I recently came across the idea that one should not simply accept a set of principles from others but one should devise one's own based on one's own spiritual work and then live within that.
That sounds pretty sound, right?
I have two issues with this.
The first is the notion of the spiritual canteen.
The spiritual canteen: construct your own meal, take what you want, and leave the rest.
If someone is 100% connected with God, that will work pretty well, because God will guide a person as to which principles are genuine spiritual principles and which principles are ego-driven.
But who is 100% connected with God? Ah, there's the rub!
If I'm, say, 80% connected with God, and proceed to select principles, the selection will be contaminated by the ego. My whole framework, therefore, is contaminated by the ego. I've baked in misbehaviour and its defence.
My second issue is: what's wrong with the off-the-peg catalogues of spiritual principles?
At the level of philosophy, whether one buys a particular religion's doctrine, or the philosophy of, say, A Course In Miracles, there might be an argument for taking some things and (as Clancy would say) 'filing the rest away for later consideration'. One meets a lot of people in the West who are very fond of Buddhism, but the reincarnation aspect is rarely discussed, even though it's central to the philosophy. Maybe this works, maybe this doesn't.
Philosophy is one thing. The code of living is another.
When I read the book Alcoholics Anonymous, I struggle to find anything in the first 164 pages I actually take issue with, at the level of 'how to live'. Maybe the material about having wet drunks live in one's home to help them sober up is one example, but that's a question of detail, not of ethical framework. Everything else: fine by me.
When I read the St Augustine's Prayer Book list of character defects, once I 'adapt' the specifically Christian ones ('Deliberate neglect of the worship of God every Sunday in his Church' becomes 'Deliberate neglect of attendance and participation at my home group'), I'm good with everything. I can't find anything I would not want to live by.
As with the book Alcoholics Anonymous, the objections are not at the level of principle but at the level of material-world detail. There are no objections of principle.
The real question, with the canteen-style approach, is this: What spiritual principle is being avoided, here? What's rubbing the person up the wrong way? Something is grating below the surface ...
In the past, I've drawn lines and 'protected' unfitting behaviours under the guise of spiritual maturity and that dread phrase 'to thine own self be true'. 'No one tells me what to do: I answer to God alone!' That did not work out so well. Bolstered by a 'close relationship with God', with 'meditation', and with 'prayer', I walked straight into hell under a banner with my own coat of arms on it.
Spiritual surrender is unconditional. I don't write the terms.