This is not a question that I can answer. In my view a person's spirituality is an inner attitude; it is not a foreign supplemental addition to oneself. One can evaluate spirituality in terms of exterior social behavior after defining what is meant by "religious," but that is not quite the same thing as studying a mental state or stance toward something. The inner mental state or stance of spirituality is never available for direct study; instead, only the stated claims of those polled about spirituality may be analyzed.
The Apostle Paul, however, thought there were degrees to spirituality, and from the perspective of nascent Christianity he described the scale this way:
But I, brothers, could not address you as spiritual people, but as fleshly, as babes in Christ. I fed you with milk, not solid food; for you were not ready for it; and even yet you are not ready, for you are still of the flesh. For while there is jealousy and strife among you, are you not still of the flesh and behaving just like ordinary people? For when one says, "I belong to Paul," and another, "I belong to Apollos," are you not just ordinary people? (1 Cor 3:1-4)
The degree scale that Paul establishes is at its lowest end "ordinary fleshly people" (or babes in Christ) and at its highest end "spiritual people." I suppose that the designations fleshly/spiritual would come together at the midpoint halfway through the scale. Paul is able to distinguish these two extremes, however, only in terms of human behaviors and he gives his readers an example. Ordinary fleshly people act jealously and create strife (1 Cor 3:3). Presumably the spiritual people at the upper end of the scale would act just the opposite; that is, spiritual people would be characterized by trust and they would create harmony. But perhaps we should use his words as to how spiritual people behave:
The fruit of the spirit is love, joy, peace, patience, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, gentleness, self-control. (Gal 5:22-23 RSV)
On the other hand, the behaviors to which the flesh (what Paul regards as human lower nature) leads are:
fornication, impurity, licentiousness, idolatry, sorcery, enmity, strife, jealousy, anger, selfishness, dissention, party spirit, envy, drunkenness, carousing, and such things." (Gal 5:19-21 RSV
Does "spirituality," however defined, improve the species Homo sapiens? Again, it is not a question that can be answered for two reasons: 1. It will depend on how you define "improvement." For example, some may think spiritual improvement means being less formally "religious" (however defined), since they might regard religiosity as a holdover from the superstitious period of humanity's primitive past; and 2. Since "spirituality" is a personal attitude (that is, how one regards oneself or how one is regarded by others), we can never analyze the degree of one's spirituality directly. We can only know how we regard ourselves and what we claim about someone else—and our self claims and what others claim about us may disagree.
Suppose, however, "spirituality" were defined in terms of stated concepts of the Divine—that is to say how has the species Homo sapiens described the Gods it serves? Have concepts of God evolved or devolved? My theory is that spiritual people are more apt to conceive a more ethically respectable God; spiritual people would scarcely serve a flawed Deity. The more ethically their Gods behave; the keener must be the spiritual sense of those believing in such Gods.
I do see specific indicators of gradual change in the representation of Deity by the species Homo sapiens. The overlapping changes are not uniform throughout the world and have been occurring over millions of years.
1. The ascription of Divinity to the primal forces of nature (Primitive period).
2. Polytheism and anthropomorphism (Classical Greek and Roman period).
3. Monotheism and Spirit (Judeo-Christian period).
4. Panentheism: God is in everything and everything is in God (Post-Enlightenment).
Whether this represents an evolution that makes our species more spiritual or whether it is a devolution that makes our species less spiritual, is a subjective judgment, however, and will be answered according to one's personal faith.
Charles W. Hedrick
Professor Emeritus
Missouri State University
Hi Charlie,
ReplyDeleteMost interesting and great clarity for such a complex subject! Where would one put the following representation of deity: what was once the function of God is now the function of humanity.
"Since we are co-extensive with the universe, and can say nothing about God or nature that is not at the same time a statement about ourselves, we must learn to think of ourselves as the universe reflecting upon itself." (Wink, The Human Being, 2002, 47).
The Gaia theory of James Lovelock (Gaia: A New Look at Life on Earth, 1979)"proposes that the biosphere is connected with the other physical components of the Earth -- the atmosphere, hydrosphere, and lithosphere -- in such a way as to form a complex interconnected system. This web of being acts in a homeostatic fashion that operates so as to preserve the climatic and biochemical conditions on Earth that make it suitable for living systems - So Don't Fool with Mother Nature...Since the concept of God can now be seen as a symbol for the responsibilities and virtues we feel bound to manifest, and since caring for the earth can now be seen as our supreme duty, then our traditional responsibility to God and our newly-found responsibility to the earth have become virtually the same." (Geering, Coming Back to Earth, 2009, 215-216).
Gene Stecher
Chambersburg, Pa.
Good Morning Gene,
DeleteThanks for the provocative comments! Your quote from Walter Wink: I think that we can talk about nature and the universe without making statements about ourselves. But I do agree that God is a reflection of ourselves, since we invented the Gods using ourselves as a model in some way--in other words God is not an objective entity over against us. I think that we are an extension of the universe in the sense that the earth is our mother and we are bone and flesh with the universe (in short we are formed out of stardust).
Third paragraph: the terms (biosphere, etc.) used by Lovelock (I have not read his book, however) are likely directly out of Teilhard de Chardin. We are responsible for our behavior with respect to the earth and the universe but without any reference to the Gods.
Cordially,
Charlie
This probably won’t make sense, but I don’t associate “spirituality” with “religion.” To me, spirituality is awareness, clearing the extraneous clutter from one’s mind and focusing entirely on the now – the task, thought or problem. It provides peace and clarity and unhinges one from attachments that get in the way.
ReplyDeleteDennis Dean Carpenter
Dahlonega, Ga.
Hi Dennis,
DeleteWhy would you bother to use the religion word "spirituality" to describe awareness? Why not preface your comment with the statement: There is no such thing as "spirituality." What we call "spirituality" is better thought of as human awareness. There are degrees of awareness in the species Homo sapiens. When we are most aware, we are most distinctly human.
Is that about the gist of your view?
Cordially,
Charlie
Not all terms that usually refer to an otherworldly cult like a religion need remain attached to religion. This particular one is long overdue a "makeover." Angels & demons don't wander the wind, the spiritual world.
DeleteI don't see degrees of awareness. I think I'm probably looking also at awareness differently. When I say awareness I mean there is absolutely nothing in the conscious thought except the task at hand. Nothing. So, there couldn't be degrees. And, I'm not sure this is (from my experience with animals) distinctly human.
Dennis Dean Carpenter
Dahlonega, Ga.
1) 'Does "spirituality," however defined, improve the species Homo sapiens?'
ReplyDelete2) 'My theory is that spiritual people are more apt to conceive a more ethically respectable God; spiritual people would scarcely serve a flawed Deity. The more ethically their Gods behave; the keener must be the spiritual sense of those believing in such Gods.'
Good afternoon Charlie,
In reply to question number one- the short answer is no. Spirituality is an abstract mental concept in the head that does nothing to liberate humans from inflicting suffering on themselves or others. Simply believing in and accumulating certain thoughts/concepts about a deity does not change or transform any human... Besides- how do you know those thoughts are true? Can you absolutely know they are true? No single thought or perspective contains all truth, but can only point to it... And the truth is always paradoxical.
In reply to the second statement about humans serving a more ethical deity- the only thing you are "serving" is a concept in your head. If humanity is to be changed or transformed, it only happens through changing their state of consciousness.. by bringing awareness to the unconscious mind movements that create an enormous amount of suffering for ourselves- and therefore others.
Thoughts and beliefs about God are not permanent, they come and go and fluctuate continuously. One thought after another.... It never ends. Do having the "right" beliefs about an ethical deity ever resolve any problems or relieve suffering? "I now believe in an ethical deity, so that makes me an ethical person." It simply makes you a person who has ethical thoughts. And you are identified with them(for now).
But your thoughts are never still. They fluctuate continuously. That is why humans are in a state of constant unease and resistance to situations and events in life. They are mistakenly led to believe that "if I can just get the right bundle of thoughts and beliefs together in my head, then I'll be a spiritual person- and behave like a spiritual person!"
Adding more thoughts and beliefs to one's mind will solve nothing.
Thank you as always! Elizabeth
Hi Charlie,
ReplyDeleteIn response to the suggestions that spirituality is awareness (Dennis)or a mental concept (Elizabeth), I want to reemphasize that Paul thought of spirituality in terms of embodiment, i.e., behavior. There was no mystery - just look at how a person behaves. You listed the behaviors that are evidence of Spirit quite clearly. So, if I'm living this life, I definitely want to be in a context where my fellow humans are spiritual. Paul's definition in Gal 5 sounds very much like something out of behavioral psychology research. This characterization, for Paul, even carries beyond the grave in the form of a spiritual body (1 Cor 15). A comforting thought to believe that kindness extends beyond the grave.
Gene Stecher
Chambersburg, Pa.
This question is for whomever may be inclined to answer:
ReplyDeleteWho gets to decide which people are spiritual and which people are not? When someone is ascribing a set of specific outward behaviors- does behaving in that prescribed manner alter your inner state as well? If so, how?
All religions from Buddhism, Judaism, Islam, Christianity, etc- have ended up turning simple spiritual teachings into lists of acceptable and non-acceptable outward behaviors. Has that improved humanity's state of consciousness? Many thanks, Elizabeth in St. Louis
In other words- does behavior on the outside automatically make one spiritual on the inside??
ReplyDeleteGood Sunday Morning Elizabeth,
DeleteA good question! In my view the answer is an obvious "No!" You never know what people are thinking even when they tell you. Hence observed behavior on the outside does not make one spiritual--assuming that "spirituality" is a mental opinion about oneself and others. I am happy to say that Jesus agrees with me (or is it the other way around?). See Matthew 6:1-6.
Cordially,
Charlie
Hi Elizabeth,
ReplyDeleteWe seem to differ on the matter of focusing on inward reality ("inner state" "state of consciousness" and perhaps "simple spiritual teachings"), but my perspective takes on a different form.
I would say the following: Certain persons have provided relational stimuli that challenges human beings to treat each other well, including in extreme circumstances, i.e., to be spiritual.
e.g. "If you love those who love you, what reward do you have? Do not even tax collectors and sinners do the same? If you greet only your brothers and sisters...If you do good to those who do good to you...if you lend to those from whom you hope to receive...what credit is that to you. But love your enemies and do good. Be merciful (Luke)/ perfect (Matt), the same as your Father...He makes his sun rise and rain fall on the evil and the good...he is kind to the ungrateful and the wicked. (Matt 5:43-48, Like 6:32-36)
I hope those reading will not take this as being preachy; I am, however, trying hard to express my viewpoint.
Gene Stecher
Chambersburg, Pa.
Thank you Gene and Charlie- this is getting back to the subject of unconditional love again.
ReplyDeleteThe words spoken by Jesus (often referred to as the Beatitudes) at the Sermon on the Mount- do sound very nice. Notice that I say "sound" nice. Where is this spiritual/unconditional love demonstrated to "enemies" of God elsewhere in the NT? How can they say Jesus loves his enemies when he casts them into hell for not believing in him? Those actions to not support the pious platitudes so oft repeated in Matthew and Luke. What about Matt. 10:14? Is that loving your enemies to shake off the dust of your feet from anyone's home who doesn't welcome you? Not very loving, is it?
When there are unarguable inconsistencies between the flowery words of Jesus (and Paul) and their actions- it's very difficult to come to any conclusions about who is spiritual and who is not... The NT is much smaller than the Tanach, and yet it mentions hell and damnation many many more times over.... To me, that doesn't fit in with the message of loving one's enemies. Many thanks, Elizabeth
Hi Elizabeth,
ReplyDeleteYour points are well taken, and can only be addressed if one is willing to take a critical approach to the scriptural text and try to distinguish between the ideas of Jesus himself and what additionally was attributed to him by the followers who are responsible for the gospels. In other words, one must engage in studies which draw conclusions about what Mark, Matt, Luke, John, and Jesus said distinctively as their own. The judgmental stuff is usually attributed to the church toward those who reject its message about the risen Lord.
To respond to your unconditional love statement, the only place I know where it could be attributed to Jesus' actions is when he gave himself over to death on the cross. He is otherwise pictured as verbally combatant with his adversaries, and one time physically (temple cleansing).
Regarding the bottom line about spirituality, again I would say that its a matter of the power of change in relationality and not an internal state or condition.
Gene Stecher
Chambersburg.Pa.
Thank you Gene for pointing out the fact that the judgmental stuff is usually attributed to the church towards those who reject its message- I wondered if that was the case in Matt. 10:14. Their evangelistic zealotry took away from his simple message and makes it difficult for a lay person like me to distinguish what is authentic and what is not. I'm not a scholar, and I can't always retain or recall the research in books outlining the result of the Jesus Seminar.
ReplyDeleteI wonder if you could explain what is meant by power of change in relationally- that is not a term I've head of before. Many thanks, Elizabeth
Hi Elizabeth,
ReplyDeleteI failed to mention that much of the judgmental stuff is also attributed to the followers of John the Baptist who later joined the Jesus movement. John expected a coming future judge who would separate the wheat from the chaff among the peoples of the earth; his ax was already at the root of the tree, as per his speeches in Matt and Luke.
Regarding spirituality, I'm saying that spirituality is triggered by relationship dynamics which free up a natural inner potential to behaviorally express itself and increase in strength. The behavioral expressions are listed by Paul as noted in Charlie's essay. In the Christian perspective one's relationship commitment with Jesus would actualize this potential with others.
Gene Stecher
Chambersburg, Pa.
For those interested in another angle on spirituality, I'm thinking of one of the founders of clinical psychology, Carl Rogers, who in the mid-20th century developed the following idea for developing a healthy (spiritual?) person. In his research Rogers concluded that health occurs when conditions of empathy, genuineness, unconditional positive regard, etc. (conditions of spirituality?) release an "organismic valuing process" in the other, providing the possibility of achieving one's greatest potential. When one receives that gift he/she then passes it along to others. To me this is a kind of secular spirituality in which we all can participate equally.
ReplyDeleteGene Stecher
Chambersburg, Pa.
Good afternoon Gene,
DeleteIt seems to me that you and Dennis are aiming to secularize what we know as spirituality. Generally the word spirituality is thought of as having something to do with deity (however defined)--at least that is the way the term is used in the New Testament (cf. 1 Cor 2:14) To make spirituality either a focused awareness (Dennis) or a Carl-Rogers-healthiness (you) changes the subject. Even if God does not exist so that there could be no such thing as "spirituality" in the way we usually think of it, people of faith can still imagine spirituality as some value communicated by God. In that sense it exists in the mind of people of a certain kind of faith. I have nothing against a focused awareness, Carl Rogers' concept of health, or achieving one's greatest potential but at bottom they fall short of an adequate definition of spirituality, it seems to me. But in themselves they are all worthy goals to strive toward.
Cordially,
Charlie
Charlie, the problem I have with spirituality is that many Christians believe that being more spiritual will improve your relationships with fellow humans, including family relationships. In other words, that it will make you a "better" person all the way around. I see no evidence to support this whatsoever. The most spiritual people I've ever met have horrible relationships at home- yet they pray, read the Bible, witness, feed the poor, etc... These people do great within the confines of spiritual environment- but put them in daily life and have one little thing go wrong... One little challenge... Someone cuts you off in the traffic, the IRS audits you, you get an ominous diagnosis.... All that spirituality goes out the window. I've never seen anyone prove that being a spiritual person will help one navigate the turbulent waters of what we call daily living.
DeleteCan one have a connection to God without being spiritual? When I read I Cor. 2:14, I hear someone who is very convinced of his own piety and sanctimony.... There's probably an obvious reason Paul was never married or had a family and was reviled by the other apostles.
Many thanks! Elizabeth
Put differently, Charlie, spiritual people may sound great in books, TV, in the pulpit, or sitting in bible studies... But in daily life, they are very hard to live with.
DeleteTake them out of their meditation room or their prayer closet, and see how they handle a family dinner discussion about Donald Trump. See how spiritual they are then.
Hi Charlie,
DeletePerhaps I'm trying to distinguish spiritual from mystical. I think that I'm on firm ground when talking about spirituality as behavior, as Paul says, 'fruits of the spirit,' and I've no quarrel about deity as the source of spirit, whether released in the resurrection of Christ or some other means associated with deity (or not). But I'm thinking that spirituality and mysticism are being confused with one another in our discussion. As I think about it, what Elizabeth describes as spirituality is possibly best referred to as mysticism - a primarily private inward connection between person and deity, which either passes muster when coping with life, or doesn't.
Gene Stecher
Chambersburg, Pa.
Good Morning Gene,
DeleteI agree with you that how we usually think of spirituality is that it is mystical. But if it is "private inward communication" between person and deity (which it surely is), how can we possibly measure "it"--or even know whether or not there is an "it."
Charlie
Good Morning Elizabeth,
DeleteAssuming that there is a God, and assuming that it is possible to make connection with God, then I would say that it would be God's decision as to who can make a connection to God.
Cordially,
Charlie