Ray McKinnis

My last blog offered a definition of spirituality which I feel could bring some clarity to our discussions in the counseling field. Certainly it won’t work for all uses of the word ‘spirit’—bare chested men at a playoff game or a manic bipolar on a shopping spree all are examples of ‘spirit’. But in the area of religion and spirituality, especially for counselors, I think spirit identifies an essentially reality—a powerful process. I suggested this functional definition for our use as counselors: “Anything human can be considered spiritual for an individual if in the belief of that individual it connects him or her to that which is beyond.”

I’ve spent the past 8 blogs trying to identify and clarify issues involved in defining religion and spirituality for counselors. I hope they have been helpful in moving the discussions forward. Now with the start of the New Year, it’s time for me offer a definition of spirituality which I find useful. I hope I can get some good feedback from others to further clarify what we are talking about. At this point, as I mentioned earlier, spirituality is used by so many different people in so many different ways that more often than not, I have no idea what the author or researcher mean in their presentations.

Days in December seem to have a lot more energy that most other times of the year. Reflections on the effects of that energy on each of us and on our relationships with others gives me an opportunity to further ‘unpack’ some of the meaning I give to the word ‘order’ when I use it to define religion.

In my last blog I proposed the following definition for ‘religion’: “Anything human can be considered religious if it helps to create, maintain or restore order to a group of people, a community, by referring to something beyond that community.” This definition came to me as I was teaching ‘World Religions’. I was never really clear what distinguished a religion from just culture or other social institutions—especially in Africa, South America and Asia. Religion seemed to be whatever Huston Smith included in his book on world religions. But this idea presented itself from sociology, especially from Talcott Parson’s work.

[I realize that this blog is longer than any self-respecting blog should be and I ask for your indulgence. I feel that these ideas need to be presented together. I want to be as clear as I can so that you can better understand where I am coming from and your critique can be as penetrating as possible. Thanks.] I was born in central Kansas—homesteading and wheat farming country. Church (religion) was the central social experience for those living less than 1 family per square mile. It was the place where people gathered together for any excuse—pot luck dinners, dancing on Saturday night, sewing, comparing rain gauges and wheat yields, learning about the recent news about babies and who was sick and trips people had gone on and just enjoying being in the presence of other human beings. As such it enriched the lives of everyone and helped them survive a difficult style of life. Whether their beliefs were comparable to the corn god (see my first blog) or something else made no real difference. The social dynamics help them thrive just as the fish fertilized the corn of the Indians.