“SPIRITUALITY”
by W. John Green
Recent press and personal correspondence regarding the appointment of a
Diocesan Adviser on Spirituality has roused curiosity as to the definition
of “Spirituality”. The following paper has been written whilst trying to
treat objectively traditional Christian, or indeed any other religious
beliefs, either those of the writer or of those of other disciplines. It is
suggested that when observation seems to be in conflict with faith or with
widely held opinions, then both should be examined in closer detail and the
unprejudiced examiner will be prepared to allow for faulty observation
and/or be ready to modify a creed. It is on this assumption that all genuine
science is based.
It is a characteristic of many, if not all study disciplines, that they
are divided into convenient sections, or ‘files’ as present day technology
might have it. One recalls from school-days, for example, that Mathematics
was divided into Arithmetic, Algebra and Geometry; Science into Chemistry,
Physics and Biology, English into Language and Literature. Higher studies
lead to more and to more complicated divisions such as quantum physics,
pharmacology, cosmology, semantics and philology as well as the multiple
divisions of medical science. The list is extensive. This is reasonable,
since a comprehensive knowledge of everything is probably beyond the
capacity of any human brain, and the desire to acquire information in as
much detail as possible and then to apply it, compels intensive study but
within the parameters of ability and available time. It is essential,
nevertheless, for each ‘file’ to be seen as complementary to others, both
those of the same discipline and to the corpus of total knowledge. For
example, a knowledge of Chemistry is superficial if it is not linked at
various levels to particle physics as well as to the practical applications
of biochemistry and industrial research. Skill in ‘language’ is equally
superficial if it is not linked to literature, and to the communication of
knowledge.
It not surprising therefore that mankind’s thinking about himself has
traditionally been put into similar ‘files’ which can be studied separately
and within accepted parameters..
Some of these have traditionally been called ‘body’, ‘soul’, ‘mind’,
‘spirit’ and perhaps others.
The difficulty seems to lie in deciding whether the ‘person’ consists of
a material body which is somehow energised and controlled by immaterial or
metaphysical forces, or whether the ‘person’ is a metaphysical entity using
a material body as a means of expression and communication with similar
entities.
THE BODY
In this twenty-first century, the physical and chemical make-up of the
body is probably better known than at any time, but it will be admitted by
medical science that there is still much to be learnt. A recent television
programme dealing with the functioning of the human brain made this
apparent. The suggestion that the brain retains memory after clinical death,
coupled with reported ‘death experiences’ sheds a glimmer of light on the
nature of consciousness hitherto unknown. The possibility that the bodily
brain may be a receptor of information from an external source or sources,
as well as a processor of genetic development and of information received by
way of the senses, is an interesting one, especially when it is suggested by
the scientific world and even more when the question is asked, ‘From what
source(s) ?’
Within the author’s lifetime tremendous advances have been made in the
science of recording information. We can now collect information from all
over the globe by way of a few aluminium tubes on the roof and record them
on magnetic tape or a DVD. The day is nearing when a vast amount of
information will be able to be transmitted with no human senses being aware
of it, collected, and stored on a small silicon chip. It is not entirely
beyond the bounds of possibility that the human brain is already able to
store information in a similar way. That it does, is suggested by a
multitude of phenomena described as ‘psychic’ or ‘metaphysical, and which
cannot yet be explained by current experience of the physical body.
THE “UNCLEAN” BODY
In many, if not all religions, there is at least an underlying suggestion
that the body per se is essentially corrupt and therefore unclean.
This thinking probably originates in the observable body being seen as
deteriorating with time, and finally dissolving into a ‘mass of corruption’.
Furthermore it is noticed that the body is often afflicted by illnesses
which, at least until very recent times, caused incapacity and intense
suffering, in many cases seen as undeserved. The body was thus seen, if not
itself essentially evil, then as having within it at least the seeds of evil
which placed severe limitations on what the inhabitant of the body could do
and more so on what he/she wished to do.
The principal characteristic of a body, and uniquely of its zenith of
development which is the human body, is that of consciousness and
particularly of its self-consciousness. Self-consciousness means that the
body is inter alia aware of its deficiencies, actual or imagined. The
body is deficient in that it is not permanent. It changes with the passage
of time, and then dies. It is considered by individuals in varying degrees
to be deficient in form and appearance. Huge amounts of money are spent on
cosmetics, adornment, plastic surgery, medicines and health foods in an
attempt to modify the body’s appearance, and if not to delay its changes,
then at least to conceal them, and to defer its final death.
It has been said that the human body starts life in this world as a
somewhat formless bundle of cells, comes as near to perfection as it will
ever get at the age of about nine to eleven, transmutes at puberty to its
breeding state, and then starts on a decline towards death. This can been
seen to apply to other life forms, but on different time scales. Modern
man’s ‘decline towards death’ is probably longer than most other animal
species.
It is easy to go on to associate deterioration, illness and final death
and corruption* with evil, in the sense that without these deficiencies life
would be ideal and everlasting. Evil is seen as that which appears to fight
against the ideal state and which is manifestly inherent in the body. The
instinct for self preservation, which is a built-in property of the
individual, seems to be at war continually with forces which threaten it,
and which eventually overcome it. Bodily life seems to be a continual
conflict between the yearning for a permanent ideal state and the processes
which are characterised by “change and decay in all around I see”. This may
be what theological jargon calls “original sin”.
Faced with this conflict and the ephemeral nature of the human body,
mankind has looked for signs which would indicate that there is within the
individual personality, something which is permanent or eternal, and which
therefore is not subject to the deterioration and disintegration of the
body. So the ideas of mind, spirit and soul have emerged.
* The word “corruption” is a pejorative term, implying in common and
biblical usage a sense of revulsion. In this context the term
“disintegration” might be more suitable.
MIND.
It seems to be generally agreed that the mind is a term for that which
deals with the results of stimuli received by the senses and delivered to
the brain. This was not always so, hence the use of the word heart and even
bowels in biblical and other ecclesiastical literature to describe the
effects of such stimuli. Familiarity with the physical effects of adrenalin
release on heart and gut nevertheless allows a good deal of sympathy with
this deduction.
The mind may be defined as that property of the brain which, having
received an impulse, proceeds to process it, sometimes under the close
conscious control of the individual but often not. If the latter, the
processing is regarded as being the action of the unconscious or the
sub-conscious part of the mind. To put this into modern computer language,
the brain is comparable to the hardware, whilst the mind is the software
which allows the hardware to function as an information processor. Some of
the results of this processing become visible on the “monitor” i.e. in the
behaviour of the body, but most of them are not seen and not normally
communicable. It is the function of the psychologist to study this
processing.
By the operation of the mind, the body responds to stimuli in ways which
vary over a wide range from violent action to quiet meditation. In the
absence of knowledge of how the brain works, it is appreciated that the mind
can be regarded as a separate substance or entity, the active part of
consciousness, but still therefore, a part of the body. In examining
mankind’s search for, and postulating about, the possibility of “life
hereafter” or “eternal life”, it is difficult to find reference to the mind
as being eternal or of having any sort of existence outside the body.
SOUL
The conflict between the observed evanescence and degenerative nature of
the body and the strong instinctive desire for permanence of the
consciousness in an ideal state has led to the conception of “The Soul”. The
Book of Wisdom in the Apocrypha provides an interesting thought when the
writer says, “As a child, I was by nature well endowed, and a good soul fell
to my lot.” (8.19) He then goes on to contradict this :- “Or rather, being
good, I entered an undefiled body”. (8.20)
These two contradictory statements illustrate the writer’s dilemma in
deciding the location of the fundamental ego. Am “I” a body for which a soul
is provided, or am “I” a soul injected into a body ? It will further be
noted that the quality of each must be compatible! Are these two essential
components of the personality separable, and if so, is one, the body,
subject to degeneration and the other not? Is the body temporal and the soul
eternal?
In religious parlance, the soul is sometimes conceived of as that part of
the individual which is neither evanescent nor corruptible. Death is often
described as the instant when the soul leaves the body, making its escape
from the disintegration of the body. Ancient and modern art has depicted
this phenomenon, often as a dove, or other bird, flying out of the dead body
and ascending to “heaven”.
What then are we to make of the concept of the “saving of the soul”? This
has traditionally been both the offer of so many preachers of religions, and
put forward as the essential aim of our bodily existence in this world. We
are led to infer that should the soul not be saved, then a conscious
existence in the bliss of a future world will not be possible.
The soul, we are told in various contexts, can be “lost” and so we must
ask in what sense it is lost. Does this mean a permanent separation from the
body which has thereby “lost its soul”, and if so what happens to the soul?
Or has the soul itself been corrupted by evil to a degree whereby it, like
the body, is condemned to oblivion, or even more inexplicably, to eternal
punishment?
THE SPIRIT
The line between soul and spirit is not, in much religious writing,
clearly drawn. In the languages of the Bible, however the words used for
soul, nephesh and anima in many references, refer to something
which is personal to the individual. “I will say to my soul….” (Lk.12.19) is
typical, whilst different Hebrew and Greek words, ruach and pneuma,
are used for “spirit”
The translations of the Hebrew “ruach”, the Greek “pneuma”
and the Latin words “spiritus" and “anima” all have a
connection with “wind”. Unless one has some knowledge of modern physics,
wind appears as a movement, often a violent movement, of something invisible
and therefore mysterious. Wind can only be appreciated by observation of its
effects which can vary from the gentle cooling of a breeze to the violent
destruction caused by a hurricane. The characteristic of wind is the
invisible power which it exercises. Its mystery lies in its changes of
direction and that it appears to come from nowhere and without visible
cause. It is certainly uncontrollable, but its power can be tapped by the
windmill and in latter times by the power generator.
Observation shows that this invisible phenomenon is sampled by every
living person, it being drawn in and blown out of the body several times
every minute. It is elementary deduction therefore to suppose that the
existence of life within the body depends on the power which is breathed in,
a sample, if you like, of the universal invisible power of wind. Modern man
will detail this is as being the need for blood to be oxygenated. In the
absence of any evidence as to the origin of wind and its power, it is easy
to attribute this origin to an over-reaching power which may be called “The
Great Spirit” or more simply “God” or gods. Genesis tells us that God
breathed into the body of Adam and he became a living creature.
Just as there are changes in the wind’s direction and velocity, some of
them corresponding with good or bad effects, the next reasonable deduction
is that there are various types of wind. Ancient personification of the
‘four winds’ is well known and has been depicted in literature and art. The
next deduction then, can be that there are different types of ‘spirit’, at
the minimum ‘good’ and ‘evil’, but developed into varying types to explain
all the moods and actions of the person. Alcohol is classed as “spirit” –
methylated or otherwise - because of its property of influencing human mood
and behaviour.
We read much in the Bible about evil spirits and more so about the Holy
Spirit. The Christian apostle is authorised to cast out evil spirits. Change
in the personality or variation from usual behaviour could, on this basis,
be thought of as the body’s possession (sic) by an evil spirit. In past
times, this has been accepted as the cause of many types of disease which
can now be cured by medicine and/or surgery. Then, again, there are many
sincere Christians who attribute a change for the good (or to the
unorthodox!) in personality and behaviour to their having received the Holy
Spirit.
Opinions seem to vary as to whether a ‘spirit’, be it evil, good, or
holy, can be received involuntarily by the recipient, or whether some sort
of awareness or open-ness is necessary on his/her part. In so-called
“evangelical” gatherings the raising of the arms in a manner preparatory to
an embrace is probably motivated by a desire to be possessed or infiltrated
by the Holy Spirit.
The weight of evidence, however, would suggest that in contrast to ideas
of mind, and soul, ‘spirit’ is not wholly identified with the individual,
the closest to this being illustrated by Elisha’s request to Elijah that he
receive a ‘portion of thy spirit’, i.e. some of the ‘spirit’ which had been
allocated to his mentor. This is echoed in an old rite of Baptism when the
minister was enjoined to breathe on the candidate so that the latter would
receive some of the “spirit” allocated to the minister at his ordination.
Unless drastic contradictions of and/or additions to the above can be put
forward and shown to be valid, the very fact that so many questions are left
unanswered would indicate that the dividing of human personality and
consciousness into the “files” of body, mind, soul and spirit is no more
than a means whereby certain aspects of otherwise unexplained
characteristics may be examined in detail. If, indeed, this is the purpose
of the classification, then it is indeed valid – as a tool. The thinking
that such and similar classifications can be regarded as separate essences
which together make up the person owes much to Platonic and Aristotelian
philosophy and logic. It is, however, pure thesis and its acceptance depends
on rejection of much observational evidence.
This is one of the major difficulties which modern man has in accepting
the traditional tenets of religion. Religion, in the word’s most
comprehensive sense, calls for an a priori acceptance of the
traditional divisions of personality and of metaphysical phenomena for which
there is no observational evidence. True there is ample claimed individual
experience, but unless this can be shown to be universally available and
repeatable, the degree of subjectivity leaves it always open to question.
“SPIRITUALITY”
As stated in the introduction to this paper, thoughts on these matters
have been sparked recently by the announcement of a “Diocesan Spirituality
Adviser”. The questions asked as to the job specification have been
inadequately answered. The writer of this paper has been privileged over
many years to be able to call on the wisdom of various associates in matters
of the ministry of the Church and in personal life, not only in matters
which could possibly be classed as ‘spiritual’ , but also in some which
could be classed as ‘corporeal’ or even ‘carnal’ An official adviser on
Spirituality is a concept new to the writer. With the concept of ‘The Whole
Man’ one cannot help wondering if the separation of what are commonly known
as ‘Spiritual’ matters from any other aspect of humanity is a valid one. One
recalls a fellow priest who, having written to the press regarding some
political or social controversy, received a letter from his M.P. telling him
to “stick to spiritual matters and not dabble in politics”. The priest wrote
back thanking the M.P. for his advice which he said he would bear in mind
when canvassed for his vote at the next election.
The word “spirituality”, if valid at all, would appear to be an envelope
term covering those aspects of human behaviour, belief and motivation which
cannot be explained by anatomy, physiology or psychology, all in their
broadest meaning. Whether or not its use can be justified as a separate
‘envelope’ at this point of history is at least debatable.
WJG. February 2003
© The Estate of William John Green, 2004