Curious Christian

Reflections on culture, nature, and spirituality from a Christian perspective

Tacey on Spirituality

Published by

Matt Stone

2008-02-08

For some time now I’ve thought it would be helpful to have a clear statement from David Tacey, the much quoted spiritual commentator, on his own spiritual leanings for once.

I finally came across one a week or so ago in his book “The Edge of the Sacred.”

It reads as follows:

“My work will not satisfy purists of any persuasion. My gnosticism is tempered by Christianity, my scholarship is coloured by speculation and intuition, and my Jungianism is modified by Freudian influence.”

He elaborates on this Gnosticism somewhat further in the book, but there you have it: through Christianity is an influence, Gnosticism is where he lays his hat. I think this is important to note, not least because I have come across a number of emerging type Christians quoting him as a “Christian” spiritual commentator, something which always made me nervous, and which this now shows is patently incorrect.

This is not to say I am dismissive of everything Tacey has to say, I enjoyed “The Spirituality Revolution: the Emergence of Contemporary Spirituality”, and found many useful insights within it. But lets be clear that, just because he likes emergent language, that doesn’t mean he is speaking the same language as us.

Tags Spirituality

5 responses to “Tacey on Spirituality”

sally

2008-02-08

Well said Matt. This is one of the points I often make when teaching Christians to communicate in today’s spiritual supermarket. Language can come to our aid, but can also be our downfall if we do not listen with discernment and ask relevant questions to gain clarity.
It is easy to have a “non-conversation” with someone, each thinking they have been understood by the other, and yet no real communication has been established!

LikeLike

Reply
Sue

2008-02-08

There is no spiritual depth nor any discriminative intelligence to be found in David’s books.
Most of what he writes about in his book has nothing to do with anything spiritual. It is just the usual dumbed down, do it yourself “spiritualïty”, that appeals to Westerners who are completely devoid of the sources and origins of the real Spiritual Process, which could be summed up in the Buddhist paradigm of Buddha, Dharma, Sangha.
That is a living Spiritual Teacher, a teaching given by the same Teacher who is also respected and acknowledged as an exenplar within his or her lineage tradition, and the community of practitioners altogether who associate with the Teacher and his/her dharma. It can be both monks and lay people.
This three-fold paradigm is the essential core of and real and living Spiritual Practice.
There is no such thing as do it yourself spirituality.

LikeLike

Reply
Matt Stone

2008-02-09

Sue, you are Buddhist I take it? You intrigue me as I am not used to such absolutist comments coming from a Buddhist. I mean “no spiritual depth” in David? I am not defending him here, but personally I always try to find something redeeming in others, even when I disagree with them. As I am governed by an awareness that I too am imperfect. You truly can find nothing?
As for do it yourself spirituality being futile, I agree, but would go further and assert that only the way of Jesus truly transcends do it yourself. Has that put the cat amongst the pigeons? 🙂

LikeLike

Reply
Marcus Curnow

2008-03-07

I’ve hung out with David a little and he attended a church service that I ran. I wouldnt be quick to call him a Christian commentator as he obviously avoids this but my sense is that there was good “Christian” substance underpinning his thought…i sensed this more from speaking personally than I sense when I read his books…but every author has to pitch a book at a certain level for a certain audience. I agree with your perspective on diy spirituality but do think David has some spiritual value. I respect his efforts to regard indigenous spirituality and its interplay with Christianity seriously and positively.

LikeLike

Reply
Matt Stone

2008-03-08

Marcus, I’m not saying David Tacey isn’t influenced by Christianity. Quite the contrary, he obviously is and the above statement makes that quite explicit. But is Christianity the foundation on which he builds everything else? I think the above statement makes it equally explicit that it is not, but rather, that Gnosticism and Jungianism are more foundational for him. I have sensed this before, this merely confirms it for me.
I don’t think the issue is whether some Christianity is there or not, it’s whether its central or more peripheral. In speaking with self professed Gnostics like David I would always caution to be wary which Jesus is the subject of a discussion, the Gnostic Jesus or the New Testament Jesus.
And that by no means should be construed as a complete dismissal of his work on my part. I see do some valuable insight there and I’ve been explicit myself on that score too. I am merely cautioning that as Christians we should not read Tacey uncritically just because he sounds Christian at times and addresses some important Christian issues that we may agree with at times.

LikeLike

Reply