The document distinguishes between three approaches to spirituality: 1) Spiritual essentials which involve developmental stages that must be gone through in order, such as belonging preceding desiring. 2) Spiritual spirals where the stages can be approached in any order but must all be completed. 3) Spiritual accidentals where individuals can choose an approach based on their predispositions, such as personality types. It notes that the essential approaches have general norms that cannot be avoided, while the accidental approaches allow for more individual freedom and diversity in choosing a spiritual path. The goal is to recognize when a universal approach is needed and when personal preferences can rightfully come into play.

1. As we struggle to articulate optimal spiritual pathways, efficacious journeys, we might consider
the following distinctions:
1) SPIRITUAL ESSENTIALS: touch all the bases, in order - those dynamics in formative
spirituality that have trajectories, directionalities, due to growth & developmental dynamics,
for example, belonging (orthocommunio) generally precedes desiring (orthopathy) which
precedes behaving (orthopraxy), which precedes believing (orthodoxy) or the purgative,
illuminative & unitive ways or the growth trajectories of Piaget, Kohlberg, Fowler et al or false
self & self & ego alignments and such
2) SPIRITUAL SPIRALS: touch all the bases, in no particular order - those dynamics in
hermeneutical spirals, wherein we can begin wherever we're inclined but must still complete
the spiral for optimal value-realization, for example, the Wesleyan quadrilateral, the Anglican
three-legged stool, leading with the will or with reason following Scotus or Aquinas, etc
3) SPIRITUAL ACCIDENTALS: choose a base, a position, as suited to your pre-dis-position those nurture-nature dynamics associated with personality typologies & charisms, for example,
mbti & enneagram preferences, I Corinthians 12
I bring these up because I think it is important to distinguish when it is that a certain approach
has general normative implications or a one-size-fits-all characteristic and when there might
otherwise be more or less latitude or freedom, recognizing differences that should be
acknowledged and honored regarding people's choices.
The practical upshots are that we cannot legitimately invoke ourselves as exceptions to the rule
when formative dynamics are governed pretty much by generally applicable norms; sometimes,
there just are no shortcuts or workarounds and we have to do the spadework, ascetically and
developmentally. However, sometimes, we might rightly resist others' attempts to define our
path, to straightjacket our spiritual approach, to make us over in their image.
I do see such confusion and its impacts on relationships, both from those who imagine there are
exceptions when there are not and from those who do not see genuine preferences where true
options exist.
In essentials, unity; accidentals, diversity; all things, charity.