Spirituality

In his article, “The Wild West: Studying Christian spirituality,” Bruce Hindmarsh reviews two new books on the study of spirituality: Minding the Spirit, edited by Elizabeth A Dreyer and Mark S. Burrows, and New Westminster Dictionary of Christian Spirituality edited by Philip Sheldrake. This article is helpful in defining some of the issues at stake in the methodology used to study spirituality.

One of the biggest problems with the study of spirituality is defining what it is. Hindmarsh points out that the words we use are often devoid of any concrete meaning, making intelligent discussion and study difficult. He quotes Uwe Poerksen, author of Plastic Words, to illustrate how words lose their meanings. Words have denotation, the concrete meaning, and connotation, feelings, associations and valuations the word evokes. It is like a rock thrown into a pond that causes ripples. The denotation is the rock and the connotations are the ripples. “Plastic words” are words that have only connotations since the denotation has been lost, much like having the outer ripples on the pond without the rock. Such words sound like they are full of meaning, backed by scientific research and study, but actually are devoid of any concrete meaning.

“Spirituality” is such a word, full of connotation but lacking denotation. When someone uses this word, we think we know what he means, and assume it has scholarly and scientific support, but it actually is vacuous and empty of meaning. It is more meaningful, therefore, to talk about prayer, which is concrete and has denotation, instead of spirituality, which lacks denotation.

Another problem in the study of spirituality is the methodology. How does one study spirituality? There are three basic approaches given by Dreyer: historical, theological, and anthropological. The historical approach studies spirituality as it has developed throughout history. The theological approach studies spirituality according to the biblical and theological norms of a particular denomination. The anthropological approach studies spirituality from the natural human quest for that which is beyond the material, and would include Hinduism, Buddhism, Animism, and all other forms of spirituality and not just Christian spirituality. While it is helpful to note these distinctions, Hindmarsh feels that this approach obscures some fundamental questions.

This brings us to the third problem: spirituality cannot be studied merely from the outside, but must be studied from within the practice and experience the worshipper. This will distort one’s findings, making it difficult to do objective historical and theological research. On the other hand, if one is totally objective, then one’s study is also distorted and leaves out the most vital elements. Knowledge requires participation in the event, not just observation of the event.

Here are a few quotes that I found summed up this dilemma:

Each believer making his or her own that engagement with the questioning at the heart of faith which is so evident in the classical documents of Christian belief." Once again, we are back to spiritual theology as a self-implicating enterprise. This sort of sensitive historical approach to the study of Christian spirituality demands that we see Christianity as a lived faith. Knowledge here requires participation and not just observation.

To separate the study of Christian spirituality from Christology in a purely anthropological way, seems to me, at minimum, to engage in a different sort of discourse with a different sort of ecclesia. I think it remains important for Christian spirituality to be studied first and foremost within the context of Christological confession, ecclesial participation, Scriptural authority and classical credo. Such study would still be interdisciplinary and public, rooted in theology and history, and focused on experience, but confessional commitment would not need to be smuggled in as contraband.

The critical mode of reflection upon Christian spirituality must be unique, since the sources we work with assume participation. One can stand outside of prayer and study it, but then that really is a different discourse. I am more interested in the sort of discourse where one studies prayer, even in a fully interdisciplinary way, but without ceasing to pray.


You can read the article at: http://www.christianitytoday.com/bc/2007/001/9.22.html