From an atheist perspective anyone with religious faith of any kind is going to look superstitious.
But where do we draw the line?
Yes, this is the heart of it, really. And there are cultural and philosophical pathways that lead those with different kinds of faith to draw the line in a different place / way.
Allowing for different traditions to have different ways of understanding feels like the same kind of thing as respecting different forms of indigenous knowledge - which is generally thought to be a good thing.
Speaking from (almost) within one of these so-called exotic cultures, I'd sorta like to cut Gramps a bit more slack. Coincidences can play an outsized role in the decisions of humans in any culture just as in mine, for instance (the made up story of the guy in the three piece suit rings rather realistically to me, given the Trump supporters around here).
We had a case where the family of a woman who had died slowly in much suffering, and at her funeral they placed a photo in a glassed-in frame atop the coffin. Unfortunately, the light came in at the window and struck the photo in such a way that the image was completely blanked out by glare. The local religious leader (name and faith concealed for the protection of the guilty) noticed this on the funeral video later and announced to the family that this meant Mom was trapped in some form of hell and they needed to up their financial offerings to the temple to get her out. Being in a state of grief and fear, they did. The tiny coincidence got used for what I can only consider spiritual abuse (yes, still mad at that guy, we were caring for the family who were in bad shape and needed comfort, not further demands for money).
And yes, I could see something like this happening to a white American family who had just been through a hellish final illness and fell into the hands of a predatory preacher. People do attach a lot of meaning to tiny things at such times.
I think your story was well-intentioned @Gramps49 but it did trip into the pit-falls @MaryLouise listed as far as I can see and FWIW.
I think you could have made the point that different cultures interpret coincidences differently and that there are things we can't (yet?) explain without getting tangled up.
Be that as it may, I remember a Shipmate from a very liberal Protestant background relating a story from somewhere he'd been a missionary where the crocodiles mysteriously withdrew from a particular stretch of water for sufficient time for people to fish there whenever a shaman performed a ritual there.
Yes, it's an exotic tale and plays to certain stereotypes and expectations but from what he said, it occurred regularly at a particular time of year and nobody has so far found an explanation.
Whether it is true, partly true or complete hokum I don't know. I wouldn't build any great superstructure on it and neither did the original poster.
I think what is more pertinent - and tricky - is dealing with superstition within our own traditions. Within the Orthodox tradition people from parts of Eastern Europe and the Balkans are seem as particularly prone to superstition - but then what about Western converts who can take a 'hyperdox' or fundamentalist approach?
I have no idea whether Richard Rohr, Red-Letter-Christians (whoever they are) or Patheos or whoever else go in for superstition or not - probably nowhere near as much as people in my own Tradtion / tradition or my former affiliation.
From an atheist perspective anyone with religious faith of any kind is going to look superstitious.
I have no idea where the boundary line lies between what might be considered legitimate faith and superstition. I've known of a loopy convert to Orthodoxy who lives in Greece and tries to out-Greek the Greeks who believes that those Orthodox priests who condemn beliefs such as the 'Evil Eye' have succumbed to nefarious Western scepticism. As if such a belief were part and parcel of Orthodox Christianity.
But where do we draw the line?
For me, the line is drawn when people see ourselves as being in control of events, rather than humbly accepting that we do not control God.
One coincidental story I distinctly remember was when the ELCA National Assembly was meeting in Minneapolis in 2009. The voters had just voted to allow same sex people to be ordained, when a tornado hit the spire of the church the assembly had been using as their worship center. NPR Story.. You can imagine how conservatives interpreted that event.
On a funnier note, apparently lightning hit the horrible "Touchdown Jesus" monumental sculpture and utterly destroyed it. I wish the church had taken the hint, even if it was a totally unmotivated coincidence!
Just to clarify: exoticising is the flip side of denigrating those from non-Western locations and cultures. It has to do with romanticising or idealising peoples or communities in an essentialist way that reduces them to stereotypes. A good place to begin reading about this if you're not familiar with the concept is Edward Said's Orientalism, a critique that stopped Eurocentric traditions of academic anthropology, ethnology and missiology in their tracks.
Moving on. Part of my Catholic understanding has to do with Ignatian discernment and 'finding God in everything'. We've focused on individual discernment in this thread when it comes to ascribing meaning to 'coincidences' but sometimes people notice emerging patterns or what might be nudges towards a vocation in ministry or becoming a spiritual counselor, feeling called by God in subtle ways to change one's life and explore a new direction. How do we seek confirmation of what might be going on? This takes us back to the shared process of discernment within the church, speaking to trusted counselors or pastors or bishops, hoping for encouragement and in many cases funding to study further. What is nebulous becomes more concrete and definite. Or not, and that is where communal discernment and church authority once again is problematic. Do we persist or wait for more 'signs'?
I found involvement in communal discernment, about vocations and ministry, one of the uplifting and rewarding aspects of church, albeit within (Protestant) parachurch contexts - the relationships with "church authority" were often fraught, with a few notable exceptions.
There was something about the act of talking (and praying) about other people's hopes and dreams that makes it a rather different process from individual discernment.
Most of those involved were willing and able to look for and see tangible signs, but the presence or absence of signs wasn't the be-all and end-all of discerning God's will.
I found involvement in communal discernment, about vocations and ministry, one of the uplifting and rewarding aspects of church, albeit within (Protestant) parachurch contexts - the relationships with "church authority" were often fraught, with a few notable exceptions.
There was something about the act of talking (and praying) about other people's hopes and dreams that makes it a rather different process from individual discernment.
Most of those involved were willing and able to look for and see tangible signs, but the presence or absence of signs wasn't the be-all and end-all of discerning God's will.
@pease, yes that need for more than just a handful of coincidences or feeling prompted to change one's life is what shared discernment, developing skills and deepening commitment to vocation is all about. I agree that praying with others and being asked thoughtful questions or encouraged to explore further is core to church as a thinking environment attentive to God's word. IME talking about small but personally significant insights with a good listener builds trust through vulnerability.
From an atheist perspective anyone with religious faith of any kind is going to look superstitious.
But where do we draw the line?
Yes, this is the heart of it, really. And there are cultural and philosophical pathways that lead those with different kinds of faith to draw the line in a different place / way.
Allowing for different traditions to have different ways of understanding feels like the same kind of thing as respecting different forms of indigenous knowledge - which is generally thought to be a good thing.
As an atheist trying to make faith work (although it cannot for me without an instance of the fingerpost), give it good will, I don't see superstition at work above folk belief, although scratch any high brow enough and you'll get a low brow response sooner or later. We're superstitious by nature. Existential yearning for meaning is not superstition. For forty years I was overwhelmingly superstitious. Finding credibility in the Incarnation, seeing it as an instance of the fingerpost, as I am standing back from again and anew, is not superstition, or is only with regard to the incontrovertibly supernatural. It isn't necessarily irrational, doesn't necessarily involve folk superstition, including 'promptings' and 'callings' and 'words of knowledge' and 'Was that you Lord?' et al. In Christ is yes, no? In Christ is real, true, pure religion and undefiled. The proposition of Incarnation and its historically immediate effects augmented 'by the Spirit' does not require anything more than that to be true.
Either Incarnation stands pointing to the lusty historical infant Church that Saul extirpated underground within a handful of years of the founder's martyrdom, or the incredibly, tenaciously contagious claim of it did. How did the latter happen naturally?
I have all the time in the world for Jesus as the compass pivot of civilization to kindness. It would be wonderful if that were unnatural. But was it an idea whose time had come? In early C1st Palestine? Again.
I found involvement in communal discernment, about vocations and ministry, one of the uplifting and rewarding aspects of church, albeit within (Protestant) parachurch contexts - the relationships with "church authority" were often fraught, with a few notable exceptions.
There was something about the act of talking (and praying) about other people's hopes and dreams that makes it a rather different process from individual discernment.
Most of those involved were willing and able to look for and see tangible signs, but the presence or absence of signs wasn't the be-all and end-all of discerning God's will.
@pease, yes that need for more than just a handful of coincidences or feeling prompted to change one's life is what shared discernment, developing skills and deepening commitment to vocation is all about. I agree that praying with others and being asked thoughtful questions or encouraged to explore further is core to church as a thinking environment attentive to God's word. IME talking about small but personally significant insights with a good listener builds trust through vulnerability.
The ability to listen thoughtfully in a way that takes people’s faith experiences seriously, and yet offer questions in a way that enables vulnerability, trust and learning, is no small skill.
I have often found that people with a depth of spiritual practice do this well. I don’t know whether that leads to a kind of developed intuition, or whether such folk are simply more centred and aware. In either case I can see the importance of prayer here, as you mention.
I think it's because they're smart, worldly wise, nobody's fools, but quite capable of conducting all conversation in diplomatic spiritual language and not revealing what they know lies beneath it. Human nature. Priests, cops, journos; they've all seen it all.
@KarlLB , the point I was making is that we have free will. So if we married someone not good for us, and the marriage turned bad, that's on us, not God. I doubt that God had much to do with arranging my failed marriage, for instance. That was all my own fault.
None . of . it . is . anyone's . fault. Not even God's.
I think the thing about coincidences happening when one prays and not when one doesn’t is rather simply explained by the lack of a reference for these coincidences if there isn't a list of things prayed for to refer them back to.
Case in point NEQ's X who if they hadn't "prayed for sign" would not be able to see the cheque's arrival as that sign. Doesn’t mean it wouldn't have arrived just the same though.
If @Raptor Eye is right I must simply conclude that God has never had anything important to tell me. The one occasion in my life I thought he had was shown to be not the case by events as they unfolded years later.
Frankly, it's safer and better for my mental health to conclude that is indeed th3 case and not to bother with any idea of God manipulating events to tell me anything or facilitate anything. Not being a knob and doing the good I can do is more than challenge enough; if in a thousand lifetimes I made a dent in my inability to do those two I might start looking for anything specific. It also has the advantage that it has intrinsic value if God turns out to be no more than a mirage borne of a desperate need for validation when I was on the social scrap-heap of school, all those years ago.
Superb. No delusional episteme.
My God Love, even tho' They haven't come in from the cold yet, cannot intervene in the slightest beyond grounding being, incarnating and Zenning back in mute stillness in the lightless cave. They never arrange a marriage that infant and sexual desire and propinquity fully explain. They never call, to vocation, especially to take other peoples' money. They aren't in the causation, the 'unexplained', the fantasies, the joined up dots, the mysteries we make up all by ourselves, that aren't there, real, true. Except as pareidolia. Being ignorant and weak.
Nothing is unexplained.
Nothing is mysterious.
Whether Love grounds infinite nature or not.
The loudest elephant trumpeting in this room is disposition. It's nobody's fault.
I have often found that people with a depth of spiritual practice do this well. I don’t know whether that leads to a kind of developed intuition, or whether such folk are simply more centred and aware. In either case I can see the importance of prayer here, as you mention.
I've been squirming, reading this thread since it started, and now I can hardly sit at all.
I feel I must be resistant to taking spiritual or life advice (or guidance) of any kind, or that I don't don't seek it out when I should. Really, though, there are very few people I trust to give such momentous guidance. I married one of the less than a handful, and he only gives it when I ask. I generally don't think to.
I stand outside discussions like this, wondering how this works, how one finds people that one could open up to in such ways, who don't have their own agenda, who don't use blame and guilt as manipulative tools. Honestly, who is worthy of my vulnerability? How do I know? How does one make such a connection with them? And in the end, what value is there in consulting with them?
As one standing outside the guidance circle, I hear people speak highly of it. It sounds valuable. But I don't see how I could fit with it.
@pease, yes that need for more than just a handful of coincidences or feeling prompted to change one's life is what shared discernment, developing skills and deepening commitment to vocation is all about. I agree that praying with others and being asked thoughtful questions or encouraged to explore further is core to church as a thinking environment attentive to God's word. IME talking about small but personally significant insights with a good listener builds trust through vulnerability.
I like that - I'm trying to piece together my attitude and approach, at a distance of some years, and it chimes with my understanding.
Looking back from the point of view of someone asking the questions: some of the time, people would lead with what they believed were the big, "obvious" signs - but, as much as anything, I was trying to listen for, and pick up on, the "small but personally significant insights".
A snatch of hymn that comes to mind now (and likely came to mind then): Speak through the heats of our desires ... O still, small voice of calm. (Although I now see that's a hymn with an interesting provenance.)
The ability to listen thoughtfully in a way that takes people’s faith experiences seriously, and yet offer questions in a way that enables vulnerability, trust and learning, is no small skill.
I have often found that people with a depth of spiritual practice do this well. I don’t know whether that leads to a kind of developed intuition, or whether such folk are simply more centred and aware. In either case I can see the importance of prayer here, as you mention.
That made me smile - only in the sense that I found it disastrous to think of a discerning role in terms of spirituality.
One clear requirement was to get my agenda out of the way, and take on board the agenda(s) of the people concerned. Looking back, the times I messed up were times I let my agenda get in the way.
But the aspect I've been thinking about is vulnerability. People looking for discernment about their lives are giving something of themselves up, often quite a big something. They are paying a price, both in the process itself, and in whatever consequences result.
I'm not sure how aware of this I was at the time, but I'd now say there also needs to be a concomitant cost to anyone sharing in the process of discernment. So, to have any worth, I also needed to give something up. I haven't explored the ways in which this can happen but, in the sense that the person or people I was talking to were on a journey - it often meant walking with them for at least some of the way.
Given that the context is communal discernment, maybe I should point out it wasn't just me - this is more of a personal perspective of what was often an ongoing process involving overlapping groups of people, both formally and informally constituted.
@pease, yes that need for more than just a handful of coincidences or feeling prompted to change one's life is what shared discernment, developing skills and deepening commitment to vocation is all about. I agree that praying with others and being asked thoughtful questions or encouraged to explore further is core to church as a thinking environment attentive to God's word. IME talking about small but personally significant insights with a good listener builds trust through vulnerability.
I like that - I'm trying to piece together my attitude and approach, at a distance of some years, and it chimes with my understanding.
Looking back from the point of view of someone asking the questions: some of the time, people would lead with what they believed were the big, "obvious" signs - but, as much as anything, I was trying to listen for, and pick up on, the "small but personally significant insights".
A snatch of hymn that comes to mind now (and likely came to mind then): Speak through the heats of our desires ... O still, small voice of calm. (Although I now see that's a hymn with an interesting provenance.)
The ability to listen thoughtfully in a way that takes people’s faith experiences seriously, and yet offer questions in a way that enables vulnerability, trust and learning, is no small skill.
I have often found that people with a depth of spiritual practice do this well. I don’t know whether that leads to a kind of developed intuition, or whether such folk are simply more centred and aware. In either case I can see the importance of prayer here, as you mention.
That made me smile - only in the sense that I found it disastrous to think of a discerning role in terms of spirituality.
I am confused. I didn’t mean spirituality as a method of discernment, but instead that people with a depth of practice seem to offer useful questions (and being centred in their practice (especially if contemplative) maybe makes them less inclined to push a personal agenda).
In passing, I have never worked with a spiritual director who told me what to do or made a decision for me. Mostly they offered forms of prayer or other practices to support my own listening and reflection.
It’s a shame it is called spiritual direction, because (if it is any good) it really isn’t directive.
The one time someone in authority (not an SD) was clearly fixated on obedience I ran away very quickly indeed and think I was right to do so…
The ability to listen thoughtfully in a way that takes people’s faith experiences seriously, and yet offer questions in a way that enables vulnerability, trust and learning, is no small skill.
I have often found that people with a depth of spiritual practice do this well. I don’t know whether that leads to a kind of developed intuition, or whether such folk are simply more centred and aware. In either case I can see the importance of prayer here, as you mention.
That made me smile - only in the sense that I found it disastrous to think of a discerning role in terms of spirituality.
I am confused. I didn’t mean spirituality as a method of discernment, but instead that people with a depth of practice seem to offer useful questions (and being centred in their practice (especially if contemplative) maybe makes them less inclined to push a personal agenda).
Have I misunderstood something in your response?
I didn't have method of discernment in mind. What I'm trying to say is that I was never much good at taking the idea of "spiritual practice" very seriously, and I was happy to let people know that. Does that help?
What I particularly liked about MaryLouise's post was the concept of a "thinking environment".
In passing, I have never worked with a spiritual director who told me what to do or made a decision for me. Mostly they offered forms of prayer or other practices to support my own listening and reflection.
It’s a shame it is called spiritual direction, because (if it is any good) it really isn’t directive.
The one time someone in authority (not an SD) was clearly fixated on obedience I ran away very quickly indeed and think I was right to do so…
I have often found that people with a depth of spiritual practice do this well. I don’t know whether that leads to a kind of developed intuition, or whether such folk are simply more centred and aware. In either case I can see the importance of prayer here, as you mention.
I've been squirming, reading this thread since it started, and now I can hardly sit at all.
I feel I must be resistant to taking spiritual or life advice (or guidance) of any kind, or that I don't don't seek it out when I should. Really, though, there are very few people I trust to give such momentous guidance. I married one of the less than a handful, and he only gives it when I ask. I generally don't think to.
I stand outside discussions like this, wondering how this works, how one finds people that one could open up to in such ways, who don't have their own agenda, who don't use blame and guilt as manipulative tools. Honestly, who is worthy of my vulnerability? How do I know? How does one make such a connection with them? And in the end, what value is there in consulting with them?
As one standing outside the guidance circle, I hear people speak highly of it. It sounds valuable. But I don't see how I could fit with it.
I don't think anyone is asking you to.
I've done an Ignatian retreat and whilst aspects of it aren't my bag there was certainly nothing coercive or 'directive' about it.
As @Cameron says, if it gets that way then it's time to run, run, run, run away (as David Byrne put it).
I'll sometimes run things by a priest or trusted friend but certainly wouldn't treat either as some kind of oracle telling me what to do.
If you are fine as you are then you're fine as you are and it wouldn't be right or helpful for you to explore any practices that don't 'fit' or resonate with you.
Any of these things can become a minefield if we aren't careful. Sitting at home with an open Bible can too.
We all of us work these things out in the context of a community of some form or other, but that doesn't mean we should abandon our brains and let other people do our thinking for us.
We all of us work these things out in the context of a community of some form or other, but that doesn't mean we should abandon our brains and let other people do our thinking for us.
I didn't have the impression that anyone here was.
I'm not questioning anyone here about their experiences. I'm thinking out loud as it were. Expressing my own inabilities.
It's just in-group jargon @Kendel. As long as it's kind, it's OK.
Yeah? I don't know.
How does one get to the point of knowing it's kind, if one never goes there. Up hill 16 miles to ask, for example? I can't imagine doing it.
Well, pardon me for being a spiritual director. I'll just pack up my bag of charlatan tricks and fuck off then.
Years of training in what I have just discovered to be total charlatanry. How incredibly charming.
I consulted a spiritual director, thanks to a shipmate, and they were absolutely superb. I could be completely open, actually have the conversation, whereas that was utterly impossible with any vicar, let alone layperson, no matter how smart, and I'd tried (5 vicars - I had to move a lot - the odd smart member, and a theology group). Couldn't have been better at the time. 4 years ago. I long to go back, and could I'm sure, the trouble is my deconstruction is now complete. I still had the Pericope Adulterae. Maybe I will with the mystery of the Church.
I long to go back, and could I'm sure, the trouble is my deconstruction is now complete. I still had the Pericope Adulterae. Maybe I will with the mystery of the Church.
I hope you do go back. You so value this experience. You clearly found the person who you resonate with. Priceless!
Well, pardon me for being a spiritual director. I'll just pack up my bag of charlatan tricks and fuck off then.
Years of training in what I have just discovered to be total charlatanry. How incredibly charming.
I consulted a spiritual director, thanks to a shipmate, and they were absolutely superb. I could be completely open, actually have the conversation, whereas that was utterly impossible with any vicar, let alone layperson, no matter how smart, and I'd tried (5 vicars - I had to move a lot - the odd smart member, and a theology group). Couldn't have been better at the time. 4 years ago. I long to go back, and could I'm sure, the trouble is my deconstruction is now complete. I still had the Pericope Adulterae. Maybe I will with the mystery of the Church.
A quick comment on this- Some Spiritual Directors (including me!) are happy to see people regardless of wherever they find themselves in relation to their spirituality so if you ever felt the desire to return to having direction I'm sure you'd be welcomed.
Thanks @MrsBeaky, I have every confidence I'd be welcome, if the person is still there. It is a way to go! Out in to the boonies, worth it for that alone.
And aye @Kendel. Bin thinking about it for years now.
@Kendel - I don't think I'd regard your wariness as an 'inability' as such. What is often (misleadingly?) referred to as 'spiritual direction' doesn't feature in all Christian traditions and may carry negative connotations for those who espouse 'soul competence' for instance.
I think most 'spiritual directors' or 'soul friends' or 'spiritual accompanyists' or whatever we might call them would say that it isn't for everybody.
@ThunderBunk - I didn't interpret Kendel's or anyone else's comments as calling into question the practice of 'spiritual direction' or dismissing it as a load of old hoo-ey.
I took it that Kendel was saying that it wasn't for her for whatever reason, not that it was a load of crock or that practitioners were all charlatans.
As with anything and everything else, there's a wide spectrum. Some people find it very easy to open up to other people and make themselves 'vulnerable' - indeed some can open themselves up to exploitation that way.
Other people find it difficult to open up even in the most benign or unthreatening circumstances.
Of course, trained and experienced spiritual directors are aware of all that and know how to deal with it.
I don't see this whole area as one where there are 'rights' or 'wrongs' but would see some practices as being beyond the pale.
My own tradition / Tradition is suspicious of the 'imagen' aspect of Ignatian practice, for instance. Even as a fairly imaginative person I don't find it particularly helpful either. That doesn't mean other people don't find it valuable.
'Lectio divina' and 'Examen', yes. I'm cool with those.
But it's not about my personal proclivities though.
@Kendel - I don't think I'd regard your wariness as an 'inability' as such. What is often (misleadingly?) referred to as 'spiritual direction' doesn't feature in all Christian traditions and may carry negative connotations for those who espouse 'soul competence' for instance.
..... @ThunderBunk - I didn't interpret Kendel's or anyone else's comments as calling into question the practice of 'spiritual direction' or dismissing it as a load of old hoo-ey.
I took it that Kendel was saying that it wasn't for her for whatever reason, not that it was a load of crock or that practitioners were all charlatans.
Thanks for your gracious attempts to be a peace-maker, @Gamma Gamaliel .
I wasn't saying that "it" wasn't for me. I was saying that I have concluded that my personality seems to be resistant to seeking advice or guidance. My comments were entirely egoistic, self-referential.
If it helps, I'm a (somewhat) theologically conservative, independent Baptist in a PCA church. While we don't have a formal tradition of "spiritual directors" there are many people who seek spiritual or life advice from various people in or outside the church. In the past I have not even involved myself in what is called "women's ministries,", lead by women who had "position" (whatever position women can have in my church tradition); sometimes a pastor's or elder's wife) with whom I had/have intense differences on theological and life matters. I've not consulted with pastors, elders, deacons or their wives, either. These are trust issues on my part.
In general I tend not to seek help making decisions. I have wasted a good deal of time and energy in my life because of it. My gut feeling is that I am responsible to figure it all out myself, and that I should be the one that others can rely on to have answers. There is no good reason for this feeling. It just is.
I had not intended to make this discussion about me or my shortcomings, but I feel like I have a right to address what seems to be @ThunderBunk's response to me.
Having to explain myself in such detail in an attempt to be remotely understood reinforces to me that my gut reaction is not so far out in left field.
@ThunderBunk - I didn't interpret Kendel's or anyone else's comments as calling into question the practice of 'spiritual direction' or dismissing it as a load of old hoo-ey.
I took it that Kendel was saying that it wasn't for her for whatever reason, not that it was a load of crock or that practitioners were all charlatans.
As with anything and everything else, there's a wide spectrum. Some people find it very easy to open up to other people and make themselves 'vulnerable' - indeed some can open themselves up to exploitation that way.
Other people find it difficult to open up even in the most benign or unthreatening circumstances.
Of course, trained and experienced spiritual directors are aware of all that and know how to deal with it.
I don't see this whole area as one where there are 'rights' or 'wrongs' but would see some practices as being beyond the pale.
My own tradition / Tradition is suspicious of the 'imagen' aspect of Ignatian practice, for instance. Even as a fairly imaginative person I don't find it particularly helpful either. That doesn't mean other people don't find it valuable.
'Lectio divina' and 'Examen', yes. I'm cool with those.
But it's not about my personal proclivities though.
To be fair to @ThunderBunk some harsh words have been used upthread, in relation to worldviews that include spiritual practices or insights. So in relation to the swing of the whole conversation across the thread, it’s not hard to discern some particularly negative perspectives. However, we seem to have turned a corner on that, which is great.
On to another point: Interestingly, as someone whose research is currently focussed on (secular) dialogue and how it can enable learning, I find it hard to think about trusting in only myself - I feel sure I’d miss a great deal. In the secular world I speculate the majority of us have had teachers or coaches or mentors at some point that we trusted, especially when they have training to offer specialist knowledge, counselling or other forms of help. I think SD is the same - so someone with training in a recognised tradition would be my starting point.
And as you say @Gamma Gamaliel everyone is different - imagination works well for me whereas I find lectio very difficult.
I can also see why @ThunderBunk was upset by some comments further up thread and if I was in anyway responsible I apologise.
Meanwhile, @Kendel, from what you've shared I wouldn't put your reaction down to any 'fault' on your part. It sounds to me you've had some bad experiences and receivex duff advice and that has understandably made you wary.
I get where you are coming from theologically too. I've been a Baptist in the past and strange as it may sound from someone who is now Orthodox, I have a lot of respect for that tradition - particularly on the preaching and teaching side. At its best too, I think the 'church meeting' method of arriving at decisions collectively has much to recommend it.
We all of us work these things out in the context of a community of some form or other, but that doesn't mean we should abandon our brains and let other people do our thinking for us.
I didn't have the impression that anyone here was.
I'm not questioning anyone here about their experiences. I'm thinking out loud as it were. Expressing my own inabilities.
It's just in-group jargon @Kendel. As long as it's kind, it's OK.
Yeah? I don't know.
How does one get to the point of knowing it's kind, if one never goes there. Up hill 16 miles to ask, for example? I can't imagine doing it.
My experience of Anglican spiritual direction was totally positive. Just four years ago. As you know. No regrets. I more than suspect this is a Pond Difference. We have very much in common, in that it's impossible to have The Conversation.
I doubt (British understatement) you c1ould find anyone in your fellowship of the quality of my Anglican spiritual director. Who was recommended by a shipmate. I know of no one else in three populous counties, and the London borough of Lambeth, and Oxford University, or here, of that quality: with whom one can have the conversation.
But I'm sure they're there. And here. If I asked my Leicestershire person, I'm sure there's a hundred like them in the UK. They should be able to give US contacts.
People who accept all of rationality, true scholarship first, yet still have faith.
I'm not sure 'Pond Differences' come into the equation. At least not in a prescriptive way. These things are 'better' in the UK. Those things are 'better' in the US.
As far as I can see, these practices, whether good, bad or indifferent, are more an issue of church tradition or denominational emphases rather than particular national or cultural characteristics - although those all play a part of course.
We are all 'enculturated.'
I daresay the Baptist setting I was involved in here in the UK would be very different to that Kendel would be familiar with. That doesn't imply any 'qualitative' judgement on either.
At any rate, I'm sure it would be possible to find people from all manner of places who've found 'spiritual direction' - or whatever we happen to call it - helpful and fulfilling - as well as others who have found it less than useful or even harmful.
It all depends on the context and a whole range of factors such as training, discernment and good old fashioned common sense.
It also depends on what the expectations are. If people are expecting some kind of daily 'oracle' or suspension of their critical faculties or some kind of short-cut to holiness then they are going to be sadly disappointed.
But if both parties approach these things sensibly and according to tried and tested 'rules' and the kind of preparation and training @ThunderBunk mentions then yes, it could be very fruitful indeed.
There all sorts of 'resources' out there across the Christian spectrum as a whole. This is just one of them. There are others.
If this one doesn't suit, something else might.
That's not to advocate an anything goes free-for-all but it is to say that we can't limit or restrict things to any one particular method or channel.
I'm not sure 'Pond Differences' come into the equation. At least not in a prescriptive way. These things are 'better' in the UK. Those things are 'better' in the US.
As far as I can see, these practices, whether good, bad or indifferent, are more an issue of church tradition or denominational emphases rather than particular national or cultural characteristics - although those all play a part of course.
I’m quite sure Pond Differences as such are not in play here. Denominational/tradition differences and expectations, on the other hand, may well be. And individual differences, of course.
I know that the higher one goes up the food chain in Anglicanism, beyond the local church, there are some very smart, shrewd, common-sense people. As with vicars of course. Met an archdeacon recently and told her she was nothing like the one in Rev. She was. They can do all the spiritual sounding language just fine. But when they give the thumbs down, it's because they're not daft, no matter how beautifully spiritually hopefully phrased. Had a friend who was desperate to have the care of souls. No way, thank God! We got on great. He wept with me how he couldn't cope with his normal prepubescent kids and nicely unbending wife. That's one track.
The other: My spiritual director had no problem at all with rationality, didn't try and yeah-but any of it; completely agreed as far as I could tell, I'll have to ask explicitly : ) It didn't touch their faith in incarnation; that story was their instance of the fingerpost.
I rather thought spiritual expressions of hope were central to Christian understanding, rather than suggesting the speaker is ‘daft’ unless they are just using language in a dissembling way. We’ve also had some forms of spirituality, in this thread, indirectly alluded to as ‘delusional’, ‘ignorant’ and ‘weak’.
And NO, I don’t want to revisit those earlier points: it will just lead to more heat than light.
However, I felt moved to comment indirectly because I think such dismissive language is really unhelpful. I have been fully convinced that some people are wise and genuinely spiritual. In popular writing it seems that Buddhist leaders and writers are more readily accepted in this way. But I think if people like (e.g.) Thich Nhat Hanh, they would do as well to give Henri Nouwen, Richard Rohr, or Nadia Bolz-Weber (especially accidental saints: finding god in all the wrong places) a go, to see some different compelling views.
Overall, it seems to me a pity and a shame to be on any kind of searching path and miss other perspectives that might help us to be open minded and see things differently. I include in that my own reading of books which outline a journey into the postmodern that challenges conventional positions - Brian McLaren has done a lot there.
I know that openminded approach is not going to work for everyone. But if all we have is time (and that’s all we can be fully sure of) then hope helps us truly live in it - and I am interested in any persuasive accounts that offer hope.
Thanks everyone for all the interesting points of conversation that followed my initial post, I hope that the discussion continues if you find it useful. However, I am not sure there is more I can constructively add to this thread: so maybe I’ll take my own advice and pick up a book now.
I would have thought that regardless of whether Love is the ground of being or not, we should never kid ourselves. 'Spirituality', whatever that is, doesn't supervene psychology, sociology and above all social justice. I.e. true religion. Social justice is the measure of all things here below.
How does majoring in 'spirituality' effect that? Looks like a displacement activity.
Sure, which is why Richard Rohr calls his outfit The Center for Action and Contemplation.
Both/and ...
I don't know how that squares with hermits in caves or Stylites sitting on top of poles.
I imagine most of us, whatever our particular tradition or affiliation would agree that 'spirituality' should have some kind of social bearing or outcome and not just be some kind of religious hobby.
So, I wonder what to make of a coincidence that we seem to find meaningful. There seem to be three options:
1. It's just a coincidence - people are good at seeing patterns everywhere, and making meaning.
2. God has made something happen, so that we might draw meaning from it.
3. God provides us with the grace to see as meaningful something that would happen anyway.
My faith wanes and waxes, but I tend to settle on option (3) for the most part.
What has been your experience(s) of coincidences?
Which position do you take, and why?
Are there other options?
We cannot know. At least I can't.
I can hope. And I do.
I can be grateful, and I am, hoping it's to God and not chance.
This may have to do for now.
To follow therefore means to go the way he went whom you are following; it means, that is to say, that he no longer is seen going. And thus was it necessary that Christ should go away, should die, before it could be shown whether his disciple would follow him. It is many, many hundreds of years since this took place, and yet in the same manner still it is forever taking place. For there is a time when Christ goes almost visibly by the child's side, when Christ goes on before the child, but then there is also a time when he is taken from the view of the sensitive imagination, so that now the seriousness of decision may show whether the child, grown older, will follow him.
...so we see not the teacher, but the follower only, who is like him, and it seems as if the follower were himself the way. For he is the true follower who goes along the same way, going alone.
Kiergaard, Søren. The Gospel of our Sufferings, Discourse 1. Aldworth and Ferrie, translators. Wm. B. Eerdmans, 1964. pp. 15 & 17.
Sure, which is why Richard Rohr calls his outfit The Center for Action and Contemplation.
Both/and ...
I don't know how that squares with hermits in caves or Stylites sitting on top of poles.
I imagine most of us, whatever our particular tradition or affiliation would agree that 'spirituality' should have some kind of social bearing or outcome and not just be some kind of religious hobby.
I agree - there are inward and outward effects of spiritual practices, where people find them meaningful and take them seriously.
My experience of Anglican spiritual direction was totally positive. Just four years ago. As you know.
[...]
They should be able to give US contacts.
People who accept all of rationality, true scholarship first, yet still have faith.
Thank you, Martin. This was very kind.
But no. As I said, I can't imagine doing this. Just thinking about imagining it makes my heart pound. What conversation would it possibly be? How would I even define it for myself to articulate it to someone else?
Whatever the conversation would be, it will have to form itself organically. Not according to someone's Day Timer, not even mine. Like it does when I knit with Val.
I think you already have a form of ‘spiritual direction’, in a different way. You seem to engage deeply with reading - including difficult texts - and bring yourself into encounter with them.
I would class such books as ‘textual conversation partners’ - you guide the ‘conversation with the text’ and bring out the meaning from it, but as you engage and re-engage you see different things as you change over time. Most complex books afford several different possibilities for meaning depending on what we bring to them with each encounter. Look at what people do with sacred texts!
That is plenty and anyway, you don’t need to contemplate doing anything you don’t find comfortable. You might find it interesting, though, to read David Bohm’s “On Dialogue” to see if that describes the kind of organic, emergent conversation you imagine.
Thank you, @Cameron.
I didn't read it as patronizing or presumptuous. I thought you were trying to be encouraging, as I believe @Martin54 and @Gamma Gamaliel have been as well.
"Disposition" was moving around in the back of my mind this evening, and it took some time to remember why. It was this post and where my mind went with it.
The loudest elephant trumpeting in this room is disposition.
I had meant to ask you about it, but I got side tracked. @Martin54, what did you mean by "disposition" and how does it relate to "faith and coincidences?"
Comments
Yes, this is the heart of it, really. And there are cultural and philosophical pathways that lead those with different kinds of faith to draw the line in a different place / way.
Allowing for different traditions to have different ways of understanding feels like the same kind of thing as respecting different forms of indigenous knowledge - which is generally thought to be a good thing.
We had a case where the family of a woman who had died slowly in much suffering, and at her funeral they placed a photo in a glassed-in frame atop the coffin. Unfortunately, the light came in at the window and struck the photo in such a way that the image was completely blanked out by glare. The local religious leader (name and faith concealed for the protection of the guilty) noticed this on the funeral video later and announced to the family that this meant Mom was trapped in some form of hell and they needed to up their financial offerings to the temple to get her out. Being in a state of grief and fear, they did. The tiny coincidence got used for what I can only consider spiritual abuse (yes, still mad at that guy, we were caring for the family who were in bad shape and needed comfort, not further demands for money).
And yes, I could see something like this happening to a white American family who had just been through a hellish final illness and fell into the hands of a predatory preacher. People do attach a lot of meaning to tiny things at such times.
For me, the line is drawn when people see ourselves as being in control of events, rather than humbly accepting that we do not control God.
Moving on. Part of my Catholic understanding has to do with Ignatian discernment and 'finding God in everything'. We've focused on individual discernment in this thread when it comes to ascribing meaning to 'coincidences' but sometimes people notice emerging patterns or what might be nudges towards a vocation in ministry or becoming a spiritual counselor, feeling called by God in subtle ways to change one's life and explore a new direction. How do we seek confirmation of what might be going on? This takes us back to the shared process of discernment within the church, speaking to trusted counselors or pastors or bishops, hoping for encouragement and in many cases funding to study further. What is nebulous becomes more concrete and definite. Or not, and that is where communal discernment and church authority once again is problematic. Do we persist or wait for more 'signs'?
I found involvement in communal discernment, about vocations and ministry, one of the uplifting and rewarding aspects of church, albeit within (Protestant) parachurch contexts - the relationships with "church authority" were often fraught, with a few notable exceptions.
There was something about the act of talking (and praying) about other people's hopes and dreams that makes it a rather different process from individual discernment.
Most of those involved were willing and able to look for and see tangible signs, but the presence or absence of signs wasn't the be-all and end-all of discerning God's will.
@pease, yes that need for more than just a handful of coincidences or feeling prompted to change one's life is what shared discernment, developing skills and deepening commitment to vocation is all about. I agree that praying with others and being asked thoughtful questions or encouraged to explore further is core to church as a thinking environment attentive to God's word. IME talking about small but personally significant insights with a good listener builds trust through vulnerability.
As an atheist trying to make faith work (although it cannot for me without an instance of the fingerpost), give it good will, I don't see superstition at work above folk belief, although scratch any high brow enough and you'll get a low brow response sooner or later. We're superstitious by nature. Existential yearning for meaning is not superstition. For forty years I was overwhelmingly superstitious. Finding credibility in the Incarnation, seeing it as an instance of the fingerpost, as I am standing back from again and anew, is not superstition, or is only with regard to the incontrovertibly supernatural. It isn't necessarily irrational, doesn't necessarily involve folk superstition, including 'promptings' and 'callings' and 'words of knowledge' and 'Was that you Lord?' et al. In Christ is yes, no? In Christ is real, true, pure religion and undefiled. The proposition of Incarnation and its historically immediate effects augmented 'by the Spirit' does not require anything more than that to be true.
Either Incarnation stands pointing to the lusty historical infant Church that Saul extirpated underground within a handful of years of the founder's martyrdom, or the incredibly, tenaciously contagious claim of it did. How did the latter happen naturally?
I have all the time in the world for Jesus as the compass pivot of civilization to kindness. It would be wonderful if that were unnatural. But was it an idea whose time had come? In early C1st Palestine? Again.
The ability to listen thoughtfully in a way that takes people’s faith experiences seriously, and yet offer questions in a way that enables vulnerability, trust and learning, is no small skill.
I have often found that people with a depth of spiritual practice do this well. I don’t know whether that leads to a kind of developed intuition, or whether such folk are simply more centred and aware. In either case I can see the importance of prayer here, as you mention.
None . of . it . is . anyone's . fault. Not even God's.
Superb. No delusional episteme.
My God Love, even tho' They haven't come in from the cold yet, cannot intervene in the slightest beyond grounding being, incarnating and Zenning back in mute stillness in the lightless cave. They never arrange a marriage that infant and sexual desire and propinquity fully explain. They never call, to vocation, especially to take other peoples' money. They aren't in the causation, the 'unexplained', the fantasies, the joined up dots, the mysteries we make up all by ourselves, that aren't there, real, true. Except as pareidolia. Being ignorant and weak.
Nothing is unexplained.
Nothing is mysterious.
Whether Love grounds infinite nature or not.
The loudest elephant trumpeting in this room is disposition. It's nobody's fault.
Don't fill the void.
I've been squirming, reading this thread since it started, and now I can hardly sit at all.
I feel I must be resistant to taking spiritual or life advice (or guidance) of any kind, or that I don't don't seek it out when I should. Really, though, there are very few people I trust to give such momentous guidance. I married one of the less than a handful, and he only gives it when I ask. I generally don't think to.
I stand outside discussions like this, wondering how this works, how one finds people that one could open up to in such ways, who don't have their own agenda, who don't use blame and guilt as manipulative tools. Honestly, who is worthy of my vulnerability? How do I know? How does one make such a connection with them? And in the end, what value is there in consulting with them?
As one standing outside the guidance circle, I hear people speak highly of it. It sounds valuable. But I don't see how I could fit with it.
Looking back from the point of view of someone asking the questions: some of the time, people would lead with what they believed were the big, "obvious" signs - but, as much as anything, I was trying to listen for, and pick up on, the "small but personally significant insights".
A snatch of hymn that comes to mind now (and likely came to mind then): Speak through the heats of our desires ... O still, small voice of calm. (Although I now see that's a hymn with an interesting provenance.)
That made me smile - only in the sense that I found it disastrous to think of a discerning role in terms of spirituality.
One clear requirement was to get my agenda out of the way, and take on board the agenda(s) of the people concerned. Looking back, the times I messed up were times I let my agenda get in the way.
But the aspect I've been thinking about is vulnerability. People looking for discernment about their lives are giving something of themselves up, often quite a big something. They are paying a price, both in the process itself, and in whatever consequences result.
I'm not sure how aware of this I was at the time, but I'd now say there also needs to be a concomitant cost to anyone sharing in the process of discernment. So, to have any worth, I also needed to give something up. I haven't explored the ways in which this can happen but, in the sense that the person or people I was talking to were on a journey - it often meant walking with them for at least some of the way.
Given that the context is communal discernment, maybe I should point out it wasn't just me - this is more of a personal perspective of what was often an ongoing process involving overlapping groups of people, both formally and informally constituted.
I am confused. I didn’t mean spirituality as a method of discernment, but instead that people with a depth of practice seem to offer useful questions (and being centred in their practice (especially if contemplative) maybe makes them less inclined to push a personal agenda).
Have I misunderstood something in your response?
It’s a shame it is called spiritual direction, because (if it is any good) it really isn’t directive.
The one time someone in authority (not an SD) was clearly fixated on obedience I ran away very quickly indeed and think I was right to do so…
What I particularly liked about MaryLouise's post was the concept of a "thinking environment".
Too bloody right!
I don't think anyone is asking you to.
I've done an Ignatian retreat and whilst aspects of it aren't my bag there was certainly nothing coercive or 'directive' about it.
As @Cameron says, if it gets that way then it's time to run, run, run, run away (as David Byrne put it).
I'll sometimes run things by a priest or trusted friend but certainly wouldn't treat either as some kind of oracle telling me what to do.
If you are fine as you are then you're fine as you are and it wouldn't be right or helpful for you to explore any practices that don't 'fit' or resonate with you.
Any of these things can become a minefield if we aren't careful. Sitting at home with an open Bible can too.
We all of us work these things out in the context of a community of some form or other, but that doesn't mean we should abandon our brains and let other people do our thinking for us.
I'm not questioning anyone here about their experiences. I'm thinking out loud as it were. Expressing my own inabilities.
Yeah? I don't know.
How does one get to the point of knowing it's kind, if one never goes there. Up hill 16 miles to ask, for example? I can't imagine doing it.
Years of training in what I have just discovered to be total charlatanry. How incredibly charming.
I consulted a spiritual director, thanks to a shipmate, and they were absolutely superb. I could be completely open, actually have the conversation, whereas that was utterly impossible with any vicar, let alone layperson, no matter how smart, and I'd tried (5 vicars - I had to move a lot - the odd smart member, and a theology group). Couldn't have been better at the time. 4 years ago. I long to go back, and could I'm sure, the trouble is my deconstruction is now complete. I still had the Pericope Adulterae. Maybe I will with the mystery of the Church.
???!!!
I hope you do go back. You so value this experience. You clearly found the person who you resonate with. Priceless!
A quick comment on this- Some Spiritual Directors (including me!) are happy to see people regardless of wherever they find themselves in relation to their spirituality so if you ever felt the desire to return to having direction I'm sure you'd be welcomed.
And aye @Kendel. Bin thinking about it for years now.
@Kendel - I don't think I'd regard your wariness as an 'inability' as such. What is often (misleadingly?) referred to as 'spiritual direction' doesn't feature in all Christian traditions and may carry negative connotations for those who espouse 'soul competence' for instance.
I think most 'spiritual directors' or 'soul friends' or 'spiritual accompanyists' or whatever we might call them would say that it isn't for everybody.
@ThunderBunk - I didn't interpret Kendel's or anyone else's comments as calling into question the practice of 'spiritual direction' or dismissing it as a load of old hoo-ey.
I took it that Kendel was saying that it wasn't for her for whatever reason, not that it was a load of crock or that practitioners were all charlatans.
As with anything and everything else, there's a wide spectrum. Some people find it very easy to open up to other people and make themselves 'vulnerable' - indeed some can open themselves up to exploitation that way.
Other people find it difficult to open up even in the most benign or unthreatening circumstances.
Of course, trained and experienced spiritual directors are aware of all that and know how to deal with it.
I don't see this whole area as one where there are 'rights' or 'wrongs' but would see some practices as being beyond the pale.
My own tradition / Tradition is suspicious of the 'imagen' aspect of Ignatian practice, for instance. Even as a fairly imaginative person I don't find it particularly helpful either. That doesn't mean other people don't find it valuable.
'Lectio divina' and 'Examen', yes. I'm cool with those.
But it's not about my personal proclivities though.
I wasn't saying that "it" wasn't for me. I was saying that I have concluded that my personality seems to be resistant to seeking advice or guidance. My comments were entirely egoistic, self-referential.
If it helps, I'm a (somewhat) theologically conservative, independent Baptist in a PCA church. While we don't have a formal tradition of "spiritual directors" there are many people who seek spiritual or life advice from various people in or outside the church. In the past I have not even involved myself in what is called "women's ministries,", lead by women who had "position" (whatever position women can have in my church tradition); sometimes a pastor's or elder's wife) with whom I had/have intense differences on theological and life matters. I've not consulted with pastors, elders, deacons or their wives, either. These are trust issues on my part.
In general I tend not to seek help making decisions. I have wasted a good deal of time and energy in my life because of it. My gut feeling is that I am responsible to figure it all out myself, and that I should be the one that others can rely on to have answers. There is no good reason for this feeling. It just is.
I had not intended to make this discussion about me or my shortcomings, but I feel like I have a right to address what seems to be @ThunderBunk's response to me.
Having to explain myself in such detail in an attempt to be remotely understood reinforces to me that my gut reaction is not so far out in left field.
To be fair to @ThunderBunk some harsh words have been used upthread, in relation to worldviews that include spiritual practices or insights. So in relation to the swing of the whole conversation across the thread, it’s not hard to discern some particularly negative perspectives. However, we seem to have turned a corner on that, which is great.
On to another point: Interestingly, as someone whose research is currently focussed on (secular) dialogue and how it can enable learning, I find it hard to think about trusting in only myself - I feel sure I’d miss a great deal. In the secular world I speculate the majority of us have had teachers or coaches or mentors at some point that we trusted, especially when they have training to offer specialist knowledge, counselling or other forms of help. I think SD is the same - so someone with training in a recognised tradition would be my starting point.
And as you say @Gamma Gamaliel everyone is different - imagination works well for me whereas I find lectio very difficult.
I can also see why @ThunderBunk was upset by some comments further up thread and if I was in anyway responsible I apologise.
Meanwhile, @Kendel, from what you've shared I wouldn't put your reaction down to any 'fault' on your part. It sounds to me you've had some bad experiences and receivex duff advice and that has understandably made you wary.
I get where you are coming from theologically too. I've been a Baptist in the past and strange as it may sound from someone who is now Orthodox, I have a lot of respect for that tradition - particularly on the preaching and teaching side. At its best too, I think the 'church meeting' method of arriving at decisions collectively has much to recommend it.
My experience of Anglican spiritual direction was totally positive. Just four years ago. As you know. No regrets. I more than suspect this is a Pond Difference. We have very much in common, in that it's impossible to have The Conversation.
I doubt (British understatement) you c1ould find anyone in your fellowship of the quality of my Anglican spiritual director. Who was recommended by a shipmate. I know of no one else in three populous counties, and the London borough of Lambeth, and Oxford University, or here, of that quality: with whom one can have the conversation.
But I'm sure they're there. And here. If I asked my Leicestershire person, I'm sure there's a hundred like them in the UK. They should be able to give US contacts.
People who accept all of rationality, true scholarship first, yet still have faith.
As far as I can see, these practices, whether good, bad or indifferent, are more an issue of church tradition or denominational emphases rather than particular national or cultural characteristics - although those all play a part of course.
We are all 'enculturated.'
I daresay the Baptist setting I was involved in here in the UK would be very different to that Kendel would be familiar with. That doesn't imply any 'qualitative' judgement on either.
At any rate, I'm sure it would be possible to find people from all manner of places who've found 'spiritual direction' - or whatever we happen to call it - helpful and fulfilling - as well as others who have found it less than useful or even harmful.
It all depends on the context and a whole range of factors such as training, discernment and good old fashioned common sense.
It also depends on what the expectations are. If people are expecting some kind of daily 'oracle' or suspension of their critical faculties or some kind of short-cut to holiness then they are going to be sadly disappointed.
But if both parties approach these things sensibly and according to tried and tested 'rules' and the kind of preparation and training @ThunderBunk mentions then yes, it could be very fruitful indeed.
There all sorts of 'resources' out there across the Christian spectrum as a whole. This is just one of them. There are others.
If this one doesn't suit, something else might.
That's not to advocate an anything goes free-for-all but it is to say that we can't limit or restrict things to any one particular method or channel.
The other: My spiritual director had no problem at all with rationality, didn't try and yeah-but any of it; completely agreed as far as I could tell, I'll have to ask explicitly : ) It didn't touch their faith in incarnation; that story was their instance of the fingerpost.
I wish it were mine.
And NO, I don’t want to revisit those earlier points: it will just lead to more heat than light.
However, I felt moved to comment indirectly because I think such dismissive language is really unhelpful. I have been fully convinced that some people are wise and genuinely spiritual. In popular writing it seems that Buddhist leaders and writers are more readily accepted in this way. But I think if people like (e.g.) Thich Nhat Hanh, they would do as well to give Henri Nouwen, Richard Rohr, or Nadia Bolz-Weber (especially accidental saints: finding god in all the wrong places) a go, to see some different compelling views.
Overall, it seems to me a pity and a shame to be on any kind of searching path and miss other perspectives that might help us to be open minded and see things differently. I include in that my own reading of books which outline a journey into the postmodern that challenges conventional positions - Brian McLaren has done a lot there.
I know that openminded approach is not going to work for everyone. But if all we have is time (and that’s all we can be fully sure of) then hope helps us truly live in it - and I am interested in any persuasive accounts that offer hope.
Thanks everyone for all the interesting points of conversation that followed my initial post, I hope
Not sure where any of this leaves us. Which may be part of the point.
Or not?
Heck, I'm beginning to sound like Martin... 😉
Thing is, it's all a dead end if it's all bollocks as Martin suggests.
And yet...
How does majoring in 'spirituality' effect that? Looks like a displacement activity.
Both/and ...
I don't know how that squares with hermits in caves or Stylites sitting on top of poles.
I imagine most of us, whatever our particular tradition or affiliation would agree that 'spirituality' should have some kind of social bearing or outcome and not just be some kind of religious hobby.
We cannot know. At least I can't.
I can hope. And I do.
I can be grateful, and I am, hoping it's to God and not chance.
This may have to do for now.
Kiergaard, Søren. The Gospel of our Sufferings, Discourse 1. Aldworth and Ferrie, translators. Wm. B. Eerdmans, 1964. pp. 15 & 17.
I agree - there are inward and outward effects of spiritual practices, where people find them meaningful and take them seriously.
Thank you, Martin. This was very kind.
But no. As I said, I can't imagine doing this. Just thinking about imagining it makes my heart pound. What conversation would it possibly be? How would I even define it for myself to articulate it to someone else?
Whatever the conversation would be, it will have to form itself organically. Not according to someone's Day Timer, not even mine. Like it does when I knit with Val.
I think you already have a form of ‘spiritual direction’, in a different way. You seem to engage deeply with reading - including difficult texts - and bring yourself into encounter with them.
I would class such books as ‘textual conversation partners’ - you guide the ‘conversation with the text’ and bring out the meaning from it, but as you engage and re-engage you see different things as you change over time. Most complex books afford several different possibilities for meaning depending on what we bring to them with each encounter. Look at what people do with sacred texts!
That is plenty and anyway, you don’t need to contemplate doing anything you don’t find comfortable. You might find it interesting, though, to read David Bohm’s “On Dialogue” to see if that describes the kind of organic, emergent conversation you imagine.
I didn't read it as patronizing or presumptuous. I thought you were trying to be encouraging, as I believe @Martin54 and @Gamma Gamaliel have been as well.
"Disposition" was moving around in the back of my mind this evening, and it took some time to remember why. It was this post and where my mind went with it.
I had meant to ask you about it, but I got side tracked. @Martin54, what did you mean by "disposition" and how does it relate to "faith and coincidences?"