How can one intelligently talk about growth of spirit? Do we moderns mean the same thing that people of Dietrich Bonhoffer's circle in the 1930s-40s, or the purposes of the PIlgrims, or the penetrating gaze of Society of Friends (Quakers) and Anabaptists like the followers of Menno, or today's Catholics & Eastern Orthodox?
What is the scope of the idea: the development of one's reach and one's grasp [the hand metaphor], the depth or width of one's vision and understanding [a spatial image], something cumulative and chronological that steps up year by year of the life course? Is movement one-way or do some regress from heights once gained? Will the sequence of steps be fixed, although some skip over and others dwell at length on particular points of the continuum? And will one person's experience be comparable to another's way or is each path scaled to the salient events of each person's circumstances such that no crude indicators will point to one person being "more advanced" than another?
Some clues come from the Bible: things like discernment, wisdom [fear of the LORD is the beginning of wisdom] and the fruits of the spirit [manifest among those engaged and invested in the Way of God]. But how much is internal [of the heart] and how much is external such that others may perceive? Perhaps the monastery societies have developed ways to detect or self-detect a sort of inventory or spiritual audit in order to mark one's beginning [baseline measurements] and current point and then to indicate what direction to bear towards and what methods to use for the intermediate steps that lead to that end point.
One day there may be a way to do a quick litmus test to see how one is doing at the moment and to compare to one's place in the scheme of life in the past, as well as comparing to one's peers. But in the meantime it seems that a good place to enter the topic of "growth" is to recognize that all this study, thinking and talking accept the relational nature of the religion: love God with all your self, and love your neighbor as your self [neither diminish the one or the other since both are worthy of respect and love]. Thus we may ask of one's fitness or the state of one's spiritual growth, "relationship-wise how are things between you and your God? between you and your fellow persons?"
Here at least, in the field of relationships, we are accustomed to discussing, estimating relative strength or characteristics, and shape or direction of relationships. Certainly relationships involve others, by definition, and they are living, moving things of variable tensions and intentions. They need caring and attention and to some degree will perform according to the amount of energy invested in them. One-sides relationships are not satisfying for either party. Certain relationships you are born into, or otherwise come "as is" and given. But others are entered into and cultivated entirely voluntarily. This difference in basis (voluntary vs involuntary) will tint the quality of what can be undertaken together (pair or larger collection of persons). Relationships are sometimes discussed in terms of flexibility (some are brittle, others resilient), in terms of depth (some are casual and transitory, but others are enduring), in terms of trust (some are deep and unconditional; others not).
--
Guven Peter Witteveen, anthroview@gmail.com
; skype address: gpwitteveen
No comments:
Post a Comment