I find it interesting, and somewhat alarming, to have realised in this latter part of my life how entrenched is the associationthe of the word spiritual with belief in the divine etc , but not associated, as I am sure it should be, with the other, aesthetic, parts of life
???
The urge to celebrate and explore the divine is one of the most persistent impulses to artistic expression in the history of humanity. Almost the entire history of Western art attests to this, and of course Islam, Hinduism, and the other world religions have all given rise to rich artistic traditions of their own. The notion that there can or should be some strict separation drawn between the aesthetic and the religious is a relatively recent one,
Of course there is a range of meanings and definitely no 'strict' border anywhere, which is why the tendency to monopolisation of the word spiritual by those who have faith beliefs is not a reasonable one.
and as far as I can tell comes almost entirely from the atheistic and (post)modernist side.
And why not?!! Prior to the greater awareness of atheism and the post-modern, there was not only hardly any room for atheists, but they were in danger for holding those views too.
I guess there may be some grim-faced Puritan sect out there that has declared itself against art as such. But if so, they stand well outside the mainstream of religious devotion.
And outside life in general I should think. Art is essential whatever its motivation.
SusanDoris-197035”]
Such a 'spiritual director' one presumes must have a belief which requires100% faith.
Well, of course, one can presume what one likes. Certainly the parish priest who has been acting as a spiritual counsellor to me would be alarmed if I claimed never to have experienced any doubt about the Christian faith, and I’m familiar with many, many Christian writings about doubt, its experience, and how to approach it.
*please read the following words with a smile!* Hmmmm, how many actually doubt enough to find they no longer believe!!
I can’t imagine there are many people with pastoral responsibilities who don’t expect to encounter doubt, and counsel others based on their own experience of it.
This may just be a CofE thing; when I described my parents as ‘desultory Anglicans’ to a clergyman yesterday, he laughed and said ‘well, if they were fervent, they wouldn’t really be Anglicans’. But as @mousethief says: you’re overgeneralising.
@SusanDoris -- you are fond of using this buzz phrase "100% faith." So let me ask. Is it all or nothing, or would you say it's possible that something could be 50% faith? 75% faith? 25% faith?
In the context of religious beliefs, I would say no, it is not possible. Up to the present time there is none of that objective evidence I tend to mention here and there, and more and more areas of life have other , more secure explanations.
Because in my experience nothing is 100% faith, and even less is 0% faith.
Yes of course, and that's why there is always that proviso that a small gap must be left which may be filled by better evidence at some date. However, as I am sure that this is not going to happen in the world of religious beliefs during my remaining time, I'll stick to the 100%!
Thinking and feeling are substantially in the conscious tip of the mental iceberg.
God only influenced Jesus' mind with His nature.
He didn't do His thinking and feeling for Him.
And He certainly hasn't done any of yours.
Sorry, @Martin54. I’m not really sure what you’re saying here. I’m not sure what you think I’m saying. And on any reading I can arrive at in my confusion, I’m not sure how you can purport to know these things.
@Martin54 Well, I'm afraid I'm with @ECraigR, then: this is a wisdom beyond my ken. I shall have to rest content in my ignorance and lack of understanding.
That's a dispositional, wired thing. You're at least 10 IQ points above me, which is the norm round here, I'm just the bloke on the bus. So I can only do rationality, just.
I think what I think, I feel what I feel. Nobody else does it for me. (Just like Jesus.)
Jesus manifesto was to proclaim the good news to the poor (Luke 4: 16-18; Is 61: 1-2). And attest it by His miraculous deeds of healing the blind, the lame and the deaf (Matt 11: 5; Is 29: 18; 35: 5).
Jesus prayed before every major decision that He made. And so He was aware of God's will unfolding in the circumstances of His daily life through the revelation of the Spirit.
Pay attention to the 'interruptions' and see what you think.
He was aware above all because He had divine nature. He was fundamentally different to us. His relationship with the Spirit included.
But His thinking and feeling were His alone.
I get nothing but interruptions. I think all of the time. I'm none the wiser. Apart from the geological epoch shocking realizations of rationality. So I distract myself with work, cycling, plant spotting, walking and DCI Banks at the moment with my wife, as with breakfast and dining, reading Neal Stephenson and about 5 other writers cyclically (in bed with her but not out loud).
And of course SOF.
God never does my thinking or feeling (which is collapsed thinking) for me. Never directly stimulates me to think or feel. And He never will.
@SusanDoris -- you are fond of using this buzz phrase "100% faith." So let me ask. Is it all or nothing, or would you say it's possible that something could be 50% faith? 75% faith? 25% faith?
In the context of religious beliefs, I would say no, it is not possible. Up to the present time there is none of that objective evidence I tend to mention here and there, and more and more areas of life have other , more secure explanations.
Because in my experience nothing is 100% faith, and even less is 0% faith.
Yes of course, and that's why there is always that proviso that a small gap must be left which may be filled by better evidence at some date. However, as I am sure that this is not going to happen in the world of religious beliefs during my remaining time, I'll stick to the 100%!
I fail to see the problem with having someone from within a specific religious community who speaks and thinks the language of that community helping others with their spiritual growth.
Even if one doesn't accept that there is such a thing as "spiritual growth", what can possibly be objectional about it?
There is a form of agriculture which believes that best results are gained from doing things at certain phases of the moon. Objectively, it sounds and feels to me like utter cobblers.
But where is the harm in people mentoring each other in it?
@SusanDoris -- you are fond of using this buzz phrase "100% faith." So let me ask. Is it all or nothing, or would you say it's possible that something could be 50% faith? 75% faith? 25% faith?
In the context of religious beliefs, I would say no, it is not possible. Up to the present time there is none of that objective evidence I tend to mention here and there, and more and more areas of life have other , more secure explanations.
Because in my experience nothing is 100% faith, and even less is 0% faith.
Yes of course, and that's why there is always that proviso that a small gap must be left which may be filled by better evidence at some date. However, as I am sure that this is not going to happen in the world of religious beliefs during my remaining time, I'll stick to the 100%!
I’m not sure how you can quantify faith into percentages, nor am I sure how you can speak to the amount of faith a person experiences, which just seems mightily bizarre.
I am not attempting to quantify the faith, I'm quantifying the God believed in.
As for the spiritual directors, I’m not sure what you’re complaint is with it. If it’s that they are using the word “spiritual” then you’re welcome to call a meeting of all Christian Spiritual Directors and harangue them for their pomposity of daring to speak to spirituality.
No, I'm not talking about the use of the word spiritual in this context, although it is certainly part of it, but the assumption of God and, I presume, the inclusion of what God can/can't do or help with that I'm talking about. Does a 'spiritual director' produce a factual piece of information about the God involved? No, that is not available. So, as I say, it is an assumption.
@SusanDoris
As @Blahblah says above:
"I fail to see the problem with having someone from within a specific religious community who speaks and thinks the language of that community helping others with their spiritual growth"
I have been receiving spiritual direction for many years and recently qualified as a spiritual director. The title "spiritual director" is a historic one and is somewhat misleading as what happens in a modern day session is the complete opposite of telling someone what to do. It is all about being with the other person as they explore their spirituality and yes that would involve for a Christian their relationship with God.
One of my course tutors was giving spiritual direction to a man who identified as atheist but for some reason had decided to come to see her which I think speaks of just how non directive but rather supportive this practice is meant to be.
I fail to see the problem with having someone from within a specific religious community who speaks and thinks the language of that community helping others with their spiritual growth.
I agree, there isn't a serious problem, but I'd really like to hear a clear definition of 'spiritual growth'.
Even if one doesn't accept that there is such a thing as "spiritual growth", what can possibly be objectional about it?
There is a form of agriculture which believes that best results are gained from doing things at certain phases of the moon. Objectively, it sounds and feels to me like utter cobblers.
But where is the harm in people mentoring each other in it?
Well, if they'd rather follow phases of the moon rather than the current information available via the Farmers' Union, then I think they're probably missing quite a bit of good advice/!
@SusanDoris
As @Blahblah says above:
"I fail to see the problem with having someone from within a specific religious community who speaks and thinks the language of that community helping others with their spiritual growth"
I have been receiving spiritual direction for many years and recently qualified as a spiritual director.
That is very interesting, thank you for saing. I would be most interested to know what your definitions of 'spiritual' and 'spiritual growth' are, since 'spiritual' seems to have as many different meanings as there are people using the words.
The title "spiritual director" is a historic one and is somewhat misleading as what happens in a modern day session is the complete opposite of telling someone what to do. It is all about being with the other person as they explore their spirituality and yes that would involve for a Christian their relationship with God.
One of my course tutors was giving spiritual direction to a man who identified as atheist but for some reason had decided to come to see her which I think speaks of just how non directive but rather supportive this practice is meant to be.
So, being slightly flippant here, it's rather like ordinary psychotherapy, but with added God!
Sorry about that!
Which is to your analogy, but that isn't fair to the concept of spiritual director, especially in the broadest sense. I can't stand the term spiritual myself, except as a poetic one.
Well, I think 'spiritual' just varies with context. On a website calling itself 'The Magazine of Christian Unrest', I'm going to assume it mostly means Christian spirituality. In Brighton, it mostly means 'New Age-y'. If I were talking to an imam, I'd assume Islamic spirituality. I don't think of anyone having a copyright on it.
As for the phases of the moon ... well, sure, if I want to know the schedule, I'll definitely consult the Farmer's Union. On the other hand, if I wanted to understand what Dogen meant when he wrote 'Enlightenment is like the moon reflected on the water. The moon does not get wet, nor is the water broken. The depth of the drop is the height of the moon'; or St. Francis, when he praised 'Sister Moon'; well, then I'd want to talk to somebody deeply versed in the spiritual tradition that gave rise to them.
Different kinds of questions. Different kinds of answers.
I fail to see the problem with having someone from within a specific religious community who speaks and thinks the language of that community helping others with their spiritual growth.
Even if one doesn't accept that there is such a thing as "spiritual growth", what can possibly be objectional about it?
There is a form of agriculture which believes that best results are gained from doing things at certain phases of the moon. Objectively, it sounds and feels to me like utter cobblers.
But where is the harm in people mentoring each other in it?
Helping others within the same community, perhaps. Though even then there will be people who would be better suited to other spiritual communities (or as independents outside any spiritual community) and I suspect very few appointed or self-appointed mentors/guides within any spiritual community would suggest someone would be happier/more content in any other group besides their group.
Those looking for spiritual growth but who are outside any spiritual community really need someone to act as agent who can guide them towards the form of spirituality best suited to them.
I continue to not understand. Your objection is that spiritual directors help people deepen their faith in their spiritual tradition, and that to do so they must believe in that religious tradition? So you’re problem boils down to an objection that some people have faith?
I would point out that spiritual, faith, and religion are three different things. Tradition is something entirely different as well.
Basically, If I presented myself as an atheist with a vague spiritual inclination I doubt anyone within an existing tradition could act as a neutral guide and help me discover whatever form of spiritual practice and observance best suits my needs.
Colin, I think at some level you are downplaying the individual's own responsibility to find a way to meet their own needs.
Those outside religious communities who feel the need for spiritual assistance need to find somewhere to get that assistance. If they can't, that's hardly the fault of Spiritual Directors working within the parameters of their own religious understanding.
If a person wants to get fit, there are many possible options. One might try to do things alone, but might also decide to find someone to give instruction.
It is surely up to the student to find an appropriate teacher. If that student finds weightlifting objectionable, then he can't complain if he is in a gym and the only tution on offer is on the weights.
Go out of the gym and find some other trainer in a sport you do like. What's the problem?
Basically, If I presented myself as an atheist with a vague spiritual inclination I doubt anyone within an existing tradition could act as a neutral guide and help me discover whatever form of spiritual practice and observance best suits my needs.
Based on the spiritual directors I have known and with whom I have had experience, I think your doubts in this regard are not necessarily well-founded. Some spiritual directors would confirm your doubts, but many would not.
Basically, If I presented myself as an atheist with a vague spiritual inclination I doubt anyone within an existing tradition could act as a neutral guide and help me discover whatever form of spiritual practice and observance best suits my needs.
Based on the spiritual directors I have known and with whom I have had experience, I think your doubts in this regard are not necessarily well-founded. Some spiritual directors would confirm your doubts, but many would not.
This is what I was trying to say above. My course tutor was giving spiritual direction to an atheist at his request. It is all about supporting the person whilst they do the exploration. No proselytising, just accompanying.
All good directors are able to discern when they have travelled as far as they can with an individual.
Colin, I think at some level you are downplaying the individual's own responsibility to find a way to meet their own needs.
Those outside religious communities who feel the need for spiritual assistance need to find somewhere to get that assistance. If they can't, that's hardly the fault of Spiritual Directors working within the parameters of their own religious understanding.
If a person wants to get fit, there are many possible options. One might try to do things alone, but might also decide to find someone to give instruction.
It is surely up to the student to find an appropriate teacher. If that student finds weightlifting objectionable, then he can't complain if he is in a gym and the only tution on offer is on the weights.
Go out of the gym and find some other trainer in a sport you do like. What's the problem?
I agree an individual has first responsibility but surely if someone can only act as a director within their own religion then the correct term is religious director and not spiritual director.
I would hope that anyone offering guidance within a religious or spiritual community would be happy to direct anyone to a source of spirituality outside that community if they thought it would be of more use to that person.
Some of us don’t think that they are three completely distinct things, but are rather deeply interconnected. The divorcing of the three is leads to problems of spiritual dissatisfaction.
If you were an atheist with a vague spiritual inclination then one of the primary things you’d be advised to do is to investigate the various traditions and see where you feel most comfortable. Also, it’s worth noting that some spiritual directors say they’re comfortable working with people of no faith tradition. There’s a gentleman in my diocese who’s a Jungian Psychotherapist and says specifically that. Spiritual direction is quite diverse.
(my bolding)
Seriously? There's a hell of a leap from atheism to theism which, with the exception of some varieties of Buddhism, is what all the various traditions believe in. My own vague spiritual leanings took me to a mild interest in numenism which is far outside any of the various traditions and requires no actual practise on my part.
I would start by looking at the roots of the individual's spiritual inclination and then look at what function the individual wishes their spirituality to have in their life and go from there.
I agree an individual has first responsibility but surely if someone can only act as a director within their own religion then the correct term is religious director and not spiritual director.
You do realise that most medical doctors aren't real doctors, and that it's just an honorary title?
I agree an individual has first responsibility but surely if someone can only act as a director within their own religion then the correct term is religious director and not spiritual director.
As others have noted, there's nothing that says someone can only act as a director within their own religion. Some spiritual directors may choose to limit their work to directees within their own tradition, and some directees may be more comfortable a spiritual director from within their own tradition. But plenty of spiritual directors work with people of other or no religious traditions.
I would hope that anyone offering guidance within a religious or spiritual community would be happy to direct anyone to a source of spirituality outside that community if they thought it would be of more use to that person.
That is certainly my experience of spiritual directors.
It’s also a hell of a leap in reasoning. I didn’t say that one should jump into theism, but examine the different traditions around the religious and the spiritual. That can be Theosophy, Zen Buddhism, Rosicrucianism, or Catholic Christianity. It hardly matters what, but exploring how various chains of thinkers have understood the spiritual is what matters, I think.
Hmm. That's not how I would approach it. And not how I did approach matters when I became curious about what I later described as numenism.
I admit I did take 'traditions' to refer to the main faith tradition of Islam, Christianity, Hinduism, and Buddhism and regard all of them as to fixed, even ossified, to be of real use to anyone with such a thing as a vague sense of the spiritual.
Oddly, the one thing I wouldn't do is look at what any other person has done. For me, choosing a form of spirituality isn't much different from figuring out whether I prefer Speyside, Highland, or Islay. Present me with the choices and I'll do the rest.
I agree an individual has first responsibility but surely if someone can only act as a director within their own religion then the correct term is religious director and not spiritual director.
As others have noted, there's nothing that says someone can only act as a director within their own religion. Some spiritual directors may choose to limit their work to directees within their own tradition, and some directees may be more comfortable a spiritual director from within their own tradition. But plenty of spiritual directors work with people of other or no religious traditions.
I would hope that anyone offering guidance within a religious or spiritual community would be happy to direct anyone to a source of spirituality outside that community if they thought it would be of more use to that person.
That is certainly my experience of spiritual directors.
I am glad to hear it.
When I first mentioned my response to nature which led to an interest in numenism I did have someone try to convince me it was "God trying to speak to me" which I thought was a bit presumptive.
I agree an individual has first responsibility but surely if someone can only act as a director within their own religion then the correct term is religious director and not spiritual director.
You do realise that most medical doctors aren't real doctors, and that it's just an honorary title?
Err, no I wasn't. But only because I'd never given any thought to it.
But the only way you can understand the choices is to see how other people have articulated them. Spirituality and religion aren’t like whiskey; you can’t just go to the Religion Store and buy a bottle of Buddhism to sip over a few days. You have to read, essentially, how it’s been articulated, maybe practice meditation a bit, and see if it jives with your feelies on the matter.
No, really you can do exactly that. When I had a question about why I felt a particular way in certain beautiful places I found the answer was Numenism. I didn't have to do anything more. It just gave me a useful label.
I agree an individual has first responsibility but surely if someone can only act as a director within their own religion then the correct term is religious director and not spiritual director.
You do realise that most medical doctors aren't real doctors, and that it's just an honorary title?
I agree an individual has first responsibility but surely if someone can only act as a director within their own religion then the correct term is religious director and not spiritual director.
You do realise that most medical doctors aren't real doctors, and that it's just an honorary title?
Err, no I wasn't. But only because I'd never given any thought to it.
Not entirely sure of the relevance though.
And we're not entirely sure of the relevance of you insisting spiritual directors be called religious directors. It's just what they're called. Everyone copes.
I agree an individual has first responsibility but surely if someone can only act as a director within their own religion then the correct term is religious director and not spiritual director.
You do realise that most medical doctors aren't real doctors, and that it's just an honorary title?
Citation.
It depends on your jurisdiction. In the UK, a medical degree usually attracts the honorific "doctor" even though the holder has not actually earned a doctorate.
I'm not sure why you think you need a citation. It's just a fact.
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.
Those looking for spiritual growth but who are outside any spiritual community really need someone to act as agent who can guide them towards the form of spirituality best suited to them.
Do you, as an atheist, consider yourself to be spiritual? Or to belong to a spiritual group? Or to have a spirituality that grows and changes?
Etymology may be no guide to meaning, but spiritual originally meant pious or devout; it seems a bit odd to complain that a word that used to mean pious is still being used to mean something in that general area.
Ah, tthank you for writing that. I was just about to write something on the lines of all humans have, to a greater or lesserdegree, a spiritual aspect. It's too late in my life to start an internet petition that non-believers should wrest the word away from the religious!!
Really it would make more sense to complain of the appropriation of the words 'religious' and 'faith' by non-atheists.
And that's something else I haven't thought of before.
Etymology may be no guide to meaning, but spiritual originally meant pious or devout; it seems a bit odd to complain that a word that used to mean pious is still being used to mean something in that general area.
Really it would make more sense to complain of the appropriation of the words 'religious' and 'faith' by non-atheists.
Huh? 'Spiritual' from Latin root spiro, having to do with the breath; so in that sense, yes, we're all spiritual.
'Faith' ultimately from Latin fides, trust, belief. A word of wide application, so hard to 'appropriate'.
'Religio' is trickier. Cicero thought it came from relego, 'to read again'. But generally speaking, something to do with conscientiousness and piety towards the gods, as far back as we have attestation.
I agree an individual has first responsibility but surely if someone can only act as a director within their own religion then the correct term is religious director and not spiritual director.
Don't see why. There can be many flavors of spiritual direction, some religious and some not. But that doesn't mean the religious kind of spiritual direction isn't spiritual direction.
It's like saying religious songs shouldn't be called songs because they're religious. Or like saying a surgeon can't call herself a health care professional because she only does surgery and not all health care. She should call herself a surgery care professional.
And how do they define this 'spiritual' direction? On what is it based, apart from a belief which requires 100% faith? ...
SusanDoris, what makes you assume that anyone has "a belief which requires 100% faith"? Doubts are a part of the human condition, on any number of subjects.
Good for them, but as professionals, they should not, especially in today's much more knowledge based society, be giving direction which includes a religious bias or a faith belief.
Even most psychologists and psychiatrists who do have a religious faith can treat patients who have none. And given that there's a lot of theorizing and guesswork in those fields (Freud on the subject of women, anyone?), I find it amusing that you're dismissing the work of those with a "faith belief" while touting "today's much more knowledge based society."
Well,QED! An unbroken circle - how many break out and take a good look at the non-belief side.
The "non-belief side" is pretty hard to avoid, particularly in fields involving counseling, I assure you.
And why would you object to a spiritual director being, well, a spiritual director in the first place?
Some of us don’t think that they are three completely distinct things, but are rather deeply interconnected. The divorcing of the three is leads to problems of spiritual dissatisfaction....
And why would you object to a spiritual director being, well, a spiritual director in the first place?
Interesting post, thank you. Re this last point: I have no objections to the position but the assumption that spiritual more or less equals/implies/means religious belief, I object on the grounds that I am as spiritual as the next person, but that side of myself, which I think is almost covered by the adjective aesthetic, has no basis in religious belief.
It could be said that that isn't quite true, since the environment in which I was brought up was taken for granted as CofE, but even then I was always questioning, but without access to enough wider knowledge.
I agree an individual has first responsibility but surely if someone can only act as a director within their own religion then the correct term is religious director and not spiritual director.
You do realise that most medical doctors aren't real doctors, and that it's just an honorary title?
Citation.
It depends on your jurisdiction. In the UK, a medical degree usually attracts the honorific "doctor" even though the holder has not actually earned a doctorate.
I'm not sure why you think you need a citation. It's just a fact.
What real doctors have to have Ph.D.s? Never mind centuries of usage? Centuries of 99% of the population never encountering anyone with a Ph.D.?
I'm not sure why you would think that I haven't been aware for half a century that it's an honorific and that bogus doctors in the UK are very rare.
Yep. This thread has taken some interesting turns. But on the whole, 'ideal and correct nomenclature for Spiritual Directors' has not, IMHO, been one of them. On encule les mouches ...
Comments
(Hope I've got the tags right.)
By rationality.
I think what I think, I feel what I feel. Nobody else does it for me. (Just like Jesus.)
It's too simple for you I'm sure.
He was aware above all because He had divine nature. He was fundamentally different to us. His relationship with the Spirit included.
But His thinking and feeling were His alone.
I get nothing but interruptions. I think all of the time. I'm none the wiser. Apart from the geological epoch shocking realizations of rationality. So I distract myself with work, cycling, plant spotting, walking and DCI Banks at the moment with my wife, as with breakfast and dining, reading Neal Stephenson and about 5 other writers cyclically (in bed with her but not out loud).
And of course SOF.
God never does my thinking or feeling (which is collapsed thinking) for me. Never directly stimulates me to think or feel. And He never will.
He does everybody else I'm sure.
So I have to decide to have, to want faith.
A car is still a car when it's running on empty.
Even if one doesn't accept that there is such a thing as "spiritual growth", what can possibly be objectional about it?
There is a form of agriculture which believes that best results are gained from doing things at certain phases of the moon. Objectively, it sounds and feels to me like utter cobblers.
But where is the harm in people mentoring each other in it?
As @Blahblah says above:
"I fail to see the problem with having someone from within a specific religious community who speaks and thinks the language of that community helping others with their spiritual growth"
I have been receiving spiritual direction for many years and recently qualified as a spiritual director. The title "spiritual director" is a historic one and is somewhat misleading as what happens in a modern day session is the complete opposite of telling someone what to do. It is all about being with the other person as they explore their spirituality and yes that would involve for a Christian their relationship with God.
One of my course tutors was giving spiritual direction to a man who identified as atheist but for some reason had decided to come to see her which I think speaks of just how non directive but rather supportive this practice is meant to be.
Sorry about that!
Which is to your analogy, but that isn't fair to the concept of spiritual director, especially in the broadest sense. I can't stand the term spiritual myself, except as a poetic one.
As for the phases of the moon ... well, sure, if I want to know the schedule, I'll definitely consult the Farmer's Union. On the other hand, if I wanted to understand what Dogen meant when he wrote 'Enlightenment is like the moon reflected on the water. The moon does not get wet, nor is the water broken. The depth of the drop is the height of the moon'; or St. Francis, when he praised 'Sister Moon'; well, then I'd want to talk to somebody deeply versed in the spiritual tradition that gave rise to them.
Different kinds of questions. Different kinds of answers.
Helping others within the same community, perhaps. Though even then there will be people who would be better suited to other spiritual communities (or as independents outside any spiritual community) and I suspect very few appointed or self-appointed mentors/guides within any spiritual community would suggest someone would be happier/more content in any other group besides their group.
Those looking for spiritual growth but who are outside any spiritual community really need someone to act as agent who can guide them towards the form of spirituality best suited to them.
I would point out that spiritual, faith, and religion are three different things. Tradition is something entirely different as well.
Basically, If I presented myself as an atheist with a vague spiritual inclination I doubt anyone within an existing tradition could act as a neutral guide and help me discover whatever form of spiritual practice and observance best suits my needs.
Those outside religious communities who feel the need for spiritual assistance need to find somewhere to get that assistance. If they can't, that's hardly the fault of Spiritual Directors working within the parameters of their own religious understanding.
If a person wants to get fit, there are many possible options. One might try to do things alone, but might also decide to find someone to give instruction.
It is surely up to the student to find an appropriate teacher. If that student finds weightlifting objectionable, then he can't complain if he is in a gym and the only tution on offer is on the weights.
Go out of the gym and find some other trainer in a sport you do like. What's the problem?
This isn't therapy. If you don't like Ignatian spirituality, there is no obligation on the religious teacher to suggest you try Satanism.
This is what I was trying to say above. My course tutor was giving spiritual direction to an atheist at his request. It is all about supporting the person whilst they do the exploration. No proselytising, just accompanying.
All good directors are able to discern when they have travelled as far as they can with an individual.
I agree an individual has first responsibility but surely if someone can only act as a director within their own religion then the correct term is religious director and not spiritual director.
I would hope that anyone offering guidance within a religious or spiritual community would be happy to direct anyone to a source of spirituality outside that community if they thought it would be of more use to that person.
Of course it's therapy. That's what belief is!
Seriously? There's a hell of a leap from atheism to theism which, with the exception of some varieties of Buddhism, is what all the various traditions believe in. My own vague spiritual leanings took me to a mild interest in numenism which is far outside any of the various traditions and requires no actual practise on my part.
I would start by looking at the roots of the individual's spiritual inclination and then look at what function the individual wishes their spirituality to have in their life and go from there.
If therapy is relaxing you're not doing it right.
You do realise that most medical doctors aren't real doctors, and that it's just an honorary title?
That is certainly my experience of spiritual directors.
Hmm. That's not how I would approach it. And not how I did approach matters when I became curious about what I later described as numenism.
I admit I did take 'traditions' to refer to the main faith tradition of Islam, Christianity, Hinduism, and Buddhism and regard all of them as to fixed, even ossified, to be of real use to anyone with such a thing as a vague sense of the spiritual.
Oddly, the one thing I wouldn't do is look at what any other person has done. For me, choosing a form of spirituality isn't much different from figuring out whether I prefer Speyside, Highland, or Islay. Present me with the choices and I'll do the rest.
I am glad to hear it.
When I first mentioned my response to nature which led to an interest in numenism I did have someone try to convince me it was "God trying to speak to me" which I thought was a bit presumptive.
Err, no I wasn't. But only because I'd never given any thought to it.
Not entirely sure of the relevance though.
No, really you can do exactly that. When I had a question about why I felt a particular way in certain beautiful places I found the answer was Numenism. I didn't have to do anything more. It just gave me a useful label.
Citation.
And we're not entirely sure of the relevance of you insisting spiritual directors be called religious directors. It's just what they're called. Everyone copes.
It depends on your jurisdiction. In the UK, a medical degree usually attracts the honorific "doctor" even though the holder has not actually earned a doctorate.
I'm not sure why you think you need a citation. It's just a fact.
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.
It's like saying religious songs shouldn't be called songs because they're religious. Or like saying a surgeon can't call herself a health care professional because she only does surgery and not all health care. She should call herself a surgery care professional.
The "non-belief side" is pretty hard to avoid, particularly in fields involving counseling, I assure you.
And why would you object to a spiritual director being, well, a spiritual director in the first place?
It could be said that that isn't quite true, since the environment in which I was brought up was taken for granted as CofE, but even then I was always questioning, but without access to enough wider knowledge.
What real doctors have to have Ph.D.s? Never mind centuries of usage? Centuries of 99% of the population never encountering anyone with a Ph.D.?
I'm not sure why you would think that I haven't been aware for half a century that it's an honorific and that bogus doctors in the UK are very rare.
Which of us is the more Asperger'seque?
Yep. This thread has taken some interesting turns. But on the whole, 'ideal and correct nomenclature for Spiritual Directors' has not, IMHO, been one of them. On encule les mouches ...
One uncle, several moustaches?
But literally much, much more vulgar. And irritated.