5. IT’S ALL GOOD!

In attempts to define spirituality, a recurring theme is the negation of what is perceived as negative. Expressions like ‘no dogma or obligation,’ ‘a low degree of organization,’ and ‘a sense of authenticity beyond churches’ suggest a clear rejection of organized religion. This is a split from the traditional understanding of spirituality, once found exclusively in religion. It stems from a distrust in traditional religions. Church scandals after church scandals have convinced people that organized religion is ‘bad,’ and that, by opposition ‘unorganized’ spirituality is good. But is it so?

Hill and his associates warn of the danger of polarization. They write that “1) virtually all religions are interested in matters spiritual and, 2) every form of religious and spiritual expression occurs in some social context. Second, to argue that spirituality is good and religion is bad (or vice-versa) is to deny a substantial body of research demonstrating that both religion and spirituality can be manifested in healthy as well as unhealthy ways” (Hill et al. 2000, p. 64; see also Nancy Ammerman, 2013). Akin to any religion, spirituality is based on beliefs that can also be labeled as superstition. It can come along with a set of communal behaviors that inform the level of belonging. When does ‘belonging’ become being trapped? Where is the limit between religion or spirituality and a cult?

In fact, the dangers that are lurking behind mainstream religions are also lurking behind spirituality. The main difference is that much of the field of spirituality is individual and consists of finding one’s own way by picking and choosing what appeals to the individual. These semi-solitary practices lower the perceived social danger, but they do not prevent it. They can also have negative personal consequences. One of the most common findings within the coaching community is “spiritual bypassing.” This expression coined by John Welwood describes “a widespread tendency to use spiritual ideas and practices to sidestep or avoid facing unresolved emotional issues, psychological wounds, and unfinished developmental tasks” (Fossella 2011). The consequences are 1) avoidance of the deep-seated issues often through exaggerated positivism, 2) a dismissive attitude toward regular, down to earth, needs, and 3) a risk to blame victims for not being ‘spiritual enough’ to rise above issues, traumas, or even abuses.

The last issue we want to raise concerns the method of research, which is also reflected in how people view spirituality. When researching people’s beliefs and conceptualizing spirituality, there is an intellectual incentive, duty even, to value plurality and to strive for wide-ranging tolerance. This posture allows researchers to engage in authentic dialogues and build an understanding of the field of research. But spiritual deviations stem from a well-meaning understanding that spirituality can only be good, and that spiritual tolerance must prevail. Doing so can equalize everything, and unhealthy or destructive ways of manifesting spirituality can linger and develop unchecked.

Pam McCarroll states plainly that “tolerance, as the conceptualization of the whole within which plurality exists, is dangerous because it assumes that humans are beyond good and evil. (…) the ideal of toleration is premised upon a belief that humans are good and that we know the Good and do it. We need only look around us and see how untrue this presupposition is” (McCarroll, O’Connor, and Meakes 2005, p. 54).

Building on the philosophy of Simone Weil, a French philosopher, mystic and political activist (1909-1943), and of George Grant, a Canadian philosopher and political commentator (1918-1988), McCarroll argues that the idea of Good has been “emptied of its content” and lost its universal moral power. But then, “the content of Good is love,” and if ‘Good’ can’t be the measure of ethical choices, including choosing ethical and good/healthy spirituality, then the higher measure that is love must be chosen. “Instead of accepting tolerance as the content of the whole and the highest Good in which we think and act, we propose that love, as the content of the whole (the Good) and as that to which humans are fitted, be reconsidered to shape our thoughts and actions—our research and practice” (ibid, p. 55).