I wish to take issue with a few things that Bud Feder has written, even though I am grateful for his contribution and perspective.

I find myself agreeing with him and disagreeing with him all at the same time, and it's an odd sensation. For instance, he states that we don't need to add anything to our Gestalt theory in order to deal with the spiritual experience of our clients, but then he characterizes spiritual experience in general as less than credible, as something which falls outside the realm of the "obvious."

Gstalt-L, An email discussion group devoted to Gestalt therapy and the community of its practitioners (www.g-gej.org/gstalt-l). Gstalt-J, An email discussion group devoted to research on Gestalt therapy, theory and practice (www.g-gej.org/gstalt-j). Supported by the Gestalt Research Consortium (GRC) (www.g-gej.org/grc). Gestalt Bookmarks, a place to begin researching the field of contemporary Gestalt therapy on the world wide web (www.g-gej.org/gestaltbookmarks).

Consult Behavioraledu.com for continuing educational credits available by studying articles on Gestalt therapy appearing in this journal. See their catalogue for courses on:

• The Basics of Contemporary Gestalt Therapy
• Spirituality in Gestalt Therapy
• Gestalt Therapy in the Response to Trauma and Anxiety
• Field Theory in Gestalt Therapy
• Dialogue in Gestalt Therapy

Bud claims, "Incorporating 'spirit,' 'soul,' 'God,' sacredness or religion into Gestalt Therapy can only serve to blur our theory and inapproriately direct our practice (since our theory directs us to pay attention to what is, and not to myths, stories and wishy-washy concepts, which all of the above are)."

In doing this, Bud places himself in a spectacular position. He seems to have an ominsicent understanding of "what is." Contrast that with the perspective of a group of monastic believers, who have claimed,

The call to unceasing prayer is not an invitation to divided consciousness; it does not imply that we pay any less attention to daily realities or retreat from life's responsibilities. Rather: it is a call to learn to live always in the presence of God in a manner appropriate to changing circumstances, through these very circumstances, none of which are an end in themselves, but which lead us to God.

The Monks of New Skete,
In the Spirit of Happiness, p. 187

Thus, here are two perspectives, each claiming to live with awareness in the "what is" of daily, mundane life. One sees no god, and the other sees one God. Each of those perspectives reflects a word view, which is a belief system - a matter of individual faith. In fact, Bud is not omniscient; he evidently believes that there is nothing more to a given situation than what he can see as "the obvious." However, what is obvious to one person may be obscure to another. A person who has learned to discern God and to practice the presence of God can see God at work in the environment, can listen for the respectful, delicate voice of God within. A person who has trained himself to ignore such a possibility, cannot.

And this brings me to the place where I both agree and disagree with Bud. He claimes that our theory eliminates the need to consider spiritual issues. I believe our Gestalt theory demands that we consider them. It does not demand that we import something foreign into a given process or to burden others with our beliefs, but Gestalt therapy theory demands that we consider the meeting of individual experiences in a context, or co-created field. Whenever one person who knows God comes into contact with another person who does not know God, the second must sort the information in his or her field that speaks to the divine presence. If the "what is" means that something of God is in the environment, then a person must break contact with that in some way in order to support his or her "no-god" theory about the world. Unless they do that, they may encounter God and change their atheistic belief system. These contact functions with regard to relationship with a Thou are at the heart of Buber's original thinking. They are in the mix of Heideggar's phenomenology. Spiritual experience is a common aspect of human existence. How can anyone neglect the consideration of spiritual issues who also holds to a holistic view of persons?

Bud states, "...our profound theory gives us all the tools we need to help clients deal with the mysteries and ambiguities of life without resorting to vague ideas and concepts which do not harmonize with our own basic ones."

Once again, I agree and disagree. If Bud means that in order to be a Gestalt therapist we need to leave behind a theistic worldview, I disagree. If Bud means that in order to be a Gestalt therapist we need to consider all aspects having effect for a person's field, then I agree, because that will require one to keep open to the possibility of God. The field is everything having effect. What person is there among us who knows that that does not include God? To eliminate God as a possible effect, is to operate a priori from one's own atheistic worldview and to have one's atheistic faith directly impact one's contact in the environment. Such a thing is a wonderful example of how faith is an essential principle of contact.

Beyond the demands of field theory to remain open to the possible effect of God in the environment, Gestalt therapists must consider the individual experience of their clients. Here, Bud has rightly acknowledged that the client is the focus and sets the agenda for the work. If the client practices a cold, rigid form of religion - void of the actual knowledge of God - then that is the starting point for exploring how well such a persepctive works for the client. If he or she practices a very hot form of personal encounter with God, then that is where one begins. Furthermore, if the client rejects the possibility of God in a rigidity running in the opposite direction, then that too is where the work may follow. If the client does not seem effected by his or her sensitivity to spiritual issues, or even to the existential issues of meaning and significance, then to press for them would be to ignore the client's figures of interest.

Regarding the theoretical tenet of dialogue, the meeting of client and therapist must remain an authentic meeting of two real people. Therefore, the spirituality of the therapist must be acknowledged as well, for it is truly "in the room" in similar fashion to the spirituality of the client. Sometimes it is foreground. I have had clients who told me they were praying for someone like me to become available to them, and by that they meant someone who they thought might understand them as Christian people. Their experience of other therapists had been that those people so discounted and minimalized spirituality that the clients felt unsupported and lost in a foreign and hostile environment.

So, what if the Gestalt therapist actually does not appreciate spiritual things? Are they to act as if they do? Are they to indulge the belief system of the client, trying to keep their own beliefs at bay in order not to offend? Is this what Gestalt therapy theory advocates? It is a clinical question with personal and ethical ramifications. How can one practice presence while concealing deep values and beliefs that are antithetical to those of the client? This is a question that transcends the issue of spirituality and simultaneously illustrates the impossibility of trying to eliminate spirituality from the field. The spiritual condition of both therapist and client, and the mix that ensues, must at least be considered.

My inability to know any absolute absolutely does not prove such things do not exist, only that my limited knowledge of them is not grounds for certainty.

It is equally unjustifiable to proclaim God unknowable. There is a vast difference between saying our knowledge of God is always partial, flawed, slanted by personal and cultural idiosyncracies, and asserting there is nothing beyond ourselves even to know.

Daniel Taylor,
The Myth of Certainty, p. 92