|
A CRITICAL REFLECTION ON THE IMPACT MY BOYHOOD HAD ON MY SPIRITUALITY AS A MAN, AND THE IMPLECATIONS OF THIS FOR MY PRACTICE.
Journey, as a conceptual idea for life is nothing new, and has been offered as a metaphor for some time now. But, journey doesn’t just refer to life, as Pearson points out in his reflection on Thomas Merton and his Celtic monasticism, “Journey was also the metaphor he used to understand his search for God and his true-self.” So journey doesn’t just describe or allude to life, but it can also refer to self, and the understanding of self. Self in the context of this work, is my boyhood, being brought up in Belfast, with both parents present, one sister, and the embracement of happenings in my life, which may not be uncommon in society, but they are personally specific in their extremity.
Further to the journey of self, we don’t just journey to search for God, as suggested by Merton, but we can also journey with God, through our relationship with him, and acknowledge where these two journeys run together and intersect with each other. It is important therefore, when examining boyhood and its effect upon spirituality to acknowledge how we are today has been impacted upon by many different influential factors. Mayes suggests that “we are shaped by our past, and we can find it hard to accept ourselves as worthy of unconditional love, if we have not experienced it as a child.” P117. Our past along with other factors such as context, economic wellbeing, family, schooling, beliefs, and many others, all have an influential stake upon who we are today, and our outlook upon life and practice.
Eaude, 2004, takes a slightly different approach, when stating that “we are formed by the relationships we make”. Our outlook, and approach upon life can indeed be influenced by those people who surround us in our different environments. Where Mayes suggests that our past forms who we are today, Eaude’s idea of forming relationships supports the idea of Merton, in that life is a journey, for as we go through life, relationships change, and different relationships take place, where our past, is there, it is a constant, a never changing factor of our life, our past is exactly that, but our relationships are fluid, developmental, and although some may well be constant, their outworking is anything but constant.
These factors could lead us to examine who we are, and as Young suggests, quoted by Nash, in her chapter in The international handbook of education for spirituality, care and wellbeing, questions arise such as “What sort of person am I? what kind of relationship do I want with myself and others? And what society do I want to live in?”. These questions that Young asks, may well come from a discontentment with current circumstances, as well as a possible acknowledgement of a desire for something that is better.
These factors won’t just influence who we are as people, but they will also have an influence upon our spirituality and how we relate to God. The questions, as stated by Young, as I have already suggested could well pertain to that discontentment with how my spiritual life is working out in practice, as well as that of my life in general. Young’s questions could certainly demonstrate that desire that exists within us, to fill a “God-shaped hole”, and a yearning for more of what God has for us, now and in the future.
A further possibility for the root of such questions suggested by Young, could also be a lack of self-acceptance. It is certainly true that the drive for something better, an improvement, or development upon what is, would certainly raise such questions, but as Mayes suggests, “One of the most unacknowledged struggles that many face today is the struggle of self-acceptance,”. P117. Mayes goes further to suggest that the struggle for self-acceptance then goes further to a struggle of being “accepted by other people, and by God himself.” P117. And although the questions that Young offers, are good and valid questions for striving for something better, if they stem from a lack of self-acceptance then how we relate to others, and to God will be majorly impacted.
Eaude, 2004, offers similar questions, but with different basis behind them: “For me spiritual experience is the search for answers to questions such as, who am I? where do I fit in? Why am I here?” For Eaude it isn’t the shaping of who we are at the basis of the questions, but it is the search, the hunger, the desire for that spiritual experience. But, despite Eaudes search for spiritual experience, the questions he asks, are questions that arose through my mind as time progressed through school.
How I was as a boy was strongly attached to this lack of self-acceptance, which not only impacted upon relationships I had as a boy, however weak these may have been, but also impacted how I related to others as I grew up. Ward 1990, sums up well how I reflected upon myself as I grew up when she states that, “”Self”, denotes what is evil, or negative.” P3. There was little positive that surrounded me, so the negative viewpoint that I held of myself remained for many years thereafter. Eaude’s statement therefore, that we are formed by the relationships we make, goes some way to identifying the reason behind my lack of self-acceptance, due to the fact that the relationships that were established in my teenage life were negative, condemnatory, evil and abusive on the whole. Thus it became impossible, for me to have any level of Mayes’s self-acceptance.
Loss of sight, Irish boy in England in the early 80’s, boarding school away from home, were all elements that contributed to my state of negativity, and were, upon reflection the beginnings of my lack of self-acceptance. They were the beginnings only because without these happenings other factors such as abuse would not have been able to take place. Not only were these elements factors to my lack of self-acceptance, but they also contributed to what could only be described as an interiorising of my self. This in practice meant the internalisation of all emotions, feelings, and reality to self.
Having faced two lots of cancer which lead to total blindness, by the age of 9, life had already taken a major re-adjustment, so when leaving home to go to a boarding school two years later, where most of the boys knew other boys in the school, on my own, meant even further adjustment for me as a young boy. Although not necessarily arriving at the school with deep feelings of negativity, or a huge lack of self-acceptance, when unable to cope with loneliness, plus comments from staff and other boys in the school about the hurt and pain that the Irish were causing in England, over a period of time, my ability to accept who I was grew weaker and weaker, and negativity started to become a dominant factor upon my existence.
At the age of 12, blame would be landed on my shoulders for the bombs and shootings that would take place in England. On top of which, due to my inability to cope with loneliness, thus my lack of involvement in various activities within the school, I very quickly became ostracised. Further to the verbal comments, from an early time in the school, physical and sexual bullying started to take place. The more I withdrew from people, due to the lowering of self-acceptance, the greater the negative thoughts, and thus my inability to fend off those who wish to dominate and abuse me.
This, interiorisation of all that I was, brought forth a spirit of survival. A festival, entitled, The Burning Man, put survival like this: “To look within ourselves, to discover who we are, and find the will and power to survive.” It was this state of mind that very quickly consumed me, as I had little to no self-acceptance, the only thing that really mattered, was the ability to survive. The condition, therefore, of survivor that established itself firmly in my life, could well be rooted in both what Mayes and Eaude suggest, as the position of survivor was one that took a stronghold upon me. For Mayes suggests that it is our past that make us who we are, and Eaude contends that it is the relationships that we form that shape us into the people who we are, thus the relationships in my past that were formed in my life as a teenage boy impacted and contributed heavily to my status of a survivor.
Pearce, quoted by Nash, 2000, suggests that an “emphasis has been upon male victimhood, internalised oppression and questions of self destruction and violence.” P8. In as much as the self destruction and violence were never firmly upon my radar, the internalisation of oppressive activities, and my victimhood mentality, were certainly strong elements throughout teenage life. The band Lincoln Park, recorded a track recently entitled “Numb”, and this was the state that I found myself existing in. For I lived in the knowledge that the abuse was continual, and I was powerless to end it, so my numbed existence gave permission to those who wished to take advantage of me.
This numbed existence that I then lived in, was my coping mechanism for what was taking place. Furthermore, it also indicated the end of any acceptance I had about who I was. The numbed coping mechanism was my “survival” process, and disregarding any acknowledgement for who I was assisted in my ability to ensure a lack of continual pain.
The interiorising of me as a person whilst at school took the shape of me mentally and physically withdrawing from people, and where possible school itself. To withdraw meant that noone was able to reach me, and that I could live in a separated world of solitude. To interiorise my “self”, meant, that although certain things continued to happen, people could not reach the real internalised me. To withdraw, meant that no-one could know me, and therefore no-one would be able to hurt me either.
Relationship formation that Eaude refers too, could only be defined in my context, as those people I shared a classroom with, or came into contact with as I passed through the school, or even those who I had to share a dormitory with during night time. The physical withdrawing of my “self”, would mean putting in place avoidance tactics wherever possible, so that people could not invade my internal existence.
The wanderings around school, the need to be alone, the avoidance of all people, gave me time to focus upon the questions that Eaude suggests, where do I fit in? why am I here? These two in particular were exact questions that I asked, and asked again,
Without coming to an actual conclusion. For me as a boy there was a conflict that existed internally, the need to avoid, but yet the yearning to be wanted. The need for true loving intimacy, as opposed to abusive oppressive dominance. The need or desire for those relationships that would form a strong basis for my future, the ones that Eaude talks about, as opposed to the acquaintances that existed at that time.
To be able to articulate my internalised thoughts was hard, if not impossible, due to my reluctance to express how I felt, or even give it acknowledgement. Nouwen’s Book, Reaching Out, articulates much of the exclusiveness that I existed in. Nouwen, 2005, would agree with Ward in the analysis of self, as he describes “Loneliness as a negative thing”. This agrees with Ward who suggests that self is evil and negative, 1990. The loneliness that I faced at school was very different to aloneness, which is much more of a voluntary action, something that is wanted or desired by the person. The avoidance of people that I purposely put in place, Nouwen, 2005, would describe as a “separateness”. I needed to separate myself from others, to separate myself from what I knew would hurt and invade my internalised “self”.
Nouwen, 2005, although acknowledging separateness, also describes those in solitude as “desiring communion”. This need for communion could well stem from the inbuilt need for the filling of the “Godshaped hole” that I referred to earlier. This “separateness”, and “desire for communion”, defines exactly the internalised conflict that existed within my “self”. Despite the need to avoid, be separate, to exclude myself from others, there existed a strong need for communion, acceptance, and to be wanted. This, living contradiction of life, living to withdraw, but yet long to be accepted was something that lived with me for many years thereafter.
I referred to this contradictory existence some years later as me reaching out from within high, thick, well foundationed, solid walls. Knowing that no-one could reach in, but hoping, wanting, desiring someone to do so. Explaining the need to reach out but, not wanting to allow anyone come to close. This picture of that solid room, with no windows, no doors, no abilities of tunnels, and no root in over the top described my internalisation of “self”. Me, myself and I, existing on my own, in an existence that no-one could invade at any time.
I use the word loneliness, as opposed to aloneness due to the fact, as Nouwen, 2005, would put it, that there is a difference between involuntary and voluntary solitude. For me my circumstance was involuntary, due to the abuse that I was suffering from others. Some may argue, that my loneliness was still my choice, my decision to be alone, therefore it was a voluntary loneliness, but for me, to exist with those who were abusing me, and to choose to do so would have made my life even harder. Thus I would contend that the solitude that I existed in was involuntary.
The involuntary nature of my loneliness at that time differs from the solitude that I now experience when spending time with God. Although I would suggest that my desire and need for aloneness with God stems from the reality of the time I spent alone during my school years. The natural state of my existence for so long, was to be alone, therefore, now, when wishing to engage with God, the favoured times for me are alone times.
Mayes would suggest that, “We must have space in our prayers for solitude if we are to encounter God more deeply”, p7. The voluntary nature of my aloneness now is my desire for uninterrupted time and space to hear from God. Nouwen, 2005, would contend that “busyness, is self-created”, and to a large extent I would agree with Nouwen, but if this is true, then we can also ensure that the opposite is true also. If we as individuals can create our own busy times, then we should be able to create our own solitude times as well. Culture almost dictates busyness, and the need to be doing, whereas solitude with God just needs us to “Be still”, as a song once said, and know that he is God.
Solitude with God indicates the importance that you place upon spending time with him, and this comes from a heart desire to spend time with him. As Nouwen suggests, 2005, loneliness can make people demanding, obsessive or clinging, whereas “solitude befriends aloneness”. These alternatives demonstrate the opposing elements within solitude, for out of our loneliness comes that obsessive nature, whereas out of aloneness comes that appreciation of spending time with someone.
The concept of solitude, or even aloneness, is not specific to us as people, for throughout scripture there are many occasions where Jesus withdraws from a crowd, to spend time in prayer. Jesus himself acknowledged the need to withdraw from busyness, and spend time with God the father. Matt.14.13, Luke.5.16. Even in the face of his impending crucifixion Jesus still separated himself from others, including the disciples. (Luke.22.41.)
Through these different elements of solitude there then comes two different approaches to the outlook upon life. Nouwen, 2005, puts it like this, “We choose to live from the place of rejection, or the place where I know that I am beloved”. From both angles the end point, the heart desire, may well turn out to be the same, physical love and affirmation, but living in the place of rejection has the ability to push people away, whereas the ability to live in the knowledge of being “beloved”, enables us therefore to love others, and accept the love from others as well.
If we are not in a place of “self-acceptance”, as Mayes put it, then our ability to accept others, including God is damaged, for God says “love your neighbour as you love yourself”, Lev.19.18, mark.12.31, so if “self-acceptance” is not happening, then the ability to love others won’t happen either. Accepting himself for who he was, it could be argued, may have come almost naturally for Jesus. This is in no way to suggest arrogance on his behalf, but when challenged by his parents when a young boy, once they had found him discussing issues with the priests in the temple, Jesus pointed out to them that he was about his fathers business. Luke.2.46-49. Further to this, upon his baptism, the voice from Heaven declaring “This is my beloved son”, Luke.3.22, would have enabled Jesus to embrace fully who he was.
Living in that place of rejection enables you to reject, or hurt, before you are rejected or hurt yourself. The place of rejection, also is the place of protection, for to reject ensures that you are in control, and therefore able to protect yourself from others. Where the place of being “beloved”, enables you to embrace the love of others without fear, worry or anxiety that something bad is going to take place. It is this place of “belovedness”, that I now exist in, knowing that God is love, God is there, God has good things in store for me.
Mayes quotes nouwen saying “Solitude … is the place where Christ remodels us in his own image and frees us from the victimising compulsions of the world.” P8. For me to exist in that place of “belovedness”, means that I first of all need to allow Christ to remodel me, remodel who I am. Remodelling for me, meant the change of appreciation of who I was, not seeing myself through the eyes of others, but seeing me, how God wanted to see me.
Mayes goes further to suggest that, ”To enter solitude is to come to a place of vulnerability and utter openness to God”. P7. If the remodelling of my “self” was going to take place, and take place for long lasting effect, then I needed to come to that place of complete abandonment, of total vulnerability before God, so that I could be transformed into the self-accepting person that God wanted me to be.
A perspective transformation took place that restored my self-acceptance and enabled me to start believing in who I was, and in who God wanted me to be. Rom.12.2, talks of the “renewing of the mind”, and it was this thought adjustment that needed to establish itself firmly in me so that I could accept my “belovedness”.
Nouwen, 2005, says, “Solitude is listening to the voice that calls you beloved.” But to listen to the voice, or even hear it in the first place, “solitude”, that place of “befriending your aloneness”, as Nouwen puts it, is vital. Where in the past the exclusion of others was implemented to ensure my own safety, to enable me to “survive”, now the exclusion of others is vital so that I can hear the voice “who calls me beloved”. With the spirit of negativity that pervades through much of today’s society, solitude is that necessary place, to hear that perspective transformational voice that speaks positivity, that speaks love, and furthermore speaks acceptance into one’s life.
Nouwen, 2005, suggests that there are disciplines that take hold of our lives, such as joy vs sadness; forgiveness vs persecution, and we have that choice in how we wish to live. In the same way that Nouwen suggested that people could live from that place of rejection, or the place of belovedness, joy vs sad, forgiveness vs persecution exist parallel to these places of existence. To progress from that state of sadness, to the state of joy, or from being persecuted to a place of forgiveness, or even from rejection to belovedness, nouwen suggests is a “journey which is incremational”. It is, unlikely and even unreasonable to expect a transformation from persecution to forgiveness to take place immediately, nor should it be expected for people to transform that place of rejection to a place of accepted belovedness without a number of steps along the way. Many realisations may have to be faced along the journey that beings us to that place of belovedness, and self-acceptance, if these endpoints are going to be reached.
Christian standpoints that once we accept Christ into our lives, we then become “born again”, or a “new creation”, disregard the incremental journey that some may have to face. There is an immediacy, almost instantaneousness about such a viewpoint, that seems to disregard the place where the person has come from, as well as the place that they are trying to reach. Certainly it is true that nouwen’s place of rejection can be in the past, and we can exist in that place of accepting belovedness, but I would contend that nouwen’s suggestion of an incremental journey from one position to the other, that perspective transformation is much more realistic in peoples lives. We can accept that position of being a “new creation”, once the process has taken place, and we have accepted who we are in Gods eyes.
If we are to exist at the end of the spectrum where acceptance and value reside, then not only does our viewpoint upon life itself need to be transformed, but also our perspective on the underpinning basis for acceptance and belovedness needs adjusting. Mayes suggests, that “our true value comes, not from what others might say, about us, but from what God has to say about us.” P4. where previously my complete lack of acceptance came from the words and actions of others, now my acceptance of who I am comes from what God thinks of me, and does for me. It is important to note that, although valuing myself in what God says about me, this acceptance is simply that, an acceptance, appreciation, valuing of who I am. It is in no way an indication of my value being more than anyone else’s nor should it be seen as a form of arrogance, but simply a realisation of worth, value, and purpose. The incremental process that Nouwen referred too, as that process from the position of rejection, to the position of belovedness, could be further seen, as Mursell 2001, would define it as, “That process by which God seeks to continually work upon, or address the raw unstable chaos of our lives and experience, and of our world, drawing forth meaning, identity, order and purpose.” P9. Living in the existence that the world may have dictated for me, would in no way have brought me to that position of realising a purpose, or meaning in my life, but the fact that God wants us to exist in that position of acceptance in itself starts to bring hope, order, and value to one’s existence.
Macdonald, 1984, suggests that “To bring order to ones personal life is to invite his control over every segment of ones life”. P9. To invite this control, is to be in that place that Mayes referred to of “vulnerability”. A recent Worship song said “Control me from the inside out”, which suggests an offering of ourselves as vulnerable, open to Gods “remodelling”, as Mayes would put it, into the existence and personhood that God wants for us. To invite God to control us from the inside out, as the song helps us request, is an invitation for God to come and bring us to that place of acceptance, or worth, or of value. A re-shaping of our thought processes is likely to take place if we truly open ourselves up to God, and allow him access to all areas of our lives, and give him permission to adjust us accordingly.
Kessler, 2000, p17, quoted by Nash, in his “7 gateways to spiritual development”, suggests that one of the gateways is a “search for meaning and purpose”. Acceptance of, ourselves, is very much tied up in this suggestion by Kessler, for without meaning or purpose, acceptance becomes a vacant construct. What is there for us to accept if there is no meaning or purpose to what we are accepting. There needs to be a foundational belief that what is worth accepting, is meaningful, and has purpose to life itself.
For me, meaning and purpose had very negative implications as a teenage boy, so therefore the idea of acceptance was a remote ideal. Meaning and purpose give the idea of reason, or even a fitting in. There seemed little reason to my existence for many years, and fitting in happened, as easily as the square peg in a round hole. But to go through that gateway, engage in that search for my meaning and purpose, has enabled me to draw near to God, and thus live in that position of belovedness, that Nouwen refers too.
The state of my spiritual self, in some respects doesn’t just stem from, but co-exists with the state that I existed in whilst at school. I referred earlier to the living contradiction that existed within me, the hunger to be loved and accepted, but yet the fear of allowing anyone close enough to bring that love and acceptance. The fear element of this contradiction stemmed from the reality of what I was experiencing, whilst the hunger for acceptance and love, came from that desire, or need, to experience true love or acceptance. Kessler, 2001, in one of his other gateways to spiritual development, suggests that there is a “yearning for deep connection”. Being in that place that I referred to earlier, where there is the need to open up, and be completely abandoned, or vulnerable to God, brings us to that place of yearning for deep connection. Experiences that took place during my teenage life at school, extracted any form of joy or pleasure that would come from true love, thus now in my spiritual connection with God, there is a desire for tangible intimacy and love. There exists within me the hunger and the desire on a regular basis, to acknowledge the real presence of the living God, and tangibly accept his acceptance of me.
Similarly, Swinton, 2001, p25, quoted by Nash, listing 5 central features of spirituality, offers “connecting”, as one of them. Connecting, as suggested by Swinton, and the depth of connection as suggested by Kessler, offer security to me, as both these elements of spirituality suggest a continuousness about them, not just a brief connection, but one that will last. But, not only last, but last with depth to them. Where connection brought fear, reluctance and numbness, connecting with Gods spirit brings confidence, hope and anticipation.
Furthermore, where previously avoidance, and separateness were strong elements in my existence, I now hunger for that presence of God, having that security of tangibly knowing he is close to me. This is not to take anything away from the necessary factors of trust, and faith, but to have that “connection”, brings the reality of what I previously yearned for, but kept at arms length, that being relationship.
To exist in relationship, means to exist in that place of vulnerability and openness, not just to relate to, but be related too. An allowance, or a giving of permission, to relate to me, as well as me relating to God. It is the position of being related too that draws in the concept that Mayes refers to as “self-acceptance”, for without that concept, the giving of allowance to people to relate to you is unlikely to take place. Out of a position of vulnerability, comes a position of strength, for God desires me to draw close to him, and through that relationship, and my vulnerability before him comes my strength.
For such a large quantity of my life, I lived in that existence of rejection, sadness and persecution, as Nouwen refered to it, 2005. allowing those experiences to consume me and acknowledge my “self”, and my existence as “negative”, in the words of Ward, 1990. Vulnerability and openness were never on the horizon, due to the fact that my thought process assumed that this lead to a place of pain, hurt and people taking advantage of me, and who I was. Relationship, and intimacy may well have been sought after, but only from a distance, and only conditionally. Conditionally, to the extent that I could relate, but not be related too. Acceptance and worthiness in a place of brokenness never seemed viable. Brokenness always was regarded as undesirable, or even unwanted. Brokenness meant pieces as opposed to strength, which is all why I hold the idea of the incremental process that Nouwen suggests in such high esteem.
Barriers had to be overcome, not just logically, working out how broken pieces could translate into a position of strength, but also, the idea that relationship could be affirming, joyful, and even acceptable. Things, or people that are broken, are generally rejected, which is why it is easy to live in that existence of rejectedness, as opposed to the place of belovedness. Incrementally there have been many signposts along the journey that brought me to the place of acceptance, and the place of allowing myself to be related too. But not just for me spiritually, or even mentally or physically, but for my whole existence, and for the purposes that God has called me. The yearning, and the hunger for all that was good, right, intimate, and love, is now in place, and enables me to move forward with my life, and the purposes that God has for me.
Despite the realisation that relationship now existed for me, through reflecting upon my own circumstances, it became obvious to me that I would not be alone in facing the incremental journey from rejection to acceptedness. Factors within lives may well differ from my own, but the reality would be that there were others who had accepted the position of rejectedness in their lives, and had not even considered the possibility of being accepted. The joint realisations, of where I had come from in my own existence, and the acknowledgement of similar positions faced by others enabled me to quickly realise that the journey that I had progressed through would then impact upon my approach to the people God had called me to work with.
My practice, therefore, is impacted on two different levels, firstly, how my experience as a boy impacts my own current thoughts of justice, fairness and life for young people today. But also a realisation of how my spirituality, and all that that contains within it, affects my attitude towards my practice, but also the workings out practically as well.
The realisation that the lack of acceptance and being beloved was not something particular to me was demonstrated quickly within my work with young people. With only, a few days left of a three week mission in the south of England, I was challenged on one evening by a young person, who asked me why we spent so much time with the gang of young people that were in the park. They were aware of our Christian beliefs and values from other work we had done over previous days, so my reply was, “because we love being around you, and God loves you as well”. The response I got to this, what I thought was a positive statement, shocked me. As I finished speaking I became aware of the fact that the young person was crying as they stood in front of me. When I asked why they were crying, my shock turned to empathy as well as care for this young person, as they informed me that “no-one has ever said that to me before!! No-one has ever said they love me!!!”
Empathetically, all the hurt and pain, the feeling of unacceptability, all came flooding back. I had only just started on that incremental journey from rejection to belovedness myself, therefore I could understand and feel much of what this young person felt. It had only been a couple of years since that moment of complete rejection had left me homeless, and yet in this place of brokenness, rejection, God stepped in and started to restore my own self acceptance. I vowed on that evening, and the vow has stuck with me since then, that in whatever I do, and in as far as it is possible, I will do all that I can to ensure that no young person I work with goes through the experiences, or the feelings that I went through as a young boy. It was totally unacceptable to me that any young person, should live in the existence of rejection and believe that they were unacceptable to others.
This encounter with the young person was not a singularly one-off event, there have been many instances since, where young people have confided and opened up to reveal a high level of unacceptedness. To be able to listen, support, encourage, and enable young people to enter into that incremental journey, and find that they have worth, value, and acceptability in the eyes of people, and also God has not just been a privilege, but enabled me to gain a higher level of worth as well, for the experiences that I had as a teenage boy, although largely negative and painful, I have now been able to turn around, and not necessarily give them legitimacy, but acknowledge a worth in them as I see other lives being transformed.
Giving these experiences worth as opposed to legitimacy enables me to enter that gateway of spiritual development that I referred to earlier from Kessler, 2001, of meaning and purpose. Legitimisation of my experiences as a boy would give them validity in not just my life, but society in general. To give them worth, thus meaning and purpose, gives me the chance to have authority over those experiences, and use them for positivity, rather than the negativity they were used for in the first place. To encounter positivity in a life where there was negativity and unacceptance, may well be a number of steps along that journey toward belovedness, but it also ensures that the beginnings of a culture of worth are established, rather than the destructiveness of rejection.
Swinton, 2001, p25, as quoted by Nash, referring to 5 central features of spirituality, suggests that one of those central features is “becoming”. This idea of “becoming” I would contend is central to my own spirituality, but also as an underpinning factor to my working practice. For me to exist in that state of belovedness, I have more become the person who god wants me to be, as opposed to that boy who existed in the state of rejection or unacceptedness. But for my working practice, it is important for me to acknowledge that “becomingness” for the young people who I work with, as opposed to the way that they are viewed by society.
If I have transformed my life to live in that existence of how God sees me, then it is also vital for me to view others as God would see them. A return to living life as a contradiction would then become a reality if I were to believe in my own beloved status before God, but not encourage others to accept that they also can exist in that state as well. As I suggested earlier, for me to live in an existence of acceptedness, and not encourage others to that same existence, would mean me placing extra value upon my own acceptability, thus transforming acceptability into arrogance.
John 3.16 states that “whosoever shall believe in me, shall not perish, but have eternal life”. There is no statement here of (apart from), or (accept those), the statement reads “whosoever”, which means that there is acceptability for all in the eyes of God. When Christ was nailed to the cross, his arms were open wide, offering love and value to anyone who wished to receive it. His death, as his life did also, demonstrating that grace and love exist for all rather than just a few.
Further to the embracement of my own acceptability and the challenge that that brings to my working practice, in how I view others, my spirituality has an impact upon my work due to my acceptance of relatedness. In accepting my own ability to be related too, there then needs to be an element to my work that demonstrates the fact that others are worthy of being related too as well. Vulnerability and openness being key components to being related too, need to be given encouragement, but also appreciation, so that the person in that vulnerable position, desiring someone to relate to them, doesn’t just know, but actually believes that they are in a safe place.
Thomas, 1996, suggests that there are a number of definitions to spirituality in his Sacred Pathways. For the context of safety in relationship, his “caregivers”, definition works well, for he defines this as “Loving God by loving others”. In my acceptance of my relateability, especially with God, my love for God, and acceptance of God’s love, is demonstrated by those around me knowing that I value and appreciate them, for who they are, and how God sees them. I cannot exist in the exclusivity of relating to God, for that relationship with God is born out in reality by the way that I love others.
A further element to my spiritual relationship with God, that has an impact upon my practice, is the acknowledgement that the time that God spends with me is undivided. His commitment to me is total, his time spent with me is not limited, and his attention to me is not divided with others. Accepting the availability of God to all people at all times, I know that he is big enough to allow me to spend time with him, at the same time as others are engaging with him. Ensuring that as I relate to others that there are no distractions that are going to grab my attention away from the importance of that relationship, is imperative if my relational being is going to relate to others as well as God.
Macdonald, 1984, defines our spirituality as a “garden”, and suggests that the garden “needs cultivating”. P129. For me to continually reside in that existence of relateness, constant evaluation of my relationship with God needs to take place. It is something that cannot be taken for granted, nor is it something that develops on its own, but in the same manner as Macdonald’s garden, care, attention, and refining all need to be elements of my deepening relationship with God.
Macdonald 1984, earlier suggests that our private world, referring to our relationship with God, “can be effectively ignored for large periods of time before it gives way to a sinkhole-like cave-in”. p15. Macdonald here is suggesting that our spiritual relationship with God is foundational to order in our private, and public worlds. Without firm and strong foundations, growth, development, and continuation, especially within relationships are unlikely to be able to exist indefinitely.
Ward, 1990, quoting Hughes, says, “Our treasure lies in our inner life… In religious language this inner life is called “the soul”, and the art of knowing it, healing it and harmonizing its forces is called spirituality”. P4. For so long it was only an inner existence that I lived in. Not necessarily at the time referring to it as a “soul”, or even acknowledging any form of spirituality, but much more of a self preservation. The “healing”, as Ward put it, of my inner existence of all that had taken place in my life, may well now enable me to “know”, myself spiritually, and also allow myself to be related too, not just physically but also spiritually.
Realising my inner self as spiritual, and giving it permission to express itself in relationship, brings forth a release to the whole person. No further containment within built-up compartments, but the allowing of connectedness with people and God. Thomas, 1996, in “sacred pathways”, gives a further definition for spirituality, when suggesting that it could be, “sensates: loving God with the senses”. Rather than being this closed off boy, the release and freedom brought through my inner connectedness with God now doesn’t just bring acceptedness and belovedness for me, but in allowing God to connect with me, and seeing others as God sees them, my practice is transformed as well. Emotions and feelings, once ignored, trapped, disregarded, now allowed to come forth in that existence of belovedness.
The transformed person who now accepts there “belovedness”, went through that “incremental process”, as Nouwen refers to it. There was no immediate, instant thought-process transformation that shifted me from my self rejection, to my self acceptance. Having accepted Christ into my life in December 1992, it was some 8 years later that the need for a personal perspective transformation was realised, and the incremental journey was started upon. Accepting Christ and all that he had done for me, made little impact upon my self-acceptance, or upon my acceptance of gods love. Even then, once embarking upon that journey, and forcing myself upon an intensive journey, it was another lengthy period of time, before self belief, and acceptance came into true fruition.
Questioning whether I could exist today in the way that I do, without the spiritual connectedness with God, it would be very unlikely as a possibility. The entrenched nature of my rejectedness would have meant that self-acceptance, thus the accepting of others love, and even the demonstration of acceptance to others would not have been possible. There was nothing in my non-spiritual world that had indicated to me that anything could, or would change in my life if certain things were put in place.
The need for, and thus my pressing conviction for that spiritual connectedness may well have its roots planted in the coping mechanisms that I had in place as a boy, but those mechanisms that existed no longer exist for negative reasons, and nor do they pull me toward a rejection-based existence. My longing for that experiential presence of God, has brought me to that place of acceptance, and believing in my purposed existence. Further to my own existence now as a man, it would be hard for me to bring that element of acceptability and value to my practice, if it was not firmly rooted in my own existence first. It is doubtful that the acceptance and love found in my relationship with God, could first have been found in relationships with others, for time after time when trying to relate to others, I would reject the other person before they had the opportunity to reject me.
When facing a group of boys one evening whilst out on detached work, and they started throwing stones at us, the choice was there before us whether to carry on and engage with this group, or continue in a different direction. Our decision was to engage with the group of boys, and regardless of being hit by stones, we would engage with them. When challenged by them once we had drawn close, as to why we had continued coming towards them, we informed them that regardless of what they said or did, we still cared for them, and would continue to engage with them. This response would not have been able if there was no self-belief, or self-acceptance in the first place, nor would we have had the strength to face that situation, unless the reality of an ever-present God was evident to us. From that evening onwards we saw an amazing change in the relationship we encountered with that group of boys, but the transformation of that relationship, and the demonstration of acceptance, plus the security in our own acceptance could not have taken place unless the reality of the impact of spiritual connectedness had first of all happened personally.
|
