But the only way you can understand the choices is to see how other people have articulated them. Spirituality and religion aren’t like whiskey; you can’t just go to the Religion Store and buy a bottle of Buddhism to sip over a few days. You have to read, essentially, how it’s been articulated, maybe practice meditation a bit, and see if it jives with your feelies on the matter.
I agree an individual has first responsibility but surely if someone can only act as a director within their own religion then the correct term is religious director and not spiritual director.
You do realise that most medical doctors aren't real doctors, and that it's just an honorary title?
Err, no I wasn't. But only because I'd never given any thought to it.
But the only way you can understand the choices is to see how other people have articulated them. Spirituality and religion aren’t like whiskey; you can’t just go to the Religion Store and buy a bottle of Buddhism to sip over a few days. You have to read, essentially, how it’s been articulated, maybe practice meditation a bit, and see if it jives with your feelies on the matter.
No, really you can do exactly that. When I had a question about why I felt a particular way in certain beautiful places I found the answer was Numenism. I didn't have to do anything more. It just gave me a useful label.
I agree an individual has first responsibility but surely if someone can only act as a director within their own religion then the correct term is religious director and not spiritual director.
You do realise that most medical doctors aren't real doctors, and that it's just an honorary title?
I agree an individual has first responsibility but surely if someone can only act as a director within their own religion then the correct term is religious director and not spiritual director.
You do realise that most medical doctors aren't real doctors, and that it's just an honorary title?
Err, no I wasn't. But only because I'd never given any thought to it.
Not entirely sure of the relevance though.
And we're not entirely sure of the relevance of you insisting spiritual directors be called religious directors. It's just what they're called. Everyone copes.
I agree an individual has first responsibility but surely if someone can only act as a director within their own religion then the correct term is religious director and not spiritual director.
You do realise that most medical doctors aren't real doctors, and that it's just an honorary title?
Citation.
It depends on your jurisdiction. In the UK, a medical degree usually attracts the honorific "doctor" even though the holder has not actually earned a doctorate.
I'm not sure why you think you need a citation. It's just a fact.
But the only way you can understand the choices is to see how other people have articulated them. Spirituality and religion aren’t like whiskey; you can’t just go to the Religion Store and buy a bottle of Buddhism to sip over a few days. You have to read, essentially, how it’s been articulated, maybe practice meditation a bit, and see if it jives with your feelies on the matter.
No, really you can do exactly that. When I had a question about why I felt a particular way in certain beautiful places I found the answer was Numenism. I didn't have to do anything more. It just gave me a useful label.
I don’t know what you mean by numenism, and I don’t know how you could arrive at that position without reading someone’s thoughts on the matter.
Etymology may be no guide to meaning, but spiritual originally meant pious or devout; it seems a bit odd to complain that a word that used to mean pious is still being used to mean something in that general area.
Really it would make more sense to complain of the appropriation of the words 'religious' and 'faith' by non-atheists.
Etymology may be no guide to meaning, but spiritual originally meant pious or devout; it seems a bit odd to complain that a word that used to mean pious is still being used to mean something in that general area.
Really it would make more sense to complain of the appropriation of the words 'religious' and 'faith' by non-atheists.
So theists appropriated “religious” and “faith?” I’m not sure I follow.
Those looking for spiritual growth but who are outside any spiritual community really need someone to act as agent who can guide them towards the form of spirituality best suited to them.
Do you, as an atheist, consider yourself to be spiritual? Or to belong to a spiritual group? Or to have a spirituality that grows and changes?
Etymology may be no guide to meaning, but spiritual originally meant pious or devout; it seems a bit odd to complain that a word that used to mean pious is still being used to mean something in that general area.
Ah, tthank you for writing that. I was just about to write something on the lines of all humans have, to a greater or lesserdegree, a spiritual aspect. It's too late in my life to start an internet petition that non-believers should wrest the word away from the religious!!
Really it would make more sense to complain of the appropriation of the words 'religious' and 'faith' by non-atheists.
And that's something else I haven't thought of before.
Etymology may be no guide to meaning, but spiritual originally meant pious or devout; it seems a bit odd to complain that a word that used to mean pious is still being used to mean something in that general area.
Really it would make more sense to complain of the appropriation of the words 'religious' and 'faith' by non-atheists.
Huh? 'Spiritual' from Latin root spiro, having to do with the breath; so in that sense, yes, we're all spiritual.
'Faith' ultimately from Latin fides, trust, belief. A word of wide application, so hard to 'appropriate'.
'Religio' is trickier. Cicero thought it came from relego, 'to read again'. But generally speaking, something to do with conscientiousness and piety towards the gods, as far back as we have attestation.
I agree an individual has first responsibility but surely if someone can only act as a director within their own religion then the correct term is religious director and not spiritual director.
Don't see why. There can be many flavors of spiritual direction, some religious and some not. But that doesn't mean the religious kind of spiritual direction isn't spiritual direction.
It's like saying religious songs shouldn't be called songs because they're religious. Or like saying a surgeon can't call herself a health care professional because she only does surgery and not all health care. She should call herself a surgery care professional.
And how do they define this 'spiritual' direction? On what is it based, apart from a belief which requires 100% faith? ...
SusanDoris, what makes you assume that anyone has "a belief which requires 100% faith"? Doubts are a part of the human condition, on any number of subjects.
Good for them, but as professionals, they should not, especially in today's much more knowledge based society, be giving direction which includes a religious bias or a faith belief.
Even most psychologists and psychiatrists who do have a religious faith can treat patients who have none. And given that there's a lot of theorizing and guesswork in those fields (Freud on the subject of women, anyone?), I find it amusing that you're dismissing the work of those with a "faith belief" while touting "today's much more knowledge based society."
Well,QED! An unbroken circle - how many break out and take a good look at the non-belief side.
The "non-belief side" is pretty hard to avoid, particularly in fields involving counseling, I assure you.
And why would you object to a spiritual director being, well, a spiritual director in the first place?
Some of us don’t think that they are three completely distinct things, but are rather deeply interconnected. The divorcing of the three is leads to problems of spiritual dissatisfaction....
And why would you object to a spiritual director being, well, a spiritual director in the first place?
Interesting post, thank you. Re this last point: I have no objections to the position but the assumption that spiritual more or less equals/implies/means religious belief, I object on the grounds that I am as spiritual as the next person, but that side of myself, which I think is almost covered by the adjective aesthetic, has no basis in religious belief.
It could be said that that isn't quite true, since the environment in which I was brought up was taken for granted as CofE, but even then I was always questioning, but without access to enough wider knowledge.
I agree an individual has first responsibility but surely if someone can only act as a director within their own religion then the correct term is religious director and not spiritual director.
You do realise that most medical doctors aren't real doctors, and that it's just an honorary title?
Citation.
It depends on your jurisdiction. In the UK, a medical degree usually attracts the honorific "doctor" even though the holder has not actually earned a doctorate.
I'm not sure why you think you need a citation. It's just a fact.
What real doctors have to have Ph.D.s? Never mind centuries of usage? Centuries of 99% of the population never encountering anyone with a Ph.D.?
I'm not sure why you would think that I haven't been aware for half a century that it's an honorific and that bogus doctors in the UK are very rare.
Yep. This thread has taken some interesting turns. But on the whole, 'ideal and correct nomenclature for Spiritual Directors' has not, IMHO, been one of them. On encule les mouches ...
Etymology may be no guide to meaning, but spiritual originally meant pious or devout; it seems a bit odd to complain that a word that used to mean pious is still being used to mean something in that general area.
Really it would make more sense to complain of the appropriation of the words 'religious' and 'faith' by non-atheists.
Huh? 'Spiritual' from Latin root spiro, having to do with the breath; so in that sense, yes, we're all spiritual.
'Faith' ultimately from Latin fides, trust, belief. A word of wide application, so hard to 'appropriate'.
'Religio' is trickier. Cicero thought it came from relego, 'to read again'. But generally speaking, something to do with conscientiousness and piety towards the gods, as far back as we have attestation.
Also re-bind "Modern scholars such as Tom Harpur and Joseph Campbell favor the derivation from ligare bind, connect, probably from a prefixed re-ligare, i.e. re (again) + ligare or to reconnect, which was made prominent by St. Augustine, following the interpretation given by Lactantius in Divinae institutiones, IV, 28.", whence lex, law.
And we're not entirely sure of the relevance of you insisting spiritual directors be called religious directors. It's just what they're called. Everyone copes.
Not insisting. It simply seems misleading.
"Spiritual" refers to a whole range of things from organised religion through to astrology, dowsing, ley-lines, past-life experiences, meditation, yoga, palmistry, cartomancy, numenism, and much more. Bear in mind I live in Glastonbury so I've barely touched on the varieties of spirituality on offer.
Anyone with an interest in developing a more spiritual approach to life could be drawn to any, some, or all of those and a spiritual director should have the ability to detect which an individual is best suited to.
If all a spiritual director can do is offer one particular variety of spirituality then they are hardly worthy of the name. It would be like comparing a nutrition expert with a fish & chip shop.
I don’t know what you mean by numenism, and I don’t know how you could arrive at that position without reading someone’s thoughts on the matter.
https://www.thefreedictionary.com/Numenism
Indirectly I suppose I did read someone's thoughts on the matter but it felt more like looking up a definition in a dictionary. I wasn't interest in developing my interest. It was more akin to noticing an unusual species of bird and finding out what it was called.
Also re-bind "Modern scholars such as Tom Harpur and Joseph Campbell favor the derivation from ligare bind, connect, probably from a prefixed re-ligare, i.e. re (again) + ligare or to reconnect, which was made prominent by St. Augustine, following the interpretation given by Lactantius in Divinae institutiones, IV, 28.", whence lex, law.
Interesting! Thanks for that - as a word nerd, I appreciate it. And it just goes to show how long it's possible to go on discussing such things, particularly once you start thinking in terms of the roots and/or the 'actual' meanings of words.
So sometimes, when I'm uncertain of the meaning, scope, or application of a word, I like to look at its context. And then, I find, my confusion goes away again.
Oh, I was just expressing my irritation at how much pointless energy was being expended on the question of the precise delimitation of the word 'spiritual' without further context. But now *I'm* expending that energy ....
Oh, I was just expressing my irritation at how much pointless energy was being expended on the question of the precise delimitation of the word 'spiritual' without further context. But now *I'm* expending that energy ....
Over and out.
I apologise if it seems tedious to you.
I don't want a precise "delimitation of the word 'spiritual'". Far from it. I want that word to reference every conceivable variety of belief, ritual, and practice and to do so without prejudice.
Sadly, I have usually found that it is those within a specific faith tradition who wish to give the word a precise delimitation.
Sadly, I have usually found that it is those within a specific faith tradition who wish to give the word a precise delimitation.
BbbwwwwwaaaaaAAHHHHHH! Having promised myself and everyone else I'd be hopping off, here I am back again ... but ...
Has anyone on this thread actually made that assertion? Has anyone actually claimed that Christians (or anyone else) has sole authority over the use of the word 'spiritual'? Is it not a fairly nebulous term in regular usage whose more specific sense depends upon context? Am I surprised that the 'Spiritual Director' in a Christian church will be approaching the matter from a Christian perspective? Would I expect a 'Spiritual Advisor' in a mosque to be anything other than Muslim? Would I attend a 'Spiritual Session' at a yoga studio and be disappointed that Jesus wasn't mentioned? Am I expecting ecstatic visions if I drink 'spiritual' tea?
There just isn't a semantic problem here that I can see. The whole discussion feels to me like someone getting aggrieved that I didn't explicitly describe my dictionary as 'English-language' and thereby implied it contained ALL THE WORDS IN THE WORLD.
And I am therefore annoyed at myself for participating in it. Sigh.
Just so I'm clear we're on the same page, that redirects to the definition of "animism" (as does The Wiki if one searches for "numenism" there). So is what you're talking about animism?
Sadly, I have usually found that it is those within a specific faith tradition who wish to give the word a precise delimitation.
BbbwwwwwaaaaaAAHHHHHH! Having promised myself and everyone else I'd be hopping off, here I am back again ... but ...
Has anyone on this thread actually made that assertion? Has anyone actually claimed that Christians (or anyone else) has sole authority over the use of the word 'spiritual'? Is it not a fairly nebulous term in regular usage whose more specific sense depends upon context? Am I surprised that the 'Spiritual Director' in a Christian church will be approaching the matter from a Christian perspective? Would I expect a 'Spiritual Advisor' in a mosque to be anything other than Muslim? Would I attend a 'Spiritual Session' at a yoga studio and be disappointed that Jesus wasn't mentioned? Am I expecting ecstatic visions if I drink 'spiritual' tea?
There just isn't a semantic problem here that I can see. The whole discussion feels to me like someone getting aggrieved that I didn't explicitly describe my dictionary as 'English-language' and thereby implied it contained ALL THE WORDS IN THE WORLD.
And I am therefore annoyed at myself for participating in it. Sigh.
No, not on this thread. Elsewhere, yes.
I would assume a Spiritual Director in a Christian church or in any other narrow religious faith would approach spiritual matters in much the same way that a fishmonger approaches nutrition. In other words, his approach would be extremely narrow and focused on selling fish.
The question is how willing and accepting a Spiritual Director in any particular faith might be of those who are best-suited to some other form of spirituality than the one he can offer, bearing in mind that some forms of spirituality have been actively denounced by his particular faith.
Could you imagine or accept a Spiritual Director in a Christian church suggesting someone might be better off taking up Tarot?
Just so I'm clear we're on the same page, that redirects to the definition of "animism" (as does The Wiki if one searches for "numenism" there). So is what you're talking about animism?
Okay, fine. Then I suggest it might be more profitable to argue with those people wherever they are, then argue with them here, where they aren't? From where I'm standing, it just looks like a straw-man argument.
I would assume a Spiritual Director in a Christian church or in any other narrow religious faith would approach spiritual matters in much the same way that a fishmonger approaches nutrition. In other words, his approach would be extremely narrow and focused on selling fish.
The question is how willing and accepting a Spiritual Director in any particular faith might be of those who are best-suited to some other form of spirituality than the one he can offer, bearing in mind that some forms of spirituality have been actively denounced by his particular faith.
Could you imagine or accept a Spiritual Director in a Christian church suggesting someone might be better off taking up Tarot?
I think we're still far into the "not actually a problem" space. Beyond the fact that various people with experience of the matter have pointed out in-thread that your opening assumption is questionable ... well, what of it? As I noted above, if I went to a spiritual advisor associated with a mosque, I wouldn't be surprised if the advice given was of an Islamic character. If my curiosity wasn't in that direction, then I wouldn't go to the mosque in the first place - any more than I would be offended by the failure of the fishmonger to sell me any cheese, a CBT therapist to offer Freudian psychoanalysis, or a Tarot card reader to lead a church service for me. The insistence that anyone using the word 'spiritual' should perforce be generically capable and competent just seems utterly spurious to me.
I would assume a Spiritual Director in a Christian church or in any other narrow religious faith would approach spiritual matters in much the same way that a fishmonger approaches nutrition. In other words, his approach would be extremely narrow and focused on selling fish.
Yet it has been pointed out numerous times in this thread that this assumption isn't born out by actual practice.
Could you imagine or accept a Spiritual Director in a Christian church suggesting someone might be better off taking up Tarot?
I can not only imagine it; I'm aware of it happening. I Ching and other practices, too. Though to be fair, I doubt the spiritual directors would say "better off." Rather, I think they'd say "might find helpful."
Maybe I'm misreading, but I get the idea that you (and maybe some others) are thinking that a spiritual director is in some sense a position within a church structure and/or hierarchy. That might be true in some cases, but in many if not most cases it's not. Spiritual directors may or may be clergy or persons in religious life (nuns, monks, friars, etc.). But often they are lay people, like @MrsBeaky in this thread (or like my wife) who have received training and certification.
In my experience, people who are working through things with the clergy or someone else might, at some point, be told "I wonder if it would be helpful to work with a spiritual director," and then be given some references. Much like finding the right therapist, it can take a while to find the right spiritual director. But there are not, in my experience, any rules requiring spiritual directors to tow some party or doctrinal line, except perhaps in certain groups.
I would assume a Spiritual Director in a Christian church or in any other narrow religious faith would approach spiritual matters in much the same way that a fishmonger approaches nutrition. In other words, his approach would be extremely narrow and focused on selling fish.
Yet it has been pointed out numerous times in this thread that this assumption isn't born out by actual practice.
Could you imagine or accept a Spiritual Director in a Christian church suggesting someone might be better off taking up Tarot?
I can not only imagine it; I'm aware of it happening. I Ching and other practices, too. Though to be fair, I doubt the spiritual directors would say "better off." Rather, I think they'd say "might find helpful."
Maybe I'm misreading, but I get the idea that you (and maybe some others) are thinking that a spiritual director is in some sense a position within a church structure and/or hierarchy. That might be true in some cases, but in many if not most cases it's not. Spiritual directors may or may be clergy or persons in religious life (nuns, monks, friars, etc.). But often they are lay people, like @MrsBeaky in this thread (or like my wife) who have received training and certification.
In my experience, people who are working through things with the clergy or someone else might, at some point, be told "I wonder if it would be helpful to work with a spiritual director," and then be given some references. Much like finding the right therapist, it can take a while to find the right spiritual director. But there are not, in my experience, any rules requiring spiritual directors to tow some party or doctrinal line, except perhaps in certain groups.
Thank you. That is helpful. It does seem that my concern is invalid.
And we're not entirely sure of the relevance of you insisting spiritual directors be called religious directors. It's just what they're called. Everyone copes.
Not insisting. It simply seems misleading.
"Spiritual" refers to a whole range of things from organised religion through to astrology, dowsing, ley-lines, past-life experiences, meditation, yoga, palmistry, cartomancy, numenism, and much more. Bear in mind I live in Glastonbury so I've barely touched on the varieties of spirituality on offer.
Anyone with an interest in developing a more spiritual approach to life could be drawn to any, some, or all of those and a spiritual director should have the ability to detect which an individual is best suited to.
If all a spiritual director can do is offer one particular variety of spirituality then they are hardly worthy of the name. It would be like comparing a nutrition expert with a fish & chip shop.
Bah. You might as well argue that you shouldn't use the term "worship leader" unless you can lead worship of every single variety.
@SusanDoris, @Colin Smith, and any other evangelical atheists* who object to Christian spiritual directors calling themselves "spiritual directors" without incorporating tenets of other religions or changing the title to something you've decided on the spur of the moment would be more suitable: Too bad.
As has been explained to you over and over, via the sacrifice of a great deal of time and innumerable pixels, spiritual directors have been known as "spiritual directors" for many years. Different religions - and I wouldn't label any of the major ones "narrow" - have their own spiritual directors. And since many atheists treat their own opinions on the matter as, in effect, a belief system, I'm sure you could even have spiritual directors of your own - and call them whatever you'd like.
Can we please put this one to rest?
* I was married to a man who actually called himself that
@SusanDoris, @Colin Smith, and any other evangelical atheists* who object to Christian spiritual directors calling themselves "spiritual directors" without incorporating tenets of other religions or changing the title to something you've decided on the spur of the moment would be more suitable: Too bad.
As has been explained to you over and over, via the sacrifice of a great deal of time and innumerable pixels, spiritual directors have been known as "spiritual directors" for many years. Different religions - and I wouldn't label any of the major ones "narrow" - have their own spiritual directors. And since many atheists treat their own opinions on the matter as, in effect, a belief system, I'm sure you could even have spiritual directors of your own - and call them whatever you'd like.
Can we please put this one to rest?
* I was married to a man who actually called himself that
I am not and never have been an evangelical atheist.
Of course all the major religions are narrow. Even monotheism is narrow compared to the vast range of spirituality on offer.
But as I said above, now that I know that "Spiritual Directors" operating within a faith tradition will usually guide individuals to forms of spirituality outside that faith tradition if they think it appropriate to that person's needs I am happy.
Sort of bizarre. I mean, presumably if they are within a particular faith tradition they are there because they think it true/correct/appropriate/choose-your-adjective, and in most cases, that is going to severely limit the other traditions they feel comfortable referring people to. How could it not? Perhaps we could rephrase by adding that what a particular spiritual director judges to be appropriate to someone's needs is obviously going to be influenced by the spiritual director's worldview. Which is to say, a Christian spiritual director may well refer a person to a different denomination, but is unlikely to direct them outside of Christianity altogether, and similar statements hold for Islamic directors, etc. etc. etc.
Sort of bizarre. I mean, presumably if they are within a particular faith tradition they are there because they think it true/correct/appropriate/choose-your-adjective, and in most cases, that is going to severely limit the other traditions they feel comfortable referring people to. How could it not? Perhaps we could rephrase by adding that what a particular spiritual director judges to be appropriate to someone's needs is obviously going to be influenced by the spiritual director's worldview. Which is to say, a Christian spiritual director may well refer a person to a different denomination, but is unlikely to direct them outside of Christianity altogether, and similar statements hold for Islamic directors, etc. etc. etc.
Dammit. I don't want to wake the thread up just as it was dozing off, but yes, that is exactly my concern. Those offering spiritual direction should not be partial.
Maybe there's a call for some sort of spiritual version of GoCompare™
Comments
Err, no I wasn't. But only because I'd never given any thought to it.
Not entirely sure of the relevance though.
No, really you can do exactly that. When I had a question about why I felt a particular way in certain beautiful places I found the answer was Numenism. I didn't have to do anything more. It just gave me a useful label.
Citation.
And we're not entirely sure of the relevance of you insisting spiritual directors be called religious directors. It's just what they're called. Everyone copes.
It depends on your jurisdiction. In the UK, a medical degree usually attracts the honorific "doctor" even though the holder has not actually earned a doctorate.
I'm not sure why you think you need a citation. It's just a fact.
I don’t know what you mean by numenism, and I don’t know how you could arrive at that position without reading someone’s thoughts on the matter.
Really it would make more sense to complain of the appropriation of the words 'religious' and 'faith' by non-atheists.
So theists appropriated “religious” and “faith?” I’m not sure I follow.
Huh? 'Spiritual' from Latin root spiro, having to do with the breath; so in that sense, yes, we're all spiritual.
'Faith' ultimately from Latin fides, trust, belief. A word of wide application, so hard to 'appropriate'.
'Religio' is trickier. Cicero thought it came from relego, 'to read again'. But generally speaking, something to do with conscientiousness and piety towards the gods, as far back as we have attestation.
It's like saying religious songs shouldn't be called songs because they're religious. Or like saying a surgeon can't call herself a health care professional because she only does surgery and not all health care. She should call herself a surgery care professional.
The "non-belief side" is pretty hard to avoid, particularly in fields involving counseling, I assure you.
And why would you object to a spiritual director being, well, a spiritual director in the first place?
It could be said that that isn't quite true, since the environment in which I was brought up was taken for granted as CofE, but even then I was always questioning, but without access to enough wider knowledge.
What real doctors have to have Ph.D.s? Never mind centuries of usage? Centuries of 99% of the population never encountering anyone with a Ph.D.?
I'm not sure why you would think that I haven't been aware for half a century that it's an honorific and that bogus doctors in the UK are very rare.
Which of us is the more Asperger'seque?
Yep. This thread has taken some interesting turns. But on the whole, 'ideal and correct nomenclature for Spiritual Directors' has not, IMHO, been one of them. On encule les mouches ...
One uncle, several moustaches?
But literally much, much more vulgar. And irritated.
#keepforeigninsultsforeign
Sorry 'bout that. ;-)
Also re-bind "Modern scholars such as Tom Harpur and Joseph Campbell favor the derivation from ligare bind, connect, probably from a prefixed re-ligare, i.e. re (again) + ligare or to reconnect, which was made prominent by St. Augustine, following the interpretation given by Lactantius in Divinae institutiones, IV, 28.", whence lex, law.
Not insisting. It simply seems misleading.
"Spiritual" refers to a whole range of things from organised religion through to astrology, dowsing, ley-lines, past-life experiences, meditation, yoga, palmistry, cartomancy, numenism, and much more. Bear in mind I live in Glastonbury so I've barely touched on the varieties of spirituality on offer.
Anyone with an interest in developing a more spiritual approach to life could be drawn to any, some, or all of those and a spiritual director should have the ability to detect which an individual is best suited to.
If all a spiritual director can do is offer one particular variety of spirituality then they are hardly worthy of the name. It would be like comparing a nutrition expert with a fish & chip shop.
https://www.thefreedictionary.com/Numenism
Indirectly I suppose I did read someone's thoughts on the matter but it felt more like looking up a definition in a dictionary. I wasn't interest in developing my interest. It was more akin to noticing an unusual species of bird and finding out what it was called.
In order.
Mildly.
No.
It has changed from agnosticism to atheism and then to atheist with a mild interest in numenism.
As I've said elsewhere, I don't find atheist to be a useful term for describing what someone believes in.
Interesting! Thanks for that - as a word nerd, I appreciate it. And it just goes to show how long it's possible to go on discussing such things, particularly once you start thinking in terms of the roots and/or the 'actual' meanings of words.
So sometimes, when I'm uncertain of the meaning, scope, or application of a word, I like to look at its context. And then, I find, my confusion goes away again.
Oh, I don't believe in numenism. It's completely bonkers. It's just a handy way of describing how I feel when surrounded by beautiful bits of nature.
I think enquiry is far too grand a term for what I was doing.
What, f....ornicating?
Over and out.
I apologise if it seems tedious to you.
I don't want a precise "delimitation of the word 'spiritual'". Far from it. I want that word to reference every conceivable variety of belief, ritual, and practice and to do so without prejudice.
Sadly, I have usually found that it is those within a specific faith tradition who wish to give the word a precise delimitation.
BbbwwwwwaaaaaAAHHHHHH! Having promised myself and everyone else I'd be hopping off, here I am back again ... but ...
Has anyone on this thread actually made that assertion? Has anyone actually claimed that Christians (or anyone else) has sole authority over the use of the word 'spiritual'? Is it not a fairly nebulous term in regular usage whose more specific sense depends upon context? Am I surprised that the 'Spiritual Director' in a Christian church will be approaching the matter from a Christian perspective? Would I expect a 'Spiritual Advisor' in a mosque to be anything other than Muslim? Would I attend a 'Spiritual Session' at a yoga studio and be disappointed that Jesus wasn't mentioned? Am I expecting ecstatic visions if I drink 'spiritual' tea?
There just isn't a semantic problem here that I can see. The whole discussion feels to me like someone getting aggrieved that I didn't explicitly describe my dictionary as 'English-language' and thereby implied it contained ALL THE WORDS IN THE WORLD.
And I am therefore annoyed at myself for participating in it. Sigh.
No, not on this thread. Elsewhere, yes.
I would assume a Spiritual Director in a Christian church or in any other narrow religious faith would approach spiritual matters in much the same way that a fishmonger approaches nutrition. In other words, his approach would be extremely narrow and focused on selling fish.
The question is how willing and accepting a Spiritual Director in any particular faith might be of those who are best-suited to some other form of spirituality than the one he can offer, bearing in mind that some forms of spirituality have been actively denounced by his particular faith.
Could you imagine or accept a Spiritual Director in a Christian church suggesting someone might be better off taking up Tarot?
Oops
Okay, fine. Then I suggest it might be more profitable to argue with those people wherever they are, then argue with them here, where they aren't? From where I'm standing, it just looks like a straw-man argument.
I think we're still far into the "not actually a problem" space. Beyond the fact that various people with experience of the matter have pointed out in-thread that your opening assumption is questionable ... well, what of it? As I noted above, if I went to a spiritual advisor associated with a mosque, I wouldn't be surprised if the advice given was of an Islamic character. If my curiosity wasn't in that direction, then I wouldn't go to the mosque in the first place - any more than I would be offended by the failure of the fishmonger to sell me any cheese, a CBT therapist to offer Freudian psychoanalysis, or a Tarot card reader to lead a church service for me. The insistence that anyone using the word 'spiritual' should perforce be generically capable and competent just seems utterly spurious to me.
I can not only imagine it; I'm aware of it happening. I Ching and other practices, too. Though to be fair, I doubt the spiritual directors would say "better off." Rather, I think they'd say "might find helpful."
Maybe I'm misreading, but I get the idea that you (and maybe some others) are thinking that a spiritual director is in some sense a position within a church structure and/or hierarchy. That might be true in some cases, but in many if not most cases it's not. Spiritual directors may or may be clergy or persons in religious life (nuns, monks, friars, etc.). But often they are lay people, like @MrsBeaky in this thread (or like my wife) who have received training and certification.
In my experience, people who are working through things with the clergy or someone else might, at some point, be told "I wonder if it would be helpful to work with a spiritual director," and then be given some references. Much like finding the right therapist, it can take a while to find the right spiritual director. But there are not, in my experience, any rules requiring spiritual directors to tow some party or doctrinal line, except perhaps in certain groups.
Thank you. That is helpful. It does seem that my concern is invalid.
Bah. You might as well argue that you shouldn't use the term "worship leader" unless you can lead worship of every single variety.
As has been explained to you over and over, via the sacrifice of a great deal of time and innumerable pixels, spiritual directors have been known as "spiritual directors" for many years. Different religions - and I wouldn't label any of the major ones "narrow" - have their own spiritual directors. And since many atheists treat their own opinions on the matter as, in effect, a belief system, I'm sure you could even have spiritual directors of your own - and call them whatever you'd like.
Can we please put this one to rest?
* I was married to a man who actually called himself that
I am not and never have been an evangelical atheist.
Of course all the major religions are narrow. Even monotheism is narrow compared to the vast range of spirituality on offer.
But as I said above, now that I know that "Spiritual Directors" operating within a faith tradition will usually guide individuals to forms of spirituality outside that faith tradition if they think it appropriate to that person's needs I am happy.
Dammit. I don't want to wake the thread up just as it was dozing off, but yes, that is exactly my concern. Those offering spiritual direction should not be partial.
Maybe there's a call for some sort of spiritual version of GoCompare™