Finding All Things in God: Pansacramentalism and Doing Theology Interreligiously

Finding All Things in God

Pansacramentalism and Doing Theology Interreligiously

with an emphasis on the mediation between theology and spirituality

Hans Gustafson

FINDING ALL THINGS IN GOD

Pansacramentalism and Doing Theology Interreligiously

Copyright © 2016 Hans Gustafson. All rights reserved. Except for brief quotations in critical publications or reviews, no part of this book may be reproduced in any manner without prior written permission from the publisher. Write: Permissions, Wipf and Stock Publishers, 199 W. 8th Ave., Suite 3, Eugene, OR 97401.

Pickwick Publications

An Imprint of Wipf and Stock Publishers

199 W. 8th Ave., Suite 3

Eugene, OR 97401

www.wipfandstock.com

ISBN: 978-1-4982-1798-9

EISBN: 978-1-4982-1799-6

Cataloguing-in-Publication data:

Gustafson, Hans.

Finding all things in God : pansacramentalism and doing theology interreligiously / Hans Gustafson.

xvi + 340 p. ; 23 cm. Includes bibliographical references and index.

ISBN: 978-1-4982-1798-9

1. Religions—Relations. 2. Dialogue—Religious aspects. 3. Theology in literature. 4. Panentheism. I. Title.

BL410 G95 2016

Manufactured in the U.S.A. 01/04/2016

Table of Contents

Title Page

Preface and Acknowledgments

Introduction

Part One: Tell Me Your Story

Chapter 1: There’s a Lot of Medicine in that Water

Chapter 2: Theology and Spirituality

Chapter 3: Foundations of Sacramentality

Chapter 4: The Protestant Principle and Sacramental Caution

Chapter 5: A Rahnerian Pansacramental Proposal

Chapter 6: Louis-Marie Chauvet

Part Two: Believing is Seeing

Chapter 7: Sacramental Spirituality

Chapter 8: Thomas Merton

Chapter 9: Nicholas Black Elk

Chapter 10: Dostoevsky and Wendell Berry

Part Three: Finding All Things in the Divine

Chapter 11: A Philosophy of Sacramental Mediation

Chapter 12: Panentheism

Chapter 13: Suffering in God and World

Chapter 14: Towards a Pansacramental Theology of Religious Pluralism and Doing Theology Interreligiously

Bibliography

Preface and Acknowledgments

The most enjoyable part of working on this book was the process of learning from the several readers and editors who contributed their invaluable insight and critique along the way. There are probably too many to mention, so please forgive me for overlooking any.

I thank Anselm K. Min for providing extensive and constructive critique throughout, Andrew Dreitcer for introducing me to the contemporary conversation in the study of spirituality, and Nancy van Duesen’s direction in exploring the role of sacramentality in medieval thought. I also thank Philip Clayton for the exploration of panentheism. I thank Michael J. Himes, Bruce Morrill, and Bill Lambert for sparking my fascination with the powerful language of sacramentality as a young undergraduate at Boston College. I thank Michael Byron for introducing me to the theology of religions and for pushing me to constantly reexamine the implications of various claims. I thank my colleague John Merkle of the Jay Phillips Center for Interfaith Learning at Saint John’s University and the University of St. Thomas in Minnesota for his support in this overall project and helpful assistance with understanding the rich thought of Abraham Heschel.

I thank my wife Audrey for her patience and support along the way. I also thank my parents, Ethel and Jeff, who have supported me since birth. Though they are not alive to see the publication of this book, they are more a part of it than anyone.

I thank all of the reviewers and respondents to the various articles and several presentations I have made over the years that drew from this book. All of you helped me to sharpen my thought and produce a more coherent manuscript. I am grateful to publishers and editors who have granted me permission to use these works in preparation of this book. These include Inter-Disciplinary Press; The Heythrop Journal and Wiley-Blackwell; Fons Vitae; Journal of Ecumenical Studies and University of Pennsylvania Press; Literature and Theology and Oxford University Press Journals;The Way and the British Jesuits. Various sections from part I (chapters 1–6) appear in Sacramental Mediation between Theology and Spirituality, in Spirituality in the 21st Century: Explorations, edited by John L. Hochmeier and William S. Schmidt, 63–82 (Oxford: Inter-Disciplinary Press, 2013); Sacramental Mediation between Theology and Spirituality, in Spirituality: Theory, Praxis and Pedagogy, edited by Martin Fowler, John D. Martin III, and John L. Hochmeier, 341–48 (Oxford: Inter-Disciplinary Press, 2012); and Sacramental Mediation between Theology & the Contemporary Study of Spirituality, paper presented at the First Global Conference on Spirituality in the 21st Century: At the Interface of Theory, Praxis and Pedagogy (Prague, Czech Republic, March 20–22, 2011). Excerpts from chapter 4 were presented as Luther and Loyola in Context: Spirituality, Saintliness and Divine Communication, paper presented at the Upper Midwest Regional Meeting of the American Academy of Religion, Luther Seminary (St. Paul, Minnesota, April 13–14, 2007); and Sacramental Caution and Finding God in All things: Sacramentality and Spirituality in Luther and Loyola, paper presented at the 59th annual meeting of the Renaissance Society of America (San Diego, California, April 5, 2013). Part of chapter 5 first appeared as Collapsing the Sacred and the Profane: Pan-Sacramental and Panentheistic Possibilities in Aquinas and Their Implications for Spirituality, The Heythrop Journal 9 (2011). Chapter 8 was first presented as Place and Selfhood in the Later Years, paper presented at the 12th General Meeting and Conference of the International Thomas Merton Society, Loyola University (Chicago, Illinois, June 9–12, 2011); it was first published as Place, Spiritual Anthropology, and Sacramentality in Merton’s Later Years, in The Merton Annual: Studies in Culture, Spirituality, and Social Concerns, Volume 25, edited by David Belcastro and Joseph Raab, 74–90 (Louisville: Fons Vitae, 2013). Chapter 9 was presented as Multiple Religious Belonging and Interfaith Panentheistic Spirituality in the Liberal Theology of Nicholas Black Elk, paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Academy of Religion (Chicago, Illinois, Nov. 17–20, 2012); What a Christians might learn about Sacramentality from the Spirituality of Nicholas Black Elk? paper presented at the annual convention of the Catholic Theological Society of America (St. Louis, June 7–10, 2012); Revisiting the Multiple Religious Belonging of Nicholas Black Elk in the Context of the Catholic Sacramental Imagination, paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Academy of Religion (Baltimore, Maryland, Nov. 23–26, 2013); and published as Descandalizing Multiple Religious Identity with Help from Nicholas Black Elk and His Spirituality: An Exercise in Interreligious Learning, Journal of Ecumenical Studies, 51.1 (2016). Chapter 10 first appear as "Sacramental Spirituality in The Brothers Karamazov and Wendell Berry’s Port William Characters," Literature and Theology 27 (2013) 345–63. Chapter 11 includes sections that first appeared in Substance Beyond Illusion: The Spirituality of Bede Griffiths, The Way 47.3 (2008) 31–48; and presented as Sacramentality as a Philosophical Model of Mediation and Reconciliation: with an Emphasis on Christian Theology and Spirituality, paper presented at annual Moberg Conference on Sociological Perspectives on Reconciliation, Bethel University (St. Paul, Minnesota, Feb. 22–23, 2013). Chapter 13 includes a section on suffering that was first presented as The Awe-Filledness of Awfulness: Experiencing God in Suffering, plenary paper presented at Wondrous Fear and Holy Awe: A Meeting of the Society for the Study of Christian Spirituality, University of Notre Dame (South Bend, Indiana, July 2, 2013). Chapter 14 includes sections that were first presented as Pansacramentality as a new model for the God-World Relationship in Panentheism, paper presented at the Upper Midwest Regional Meeting of the American Academy of Religion (Luther Seminary, St. Paul, Minnesota, April 6, 2013); Interreligious Panentheistic Approaches to a Changing Planet in Comparative Theology and Interfaith Studies, paper presented at the annual convention of the College Theology Society, University of Portland (Portland, Oregon, May 28–31, 2015); and published as Interreligious and Interfaith Studies in Relation to Religious Studies and Theological Studies, StateofFormation.com, January 6, 2015.

Introduction

Talking about the divine and experiencing the divine have served as two basic activities of Western religious persons, whether socially constructed, anthropologically innate, or a combination thereof. Many claim to experience God through particular religious experience. This is spirituality, broadly speaking. Many also talk with others about their experience of God in pursuit of universal knowledge about ultimate reality or, at the very least, a shared narrative or set of complementary narratives that correlate with their own particular experience and posits claims about the divine as such. Talking about the divine, in particular, is the doing of theology. Dwelling either solely on God (or the Gods for that matter) as such or spiritual experience as such, apart from one another can run the risk of forgetting religious roots, ignoring the particular experience of others, and lacking a shared significance. Dwelling solely on experience can lead to missing the forest for the trees while dwelling solely on the divine can lead to missing the trees for the forest. A good forester will account equally for both the particular trees and the forest as such, as well as paying attention to both the emergent undergrowth and the old deadwood. In this book, I advocate for becoming like the forester in the exploration of theology and spirituality, without losing sight of one for the other. In so doing, theology and spiritualty via (pansacramentalism) are held in intimate conversation with each other while paying attention to both classical and contemporary claims about God as such and spiritual experience. To maintain sight of both forest and trees, God and experience, this book puts forth a method of mediation: (pan)sacramental and symbolic mediation.

The tension between theology and spirituality, and the need to retain their interdependence, is by no means a new endeavor. In this book, I offer one promising approach for maintaining their interdependence while recognizing that it is certainly need not be the only approach. I term this approach a philosophy of pansacramental and symbolic mediation, in which all things hold the potential to function as sacramental and symbolic mediators between God and the experience of God. Sacraments (not just the seven or two, but all things), as symbols, mediate between particular spiritual experiences of the divine and the universal theological implications that arise from them. They maintain the tension between our metaphorical forest and the trees: God and our experience of God respectively. Sacramentality, sacraments, and symbols, remain a part of all religious traditions, both explicitly and implicitly. They beckon a continual return to them for critique and (re)evaluation, both new and old, in emerging contexts.

In what may seem like a journey through a forest comprised of an eclectic collection of diverse trees (and whole forests), this book represents the inherent interdisciplinary nature of the study of religion, theological reflection, and especially the study of spirituality. For this reason, the voices represented in the following pages are diverse, but all strive to express the divine while respecting the particularity of their contextual experience of the divine. In an interdisciplinary field such as the study of religion, one of the main tasks is to strive for an understanding of the relationship between and amongst the trees in order to see the forest. Further, it is to recognize that there are multiple forests and it is appropriate to attempt to strive to make some sense of the relationship between and amongst whole forests. Lurking among the trees within the forests, while at times attempting to climb them into the canopies in order to catch glimpses of the forests both below and beyond, in this book I set out as the forester seeking understanding. Remaining a part of the forest and trees, I tread with, hopefully, a sense of great humility. With this in mind, I strive for, to some degree, but not wholly, what Raimon Panikkar strove for, in his 1988–89 Gifford Lectures, when he said, "these meditations do not constitute a system of a scientific hypothesis intended to prove something else. I would like to believe that they are truly philo-sophia, which is perhaps the only true human Sophia."¹ This project does not advocate for a system, but rather seeks Sophia from a philosophy of sacramental and symbolic mediation.

Part I (chapters 1–6) sets the stage by introducing the main categories of the book: sacramentality, theology, and spirituality. Chapter 1 reviews the history of the problem of theology and spirituality becoming divorced from one another while also tracing the history and development of the term spirituality. This leads to the proposal of a working definition of the term spirituality drawn from scholars of the contemporary study of Christian spirituality such as Sandra M. Schneiders, Bernard McGinn, and Philip Sheldrake. Finally, chapter 1 previews the approach of constructing a philosophy of sacramental mediation, which carries implications for the remained of the book. Chapter 2 opens by establishing the history of the relationship between theology and spirituality before providing a view of the current situation today. Chapter 3 turns to the foundation of sacramentality by offering a brief history of sacramental theology and its philosophical foundations. It begins with an explanation of the Hebrew root -zkr, to make memorial, in so far as it serves as a foundation for understanding the functionality of sacramentality. New Testament sacramentality is then reviewed in the context of the Latin term sacramentum and Greek term mysterion. A review of the Last Supper serves as a model for sacramental experience and functionality going forward. Sacramentum through the middle ages is then reviewed in more detail in the work of Augustine, Isidore of Seville, Hugh of St. Victor, Peter Lombard, and Thomas Aquinas. Chapter 4 raises the caution of the Protestant Principle in approaching sacramentality represented by Luther and Paul Tillich. It might be argued that no purview of the concept of sacrament in the Christian West is complete without a recognition of the influence of the Reformers The aim of chapters 3–4 is to provide a foundational history of sacramentality prior to exploring the sacramental theology of twentieth-century theologian Karl Rahner. Thus Chapter 5 narrows from the broad scope of sacramental theology in general to the particular sacramental theology and vision of Karl Rahner. According to a 1978 poll of North American theologians, Karl Rahner ranked behind only Aquinas and Tillich, and ahead of Augustine and Luther, as having the greatest influence on their own thinking.² Over three decades later, it is hard to imagine that Rahner has fallen too many positions on such a list. In fact, while interest in his theology remains strong, some of the unexplored corners of his work are continually being probed and illuminated. His writings on spirituality, for instance, continue to elicit wider interest and acceptance evidenced by the recent publication of his compiled essays, The Mystical Way in Everyday Life.³ Perhaps this emerging interest in his mystical and spiritual theology prove accurate the insightful comment by Phil Endean who recognizes that, the problem is not that Rahner’s theology and spiritual vision have been tried and found wanting: they have been found difficult and left untried.⁴ Rahner has offered one of the major modern sacramental theologies in the West, proffering an organic grace-filled cosmos which sacramentally expresses God in and through all things; I refer to this theological cosmology as pansacramental. In order to examine Rahner properly, chapter 5 necessary reviews some of his basic Thomist tendencies followed by an overview of his theological project in general. His symbolic reality is then explained, after which I stress his pansacramental cosmology and explore panentheistic possibilities therein. Rahner’s theology of symbol and sacrament provide the basis for the philosophy of sacramental mediation and pansacramental vision put forth in this book. Chapter 6 moves the conversation beyond Aristotle and Aquinas by reviewing the postmodern sacramental theology of Louis Marie Chauvet as an alternative, but no less inadequate, to an Aristotelian substance metaphysics-based sacramental theology.

Part II (chapters 7–10) shifts the focus from the universality of sacramental theology to the study of particularity in sacramental spirituality. Chapter 7 examines the spiritual implications of the Ignatian Principle, a principle that in many ways formed Rahner’s spiritual identity as a Jesuit. Since the study of spirituality, as lived religious experience of the divine in the world, involves the examination of particular lived experience, part two presents three particular case studies in sacramental spirituality. Chapter 8 examines Thomas Merton and the theme of place in his later years. Merton’s contemplative method is correlated with the narrative from his later journals as he sought to find a new semi-permanent place to live. Chapter 9 examines the spirituality of Nicholas Black Elk through the lens of interreligious theology while entertaining the possibility of, and offering an attempt to de-scandalize, multiple religious belonging. In particular, it examines the role of sacramental mediation in the spirituality of his native Lakota tradition and its promise for learning across religious traditions. Chapter 10 turns to the medium of literature and examines the sacramental worldviews that come out in Fyodor Dostoevsky’s The Brothers Karamazov and Wendell Berry’s Port William novels. These three case studies provide data of particular lived religious experience in three different contexts.

Part III (chapters 11–14) provides the most constructively robust and original theological work of the book in laying out a proposal for understanding of finding all things in the divine via pansacramentalism. Chapter 11, drawing on Hegel’s method of sublation, sets out to reconcile the universality of theology (part I) with the particularity of spirituality (part II). After applying Hegel’s method to theology, spirituality, and sacramentality, it discusses the philosophical functionality of sacraments as symbols. Great care is taken to correlate with, and distinguish from, one another both symbols and sign. Inspired by Paul Ricoeur, I propose a criteriology of sacrament as symbols by suggesting that sacraments, as functional religious symbols, concretize by a) particularizing the universal, b) subjectifying the objective, and by c) rendering inner-reflection experiential. Further, sacraments, as symbols, invite transformative participation. Finally, this chapter suggests that emphasis on sacramentality offers a boon to the turn to relationality in contemporary philosophy by exposing, and therefore abolishing, false dichotomies. Chapter 12 explores panentheism, both classical and contemporary approaches. As an emerging concept in philosophical theology, panentheism posits all things in God and God in all things in order to combat pantheism’s radical emphasis on God’s immanence and classical Christian theism’s alleged emphasis on God’s transcendence. In this way, it strives to balance God’s immanence with God’s transcendence. Given panentheism’s diversity, chapter 12 reviews seven prominent panentheists in so far as they contribute to the conversation on panentheistic pansacramentalism in chapter 14 and the relationship between and among God, world, person and the place of suffering in chapter 13. The seven panentheists (some explicit and others implicit) are Thomas Aquinas, Friedrich Schelling, Karl Rahner, Arthur Peacocke, John Polkinghorne, Gregory Palamas (and theōsis in the Eastern Orthodox Christianity), and Matthew Fox. Chapter 13 turns to the reality of suffering in the world and the challenge it presents to a panentheistic and pansacramental worldview. A view of reality that advocates for all things having the potential to serve as representations of God in time and place ought to take seriously the reality of suffering in the world. Further, it ought to wrestle with the implication that suffering too might serve as a sacramental representation of God in the world. In this regard, this chapter turns to the work of Martin Buber’s Hasidic pansacramentalism, Abraham Joshua Heschel’s theology of divine pathos, Jürgen Moltmann’s Christian application of Heschel’s thought, and entertains the possibility of a provisional panentheism in the context of a Polkinghornian realized eschatology and soteriological panentheism. Chapter 14 attempts to set the pansacramental view proposed in the book into a context of doing theology interreligiously. It proposes panentheistic pansacramentalism as a new model for understanding the God-world relationship. This view relies on the metaphors of the relation of the artist to her art and the mother to her child. This model is then applied to the context of interreligious encounter by sketching a beginning to a pansacramental theology of religious pluralism. A method for doing theology interreligiously follows which offers an example based on the content of this book, and is then placed within the context of the interdisciplinary field of interreligious studies. It concludes with some very brief comments on potential avenues for theological exploration going forward.

1. Panikkar, The Rhythm of Being,

14

(italics his).

2. Kelly, Karl Rahner,

1

.

3. Rahner, The Mystical Way in Everyday Life.

4. Endean, Introduction, Spiritual Writings,

29

.

Part 1

Tell Me Your Story

1

There’s a Lot of Medicine in that Water

There’s a lot of medicine in that water, Danny, the Ojibwa caretaker of Point Detour campground, declared in reserved tone of humility. He reverently stared out over the icy cold waters of Gichigami (Lake Superior), from the northernmost point of Wisconsin on Red Cliff Indian Reservation. He paused, slowly exhaled, and then turned to me with a warm smile. Nothing more is said as he tossed some full garbage bags in the back of his rusty 82’ Ford pickup and rumbled away down the dirt road.

Fig.

1

.

1

: Looking north from York Island near Point Detour

Prior to Danny sharing his medicinal proverb with me, we had been swapping stories about the lake. I had been leading sea kayaking trips on the lake for a few months for persons of all abilities (and living with disabilities) from cities near and far. Danny had been praising the lake for its ability to heal in ways beyond our knowing. Further, he had been encouraging me to continue to bring people up to the lake and get them out on the water in any and every way possible. As a kayak guide I was intentional about attuning myself to the rhythms of the lake. Throughout the nights, sleeping in the tent, I’d always have one ear open seeking to calculate the size and frequency of the waves. During morning, noon, and night my eyes constantly scanned the horizon for storms, wind puffs, white caps, or anything of concern for small watercraft. I had become good at reading the lake, but this lake is a master of guises and disguises.

I had (and have) met countless of people with a passion for this truly superior lake, be it for its great recreational opportunities, beauty, purity, power, and of course, its vastness, but never had I met (nor have I met since) someone like Danny, who spoke about the lake in a way that transcended all of these categories. He talked about the lake’s ‘Spirit’ as that which affected him and made demands on him (e.g., life in and around Red Cliff revolves around the lake and her moods), but also served him (healed him like medicine and provided him with a purpose) in return. Danny had never lived off the Red Cliff reservation in his forty-five years of life to that point. He told me he couldn’t leave the lake. He told me the lake had saved his life more times than he could count. Danny had oriented his life around the lake and in return, he reports, it has given him life. He had developed what I would refer to as a spirituality; perhaps it is a Gichigami spirituality.

Mircea Eliade tells a similar story, in his journals, of an American philosopher inquiring of a Shinto priest about his theology, which elicited the priest’s now famous reply, we have no theology, we dance.¹ I recount this story here not to suggest the futility of theology, but rather to point out that any theology without such a deeply girded spirituality (such as dancing or living attuned to the Spirit of Gichigami) runs the risk of being irrelevant, or downright nonexistent (e.g., we have no theology). On the other hand, if the divine or the sacred is somehow disclosed through the spiritual experience of dancing (or in the icy cold waters of Gichigami), then the questions of what, who, and how the divine is (theology), is intimately wrapped up in living in and experiencing the divine (spirituality). Philip Sheldrake accurately points out that if a theology is to be complete, then "it needs to be lived just as much as it needs to be studied and explained."² So keep dancing and stay attuned to the ‘Spirit of the Lake,’ by no means should one refrain from these activities, but do not avoid the attempt to reflect on and ask questions about it. Keep open the dialogical road between spiritualities and their reflective theologies. Further, remain open to finding the divine in and through the everyday realities that we may not first expect (e.g., dancing and lakes). This book is concerned precisely with these tasks: asking if and how all things may be understood as sacred while maintaining the interdependence between theology and spirituality, and the study of spirituality.

A preliminary fundamental concern this book addresses is the potential gulf between academic theology and spirituality and the philosophic functionality of sacramentality.³ After examining this alleged gulf between theology and spirituality (which is presumed problematic), I will propose a way, a solution, to bridge the gulf and retain the interdependence between the two. Theology and the study of spirituality, without doubt, require further elaborative definition, which is given below. The solution I propose lies precisely in articulating what I will term a ‘philosophy of pansacramental mediation.’ In short, through the constructive task of articulating a philosophy of pansacramental mediation, the two fields (theology and the study of spirituality) can be understood as related and interdependent. In this opening chapter I begin first with an overview of the problem as such; that is, I will explain why this ought to be understood as problematic and will provide a history of the problem. Second, I will offer a brief history of the term spirituality and articulate they manner in which it is employed in this book. Third, I will sketch my general approach going forward in this book.

The Problem and Its History

A foundational presupposition for the book is that it is problematic for the fields of theology and the study of spirituality to operate in separate quarters unrelated and independent from one another. In order to adequately demonstrate this and propose a solution, the terms theology and spirituality must be articulated and distinguished.

In recent years significant scholarship has gone into defining the term spirituality and distinguishing it from other like terms such as theology, mysticism, religion, spiritual theology, mystical theology, monastic theology and asceticism. In fact, only a few hours are required to thumb through the pages of the major academic journals⁴ devoted to the study of spirituality to realize that most articles, regardless of whether or not they deal specifically with the method or definition of spirituality, will still indeed provide such boundaries. This demonstrates perhaps a lingering insecurity among the scholars of spirituality to defend their field against those who may seek to either delegitimize it or subsume it into one of many other fields, most notably theology and, maybe to a lesser extent, religious studies.

Notable scholars in the emerging field of the contemporary study of spirituality include Sandra Schneiders, Philip Sheldrake, Bernard McGinn, Philip Endean, Keith Egan, Bradley Hanson, and Andrew Louth to name only a few. Though all of these scholars are committed to the contemporary study of spirituality, they do not perfectly agree with one another about the exact parameters of the field. To be sure, there is great overlap and agreement concerning much of the terrain to be covered; however, there is no agreement on where the boundaries lie precisely thus demonstrating the permeability of its borders (perhaps both to the advantage and detriment to the field). A field with porous boundaries, especially one which seemingly overlaps significantly with theology, can understandably cause much confusion. What follows is my attempt to distinguish the two fields (theology and the study of spirituality) from one another by drawing on the previous scholarship of those mentioned above. I begin here with a brief overview of the two fields and how I employ them.

Theology is a term applied to the critical and thematic study of God (of the Gods or the divine as such) in pursuit of universal knowledge and coherence. It is the task of the theologian to further understand faith (or lack thereof). Thus I uphold the classical definition of the term as fides quaerens intellectum, or as Anne Clifford puts it, as the process of bringing faith to understanding through disciplined, critical reflection.⁵ The absence of faith need not disqualify one from the doing of theology, for the concept of God/s or the divine may provide sufficient ground for reflecting or thinking about them as concepts or realties towards which one might ascent (or negate). Most specifically, the theology I have in mind here is the theology currently taking place mainly in the academy which pursues questions of divinity through critical, and constructive, descriptive and prescriptive ways. It seeks to systematically and consistently correlate its primary content, which consists of theological ideas, concepts, events, themes and experiences. This includes theologies that seek to know the concrete conditions of personal experience and correlate them with revealed, or otherwise known, knowledge of the divine (e.g., various theologies of liberation). Within Christian theology, this can involve synthesizing, in a consistent manner, the Trinity (if applicable and accepted), Christology, pneumatology, ecclesiology, scripture, revelation, soteriology, ethics and quite a few others. Its object is universal in that it strives to understand universal claims about God, even if the only universal claims attainable are negative (e.g., via negativa). Theology may draw on particular data (such as the specific Christology of Julian of Norwich and the conversion experience of Augustine), but it seeks universal positions (such as who Christ is for all, the nature of conversion as such, or the knowledge of God as such). In other words, one goal of theological exploration is to acquire universal knowledge to be applied across the spectrum of particularity. Context remains important to theology, to be sure, but it remains secondary in importance regarding knowledge. Christian systematic theology seeks its object through a methodology of integrating horizons (including scripture, doctrine, history, experience, etc.). These horizons include the particular, yet a primary goal of theology is to clarify language and develop concepts that apply universally. This is not to reduce the distinction between theology and the study spirituality to simply a matter of differentiating between universality and particularity, but also involves the difference between objective and subjective, reflective and experiential, and others mentioned later.

Spirituality,⁶ being perhaps as nebulous a word as possible in the parlance of our times, can be understood in contradistinction to theology in its object of study, which lies precisely in the particular. More specifically, the content of the contemporary study of spirituality⁷ concerns ones ‘lived religious practice or experience.’ In short, it is what Philip Sheldrake terms, the study of ‘felt experience’ and ‘lived practice’ in ways that, while not detached from theological tradition, overflow the boundaries that positivist theology tends to set.⁸ It is in the twentieth century that the academic study of ‘spirituality’ has (re)emerged, prior to which it was, in large part, collapsed into mystical theology, monastic theology, ascetical theology or simply within the broader field of theology in general. Prior to going further with the definition I intend here, and before I sketch the rough boundaries and significant contours of the field, I offer a necessary and foundational history of the term.

A History of Spirituality

⁹

The term spirituality (spiritalitas) did not surface until the fifth century in a document originally ascribed to Jerome, later Faustus of Riez, but it was most likely anonymous. The context of the document is one in which the writer is encouraging his audience to live a life according to the (Holy) spirit, thus he tells the reader to act as to advance in spirituality.¹⁰ To grasp what the anonymous author might have had in mind it is necessary to trace the root, noun spiritus and adjective spiritalis or spiritualis, back to its Pauline usage.

In his first letter to the Corinthians, Paul employs the Greek word pneuma (n) and pneumatikos (adj.), from which we get the Latin translations spiritus (n) and spiritalis (adj.) or spiritualis (adj.) respectively. The context involves Paul referencing the Holy Spirit in his encouragement to the people in the community founded at Corinth. Thus Paul writes to them, as it is written, ‘What no eyes has seen, nor ear heard, nor the human heart conceived, what God has prepared for those who love him’—these things God has revealed to us through the Spirit; for the Spirit searches everything, even the depths of God.¹¹ A few chapters later, Paul again claims that anyone united to the Lord becomes one spirit with him.¹² Both Philip Sheldrake¹³ and Walter Principe¹⁴ note that Paul here is not placing the spiritual in opposition to the physical, corporeal, or material (Greek soma, Latin corpus),¹⁵ as if somehow the two aspects are mutually exclusive, but rather he places it in opposition to all that is unspiritual.

For instance, in addition to 1 Corinthians, if other undisputedly authentic Pauline epistles, such as Galatians and Romans,¹⁶ are taken into account, this becomes apparent. In these texts life according to the spirit (Greek pneuma, Latin spiritus) is always placed in opposition to life according to the flesh (Greek sarx, Latin caro) or the body, which does not entail physical, corporeal materiality, since ‘the flesh’ or ‘the [human] body’ can refer to a person’s mind, will, and/or heart equally.¹⁷ For Paul, then, the spirit entails all that lies within the human person (including the physical corporeal aspects) that is, or can be, orientated toward God’s Spirit (Greek Pneuma Theou, Latin Spiritus Dei), while the flesh refers to all that lies within the human person which combats this divine orientation. Thus, as Principe points out, for Paul the opposition is not between the incorporeal or non-material and the corporeal and material, but between two ways of life,¹⁸ the life according to the spirit and the life according to the flesh. Hence, Sandra Schneiders notes that, both the spiritual and the unspiritual person are alive, possessed of body and soul. The Spiritual person is one who is indwelt by the Holy Spirit of God,¹⁹ and thus it should not be assumed that somehow the spiritual person transcends, shuns, or goes beyond corporeality. This original Pauline understanding of spirit is crucial for retaining a place for the corporeal and thus maintaining an adequate understanding of a philosophy of pansacramental mediation as it pertains to the study of spirituality.

It is possible to trace the origins of the root term back further than Paul, in a certain sense. Paul, in his employment of the term pneuma, draws on and develops the Hebrew ruah, meaning ‘breath,’ in reference to the breath of Yahweh. Though, as Schneiders notes, the root spiritus does not precede Pauline Christian usage in the New Testament.²⁰

This first use of the term ‘spirituality,’ as we know it, which did not come about until the fifth century and was employed in the Pauline manner detailed above, remained rather consistent in its usage through the twelfth century. However, Principe cites a rare occurrence of the term in the ninth century by the Benedictine Candidus of Fulda who uses it in a non-Pauline fashion by contrasting it to corporalitas or materialitas.²¹ Candidus was ahead of his time in this usage, though by the twelfth century this understanding began to take root. Perhaps Candidus took Paul’s understanding of ‘the flesh’ to mean the material physical aspect of the body alone thus instigating the idea that ‘spirituality’ was inherently opposed to the bodily and materiality.

With the onset of scholasticism in the twelfth century and thereafter, the meaning of the term began to shift more drastically. The Pauline understanding waned while it took a meaning that was more opposed matter; however, neither understanding completely died. In fact, the key theological figure of this period, Aquinas, sought to hold onto both senses of the term as employed in his Summa. He mostly uses the Pauline version of the term, though he also places it in opposition to corporeality a number of times.²²

Drawing on Raymond Klibansky, Nancy van Deusen has suggested that the introduction of Plato’s Phaedo in the mid-twelfth century supported the idea that the body and soul (of which the spirit is a part as proposed in Plato’s theory of the tripartite soul in the Republic) functioned in a reciprocal and complementary manner, yet fostered the attitude of contempt towards the visible world . . . prevalent in the accepted Christian doctrine.²³ In the Phaedo, Socrates suggests to Cebes and Simmias, that although every pleasure and pain

has a sort of rivet with which it fastens the soul to the body and pins it down and makes it corporeal, . . . the soul secures immunity from its desires by following reason and abiding always in her company, and by contemplating the true and divine and unconjecturable, and drawing inspiration from it . . . After such training, my dear Simmias and Cebes, the soul can have no grounds for fearing that on its separation from the body it will be blown away and scattered by the winds, and so disappear into thin air, and cease to exist altogether.²⁴

Van Deusen recognizes, in particular, the influence of the Phaedo’s discussion on the reciprocity between the corporeal (body) and incorporeal (soul) set forth in the analogy of a musical instrument (the lyra) and tuning the strings (attunement) of that instrument.²⁵ This analogy is raised by Simmias vis-à-vis Socrates proposed body/soul relationship cited above. Whereas Socrates advocates for the existence of the soul beyond the corporeal, Simmias objects that the corporeal is what precisely makes the incorporeal possible and present. Simmias suggests,

You might say the same thing about tuning the strings of a musical instrument, that the attunement is something invisible and incorporeal and splendid and divine, and located in the tuned instrument, while the instrument itself and its strings are material and corporeal and composite and earthly and closely related to what is mortal. Now suppose that the instrument is broken, or its strings cut or snapped. According to your theory the attunement must still exist—it cannot have been destroyed, because it would be inconceivable that when the strings are broken the instrument and the strings themselves, which have a mortal nature, should still exist, and the attunement, which shares the nature and characteristics of the divine and immortal, should exist no longer, having predeceased its mortal counterpart.²⁶

Here the body is obviously analogous to the corporeal musical instrument (the lyra or harp) and the soul is analogous to its incorporeal attunement. For Simmias, if the soul is tied to the body and the body perishes, then so too must the soul perish with it. This raises the question about whether the body or the soul is stronger and more durable,²⁷ than the other. Of course, Socrates (Plato) will ultimately maintain that the former is not to be valued as high as the latter, for according to van Deusen, the main thesis of the Phaedo is that the spiritual world of pure ideas exists apart from specific, concrete, material disclosure of these ideas, as the concept of beauty without a specific manifestation which is qualitatively beautiful.²⁸

The influence of the Phaedo’s suggestion of the soul (as a kind of incorporeal attunement or harmony or right adjustment) set in complementary distinction to the body (the instrument), may have contributed to the attitude of neglecting the corporeal visible world in favor of the invisible spiritual world of pure ideas precisely because the distinction itself was raised. However, van Deusen is clear that the body and soul are not to be understood in a dichotomous fashion, but rather they function interdependently in a reciprocal and complementary way. This analogy fosters corporeal-incorporeal harmony and supports the argument for the preexistence of the soul. Van Deusen writes, To a degree of simplicity which seems obvious, Plato meshes the incorporeal invisible concept of soul attunement with a clear image—the harp. The attunement is invisible, immaterial, beautiful, divine, and pure, whereas the harp is material composite, earthy, and perishable. Attunement exists before entering the instrument just as the soul exists before its incorporation into the human frame.²⁹ Likewise, as the Phaedo suggests, attunement exists after the human frame (the body) perishes and thus we encounter an undeterred Socrates who imbibes the hemlock confidently like a true martyr dying for that which he believes. Van Deusen suggests that with the translation of the Phaedo, the new understanding of the soul as attunement emerged. She points out that the only place [harp, harmony, and soul] occur together and within dialogue in the fourteenth century is in Plato’s Phaedo. In its recent translation in Latin, the Phaedo had become available to the Latin-reading educated pubic for the first time.³⁰ With its accessibility came the distinction between body and soul set in the analogous context of the instrument and attunement, corporeal and incorporeal. The power of symbols (harp, harmony, etc.) and not necessarily the theory set forth in philosophical tracts and treatises, van Deusen argues, is what find themselves into common popular culture. The symbolic power of the lyra analogy for the relationship between body and soul functions as one factor which may have led to the cultivation of a spiritual life directed at the denial and disciplining of the bodily life.³¹

A third usage of the term arose during this time as well. This usage was juridical in that spiritualitas (translated here ‘lords spiritual’) designated the ‘material’ goods that belonged to the ecclesiastical estate or clergy in contrast to temporalitas which referred to the stately property of the king or prince. Though furthest removed from the Pauline sense, this third sense became the most commonly used between the thirteen and sixteenth centuries.³²

It was not until the seventeenth century, the so-named golden age of theology³³ that new developments began to take place in the meaning of the term. Most notably these changes took place in the context of French arts, literature, philosophy and religion.³⁴ The word was used to denote the spiritual