Thread: Spiritual growth Board: Oblivion / Ship of Fools.
To visit this thread, use this URL:
http://forum.ship-of-fools.com/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=70;t=026441
Posted by Evensong (# 14696) on
:
Spiritual growth is a topic that often comes up in religio-spiritual circles.
What is spiritual growth?
Can you measure it? If so, how?
If you can't measure it, how do you know it is growth?
Posted by Truman White (# 17290) on
:
Struth Evensong where do you start with a poser like that? Great question my lovely.
Personally prefer to talk about 'maturity' rather than 'growth'. Mike Breen has a nifty model for this. Talking about how we respond to Christian teaching he says we relate to it in three successive ways To begin with its like a picture - we have a good gander to see what's in the frame; then we're like a mirror as we see ourselves in the light of it, then we're like a window - as we live it out, other people see the Christ behind the teaching revealed in our own lives.
How's that sound for a starter?
Posted by L'organist (# 17338) on
:
I put "Spiritual growth" up there with "good sense of humour" : it all depends on the observer/assessor's own viewpoint.
Posted by EtymologicalEvangelical (# 15091) on
:
Spiritual growth?
How about...
An increase in trust and confidence in God?
An increasingly vivid sense of the presence and reality of God?
A growth in understanding the nature and ways of God?
Posted by Jammy Dodger (# 17872) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Truman White:
Struth Evensong where do you start with a poser like that? Great question my lovely.
Personally prefer to talk about 'maturity' rather than 'growth'. Mike Breen has a nifty model for this. Talking about how we respond to Christian teaching he says we relate to it in three successive ways To begin with its like a picture - we have a good gander to see what's in the frame; then we're like a mirror as we see ourselves in the light of it, then we're like a window - as we live it out, other people see the Christ behind the teaching revealed in our own lives.
How's that sound for a starter?
Agree - great question!
I like the Mike Breen quote - especially the idea of the ultimate result being others seeing Christ in us. I guess one of the ways you would "measure" that would be the evidence of the fruit of Spirit in our lives?
Posted by SusanDoris (# 12618) on
:
This is a really great question for atheists too, since spiritual growth, if one can define such a thing, is surely all aspects of the aesthetic side of life?
Posted by L'organist (# 17338) on
:
quote:
posted by Etymological Evangelical
Spiritual growth? How about... An increase in trust and confidence in God? An increasingly vivid sense of the presence and reality of God? A growth in understanding the nature and ways of God?
Looks and sounds good - but all subjective.
Posted by EtymologicalEvangelical (# 15091) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by L'organist
Looks and sounds good - but all subjective.
Yes. And why not?
Posted by Galilit (# 16470) on
:
Just reading Evolving Dharma by Jay Michaelson (subtitled Meditation, Buddhism and the Next Generation of the Enlightenment).
I think Christianity is a bit weak on the basic idea of spiritual growth and stages one might go through (ever deeper practices and experiences) compared to Buddhism for example.
Perhaps in Monastic Orders there is more structured development of one's gifts, skills, practices etc.
Posted by Graham J (# 505) on
:
The question reminded me of the prayer of St Richard (of Chichester):
Thanks be to you, our Lord Jesus Christ,
for all the benefits which you have given us,
for all the pains and insults which you have borne for us.
Most merciful Redeemer, Friend and Brother,
may we know you more clearly,
love you more dearly,
and follow you more nearly,
day by day.
[ 09. November 2013, 15:04: Message edited by: Graham J ]
Posted by LeRoc (# 3216) on
:
Sign me up as another one who doesn't see why spiritual growth would have to be measurable.
quote:
SusanDoris: This is a really great question for atheists too, since spiritual growth, if one can define such a thing, is surely all aspects of the aesthetic side of life?
I agree (although I wouldn't use the word 'aesthetic' here, it sounds a bit limited in this context).
[ 09. November 2013, 15:18: Message edited by: LeRoc ]
Posted by SusanDoris (# 12618) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by LeRoc:
... wouldn't use the word 'aesthetic' here, it sounds a bit limited in this context).
Yes, I agree with that. However, over the last several years, I've never seen a single word or even short phrrase which will do instead.
I did hear an exchange between two people (on Radio 4) recently where one clearly had in mind only religious spirituality and the other a much wider idea of it.
Posted by LeRoc (# 3216) on
:
quote:
SusanDoris: However, over the last several years, I've never seen a single word or even short phrrase which will do instead.
Indeed, spirituality is hard to define. (I don't think that I'd want to try it here; we already had multi-page threads on the Ship trying to define it, without much result.)
Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Truman White:
Struth Evensong where do you start with a poser like that? Great question my lovely.
Personally prefer to talk about 'maturity' rather than 'growth'. Mike Breen has a nifty model for this. Talking about how we respond to Christian teaching he says we relate to it in three successive ways To begin with its like a picture - we have a good gander to see what's in the frame; then we're like a mirror as we see ourselves in the light of it, then we're like a window - as we live it out, other people see the Christ behind the teaching revealed in our own lives.
How's that sound for a starter?
I think that's very good. I like the progression from a sort of detached attitude, as in the picture, to a closer one - the mirror - but the window is an excellent metaphor for the bursting through the mirror to the reality.
I would relate this to the erosion of ego, or in more traditional language, self-abandonment, which permits the walls to come down which separate us from life, others, and God. However, it's a tough road!
Posted by W Hyatt (# 14250) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Evensong:
Can you measure it?
The ability to measure something is inversely proportional to its value. (Not universally, but often true in a general way.)
Posted by Jammy Dodger (# 17872) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by W Hyatt:
The ability to measure something is inversely proportional to its value. (Not universally, but often true in a general way.)
Is there a sort of spiritual growth version of the Heisenburg Uncertainty principle then?
But we aren't talking about any form of objective or absolute measure anyway are we? Isn't this about: I'm more patient/considerate to others/aware of God than I was last month/year/decade? We are just aware of behaving or reacting differently to things that we might've done before?
Posted by W Hyatt (# 14250) on
:
Yes, that is what it's about. I'm with LeRoc: why try to measure the growth? As long as I know which direction I'm supposed to be growing in and get enough feedback to keep me going, that's enough for me.
Posted by Chorister (# 473) on
:
I prefer the phrase 'spiritual development' to 'spiritual growth' - there would be something wrong if one's spiritual awareness and understanding stayed exactly the same throughout the whole of life. If there is evidence of some sort of change, then you are developing in any number of different ways, which cannot be prescribed in advance.
Posted by South Coast Kevin (# 16130) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Evensong:
Spiritual growth is a topic that often comes up in religio-spiritual circles.
What is spiritual growth?
Can you measure it? If so, how?
If you can't measure it, how do you know it is growth?
In the Christian context, I'd say at least a starting point for a discussion / definition of spiritual growth would reference the fruit of the Spirit as in Galatians 5:22-23. If someone is being more loving, joyful, peaceful etc. then they are growing spiritually. I think there's far more to it, but this seems a good place to start.
Posted by Palimpsest (# 16772) on
:
I would expect the change caused by spiritual growth to be qualitative rather than quantitative.
I suppose those who believe in the miracles of saints or rabbis might try to count signs and wonders, but even there I think the tradition is that they are unique and the quality is what you're supposed to contemplate.
Posted by EtymologicalEvangelical (# 15091) on
:
Concerning the concept of measuring spiritual growth...
Some years ago I attended an Anglican Church, which tried (vainly, in my view) to market itself as the lively charismatic Anglican church of the town. One year most of the congregation worked through a course (I think it was one devised by Tony Higton called "Called to Serve"), and it culminated in a dedication service. Some time prior to the service, one of the elders of the church (yes, we had elders!) voiced the idea that "it would be good if everyone who wished to commit themselves to God afresh would stand up during the service, so that we could see who they are..." Of course, what he meant was: "...so that we can see who doesn't stand up."
Thankfully he relented and people just dedicated themselves silently while seated. But it made me think how some church leaders just love to find ways to grade Christians according to their perceived commitment. I generally like to run a mile from such characters. It's frankly none of their bloody business where I am with God, unless my position before God has some direct detrimental influence on the church. In the absence of that, they can take a hike, as far as I am concerned.
One thing I am pretty sure about is this: any Christian who goes on about how wholehearted and committed he is to Christ, is not really wholehearted at all. If he were, he would not go on about it, because he would not be thinking about himself at all, but seeking to serve others in humility and grace.
[ 09. November 2013, 21:17: Message edited by: EtymologicalEvangelical ]
Posted by W Hyatt (# 14250) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by EtymologicalEvangelical:
I generally like to run a mile from such characters.
But have you ever measured how fast you run? Otherwise, how are we supposed to know exactly how much you dislike them? ![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
Posted by Latchkey Kid (# 12444) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by W Hyatt:
Yes, that is what it's about. I'm with LeRoc: why try to measure the growth? As long as I know which direction I'm supposed to be growing in and get enough feedback to keep me going, that's enough for me.
I think that knowing a direction and knowing if you are going in that direction is measurement itself, or at least judgment.
If we take the Galatians list "But the fruit of the Spirit is love, joy, peace, forbearance, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, gentleness and self-control" then we are provided with a nominal measurement scale (I am not saying that love, joy, peace etc are the only possible spiritual attributes).
There are also ordinal, interval and ratio scales. These can be combined to form complex measures.
E.g we can know whether kindness exists (nominal) and for ourselves we might want to know if we are kinder than we once were so we might rank a spiritual attribute as W Hyatt seems to be doing.
I am used to a four point ranking scale for judgement which for e.g. kindness would be:
No kindness
Some kindness
Much kindness
Complete kindness
Of course, it is a value judgment as to the comparative values of spiritual virtues. Rabbi Lionel Blue said that if he was asked to pick one above all others, the he would choose generosity of spirit, because without generosity of spirit he does not believe in any of the rest.
This would make a complex measurement where e.g. forbearance and self-control did not count unless there was generosity of spirit present.
Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on
:
I think it's more complex than that. For example, there are people with a false kindness, which is a kind of act or mask. Then, for them, to stop being kind, might be spiritual progress. Or for some people, I think going into a period of emptiness can be spiritual progress. But the crucial word here is 'can'; for others, it might not be.
Posted by Latchkey Kid (# 12444) on
:
Agreed.
I wasn't proposing the measurement system, but an approach to how one could be created.
Posted by W Hyatt (# 14250) on
:
I agree that knowing a direction and knowing if you are going in that direction is at least judgment, but I still have to ask why even try to measure something like spiritual growth? Even if you could establish a reasonable framework or approach, why would you? It seems to me that the very act of figuring out such an approach would immediately start missing the essential point.
You mention as an example that we might want to know if we are kinder than we once were, but I'm not sure why I would want to know even that. All I really want or need to know is how I can be kinder than I currently am. Beyond that, any comparison of how kind I am now to how kind I was in the past starts to make it about me rather than about the people around me who I can be kind to.
Of course, being imperfect, I realize that I need to feel some amount of pride or satisfaction in my own progress in order to be motivated to continue. But my goal should be to get past my need for such "aids" rather than to reinforce it by trying measuring my progress.
Posted by Latchkey Kid (# 12444) on
:
Well, apart from the nominal attributes I quoted above there is also the Gal 6 passage "Brothers and sisters, if a person is discovered in some sin, you who are spiritual restore such a person in a spirit of gentleness. Pay close attention to yourselves, so that you are not tempted too" which requires at least determining the existence of spirituality in some way.
Also, one of my Spiritual Care functions is nurturing spiritual growth which indicates that one should at least know what could nurture spiritual growth and implies that the growth could be observed in some way.
Posted by W Hyatt (# 14250) on
:
Maybe it's a matter of connotation, but to me, "measure" implies far more than knowing what could nurture spiritual growth or observing it in some way (both of which sound great to me). In particular, "measure" implies to me establishing some objective scale for the sake of comparison, both of which sound to me like missing the essential point.
Posted by Galilit (# 16470) on
:
Well you can do various kinds of brain scan which give you images of the regions of the brain which are lighting up (or not) - ie are active (or not) - when a person is in meditation/prayer.
This has been done for years (with increasing detail as technology and understanding develope).
I don't know how you might access (let alone interpret!) that info to monitor your own progress though...
Posted by Jade Constable (# 17175) on
:
It's not exactly answering the question and possibly a bit simplistic - but I do think the Ship is a good example of spiritual development by the restlessness of it. I think being spiritually restless is essential to spiritual development, and it should be at least a bit uncomfortable - no growing without growing pains.
Posted by Galloping Granny (# 13814) on
:
A quote from Thomas Merton that I was happy to share from a friend's facebook page: "If the you of five years ago doesn't consider the you of today a heretic, you are not growing spiritually."
GG
Posted by Jammy Dodger (# 17872) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Jade Constable:
It's not exactly answering the question and possibly a bit simplistic - but I do think the Ship is a good example of spiritual development by the restlessness of it. I think being spiritually restless is essential to spiritual development, and it should be at least a bit uncomfortable - no growing without growing pains.
Good point. A "healthy dissatisfaction with the present" is an important incentive for change and growth. No matter how mature a Christian we are surely there is always room for more development and growth?
Posted by irish_lord99 (# 16250) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by South Coast Kevin:
quote:
Originally posted by Evensong:
Spiritual growth is a topic that often comes up in religio-spiritual circles.
What is spiritual growth?
Can you measure it? If so, how?
If you can't measure it, how do you know it is growth?
In the Christian context, I'd say at least a starting point for a discussion / definition of spiritual growth would reference the fruit of the Spirit as in Galatians 5:22-23. If someone is being more loving, joyful, peaceful etc. then they are growing spiritually. I think there's far more to it, but this seems a good place to start.
I would agree with that, and add that one is also more able to describe the condition of one's own soul the more one grows spiritually.
I have friends, good Christian friends, who exhibit many of the fruits of the spirit; but, while they can talk for a good thirty minutes about how things are at work, or how their car is running, or how their family is, etc. if you ask them how their soul is, the answer is either a confused look or a simple "fine."
Posted by LeRoc (# 3216) on
:
quote:
irish_lord99: I have friends, good Christian friends, who exhibit many of the fruits of the spirit; but, while they can talk for a good thirty minutes about how things are at work, or how their car is running, or how their family is, etc. if you ask them how their soul is, the answer is either a confused look or a simple "fine."
I wouldn't know the answer to that one either.
Posted by Pancho (# 13533) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Galloping Granny:
A quote from Thomas Merton that I was happy to share from a friend's facebook page: "If the you of five years ago doesn't consider the you of today a heretic, you are not growing spiritually."
GG
Does anybody know the source of this Merton quotation? I found this but it says it's paraphrased and doesn't give a source. None of the other links I've found on the net give a source either, and none seem to be older than a couple of months.
Even if it is an authentic Merton quotation it's a remarkably absurd thing to say. If you're always supposed to be a heretic to the you of five years ago you could just as easily be regressing as you could be progressing, or simply flip-flopping every five years, or running around in circles, or chasing the latest fad.
Posted by South Coast Kevin (# 16130) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by irish_lord99:
I have friends, good Christian friends, who exhibit many of the fruits of the spirit; but, while they can talk for a good thirty minutes about how things are at work, or how their car is running, or how their family is, etc. if you ask them how their soul is, the answer is either a confused look or a simple "fine."
Yes, and I think this is something of a tragedy. We should be fluent (or at least becoming increasingly fluent!) in talking about our inner being, our emotions, our journey of faith. I wonder - could be way off beam here - if, on the whole, women would be able to answer that 'how is your soul' question more readily...
Posted by Jade Constable (# 17175) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by South Coast Kevin:
quote:
Originally posted by irish_lord99:
I have friends, good Christian friends, who exhibit many of the fruits of the spirit; but, while they can talk for a good thirty minutes about how things are at work, or how their car is running, or how their family is, etc. if you ask them how their soul is, the answer is either a confused look or a simple "fine."
Yes, and I think this is something of a tragedy. We should be fluent (or at least becoming increasingly fluent!) in talking about our inner being, our emotions, our journey of faith. I wonder - could be way off beam here - if, on the whole, women would be able to answer that 'how is your soul' question more readily...
Talking about the state of one's soul is not very British....
Re women, maybe, but the whole women = emotional and talkative thing is from men's talk being considered serious while women's conversations are considered emotional aka silly and frivolous. So I'm not sure that's a stereotype that's worth upholding.
Having been to various women's events in the church (which I am not massively comfortable with, not being anything like the vast majority of other women at these things - at least not in evangelical circles) women are socialised into a different role in many churches anyway. Women having fewer (or no) opportunities to lead church events and services means that they are better at doing casual talks, Bible studies etc, which IME makes for more effective discussion about the state of one's soul. But unless you're with nuns, this is mostly reserved for evangelicals with significant American influences (do any evangelicals now escape American influences?).
Posted by Evensong (# 14696) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by LeRoc:
quote:
irish_lord99: I have friends, good Christian friends, who exhibit many of the fruits of the spirit; but, while they can talk for a good thirty minutes about how things are at work, or how their car is running, or how their family is, etc. if you ask them how their soul is, the answer is either a confused look or a simple "fine."
I wouldn't know the answer to that one either.
Bingo. Me neither.
The "state of ones soul" transcends both emotion and intellect IMV.
Posted by Evensong (# 14696) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Truman White:
Struth Evensong where do you start with a poser like that? Great question my lovely.
Personally prefer to talk about 'maturity' rather than 'growth'. Mike Breen has a nifty model for this. Talking about how we respond to Christian teaching he says we relate to it in three successive ways To begin with its like a picture - we have a good gander to see what's in the frame; then we're like a mirror as we see ourselves in the light of it, then we're like a window - as we live it out, other people see the Christ behind the teaching revealed in our own lives.
How's that sound for a starter?
Would you say that people that are not Christlike have not grown spiritually then?
The model you suggest implies spiritual growth = Christlikeness.
Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by LeRoc:
quote:
irish_lord99: I have friends, good Christian friends, who exhibit many of the fruits of the spirit; but, while they can talk for a good thirty minutes about how things are at work, or how their car is running, or how their family is, etc. if you ask them how their soul is, the answer is either a confused look or a simple "fine."
I wouldn't know the answer to that one either.
If someone asked me how my soul was, my reply would be short, pithy and Anglo-Saxon. That is for me to know, and you to shut up about. Cue references to the sealed hermetic vessel, blah blah blah. Basically means that such stuff is not to be bandied about in the market-place.
I used to tell clients not to talk about their dreams to everybody; it's bad for the soul!
Posted by South Coast Kevin (# 16130) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Evensong:
The model you suggest implies spiritual growth = Christlikeness.
Conformity to Christ; living by the Spirit (of Christ / God) and not by the flesh; letting God transform / renew us; exhibiting the fruit of the Spirit, not the fruit of the sinful nature - is there any argument over the proposal that spiritual growth = Christlikeness?
I fully acknowledge that what is Christlikeness in any given situation or circumstance may not be obvious, but I can't see how one can argue with the basic premise that spiritual growth is equivalent to a life of greater conformity to Christ...
Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on
:
Except that many spiritual people are not Christians! One of my oldest friends was a Sufi, who has unfortunately recently died; his spiritual development used to astound me, and was far ahead of most people that I know.
Posted by Ad Orientem (# 17574) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by South Coast Kevin:
quote:
Originally posted by Evensong:
The model you suggest implies spiritual growth = Christlikeness.
Conformity to Christ; living by the Spirit (of Christ / God) and not by the flesh; letting God transform / renew us; exhibiting the fruit of the Spirit, not the fruit of the sinful nature - is there any argument over the proposal that spiritual growth = Christlikeness?
I fully acknowledge that what is Christlikeness in any given situation or circumstance may not be obvious, but I can't see how one can argue with the basic premise that spiritual growth is equivalent to a life of greater conformity to Christ...
Agreed.
Posted by South Coast Kevin (# 16130) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
Except that many spiritual people are not Christians! One of my oldest friends was a Sufi, who has unfortunately recently died; his spiritual development used to astound me, and was far ahead of most people that I know.
Aha, sorry - I was answering the question 'what is Christian spiritual growth?'. Which wasn't actually the question, so my bad.
quote:
Originally posted by Jade Constable:
Women having fewer (or no) opportunities to lead church events and services means that they are better at doing casual talks, Bible studies etc, which IME makes for more effective discussion about the state of one's soul. But unless you're with nuns, this is mostly reserved for evangelicals with significant American influences (do any evangelicals now escape American influences?).
Hmm, that's interesting. I don't think it applies to my church (but you'd have to ask the women to be sure!) so I hadn't really considered it as an issue. I do agree, though, that events and activities other than main (i.e. typically Sunday) services are better for getting into the more personal / intimate discussions about how we're really getting on.
Posted by Evensong (# 14696) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
Except that many spiritual people are not Christians! One of my oldest friends was a Sufi, who has unfortunately recently died; his spiritual development used to astound me, and was far ahead of most people that I know.
On what basis did you judge his spiritual growth?
Posted by Galilit (# 16470) on
:
If I was asked as to the state of my soul
I would talk about my Practice, Affiliations (church and theological) and Praxis.
I think our growth is neurological and chemical. It is to some degree measureable by "science" (as well as when people look at us and catch glimpses of something admirable).
It is developed by training. So everyone can "grow" from where they are. That said - like with music and art - some people are naturally gifted and their nature makes them want to take it further.
I have all my life felt my religious urge comes from "inside somewhere" and I have been pleased to read of the developments in Brain Science in the last 20 years or so which are trying to really quantify (or at least "image") this.
Posted by Evensong (# 14696) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Ad Orientem:
quote:
Originally posted by South Coast Kevin:
quote:
Originally posted by Evensong:
The model you suggest implies spiritual growth = Christlikeness.
Conformity to Christ; living by the Spirit (of Christ / God) and not by the flesh; letting God transform / renew us; exhibiting the fruit of the Spirit, not the fruit of the sinful nature - is there any argument over the proposal that spiritual growth = Christlikeness?
I fully acknowledge that what is Christlikeness in any given situation or circumstance may not be obvious, but I can't see how one can argue with the basic premise that spiritual growth is equivalent to a life of greater conformity to Christ...
Agreed.
Can either of you define Christlikeness besides the fruit of the spirit? Or are they sufficient?
Posted by South Coast Kevin (# 16130) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Evensong:
Can either of you define Christlikeness besides the fruit of the spirit? Or are they sufficient?
Well, in the Sermon on the Mount Jesus explains how life will be when people are fully following his ways - we'll respond to insults with blessing and not cursing in return; we'll seek reconciliation; we won't look at people with the intention of lusting for them; we'll do good deeds regardless of whether anyone is watching. Someone who is increasingly living like this is growing in (Christian) spirituality, I'd say.
Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Evensong:
quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
Except that many spiritual people are not Christians! One of my oldest friends was a Sufi, who has unfortunately recently died; his spiritual development used to astound me, and was far ahead of most people that I know.
On what basis did you judge his spiritual growth?
Well, his capacity for love, which exceeded anything I have ever met; his insights into religious and spiritual questions; his openness to life and others; and other stuff, which is private really, I mean private to him.
Posted by Cara (# 16966) on
:
I've just re-read Herman Hesse's Siddartha, a beautiful portrayal of (slow, difficult) spiritual growth. Culminating in Siddartha's being able to see the unity of everything, and love as the be-all and end-all. Which gives him a deep wisdom, kindness, ability to listen, humility, etc.
Posted by Galilit (# 16470) on
:
Yes. Absolutely.
I re-read it recently after Soldier Son brought it home in translation.
That is what I meant way up-thread about Buddhism being better on growth and stages than Christianity. Perhaps the evo phenomenon of "testimony" is as close as it gets.
[ 13. November 2013, 16:38: Message edited by: Galilit ]
Posted by Jammy Dodger (# 17872) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by South Coast Kevin:
We should be fluent (or at least becoming increasingly fluent!) in talking about our inner being, our emotions, our journey of faith.
Sort of like this then...?
quote:
1 Cor 2:13
This is what we speak, not in words taught us by human wisdomi but in words taught by the Spirit, explaining spiritual realities with Spirit-taught words.
So if we are growing in Christlikeness/fruit of the Spirit then shouldn't that affect our language, shouldn't we have language to articulate what is going on spiritually?
Who said:
quote:
All change is linguistic
(it might be Peter Block) but I think the idea was that change finds it's root in finding different language to articulate and discuss the issue. So to grow spiritually do we need to have spiritual language to explain what is going on?
Posted by no prophet (# 15560) on
:
I probably could have answered this more satisfactorily about 5 or 6 years ago. Before we had a whole bunch of death and random really bad things happen. Before the fan was hit. Hard.
Before I learned a few really hard lessons poignantly and as crisply as if I was lying on the ground bleeding to death myself, in a pool of blood, colder and colder, abandoned. Sadder and weaker but also awfully mad. Without a hint of God or Damn or anything. I have learned that there are things worse than my death. And that God probably is too busy or I'm too witless for either of us to 'get' the other. A shithead priest told me that's growth. But I have no idea, really. Maybe spiritual growth is realizing some priests are shitheads? And then I stopped being mad, and stopped feeling resigned. Stopped calling the priest names and started calling God names. And then stopped that too. And drifted a little less frequently into church. And drifted back. And wondered more.
So maybe spiritual growth is the path of life that just happens. It might involve church and people who tell you things that they think they know. But I doubt the people telling you part. It's probably mostly internal, with the connection being the ethersphere when a few of you get it and you're together. Even though no one can really say what it is. People call it all sorts of things, but I don't know that the people who say it's a miracle and the holy spirit really get it. Because they're getting something I don't get and I don't like. It's quieter than that. And I probably sound pretty stupid myself with this, what I'm about to post.
Posted by Evensong (# 14696) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Cara:
I've just re-read Herman Hesse's Siddartha, a beautiful portrayal of (slow, difficult) spiritual growth. Culminating in Siddartha's being able to see the unity of everything, and love as the be-all and end-all. Which gives him a deep wisdom, kindness, ability to listen, humility, etc.
quote:
Originally posted by Galilit:
Yes. Absolutely.
I re-read it recently after Soldier Son brought it home in translation.
That is what I meant way up-thread about Buddhism being better on growth and stages than Christianity.
If spiritual growth for a Christian is growing into Christlikeness (fruits of the spirit and beautitudes as SCK has described) is spiritual growth for Buddhists the same thing then?
I don't know a great deal about Buddhism but my understanding is that it is about detachment from things that cause suffering in the world.
I was raised a Muslim (more the Sufi bent). Spiritual growth was often about surrender and acceptance: again different from what I perceive the Christian vocation to be.
I wonder if comparing Spiritual Growth between religions is not like comparing apples and oranges?
quote:
Originally posted by no prophet:
So maybe spiritual growth is the path of life that just happens. It might involve church and people who tell you things that they think they know. But I doubt the people telling you part. It's probably mostly internal, with the connection being the ethersphere when a few of you get it and you're together.
Very postmodern. Speaks to me.
Posted by South Coast Kevin (# 16130) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Jammy Dodger:
So to grow spiritually do we need to have spiritual language to explain what is going on?
Hmm, interesting. My first thought was 'Yes, of course we do' but perhaps that merely reflects my own nature and character. I mean, doesn't saying that we need spiritual language to grow spiritually kind of imply that spiritual growth is much harder for those who are not so eloquent or verbal in their thinking / learning preference?
I'd be surprised if this were the case; ISTM spiritual growth in the Christian sense should be more behavioural in nature - 'Imitate us as we imitate Christ', to quote Paul from I-can't-remember-where!
quote:
Originally posted by Evensong:
I wonder if comparing Spiritual Growth between religions is not like comparing apples and oranges?
Yeah, maybe so. I'm struggling to see how you can talk about spiritual growth in anything other than very broad, generic terms if you don't want to specify which religion you're talking about. It'd be like trying to talk about improving at a sport or game without specifying which one; possible up to a point but not very fruitful.
Going back to specifically Christian spiritual growth, I think a key thing that's often missed is that it's not about external conformity but rather internal transformation. Dallas Willard's writings on this are utterly brilliant, I think. He sets out how the twin tracks of Christian spiritual transformation are (a) growing in love of and devotion to God, and (b) breaking the habitual behaviour and thought patterns in our lives that get in the way of us doing what God would have us do.
So, just like practicing scales will help you play a musical instrument better, or doing shuttle runs will make you a better footballer, all the spiritual disciplines like celebration, fasting, service, prayer, solitude and so on, help us become better at living a God-pleasing life. Just like with any complicated task, we won't do very well if we just have a go and hope for the best!
Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Jammy Dodger:
quote:
Originally posted by South Coast Kevin:
We should be fluent (or at least becoming increasingly fluent!) in talking about our inner being, our emotions, our journey of faith.
Sort of like this then...?
quote:
1 Cor 2:13
This is what we speak, not in words taught us by human wisdomi but in words taught by the Spirit, explaining spiritual realities with Spirit-taught words.
So if we are growing in Christlikeness/fruit of the Spirit then shouldn't that affect our language, shouldn't we have language to articulate what is going on spiritually?
Who said:
quote:
All change is linguistic
(it might be Peter Block) but I think the idea was that change finds it's root in finding different language to articulate and discuss the issue. So to grow spiritually do we need to have spiritual language to explain what is going on?
Your last point is interesting. I have friends who are Sufis, Buddhists, Christians and atheists, and we seem to be able to talk about spiritual stuff, with some sort of common language. I suppose we often go outside the normal religious vocabulary to do that, although we use terms like 'dualism' and 'non-dualism' and of course, 'transcendence'.
So maybe there is a kind of Star Trek universal translator!
I still caution people about talking too much and too publicly about their inner self/soul, as I think it can be bad for you. The soul is a sanctuary, not a market place.
Posted by Cara (# 16966) on
:
I don't think comparing spiritual growth between religions is like comparing apples and oranges.
Seems to me that all the great sages and mystics of whatever religion end up saying much the same thing:
the divine permeates everything.
The divine is somehow within us.
All shall be well and all manner of thing shall be well.
We must let go of the concerns of the ego.
Everything is connected, there is a unity throughout the universe.
Love is the essence.
What interests me is how similar the great mystics sound, rather than how different.
Evensong, if you are from the Sufi tradition--doesn't Rumi sometimes sound like, I don't know, St John of the Cross???
(I know neither of these authors deeply though have read a bit of both, so please be gentle if this particular comparison is silly).
Siddartha of course was written by Hesse who himself grew up in a Presbyterian home (though had missionaries in his family and thus exposure to other cultures); but loved and studied transcendental Hindu and Buddhist beliefs.
Isn't the basic affinity between the messages of so many saints and mystics through the ages what drew people like Thomas Merton and Bede Griffith to Buddhism and Hinduism (respectively)?
Posted by Cara (# 16966) on
:
I cross-posted with quetzalcoatl.
Yes, a kind of universal language/affinity between those on different spiritual paths.
Surely they all lead to the same thing?
Posted by no prophet (# 15560) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Evensong:
quote:
Originally posted by no prophet:
So maybe spiritual growth is the path of life that just happens. It might involve church and people who tell you things that they think they know. But I doubt the people telling you part. It's probably mostly internal, with the connection being the ethersphere when a few of you get it and you're together.
Very postmodern. Speaks to me.
Post modern? I wonder. I think the early church before it got allied with government and political power probably felt like this. There's also something to the Psalms in this regard. Perhaps I don't know what post modernism is (?)
Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Cara:
I cross-posted with quetzalcoatl.
Yes, a kind of universal language/affinity between those on different spiritual paths.
Surely they all lead to the same thing?
I like your list of things, such as 'the divine permeates everything'. Yes, I think it's quite easy to talk to people from a different tradition, provided one has good will, and one is willing to look for a kind of shared vocabulary. One can in fact use ordinary English, or whatever language one is using!
Another theme which has struck me as pervasive is self-abandonment, or the relinquishing of ego.
Well, one can go off into huge amounts of discussion here, concerning the self/other duality, the possible unification of reality in the mystical vision, God as Other as against God as One, and so on.
My old Sufi friend was quite inspiring really, but he has gone to join the Beloved, from which he had never been separated in fact.
A similar Buddhist image is that one eventually crosses the river, to be on that side, which one had never left! And Eliot says something very similar, 'the end of all our exploring is to arrive where we started, and know the place for the first time'.
And yet we did know it, but kind of forgot!
Posted by Evensong (# 14696) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by South Coast Kevin:
quote:
Originally posted by Evensong:
I wonder if comparing Spiritual Growth between religions is not like comparing apples and oranges?
Yeah, maybe so. I'm struggling to see how you can talk about spiritual growth in anything other than very broad, generic terms if you don't want to specify which religion you're talking about. It'd be like trying to talk about improving at a sport or game without specifying which one; possible up to a point but not very fruitful.
I quite like this analogy of sport. And this is where "evidence" comes in. I think the "fruits of the spirit" might be different depending on religions or philosophies.
quote:
Originally posted by Cara:
I don't think comparing spiritual growth between religions is like comparing apples and oranges.
Seems to me that all the great sages and mystics of whatever religion end up saying much the same thing:
the divine permeates everything.
The divine is somehow within us.
All shall be well and all manner of thing shall be well.
We must let go of the concerns of the ego.
Everything is connected, there is a unity throughout the universe.
Love is the essence.
What interests me is how similar the great mystics sound, rather than how different.
I agree that mysticism in religions is easier to find common ground. I wouldn't say Christianity agrees with the idea that the "divine permeates everything" tho. Evil most certainly exists and is not of God. Augustine spoke of evil as the absence of God.
quote:
Originally posted by Cara:
Evensong, if you are from the Sufi tradition--doesn't Rumi sometimes sound like, I don't know, St John of the Cross???
(I know neither of these authors deeply though have read a bit of both, so please be gentle if this particular comparison is silly).
Having grown up in mystical Islam I never did much reading on it. I only started reading when I became a Christian. Having said that I've studiously avoided Christian mystics because my spiritual journey took me away from mysticism and into concrete life here on earth. Christianity has been wonderfully helpful in this regard: incarnate God and all
quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
Another theme which has struck me as pervasive is self-abandonment, or the relinquishing of ego.
Yes. This I can kind of agree with.
And yet relinquishment of ego was considered passive submission when I was a kid. Only when I became a Christian did it suddenly become more about doing stuff and being active in the world for others.
But then again, perhaps that's the difference between the mystic and the more real world spiritual growth.
Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on
:
I think that letting go of ego can lead to spontaneity and love and openness to life. So it is all quite paradoxical; you could argue that being passive is utterly egotistic, since it's a kind of suppression.
Posted by Evensong (# 14696) on
:
<scratches head thinking>
Posted by rolyn (# 16840) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Evensong:
<scratches head thinking>
The itching thread is located in Hell ES ![[Biased]](wink.gif)
Posted by rolyn (# 16840) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
I think that letting go of ego can lead to spontaneity and love and openness to life. So it is all quite paradoxical; you could argue that being passive is utterly egotistic, since it's a kind of suppression.
Are we then talking about 'good' ego and 'bad' ego . Using one's ego in order to behave passively surely has to be a good thing, as aggression usually means others getting hurt one way or another.
OK maybe it is a kind of suppression , but given time I wonder if the brain adjusts to the habit of passive behaviour .
Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on
:
The ego is a tool, which you can use for good or ill. I suppose Christianity normally doesn't discuss it; whereas Eastern religions discuss it a lot, under the name of 'dualism' or some such.
But most forms of mysticism have some kind of discussion of dualism, and then non-dualism, which can refer to transcendence, that is, the whole, or the One.
I suppose it's also talked about in relation to attachment, letting go, deidentifying, separation, alienation, and so on. But it's impossible to grasp this stuff intellectually. Im Anfang war die Tat - in the beginning was the deed (Goethe). Or, you have to get your hands dirty.
Posted by Evensong (# 14696) on
:
Christian discussion of ego stands around "take up your cross and follow me" or " unless a grain of wheat falls into the earth and dies, it remains just a single grain; but if it dies, it bears much fruit " or " those who want to save their life will lose it, and those who lose their life for my sake will find it"
Self-transcendence.
Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on
:
Yes, it reminds me of the Zen saying, die before you die, which is a summary of various ideas about dying to the self.
Also found in Rumi:
O Generous Ones,
Die before you die,
even as I have died before death
and brought this reminder from Beyond.
And some mystics have pointed out that in fact we all do this many times in a day, just those ignored and inconsequential moments when you weren't really acting the part of you.
In fact, some people on meditation retreats just notice these moments, and have a blissful awakening, well, they appear to.
[ 17. November 2013, 09:49: Message edited by: quetzalcoatl ]
Posted by Galilit (# 16470) on
:
Yes, I just did down by the Shore.
The little waves regular lapping on the stones and the play of sunlight on the water shut up monkey-mind very effectively.
Posted by Raptor Eye (# 16649) on
:
If we take 'Thy will be done' seriously, we yield 'my will be done'. The ego must slip to conform.
Someone told me that if I stop thinking about how I'm coming across, I might begin to consider how the one I'm speaking to feels, and how God may be invited into the conversation. If I reach that place, will I have grown spiritually?
Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on
:
Have any of us reached that place, Raptor Eye? I haven't ...
© Ship of Fools 2016
UBB.classicTM
6.5.0