Spiritual, but...
At a dinner party I met a woman who described the good work environment she finds with her new employer. Not only was it unexpected but far exceeded what she could have expected. Through one experience she herself was afforded an opportunity to get past the pain of facing another Christmas season with the memories of her daughter who died in an accident in a past December. This lady had proposed that the company modify its Christmas gift exchange, making it instead a gift collection for the Adopt a Family program. The company did. Seeing the good will of the new workplace, in working the project through, and having the companies trust and support to lead it, this lady also found new desire for the joyful reminders of Christmas, seeing the joy more than the pain. For the first time in years she experienced more joy than loss at Christmas time, still loving her lost daughter.
When the lady reached the end of recounting this she said, “It was spiritual.” I knew exactly what she meant. All of these activities moved her deeply, in ways not fully captured by means of material causes and classifications. She was moved in her spirit, or her soul, or whatever that deeply human quality is that we experience in such times. These times of awe do, indeed, bring awareness of something bigger and deeper in our nature as human beings than, brains, bodies, and abilities to do things. The birth of a child. Some special interaction with nature. Experiences with religious beauty, like the Sistine Chapel, Taj Mahal, the pyramids, and so on. Surviving a brush with death. Such things give us a clue to something that we only can characterize as spiritual.
Suddenly I realized what many people try to say when they say, “I’m spiritual but not religious.” They are saying that they do recognize such experiences as real, that there is something legitimate and objective about them. That is the “I’m spiritual” part of the phrase. The “not religious” part of it means that they are not affiliated these experiences to a religion. Some seem also to say that their affirmation of a spiritual reality arose without aid of a religion.
So, lest you think me silly for explicating what was obvious, the phrase had seemed mainly as a phrase of opprobrium, rather than affirmation. I am, therefore, grateful to see the affirming side of it. The emphasis that has tended to accompany the phrase is, “not religious,” said in a subtly triumphant way, as in, “religion is a waste of time.” All of my instincts push to counter this; but a better approach can begin with what the phrase affirms: “There is a spiritual reality.” How so? That, I’m afraid, I cannot answer specifically. Strategically, however, I have a theory:
a) Enter a discussion from mutual agreement on the existence of spiritual reality
b) From this explore aspects of this reality that they see
c) Then go further asking about good ways to explore this incompletely known reality
Religion would seem to be a necessary part of the discussion, since religions deal with especially with spiritual practices and teachings. It is only a theory. Perhaps I’ll try it out and see what I can learn.
When the lady reached the end of recounting this she said, “It was spiritual.” I knew exactly what she meant. All of these activities moved her deeply, in ways not fully captured by means of material causes and classifications. She was moved in her spirit, or her soul, or whatever that deeply human quality is that we experience in such times. These times of awe do, indeed, bring awareness of something bigger and deeper in our nature as human beings than, brains, bodies, and abilities to do things. The birth of a child. Some special interaction with nature. Experiences with religious beauty, like the Sistine Chapel, Taj Mahal, the pyramids, and so on. Surviving a brush with death. Such things give us a clue to something that we only can characterize as spiritual.
Suddenly I realized what many people try to say when they say, “I’m spiritual but not religious.” They are saying that they do recognize such experiences as real, that there is something legitimate and objective about them. That is the “I’m spiritual” part of the phrase. The “not religious” part of it means that they are not affiliated these experiences to a religion. Some seem also to say that their affirmation of a spiritual reality arose without aid of a religion.
So, lest you think me silly for explicating what was obvious, the phrase had seemed mainly as a phrase of opprobrium, rather than affirmation. I am, therefore, grateful to see the affirming side of it. The emphasis that has tended to accompany the phrase is, “not religious,” said in a subtly triumphant way, as in, “religion is a waste of time.” All of my instincts push to counter this; but a better approach can begin with what the phrase affirms: “There is a spiritual reality.” How so? That, I’m afraid, I cannot answer specifically. Strategically, however, I have a theory:
a) Enter a discussion from mutual agreement on the existence of spiritual reality
b) From this explore aspects of this reality that they see
c) Then go further asking about good ways to explore this incompletely known reality
Religion would seem to be a necessary part of the discussion, since religions deal with especially with spiritual practices and teachings. It is only a theory. Perhaps I’ll try it out and see what I can learn.
Comments
Post a Comment