What should chaplaincy’s relationship be with, and what can we offer to, those who see themselves variously as ‘spiritual but not religious’? That is how might we relate to those who would agree to the following propositions: I have an interest in spirituality; I believe in the sacredness of life; I am searching for purpose and meaning in life.
Before responding, we need to face up to the realism offered by Sophie Gilliat-Ray (1999). As a general rule chaplains face: a decline in attendance of worship; and increase in religious and spiritual diversity; and a weakening of the position of the church in public life (p.33). Those who do seek religious or spiritual resources can also come with a consumer mindset, desiring to choose what fits their own requirements in a personally constructed and sometimes quite idiosyncratic spirituality.
It seems then that if chaplaincy desires to engage with more than a narrow minority of the university population we need to discover a means to re-negotiate our relationship with this spiritual sensibility beyond the boundaries of clearly identifiable Christian liturgical and prayerful practices.
Simon Robinson (2007) suggests working to establish a framework of dialogue about spirituality which can be shared by all equally, but he acknowledges:
“At one level this gives up the claims of the Christian church to be the centre of any and all spirituality. By doing so it enables others to claim this arena of beliefs systems in a way that makes sense to them and which enables better conversation between Christians and others.”(p.168f)
Egan (2007) offers a cost-benefit analysis of moving from a religious to a spiritual designation of chaplaincy work which we might summarise as follows (pp.115f):
Advantages:
- Enables addressing a universal human need and dimension
- Assists connection with those alienated from church traditions and institutions
- Assists connection with both ‘spiritual dwellers’(those at home in a particular religious tradition) and ‘spiritual seekers’(who regard themselves as spiritual, but not at home in any particular tradition)
- Offers the ability to embrace the ‘soul’ of the institution
Disadvantages:
- It means changing well-established ways of working and surrendering hard-won ground
- It means risking losing what is distinct about one’s religious identity and tradition
- It means risking losing denominational support
- It means risking the neglect of the pastoral needs of those who belong to one’s distinctive church community
- A spirituality free from religion is more vulnerable to hijacking by those whose agenda is far from spiritual.
Though some re-positioning may be necessary, it seems to me that a rush to embrace the relevance of board spirituality brief would mean an unacceptable compromise of one’s identity as an Anglican (Christian) chaplain. Rather is there not a theological way to mediate the relationship between the religious and the spiritual by calling each into critical co-ordination with the God who calls us into relationship with himself (see The limits of the spiritual)? For God can neither be contained by religion nor be reduced to a valorising of existing (spiritual) experience.
The position of the Anglican (Christian) narrative of God, bound to the public identity of the institution, might then act as the catalyst for seeking to construct a new public language of spirituality. This would validate the significance of the facets of human experience to do with purpose, meaning, values and truth, and would create the conditions for building a consensus about what counts as (common) good. Thus, without surrendering our identity, we might be able to construct a public arena for debate and discussion.
No thoughts yet on “Working with the spiritual”