There are spiritual directors in some Buddhist groups, although being an atheist may not be uppermost in their mind. At any rate, I don't see why it necessitates theism. I can't think of any jokes either.
Okay, well, since we're still going after this gnat ... I guess my question is, why do you see the label as valuable?
The word 'valuable' doesn't really come into it, and I agree that it has only come to be rather more widely used since internet communication has become so widespread.
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?
Well, nothing really! But I wonder if perhaps there is an implication in the words of faith believers of exclusiveness, or 'specialness' which to me, as an atheist, is unjustified. However, that's probably my imagination and speculation only.
Also, the idea of atheist spirituality is commonly talked about today, see for example, the reception given to Comte-Sponville's book, which used to be called The Little Book of Atheist Spirituality. Sam Harris has also written quite a bit about it.
Then there are the various nondualist traditions, which as noted above, don't advertise their non-theism. I have heard of "non-dual spiritual teachers", anyway no point in labouring the issue.
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?
Some priests etc are spiritual directors. But not all. Then there lay people like me who are also spiritual directors. It is a very distinct thing and should involve proper training and accreditation. Spiritual Direction in the Christian tradition can be found amongst the Early Church Fathers.
God is the destination of the spiritual path. The manifestations of the spiritual are the signs which draw humanity towards divinity.
Tosh. Other destinations are available and for some it's the journey not the end point that matters
That chimes with me. Doing a lot of mediation retreats, we used to joke that you were cured of it, when you didn't think you were meditating. I have arrived at my destination, in other words.
God is the destination of the spiritual path. The manifestations of the spiritual are the signs which draw humanity towards divinity.
Tosh. Other destinations are available and for some it's the journey not the end point that matters
No, we have not forgotten you are an atheist.
But when we're talking about Spiritual Direction in the Christian tradition, nothing that Rublev has said is at all controversial, and far from tosh. Perhaps we might persuade @MrsBeaky to tell us further how she sees her role, and what her practice is?
Also, for all of us, it's the journey. Not just you.
"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.
Understood. Yes I was assuming 'director' referred to someone actively directing or guiding.
But re the bit I've put in bold, it won't always be the case that someone is looking to deepen their relationship with (the Christian) God. I could easily see a directee wishing to broaden their faith to include practices and beliefs outside Christianity or perhaps even adopt another belief altogether. Some might call that a crisis of faith but it is equally a development of someone's spirituality.
God is the destination of the spiritual path. The manifestations of the spiritual are the signs which draw humanity towards divinity.
Tosh. Other destinations are available and for some it's the journey not the end point that matters
No, we have not forgotten you are an atheist.
But when we're talking about Spiritual Direction in the Christian tradition, nothing that Rublev has said is at all controversial, and far from tosh. Perhaps we might persuade @MrsBeaky to tell us further how she sees her role, and what her practice is?
Also, for all of us, it's the journey. Not just you.
Actually, I wasn't referring to my atheism. I believe that Buddhism, Hinduism, Wicca, and all other faiths are equally valid destinations. Rublev appears to be implying that they are false destinations and that his God is the only true destination..
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.
Okay, so Spiritual Director has a specific meaning within a faith tradition but that meaning is completely different from anything one might deduce from the meaning of the words spiritual and director.. Understood. Thank you.
Yes. Like "Human Resources" I now realise that "Spiritual Director" does not mean what it sounds like it means.
What do you think it sounds like? Some guy you rock up to and after listening carefully says "I think you might be a Mormon, a moon worshipper or a Tibetan Buddhist. I recommend you read this book on talking to angels, this one on praying rosaries and this one on how God is Dead."
Can you seriously not see that this would never work?
God is the destination of the spiritual path. The manifestations of the spiritual are the signs which draw humanity towards divinity.
Tosh. Other destinations are available and for some it's the journey not the end point that matters
No, we have not forgotten you are an atheist.
But when we're talking about Spiritual Direction in the Christian tradition, nothing that Rublev has said is at all controversial, and far from tosh. Perhaps we might persuade @MrsBeaky to tell us further how she sees her role, and what her practice is?
Also, for all of us, it's the journey. Not just you.
I am happy to start by answering any specific questions anyone might have.
But please bear in mind that although I have been seeing a Director for years I have only just been commissioned as one. There are other directors on the Ship with far more experience than I have!
Excellent. I've never talked to a Spiritual Director before, either socially or professionally!
So, as an opening gambit - how do you get your referrals? Do they come from the church you're involved in, or a parachurch organisation (or more prosaically, do you advertise?)
Excellent. I've never talked to a Spiritual Director before, either socially or professionally!
So, as an opening gambit - how do you get your referrals? Do they come from the church you're involved in, or a parachurch organisation (or more prosaically, do you advertise?)
OK here goes.
Best practice as I understand it is not to see a directee that you know already- I know of one director who does see such people but the consensus is not to do so. So seeing someone from one's own church would not be a good idea.
I also know of one director who does advertise as an individual but there are also networks of directors you can join.
I am going to be put on my the register of Directors for my diocese (once they have finished revamping it). That is also where I first found a director for myself.
Interestingly, my own spiritual director told me that she would be happy to refer people from her own church who have requested direction to me once I am up and running.
As with therapy I would personally steer clear of any director who is not part of a supervision group.........
I see. Not bothered, but you will argue against it until you die.
What alternative would you suggest? I'm certainly not going to stop putting in my two-penn'orth in discussion!
I suggest you stop getting offended at other people doing things that you wouldn't do and using terms you wouldn't use.
However long you have left, life is too short to be overly concerned about people doing weird things.
I agree. And I'll just make it clear that:
1. I never, ever take offence at what people write or say; it is not in my character at all.
2. I very much apologise to anyone who has been offended at anything I have written in this thread.
3.
I'm not offended, I guess nobody is. But if you are not offended and are not bothered, then why are you saying that you won't stop pushing your view until you die?
I don't understand. What is so important about atheists insisting that spirituality is not necessarily about belief in a deity?
2. I very much apologise to anyone who has been offended at anything I have written in this thread.
Well, I wasn't offended, as such.
But do you remember that scene in Annie Hall, where the Woody Allen figure is trying to convince his friend that there's an anti-semitic conspiracy against him, because every time somebody says 'Did you ...' to him, it comes out as 'Did jew ...'? Until eventually his friend jyst changes the subject?
It felt like that. Except if that scene had gone on for three days, instead of 30 seconds.
I'm not offended, I guess nobody is. But if you are not offended and are not bothered, then why are you saying that you won't stop pushing your view until you die?
I did not say that I was 'pushing my view', I said 'resist' and 'argue against', both of which seem reasonable approaches. I'm just joining in a discussion; it is a hobby accessible to me and which I find perpetually interesting; can't see any reason not to add my contribution to discussions, since people can easily scroll past.
I don't understand. What is so important about atheists insisting that spirituality is not necessarily about belief in a deity?
As far as I know, atheists in general don't do that. There are organisations which challenge religious influence on society which take on that task..
Do you even believe in a spirit?
Define the spirit to which you refer and I'll tell you whether I believe in it, or rather I will tell you whether or not I believe it - without the preposition in.
Best practice as I understand it is not to see a directee that you know already- I know of one director who does see such people but the consensus is not to do so. So seeing someone from one's own church would not be a good idea.
I also know of one director who does advertise as an individual but there are also networks of directors you can join.
I am going to be put on my the register of Directors for my diocese (once they have finished revamping it). That is also where I first found a director for myself.
Interestingly, my own spiritual director told me that she would be happy to refer people from her own church who have requested direction to me once I am up and running.
As with therapy I would personally steer clear of any director who is not part of a supervision group.........
That makes all kind of sense - I know friends who are therapists and counsellors, who I absolutely would never go to professionally, but would certainly ask for recommendations. And yes, the supervision group.
So what do you see your role as? There's been a lot of comments here about what you should and shouldn't do, but what would you actually do?
This is something I do with only a couple of people because time doesn’t really allow more along with my regular responsibilities.
First I try and provide a relaxed, hospitable and peaceful environment. I usually offer a cup of tea, coffee etc.
Then I invite the person to tell me how they/ things are. I try to listen carefully not just to what the person is saying, but also to the prompting of the Holy Spirit. I may ask questions like “Where do you sense God was in that situation?” or “What do you think God feels/ or might say about what you describe?” Those are both much more definite and fully formed than the rather feeling-my-way sort of questions I tend to ask, but that’s the gist of what I’m getting at.
Notwithstanding being called a ‘spiritual director’ I rarely, even if asked, actually direct someone to do something. Though, if a clear ‘gap’ emerges in the picture where I think trying or desisting from a particular discipline might be helpful, I will mildly suggest that the person might see if that is something they find helpful.
Sometimes simply the act of sharing their thoughts in the context of thinking about where God is in their life or situation is enough to bring clarity without me being more than a listening presence.
I don’t think I really do the work. I make a space in which the directee can stand aside from the torrent of daily events and do some work with God themselves.
I suppose I think of my role as being a confidential companion for a person on their faith journey, someone who stands outside their situation, and with whom they can be as frank as they feel able without the thought that it will go back to their congregation or local minister, or their bishop, archdeacon or rural dean, and without the thought that they are going to see me week by week in the course of their regular responsibilities.
I agree. And I'll just make it clear that:
1. I never, ever take offence at what people write or say; it is not in my character at all.
2. I very much apologise to anyone who has been offended at anything I have written in this thread.
3.
However, you give the strong impression that you do take offense at what people write or say when it is in disagreement with your own religious beliefs. If I may ask: Why is it so important for you to always express your opinions on these subjects, particularly when - as in the present case - it really does come down to straining at gnats or chasing one's tail?
I hesitate to respond to you, knowing what the answer is likely to be, but it seems to me that the gnat-straining is a distraction from the real point of the discussion.
If I may add a few words about spiritual directors: Around here, at least, all spiritual directors must have spiritual directors of their own. I asked one priest to be my spiritual director; she said, "I'd like to, but then I'd have to be in spiritual direction, and I just don't have time." (She did recommend someone else, who turned out to be excellent.)
If I may add a few words about spiritual directors: Around here, at least, all spiritual directors must have spiritual directors of their own. I asked one priest to be my spiritual director; she said, "I'd like to, but then I'd have to be in spiritual direction, and I just don't have time." (She did recommend someone else, who turned out to be excellent.)
That seems an excellent practice, and brava on her for being straightforward with you about why she couldn't take you on.
I agree. And I'll just make it clear that:
1. I never, ever take offence at what people write or say; it is not in my character at all.
2. I very much apologise to anyone who has been offended at anything I have written in this thread.
3.
However, you give the strong impression that you do take offense at what people write or say when it is in disagreement with your own religious beliefs.
Then that impression is in the mind of the reader. I stress again that I personally most certainly do not take offence. If I started having such feelings, I would stop reading and posting on message boards.
If I may ask: Why is it so important for you to always express your opinions on these subjects, particularly when - as in the present case - it really does come down to straining at gnats or chasing one's tail?
I absolutely realise that my opinions are not the least bit important here, or in life in general, but I am so restricted by sight loss and decreasing physical energy and strength that still to be able to be part of a discussion group,, where conflicting views can be put forward, is an important part of my life.
I hesitate to respond to you, knowing what the answer is likely to be, but it seems to me that the gnat-straining is a distraction from the real point of the discussion.
You're probably right! And for that - my apologies.
FWIW I don't get the impression that SusanDoris takes 'offence' when people approach things differently to her. Rather, she can sound exasperated at times that some of us continue to hold fairly traditional faith positions despite what she sees as incontrovertible evidence to the contrary.
She's not alone in that tendency aboard Ship.
At times there can be a 'literalism' about it that is reminiscent of some of the more fundie posts we get here from time to time. If someone believes God is 'speaking' to them then it must be some kind of audible voice or heavenly radio broadcast - rather than, as is generally the case, that person sifting and evaluating impressions and experience from a theist perspective informed by whatever spiritual traditions have formed their particular 'take'.
We all do that. The only difference is the weight and value we attach to these things and the way we interpret them - and that can and does change over time. You can hold to a theistic perspective and still take responsibility for what you think, do and say.
What I don't see here are people going round claiming that any idea that pops into their head has some kind of divine import or that God is like a puppet-master directing their thoughts and feelings. I know plenty of people like that but they'd get short shrift here.
It's not that anyone is questioning or challenging SusanDoris's right to hold to her particular perspective. Nor is it wrong or unwelcome for her to challenge those of us who hold to theistic positions. I would be happier if those challenges were presented in ways we've not seen before or which have ended up in arguments and Hell Calls in the past.
Anyhow, whatever the case, the discussion has given practitioners a platform to tell us more about 'spiritual direction' as understood within particular traditions. I've found that helpful.
I would see my role as supporting people who want to draw aside to focus on their inner journey. I only have experience of doing this with people who have have or who have had some sort of Christian background. But I'd hazard a guess that the contemplative wing of several faiths could well have their own equivalent of spiritual direction.
As I have said above one of my course tutors saw a young man who defined himself as atheist.
Were someone of another/ no faith to come to me I would do exactly the same for them as I would for a Christian:
The two most important things I can do are create a welcoming space and to listen. Really listen, listen with my heart.
My role is to support and encourage the directee in the inner work they are doing. One of the best things I can do is to ask the right questions, questions that go to the heart of the matter. It is about helping them hear themselves and find God and/ or the spiritual resources for where they currently find themselves. Sometimes I might make a suggestion of something to read/ think about/ do often based on something the directee has said themselves.
But they should not be impartial. I think we have the wrong definition of spiritual director here. Some one who is new to a belief system/denomination will not usually turn to a spiritual director. It is those who are wanting to move further into their faith that would go to one. So the spiritual director will not recommend other faiths.
I'm not offended, I guess nobody is. But if you are not offended and are not bothered, then why are you saying that you won't stop pushing your view until you die?
I don't understand. What is so important about atheists insisting that spirituality is not necessarily about belief in a deity?
Do you even believe in a spirit?
Seriously? I'd have thought the answer was blindingly obvious. We atheists and other non-theists don't want the theists hogging all the forms of spirituality.
What MrsBeaky describes is certainly what I have found most helpful in spiritual direction. Everyone has their own interpretation of God, but the role of a spiritual director is not to push their own view, but to help the person be aware of their own experience of God - to listen to the person, to observe where and how they are experiencing God, and draw their attention to that, and help them find ways to develop it. At least, this is so of Ignatian guidance, which I have found incredibly helpful in my own faith journey. The moment a spiritual director starts pushing their own views, it becomes unhelpful, and more about them.
I'm not offended, I guess nobody is. But if you are not offended and are not bothered, then why are you saying that you won't stop pushing your view until you die?
I don't understand. What is so important about atheists insisting that spirituality is not necessarily about belief in a deity?
Do you even believe in a spirit?
Seriously? I'd have thought the answer was blindingly obvious. We atheists and other non-theists don't want the theists hogging all the forms of spirituality.
How does one "hog" something you don't believe in?
I mean, fair enough Susan is using rhetorical flair and likes getting involved in discussions on the internet with theists. But the idea that atheists need to elbow into the understanding of "spirituality" because otherwise all the theists would get to discuss things without reference to people who don't believe it is totally crackers.
If you don't believe in a "spirit" in what possible sense can you be said to have a spirituality?
How does one "hog" something you don't believe in?
I mean, fair enough Susan is using rhetorical flair and likes getting involved in discussions on the internet with theists. But the idea that atheists need to elbow into the understanding of "spirituality" because otherwise all the theists would get to discuss things without reference to people who don't believe it is totally crackers.
If you don't believe in a "spirit" in what possible sense can you be said to have a spirituality?
It depends what you mean by spirituality. If we take the dictionary definition: the quality of being concerned with the human spirit or soul as opposed to material or physical things, then I certainly have a form of spirituality. It's there when I look at the stars, it's there when I stand in the rain, it's even there when I see a steam engine.
I don't practice astrology, or Tarot, or meditation, but all of theme are spiritual activities and none of them require belief in a deity.
Sure, and as a theist, I'm completely comfortable with all of that as a form of 'spirituality' without the requirement for belief in a deity.
Obviously, though, as a theist, I do believe there is 'more' - and also that there's more where those came from, as it were. 'All good things come from above ...' as James put it in his Epistle.
As T S Eliot puts it in 'The Dry Salvages', one of his 'Four Quartets', we can experience 'moments of happiness' from a sense of well-being, from 'Fruition, fulfilment, security or affection,/Or even a very good dinner ..'
(The Dry Salvages: lines 90-92)
But he insists that beyond that there's the possibility of 'the sudden illumination', and that we can 'have the experience' but 'miss the meaning.'
Therein lies the rub. How do we interpret or assign 'meaning' to any of these things? Do we need to?
I'd suggest that as human beings we have no option but to assign some kind of meaning to these things. Even to declare them 'meaningless' is to assign them some kind of meaning or significance.
At any rate, whatever the case, I don't think anyone here is claiming that theists have the monopoly on 'meaning' nor that non-theists - or atheists (if there's a difference) are incapable of having lofty and transcendent thoughts, experiences or impressions.
Dictionary definitions are usually a bit iffy as far as places to begin reasoning are concerned. They just point to the semantic content of the word and do so in the broadest possible terms.
If you’re an atheist then I’d be somewhat surprised if you believe in a nebulous, rare thing called spirit. What you seem to be describing to me, Colin Smith, is a feeling of wonderment. That’s good, important, and something I wish more people felt, but I don’t see how that’s the same thing as spirit.
For me wonderment is the same thing as spirit. Or rather spirit is the thing and wonderment is my sense of that thing.
I'm not offended, I guess nobody is. But if you are not offended and are not bothered, then why are you saying that you won't stop pushing your view until you die?
I don't understand. What is so important about atheists insisting that spirituality is not necessarily about belief in a deity?
Do you even believe in a spirit?
Seriously? I'd have thought the answer was blindingly obvious. We atheists and other non-theists don't want the theists hogging all the forms of spirituality.
How does one "hog" something you don't believe in?
I mean, fair enough Susan is using rhetorical flair and likes getting involved in discussions on the internet with theists. But the idea that atheists need to elbow into the understanding of "spirituality" because otherwise all the theists would get to discuss things without reference to people who don't believe it is totally crackers.
If you don't believe in a "spirit" in what possible sense can you be said to have a spirituality?
Easily. Some Asian religions have neither gods or spirits in them, but it would be odd to say that they don't offer spiritual paths, trainings, rituals, etc. For example, transcendence is often used to refer to going beyond the ego, or beyond dualism. Some kinds of atheist spirituality are different from this, but there is plenty written about it.
Reminded of the famous book, "Cutting through spiritual materialism", where Chogyam Trungpa argues that the task in hand isn't to improve the self, but let go of it. But he is not in search of a supernatural spirit, but rather the indescribable non-self, and "in search of" is incorrect in any case.
Dictionary definitions are usually a bit iffy as far as places to begin reasoning are concerned. They just point to the semantic content of the word and do so in the broadest possible terms.
If you’re an atheist then I’d be somewhat surprised if you believe in a nebulous, rare thing called spirit. What you seem to be describing to me, Colin Smith, is a feeling of wonderment. That’s good, important, and something I wish more people felt, but I don’t see how that’s the same thing as spirit.
For me wonderment is the same thing as spirit. Or rather spirit is the thing and wonderment is my sense of that thing.
I believe in employing very broad terms.
The two are categorically different. Wonderment is a mental state; you are in a state of wonder. Spirit is a metaphysical claim upon the world; that there exists spirit.
You’re welcome to use words in non-standard ways, but then what you’re talking about when you talk about spirit isn’t the same as us, and your criticisms are about something we aren’t talking about. This is why precise definitions can be good, sometimes.
Like I said, wonderment is my perception of the thing called spirit. But as I do not believe that spirit has any consciousness or awareness of my existence we are probably talking about different definitions of or different kinds of spirit.
Well I guess that invites the interesting question as to whether or not one can claim to be an atheist and believe in a metaphysical entity called spirit. I wouldn’t think so, as an initial reaction, but I suppose it’d depend on what one posits about spirit.
It would depend on whether you worshipped it, surely.
Comments
gives faith believers a
Then there are the various nondualist traditions, which as noted above, don't advertise their non-theism. I have heard of "non-dual spiritual teachers", anyway no point in labouring the issue.
I see. Not bothered, but you will argue against it until you die.
What is the spiritual path?
What manifestations of the spirit?
Some priests etc are spiritual directors. But not all. Then there lay people like me who are also spiritual directors. It is a very distinct thing and should involve proper training and accreditation. Spiritual Direction in the Christian tradition can be found amongst the Early Church Fathers.
Tosh. Other destinations are available and for some it's the journey not the end point that matters
That chimes with me. Doing a lot of mediation retreats, we used to joke that you were cured of it, when you didn't think you were meditating. I have arrived at my destination, in other words.
No, we have not forgotten you are an atheist.
But when we're talking about Spiritual Direction in the Christian tradition, nothing that Rublev has said is at all controversial, and far from tosh. Perhaps we might persuade @MrsBeaky to tell us further how she sees her role, and what her practice is?
Also, for all of us, it's the journey. Not just you.
Understood. Yes I was assuming 'director' referred to someone actively directing or guiding.
But re the bit I've put in bold, it won't always be the case that someone is looking to deepen their relationship with (the Christian) God. I could easily see a directee wishing to broaden their faith to include practices and beliefs outside Christianity or perhaps even adopt another belief altogether. Some might call that a crisis of faith but it is equally a development of someone's spirituality.
Actually, I wasn't referring to my atheism. I believe that Buddhism, Hinduism, Wicca, and all other faiths are equally valid destinations. Rublev appears to be implying that they are false destinations and that his God is the only true destination..
Okay, so Spiritual Director has a specific meaning within a faith tradition but that meaning is completely different from anything one might deduce from the meaning of the words spiritual and director.. Understood. Thank you.
;-)
Yes. Like "Human Resources" I now realise that "Spiritual Director" does not mean what it sounds like it means.
What do you think it sounds like? Some guy you rock up to and after listening carefully says "I think you might be a Mormon, a moon worshipper or a Tibetan Buddhist. I recommend you read this book on talking to angels, this one on praying rosaries and this one on how God is Dead."
Can you seriously not see that this would never work?
I suggest you stop getting offended at other people doing things that you wouldn't do and using terms you wouldn't use.
However long you have left, life is too short to be overly concerned about people doing weird things.
I am happy to start by answering any specific questions anyone might have.
But please bear in mind that although I have been seeing a Director for years I have only just been commissioned as one. There are other directors on the Ship with far more experience than I have!
So, as an opening gambit - how do you get your referrals? Do they come from the church you're involved in, or a parachurch organisation (or more prosaically, do you advertise?)
OK here goes.
Best practice as I understand it is not to see a directee that you know already- I know of one director who does see such people but the consensus is not to do so. So seeing someone from one's own church would not be a good idea.
I also know of one director who does advertise as an individual but there are also networks of directors you can join.
I am going to be put on my the register of Directors for my diocese (once they have finished revamping it). That is also where I first found a director for myself.
Interestingly, my own spiritual director told me that she would be happy to refer people from her own church who have requested direction to me once I am up and running.
As with therapy I would personally steer clear of any director who is not part of a supervision group.........
1. I never, ever take offence at what people write or say; it is not in my character at all.
2. I very much apologise to anyone who has been offended at anything I have written in this thread.
3.
I don't understand. What is so important about atheists insisting that spirituality is not necessarily about belief in a deity?
Do you even believe in a spirit?
Well, I wasn't offended, as such.
But do you remember that scene in Annie Hall, where the Woody Allen figure is trying to convince his friend that there's an anti-semitic conspiracy against him, because every time somebody says 'Did you ...' to him, it comes out as 'Did jew ...'? Until eventually his friend jyst changes the subject?
It felt like that. Except if that scene had gone on for three days, instead of 30 seconds.
Perhaps they aren't atheists, but simply a-gnat-stic.
I'll get me coat ...
Sir, I applaud both your courage and your wit.
So what do you see your role as? There's been a lot of comments here about what you should and shouldn't do, but what would you actually do?
First I try and provide a relaxed, hospitable and peaceful environment. I usually offer a cup of tea, coffee etc.
Then I invite the person to tell me how they/ things are. I try to listen carefully not just to what the person is saying, but also to the prompting of the Holy Spirit. I may ask questions like “Where do you sense God was in that situation?” or “What do you think God feels/ or might say about what you describe?” Those are both much more definite and fully formed than the rather feeling-my-way sort of questions I tend to ask, but that’s the gist of what I’m getting at.
Notwithstanding being called a ‘spiritual director’ I rarely, even if asked, actually direct someone to do something. Though, if a clear ‘gap’ emerges in the picture where I think trying or desisting from a particular discipline might be helpful, I will mildly suggest that the person might see if that is something they find helpful.
Sometimes simply the act of sharing their thoughts in the context of thinking about where God is in their life or situation is enough to bring clarity without me being more than a listening presence.
I don’t think I really do the work. I make a space in which the directee can stand aside from the torrent of daily events and do some work with God themselves.
I suppose I think of my role as being a confidential companion for a person on their faith journey, someone who stands outside their situation, and with whom they can be as frank as they feel able without the thought that it will go back to their congregation or local minister, or their bishop, archdeacon or rural dean, and without the thought that they are going to see me week by week in the course of their regular responsibilities.
I hesitate to respond to you, knowing what the answer is likely to be, but it seems to me that the gnat-straining is a distraction from the real point of the discussion.
If I may add a few words about spiritual directors: Around here, at least, all spiritual directors must have spiritual directors of their own. I asked one priest to be my spiritual director; she said, "I'd like to, but then I'd have to be in spiritual direction, and I just don't have time." (She did recommend someone else, who turned out to be excellent.)
She's not alone in that tendency aboard Ship.
At times there can be a 'literalism' about it that is reminiscent of some of the more fundie posts we get here from time to time. If someone believes God is 'speaking' to them then it must be some kind of audible voice or heavenly radio broadcast - rather than, as is generally the case, that person sifting and evaluating impressions and experience from a theist perspective informed by whatever spiritual traditions have formed their particular 'take'.
We all do that. The only difference is the weight and value we attach to these things and the way we interpret them - and that can and does change over time. You can hold to a theistic perspective and still take responsibility for what you think, do and say.
What I don't see here are people going round claiming that any idea that pops into their head has some kind of divine import or that God is like a puppet-master directing their thoughts and feelings. I know plenty of people like that but they'd get short shrift here.
It's not that anyone is questioning or challenging SusanDoris's right to hold to her particular perspective. Nor is it wrong or unwelcome for her to challenge those of us who hold to theistic positions. I would be happier if those challenges were presented in ways we've not seen before or which have ended up in arguments and Hell Calls in the past.
Anyhow, whatever the case, the discussion has given practitioners a platform to tell us more about 'spiritual direction' as understood within particular traditions. I've found that helpful.
Thanks folks and more power to your elbows.
I would see my role as supporting people who want to draw aside to focus on their inner journey. I only have experience of doing this with people who have have or who have had some sort of Christian background. But I'd hazard a guess that the contemplative wing of several faiths could well have their own equivalent of spiritual direction.
As I have said above one of my course tutors saw a young man who defined himself as atheist.
Were someone of another/ no faith to come to me I would do exactly the same for them as I would for a Christian:
The two most important things I can do are create a welcoming space and to listen. Really listen, listen with my heart.
My role is to support and encourage the directee in the inner work they are doing. One of the best things I can do is to ask the right questions, questions that go to the heart of the matter. It is about helping them hear themselves and find God and/ or the spiritual resources for where they currently find themselves. Sometimes I might make a suggestion of something to read/ think about/ do often based on something the directee has said themselves.
Interesting post - read and noted - with an appreciative nod of thanks.
Seriously? I'd have thought the answer was blindingly obvious. We atheists and other non-theists don't want the theists hogging all the forms of spirituality.
How does one "hog" something you don't believe in?
I mean, fair enough Susan is using rhetorical flair and likes getting involved in discussions on the internet with theists. But the idea that atheists need to elbow into the understanding of "spirituality" because otherwise all the theists would get to discuss things without reference to people who don't believe it is totally crackers.
If you don't believe in a "spirit" in what possible sense can you be said to have a spirituality?
It depends what you mean by spirituality. If we take the dictionary definition: the quality of being concerned with the human spirit or soul as opposed to material or physical things, then I certainly have a form of spirituality. It's there when I look at the stars, it's there when I stand in the rain, it's even there when I see a steam engine.
I don't practice astrology, or Tarot, or meditation, but all of theme are spiritual activities and none of them require belief in a deity.
Obviously, though, as a theist, I do believe there is 'more' - and also that there's more where those came from, as it were. 'All good things come from above ...' as James put it in his Epistle.
As T S Eliot puts it in 'The Dry Salvages', one of his 'Four Quartets', we can experience 'moments of happiness' from a sense of well-being, from 'Fruition, fulfilment, security or affection,/Or even a very good dinner ..'
(The Dry Salvages: lines 90-92)
But he insists that beyond that there's the possibility of 'the sudden illumination', and that we can 'have the experience' but 'miss the meaning.'
Therein lies the rub. How do we interpret or assign 'meaning' to any of these things? Do we need to?
I'd suggest that as human beings we have no option but to assign some kind of meaning to these things. Even to declare them 'meaningless' is to assign them some kind of meaning or significance.
At any rate, whatever the case, I don't think anyone here is claiming that theists have the monopoly on 'meaning' nor that non-theists - or atheists (if there's a difference) are incapable of having lofty and transcendent thoughts, experiences or impressions.
For me wonderment is the same thing as spirit. Or rather spirit is the thing and wonderment is my sense of that thing.
I believe in employing very broad terms.
Easily. Some Asian religions have neither gods or spirits in them, but it would be odd to say that they don't offer spiritual paths, trainings, rituals, etc. For example, transcendence is often used to refer to going beyond the ego, or beyond dualism. Some kinds of atheist spirituality are different from this, but there is plenty written about it.
Like I said, wonderment is my perception of the thing called spirit. But as I do not believe that spirit has any consciousness or awareness of my existence we are probably talking about different definitions of or different kinds of spirit.