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™
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.
You keep saying that, but I haven’t seen any reason other than “I don’t think that’s how it ought to be.” I wonder if you really understand how spiritual direction works or why people seek it.
It seems to me that what matters is that people seeking spiritual direction are able to find someone who meets their needs.
You keep saying that, but I haven’t seen any reason other than “I don’t think that’s how it ought to be.” I wonder if you really understand how spiritual direction works or why people seek it.
It seems to me that what matters is that people seeking spiritual direction are able to find someone who meets their needs.
Okay, I accept that as someone who has moved from agnosticism/disinterest to atheism and then to atheism with a mild interest in numenism my understanding of spirituality and spiritual direction is limited.
But I would assume that it starts with someone who is either within or with out an established form of spirituality feeling that their spiritual needs are not being met in some way they don't fully understand. They would then go to a spiritual director who would talk to them and find out what it is they need and direct them to a form of spirituality likely to address that need.
It's basically like going to a doctor when you feel unwell and the doctor diagnosing the problem and giving you the right medication so you get well again.
But I would assume that it starts with someone who is either within or with out an established form of spirituality feeling that their spiritual needs are not being met in some way they don't fully understand. They would then go to a spiritual director who would talk to them and find out what it is they need and direct them to a form of spirituality likely to address that need.
In my experience, that assumption isn’t accurate. It starts with someone wanting to deepen their spiritual life who is looking for guidance on how to do that, or with someone who is facing a significant question or decision (like “what should I be doing with my life”), who wants the guidance of someone experienced in spiritual practices that can help them explore and discern the answers to such questions.
Rarely in my experience is it “I want to be spiritual, but I don’t know what brand of religion would be the best fit for me.”
In my experience, that assumption isn’t accurate. It starts with someone wanting to deepen their spiritual life who is looking for guidance on how to do that, or with someone who is facing a significant question or decision (like “what should I be doing with my life”), who wants the guidance of someone experienced in spiritual practices that can help them explore and discern the answers to such questions.
Rarely in my experience is it “I want to be spiritual, but I don’t know what brand of religion would be the best fit for me.”
Okay, for the first example you give a spiritual adviser operating within a belief/spiritual tradition is fine as I assume the person asking wants to deepen their faith within their existing tradition.
With questions like “what should I be doing with my life” I think you need someone willing to offer ideas from outside their faith system. Become a monk, follow Wicca, write a novel, or start a company offering men's toiletries and grooming products are equally valid answers to that question.
In my experience, that assumption isn’t accurate. It starts with someone wanting to deepen their spiritual life who is looking for guidance on how to do that, or with someone who is facing a significant question or decision (like “what should I be doing with my life”), who wants the guidance of someone experienced in spiritual practices that can help them explore and discern the answers to such questions.
Rarely in my experience is it “I want to be spiritual, but I don’t know what brand of religion would be the best fit for me.”
Okay, for the first example you give a spiritual adviser operating within a belief/spiritual tradition is fine as I assume the person asking wants to deepen their faith within their existing tradition.
With questions like “what should I be doing with my life” I think you need someone willing to offer ideas from outside their faith system. Become a monk, follow Wicca, write a novel, or start a company offering men's toiletries and grooming products are equally valid answers to that question.
"Once more with feeling...."
Spiritual direction in my experience is NOT about telling people about what to do!! "Direction" is a historical descriptor and is perhaps not particularly helpful because of how it can perceived and is possibly being perceived by you @Colin Smith ?
A good director will support the directee in exploring their own spiritual life and as @Nick Tamen suggests may well prove a helpful sounding board at key moments in an individual's journey.
But what that entails remains firmly within the remit of the directee.
Within the Christian tradition that will involve the directee's desire to deepen a relationship with God.
But if someone comes to a director from another or no tradition then the director accompanies them in their exploration a far as the director is able to do so.
Direction is about acceptance and skillful questioning to enable someone to go deeper. Occasionally suggestions might be made about something to do or read which might be helpful but that is NOT the main focus.
But I would assume that it starts with someone who is either within or with out an established form of spirituality feeling that their spiritual needs are not being met in some way they don't fully understand. They would then go to a spiritual director who would talk to them and find out what it is they need and direct them to a form of spirituality likely to address that need.
In my experience, that assumption isn’t accurate. It starts with someone wanting to deepen their spiritual life who is looking for guidance on how to do that, or with someone who is facing a significant question or decision (like “what should I be doing with my life”), who wants the guidance of someone experienced in spiritual practices that can help them explore and discern the answers to such questions.
Rarely in my experience is it “I want to be spiritual, but I don’t know what brand of religion would be the best fit for me.”
A much clearer definition, or set of definitions, of the word 'spiritual' would help a lot, I think.
But I would assume that it starts with someone who is either within or with out an established form of spirituality feeling that their spiritual needs are not being met in some way they don't fully understand. They would then go to a spiritual director who would talk to them and find out what it is they need and direct them to a form of spirituality likely to address that need.
In my experience, that assumption isn’t accurate. It starts with someone wanting to deepen their spiritual life who is looking for guidance on how to do that, or with someone who is facing a significant question or decision (like “what should I be doing with my life”), who wants the guidance of someone experienced in spiritual practices that can help them explore and discern the answers to such questions.
Rarely in my experience is it “I want to be spiritual, but I don’t know what brand of religion would be the best fit for me.”
A much clearer definition, or set of definitions, of the word 'spiritual' would help a lot, I think.
That seems to me like a solution in search of a problem. Or perhaps the problem is trying to stretch the word “spiritual” beyond its traditional meanings.
With questions like “what should I be doing with my life” I think you need someone willing to offer ideas from outside their faith system. Become a monk, follow Wicca, write a novel, or start a company offering men's toiletries and grooming products are equally valid answers to that question.
The dots you’re not connecting—my fault, perhaps—are that people who seek out a spiritual director rather than, say, a counselor or therapist to answer a question like “what should I be doing with my life” are almost always going to be in a faith tradition already, and they’re wanting to approach the question (which, tbh, in such circumstances I often hear phrased as “what is God calling me to do with my life”) in a way that is consistent with and deepens the faith they already have. In other words, they’re seeking out spiritual direction because of the importance that their faith tradition already has for them.
That’s not to say such people may not be open to exploring practices or learning from approaches of other religious traditions. They may well be, and many spiritual directors are comfortable with that and able to help from that perspective. But still, there’s typically going to be more of bringing such practices into one’s already-established approach to and understanding of faith, rather than exploring faith traditions in general.
I realise the reference is perhaps unacceptably Biblical. But the phrase ‘straining at a gnat’ has kept coming to mind, quite consistently,over the last couple of pages.
But I would assume that it starts with someone who is either within or with out an established form of spirituality feeling that their spiritual needs are not being met in some way they don't fully understand. They would then go to a spiritual director who would talk to them and find out what it is they need and direct them to a form of spirituality likely to address that need.
It's basically like going to a doctor when you feel unwell and the doctor diagnosing the problem and giving you the right medication so you get well again.
I see the problem. You don't know what a spiritual director is. It's not a spiritual yellow pages directory service. It's a person to help you deepen into the spiritual community they represent. All your desiring and demanding doesn't change the meaning of the word.
I think that's the insight this tangent was waiting for. Although I'm curious to know what an atheist spiritual director would do. It sounds a bit of an oxymoron.
I don't think anyone here is saying that atheists and agnostics can't and don't have a sense of mystery, the numinous, the aesthetic and what might be called 'spirituality' in the broader sense.
I'd suggest that that's all part of being human - and it's culturally conditioned of course.
Nor, as I understand it, is anyone saying that God does their thinking for them or that we hear 'voices' in our heads or that 'spiritual direction' or whatever we want to call it involves an abandonment of critical faculties or reactions to vatic promptings and impulses.
If I read something about us living in a more 'knowledge-based' society again - as if any society anywhere and at any time wasn't based on some form of knowledge or insight or other - scientically verifiable or otherwise - I shall scream.
Theists may not have a monopoly on 'spirituality', atheists and agnostics don't have a monopoly on knowledge.
I realise the reference is perhaps unacceptably Biblical. But the phrase ‘straining at a gnat’ has kept coming to mind, quite consistently,over the last couple of pages.
Yes - the insects keep getting smaller. And around and around (and around) we go...
But I would assume that it starts with someone who is either within or with out an established form of spirituality feeling that their spiritual needs are not being met in some way they don't fully understand. They would then go to a spiritual director who would talk to them and find out what it is they need and direct them to a form of spirituality likely to address that need.
It's basically like going to a doctor when you feel unwell and the doctor diagnosing the problem and giving you the right medication so you get well again.
I see the problem. You don't know what a spiritual director is. It's not a spiritual yellow pages directory service. It's a person to help you deepen into the spiritual community they represent. All your desiring and demanding doesn't change the meaning of the word.
...If I read something about us living in a more 'knowledge-based' society again - as if any society anywhere and at any time wasn't based on some form of knowledge or insight or other - scientically verifiable or otherwise - I shall scream.
Theists may not have a monopoly on 'spirituality', atheists and agnostics don't have a monopoly on knowledge.
And that's what I'll resist and argue against for the rest of my days!!
Okay, well, since we're still going after this gnat ... I guess my question is, why do you see the label as valuable?
I mean, back when I was an atheist atheist, I would never have wanted it because it jyst seemed a bit fluffy and vague. Ditto when I was a Buddhist atheist; neither I nor anyone I knew used the term, not because we were against it, but because 'Buddhist' seemed to cover the territory and it wasn't clear what the word 'spiritual' would have added.
So: it's not a label I would deny to anyone, at least in part because it doesn't seem all that valuable or useful to me (unless one is talking specifically about the Spiritus Sanctus or similar, where it will gain a quite particular meaning). And it's therefore unclear to me why this would be the particular hill anyone would want to die on. What work, for example, is the word 'spiritual' doing for you that the word 'aesthetic' isn't?
I think that's the insight this tangent was waiting for. Although I'm curious to know what an atheist spiritual director would do. It sounds a bit of an oxymoron.
If I was a witty person, I'd think up a witty reply, but it's hopeless, I can't do it!
So I'll just say lamely that I don't know.
One thing I don't really understand is why there is a distinction between "spiritual director" and ordinary religious officers in the descriptions above.
It seems like one of the roles that a priest, pastor, leader or other pastoral person would have been doing in the past is now given the title "spiritual director". Why is that necessary?
Comments
#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™
It seems to me that what matters is that people seeking spiritual direction are able to find someone who meets their needs.
Okay, I accept that as someone who has moved from agnosticism/disinterest to atheism and then to atheism with a mild interest in numenism my understanding of spirituality and spiritual direction is limited.
But I would assume that it starts with someone who is either within or with out an established form of spirituality feeling that their spiritual needs are not being met in some way they don't fully understand. They would then go to a spiritual director who would talk to them and find out what it is they need and direct them to a form of spirituality likely to address that need.
It's basically like going to a doctor when you feel unwell and the doctor diagnosing the problem and giving you the right medication so you get well again.
Rarely in my experience is it “I want to be spiritual, but I don’t know what brand of religion would be the best fit for me.”
Okay, for the first example you give a spiritual adviser operating within a belief/spiritual tradition is fine as I assume the person asking wants to deepen their faith within their existing tradition.
With questions like “what should I be doing with my life” I think you need someone willing to offer ideas from outside their faith system. Become a monk, follow Wicca, write a novel, or start a company offering men's toiletries and grooming products are equally valid answers to that question.
"Once more with feeling...."
Spiritual direction in my experience is NOT about telling people about what to do!! "Direction" is a historical descriptor and is perhaps not particularly helpful because of how it can perceived and is possibly being perceived by you @Colin Smith ?
A good director will support the directee in exploring their own spiritual life and as @Nick Tamen suggests may well prove a helpful sounding board at key moments in an individual's journey.
But what that entails remains firmly within the remit of the directee.
Within the Christian tradition that will involve the directee's desire to deepen a relationship with God.
But if someone comes to a director from another or no tradition then the director accompanies them in their exploration a far as the director is able to do so.
Direction is about acceptance and skillful questioning to enable someone to go deeper. Occasionally suggestions might be made about something to do or read which might be helpful but that is NOT the main focus.
A much clearer definition, or set of definitions, of the word 'spiritual' would help a lot, I think.
Fixed incorrect quote code. BroJames Purgatory Host
The dots you’re not connecting—my fault, perhaps—are that people who seek out a spiritual director rather than, say, a counselor or therapist to answer a question like “what should I be doing with my life” are almost always going to be in a faith tradition already, and they’re wanting to approach the question (which, tbh, in such circumstances I often hear phrased as “what is God calling me to do with my life”) in a way that is consistent with and deepens the faith they already have. In other words, they’re seeking out spiritual direction because of the importance that their faith tradition already has for them.
That’s not to say such people may not be open to exploring practices or learning from approaches of other religious traditions. They may well be, and many spiritual directors are comfortable with that and able to help from that perspective. But still, there’s typically going to be more of bringing such practices into one’s already-established approach to and understanding of faith, rather than exploring faith traditions in general.
Beyond that, what @MrsBeaky said.
I see the problem. You don't know what a spiritual director is. It's not a spiritual yellow pages directory service. It's a person to help you deepen into the spiritual community they represent. All your desiring and demanding doesn't change the meaning of the word.
I'd suggest that that's all part of being human - and it's culturally conditioned of course.
Nor, as I understand it, is anyone saying that God does their thinking for them or that we hear 'voices' in our heads or that 'spiritual direction' or whatever we want to call it involves an abandonment of critical faculties or reactions to vatic promptings and impulses.
If I read something about us living in a more 'knowledge-based' society again - as if any society anywhere and at any time wasn't based on some form of knowledge or insight or other - scientically verifiable or otherwise - I shall scream.
Theists may not have a monopoly on 'spirituality', atheists and agnostics don't have a monopoly on knowledge.
Thank you, @mousethief.
Amen, amen, ahhhmen.
Okay, well, since we're still going after this gnat ... I guess my question is, why do you see the label as valuable?
I mean, back when I was an atheist atheist, I would never have wanted it because it jyst seemed a bit fluffy and vague. Ditto when I was a Buddhist atheist; neither I nor anyone I knew used the term, not because we were against it, but because 'Buddhist' seemed to cover the territory and it wasn't clear what the word 'spiritual' would have added.
So: it's not a label I would deny to anyone, at least in part because it doesn't seem all that valuable or useful to me (unless one is talking specifically about the Spiritus Sanctus or similar, where it will gain a quite particular meaning). And it's therefore unclear to me why this would be the particular hill anyone would want to die on. What work, for example, is the word 'spiritual' doing for you that the word 'aesthetic' isn't?
So I'll just say lamely that I don't know.
It seems like one of the roles that a priest, pastor, leader or other pastoral person would have been doing in the past is now given the title "spiritual director". Why is that necessary?