed, hospitable and peaceful environment. I usually offer a cup of tea, coffee etc.
Then I invite the person to tell me how they/ things are. I try to listen carefully not just to what the person is saying, but also to the prompting of the Holy Spirit. I may ask questions like “Where do you sense God was in that situation?” or “What do you think God feels/ or might say about what you describe?” Those are both much more definite and fully formed than the rather feeling-my-way sort of questions I tend to ask, but that’s the gist of what I’m getting at.
Notwithstanding being called a ‘spiritual director’ I rarely, even if asked, actually direct someone to do something. Though, if a clear ‘gap’ emerges in the picture where I think trying or desisting from a particular discipline might be helpful, I will mildly suggest that the person might see if that is something they find helpful.
Sometimes simply the act of sharing their thoughts in the context of thinking about where God is in their life or situation is enough to bring clarity without me being more than a listening presence.
I don’t think I really do the work. I make a space in which the directee can stand aside from the torrent of daily events and do some work with God themselves.
I suppose I think of my role as being a confidential companion for a person on their faith journey, someone who stands outside their situation, and with whom they can be as frank as they feel able without the thought that it will go back to their congregation or local minister, or their bishop, archdeacon or rural dean, and without the thought that they are going to see me week by week in the course of their regular responsibilities.
I hesitate to respond to you, knowing what the answer is likely to be, but it seems to me that the gnat-straining is a distraction from the real point of the discussion.
If I may add a few words about spiritual directors: Around here, at least, all spiritual directors must have spiritual directors of their own. I asked one priest to be my spiritual director; she said, "I'd like to, but then I'd have to be in spiritual direction, and I just don't have time." (She did recommend someone else, who turned out to be excellent.)
She's not alone in that tendency aboard Ship.
At times there can be a 'literalism' about it that is reminiscent of some of the more fundie posts we get here from time to time. If someone believes God is 'speaking' to them then it must be some kind of audible voice or heavenly radio broadcast - rather than, as is generally the case, that person sifting and evaluating impressions and experience from a theist perspective informed by whatever spiritual traditions have formed their particular 'take'.
We all do that. The only difference is the weight and value we attach to these things and the way we interpret them - and that can and does change over time. You can hold to a theistic perspective and still take responsibility for what you think, do and say.
What I don't see here are people going round claiming that any idea that pops into their head has some kind of divine import or that God is like a puppet-master directing their thoughts and feelings. I know plenty of people like that but they'd get short shrift here.
It's not that anyone is questioning or challenging SusanDoris's right to hold to her particular perspective. Nor is it wrong or unwelcome for her to challenge those of us who hold to theistic positions. I would be happier if those challenges were presented in ways we've not seen before or which have ended up in arguments and Hell Calls in the past.
Anyhow, whatever the case, the discussion has given practitioners a platform to tell us more about 'spiritual direction' as understood within particular traditions. I've found that helpful.
Thanks folks and more power to your elbows.
I would see my role as supporting people who want to draw aside to focus on their inner journey. I only have experience of doing this with people who have have or who have had some sort of Christian background. But I'd hazard a guess that the contemplative wing of several faiths could well have their own equivalent of spiritual direction.
As I have said above one of my course tutors saw a young man who defined himself as atheist.
Were someone of another/ no faith to come to me I would do exactly the same for them as I would for a Christian:
The two most important things I can do are create a welcoming space and to listen. Really listen, listen with my heart.
My role is to support and encourage the directee in the inner work they are doing. One of the best things I can do is to ask the right questions, questions that go to the heart of the matter. It is about helping them hear themselves and find God and/ or the spiritual resources for where they currently find themselves. Sometimes I might make a suggestion of something to read/ think about/ do often based on something the directee has said themselves.
Interesting post - read and noted - with an appreciative nod of thanks.
Seriously? I'd have thought the answer was blindingly obvious. We atheists and other non-theists don't want the theists hogging all the forms of spirituality.
How does one "hog" something you don't believe in?
I mean, fair enough Susan is using rhetorical flair and likes getting involved in discussions on the internet with theists. But the idea that atheists need to elbow into the understanding of "spirituality" because otherwise all the theists would get to discuss things without reference to people who don't believe it is totally crackers.
If you don't believe in a "spirit" in what possible sense can you be said to have a spirituality?
It depends what you mean by spirituality. If we take the dictionary definition: the quality of being concerned with the human spirit or soul as opposed to material or physical things, then I certainly have a form of spirituality. It's there when I look at the stars, it's there when I stand in the rain, it's even there when I see a steam engine.
I don't practice astrology, or Tarot, or meditation, but all of theme are spiritual activities and none of them require belief in a deity.
If you’re an atheist then I’d be somewhat surprised if you believe in a nebulous, rare thing called spirit. What you seem to be describing to me, Colin Smith, is a feeling of wonderment. That’s good, important, and something I wish more people felt, but I don’t see how that’s the same thing as spirit.
Obviously, though, as a theist, I do believe there is 'more' - and also that there's more where those came from, as it were. 'All good things come from above ...' as James put it in his Epistle.
As T S Eliot puts it in 'The Dry Salvages', one of his 'Four Quartets', we can experience 'moments of happiness' from a sense of well-being, from 'Fruition, fulfilment, security or affection,/Or even a very good dinner ..'
(The Dry Salvages: lines 90-92)
But he insists that beyond that there's the possibility of 'the sudden illumination', and that we can 'have the experience' but 'miss the meaning.'
Therein lies the rub. How do we interpret or assign 'meaning' to any of these things? Do we need to?
I'd suggest that as human beings we have no option but to assign some kind of meaning to these things. Even to declare them 'meaningless' is to assign them some kind of meaning or significance.
At any rate, whatever the case, I don't think anyone here is claiming that theists have the monopoly on 'meaning' nor that non-theists - or atheists (if there's a difference) are incapable of having lofty and transcendent thoughts, experiences or impressions.
For me wonderment is the same thing as spirit. Or rather spirit is the thing and wonderment is my sense of that thing.
I believe in employing very broad terms.
Easily. Some Asian religions have neither gods or spirits in them, but it would be odd to say that they don't offer spiritual paths, trainings, rituals, etc. For example, transcendence is often used to refer to going beyond the ego, or beyond dualism. Some kinds of atheist spirituality are different from this, but there is plenty written about it.
The two are categorically different. Wonderment is a mental state; you are in a state of wonder. Spirit is a metaphysical claim upon the world; that there exists spirit.
You’re welcome to use words in non-standard ways, but then what you’re talking about when you talk about spirit isn’t the same as us, and your criticisms are about something we aren’t talking about. This is why precise definitions can be good, sometimes.
Like I said, wonderment is my perception of the thing called spirit. But as I do not believe that spirit has any consciousness or awareness of my existence we are probably talking about different definitions of or different kinds of spirit.
*written with smile, not confrontation!
Corrected quoting code to make it clear which words are whose. BroJames Purgatory Host
I don't know, Susan. I suppose if this was an atheist forum and theists came into every discussion insisting that the deity be brought into it and vowing to continue making these points until the day they die, that might start to get annoying.
In fairness, I can't think of an exact parallel for continued questioning of why "spiritual directors" are not open to a wider variety of option to suggest to people because non-theism is generally a minority or historically less popular view.
This discussion does remind me of M Scott Peck, who definitely did appear to advise clients to try different (possibly opposite) faith options depending on what he thought would help them. So that kind of view does exist.
But in the main, people working within a faith community understandably limit the options they suggest to those which they think are compatible with their faith.
I don't see why this is really a point of discussion.
I'm almost certain I never said that every atheist believes in the supernatural, far less that you do. I said it was a possibility. Not everybody has your unshakable faith in the unprovable and unscientific idea that all religious beliefs are 100% faith-driven and have 0% evidence. Let alone non-religious but spiritual or supernatural beliefs.
Thank you for editing - both here and on another post a bit further back.
The only evidence I have is the earliest writings of the church. In believing them to be a valid reaction to the actual incarnation I am exercising faith. Where can science come in?
If I may, astrology, past-life experiences, ghosts, palmistry, clairvoyance, Tarot, telekinesis, telepathy, curses, out-of-body experiences, fairies, witchcraft, spirit guides, spirit animals, guardian angels....
I don't believe in any of them but countless people do believe in some of them.
All of this is why I didn’t say the supernatural and restricted my wonderings to spirit. That’s the rub. I’ve difficulty in understanding how someone could affirm atheism and spirit at the same time, at least consistently.
But how important is consistency.
I don't make a distinction between the supernatural and 'spirit'. I understand them as perceptions of the same unknowable 'thing'. It follows that I think you are defining 'spirit' far too narrowly. In any case, Wikipedia's article on secular spirituality makes it clear that one can be spiritual without believing in any kind of 'spirit', at least as I think you are defining it. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Secular_spirituality
Wiki's article on spirituality starts with this:
The meaning of spirituality has developed and expanded over time, and various connotations can be found alongside each other.
Traditionally, spirituality referred to a religious process of re-formation which "aims to recover the original shape of man", oriented at "the image of God" as exemplified by the founders and sacred texts of the religions of the world. The term was used within early Christianity to refer to a life oriented toward the Holy Spirit and broadened during the Late Middle Ages to include mental aspects of life.
In modern times, the term both spread to other religious traditions and broadened to refer to a wider range of experience, including a range of esoteric traditions and religious traditions. Modern usages tend to refer to a subjective experience of a sacred dimension and the "deepest values and meanings by which people live", often in a context separate from organized religious institutions, such as a belief in a supernatural (beyond the known and observable) realm, personal growth, a quest for an ultimate or sacred meaning, religious experience, or an encounter with one's own "inner dimension"
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spirituality
I suspect you are trying to restrict 'spirit'to its older meaning but it is not how it is presently used.
I live in Glastonbury. I suspect it makes Stroud look like Suburbiton.
Richard Rohr - A New Way of Thinking
'Our worldview will not normally change until we place ourselves or are placed in new and different lifestyle situations.
You do not think yourself into a new way of living, you live yourself into a new way of thinking.'
Food for thought.
I like that sentiment but the article's reading of history is bonkers.
The sentiment resonates with me because I have noticed changes in my attitudes to nominally spiritual beliefs has changed since I moved to Glastonbury at the end of last year. If you are unfamiliar with Glastonbury, it is a small town in the west of England and a fount of New-Age beliefs. Pretty much every form of spirituality is available here.
I remain someone who believes there is no God, and will always, I expect, do so, but I've lost any hostility towards or defensiveness to spiritual practices. In particular a series of guided meditations centred on the Akashic Records has provided a surprisingly useful method of investigating my own thoughts and creativity.
What's troubling to me is that some people seem to think that Christian spiritual directors should be secular ones, rather than helping people to develop spiritually through Christianity as believers, which is a given as they have approached Christian spiritual directors.
The tangent has now moved to another thread, so hopefully there will no more gnat-straining here.
I thought that particularly tangent had been resolved some time back and the discussion had moved on.