At the pub tonight a friend and I wondered: Exactly which body part does the term “gams” refer to? Do they always come in pairs? Is it the individuals gams or the set as a whole that qualify them as “a nice set of gams?” Are they limited only to broads? Do they even make them anymore?
I ask because I’ve always liked eating gizzards, but during a conversation the other day I had to confess I don’t know what they are either. But when someone mentioned that they have little teeth, I decided I don’t like to eat them anymore.
Another thing I’m noticing about spiritual direction is that it seems quite concerned to teach people how to pray. There are dozens of methods of prayer, so generalizing here is dangerous. But most of it seems to be some form of begging or pining. I don’t see how teaching people how to do that is helpful.
Why should prayer be the end-all-be-all of spirituality? I say that as a UU, but surely there are other ways to do spirituality even in Christian circles. Myself, I haven’t “prayed” in years, but I don’t think that makes me unspiritual. In fact, I think it’s made me the opposite.
I’ve been thinking some lately about “spiritual direction” as a career path. Here are some scattered thoughts:
1. Anyone know of a good spiritual direction blog, preferably from a liberal/ecumenical/interfaith perspective? I haven’t gotten to blog searches yet, but the websites I’ve found so far tend to be ugly, incomplete, and outdated. (Or perhaps I’m not being spiritual enough?)
2. The dominant metaphor for spiritual direction seems to be anamchara, a Celtic term for “soul friend.” There is an intimacy of friendship to spiritual direction that you don’t see in therapy or pastoral counseling, for example. And a vulnerability in the spiritual director that would be too revealing for the therapist or pastoral counselor.
I’m probably being entirely too Aristotelian about this, but one definition of friendship requires a certain equality between the two friends, without which there would be power dynamics which would interfere. But a spiritual “director” would seem by definition to be on a more expert level than the spiritual “directed.” In a for-pay situation, this only more so.
Perhaps a more fitting understanding would be soul mentor? Or, more pedestrian, soul coach? Click to continue reading “Thinking about spiritual indirection”
I hate it when bloggers do this, but he’s sitting on my lap here at work, and he’s talked me into it. I guess I’m just a sucker for strays.
Yeah, I know. You don’t have a Hummer. But what about a more global perspective on wealth? Enter you annual income and find out where you stand. The answer might damn well surprise you. (And so might your change of perspective.)
(Hat tip to WorldChanging for the link.)
A key contribution of feminist ethics is the concept of the “ethic of care.” This comes out of the work of Harvard developmental psychologist Carol Gilligan, who noticed that boys and girls reason about ethical decisions differently. Boys tend to depend upon abstract notions like “fairness” while girls tend to focus on preserving relationship. Here’s the briefest online defintion I was able to find:
The Ethics of Care is a theory inspired by feminist approaches to morality. It holds that our decisions and actions should reflect the love and care we have for other people. This theory de-emphasizes abstract notions like justice or duty and emphasizes the development of caring relationships.
The two approaches—concrete care versus abstract principles—are not in an either/or relationship. The two are complementary as far as I can see, each providing a necessary counter-balance to the other. The ethic of abstract principles, for example, would seem to tend toward a cavalier sacrificing of others for the principles’ sake, while the ethic of care would seem to tend toward masochistic self-martydom under the guise of helping others.
Here’s where I’m going with this. Click to continue reading “I care”
