How To Be "s/Spiritual"
When We’re Not Sure
How To Define "s/Spirit"

By

Robert P. Tucker, Ph.D., Minister
The Unitarian Universalist Congregation of Lakeland, Florida – August 14, 2005

return to previous page

  

    Have you ever noticed how hard it is to define something properly?
   A Sunday School teacher once asked her pupils if anyone understood the meaning of the term, "false doctrine." One little boy said: "Sure! That’s when the doctor gives you the wrong kind of medicine." [Pendleton, 136]
   Arriving at a clear and concise, honest and usable definition is what we ought to do, and usually want to do. But it’s never easy! Sometimes we get sidetracked by irrelevant issues, or we allow our prejudices to distort the meaning—somewhat like the local politician who was asked by a visitor to his county: "How are the roads around here?" "Fine," he replied, "we’ve abolished bad roads." "That must have been expensive!" "Not at all," said the politician, "Whenever the going got too bad, we quit calling it a ‘road,’ and called it a ‘detour.’" [Ibid.]
   Those of us who are committed to approaching religion from a "liberal" perspective (with hearts warmed by compassion for the welfare of all people, with minds sharpened by the repeated use of critical reasoning, and with eyes open to spot truth wherever it may be found), we are people who find defining some things especially difficult. "s/Spirit" and "s/Spirituality" are such terms.
   On the other hand, our religiously "conservative" friends and neighbors don’t have this difficulty. Most of them operate from within "theological circles" which are much smaller, much tighter, and much more clearly delineated than are our own.
   Asked to define "Spirit" with a capital S, they immediately talk about the Holy Spirit of the LORD, their God, Jehovah or Yahweh; or they talk about the "third person" of the Trinity. They claim that the meaning of "Spirit" is clear to them, and would be clear to anyone with the correct system of beliefs.
   Conservative believers in the West are similarly at ease defining "spirit" with a lower-case "s." For them, "spirit" is none other than the immortal, invisible, incorporeal "soul" which animates each human body. It is a divine gift, literally the "breath of life" breathed into people by the God of the Bible. [Genesis 2:7]
   "s/Spirituality," too, is an arena of no confusion for the majority of Western believers. Jewish, Christian and Islamic scriptures are replete with stories of individuals whose physical bodies have been entered either by good or evil supernatural spirits.
   Speaking of which, do you know why conservatives say, "God bless you!" when you sneeze? [Brasch, 71f.] It’s a superstitious habit that comes from their belief that a body dies without its soul, that its spirit is also its breath, and because sneezing clearly expels the breath from the body, that sneezing not only can bring about bodily death, but worse (since both nature and the supernatural realm abhor a vacuum) sneezing invites an evil spirit to take up housekeeping in the newly vacated body! Such "demonic possession" can then only be cured by an "exorcism."
   On the other hand, conservatives give thanks when they think someone’s body has been invaded by a divine spirit. They believe being "filled with the Holy Spirit" brings "gifts," including salvation.
   Given such conservative definitions, "s/Spiritual" experiences are not hard to find: charismatic believers can be found on cable TV all day and night collapsing as they are "slain in the Spirit" or exhibiting glossolalia ("speaking in tongues").
   In fact, most of the Western world’s religious faithful have no hesitation in offering definitions like these for "s/Spirit" and "s/Spirituality."
   But you and I belong to a liberal tradition within religion. We revere not only Moses, Jesus and Muhammad, but also Lao-tzu, Confucius, and Gautama. Our sacred scriptures come not only from the religious prophets of old, but also from the secular sages of modern science; and, our theological circles are not tight little rings of defensive wagons looped around antiquated and ever-increasingly challenged dogmas, but are, instead, ever-expanding bands, constantly stretching to include all of humanity’s ever-broadening horizons.
   We have travelled a far different and more rocky path than that worn smooth by conservative believers. Because of this, we have many reasons not to accept their definitions of "s/Spirit" arid "s/Spirituality."
   Think first about "spirit" with a lower-case "s." We know its standard meaning within the Jewish/Christian/Muslim traditions of the West. But we also know that Eastern religions see things quite differently.
   The Vedic and Hindu scriptures (Upanishads) speak not of a person’s "spirit" but of the atman or self which is at one ("that art thou") with the Brahman, an impersonal cosmic principle. According to their nondualism doctrine of neti neti, the atman cannot be described except in negative terms as being "not this" or "not that." Bound by the rules of karma, one’s atman is destined to undergo many earthly rebirths in different bodies (Samsara) until one finally achieves a salvation (Moksha) which is not so much life after death as it is eternal union with the divine principle. [McCasland, 369-484]
   As the Buddha or Enlightened One, Gautama rejected Hinduism’s atman. He believed that nothing is permanent (annica, impermanence), and so he held that humans do not have eternal souls (anatta, "no-self"). One’s self is merely a temporary composite of (the five skandhas:) one’s body, feelings, perceptions, dispositions, and consciousness. When death destroys the integrity of this composite, one’s self vanishes as does an extinguished flame from a candle (Nirvana). [McCasland, 545-609]
   Returning to our Western hemisphere, you and I are aware that there have always been dissenting minority reports alongside every proclamation of orthodoxy.
   While Plato (d. 347 B.C.E.) provided the philosophic groundwork for a doctrine of "being" which the Christian Church adopted and adapted into its version of the eternal human soul, there were already before him Pre-Socratic philosophers who argued (along the Eastern lines of the doctrine of maya) that permanence is an illusion, and that ultimately reality is not being but "becoming." Remember Heraclitus’ (d. c. 480 B.C.E.) famous dictum, "You can never step into the same river twice"? [Blackburn, 40, 39, 61, 171]
   Centuries later, as philosophy emerged out from under generations of theological domination, British Empiricist David Hume (d. 1776) declared that belief in an eternal human soul is a false inference based upon unprovable assumptions. [Blackburn, 180; Copleston, 63-156]
   Later philosophers also abandoned the traditional view of the soul as an eternal, unchanging substance. William James (d. 1910) spoke instead of the human spirit as consisting of "drops" of experience, while Alfred North Whitehead (d. 1947) and U.U. Charles Hartshorne (d. 2000) replaced the old "substance" view of spirit with a more dynamic "process" interpretation. [E.g., Whitehead 141, 188fff.; Hartshorne, 173-204; James’ drops are referred to by Whitehead on page 68]
   Further doubt about any supernatural characteristics belonging to our human spirits was raised by the 20th century’s dominant philosophical systems of Logical Positivism, Linguistic Analysis, and Philosophy of Mind. [Blackburn, 223f., 220, 357]
   A similar move away from traditional views of "spirit" occurred in science where reductionism based upon empirical analysis became the norm.
   Likewise in psychology, new interpretations of "spirit" have arisen. Because of Freud, Jung, Adler, and others, we recognize that a person writhing upon the floor in convulsions is the victim of epileptic seizure, not of demonic possession. Similarly, we explain glossolalia not as the gift of some spirit, but as "hysterical vocalization." Instead of "soul," we speak about "consciousness" and "personality" and we accept the probability that these are not eternal, but only temporal, fleeting epiphenomena of our mortal brains destined to vanish when that organ’s physical integrity is lost through disease or death.
   Our emotions may still tempt us to wishful thinking about the old notion of eternal human souls. But, given all we now know from so many sources, we are no longer comfortable with the traditional metaphysical definitions. We must, therefore, redefine "spirit" if we want to continue to use that term.
   As for "Spirit" with a capital S, our situation is the same.
   We have been influenced by many vastly different religious traditions, and that makes us reluctant to acknowledge the definition of "Spirit" given by any single one. We know that all religious paths contain some truths, but also that each one contains many falsehoods. Moreover, we know that not all paths point in the same direction. We know, for example, that Yahweh and Brahman are irreconcilably different entities, and if "Spirit" designates the one, it cannot refer to the other, although it might be something different than either!
   You and I are intellectually sophisticated enough to recognize that the language of religion is filled with myth and symbol; and so we are not tempted by anthropomorphic gods and goddesses. (As Jesus is claimed to have said in John 4:24, if there is a deity, it will be some kind of a spirit, not an animal or human-like corporeal being.)
   It is also clear to us that no human being could ever be a god. Humans are undeniably ignorant, weak, and localized beings, who can never possess the omniscience, omnipotence, or omnipresence monotheistic religions demand of deity. Not even the Apostle Paul’s doctrine of "kenoticism" [i.e., emptying oneself of supernatural traits; see Philippians 2:5-8] is sufficient to overcome such mutually exclusive traits. Since a "divine-man" is as oxymoronic as a "square-circle," we know that whatever "Spirit" may mean, it cannot refer to any "Holy Ghost" of Jesus, as fundamentalists wrongly believe.
   Traditional Christian interpretation defines the "Holy Spirit" not as the second, but as the third "person" of the Trinity. You and I don’t find this helpful. We know the Trinity is not biblical, and analysis shows that it is also not logical.
   We who practice liberal religion understand that the old "theistic" view of all the Western religions is metaphysically bankrupt and logically unsound. With Paul Tillich (d. 1965), we know that if we seek a "God," it must be beyond the "gods" of traditional religious mythology. [Tillich, 41-54] But, we are not sure how to choose among the remaining alternatives:
   "Pantheism," a la Hegel or Spinoza may attract some of us, if we feel comfortable thinking that "nature" and "deity" are the same. [Blackburn, 276; Bowker, 730f.]
   Others of us may be inclined toward "panentheism" a la Whitehead and Hartshorne, seeing better possibilities in a doctrine which claims that deity and nature are separate but intertwined. [Bowker, 730f.]
   For still others, "agnosticism" or "atheism" may seem preferable. [Bowker, 30, 105]
   In any case, the one thing we all agree upon is that we have not yet reached a consensus on how to define "Spirit" with a capital S. Most of us accept the wisdom of the world’s great mystics which urges us to admit that some things are ineffable. [Smith, 489] Yet, some of us still feel called to speak, to utter some description--however feeble--of our understanding of "Spirit."
   This then is the challenge: to avoid mystical silence and to speak about "s/Spirit" and "s/Spirituality" without creating yet another Tower of Babel with all of its confusing babble.
   We must put speculative metaphysics aside and seek out, as John Dewey (d. 1952) would have said, a "pragmatic" solution. [Blackburn, 103] We need to find definitions for "s/Spirit" and "s/Spirituality" which arise out of and are integral parts of that unity which exists amidst our liberal religious diversity.
   I suggest that whatever else "Spirit" with a capital S may mean for us, it must refer to something universal: some active process which affects and is affected by us all, regardless of our differences.
   Moreover, this capitalized "Spirit" must refer to something good, something which is beneficent to all. It must be something which helps make the present endurable, and the future desirable. If "Spirit" does not have these traits, then it is not worthy of our attention: we might fear or hate it, but we cannot honor or love it.
   To suggest what I have in mind for "Spirit" with a capital S, I would borrow Process Theologian John Cobb’s term: "creative transformation." [Cobb] Whatever religious names we may ultimately attach to "Spirit," the pragmatic results must always be the same: where the Spirit is, things will be creatively transformed, and the world will become better. Perhaps the blind will be enabled to see or the lame to walk. Perhaps the illiterate will be taught to read, or the homeless will be given shelter. Maybe a polluted stream will be made pure, or an endangered species will be saved from extinction. Maybe a pandemic virus will be conquered by a vaccine; or a refugee population will go home.
   Whatever the change, those whose lives have affected it, and those whose lives have been affected by it, will know in their minds, and will feel in their hearts that this creative transformation involved some kind of Spirit bigger and better and more beautiful than anything else in their lives. The presence of this Spirit will bring with it an absence of the causes of misery and suffering. Where this Spirit is, love will displace hate; toleration will fill the space of prejudice; pleasure will move aside pain; and truth will take the place of falsehood.
   This Spirit of creative transformation is not something supernatural. It is not some fairy-tale entity dreamed up in humanity’s primordial past. It is, instead, a contemporary whole made up of parts which consist of you and me, of our thoughts and actions as we participate in the great web of being which is this Universe.
   Do not doubt that a whole is always greater than its parts.
   Logic recognizes this in its Fallacy of Composition. Logic teaches that one cannot ascribe the characteristics of a thing’s parts to the whole. To give an example, while the parts of a Sherman tank may be relatively lightweight, the vehicle as a whole is a heavy object.
   Biology, too, teaches that the whole is always more than its parts. Consider social insects: no ant or bee or termite is an entity unto itself, but each survives, prospers, and has meaning only as it participates in the larger colony.
   Psychology also affirms that the whole is always more than its parts. Think about human consciousness: any single isolated neuron is nothing but a stupid, unconscious cell; and yet, when billions of such cells are properly integrated into a human brain, look what can emerge: the genius of an Einstein, the love of a Mother Theresa, the unique personality which is you or I.
   That brings us back to "spirit" with a lower-case s. In terms of "creative transformation," how shall we now define our individual spirits which are the parts of that greater whole? The wisdom of Socrates (d. 399 B.C.E.) can guide us. When asked how he would define a "just" person, Socrates replied that being "just" does not begin by possessing some static character-trait, but that one must first commit acts of justice, not once, or twice, but repeatedly, for only by so doing can one become "just."
   Similarly, "spirit" for us must be defined not as something we have or are, not as a metaphysical object, but rather as something we do, as an attitude we take, as our active participation in the creative transformation of the world.
   The philosopher George Santayana (d. 1952) wrote: "Spirit is a fountain of clearness, decidedly wind-blown and spasmodic, and possessing at each moment the natural and historical actuality of an event." [Woods, 958]
   Another writer, Margot Asquith, similarly declared: "The [human] spirit...is an inward flame; a lamp the world blows upon but never puts out." [Ibid., 959]
   Flames are not static objects as were the eternal souls of ancient religious mythology. Flames are burning processes of dynamic change! So too must we understand our spirits to be.
   Over 50 years ago (1952), Pope Pius XII declared that "the root of modern evil is lethargy of the spirit, weakness of the will, and coldness of the heart." [Ibid., 961] He saw a world filled with pain and suffering, where too little was being done to creatively transform misery into joy.
   Even Napoleon (d. 1821) understood the human spirit’s potential for creative transformation: "There are only two forces in the world," he said, "the sword and the spirit. In the long run, the sword will always be conquered by the spirit." [Seldes, 886]
   That brings us, finally, to consider what "spirituality" is. Surely its importance cannot be overestimated. As Albert Schweitzer (d. 1965) said: "One truth stands firm. All that happens in world history rests on something spiritual. If the spiritual is strong, it creates world history. If it is weak, it suffers world history." [Ibid.]
   I suggest that "spirituality" is that experience you and I have whenever we actively take part in creatively transforming the world, such that we really begin to feel ourselves to be integral parts of a much larger whole.
   Over the past few years, Unitarian Universalists have re-defined "spirituality" in modern and relevant ways. Their words reflect great wisdom. [The following quotations come from Ellis-Hagler.]
   "True spirituality," Elizabeth Ellis-Hagler writes, "incorporates the cries of the suffering and the search for understanding..."
   Makanah Elizabeth Morriss says, "Spirituality is about connections: with people, with animals, with nature, with energies deeper than the human eye can perceive… [Spiritual awakenings occur as we] touch and [are] touched by other parts of our…web of existence."
   Ellis-Hagler adds, "A spiritual life can bring us into touch with the interdependent web of existence of which we are a part, and which is torn by social and ecological wounds."
   Lastly, there is this summary from former UUA President William F. Schulz: "Whatever discloses [life’s] abundance; whatever reminds us of the best we can be; whatever summons us to transform the world into ever deepening channels of justice and of love--this is spirituality."
   May it therefore come to pass, that each of our individual spirits may become joined, so that together, we may go about the business of creatively transforming this world for all its inhabitants.

---