Page:Weaving Colorful Threads.pdf/3

 personal autonomy; finding the Divine in ordinary life; jettisoning ties with organised religion; rejecting autocratic systems of religion and dogmatic intransigence; relinquishing entrenched beliefs, myopic values and patriarchal systems of leadership and fundamentalism. Tacey (2003) cogently elaborates on these issues:


 * Spirituality and fundamentalism are at opposite ends of the cultural spectrum. Spirituality seeks a sensitive, contemplative relationship with the sacred and is able to sustain levels of uncertainty in its quest because respect for mystery is paramount. Fundamentalism seeks certainty, fixed answers and absolutism, as a fearful response to the complexity of the world and to our vulnerability as creatures in a mysterious universe. (p. 11)

Furthermore, fundamentalism, which is often prevalent in the monotheistic faiths, is a ‘full-blown regression, a deliberate and systematic retreat from the demands and revolutions of the modern period’ in order ‘to escape the tensions and complexities of a difficult present’ (Tacey 2004:5). On the other hand, authentic spirituality resists rigid dichotomies and inflexible presuppositions; exhibits a ‘tolerance for ambiguity’; and as a result, has in many cases experienced ‘opprobrium from more traditional institutions’ (Van Ness 1996:4). In spite of the fact that many established religious institutions consider the resurgence of spirituality as dangerous, heretical and a threat to their survival, others point to a rapprochement between spirituality and religion (cf. Schneiders 2003).

Academic courses in the field of spirituality are in great demand. A detailed investigation of issues regarding the academic study of spirituality has been dealt with elsewhere (Kourie 2009). Suffice it here to touch on two pertinent issues. Firstly, the question as to how spirituality should be taught. McGinn (2005a:38) admits that he is not sure ‘that spirituality needs a separate niche in the curriculum in order to be adequately assimilated’ and whilst programmes in spirituality certainly have a function, so as to give spirituality ‘the voice it deserves [they] need not be taken as the only way to achieve the goal’. This viewpoint is a current issue of debate in academic circles. Given the interdisciplinary nature of spirituality studies, it could be argued that it be integrated into other disciplines. In many instances, this is already the case. Waaijman (2011:2; cf. Waaijman 2007:1–113) delineates several areas of research where spirituality is now studied academically outside the field of theology. Such research is conducted not only in areas which have variously given attention to spirituality, such as literature, linguistics, philosophy, and religious studies, but also within a far broader spectrum, including medicine, psychology, sociology, management and education. As it is conceded that spirituality impacts every aspect of life, is there a need for a separate discipline? My answer to this question is in the affirmative, particularly given the fact that spirituality is a relatively new discipline in today’s academic ambience. It has had to argue the case for its existence, in certain cases, and therefore, it is best at this stage to maintain its own niche’ in the academy. A second issue relates to the participative or self-implicating nature of academic studies in spirituality, and the transformative potential of the research itself. Many students who engage in intellectual study are already involved in some practice of spirituality, or are contemplating some personal forays into the realm of lived spirituality. The question could be posed as to whether personal involvement could be a stumbling block to objective and critical study. Burton-Christie (2005:103) argues against this position: ‘one’s love of the subject, far from being a hindrance to careful academic work, constitutes an initial and enduring interpretive key, informing our work at every step along the way’. In addition, the transformative nature of the process is very often a continuing incentive during the research journey. This journey can take the following form:


 * […] moving from an initial naiveté, where the love of the subject is all, to a more critical perspective, in which the subject ‘comes apart’ as it were into its component elements, to a post-critical ‘second naiveté’ where one is able to reintegrate what has been pulled apart in the critical process, [and] reengage the subject matter deeply and thoughtfully. (Burton-Christie 2005:103)

The transformation effected at this level can be experienced at both a personal and societal level, ‘[a]s Socrates knew, one cannot wrestle with ultimate truth without becoming a different person’ (Schneiders 2005b:31). This effects involvement in the midst of everyday activity, be it political, social, economic, et cetera, [i]nteraction, participation, and active citizenship thus should be seen as forms of spiritual practice’ (Sheldrake 2005:290). Consequently, study of spirituality forms the basis for apostolic service and societal transformation. Van Aalsum (2013:263), drawing on the magum opus of Waaijman (2002), illustrates the importance of morality in teaching spirituality: ‘If we as educators […] succeed in stimulating […] awareness of the divine-human relationship, we give […] a gift for life that is invaluable’. As a consequence, students are provided not only with ‘moral knowledge’, but also, such spirituality nourishes their ‘moral consciousness’ (Van Aalsum 2013:263).