Page:Weaving Colorful Threads.pdf/2

Page 2 of 9 Contemporary culture witnesses to many forms of spirituality:


 * […] eclectic, evanescent, unfocused, vaguely religious, fragmented, fleeting, dilettante spiritualities […] conservative, world-denying spiritualities […] liberal spiritualities, new ageisms and ‘occultures’ that colonise and package Oriental practices for Western audiences. (Finnegan 2008:41)

In addition, spiritual traditions manifest a wide variety of expression; diverse types will appeal to different personalities; for example, more extrovert spiritualities which deal with concrete issues of practical life; contemplative, or introvert spiritualities, which concentrate more on the inner life; and integrated spiritualities, combining both facets. Societal spirituality would ideally combine orthopraxis with orthokardia so as to implement an embodied practice. Perhaps we can speak of a certain ‘malleability’ with respect to the domain of spirituality, so as to accommodate the vast differences of temperament and inclination of human beings; not to mention the fact that spiritualities are culture-specific – bringing manifold richness of expression into play.

Spirituality refers to the deepest dimension of the person and has been defined, amongst other things, as a ‘way of ego-transcending transformation’ (Finnegan 2008:23); ‘selftranscendence toward the ultimate value one perceives’ (Schneiders 1986:266; 2003:165); ‘our relation to the Absolute’ (Waaijman 2002:1). Further insights with respect to defining spirituality can be gleaned by revisiting the work of one of the pioneers in the field of spirituality, Walter Principe. Principe (1983:136, 139) suggested that in order to understand spirituality one must keep in mind three levels of enquiry: firstly, the ‘existential’ or ‘real’ level, namely the lived reality; secondly, the teaching about this lived reality; and thirdly, the scholarly investigation of the first and second levels. Principe’s (1983) definition of spirituality encompasses two aspects, namely general and particular:


 * Spirituality […] points to those aspects of a person’s living faith or commitment that concern […] striving to attain the highest ideal or goal. For a Christian, this would mean […] striving for an ever more intense union with the Father, through Jesus Christ by living in the Spirit. (p. 139; cf. Wiseman 2006:6–7)

Spirituality, therefore, refers to the raison d’être of our existence, the meaning and values to which we ascribe. In this sense, everyone embodies a spirituality in the wider sense of the term; it can be nihilistic, materialistic, humanistic, or religious. Its referents can just as much be power, success, money, sex, pleasure, or a way of life oriented around an ultimate reality and meaning which transcends egoorientation (Griffin 1988:1). Spirituality is an ‘innate human characteristic’; the human spirit is ‘human consciousness, a constitutive (fundamental) dimension’ of being human (Perrin 2007:20, 21). Therefore, it is a reality that we all share:


 * Spirituality, whether or not it is linked to a belief in God, struggles with the mystery of the deep questions around the meaning of human life. The human spirit remains open to the search for authentic truth within the varied experiences of life, establishes normative values, exercises reasoned judgment, and involves the entire human being on the path to self-determination’. (Perrin 2007:20)

With respect to authentic and inauthentic spirituality, Perrin’s (2007:24) observation is worth noting, namely the fact that not all spiritualities are life-giving and in fact can be harmful: ‘Human spirit is not absolutely benevolent. Without careful attention, it can be led astray, resulting in destructive and harmful human actions’ (Perrin 2007:24). Authentic spirituality is characterised by a positive expression of ‘self-liberating transcendence […] directed toward the common good of humanity’, whereas ‘clusters of values, actions and choice, such as alcoholism, Nazism, or consumerism […] have mistaken the quest of the human spirit and cannot be considered authentic expressions of spirituality’.

Furthermore, spirituality today is often marketed as ‘product’; this needs careful discernment on the part of the spiritual seeker, as ‘Spiritual counsel, books, and paraphernalia are sold as offering quick-fixes to modern problems […] Spirituality is in many instances a consumer product, and it sells’ (Perrin 2007:24). Caution is needed, therefore, in assessing contemporary elements of spirituality:


 * People need to be critical (in the sense of careful and thoughtful) of current trends in spirituality, whether they are associated with a religious belief system or not. Taking the attitude that when it comes to spirituality, everything goes, is simply not responsible […] Spirituality can be benevolent or destructive. Some critical understanding is needed so that people can assess what to encourage and to discourage. (Perrin 2007:25)

Methods of interpretation are numerous: ‘The difficulty is that spirituality is interpreted through theistic, transpersonal, naturalistic, mainstream, minority, esoteric, contemplative, mystical, transcendental, secular, agnostic, atheistic, or monistic lenses’ (Finnegan 2008:270). This witnesses to the desire of contemporary women and men to find their own meaning in life and espousing an autogenic spirituality. There is what Tacey (2004:4) calls ‘the spirituality revolution’, which involves ‘a democratization of the spirit’; it is about ‘individuals taking authority into their own hands, and refusing to be told what to think or believe’. It relates to http://www.hts.org.za