Articles | Book Reviews | Education
The Benchmarks of Spirituality: Spirituality vis-a-vis the Development of Other Religious and Social Organizations
This section in the series The Benchmarks of Spirituality examines three areas in both our religious and social life which contain evidences of spiritual activity.
Chapter 4
Spirituality vis-a-vis the Development of Other Religious
and Social Organizations
We need to consider now how spirituality, as it has been described so far, can have an impact on other facets of both our religious and social life. For surely, if spiritual activity can have any sustaining value it needs to be seen as an integral part of all aspects of life. Here are some examples.
Multifaith Movement
It has been argued that the term “spirituality” should not be equated with the term “religion”. Spirituality is an activity which often emerges out of a religious background. It can emerge from an attitude of discontent, frustration and antagonism, or simply as an attempt to go beyond the parameters of a religious framework to search for a deeper expression of the truth about life, about God, or about our relationship with God. It can be both a negative and a positive activity depending on how it is motivated.
If spirituality is viewed in this light then it is possible for this activity to live in harmony with other religious traditions. But if religious traditions endeavour to subdue this activity then spirituality can easily develop into another religious expression. When this happens spiritual activity is suspended - only until there arises a renewed sense of discontent with what has been formalized. And then there will be people who want to reach beyond this recent religious expression and initiate the process of spirituality activity all over again. And so the cycle goes on.
It is possible for this same cycle to become endemic within the multifaith movement. In other words, it is very easy to think of the term multifaith as a ‘noun’, and thereby give it the potential of a body that can be described, measured, and evaluated. Already there is considerable effort to give it a structure by developing generic mission statements and constitutional rules and regulations. Even though these housekeeping details may be necessary for any group of people from diverse faith backgrounds to dialogue, this should not be considered as multifaith activity. On the contrary, it could easily become an attempt to form another syncretistic religious expression. It is only when the term “multifaith” is thought of as a ‘verb’ that it will serve its essential purpose and avoid becoming another religion.
When multifaith collaboration is thought of as an activity or a process, it can have the effect of enriching each of the participating faith groups. Like “spirituality” it is a process which reaches out beyond the parameters of each religious expression. Figuratively, it is as if all the members in the multifaith process should bare their souls to the other in such a way that they remain true to their own religious expressions, but at the same time remain open to the influences of the other.
This is a process which has not always been seriously implemented within the multifaith collaborative efforts. It would seem that the participating faith groups are sometimes so intent upon being accommodating to each other, and so afraid to be looked upon as exclusive and judgmental, that they fail to go beyond the organizational dialogue. They indulge only in a safe agenda that will in no way disturb or ruffle their sacrosanct traditions. Consequently, there is no reaching out, no discovery, no growth.
During some of these dialogues there have been attempts to define what is meant by multifaith worship. There have also been attempts to articulate some sort of generic belief formulas to which all can ascribe. Generally, the results have been unsatisfactory. The more generic one becomes, the more insipid the outcome. We end up being clearer about what the act of worship is not, than what it is. We end up being clearer that the generic multifaith formula in no way represents any particular faith group, but not so clear about what it really means. In other words, the result of these exercises tell us more about what multifaith collaboration is not than what it is. But why should this surprise us!
It only goes to prove that multifaith collaboration is not the formulation of documentation or practices, but rather an ongoing activity that defies the need for any kind of parameters. It simply calls out for the space to explore, and to do so with as much openness and integrity as possible.
Participating faith groups should not be ashamed to voice who they are and what they stand for. To do so does not necessarily imply that one is being exclusive or judgmental of others. It simply needs to be done with an attitude of anticipation and expectancy, an attitude that is open to new insights and growth. In this way, new religions are not born, and traditional religions are enriched.
There is nothing novel about this kind of collaboration. One of the great advocates of the ecumenical movement, Oscar Cullmann, was constantly promoting greater religious dialogue between Christians. And this goes back over 75 years. In a recent notice about his death it was reported that he “believed that every Christian confession embodied a permanent spiritual gift which it should preserve, nurture, purify and deepen, and which should not be given up for the sake of homogenization.” (Anglican Journal, February 1999) Such sentiments are just as relevant today with respect to a multifaith dialogue. What this reference to homogenization means is the same thing as the formulations of generic belief formulas and practices. It is the best way to put an end to multifaith collaboration and stifle a genuine spiritual activity.
Political Life
It is a somewhat daunting task to try and find evidence of spiritual activity in the political world. The extraordinary variety of political expressions, and all the social and economic dynamics that lie behind them, make this task seem virtually impossible. The only way to profitably approach the subject is to use generalizations which may apply to a large number of political ideologies.
While recognizing that generalizations can easily lead one away from the practical realities of political life, it must also be recognized that lying behind these political realities there are some basic philosophical or religious concepts that have a significant influence on the decision making process.
For the most part these concepts are seldom articulated, and may not even be part of our conscious life. Nevertheless, they are the foundations stones which have shaped our thinking over the years. They dictate a particular approach to decision making. In the case of some societies, it is an approach that has continued for centuries. It colours their thought patterns in such a way that people do not even question its influence. It is so much a part of their life that they respond to issues with a kind of instinctual knee-jerk reaction. It has become part of their very being.
It is commonplace for political ideologies to come into conflict. This happens at all levels from municipal affairs in a small community to political disputes among nations. Frequently, both parties are completely convinced that they are right and that their opponent has simply not seen the light or is being deliberately obnoxious. And with equal frequency, there is little attempt to ask whether the differences stem from some basic philosophy or religious belief system - a system which has not been recognized or articulated. The foundation stones lie buried, and no one seems prepared to dig a little deeper to unearth the heart of the conflict.
It is these kind of generalizations that need to be examined, and in doing so may shed some light on the presence or absence of spiritual activity in political life. One such generalization is the different political approaches taken by Western and Eastern societies.
One of the strongest influences on Western political thought came from the Protestant Reformation. Apart from all the differences about particular beliefs and practices, such as indulgences, creedal formulas, and the theological interpretation of Scripture, there was one underlying concern that provoked a radical change in religious thinking. It was a concern about authority. Where does authority lie when it comes to a matter of achieving salvation or arriving at a knowledge of the truth? Does it lie only in the hands of the intellectual elite? Or is it possible that God might provide revelations to individual believers?
And so the cry went up. Let the people read the scriptures and decide for themselves. Let each person establish their own relationship with God.. Salvation is matter of personal choice. And so authority started to become internalized, and the reins of power moved from an external institutional body to the internal realm of the individual.
This emphasis on the rights and privileges of the individual has characterized Western political thought for centuries. It is what lies behind all the political rhetoric of the human rights movement. It also lies behind the copious number of law suits where individual rights have been impinged upon, with the inevitably result - “I’ll sue!” It also lies behind many of the conflicting statements between Western and Eastern political leaders.
In many Eastern cultures there is a different philosophical or religious base. The emphasis is not so much on the individual, but rather on the needs of society as a whole. The rights of the individual become subservient to the rights of the community. This can make a considerable impact on the way political decisions are made.
These contrasting approaches were explained very well in a book called “A Cross Cultural Dialogue on Health Care Ethics”. Even though the context is different the underlying theme is relevant. The editors write:
“Whereas the North American “I-self” sharply separates between self and others, self and nature, often in a competitive fashion, the “we-self” of Eastern cultures extends outward to include family, caste-group, linguistic-ethnic culture and even the natural environment. From the Buddhist perspective, which is dominant in the cultures of East and South-east Asia, it is our false attachment to the“I-self” and its selfish desires that is the cause of unethical action and of suffering. Understanding ourselves as but a tiny interdependent part of the complex “we-self” of the cosmos leads to compassionate action and Nirvana. Yet within that complex “we-self” a highly private ego is maintained.” (p.6)
This raises an important question about the future of politics as we know it. Has the Western emphasis on human rights, and the individual expression of values and beliefs, reached its nemesis? Is it possible that another emphasis on social responsibility, as expressed in the political framework of the East, is needed to provide a balance? And what is even more important: Would an open dialogue between these two approaches be considered as evidence of spiritual activity?
I believe that there are voices within the Western world that are calling for such a dialogue. They are people who are concerned about the value of family life, the preservation of the environment, the need for restorative justice within the penal system, and the need to maintain a social safety net for more equitable living conditions within the community.
What is required at this point is a willingness to hear these voices. Or will each side of the political spectrum dig in its heels and remain content with the status quo? Will new insights be ignored? Will the traditional political stances close their doors to the potential spiritual activity in their midst? If this does happen it would be to the impoverishment of both parties. And those who are wanting dialogue will be forced to separate themselves and form another political wing. As the formation of religious groups has developed through the inability to recognize the presence of spiritual activity, so political formations will suffer the same fate - a completely unnecessary exercise.
Palliative Care Movement
The emergence of this interest in spirituality is not unlike what has happened within the development of other organizations. And if there is a distinct similarity between organizational development and spirituality, it behoves us to try and identify the dynamics that have given rise to the development of these organizations.
One such recent development is the revival of the palliative care movement. I say revival because the movement certainly can not claim a monopoly on this kind of care. For centuries it has been undertaken by hospices, religious communities, or the extended family. There is nothing unique in the provision of care for the dying.
The renewed interest today is clearly due to certain factors being recognized and introduced into the equation which were not sufficiently evident in earlier times. Recognition of these factors enabled people to go beyond the paradigms of the past, and as a result enriched the way care could be offered. These included a greater understanding of the needs of dying people, a way to address the growth of medical specialization which has been lessening the ability to provide holistic care, the ability to prolong the point of death by new treatments and medications, the break up of the extended family as potential caregivers - these and other reasons account for palliative care being given such prominence today.
It is most encouraging to see how the existing medical profession has allowed the insights of the palliative care movement to become incorporated within the health care system. By doing so they have avoided the development of another opposing form of medical practice. It is a case where open-mindedness, a careful and patient understanding of the principles of care being expressed, and a willingness to incorporate these insights into the existing structure, has had the beneficial effect of enriching medical practice.
At one point during the development of this movement it could have gone the other way. There were times when the adherents of palliative care were not given sufficient credibility, with the result that some people were defining palliative care as a new speciality in medicine. It was on the verge of separating itself from mainstream medical practice. If this had happened, both medical practice and the palliative care movement would have been sadly impoverished.
The most important dynamic in this process was the recognition on both sides that the movement was designed to enrich existing medical practice. It was not meant to supplant but to supplement.. It also involved changes in both attitudes and procedures. Death need not be looked upon as failure in the eyes of physicians. There was a change of attitude towards the administration of analgesics. Careful observation of clients receiving large doses of narcotics dispelled the myth that this would lead to addiction. The interrelatedness of the physical and non-physical needs of the human condition were more clearly recognized. These were some of the changing paradigms that characterized the movement.
These changes, and the way in which they have been received, clearly indicate some of the benchmarks of spiritual activity. Just as spirituality should not be construed as a new religion divorced from what has gone on before, so palliative care should take the same path. This is not always accomplished easily. In an attempt to address the subject of spirituality in the care of the dying I wrote a book. It was called “Dying, Yet We Live”. I constantly referred to the need to provide spiritual care for the dying. And it was sometime later that I realized I was talking about spirituality as some kind of special ingredient that needed to be injected into the care program. Instead of talking about the spiritual care of the dying, I should have recognized that caring for the dying is spiritual. Spirituality was the activity itself, not an additional product. By talking in terms of separation I was not being true to one of the benchmarks of spirituality.
Enough has been said about how the process of spiritual activity can be identified within our religious, philosophical, and social life. The final section in this series will summarize those benchmarks which seem to predominate in all forms of spiritual activity.
Posted by editor on October 3, 2003 10:32 AM