i.Defining the ‘spiritual’

What is intended by the term ‘spiritual’ is notoriously difficult to define. So what follows has no pretentions to precise analysis. It is more about sketching out the territory associated with this word so that some consistent sense can be given to its use.

In Dancing on the Edge? Egan (2007, pp.110-112) suggest that ‘spiritual’ invokes the follow territory:

• It concerns ‘limit situations’, that is the facing uncertainty, suffering, abandonment and death.
• It relates to a sense of energy, a force of motivation
• It is about connection, relationship to others, but also sense of connection to that which transcends the immediate, to those who came before us or will come afterwards, to an undefined sense of mystery.
• It might suggest particular virtues, for example courage or kindness, or a willingness to offer practical help.
• It possesses an interdependent and overlapping relationship with religion.

This latter point is significant, for here Egan is explicitly differentiating himself from the tradition that stems from William James’ The Varieties of Religious Experience (1902) which sets up what has become an influential distinction between the internal and personal realm (commonly thought of as spiritual) and the external and institutional (commonly thought of as religion). An example of the persistence of this categorisation is found in the NHS NICE guidelines as reported by Todd (2011):

“[S]pirituality is understood to be an aspect of humanity relating to beliefs and philosophy, which is independent of religion (although some people will express their spirituality in a religious way).” ( p.96)

Here spirituality appears to be thought of as the more universal and primary category, and religion as the later and more diverse colonizer of this terrain. Others such as Swift (2009) reverse the order: “spirituality may be less a shift away from religion, more a reaction against religious authority” (cited at Todd, 2011, p.97). The sense though of an antagonistic relationship between religion and spirituality remains.

What then of the university context? If we return to Egan’s (2007) analysis, in which there is a more fluid connection between the two, it leads him to suggest that a university population is likely to comprise the following categories (p.113):

• ‘spiritual dwellers’ (those at home in a particular religious tradition)
• ‘spiritual seekers’ (who regard themselves as spiritual, but not at home in any particular tradition)
• ‘anonymously spiritual’ (those who would not claim a spiritual identity, but indicate by the values that shape their lives that the term is appropriate)

There is perhaps a fourth category, those who formally identify with a particular religious tradition, yet see themselves as essentially secular in most respects. Thus there is a need to recognise the presence of ‘secular Jews’ (see Blumenthal, 2013, p.104f) and if Guest et al (2013) are correct in their analysis, an emerging group of’ secular Christians’. At a time when the attempt to cater for different religious needs mainly seems to concern the issues of place for ritual, food, dress, and the timing of feasts,these groups may be rendered invisible.

For traditionally-aged students Guest et al (2013), drawing on the work of Collins-Mayo et al (2010), suggest that the majority, like most ‘generation Y’ young people, are liable to live out their spirituality through the ‘secular trinity’ of: family; friends; and the reflexive self (p.199). This is what Abby Day (2011) has very helpfully described, playing on Grave Davie’s work, as ‘believing in belonging’. Even in the Christian Union context, where one might imagine the content of belief is primary, often, in my experience, it is the sense of belonging that draws.

What is striking in the analyses surveyed above is, that despite the breadth – even the disagreements – of descriptions offered, there is a board correlation between what is popularly conceived as ‘the spiritual’ and that which Christian theologians would recognise as the part of the work of the Holy Spirit. It is the Spirit that creates connection and relationship as the Spirit of love and fellowship. It is the Sprit that awakens the heart to a sense of the sacred and to a mysterious ‘more-ness’ to things. It is the Spirit of life, vitality and creativity, the Spirit of possibilities and gifts that also opens up the questions of meaning, purpose and direction. In exploring the ‘spiritual’ then we are, it seems, in broadly familiar country.

Where chaplains are likely to have difficulty, however, is with the tendency of some to treat the spiritual as the narrow field of chaplaincy expertise, as if ‘spirituality’ constitutes a discrete and separable component of what it means to be human distinguishable from work, finance, reason and the rest of life. Chaplaincy cannot authentically have as its focus anything less than the whole person, along with the network of relationships in which they are set and the broader context in which they find themselves; not, that is, if our work is to do with God. Here, at least, the popular conception seems to be on our side.