|
Source: (consider it)
|
Thread: The Reformed Criticism of Spirituality
|
Jengie jon
Semper Reformanda
# 273
|
Posted
You will find it hard to trace books on Reformed Spirituality. I think I have most of them on my book shelf about a dozen or so. Even then the people who write them often spend quite a lot of time writing about why they think they are justified in writing a Reformed Spirituality.
quote:
Howard Rice says
There is a particularly deeply embedded resistance to spirituality among those churches within the denominational tradition called Reformed (Reformed Spirituality pg9)
What is odd about this is if you look historically for "Piety" you will find that Reformed writers have written lots. For a theological system that believes in salvation by faith alone, we have written a huge number of books on how to live the pious Christian life.
Now we do not think Piety is a synonym for Spirituality however they are related. If you go to books on Piety you will topics on roll of prayer, Bible reading and so forth. However, what you will also see is concern about moral behaviour, social justice and general Christian conduct.
What the concern is that Spirituality appears to be piety shorn of the interaction with these wider aspects of the Christian faith. For us devotional practices are only good when they lead to an ongoing change in the behaviour of the individual that conforms them more to the will of God. After all according to John Jesus said "If you love me you will obey my commandments" (John 14:15). Loving God is, for the Reformed, intimately connected with how we care for fellow human beings and how we behave as ourselves.
We tend to view spirituality, devotion and such separated from these behavioural changes, as individualistic, self-indulgent crap.
quote:
David Cornick says
The danger for the Christian Theologian after Einstein is that 'spirituality' might be cast from its ethical and political moorings into the sphere of pure interiority (Letting God be God, pg14)
Now I have seen far too many Reformed Christians faith become thin because they have concentrated too much on the practical and mental aspects of faith rather than the devotional. I do not want to go down that line either but I believe that the discussion of the intended outcome is at least as important as the discussion of how to.
Here are the questions:
- Can Spirituality be validly practiced without concern for the practical implications of the faith?
- What is the relationship between Spirituality and practical implications?
- How do you defend Spirituality against the accusations of Self-indulgence and individualism?
Jengie
--------------------
"To violate a persons ability to distinguish fact from fantasy is the epistemological equivalent of rape." Noretta Koertge
Back to my blog
Posts: 20894 | From: city of steel, butterflies and rainbows | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
IngoB
Sentire cum Ecclesia
# 8700
|
Posted
The are multiple things going on there. But the lynchpin is the requirement of "behavioural change". Now, if my behaviour changes from eating toast to eating cereal for breakfast, this is unlikely to make an impression. So it is specific changes of behaviour that are intended here, only certain types of behaviour count for this discussion. I think if we first talk about what types count, then much of the scepticism about prayer simply evaporates. Basically, I'm going to argue this: If your view on what behaviour counts is exceedingly narrow, then you will end up with an exceedingly narrow conception of what sort of prayer is "allowed" (is "not a waste of time"). If your view is wide, then you will be much more generous concerning that.
I think a good starting point is to say that prayer should lead to a virtuous life. But what are the virtues? Traditionally, Christianity has identified
Seven virtues
Theological virtues
- Faith
- Hope
- Charity
Cardinal virtues
- Prudence
- Justice
- Fortitude / Courage
- Temperance / Moderation
Of these virtues, in my experience only charity - and practical charity at that - seems to get highlighted by many. Now, clearly nobody would wish to speak against practical charity as such. If you are feeding the hungry, then this is virtuous and pleasing to God, and if prayer motivates you to do so, then it is good prayer. But neither is charity limited to this, nor is this the only virtue we should consider.
Is it not good prayer that strengthens one's faith in God? Is it not a practical outcome if prayer helps one to approach life with hope, in this life and for salvation? Is there no value to prayer shaping prudence, rendering decision making more intelligent and wise? Do we not wish for prayer that brings greater justice to the world? How about prayer that allows one to face the hardships of life with courage, is that not good? And what about prayer that helps one to moderate one's lifestyle, do we not need this now more than ever given the abundance of food, drink and goods?
If we take consider the entirety of virtuous life, then facile judgements of people's behaviour changes and consequently of their prayers become impossible. Who is going to rip the rosary out of the hand of someone going into a life-threatening operation? Yes, maybe this is prayer used merely as a means to remain courageous and hopeful in the face of an imminent threat to one's life. Yes, maybe no neighbours were being helped directly in the process (though one would expect that family, friends and medical personnel appreciate the change). Maybe this is just a crutch. But if it keeps one virtuous, then in my book this helps us stay on the straight and narrow. Again, so you see some person doing nothing but attending your church services and conclude that their prayer must be worthless. What do you know? Perhaps their faith is weak and their hope for salvation is poor, and their prayer is a continuous battle to stay with God. Maybe the angelic and demonic hosts are locked into struggle over this one soul, whose eventual salvation will make all of heaven rejoice. What do you know, I say!
But let us now return to the virtue of charity, which tends to be the only virtue wheeled out in such discussions. The first thing to say is that charity is deeper than just visible do-gooding. The person who by rights could have made demands on someone, but decides to let it slide - that is charity informing justice, grace perfecting nature. Where is your behavioural bookkeeping on that, how do you trace such subtle changes that may well be due to an active prayer life?
And then finally, we have practical charity, the only thing that tends to be judged in terms of virtuous performance because it is so easy for the moral accountants to keep track of. Well, as it happens even here people usually forget a full 50% percent of what should be taken into account. For there are two kinds of practical charity, or as these are commonly called
Works of mercy
Corporeal works of mercy
- To feed the hungry
- To give drink to the thirsty
- To clothe the naked
- To harbour the harbourless
- To visit the sick
- To ransom the captive
- To bury the dead
Spiritual works of mercy
- To instruct the ignorant
- To counsel the doubtful
- To admonish sinners
- To bear wrongs patiently
- To forgive offences willingly
- To comfort the afflicted
- To pray for the living and the dead
The spiritual ones are now commonly forgotten, or even considered as problematic if not immoral. Instructing the ignorant, oh my, oh my... Still, these are just as important, but much less easy to account for. Who is going to run around and count all the kind and helpful words someone may speak? Or even more controversially, who is going to evaluate what counts as charitable admonishment of sinners? Yet what if prayer stands behind all these? Does it not count?
A lot of other things could be said about this, in particular about the value of prayer as such, about it be pleasing to God as prayer. Perhaps the most important behavioural change prayer induces is that we in fact pray. But the main point I wanted to make here is that if we have a wide and open perspective on the virtuous life and indeed even practical charity, then an easy condemnation of this or that prayer as "useless" is not to be had. For that would require us to evaluate the heart and not just bookkeep the do-gooding. Yet that is a matter for God alone.
--------------------
They’ll have me whipp’d for speaking true; thou’lt have me whipp’d for lying; and sometimes I am whipp’d for holding my peace. - The Fool in King Lear
Posts: 12010 | From: Gone fishing | Registered: Oct 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
mark_in_manchester
not waving, but...
# 15978
|
Posted
Ingo - your post is as encouraging regarding narrow judgements made against the self, as it is properly cautioning regarding judgements made against others.
You're (I think I remember) an academic. When I taught, the majority of students I counselled on the point of despair were in the 'Oh God, my efforts are worthless' camp, which I found easy to identify with. In such cases, something like your approach above was often helpful. 'OK, X is not going well. But you have made quite good progress in Y and Z. Can we be strategic about this? Maybe let X slip for a little and come back to it? Perhaps direct your electives away from X-ey fields for the time being' etc etc. In other words, be properly broad about what was happening, and focus on what is positive (or virtuous!).
A (fortunately) rare few had the opposite affliction. 'I'm bloody great in Y and Z, and X too I reckon, but that bloody paper was b*llshit. I demand to see my marked script, and for you to justify my fail grade'.
In such cases there's a self-indulgence - an improper self-valuation which hinders personal growth. I could do the same regarding the genuine encouragement I expressed in my first sentence. 'I'm a shit because I have given up visiting ** in the old-folks home' may be true, and perhaps damages me in some way (hinders prayer, holds back hope). I can be encouraged because maybe prayer is building virtue in me in other ways, as you have suggested. But perhaps I just need to start those f*cking visits again, God help me.
To the right sort of person, 'the spiritual' offers such wriggle room that self-indulgence perhaps does become a trap, as JJ suggests.
OK, that's a mess but I have to collect my kids from school. I hope it makes some sense.
[ 10. September 2014, 14:13: Message edited by: mark_in_manchester ]
--------------------
"We are punished by our sins, not for them" - Elbert Hubbard
(so good, I wanted to see it after my posts and not only after those of shipmate JBohn from whom I stole it)
Posts: 1596 | Registered: Oct 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
IngoB
Sentire cum Ecclesia
# 8700
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by mark_in_manchester:
OK, that's a mess but I have to collect my kids from school. I hope it makes some sense.
Sure, but I would question that even this indicates that spirituality (prayer) is self-indulgent. This is simply over-loading prayer with other agendas, which is what I briefly referred to in the last paragraph of my previous post. (Whereas most of my previous post suggested that the usual evaluations of one's behaviour are insufficient.)
To make an analogy, let us say that I have to wash the dishes and mow the lawn. For whatever reason, I diligently wash the dishes but slack off concerning the lawn. Is it then reasonable to say that my washing dishes is self-indulgent? No, it is not. Rather it is exactly that part of my life where I managed to not be self-indulgent! Of course, it would be nice if the discipline of washing dishes somehow inspired me to also get going about the lawn. But nobody would castigate me for washing the dishes all wrong because it doesn't lead to me mowing the lawn, that's just nonsense.
But there is this idea that prayer must lead to me doing all sorts of other things. (Again, usually only corporeal works of mercy get any mention there, but I've discussed this problem above already.) This means that prayer is not considered as a key religious duty (as it is), much less as a primary expression of one's relationship to God (as it is), but it turns prayer into a kind of "receiving commands" session, or perhaps a "reforming one's character" session. If a solider comes out of a briefing and doesn't follow his orders, then things went wrong. If a patient comes out of treatment by a shrink and doesn't behave normally, then things went wrong. Similarly, the idea is that if one finishes prayer and does not perform specific Christian duties, then things went wrong.
That's not entirely false, but there is just no respect there for prayer as prayer, for it being a work of faith in and by itself, of being the very locus of our time in this world with God. Again, of course nobody can speak against prayer that does inspire us to "do visible good". That's fantastic. But that does not mean that we can turn this around and say that this is all that prayer is about. Neither can we simply project whatever failures we may have in doing good on spirituality, as if it is our spirituality which decides what we do. Rather, we decide to pray and we decide to act.
Practically speaking, if you say something like "I have been terrible at doing X, so I will pray about it, and then become good at X" then I will put my money on you not only failing to do X, but becoming frustrated and likely praying less. Full frontal attacks on issues rarely work. If all that was required for us to become good was that we command ourselves to be good, then this life would be easy. In my experience, serious issues that we have are usually well defended, and frontal attacks just run into these defences and are quickly defeated. Basically, what you would want to do is to sneak around these defences and weaken them from the inside. What you need is a Trojan horse. And prayer makes for an excellent Trojan horse, if you don't directly address your issues but instead try to enjoy your time with God and scripture. Hanging around with bad people increases your chances of being bad, hanging around with good people increases your chances of being good. The attitudes of others colour off, for we wish to belong. So hang out with God, and some of the Divine virtue will colour off on you eventually. For you will wish to belong. And that might just get you around the ramparts in your soul that you were never able to overcome...
--------------------
They’ll have me whipp’d for speaking true; thou’lt have me whipp’d for lying; and sometimes I am whipp’d for holding my peace. - The Fool in King Lear
Posts: 12010 | From: Gone fishing | Registered: Oct 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
mark_in_manchester
not waving, but...
# 15978
|
Posted
Thanks, that's thoughtful, and helpful.
quote:
But nobody would castigate me for washing the dishes all wrong because it doesn't lead to me mowing the lawn, that's just nonsense.
Actually, in my experience of family life, that kind of thing is not uncommon. Doing chores we may once have been foolish enough to admit to enjoying, whilst leaving undone those we're known to loathe, is a good way for me to lose marriage points. Of course it's unhealthy, and not what I'd expect of God if I thought about it - but metaphors (similes?!) from personal life can easily get imported into our ideas about God. The remedy of a healthier marriage as well as a healthier prayer-life sometimes looks Utopian!
quote:
That's not entirely false...Rather, we decide to pray and we decide to act.
I see you're not presenting prayer and action as entirely orthogonal (James springs to mind), but by decoupling them a little we might lessen our difficulties with the 'self-indulgence' of spirituality, by asking ourselves serious questions about 'did I pray' and 'did I act', separately. OK, this seems healthy. And to my shame I am unlikely to pray so much that I run into the hard constraint of sufficient time for action ![[Smile]](smile.gif)
--------------------
"We are punished by our sins, not for them" - Elbert Hubbard
(so good, I wanted to see it after my posts and not only after those of shipmate JBohn from whom I stole it)
Posts: 1596 | Registered: Oct 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
fullgospel
Shipmate
# 18233
|
Posted
This is a great thread - I really hope I can find it another time ! There is so much on this website.
I am glad to be here.
It's good to see the Works of Mercy and all.
--------------------
on the one hand - self doubt
on the other, the universe that looks through your eyes - your eyes
Posts: 364 | From: Rubovia | Registered: Sep 2014
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gamaliel
Shipmate
# 812
|
Posted
It's an interesting topic and a fascinating area to explore - for all sorts of reasons.
I'm not sure that we'd be able to carry out objective 'tests' to see whether the Reformed are any different to any other kind of Christians when it comes to practical outworkings of faith and spirituality - I'm sure we could find examples of faith in practice in the Reformed camp as well as elsewhere - and equally examples where it doesn't 'work out' quite so well among all Christian traditions.
I certainly don't see a lack of 'works of mercy' among Christians of a more Reformed persuasion ... there certainly isn't an attitude which says, 'I'm among the Elect, I'm saved by grace through faith so I'm alright Jack and the rest of the world can go to hell in a hand-cart ...'
I don't see much evidence of that at all, apart, perhaps from certain forms of hyper-Calvinist.
The 'self-indulgence' thing is a tricky one. Is it self-indulgent to have particular 'tastes' in spirituality - to be 'into' particular devotional expressions or admire particular forms of liturgy, architecture, music or whatever else?
This is an area where I think some of the Reformed get embarrassed. On the whole, the Reformed tend to favour wholesome fare and unadorned. So too much froth and frippery, gin, lace and iconography, bells and smellery etc tends to annoy them - although some of them do seem to 'get' those aspects to some extent.
I wouldn't say that the Reformed were entirely without an aesthetic sensibility when it comes to spirituality - it's just a different aesthetic - a more minimalist one.
So generalisations are difficult.
But these are difficult questions and they do go beyond questions of 'taste' and preference. How can any of us tell whether the way we express our faith and spirituality (and I'm always wary of that word because it can sound a bit hippy-dippy) - spiridewealidy - isn't self-indulgent and is actually having some kind of 'effect' - and how do we measure that effect?
Of course, the Gospels and other scriptures give us some clues and guidelines - it's not at all about outward show, for instance, practising our piety to be seen by men etc etc - we aren't to put religious ceremonial above 'practical' works of mercy etc - we aren't to be Pharisaical ...
How all or any of that works out in practice, I suppose, is going to depend on how faith and piety is expressed in whatever tradition we're in ...
We've all got our equivalents of the showy phylacteries ... be it showing off our ability to memorise Bible verses (without necessarily putting them into practice) or making a big deal of pettifogging liturgical niceties ... or whatever else.
I don't know about anyone else, but this is an area where I think it's hard to be any more prescriptive than agreement over broad principles and attitudes.
--------------------
Let us with a gladsome mind
Praise the Lord for He is kind.
http://philthebard.blogspot.com
Posts: 15997 | From: Cheshire, UK | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Jengie jon
Semper Reformanda
# 273
|
Posted
We are not without aesthetic sensibilities(yes that is me but it demonstrates the aesthetic pretty clearly). The aesthetic relies on the removal of distraction so what is important is clear.
There are not several things in the Reformed line you can trade off against one another, there is only one. James has much to say on those who just rely on faith and do not expect it to be relevant in their lives. Equally Reformed Christians are sceptical of Spirituality as being about creating warm feelings towards God without leading to the radical change of behaviour required by the gospel. It is not about preference it is about what occurs.
In this sense our questions are utilitarian. We know what we expect the Christian life to result in.
quote:
Man’s chief end is to glorify God, and to enjoy him forever.
The process by which we come to do that is Sanctification.
Does Spirituality bring about sanctification in that does it bring about action in line with the will of God and so glorify him?
It is by their fruit you will know them and the increased love of God demonstrated by obedience to his commands and love of neighbour through service of fellow human beings.
Is spirituality serving this purpose or is it a distraction taking the Christian away from the central purpose of the Christian life?
Jengie
--------------------
"To violate a persons ability to distinguish fact from fantasy is the epistemological equivalent of rape." Noretta Koertge
Back to my blog
Posts: 20894 | From: city of steel, butterflies and rainbows | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gamaliel
Shipmate
# 812
|
Posted
Yes - I understand all that, Jengie - but whilst plain and simple may help some people to achieve that, the opposite may be the case for others ...
I know it's not just about preferences but they do come into it.
Is Baroque fussiness - in a Southern German way, say - any more of any less conducive to genuine holiness than, say, the interior of a peasant chapel in Orthodox Greece, a Presbyterian church on the Western Isles of Scotland, or a cinema-style megachurch in a US suburb?
It strikes me that genuine holiness and piety can flourish anywhere - I don't see how any one particular 'style' of liturgy, or church ornamentation or whatever else is more or less likely to produce it.
However we cut it, I'd suggest that the key to it all is 'intentionality' and the development of some kind of consistent and regular pattern of worship, prayer, study, alms-giving, service of one's fellow human-being ... however that is expressed.
Some people would find the Waldensian church interior in the Alps something of an inspiration - they may be quite moved by it. Others might find it a complete turn-off. I wouldn't assess the quality of anyone's 'spirituality' - for want of a better word - by how they respond to that.
Personally, I can 'appreciate' the plainness and the ambience - and yes, there's craftsmanship in the woodwork and so on - but part of me also finds it rather bland. I like a bit of colour and iconography these days.
Whether or not that has any bearing on how 'effectively' I work out my salvation in fear and trembling, I have no idea. Would I be a more effective witness and disciple of Christ worshipping in the Waldensian setting than I would in an ornate cathedral or anywhere else? I have absolutely no idea.
--------------------
Let us with a gladsome mind
Praise the Lord for He is kind.
http://philthebard.blogspot.com
Posts: 15997 | From: Cheshire, UK | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Jengie jon
Semper Reformanda
# 273
|
Posted
Gamaliel
The question is not about style it is about intention.
I am Calvinist not Zwinglian, the outward trappings are just that outward trappings. You can have candles if you want, fancy bits and pieces if you want or you can strip bare if you want. These are flotsam and jetsam of the age and some will take and some will not. They are the outward form but what is the substance? If that sounds sacramental it is because it is intended to.
Jengie
[ 04. October 2014, 16:58: Message edited by: Jengie Jon ]
--------------------
"To violate a persons ability to distinguish fact from fantasy is the epistemological equivalent of rape." Noretta Koertge
Back to my blog
Posts: 20894 | From: city of steel, butterflies and rainbows | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Jengie jon
Semper Reformanda
# 273
|
Posted
Just to Add
I am not arguing everyone should adopt a "Reformed" spirituality. I am asking about why people are so concerned with all spirituality.
Jengie
--------------------
"To violate a persons ability to distinguish fact from fantasy is the epistemological equivalent of rape." Noretta Koertge
Back to my blog
Posts: 20894 | From: city of steel, butterflies and rainbows | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Autenrieth Road
Shipmate
# 10509
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Jengie Jon:
I am asking about why people are so concerned with all spirituality.
I don't understand this sentence. Do you mean "...why people are so concerned about spirituality at all"?
What do you mean by spirituality? What do you mean by piety? I've been meaning to ask this ever since your OP, because I don't know what you mean by these words so I don't understand any of the details of your OP.
[ 04. October 2014, 17:48: Message edited by: Autenrieth Road ]
--------------------
Truth
Posts: 9559 | From: starlight | Registered: Oct 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gamaliel
Shipmate
# 812
|
Posted
Yes, I'd echo that. What do you mean by 'all spirituality'?
Would that include Buddhist spirituality or Hindu spirituality, Jain spirituality?
![[Confused]](confused.gif)
And yes, I know you're not Zwinglian but Reformed and I do recognise that you're not suggesting that everyone should adopt that particular stance.
I was simply musing aloud on the issues/effects of adopting one form of spirituality over another - hence my wondering whether my own 'walk' if you like would be demonstrably affected in a way that other people might notice if I were to worship in a plain Waldensian style or whether I were as high as a kite at the Brompton Oratory or any station in between.
Yes, I'd agree it's an issue of intention.
I'm still struggling to understand how we might go about 'measuring' the intention quotient, as it were, or discerning whether we would be more or less 'effective' in our Christian walk and behaviour etc etc if we were to opt for any particular 'spirituality' over another.
--------------------
Let us with a gladsome mind
Praise the Lord for He is kind.
http://philthebard.blogspot.com
Posts: 15997 | From: Cheshire, UK | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
IngoB
Sentire cum Ecclesia
# 8700
|
Posted
Some of the more recent posts have started to stray into Ecclesiantics territory. Please keep in mind that our focus here is on individual spirituality, basically "at home" rather than "in Church". You can argue from corporate worship here, but it should be explicitly toward personal practice.
So please limit the discussion of corporate worship appropriately, or we will hand this thread over to the Ecclesiantics professionals.
IngoB
Kempistry Host
--------------------
They’ll have me whipp’d for speaking true; thou’lt have me whipp’d for lying; and sometimes I am whipp’d for holding my peace. - The Fool in King Lear
Posts: 12010 | From: Gone fishing | Registered: Oct 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gamaliel
Shipmate
# 812
|
Posted
Ok - fair enough ...
Jengie Jon will correct me if I'm wrong, but my impression is that much traditional/early Reformed spirituality centred on the family and the household ie. the father or husband being seen as the 'pastor' in his own home - with wives, children and servants engaging in domestic prayer.
I don't know how this translates/equates to today's more fluid social and familial systems.
I've also been wondering whether - for all the emphasis on 'experimental divinity' - or practical and personal spirituality as one might put it - there is actually a distinctive Reformed spirituality?
At least, in the same way or extent to which there is certainly a distinctive Reformed theology.
Are there any distinctive forms of Reformed spirituality - apart from styles of sermon perhaps - that mark the Reformed out from other types of Christian?
Or is Reformed spirituality defined by what it doesn't include - rosary beads, iconography as a 'medium' for prayer and contemplation?
Is it a spirituality - whether in its individual or corporate expressions - that is defined more by what it leaves out than what it actually includes?
Is 'less' more?
Is there a particularly Reformed pattern of private or individual prayer that runs parallel to the RC 'hours' or Anglican 'daily office'?
--------------------
Let us with a gladsome mind
Praise the Lord for He is kind.
http://philthebard.blogspot.com
Posts: 15997 | From: Cheshire, UK | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
Jengie jon
Semper Reformanda
# 273
|
Posted
Gamaliel
You say "Spirituality" in a Reformed context and most people switch off. It is not my word for it, both the two substantial books on it tackle this problem in their introductions (by Howard Rice and David Cornick). Indeed the books about Reformed Spirituality per se fit easily onto a fairly short bookshelf.
However look up Reformed Piety and you will find endless books of it that have been written over the centuries. Consider that Puritanism is just one stream and you get some idea of the range. Webers idea that what to be a person in a context was shaped by that context and had consequences, was not really new. It was at its heart a reformulation of the experience of many Reformed converts. They found in the writings of divines the words that enabled them to create a different understanding of who they were and the end to which their life was aimed. The process of sanctification was marked by a life with shaped through piety.
What we tend to worry about is that Spirituality is Piety devoid of its end. That it then becomes about personal preference, feeling good or just plain obscures the demands of the Gospel upon a believers life.
So I ask what is the end in Spirituality?
Jengie
--------------------
"To violate a persons ability to distinguish fact from fantasy is the epistemological equivalent of rape." Noretta Koertge
Back to my blog
Posts: 20894 | From: city of steel, butterflies and rainbows | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Snags
Utterly socially unrealistic
# 15351
|
Posted
Can I just ask what one means by "Spirituality" in this context? As I have a feeling that's going to be key to communication, and I'm not at all sure it's clear, given that it's a very shifting word at large.
Are you using it to encompass private devotions - prayer, Bible study, personal meditation, solitude, small group study ... ?
Or something more ephemeral?
Personally I find it a slippery word at the best of times, so tend to view "Spirituality" as just "the way {I|people} engage with God (in hopefully transformative 'relationship'*)". In that context I'm struggling to seen how it's a problem. However, I'm aware that it's also a word used with a lot of hand-waving to cover airy-fairy new agey mish-mash hippy-shit introspective and borderline solipsistic loony-tunes Hollywood self-indulgence with no underlying substance. But I tend to think that's just bollocks, not Spirituality
So I'm a bit stuck on what the actual question/bone of contention is, despite having garnered a lot from posts so far.
*Which introduces another troublesome word, relationship, which I often don't feel**
**Which introduces another troublesome word!
--------------------
Vain witterings :-: Vain pretentions :-: The Dog's Blog(locks)
Posts: 1399 | From: just north of That London | Registered: Dec 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
balaam
Making an ass of myself
# 4543
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Snags:
Personally I find it a slippery word at the best of times, so tend to view "Spirituality" as just "the way {I|people} engage with God (in hopefully transformative 'relationship'*)". In that context I'm struggling to seen how it's a problem.
<snip>
*Which introduces another troublesome word, relationship, which I often don't feel**
**Which introduces another troublesome word!
The connection between relationship and feeling is too good
not to have a thread of its own. S here it is.
--------------------
Last ever sig ...
blog
Posts: 9049 | From: Hen Ogledd | Registered: May 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Autenrieth Road
Shipmate
# 10509
|
Posted
Snags, I also asked, earlier, what Jengie Jon means by Spirituality, and also by Piety. I don't see a reply yet to my question.
Without any definitions, this mostly feels like "the Reformed are doing it right and others are in danger of doing it all wrong."
--------------------
Truth
Posts: 9559 | From: starlight | Registered: Oct 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Jengie jon
Semper Reformanda
# 273
|
Posted
By "Spirituality" I mean what is meant by the host of books, conferences and such that use that in their title. If that is not a good definition it is where most Reformed Christians get their ideas from. It appears at one level to be a market with a lot of people chasing the latest gimic, whether that is walking a labyrinth or chanting the psalms. There is a lot of how to and exploration not much on why.
By "Piety", I mean classical Reformed sense. In that the process of seeking a life transformed by the Grace of God or perhaps the discernment of the activity of the Holy Spirit in a believers life. There are equally how to books, but it has an end in sight and that end is deliberate.
Jengie
--------------------
"To violate a persons ability to distinguish fact from fantasy is the epistemological equivalent of rape." Noretta Koertge
Back to my blog
Posts: 20894 | From: city of steel, butterflies and rainbows | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
balaam
Making an ass of myself
# 4543
|
Posted
To some there is a difference in the meaning of the words 'spirituality' and 'piety.'
Spirituality being about prayer and meditation and the like and piety about observance, a pious person being one who observes the outward parts of their religion, Sunday worship and the like.
In reality what we mean by piety are disciplines. We make regular times to meditate and pray, not just when we feel like it or when we have the greatest need.
What I understand is that spirituality is not synonymous with piety but is contained within it.
All the speaking and listening to God stuff is pert of piety, but piety goes furter and involves our actions and relationships with other people as well.
This is based on what I understand what people mean when they say 'spirituality' and 'piety' rather than what the words actually mean.
--------------------
Last ever sig ...
blog
Posts: 9049 | From: Hen Ogledd | Registered: May 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Snags
Utterly socially unrealistic
# 15351
|
Posted
It's not an area I would claim to be deeply familiar with, but I think your (Jengie) classification of Spirituality is a little unfair. Perhaps I have just chosen a handful of books/articles carefully or fortuitously, but the majority of the little I have read majors on building up faith, transforming the character, and walking closer with God. Not on chasing a fad or an experience.
I'm absolutely sure there is plenty of the latter, and that the nature of marketing makes it look like there's even more. However, as far as I can see Spirituality is a faintly ephemeral word for the stuff you do and the way you (try to) live in order to deepen your understanding of God/God's will etc. I think that needs divorcing from the pejorative image of hippy-dippy yummy mummies all having an "intense experience darling" before popping off for their lattes.
--------------------
Vain witterings :-: Vain pretentions :-: The Dog's Blog(locks)
Posts: 1399 | From: just north of That London | Registered: Dec 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
StevHep
Shipmate
# 17198
|
Posted
I doubt I can contribute much to the discussion here. There are, however, some historical books on the subject which might interest people.
Rufus Matthew Jones wrote-
-Studies in Mystical Religion
-Spiritual Reformers in the 16th and 17th Centuries
Although he wrote from a specifically Quaker PoV he broadly accepted the Reformed narrative framework and, in any event, was no sectarian hack.
William Law
-A Serious Call to a Devout and Holy Life
A non-juring 18th Century Anglican this work is much quoted by Huxley in the Perennial Philosophy.
Finally Kierkegaard seems to be a voice worth considering here.
--------------------
My Blog Catholic Scot
http://catholicscot.blogspot.co.uk/
@stevhep on Twitter
Posts: 241 | From: Exeter | Registered: Jul 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
balaam
Making an ass of myself
# 4543
|
Posted
Wouldn't Kierkegaard be from the Lutheran rather than Reformed tradition (despite being critical of state Lutheranism)?
--------------------
Last ever sig ...
blog
Posts: 9049 | From: Hen Ogledd | Registered: May 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Autenrieth Road
Shipmate
# 10509
|
Posted
When the board closes, can this thread be sent somewhere where discussion can continue? Jengie Jon has raised ideas that I'm still sorting through, but it's taking me a long time to find any words yet.
Or I can start a new thread once I find my words, if I know where to find this thread, if it's to be moved to a location of closed threads.
--------------------
Truth
Posts: 9559 | From: starlight | Registered: Oct 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Kelly Alves
Bunny with an axe
# 2522
|
Posted
On it, AR!
Still a topic of interest when the Kempistry board closed, so transferring to Ecclesiantics for further discussion.
Kelly Alves, Admin/ Kempistry Host.
--------------------
I cannot expect people to believe “
Jesus loves me, this I know” of they don’t believe “Kelly loves me, this I know.”
Kelly Alves, somewhere around 2003.
Posts: 35076 | From: Pura Californiana | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
Printer-friendly view
