WHAT IS SPIRITUALITY?
HISTORICAL AND METHODOLOGICAL CONSIDERATIONS

by

Kenneth J. Collins

Sociologists, political scientists, theologians, and other observers of American culture are keenly aware that a remarkable phenomenon is now taking place: from the board rooms of major corporations to farmhouses in the Dakotas, from charismatic Catholics to the devotees of eastern reli­gion, many people are enthusiastic-indeed eager to learn-about what they call "spirituality." This cultural movement, so unlike the resurgence of religion during the 1950's, is marked by elements of dissatisfaction and even protest. George Gallup, for instance, notes a shift from the mainline churches to more conservative ones, with evangelicals, pentecostals, and others among the winners. In fact, in his book The People's Religion Gallup notes that "one of the top three reasons why Americans leave the church is that they want deeper spiritual meaning."[1] Moreover, he points out that "Americans have become more critical of their churches and syn­agogues over the past decade. A large majority believes the churches are too concerned with internal organizational issues and not sufficiently con­cerned with spiritual matters."[2]

Despite these trends, it would be a mistake to conclude that the con­temporary interest in spirituality can be explained utterly in terms of established, traditional forms of religion. It cannot. Indeed, the term "spir­ituality" is currently being used to refer to elements of Marxism, feminist ideology, humanistic psychology and other nontraditional cultural expres­sions. It is as prevalent in twelve step programs as it is in some churches; it is found on the lips of agnostics as with believers. Not surprisingly, these trends have led to a virtual cacophony of voices in the public arena on the subject with the result that it is difficult to determine precisely what people mean by the term "spirituality." As Sheldrake points out, "It appears that spirituality is one of those subjects whose meaning everyone claims to know until they have to define it."[3]

In light of this situation, I will attempt to bring a measure of clarity to this subject by being attentive to historical considerations, etymology and church history in particular, as well as to methodological ones, that is, to three major classification schemes which are useful in encompassing the different referents for the term spirituality.

I. Historical Considerations

Our English word "spirituality" is actually a derivative of the Latin term spiritualitas,[4] and like its cognates spiritus and spiritualis, is a suit­able translation of the original Greek terms pneuma and pneumatikos.[5] This means, then, that the adjective "spiritual," as one scholar puts it, "is a Christian neologism, coined apparently by St. Paul to describe that which pertained to the Holy Spirit of God."[6] For example, in 1 Corinthi­ans 2:15, the Apostle maintains that "Those who are spiritual (pneu­matikos) discern all things, and they are themselves subject to no one else's scrutiny" (NRSV). Naturally, we must be careful not to read back into Pauline usage elements which are indicative of a later age. Thus, for Paul at least, the term pneumatikos is not informed by the distinction between the non-material and material, as it is in the twelfth century and following, but by the difference between "two ways of life."[7] The spirit­ual person, then, the pneumatikos, is under the leadership of the Holy Spirit, the carnal person is not.

A. The Early Church. The theological meaning of spirituality, first developed by the Apostle Paul, continued throughout the early centuries of the church though it was refracted by various cultural considerations. Though the term spirituality did not yet refer almost exclusively to the nonmaterial, it began to take on aspects of a broader asceticism with the latter's deprecation of both the body and its passions. Not only, for exam­ple, did Tertuilian (170-220) take a dour view of marriage - "the differ­ence between marriage and fornication was a matter of law, both being based on concupiscence"[8] - but nearly a century and a half later Ambrose began to attribute Jesus' virginal birth to the need "to avoid the impurities (vitia) of conception."[9] Moreover, in the fourth century, this ascetic trend continued in Jerome's celebration of the superiority of the celibate life over marriage in his piece Adversus Jovinianum, ideas which also found expression in the writings of Augustine.

In the East, ascetic trends were enhanced by two factors: first of all, by the rise of monasticism, a movement which essentially called for the abandonment of public life in its quest for holiness, and secondly by the development of Neoplatonic ideas in the writings of the Eastern Fathers, the Cappadocians in particular. The problem here, of course, was that the church's understanding of pneumatikos was being deflected, at least in part, by philosophical trends which had little place for altruistic love. Nevertheless, during the patristic period through the eleventh century, the definition of the term spirituality actually changed very little. It continued to refer-sometimes despite broader cultural trends - to life according to the Holy Spirit..[10]

B. The Twelfth Century as Watershed. About the middle of the eleventh century, a new philosophical and theological movement emerged in the West known as Scholasticism. The principal aim of this school of thought was to integrate the truths of reason with those of revelation, to harmonize, in other words, the philosophical insights of Aristotle with the sapience of Augustine, the chief theological mentor of the age.

Guided by this integrative task, theologians of the twelfth century began to separate spiritual life from the rest of theology such that by the time of Thomas Aquinas, a century later, what would later be called spir­itual theology was now a subdivision of moral theology,[11] No longer did spirituality relate to all of theology, but only to a part. Perhaps even more important for the task at hand, under the influence of Scholasticism, the term "spiritual" lost some of its theological meaning and began to take on a more philosophical one: that is, it no longer simply referred to two ways of life; instead, it now also distinguished the incorporeal from the mater­ial. Schneiders elaborates:

By the twelfth century, under the influence of philosophical developments in theology, we see the first use of the term "spiritual" to designate the intellectual creature in contrast to non-rational creation. In other words, spiritual is here con­trasted to material. By the thirteenth century this profane, philosophical meaning stood side by side with the older reli­gious meaning.[12]

This contrast of the spiritual to the material was further augmented by a revival of interest in the work of Pseudo Dionysius, an author who probably hailed from Syria in the fifth or early sixth century A.D.[13] Hugh of St. Victor in the twelfth century, for example, as well as Albert the Great and Thomas Aquinas in the thirteenth, all looked favorably on the contributions of this eastern writer. Moreover, since these early writings reflected the influence of Plotinus, Proclus, and Neoplatonism, it is not surprising to learn that during the Middle Ages there was a "gradual limi­tation of interest to interiority or subjective spiritual experience."[14] Indeed, this shift towards interior experience, with its turning away from the senses as well as from the operations of the logical mind (ratio), was likewise characteristic of the monasticism of this age which drank deeply from Dionysian wells. In time, monastic spirituality, with its emphasis on contemplation as opposed to praxis, would be presented as the ideal Christian way."[15]

C. Renaissance, Reformation, and Aftermath. By the time of the Renaissance, the fourteenth century in particular, Christendom had already witnessed the separation of moral theology (Christian ethics) from dog­matic theology (systematics), a trend noted earlier, but it also observed, as Principe points out, the differentiation of "spiritual, ascetical, and mystical theology, from all of these [disciplines] but especially from moral theology or Christian ethics."[16] This separation of spiritual theology from ethics resulted not only in a greater emphasis on contemplation, to the misprizing of mundane existence, but also to a speculative tendency-the latter which was clearly evident in the writings of Meister Eckhart.[17]

The Devotio Moderna, a pietistic movement which began in the Netherlands in the fourteenth century and which eventually spread into France, Germany, Spain and Italy, not only formed a contrast to the mys­tical piety of the mendicant orders, but also essentially rejected the mysti­cal and speculative theology associated with Eckhart. This movement, which was founded by Geert Groote of Deventer, was associated with the Brethren of the Common Life and the Canons Regular of St. Augustine. It emphasized the practical service of God and neighbor where the contem­plative life was not valued over the active. Nevertheless, Groote and oth­ers in the movement did not neglect the interior life but stressed the importance of "affectional" change as a result of the grace of God. More­over, the spiritual classic, The Imitation of Christ, attributed to Thomas a Kempis, is characteristic of this movement with its emphasis on humility and other holy affections as well as on the humanity (imitatio Christi) of Christ.

During the Reformation of the sixteenth century, significant changes in the understanding of spiritual life took place. Martin Luther, for exam­ple, challenged the sharp distinction that had grown up between clergy, monks in particular, and the laity. Indeed, according to medieval thought, the highest form of Christian life was really only a possibility for those who had taken the cowl. Luther, on the other hand, a former monk him­self, rejected this teaching in his doctrine of the priesthood of believers and thereby paved the way for the possibility that the spiritual life of those who had not taken vows would not only be encouraged, but also taken more seriously. Nevertheless the hope of this possibility was never fully realized in the Lutheran tradition due, in part, to Luther's failure to articulate in his Galatians Commentary a tertius usus of the moral law.

Nevertheless, Luther's thought is also significant because on the one hand he clearly rejected a speculative, Dionysian mysticism with its confi­dence that it could meet a virtually unmediated God (Deus Absconditus) in the depths of the soul, while on the other hand he was generally apprecia­tive of the practical mysticism of Johannes Tauler, a disciple of Eckhart, and of the Theologia Germanica.[18] For example, of the latter Luther wrote on one occasion, "To boast with my old fool, no book except the Bible and St. Augustine has come to my attention from which I have learned more about God, Christ, man, and all things." To be sure, so impressed was Luther with this spiritual classic that he published an edition of the work himself and thereby made it available to a wider audience.

After the death of Luther, some of the energy and creativity of his spiritual theology dissipated at the hands of his followers, and a struggle ensued between the Gnesio-Lutherans, the "true Lutherans," and the Philippists, those who looked to Philipp Melancthon with his more philo­sophical leanings. The conflict between these two factions was essentially brought to a close by the Formula Concord in 1577, but several theologi­cal problems remained. Accordingly, in the wake of this fresh round of creedalism, a Protestant Scholasticism set in. Here the spiritual life, the life of faith, was no longer understood in terms of fiducia, as it had been for Luther, but in terms of fides. In other words, Luther's conception of faith as relational trust soon devolved into the intellectual assent given to creeds. Naturally a reaction set in, and the pietism of Philipp Jakob Spener and August Hermann Francke in the seventeenth century served as a corrective by championing the notion that real faith is expressed not simply in knowing but also in practical deeds of love to one's neighbor.

D. The Seventeenth Through the Nineteenth Century. In France during the seventeenth century, the word "spirituality" again took on some of its more theological meanings, and it often referred to a life of ongoing devotion. So conceived, spirituality highlighted the interior life with all its passions, dispositions and affections, and in a way not very dissimilar from that of the Pietists. A crucial difference which did emerge, however, was that the French use of the term, unlike that of Spener and Francke, was basically limited to the quest for Christian perfection.[19] Here, then, one of the older meanings of the term, fostered in part by monasticism, continued to shine through.

Another important development which took place in the seventeenth century, but this time in Poland, was not simply the articulation of the essential ingredients of spirituality, but also the development of a discreet discipline whose subject matter involved the spiritual life itself.[20] But this involvement was not direct the study of human spiritual experience itself - but indirect; that is, it entailed a consideration of dogma as it per­tained to and informed spiritual life. In its early phases, this new disci­pline was often termed "ascetical theology," or "mystical theology." Given these developments, it is clear that by the seventeenth century the term "spirituality" had a least two referents: on the one hand it referred to the fostering of a distinct kind of life; on the other hand, it corresponded to the study of practical dogma which functioned in a normative way and thereby set the Christian parameters for the more general human spiritual experience.[21]

During the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries the theological mean­ing of the term spirituality continued to highlight the distinction between the ordinary Christian life and the life of perfection.[22] Nevertheless, sig­nificant developments during this century were taking place in England in particular. To illustrate, although John Wesley, one of the principal leaders of the great Evangelical Revival in Britain, rarely used the exact word "spirituality" in his pastoral and theological writings, he nevertheless crafted a practical theology, which he called "practical divinity," which saw Christian perfection not simply as a possibility for an elite, composed largely of monks and clergy, but as a prospect for the common people as well. Put another way, those who lived in diverse stations of life, could aspire to Christian perfection, to the very highest spiritual life.

Beyond these theological considerations, during the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries the discipline of spirituality was restructured such that now the more general term "spiritual theology" encompassed what an earlier age had called "ascetical" and "mystical" theology.[23]

E. The Twentieth Century. The revived use of the term "spiritual­ity" in English has been the result of the translation of the French word "spirituality."[24] Principe, for example, notes that the first English title using the term did not appear until 1922 with the publication of the first volume of Pierre Pourrats's work, Christian Spirituality.[25] Through the 1980's spirituality was chiefly a Roman Catholic term, although it could be found in charismatic, pentecostal, and eastern mystical sources as well.[26] The mainline Protestant deficit here, according to some observers, was due in part to an overwrought fear of spiritual exercises that dates back to the sixteenth century. As Bloesch points out, "Protestantism has tended to regard the devotional life with suspicion partly because of the protest of the Reformation against works-righteousness."[27] In addition, as heirs of the social gospel, many mainline religious leaders were distrust­ful of any language which smacked of piety or inward religion. But such distrust would not last.

Indeed, recent mainline Protestant interest in the practice and disci­pline of spirituality has been spawned by a number of cultural move­ments, including the recent popularization of Jungian psychology and the American myth of self-fulfillment.[28] But perhaps even more significant for this renewed Protestant enthusiasm is the unfolding of post-mod­ernism in a diversity of forms. More to the point, there are a growing number of thinkers who are critiquing the anthropology of modernity with all its reductionistic tendencies. That is, the picture of humanity which has emerged in the empiricism of Skinner and Marx as two more promi­nent examples is quietly being pushed aside in favor of models more appropriate to the fullness and complexity of a human being. Simply put, even some of those who have been disdainful of metaphysics in the past are beginning to realize that a human being is far more than our recent cultural constructs have allowed. The door for a reconsideration of what the ancients called spiritualitas is now open.

II. Methodological Considerations

In light of the preceding historical considerations, it is clear that the term "spirituality" has both Christian origins as well as a rich historical development. Nevertheless, it would be a mistake to conclude that spiritu­ality is simply a Christian term or that its usage is merely the prerogative of the church. The term, as it is employed today, is far more broadly understood. There are, for instance, not only Jewish and Islamic spiritual­ities, but agnostic and atheistic spiritualities as well.

Sandra Scheiders, for instance, indicates that contemporary spiritual­ity has three main referents: "(1) a fundamental dimension of the human being, (2) the lived experience which actualizes that dimension, and (3) the academic discipline which studies that experience."[29] Few can doubt that the last two elements have been well explored throughout the history of the church. The first element, however, has not received exten­sive treatment-which it deserves-largely due to theological considera­tions, the doctrine of original sin in particular. Nevertheless, it is precisely this first element, spirituality as a fundamental dimension of all human beings, theists and atheists alike, which will help us to understand the broader scope of contemporary usage.

A. The Three Dimensions of Contemporary Spirituality.

1. Spirituality as the Nature of Human Beings. The first referent of the term spirituality, "a fundamental dimension of the human being," suggests that homo sapiens are distinctly spiritual beings, homo spiritu­alis; that is, beings who are capable of transcendence, not simply cogni­tively in terms of intellectual abstractions, but also and more importantly in terms of person and being. Put another way, human beings are capable of receiving a call, an address from a transcendent "subject" whether that subject be understood as God, nature, an undifferentiated unity or as an aesthetic experience.[30] Therefore, to ignore or to deny outright this dimension can only result in existential and spiritual atrophy. A clear depiction of the spiritual nature of human beings, so necessary in our empiricist age, emerges in the work of Evert Cousins, who in describing the task of Crossroad Books' grand publishing project, World Spirituality, writes:

The series focuses on that inner dimension of the person called by certain traditions "the spirit." This spiritual core is the deepest center of the person. It is here that the person is open to the transcendent dimension. . . .[31]

Some Protestants may have difficulty here with the notion that spiri­tuality necessarily pertains to a fundamental dimension of a human being. They, perhaps, would like to insist that every discussion of spirituality necessarily presupposes divine activity in the form of grace. In this set­ting, Arminians would undoubtedly champion the salutary effects of pre­venient grace and Calvinists those of common grace.[32] But the capacity for transcending oneself, of receiving a call to some higher value or meaning, is not evidenced by theists alone. An atheist, for instance, who intentionally rejects the grace of God may lose him or herself in some lofty goal or purpose, experience transcendence, and thereby develop a genuine spirituality, broadly understood. In other words, inextricably link­ing spirituality, divine activity and grace presupposes theism, an assump­tion which is able to describe only a particular kind of spirituality as the term is used today. Nevertheless, this is not to suggest that human beings by themselves have a natural ability for transcending into God. Apart from sanctifying grace, the "subjects" of transcendence, which call us beyond ourselves, are always penultimate.

2. Spirituality as Experience. The second referent, "the lived expe­rience which actualizes that dimension," is best explored in terms of a number of definitions which scholars have offered to come to terms with spiritual experience. Following in some respects the seminal work of Zaehner, with some slight modifications, I will employ the categories of naturalistic, monistic, and theistic spirituality to describe the particular flavor expressed in each definition due to its respective ultimate or tran­scendent subject.[33] Put another way, the chief evoking value towards which one is directed determines, to a significant degree, the nature, the contours, of a particular spirituality.

(a) Naturalistic Spirituality. Examples of the first category, natural­istic spirituality, abound. Gordon Wakefield, for example, defines spiritu­ality as follows: "This is a word which has come much into vogue to describe those attitudes, beliefs, and practices, which animate people's lives and help them to reach out towards super-sensible realities."[34] Here "super-sensible realities" can be interpreted in terms of a theistic dimen­sion, to be sure, but this is not absolutely necessary. Indeed, "super-sensi­ble realities" can be understood to include any of a number of values which are beyond the purview of empiricism such as human love, beauty, and the good. To illustrate, the aesthetic experience, the loss of a sense of self in the encounter of something "more," may at times only have nature itself as its goal (as expressed, for example, in the writings of the Scottish poet James Thomson or in the works of Samuel Taylor Coleridge, a key leader of the Romantic movement).[35] Again, the transcendental referent need not be understood in a theistic way, but there must be a real sense in which that referent is "beyond" us or is at least suggestive of an "other" towards which we are drawn.

In addition, Bradley Hanson explores spirituality in terms of a "per­son's or community's lifestyle that is lived according to a conviction about the nature and purpose of human life,"[36] and thereby accentuates the humanistic concerns of contemporary spirituality. In a similar vein, although Principe operates, no doubt, from the vantagepoint of theism, he leaves his definition of spirituality open enough to include any number of goals: "Spirituality ... points to those aspects of a person's living a faith or commitment that concern his or her striving to attain the highest ideal or goal."[37] Principe's definition, since ideals and goals can be variously understood, resonates well with what is termed naturalistic spirituality.

(b) Monistic Spirituality. If, on the other hand, the transcendent dimension is conceived of not as an evoking "subject" but as an undiffer­entiated unity which is beyond the subject/object distinction, then this kind of spirituality is most suitably described as monistic. Such an under­standing is exemplified in Hinduism, in its central premise that "Atman" (self) is Brahman (unity).[38] In Buddhism "undifferentiated unity" is not a something at all, but sheer nothingness.[39] In Christianity, according to some of its leading mystics such as Meister Eckhart and Jan van Ruys­broeck, it is the soul's union with God. Nevertheless, unlike Hinduism and Buddhism, Christianity's mystics have been careful not to suggest utter ontological union,[40] the loss of self in the abyss of God; instead, they write of the psychological and personal union of love.

In light of these considerations, mysticism, either as the realization of undifferentiated unity, as in Eastern religions, or as the approach to a union of love with God, as in Christian mysticism, is suitability placed under this broader heading of monistic spirituality.[41] This means that, although all mysticism is spiritual, not all spirituality is mystical. Simply put, mysticism in its emphasis on unity, ontological or otherwise, repre­sents a distinct type of spirituality.

(c) Theistic Spirituality. Theistic spirituality views the transcendent subject as a personal God as expressed, for example, in the great monotheistic faiths of Judaism, Christianity, and Islam. Consequently, Christian spirituality today represents a subset of theistic spirituality, not its entirety, and theistic spirituality itself is a part of a broader phenome­non which includes the naturalistic and monistic varieties.[42] Thus, Had­dad's definition ("Spirituality is therefore the whole of human life in its efforts at being open to God"[43]) is not quite accurate and, according to contemporary usage, is even presumptuous. If Haddad had wished to define Christian spirituality-which I believe was her intention-she should have parsed the category of spirituality in general (naturalistic, monistic, and theistic) and further specified the particular type of theistic spirituality she had in mind. Christian spirituality, in contradistinction to other kinds, is not simply the encounter of an amorphous personal God, but represents, more specifically, the revelation of God manifested in Jesus Christ. To avoid the problem of unwarranted generalization, McGinn defines Christian spirituality as "the lived experience of Chris­tian belief,"[44] and Schneiders specifies as follows:

We might define Christian spirituality as that particular actual­ization of the capacity for self-transcendence that is consti­tuted by the substantial gift of the Holy Spirit establishing a life-giving relationship with God in Christ within the believ­ing community.[45]

Nevertheless, this process of particularization is offered not to suggest that Christian spirituality is limited, incapable of addressing a universal realm, but only to indicate that such spirituality is distinct, unique in its understanding of the transcendent, and that other varieties of spirituality exist as well, some of which are quite unlike Christianity.

Though obviously there are a variety of spiritualities in existence, many of them with a significant history, there is nevertheless a common thread which unites them all-the element of transcendence. Indeed, whether one is considering the spiritual path of Mahayana Buddhism or that of Christian monasticism, each underscores the importance of sur­passing oneself into a wider circle of meaning. The four degrees of love enunciated by Bernard of Clairveaux, for example, chronicle the transi­tion from a self-centered love, with all its limitations, to a love of self for the sake of God, quite a different thing. Moreover, John Toltschig, an eighteenth-century Moravian leader, undertook the practice of pastoral care in order "to lead people out of themselves, so that the word of power might break in on them and pierce them through."[46] And on a more con­temporary note, Donald Evans explores this same dynamic in the follow­ing way:

[What is necessary] is a letting go of my narcissism so that I am lived by the Source in all that I do and all that I experi­ence. This contrast between self-separation and self-surrender is a contrast between two fundamental ways of being and of being conscious in the world. This contrast is the essential core of spirituality.[47]

Macquarrie, describes "spirit" as the "capacity for going out of oneself and beyond oneself. . . ." Human beings "are not closed or shut up in themselves."[48] In fact, so concerned is this British author with displaying this key characteristic of spirituality that he has even coined a new word, "exience" ("going out") in order to capture the essential dynamic of spir­itual existence.[49]

The element of transcendence, however, must not be viewed simply in an individualistic way. The transcendence involved in spirituality not only involves going beyond ego-centric commitments, but socio-centric ones as well. Thus, on the social level, spirituality is an invitation, a call, to forsake selfish group commitments and the ethnocentrism which deflects the actualization of the very highest values in life such as the uni­versal love of God. Put another way, spirituality, as it often is defined today, goes beyond the "tribalisms" of group life to enjoy a broader hori­zon of meaning.[50]

3. Spirituality as a Discipline of Study. The third referent, spiritu­ality as an academic discipline, underscores that spirituality, as it is used today, does not refer only to human experience and its transcendent sub­jects, but also to the deliberate and rational study of these elements. In the early part of the twentieth century this discipline was called "spiritual the­ology" and the contours of the field were aptly expressed in the works of Pierre Pourrat and Adolphe Tanquerey. Both of these Catholic scholars maintained that spiritual theology was a category, a subdivision, of dog­matic theology and that it had Christian perfection as its goal.[51] This meant, of course, that theological considerations and dogma informed the discipline to a significant degree.

A dissenting voice to these early twentieth-century conceptions is found in the work of Sandra Schneiders, a contemporary scholar, who argues that, during the period of Vatican II and its aftermath, what earlier was referred to as "spiritual theology" was then transformed into "spiritu­ality, a new discipline clearly distinct from its seminary predecessor."[52] Schneiders notes a number of shifts during this crucial period: spirituality was no longer an exclusively Roman Catholic phenomenon; spirituality was neither dogmatic nor prescriptive; the discipline was not merely con­cerned with perfection and therefore went beyond the bounds of a spirit­ual elite; and spirituality was not preoccupied only with the "interior life."[53]

Of all these preceding points, Schneiders takes great pains to empha­size the second, that spirituality as understood today is a "descriptive-crit­ical rather than prescriptive-normative discipline."[54] This definition, which is perhaps more suited to what I have called naturalistic spirituality, is not capable of comprehending the richness and depth of spirituality as theistic experience, Christian in particular, since it excludes consideration of a "vertical" dimension of revelation in its nearly exclusive focus on human experience. In other words, Christian spiritual experience always involves an other, a revealing God, who is manifested in the human heart by the presence of the Holy Spirit. Dogmatic considerations, then, do function in a normative, prescriptive way in order to distinguish this kind of spiritual experience from all other kinds of experience. In other words, for Christians, theological elements are necessary both to guide and illu­minate as they respond to the God who has been revealed in Jesus Christ. Simply put, a theology which is based on revelation indicates precisely what is "Christian" about this experience. To abandon this prescriptive role leaves us simply with human experience and thereby undermines the very notion that human beings can know God, as transcendent other, at all.

Moreover, our methodology must not exclude from the outset those particularizing and normative elements which bring respective transcend­ent subjects into focus. Indeed, the transcendent realm of a Christian the­ist is far different from that of a philosophical naturalist who enjoys spirit­ual experiences. Our methodology, then, must fully take into account the diverse ways in which transcendence is understood. This is the key to dis­tinguishing one spirituality from another.

Schneider's focus, however, seems to be elsewhere, not on the defin­ing requisites or essentials of transcendent subjects, but on human experi­ence in general. In her assessment, all that is left is the horizontal dimen­sion; all that remains is all-too-human experience. Therefore, just as Christians should avoid a triumphalism that attempts to dominate the field by maintaining that Christianity has an exclusive or nearly exclusive claim to spirituality, so too should Christians avoid a methodology that virtually eliminates the distinctive contribution that Christianity has to make to this field.

Perhaps Schneiders and others have emphasized the descriptive nature of the discipline of spirituality in order that it might more easily gain entrance into the academy as a field of study in its own right. Clearly, if the emphasis is on spirituality as human experience, without a serious exploration of the diverse transcendent ends involved (God, undif­ferentiated unity, aesthetic experience, etc.), then many of the research methods already present in the academy, in the social sciences in particu­lar, could be applied to the new discipline with equal rigor. Nevertheless, problems remain even at this level since the discipline of spirituality, according to Hanson and Evans, ever entails an existential element that will hardly be welcomed by the academy. Hanson writes:

This combination of serious reflection and strongly existential orientation distinguishes spirituality from all the disciplines in the natural sciences, social sciences, and religious studies that intend to be value neutral and objective.[55]

For his part, Evans notes that spirituality necessarily commits a per­son to a process of personal transformation, a process which is often rejected outright in the academy in the name of scientific objectivity.[56] Evans approach, however, unlike that of some of his colleagues, is not to fall back on the notion that spirituality as a discipline is more akin to the­ology than anything else and is, therefore, rightly excluded in public dis­course. Instead, he critiques the epistemological presuppositions and assumptions of the academy in terms of its impersonalism: that is, its "dogmatic rejection of any truth claim that requires personal transforma­tion,"[57] and in terms of its perspectivalism which entails a "rejection of any truth claim based on direct experience of reality."[58] In a real sense, Evans is wrestling with the methodological hegemony of scientific empiricism which has so swept the modern academy and which largely has excluded a serious examination of existential concerns.

Given these considerations, there seem to be at least two ways in which spirituality might emerge as a discipline in the academy. In the first scenario, the field would gain acceptance to the extent that it conformed to the methodology of empiricism. Here the stress would be on human experience and behaviors that could be both analyzed and quantified in ; light of appropriate theory. What would be lost, however, would be the elements of transcendence, and then one could rightfully ask, I suppose, whether one was really studying spirituality at all.

In the second scenario, the field would be welcomed as a critical dis­cipline which would call into question the first principles of objectivism and, thereby, argue for a renewed appreciation not only for the various dimensions of human existence, some hitherto neglected, but also for a reconsideration of some of the epistemological assumptions that date back to Kant. But this would hardly be satisfactory to many in the acad­emy, given its present constitution, since such an approach would permit a new discipline-not well developed in either definition or theory-to be a revolutionary discipline from the start.

In light of these scenarios, it is unlikely that spirituality will emerge as a full-fledged discipline in the academy any time soon. The method­ological problems to be overcome, at least at this juncture, are simply too significant. In the meantime, however, scholars can give greater attention not only to the rich history of spirituality, but also to defining the subject more clearly in terms of a) human nature b) the range of human experi­ence and c) its potential as a discipline. In this endeavor, they may plant the seeds for future prodigious growth; in this task, they may achieve greater definitional precision; in this labor, they may yet reap a harvest unexpected.

Endnotes:

[1] George Gallup, Jr. and Jim Castelli, The People's Religion (New York: MacMillan Publishing Co., 1989), 144.

[2] Ibid., 88

[3] Philip Sheldrake, Spirituality and History: Questions of Interpretation and Method (New York: Crossroad Books, 1992), 32.

[4] Sheldrake contends that the abstract noun spiritualitas did not make its appearance until the fifth century. He maintains that a letter once ascribed to St. Jerome exhorts the reader so to act as "to advance in 'spirituality.'" Cf. Shel­drake, Spirituality and History, 35.

[5] Walter H. Principe, "Toward Defining Spirituality," Studies in Religion, Sciences Religieuses 12, no. 2 (1983): 130.

[6] Sandra M. Schneiders, "Theology and Spirituality: Strangers, Rivals, or Partners?," Horizons 13, no. 2 (Fall 1986): 257.

[7] Principe, "Toward Defining Spirituality," 130. For more on this issue Cf. Sandra M. Schneiders, "Spirituality in the Academy," in Modern Christian Spiri­tuality: Methodological and Historical Essays, ed. Bradley C. Hanson (Atlanta, Georgia: Scholar's Press, 1990), 20; and Sheldrake, Spirituality and History, 34.

[8] Cheslyn Jones, Geoffrey Wainwright, and Edward Yamold, The Study of Spirituality (New York: Oxford University Press, 1986), 110.

[9] Ibid., 131.

[10] Schneiders, "Theology and Spirituality: Strangers, Rivals, or Partners?," 258.

[11] Ibid., 260. Sheldrake snakes a similar observation and notes that this process of separation, of subdivision, though it began in the twelfth century, took some time. Cf. Sheldrake, Spirituality and History: Questions of Interpretation and Method, 41.

[12] Ibid., 259. For more on twelfth century trends in the area of spirituality. Cf. Bernard McGinn and Jean Leclercq, eds., Christian Spirituality: Origins to the Twelfth Century (New York:, Crossroad Publishing Co., 1989).

[13] I use the phrase revival of interest here because the writings of Pseudo Dionysius were already well known and favored by Gregory the Great and Martin 1. In fact, the Lateran Council of 649 approved his writings. Beyond this, of course, the translation of Pseudo-Dionysius by John Scotus Edugena was already in existence in 862. Nevertheless, until the twelfth century the influence of this mystic author was largely indirect.

[14] Sheldrake, Spirituality and History: Questions of Interpretation and Method, 44.

[15] Cheslyn Jones, Geoffrey Wainwright, and Edward Yamold, The Study of Spirituality (New York: Oxford University Press, 1986), 291. For more on the relationship between monasticism and spirituality see also the following: S. Harkianakis, "Monchtum and Spiritualitat," Internationale Katholische Zeitschrift, no. 4 (July-August 1974): 26-36.; Andrew Louth, "William of St Thierry and Cistercian Spirituality," The Downside Review 102 (October 1984): 262-70.; Tadros Malaty, "Monasticism and Spiritual Life," Coptic Church Review: A Quarterly of Contemporary Patristic Studies 7, no. 2 (Summer 1986): 38-42.; and Alf Hardelin, "MonasticheTheologie-eine "Praktiche" Theologie vor der Scholastik," Zeitschrift fur Katholische Theologie 109, no. 4 (1987): 400-­415.

[16] Principe, "Toward Defining Spirituality," p. 137. Bracketed material is mine.

[17] On a contemporary note, Matthew Fox, a Roman Catholic scholar, has used the writings of Eckhart as a resource for what he terms "Creation spiritual­ity." Cf. Matthew Fox, Meditations with Meister Eckhart (Santa Fe, New Mex­ico: Bear & Company, 1983).

[18] Brief works that are helpful in assessing Luther's spirituality include the following: F. W. Kantzenbach, "Bild and Wort bei Luther and in der Sprache der Frommigkeit," Neue Zeitschrift fur Systematische Theologie and Religion­sphilosophie 16, no. 1 (1974): 57-74.; Lawrence W. Denef, "Praying the Cate­chism: Spirituality as Luther Envisioned it," Lutheran Forum 19, no. 4 (1985): 17-19.; Arthur Skevington Wood, "Spirit and Spirituality in Luther," The Evan­gelical Quarterly 61 (October 1989): 311-33.

[19] Schneiders, "Theology and Spirituality: Strangers, Rivals, or Partners?," 253-74.

[20] Ibid., 261. Indeed, Schneiders contends that the discipline of spirituality, as a distinct subject matter, was not named until 1655 by a Polish Franciscan named Dobrosielski.

[21] For a much different contemporary view, one which downplays the norma­tive value of doctrine and instead argues that experience generates doctrine Cf. Frederick Herzog, "A New Spirituality: Shaping Doctrine at the Grass Roots," Christian Century 103, no. 23 (30 July - 6 August 1986): 680-81.

[22] Interestingly enough, up until the latter part of the nineteenth century, the use of the term "spirituality" was found chiefly among French Catholics. Cf. Schneiders, "Theology and Spirituality: Strangers, Rivals, or Partners?," 260.

[23] Cf. Jordan Aurnann, Christian Spirituality in the Catholic Tradition (San Francisco: Ignatius Press, 1985), 218 ff.

[24] Principe, "Toward Defining Spirituality," 127-41.

[25] Ibid., 134.

[26] David R. McMahill, "Blown Through the Wilderness: Questions About the Impact of Contemporary Spirituality on the Future of Mainline Protestantism," Chicago Theological Seminary Register 79 (Summer 1989): 82-83. See also Philip Sheldrake, Spirituality and History: Questions of Interpretation and Method (New York: Crossroad Books, 1992), 36.

[27] Donald G. Bloesch, The Crisis of Piety (Colorado Springs: Helmers and Howard, 1988), 50.

[28] McMahill, "Blown Through the Wilderness: Questions About the Impact of Contemporary Spirituality on the Future of Mainline Protestantism," 85-86.

[29] Sandra M. Schneiders, "Spirituality in the Academy," in Modern Christian Spirituality: Methodological and Historical Essays, ed. Bradley C. Hanson (Atlanta, Georgia: Scholars Press), 1990, 17. Emphasis is mine.

[30] I use the phrase "transcendent subject" rather than "transcendent object" because the former suggests that it is God, or nature, or beauty which is active and which calls us out of our mundane existence to something "more." The phrase transcendent object, on the other hand, suggests that the self is ever in con­trol, the chief reference point, and that the transcendent dimension, then, is sim­ply another object of its interests. Here one could rightly ask, then, if transcend­ence occurs at all.

[31] Evert Cousins, "Preface," in Christian Spirituality: Origins to the Twelfth Century, ed. Bernard McGinn, John Meyendorff, and Jean Leclercq (New York: Crossroad Books, 1985) 1985, xi-xiv.

[32] Ryrie denies that human beings are by nature spiritual in his confusion of spirituality with maturity. He maintains, for example, that "A new Christian can­not be called spiritual simply because he has not had sufficient time to grow and develop in Christian knowledge and experience." Cf. C. C. Ryrie, "What is Spiri­tuality?," Bibliotheca Sacra 126 (July-September 1969): 204-13.

[33] Cf. R. C. Zaehner, Mysticism: Sacred and Profane (London: Oxford Uni­versity Press, 1957). I have altered Zaehner's categories somewhat from "panen­henic, monistic, theistic," to "naturalistic, monistic, theistic." Moreover, Zaehner works within the specific context of mysticism; I am working, on the other hand, within the broader category of spirituality.

[34] Gordon S. Wakefield, ed., The Westminster Dictionary of Christian Spiri­tuality (Louisville: Westminster John Knox, 1983), 361.

[35] Although Evans' definition is properly placed under the heading of "monistic spirituality," there are elements of it that resonate with the "naturalis­tic" one as well. He writes: "Spirit is the desire for nonphysical ecstatic intimacy with others: with the nonphysical aspect of other persons, works of art and nature. ." Cf. Donald Evans, Spirituality and Human Nature (Albany, New York: State University of New York Press, 1993), 75.

[36] Bradley Hanson, "Christian Spirituality and Spiritual Theology," Dialog 21 (Summer 1982): 207.

[37] Principe, "Toward Defining Spirituality," 139.

[38] For two valuable pieces which compare Christian and Hindu spirituality Cf. Ian D. L. Clark, "Ananda [concepts of joy, bliss, and spirit in Christianity and Hin­duism]," Theology 86 (January 1983): 15-19.; and Gerald J. Pillay, "Ritualistic Hin­duism and Popular Pentecostalism: Two Religious Worldviews in Dynamic Rela­tion [South Africa]," Religion in Southern Africa 6, no. 1 (January 1985): 29-45.

[39] For two of the more helpful works which explore the spirituality of Chris­tanity and Buddhism Cf. John Steffney, "Compassion in Mahayana Buddhism and Meister Eckhart," Journal of Religious Thought 31 (1974-1975): 64-77.; and Scott Cowdell, "Buddhism and Christianity," Asia Journal of Theology 4 (April 1990): 190-98.

[40] Meister Eckhart, for example, maintained that there is a point in the soul, "ein punkt," whereby the soul still knows itself as other than God. Cf. Nicholas Watson, "The "Classics of Western Spirituality": Eckhart, Tauler, Ruysbroec [review article]," King's Theological Review 11 (Spring 1988): 19-25.

[41] For an evangelical critique of mysticism Cf. Winfried Corduan, Mysticism: An Evangelical Option? (Grand Rapids, Michigan: Zondervan Publishing House, 1991); and Donald G. Bloesch, "Lost in the Mystical Myths: the Current Fascina­tion with Spirituality," Christianity Today 35 (19 August 1991): 22-24.

[42] For an example of theistic spirituality, Christianity in particular, see my book Soul Care: Deliverance and Renewal Through the Christian Life (Wheaton, Illinois: BridgePoint Books, 1995).

[43] Frieda Haddad, "Orthodox Spirituality: The Monastic Life," The Ecumeni­cal Review 38, no. 1 (January 1986): 64.

[44] Bernard McGinn and John Meyendorff, eds., Christian Spirituality, Vol. 1: Origins to the Twelfth Century (New York: Crossroad NY, 1987), xv.

[45] Schneiders, "Theology and Spirituality: Strangers, Rivals, or Partners?," 266.

[46] Frank C. Senn, ed., Protestant Spiritual Traditions (New York: Paulist Press, 1986), 220.

[47] Evans, Spirituality and Human Nature, 3. One of the most extensive popular treatments on the theme of spirituality and narcissism is found in the work of Earl Jabay entitled The Kingdom of Self. Cf. Earl Jabay, The Kingdom of Self (Plainfield, New Jersey: Logos Press International, 1974). Bracketed material is mine.

[48] John Macquarrie, Paths in Spirituality (Harrisburg, Pennsylvania: More­house Publishing, 1992), 44.

[49] Ibid., 45.

[50] Collins, Soul Care: Deliverance and Renewal Through the Christian Life, 52-54. For more on the concept of social transcendence. Cf. Marsha Sinetar, Ordinary People as Monks and Mystics (New York: Paulist Press, 1986), 51 ff.

[51] Schneiders, "Theology and Spirituality: Strangers, Rivals, or Partners?," 262.

[52] Ibid., 264.

[53] Ibid., 264-65.

[54] Schneiders, "Spirituality in the Academy," 32.

[55]Bradley C. Hanson, "Spirituality as Spiritual Theology," in Modern Chris­tian Spirituality: Methodological and Historical Essays, ed. Bradley C. Hanson (Atlanta, Georgia: Scholars Press, 1990), 50.

[56] Evans, Spirituality and Human Nature, 147.

[57] Ibid., 6. Hanson contends that "spirituality will not qualify as a "scientific" discipline among the pantheon of disciplines in religious studies; it belongs to what we in the West have called theology in the broad sense." Cf. Hanson, "Spir­ituality as Spiritual Theology," 50.

[58] Ibid., 7.

Edited by Michael Mattei for the
Wesley Center for Applied Theology
at Northwest Nazarene University
© Copyright 2003 by the Wesley Center for Applied Theology

Text may be freely used for personal or scholarly purposes, provided the notice below the horizontal line is left intact. Any use of this material for commercial purposes of any kind is strictly forbidden without the express permission of the Wesley Center at Northwest Nazarene University, Nampa, ID 83686. Contact the webmaster for permission or to report errors.