When many describe their personal affiliations to certain religious or spiritual beliefs nowadays, the vast descriptors are all beginning to appear as more a convergent set of general principles than not so. Now before there are intense reactions to such a generality, I would implore a bit of thought between the principles of spiritual thought and that of more mainstream religious thinking and exactly what seems to separate as much as join them together.
Certainly this convergence seems more the case now than has ever been witnessed throughout the past and perhaps some of the reasons are held in the observance and at least the acknowledgment of others ways and beliefs instead of setting the endless identities into such age old boundary monikers as a belief being seen as a heresy, or worse. This medieval tactic on the part of many of those in responsible positions in many sects and religious denominations seems to be slowly but surely waning off into the sunset with other middle-aged concepts the likes of which you can certainly fill in for yourselves.
The point of the thoughtful question at hand is; can there be any thoughtful convergence of thought, or at least any decent and respectful observances between various religious ways of thought and those who simply observe their own ways of spiritual life as akin to being more “spiritual” to the family of man and to the worldly existence we all take part in?
I personally found it rather interesting that some of the ways that this is described by the Dictionary in that, a Religion is:
“A set of beliefs concerning the cause, nature, and purpose of the universe, esp. when considered as the creation of a superhuman agency or agencies, usually involving devotional and ritual observances, and often containing a moral code governing the conduct of human affairs.
A specific fundamental set of beliefs and practices generally agreed upon by a number of persons or sects: the Christian religion; the Buddhist religion.
The body of persons adhering to a particular set of beliefs and practices: a world council of religions.”
Where the term spirituality from the same source seems to be defined as being:
“The quality or fact of being spiritual. Incorporeal or immaterial nature. Predominantly spiritual character as shown in thought, life, etc.; spiritual tendency or tone.”
The terms “spiritual” and “spirituality” when referenced to Biblical Concordance seem rather bereft of the general terms, except when connected to the numerous specific passages to the spirit of God, the Holy Spirit and so on. Then the references become quite clear.
The first usage of the term “spiritual” in its meaning in relation to a spiritual way, or having some religious connection to a faith or an observance of a faith could be sourced as far back as having old Latin roots as, “spiritualis” from “spiritus” or “of breathing, of the spirit”. From the Twelfth-Century Frankish “spirituel”, but generally its connection to the function of the Christian Church it seems it is sourced to on or around the early 1300’s and then its connotations were almost always connected to the then accepted European Church of the time, the Church of Rome.
It was some time, likely in the order of centuries until in or about the period of the 18th or the 19th century when people’s broad interests began to grow into a fashion in seeking other ways of thought in great numbers. Most likely in an attempt to explain their ethereal or non-physical selves in relation to their physical existence people throughout many ages sought great answers to great questions. While direct answers to such queries were usually veiled in symbolism and through old lesson instead of common sense, the more “spiritual” ways of thought were hardly ever accepted by most of the mainstream religious establishment as they were, and for the most part still are now seen as coming from pagan foundations. Regardless of the age or the source of the belief system, if the spiritual message was not couched in the accepted dogma of the time it was usually subject to rejection if simply based on its differences. Nonetheless, people continued to seek to expand their singular definitions of their soulful selves, while also beginning to investigate and observe many facets of other belief systems that carried alternate yet so similar ways of belief that had been accepted by themselves.
As with any period of a renaissance of the self, such a time progresses to its fruition and the overall effect of this period surely carried along and never truly waned from the horizon of people’s lives. It’s been said that once such a door of enlightenment has been opened, it can never be truly shut again for awareness itself cannot be excised from ones consciousness. It simply is not contained in the makeup of the soul. This was surely the case of the spiritualist movement from the 19th century onward. Not too much time would pass when mainstream religious sects would begin to try to carry themselves into this tidal wave of belief, both in an effort of proselytizing their own beliefs while also in some wonder to the strength that this enlightened way of thought seemed to affect people from so many walks of life.
The question seemed to constantly be, why?
Now without any doubt there would be many who would disagree with this evaluation of what has come from the past to our common age present, and in some acquiescence, this author would agree that much more retrospective work on this matter needs to be explored. Suffice it to say that through research it can be generally accepted that the timeline to this point in time generally travelled a similar course though surely in a much more complex pattern.
Now in our common day and age, we have witnessed many various cultures around our world lift their eyes and their minds to a more open variation of belief, while also remaining respectful to their own beliefs. Some have wandered across the schism separating themselves completely from any mainstream religion instead identifying themselves as “spiritual not religious” or “spiritual instead of religious” and they open their minds to other ways of spiritual acceptance. Many in this realm of thought identify the realistic view that history cannot dictate a lengthy record of such a belief. Then again, there remain others who might insist that history can indeed identify many belief systems of religious thought that have transitioned from one paradigm to another throughout history. As with any such collection of descriptive standards, the answers are never nailed to one single or any set of points along any thoughtful line.
In fact, it would probably be wiser to identify that in the realm of the thoughtfulness that is a spiritual matter, the soul itself and its relationship to any “Great Maker” or “Great Spirit” or that of God, does truly in the end circumvent any authority of another. Be that the authority of the voice or the cassock, a belt or a tie, some robe or a ring or even a record of history. People in the end must come to their own conclusions in the yearning of their soulfully spiritual self, and where this brings them in their own search for the meaning to their existence. Such a quality of the spiritual self should never be defined by another, but only according to the dictates of ones own self and according to ones own relationship to their Great Spirit. Much to think on.
A wonderful spiritual age this is!
As Always,
WD
© 2009 WD Allan, spiritualitymoment.com
All Rights Reserved
