Volume 3, Issue 03 - May 2000

Another Look at Faith-Based Spirituality

"The spiritual traditions provide the grounding within which the connection to a deeper meaning is developed."

In contemporary bioethics, if not in society at large, a tension exists between faith-based and secular-based concepts of the term "spirituality". In my view, there is a strong bias today in favor of the non-religious position. I believe that this tension, and the prevailing bias, is understood on grounds that fail to consider both the historical ties to religious perspectives and the breadth of the religious conception of spirituality. While I argue from a Christian perspective, my sense is that individuals from other faith traditions may share my concern.

In this paper I will attempt to: clarify "spirituality" as a religious term, as opposed to a secular one; demonstrate the dynamic tension which exists between faith-based and secular-based concepts; and relate religious spirituality to the evolving field of bioethics.

Integrating the Sacred and the Secular

Recently, the Calgary Herald reported that the elected councilors for the eastern Ontario community of Picton have called on the general religious community to support an appeal for "divine intervention in helping make municipal decisions."¹ Council approved opening chambers twice a month for one-hour prayer sessions. The sessions would be open to councilors, religious officials, and members of the public of various faith backgrounds.

This appeal seems to acknowledge both that current approaches to decision-making are inadequate and that spiritual tools may have potential benefit. In modern Western society, where the secular and the sacred are viewed as separate entities, such a public acknowledgement of the place of prayer in a strongly secularized institution appears noteworthy. While this form of integration may or may not be appropriate, the very fact of its arising as an issue seems to point out how unclear the demarcation between spirituality and society is.

Grey Areas of Segregation

There have been significant efforts throughout history, and most particularly in Western societies, to partition state and church spheres of influence. While there are remnants of formalized Christian influence in North American social and judicial institutions, the functions of the state and church have come to be seen as separate, if not mutually exclusive. Yet despite this surface incompatibility, appeals at different times and in various forms have been made for some kind of rapport between the secular and the religious domains, even though there exists at the same time an unwillingness to acknowledge it.

For example, in the field of health care, efforts have long been underway to establish effective dialogue between medical professionals and theologians and pastors on matters related to life maintenance. Many practitioners in medical science are beginning to affirm the significant role which religious beliefs and attitudes can potentially have in support of the healing process. It is not uncommon to see clergy members included in health ethics committees, even though there is explicit acknowledgment that the medical and theological professionals not only speak different languages, but also subscribe to different anthropological models.²

The New "Religion"

I would argue that when individuals or groups claim to be "spiritual" they are directly acknowledging a type of connection with what are often called "ultimate realities" or the divine. While this does not necessarily imply any affiliation with a specific dogma or religious tradition, the gradual absorption of the term "spirituality" into secular conversation ignores the historical origins of this "religious" term.

According to William Spohn, contrary to the "new" phenomena of spirituality expressed today in various forms (such as New Age practices, feminist political writings, and Twelve Step programs), the term "spirituality" has been around a long time.³ It was predominantly considered a Roman Catholic term until the late 19^th century and referred originally "to living according to the Spirit of Jesus in response to God".⁴

Over the past two decades, more inclusive definitions have taken the place of elitist ones, and as a discipline, spirituality continues to define itself. Historical transitions in religious institutions led to the acceptance of more personal forms of religious devotion and an emphasis on individual responsibility to determine relationships with the divine. Sole reliance on church authorities to mediate between the individual and God was made optional for those seeking more structured and dogmatic approaches to religious expression.

Spohn suggests further that there are both positive and negative elements in the new forms of contemporary spirituality.⁵ Positively, some forms of the "new" spirituality can enhance ethical systems that have concentrated on intellectual dimensions while ignoring the internal motivations required in order to live morally. Negatively, some seem to resist ethical, religious, or theological reflection, appealing instead to personal intuition as a more valid vehicle for finding the basis for belief. What appears to have emerged is a preference for the more "personal" spirituality over that advocated by institutional religious authorities, and has led to colloquial expressions such as "I'm not a religious person, but I am very spiritual." Spohn raises the question: How are these people to assess their spiritual experience without the intellectual (and ethical) criteria that has been developed in religious communities?

Spohn draws two distinctions of spirituality: "lived" spirituality and "reflective" spirituality.⁶ To this view, lived spirituality is similar to morality; it is the practical living of life in relation to deep meanings or ultimate realities. Further, it is the lived experience of human values and obligations. Reflective spirituality, Spohn argues, is similar to ethics; it is the interpretation of this living (experience) as experience using theological, historical-contextual, and anthropological methods to analyze the lived experience. It is the reflection that probes the rationale and interconnections of the experience.

The spiritual traditions, by encompassing both the lived and reflective dimensions, provide the grounding or structure within which the initial conversion and connection to a deeper meaning is expanded and developed. In fact, Spohn argues that problems arise when one of the two dimensions is missing.⁷ In the absence of the reflective component to spirituality, spiritual practices are not examined and may ultimately be deceiving.

Traditional Spirituality Misdiagnosed

In a recent edition of the Hastings Center Report, John Hardwig argues that what patients and families find most troubling at the end of life are decisions not about specific treatment issues, but about spiritual issues.⁸ For him, the term "spiritual" refers to concerns about the ultimate meaning and values in life, about the deepest sense of who we are, and what life is all about. "Spiritual", he states, does not imply belief in a supreme being or in a life after this one, and so "spiritual" does not mean "religious".

Hardwig claims that by focussing on what it is believed to come after death, some organized religions do not address the spiritual needs of its members, and most especially those who are dying. To this point of view, organized religion representatives not only distract from, but perhaps even silence, spiritual concerns at the end of life. By not allowing people to doubt or question their faith at a critical life crisis, when beliefs and values previously held appear to be invalid, Hardwig concludes that many Christians find that their faith provides little guidance in positively concluding this last stage of life.

I would suggest that it is an overstatement to argue that a religious tradition, which has (as Spohn would say) provided both lived and reflective means of moving toward an authentic way of existence, has nothing to contribute with regard to establishing principles for living and dying. On the contrary, this is the raison d'etre of the religious tradition.

Theology, for example, has made major contributions to the field of bioethics. The reflection by a religious tradition or community of faith on the reality of God and the dignity of the human person results in convictions about the experiences of our humanity, our sacred life, and our destiny. Upon this foundation meaningful and constructive answers can be found to the bioethical questions about the beginning of life, the relationships between the ill and those who care for them, and the care required at the end of life.⁹

Concluding Thoughts

If we believe that all members of society have a role in shaping public values, then the religious voice, without fear of naming it as such, must be allowed to participate in the conversation. The appeal to a sense of meaning and the quest to understand ourselves are universal phenomena regardless of the particular term by which they are labeled. It is only through genuine, civil dialogue that we achieve moral consensus and do best by those who face the moments of existential angst. And formal religious traditions, Christian and other, will likely have much to contribute to these discussions.

References:

1. "Pray for us, council asks", Calgary Herald, March 29, 2000, A7.

2. World Council of Churches, Healing and Wholeness: The Church's Role in Health, 1991 Reprint, p. 3, 36, 18.

3. William C. Spohn, "Spirituality and Ethics: Exploring the Connections", Theological Studies 58 (1997), p. 110.

4. Ibid.,

5. Ibid., p. 109.

6. Ibid., p. 112.

7. Ibid., p. 113.

8. John Hardwig, "Spiritual Issues at the End of Life: A Call for Discussion", Hastings Center Report 30, no. 2 (2000): p. 28.

9. Francoise Baylis, (ed) Health Care Ethics Consultant, Humana Press, 1994, p. 96-97.

Views offered in this article are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the position of the Provincial Health Ethics Network.