Category Archives: Spirituality

Faith, Truth, and Discernment

Balliol College Chapel, University of Oxford

15th May 2022

Readings: Job 19: 21-27a; John 16: 5-15

For a pdf version click here.

For the audio click here or on the link below (though there is a bit of an echo)

There are a few interesting things going on in the two readings we’ve had today. They are quite different – though there is a theme or cluster that emerges: misconceptions, faith, truth, and lies. Or, to put it simply – how we orient towards, and discern, truth.

So in our first reading we find Job still wrestling with the worst set of friends one could imagine. If you don’t know the story – briefly, it starts with a conversation between God and Satan. God is like, “Hey, check out Job – isn’t he great?” And Satan is like, “No, he only likes you because you give him stuff.” So God says, “OK fine, go test him – but don’t actually kill him.” So Satan strips Job of everything dear to him, and his three friends are like the worst Instagram influencers, with their spiritual platitudes: “Somehow you’ve attracted this” they say. Job is like “No, I haven’t.” In our reading today we find Job again responding in torment, but two things are happening:

One, Job is labouring under a misconception of what is happening. He says:

21Have pity on me, have pity on me, O you my friends, for the hand of God has touched me! 22Why do you, like God, pursue me, never satisfied with my flesh?

But it’s not the hand of God that has touched him. It’s not God pursuing him. Many people grow up with a very strong view of the sovereignty of God – whatever happens, God is behind it. Modern day New Age versions of that are things like “Whatever happens to you, you’ve attracted it.” There’s a whole literature in social psychology on this idea where it’s called ‘Belief in a Just World’. The key idea in the Belief in a Just World is that there is no such thing as undeserved, random suffering. There must be a reason for your suffering. That accident or illness you had? What had you done to bring that on yourself? How have you attracted misfortune? A past life perhaps? A secret sin maybe? You’re poor? What’s blocking abundance for you?

Now don’t get me wrong, personal responsibility is absolutely important – but when it becomes the only lens through which we see spiritual or social realities, it gives us a distorted and fractured picture. It’s one thing to suffer from a terrible event. It’s quite another to add a whole extra layer of suffering due to the meaning we give to that event. It’s no coincidence that the alt-health pseudoscience industry thrives in the insecure gig economy of multilevel marketing schemes, supplements, and wellness coaching. It’s a seamless move “You need to take personal responsibility for yourself … And the best way to do that is to buy my course / program / supplements.” Suffering viewed though an individualistic, victim-blaming lens only has individualistic consumerist solutions. There’s never any mention in wellness world of social conditions – the monstrous inequality built on inherited privilege, the structural racism and sexism, the low wages, the unaffordable housing, the underfunding the NHS, the woeful funding for mental health, the lack of shelters for vulnerable women, and on and on.

The Hebrew and Christian scriptures resist the simplistic messaging that everything bad that happens is the fault of the individual somehow. In the Gospel of Luke 13:1-5, Jesus is asked about some Galileans who were killed by the Romans. Jesus replied,

“Do you think that because these Galileans suffered in this way they were worse sinners than all other Galileans? No, I tell you; but unless you repent, you will all perish as they did. Or those eighteen who were killed when the tower of Siloam fell on them—do you think that they were worse offenders than all the others living in Jerusalem? No, I tell you; but unless you repent, you will all perish just as they did.”

So he’s saying “No – bad things aren’t doled out to people based on their moral merits. But – a turning towards God is also needed.” He’s not threatening them – he’s just saying, heal your relationship with God, so that when your time comes, maybe by some random accident, you’re ready to face death. Don’t die unprepared like these guys did.

“Die before you die” is how some in the Sufi Muslim tradition have put it. Christians talk about rebirth, and the image of baptism reflects this process of being reborn – of dying to one kind of life, and being reborn into another.

In this story of Job, it’s not God behind Job’s suffering at all. The story is framed as a test with the devil as the tester, but the main point of the story is ultimately about steadfastness in faith. It doesn’t mean we should also understand bad things happening as a test. But they are an opportunity to choose how to respond.

The holocaust survivor Victor Frankl wrote in his book Man’s Search for Meaning, that the one thing no-one can take from us is our capacity to choose how to respond to whatever is thrown at us.

And that is the second key movement in the reading. So Job responds:

25For I know that my Redeemer lives, and that at the last he will stand upon the earth; 26and after my skin has been thus destroyed, then in my flesh I shall see God,

Other times, he’s despairing. And something like around a third of the Psalms are what we call ‘lament Psalms’ – basically the people complaining to God about how hard things are – sometimes even blaming God. The Hebrew scriptures show people’s conceptions of God in all their messy humanity.

In this short passage from Job we see both a misconception about what is happening to him, and yet, a response of hope and faith. “For I know that my Redeemer lives, and … in my flesh I shall see God.”

I think it’s hard enough at times to respond with hope and faith when you don’t believe God is directly causing your suffering. So for Job to respond in this way in the story when he worries God might have it in for him is all the more impressive.

Turning to the New Testament passage we heard from, Jesus is talking about how he has to go – again. You can imagine the disciples being like, “Wait, what? You just got back – from being dead. Now you’re going again?”

But Jesus, says Yes, he has to go. For a very particular reason – so that ‘the Advocate’, identified in the previous chapter as the Holy Spirit, can come in his place.

The Holy Spirit is the Spirit of God, the third person of the Christian Trinity – traditionally often viewed as feminine.

The Holy Spirit represents the breath of God, the life force, echoing the ruaḥ ‘elohim in Hebrew, the breath of God hovering over the waters of chaos in Genesis 1. The word for spirit or breath, ruaḥ in Hebrew is feminine, as it is in Aramaic, the language Jesus most likely spoke. In Syriac, the word for spirit is also feminine – rucha and so the churches of the East often used maternal imagery for the Holy Spirit.           

The Spirit also finds an echo in the Sanskrit in notions of prāṇa – the vital breath, breath of life, vitality; and in especially in śakti – the energy and power of the divine, again conceived as feminine.

One of my favourite Hindu depictions of God is as Śiva Natarāja, the cosmic dancer – the Lord of the Dance – you may have seen a statue of him – with Śiva on one foot, the other foot extended, arms outstretched, dancing in a circle of flames. There is a big statue of him outside CERN, the huge particle accelerator in Switzerland – representing God as the cosmic dancer – the life force who spun everything into existence. The power, energy, and life of the cosmic dance is the feminine śakti.

So what will this Spirit do? In John, Jesus said, “When the Spirit of truth comes, he will guide you into all the truth; for he will not speak on his own, but will speak whatever he hears, and he will declare to you the things that are to come. 14 He will glorify me, because he will take what is mine and declare it to you.”

There’s a lot in here. Firstly, “the Spirit of truth” – what does that mean?

A few chapters earlier, in John 8:44, Jesus describes the devil as ‘a liar and the father of lies’. So there is this contrast set up in Jesus’ teachings, between the Spirit of truth, and the father of lies. In his second letter to the Corinthians, Paul warned his readers to be discerning, because this liar is so good that, “Even Satan disguises himself as an angel of light.” (2 Cor 11:14)

It is my belief that our societies are suffering a crisis in regards to the notion of ‘truth’.

We have massive problem with communities riven by pseudoscience and conspiracy theories, and politicians and business leaders who often seem incapable of telling the truth. There is still a problem with climate change denial – in my country, Australia, it’s so bad the government wants to build new coal mines! And we saw people react in very different ways during the pandemic, with many going down the Covid-denial, anti-vaccination rabbit hole. ‘Conspirituality’– which is the overlap between conspiracy theories and spirituality  – is a huge and growing problem.

The conspirituality phenomena reinforces the importance of truth, since our ethics are related not only to what values are nurtured by our spirituality, such as compassion, but also how we understand how far those values extend. For example, a spiritual tradition may encourage its adherents to be compassionate. That’s great! But it may also teach that the world is not really real, and that the purpose of spiritual practice is to dissociate from the world and eventually escape from the illusion. In practice then, the scope of compassion may be quite individualistic and passive, being limited to whatever sentient beings happen to cross practitioners’ paths. Alternatively, a tradition which not only teaches compassion, but also supports a robust philosophy of physical and social science, will arguably better equip its adherents to engage with complex systemic issues such as climate change, viral pandemics, structural racism, and pervasive sexism. In each case, there is a truth about the world to be discovered. It is not just a matter of differing opinions, perspectives and stories.

A common feature of much conspirituality thinking is the combination of a very tenuous grasp of science, and a degree of confidence untroubled by this lack of expertise. This phenomenon has come to be known as the Dunning-Kruger effect, after a classic paper aptly named Unskilled and Unaware of It: How Difficulties in Recognizing One’s Own Incompetence Lead to Inflated Self-Assessments. More recent research also finds a link between the tendency to believe conspiracy theories and lower critical thinking abilities. A key anchor point of this analysis is that there is actually such a thing as expertise.

During the Brexit debate – Michael Gove famously refused to name any economists who supported Brexit, saying that “people in this country have had enough of experts”. And we can all see how well that is going.

Many say that we are now in an era of ‘post-truth’ politics. In the United States, the Washington Post estimated that President Trump’s speeches and tweets had contained over 30,000 lies over the four years of his presidency.  And who can forget Trump’s Counsellor, Kellyanne Conway, who introduced the world to the phrase “alternative facts” in January 2017, when shamelessly defending White House Press Secretary Sean Spicer’s manifestly false statements about the size of Trump’s inauguration crowd. It all culminated in the ‘big lie’, that the 2020 election had been stolen, and with the storming of the US Capitol on January 6th last year. But even here in this country, and in my own, politicians seem to be coated in Teflon – there no longer seem to be any consequences for demonstrable lies. Politicians have always lied, sure – but there used to be consequences.

Once we lose our grip on the notion that some things are true and other aren’t – it becomes a cancer that eats away at our civilization.

In John’s story of Jesus’ trial (John 18:37-38), Jesus says “For this I was born, and for this I came into the world, to testify to the truth. Everyone who belongs to the truth listens to my voice.” And then the Roman governor of Judea, Pontius Pilate, asked him, “What is truth?”

Was Pilate a philosopher? Probably not. But this questioning of the nature of truth is the hinge point of the trial. This dissembling about truth is what makes possible the monstrous injustice of Jesus’ crucifixion.

There is a subfield of philosophy called ‘virtue epistemology’ which explores the connection between ethics and how we acquire knowledge. The idea is that the cultivation of intellectual virtues are crucial for developing the discernment needed to acquire knowledge and wisdom.* These virtues typically include traits such as: open-mindedness, curiosity, diligence, discipline, self-awareness, honesty, courage, perseverance, humility, openness to constructive criticism, etc. The kinds of things we are meant to be learning here.

‘Intellectual vices’ have received somewhat less attention, but include traits such as being impervious to evidence, carelessness, dogmatism, prejudice, wishful thinking, over-confidence, gullibility, negligence, conformity, and obtuseness. One vice in particular warrants mention – that of intellectual insouciance, which Quassim Cassam [2019, p. 79] defines as “an indifference or lack of concern with respect to whether their claims are grounded in reality or the evidence.” Philosopher Harry Frankfurt (2005) memorably described this trait as being a defining characteristic of – and I quote what has now become a technical philosophical term – the ‘bullshitter’. A liar, at least, has a regard for the truth, knowing they are speaking a falsehood. The bullshitter, by contrast, speaks only for rhetorical, persuasive effect, and is wholly unconcerned with the truth or falsity of their claims. They just don’t care, as long as their words get them what they want. This rhetoric that is unmoored from even a care for the truth is the essence of the post-truth politics infecting our current age.

Why does truth matter? Well for a start, coherent, evidence-based ethical deliberation and public policy is difficult at the best of times, but when even the notion of truth itself begins to dissolve, they become virtually impossible. This process occurs not just through overt philosophical attacks on the notion of truth, and manipulative corporate PR campaigns, but perhaps more insidiously, though the flooding of information channels with so much general disinformation that regular citizens become disoriented, lose hope of ever being able to discern what is true, and give up, making them more vulnerable to specifically-targeted disinformation. Disinformation and propaganda were used extensively by the Nazis in the creation of the so-called ‘Hitler myth’, portraying Hitler as Germany’s saviour [Kershaw, 1987]. Writing after the war on The Origins of Totalitarianism, Hannah Arendt [1951, p. 446] highlighted the critical role of propaganda: “Only the mob and the elite can be attracted by the momentum of totalitarianism itself; the masses have to be won by propaganda”.

And as we have seen, lies and propaganda have been a fundamental part of Russia’s strategy, such as it is, in Ukraine. Access to foreign media and social media was severely curtailed, with Facebook and Twitter banned. Even language was tightly controlled, with a 15 year jail sentence possible for anyone spreading ‘fake news’ which ‘discredited’ the Russian armed forces. Even describing the invasion as a ‘war’ rather than the Kremlin-approved ‘special military operation’ risks arrest [Sherwood & Milmow, 2022].

So part of the role of God’s Holy Spirit is to lead us into truth – it is no surprise then that intellectual virtues are central to that enterprise.

What’s next in the reading?

Jesus said of the Spirit: “He will glorify me” – how? Through the hearers and bearers of the divine spirit – through those who are marinated, soaked, in the divine Spirit. So who are they? Are they those who thump their chest and loudly tell other people what to do, in the name of God? Are they those who misuse the Bible as a weapon against the poor, against women, against gay, and transgender people – against people of other faiths?

No. So many things are done in God’s name which bring God only rejection and derision, rather than glory. You scratch the surface of most of them and you find contracted, fearful human beings, who are seeking to control others. And so many petty, ego-driven, human games.

In the Gospel of Matthew chapter 7, is a passage that I think should be engraved in every church:

Jesus said, 21 ”Not everyone who says to me, ‘Lord, Lord,’ will enter the kingdom of heaven, but only the one who does the will of my Father in heaven. 22 On that day many will say to me, ‘Lord, Lord, did we not prophesy in your name, and cast out demons in your name, and do many deeds of power in your name?’ 23 Then I will declare to them, ‘I never knew you; go away from me, you evildoers.’

So if words and actions, and ‘deeds of power’ done in God’s name, do not bring glory to God, and instead cause people to turn away from God, and to blame God – it’s a fair bet that God’s Spirit is not driving that.

Perhaps a better rule of thumb could be described as Marie Kondo theology: Does this spark joy? I am sure we all have our favourite places in nature – the places where we feel grounded and refreshed – where we can sense the life-force pulsing through the universe. The Celts called them thin places. But what are the things that reflect God’s glory in the human realm? For me, the things that strike me dumb with awe and wonder are humans at their most creative, most loving, most expansive, most courageous, most skilled, most playful, and most vulnerable. A striking work of art. A sublime piece of music. Soaring beautiful architecture. A generous act of forgiveness. An honest, vulnerable, authentic conversation that invites us to respond with love and connection, and with the flash of recognition – “Ah you feel like I do. You see me. I’m not alone.” A courageous stance in the face of injustice, hate, and oppression. Caring deeply, and with boundless compassion for the wounded, the sick, and the vulnerable.

These are the things that bring glory to God, that reveal the stirring of the Spirit in our midst – like ripples on a still lake, which make us wonder: Is there more going on than what we see?

* On virtue epistemology and intellectual virtues, see: Sosa, 2007, 2009, 2017, 2021; Baehr, 2011; King, 2021; Zagzebski, 1996.

References

Arendt, H., (1951) The Origins of Totalitarianism, Modern Classics; Penguin Books, London, 2017 Edition; xlviii + 703 pp.

Baehr, J., (2011) The Inquiring Mind: On Intellectual Virtues and Virtue Epistemology, Oxford University Press, Oxford, xiii + 235 pp.

Bradner, E., (2017) “Conway: Trump White House offered ‘alternative facts’ on crowd size”, CNN Politics, 23 January.

Cassam, Q., (2019) Vices of the Mind: From the Intellectual to the Political, Oxford University Press, Oxford, xi + 202 pp.

Frankfurt, H.G., (2005) On Bullshit, Princeton University Press, Princeton NJ & Oxford, 67 pp.

Frankl, V.E., (1984) Man’s Search for Meaning, Revised and Updated; Washington Square Press, New York, 221 pp.

Kershaw, I., (1987) The ‘Hitler Myth’: Image and Reality in the Third Reich Oxford University Press, Oxford; Reissued 2001, ix + 299 pp.

Kessler, G., Rizzo, S. and Kelly, M., (2021) “Trump’s false or misleading claims total 30,573 over 4 years”, Washington Post, 24 January.

King, N.L., (2021) The Excellent Mind: Intellectual Virtues for Everyday Life, Oxford University Press, Oxford & New York, xii + 280 pp.

Kruger, J. and Dunning, D., (1999) “Unskilled and Unaware of It: How Difficulties in Recognizing One’s Own Incompetence Lead to Inflated Self-Assessments”, Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, Vol. 77, No. 6, pp. 1121–1134.

Lantian, A., Bagneux, V., Delouvée, S. and Gauvrit, N., (2021) “Maybe a free thinker but not a critical one: High conspiracy belief is associated with low critical thinking ability”, Applied Cognitive Psychology, Vol. 35, No. 3, May – June, pp. 674-684.

Mance, H., (2016) “Britain has had enough of experts, says Gove”, Financial Times, London.

Sherwood, H. and Milmo, D., (2022) “BBC, CNN and other global news outlets suspend reporting in Russia”, The Guardian, 5 March.

Sosa, E., (2007) A Virtue Epistemology: Apt Belief and Reflective Knowledge, Volume I, Clarendon Press, Oxford, xiii + 149 pp.

Sosa, E., (2009) Reflective Knowledge: Apt Belief and Reflective Knowledge, Volume II, Clarendon Press, Oxford, xii + 254 pp.

Sosa, E., (2017) Epistemology, Princeton Foundations of Contemporary Philosophy; Princeton University Press, Princeton NJ & Oxford, xiii + 235 pp.

Sosa, E., (2021) Epistemic Explanations: A Theory of Telic Normativity, and What it Explains, Oxford University Press, Oxford, xii + 234 pp.

Zagzebski, L.T., (1996) Virtues of the Mind: An Inquiry into the Nature of Virtue and the Ethical Foundations of Knowledge, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, xvi + 365 pp.

Words, Actions, and Love

Sunday, 20th October 2019

Balliol College Chapel, University of Oxford

Balliol College Chapel, Photo by David Iliff. License: CC BY-SA 3.0

Readings: Amos 5: 4-24; Matthew 7: 12-29

For pdf version click here.

For the audio click here or on the link below (though there is a bit of an echo)

Part of my preparation for this talk was a bit unusual – it involved binge-watching Christopher Hitchens debating various religious leaders on YouTube. Hitchens, who died in 2011, was a student at Balliol graduating in PPE in 1970. He became a famous writer and polemicist, and a fierce opponent of religions. His most famous book on that subject, from 2007, was called God Is Not Great: How Religion Poisons Everything. I certainly don’t agree with all that Hitchens said, but one thing that struck me repeatedly when reading and listening to him, was his insistence on calling out what we might politely call bovine excreta: the fatuous pomposity of some clerics, the facile nonsensical arguments of others, the defenses of the indefensible in the name of religion, and his courteous but nonetheless devastating responses to his opponents. He was not in the business of playing nice. Much like Amos in the reading we heard earlier. And, ironically, much like Jesus.

 In one debate Hitchens lashes his bishop opponent, saying “How can this church say it has any moral superiority? It has difficulty catching up with what ordinary people regard as common, moral and ethical sense.”

(Quote begins at 4.55)

Hitchens was in fact rather more mild than Jesus in his own excoriating attack on the religious leaders of his day. In Matthew 23:27 Jesus rebukes them saying, “For you are like whitewashed tombs, which on the outside look beautiful, but inside they are full of the bones of the dead and of all kinds of filth.”

So the first point I have learned and want to emphasise, is that the critics of religion are often right – and those of us who have a faith, need to listen more to the best critics. They are often modern examples of the ancient Hebrew prophetic tradition of speaking truth to power. And so not only are the critics often right, they were also anticipated by the Hebrew prophets and by Jesus himself! 

If you have a faith, then all truth is God’s truth. Don’t be afraid then, of thoughtful critics and piercing questions, and where your search might lead. Our faith is meant to grow, and it doesn’t always grow by becoming stronger every step of the way. Sometimes long-held beliefs will be stripped away from us, like the pruning of a tree, making room for new growth. Life will occasionally throw shattering experiences at us, and our faith may crumble to dust for a time. But if God is real, and if God loves everyone, and I believe both are true, then God will help us in our honest searching.

 The scriptures of the various religions were usually written to paint the rulers, and the ruling classes, in the best possible light – often giving divine sanction to the existing power structures. These ancient academics knew what their patrons wanted to hear. The Jewish scriptures were unusual though, in recording the failings of their kings, and numerous instances of prophets like Amos rebuking them. In Amos, we see the prophet open, onto the rulers of Israel, what I believe Biblical scholars today technically call “a can of whoop-ass”.

 In the reading from Matthew, Jesus overturns all expectations by summing up the law and the prophets with the command to treat others as they would want to be treated; elsewhere commanding his followers to “love your enemies” (Matthew 5.44; Luke 6:27 & 35), and in the Gospel of John (John 13:34; 15:12; 15:17), summarising this simply as “love one another”. So that is the point: to love God and to love one another, to love others as we love ourselves, and to treat others as we would want to be treated. And then in the rest of the reading from Matthew, comes the kicker: “On that day many will say to me, ‘Lord, Lord, did we not prophesy in your name, and cast out demons in your name, and do many deeds of power in your name?’ Then I will declare to them, ‘I never knew you; go away from me, you evildoers.’

 So Jesus is fully anticipating the hypocrisy and delusion of the kinds of religious believers that Hitchens so loathed. Notice what they focus on in their defence – “deeds of power.” Not deeds of love. Not deeds of service. They have missed the point entirely. There are two aspects to Jesus’ reply: First, that he never knew them. There was no real relationship. They weren’t doing what they were doing grounded in that relationship of love, and service, and transformation. And as a result, second, they became blinded, doers of evil, of unloving actions designed to serve their own selfish ends and their own lust for power. Jesus anticipated this. 

In the year 380, under the Emperor Theodosius I, Christianity became the state religion of the Roman Empire. In my view, this was a disaster. Wherever there is power, some people are attracted like moths to a flame. So ever since Christianity became the state religion, and probably for some time before that, we’ve had people seeking positions of power in the churches for no reason other than their love of power and control. Many were weeded out, but not enough. And so, while there were many saints and mystics and countless unsung good and faithful people, Christian history also became littered with the wreckage of broken lives from imperialism, persecution, pogroms, and institutional abuse. “‘I never knew you” Jesus says, “go away from me, you evildoers.”

The emphasis in both Amos’s and in Jesus’s words is on what we do. And that is the second point. The journey of faith is mostly about what we do, not what we think in our heads and what we say we believe. The life of faith is not primarily about intellectual assent to a set of propositions. It’s a dynamic relationship of love with the Divine that transforms us from the inside out, affecting every aspect of our lives. Jesus said in the reading “You will know them by their fruits.” The apostle James (James 2:18-19) in his New Testament letter, said “You believe that God is one; good for you. But even the demons believe that”. In other words, faith is not just intellectual agreement. James goes on: “faith apart from works is barren” (James 2:20). Or as Jesus put it in our reading today (Matthew 7:12) “In everything do to others as you would have them do to you; for this is the law and the prophets.”

At the World Economic Forum in January this year, the young Swedish climate activist Greta Thunberg delivered a stark message: “Adults keep saying: ‘We owe it to the young people to give them hope.’ But I don’t want your hope. I don’t want you to be hopeful. I want you to panic. I want you to feel the fear I feel every day. And then I want you to act. I want you to act as you would in a crisis. I want you to act as if our house is on fire. Because it is.”

At the UN in New York in September Greta delivered another scathing speech saying, “You say you hear us and that you understand the urgency. But no matter how sad and angry I am, I do not want to believe that. Because if you really understood the situation and still kept on failing to act, then you would be evil. And that I refuse to believe.”

Again – it is actions that matter. Not words. Just like in Amos. Just like Jesus said in Matthew.

I’ve found it intriguing that the term ‘social justice warrior’ has become a term of mockery and derision in some circles. Or the word ‘Snowflake’. The comedian John Cleese famously tweeted last year: “Yes I’ve heard this word. I think sociopaths use it in an attempt to discredit the notion of empathy” (8 July 2018)

Cleese makes an important, and profoundly biblical link here. And this is the third point I want to emphasise: that concern for justice is rooted in empathy, and sustained by love. And conversely, lack of concern for social injustice, is rooted in a failure to love.

‘Sin’ is an immensely powerful and important idea that has been distorted and trivialised. It essentially means ‘missing the mark’ – like a drunken archer. It’s been mocked and caricatured – often deservedly so, with the church’s obsession with bodily functions. But, you know, once you’re the state religion under the patronage and protection of the empire, you can’t go about challenging the imperial structures of abuse, extraction and oppression – so you have to shift your focus to something more manageable and more private, like what people do between the sheets, and controlling women’s bodies.

In essence though, ‘sin’ means acting without love – using and abusing other people, animals and the natural world as instruments for our own selfish ends. It’s that seeing others as a means to an end – a means merely to our own satisfaction – that is the essence of sin. Using others when they should be treated with love and respect and concern for their highest wellbeing. Acting without their consent. Rejecting the bond of shared humanity. Ignoring the suffering of those who can’t do anything for us. Rejecting our connection to the animals and our duty to care for them.

Christopher Hitchens and Greta Thunberg, in their different ways, both display a fierce, prophetic, fiery denunciation of sin – though neither of them would likely call it that. 

Hitchens railed against the hypocrisy of the church, the protection of abusers, the alleged war crimes of a certain US Secretary of State, and the cowardice of the West that allowed 8,000 mainly Muslim men and boys to be slaughtered in Srebrenica during the Balkan wars in 1995.

More recently, Greta Thunburg thundered against the world’s disinterested leaders, wallowing lazily in denial: “You are failing us.” she said, “But the young people are starting to understand your betrayal. The eyes of all future generations are upon you. And if you choose to fail us, I say we will never forgive you. We will not let you get away with this. Right here, right now is where we draw the line. The world is waking up. And change is coming, whether you like it or not.”

Exactly like Amos. Enough with the insipid platitudes. Through Amos, God said, “I hate, I despise your festivals. … But let justice roll down like waters, and righteousness like an ever-flowing stream.!” (Amos 5: 21 & 24).

So it is action that matters – action rooted in and flowing from love. And love for ourselves, for other people, for all sentient beings and for the planet we live on, implies a resistance towards all that is dehumanising, oppressive, unjust, and degrading – a resistance toward all that flows from a lack of love, or what we call ‘evil’. 

In 1867 the British philosopher and political theorist John Stuart Mill said “Let not any one pacify [their] conscience by the delusion that [they] can do no harm if [they] take no part, and form no opinion. Bad [people] need nothing more to compass their ends, than that good [people] should look on and do nothing.” 

So these are not simply individualistic teachings. This is not merely about our personal private spirituality. It is about our shared humanity and our love for our fellow beings – and about the systems and structures that perpetuate abuses of power. The reading from Matthew said that Jesus inspired the crowds, who were astounded at his teaching. Why? Because, “he taught them as one having authority, and not as their scribes.” 

Jesus upturned their expectations, and blew apart their pre-conceived ideas of who God was, and who they were before God. He taught with authority. Reminding people that the scriptures and the traditions were meant to serve the people – especially the poor, the outcast, the sick, the powerless. Not the powerful, who hoarded their wealth and abused the poor. Not the pompous, with their elaborate ceremonies and festivals. In the context of a just society, and of love and concern for our fellow beings, for the powerless and the oppressed, then sure, festivals and ceremonies can be a beautiful celebration of that. But without justice; without ‘righteousness’ – things being made right; in a world groaning under oppressive, deceitful, inept, and corrupt rulers, then Amos says, their feasts and fatuous, self-congratulatory celebrations are an abomination to God. The image he uses is like a dam bursting upon them.

We who are here at Oxford now, are here at a time of immense global challenges as we humans abuse the freedom we have been given, acting in unloving and indifferent ways towards the poor and our planet. In my view, climate change is the biggest challenge. Not because we are feeling the full effects now. But because there is inertia in the system – a time lag – and so the window of opportunity to rein it in is now. But there are other issues too – like the massive inequality that sees the wealthiest 10% reap almost all of the gains since the financial crises, while the rest of the country has suffered under brutal austerity policies and public service cuts. And like the often brutal treatment of women, of people with disabilities, of people of colour, and of LGBTQI+ people all over the world.

So we have a choice as students, as visitors, and as faculty, how we respond to all this. Through it all, God is with us. Calling, drawing, seducing even. In the Islamic mystical tradition of the Sufis they speak about the fanā’ – the annihilation – the idea that we need to die before we die. It’s exactly analogous to the idea of Christian baptism – dying to our false selves and rising united with Christ, allowing ourselves to be transformed through that mystical union. It’s the annihilation of our false ego, the annihilation of our intellectual concepts about what God and life should be like, stripping us back to raw, honest, humble, being, ready to be embraced by the intoxicating, joyful, love of the Divine – that love which is the essence, the vehicle, and the goal of the journey. 

I will finish with one of my favourite poems by the Sufi master Mewlānā Jalāl ad-Dīn Muḥammad Balkhī – better known as Rumi, who lived in the 1200s and who taught in Konya in what is now Turkey. Towards the end of the poem Rumi invokes Shams of Tabriz, who was his teacher and who represented for Rumi the love of God. I love this poem because it captures the idea that real clarity of direction and action in a suffering world comes most fully after allowing ourselves to be swept away and transformed by the intoxicating love of God. It is that Divine, healing, transformative love, that sustains us, carries us and enables us to love others. This translation is by Andrew Harvey, who was once a fellow at All-Souls:

The whole world could be choked with thorns:

A lover’s heart will stay a rose garden.

The wheel of heaven could wind to a halt:

The world of lovers will go on turning.

Even if every being grew sad, a lover’s soul

Will stay fresh, vibrant, light.

Are all the candles out? Hand them to a lover –

A lover shoots out a hundred thousand fires.

A lover may be solitary, but he is never alone.

For companion he has always the hidden Beloved.

The drunkenness of lovers comes from the soul,

And Love’s companion stays hidden in secret.

Love cannot be deceived by a hundred promises:

It knows how innumerable the ploys of seducers are.

Wherever you find a Lover on a bed of pain –

You find the Beloved right by his bedside.

Mount the stallion of Love and do not fear the path –

Love’s stallion knows the way exactly.

With one leap, Love’s horse will carry you home

However black with obstacles the way may be.

The soul of a real lover spurns all animal fodder,

Only in the wine of bliss can his soul find peace.

Through the Grace of Shams-ud-Din of Tabriz, you will possess

A heart at once drunk and supremely lucid.

 Jalal-ud-Din Rumi (1207 – 1273), as translated by Andrew Harvey (Ed.) (1997) The Essential Mystics: Selections from the World’s Great Wisdom Traditions, HarperCollins, New York, p. 159.

Thank you.

Why Christians Should Vote for Marriage Equality

The ‘No’ campaign against marriage equality in Australia’s upcoming plebiscite is a poisoned chalice for conservative Christians. The ‘No’ campaigners have misunderstood what this poll is about and they have misjudged the mood of the very people on whom their future depends. This is not a plebiscite about our personal views on marriage – it is a plebiscite about the kind of society we want to live in. Do we want a society where the human rights of minorities are protected under law? Or do we want a society where the majority gets to pick and choose which human rights minorities should have? The first is a democracy. The second is a theocracy. People of all traditions can thrive in a democracy. In the world’s theocracies, minorities are persecuted and women are subjugated.

Let me address you directly if you are a conservative Christian: I’ve been where you are. I am a straight white male and did a theology degree at a conservative college. It wasn’t until I had gay friends that my understanding began to change. But I am not going to argue that you should change your personal views on marriage. Others have done that far better than I could (e.g. here and here). You don’t have to agree with marriage equality personally. That is not what this is about. Instead I will argue that if you care about the protection of religious freedoms, and care about the persecution of Christians around the world, you should care about strengthening secular liberal democracies and so you should vote ‘Yes’ to support marriage equality.

Democracies are not built primarily on consensus and unity. We don’t all have to share the same views. Healthy democracies are instead built on agreed principles for managing non-consensus and diversity. Democracies flourish not only despite diversity, but because of it. And the best model of governance we have come up with to manage non-consensus constructively, and to protect religious freedom, is secular liberal democracy, where the rights of minorities are upheld and protected by law.

Six steps to bigotry

A common approach of the ‘No’ campaign is illustrated by an article called, without a trace of irony, ‘I oppose same-sex marriage (and no, I’m not a bigot).’ But this article and others like it, perfectly illustrate the logic of prejudice, literally pre-judging, or bigotry, in six steps:

  • Step 1. Take one particular view of ‘traditional marriage’ from one particular tradition as being paradigmatic for all (e.g. ‘biological duality for procreation’).
  • Step 2. Ignore multiple exceptions from within that tradition (e.g. polygamy) and across other cultures (polygamy, polyandry and gay marriages etc.).
  • Step 3. Argue that this particular definition should apply for all time, even in a secular democracy.
  • Step 4. Implicitly support the view of governance that the majority should be able to impose its religious views on minorities.
  • Step 5. Use the ‘traditional’ definition of marriage to pre-judge and deny the reality and validity of other forms of marriage: “It will be called marriage, but it won’t be marriage as we know it. It won’t be ‘marriage equality’: it will be an entirely new thing.” Nonsense – that is textbook bigotry: it’s not how we do it, so it’s not real.
  • Step 6. Ignore the abundant evidence that the ‘debate’ is drawing out hateful, bigoted and emotionally damaging arguments directed against LGBTI people who are some of the most isolated, vulnerable and historically marginalised and persecuted people in our societies.

Is there a more fruitful approach? I believe there is.

Our understanding of human rights is evolving

We are fundamentally discussing a question of equal recognition under the law, which has enormous practical implications for gay couples. ‘No’ campaigners say that marriage equality is not a human right, but clearly our understanding of human rights is evolving.

Previously the churches have denied the rights of non-Christians, Christians of other denominations, slaves, free African Americans, Australian indigenous people, and women – especially in leadership. In every single case those churches found themselves on the wrong side of history, and, I would argue, on the wrong side of the movement of God’s Spirit towards greater love, freedom and flourishing.

The moral authority of the churches in the wake of the child sex abuse scandals is at its lowest ebb for hundreds of years – perhaps ever. People are turning away in droves and the demographic trends for the churches in the West are catastrophic. I can think of no better way of inoculating younger people against the message of Jesus than this ‘No’ campaign. Except perhaps the child sex scandals. And the churches’ hopelessly inadequate response on climate change. And their complicity in the policies which have led to massive inequality and the slashing of aid and social services, so that the good Christian burghers in the leafy suburbs can get their tax cuts. Or the support of so many conservative Christians for Australia’s indefinite detention of genuine refugees and asylum seekers in inhumane conditions. Shall I go on?

From a secular perspective, and from the perspective of the vast majority of younger people, on whom the future of the churches depend, marriage equality is most definitely a human rights issue – and a pretty straightforward one at that. From this perspective, the conservative churches backing the ‘No’ campaign, with their moral authority already in tatters, look like reactionary troglodytes continuing their centuries old persecution of a vulnerable minority, just like the churches who supported slavery, segregation, and the denial of women’s rights, and the sooner they are swept into the dustbin of history the better. If the ‘No’ vote succeeds, and the churches have contributed to its defeat, the inevitably temporary ‘victory’ will be bitterly resented by most younger people who are already disgusted with the conservative churches’ lack of leadership on issues like climate change. So I ask you, conservative Christian: How on earth does any of that serve the cause of Christ?

The desire for same-sex marriage is not new

The one man-one woman model of marriage is certainly the most common model, and is indeed that practiced by the majority. But so what? From a secular, religiously-neutral perspective, does this make it the only possible valid expression of marriage between consenting adults? Of course not. That has never been true historically globally and it is certainly not true now. The claim that the one man-one woman model is not just the majority but the ‘universal’ view until about twenty years ago is simply false. It is also akin to arguing that women were never interested in political representation until they formally began agitating for universal suffrage in the 1800s. It can take centuries for the long-held desires of an oppressed group to finally burst through the cracks in the system into the collective consciousness. That’s what we saw with the anti-slavery campaigns. That’s what we saw with the women’s suffrage movement. That’s what we saw with the civil rights movement. And that is what we’re seeing now with LGBTI recognition. The desire for same-sex marriage is not new. It is only the legal possibility in Australia that is new.

But, but … the slippery slope!

Please. There has been some spectacular idiocy on display with people arguing that if we allow marriage equality, then people will be wanting to marry all kinds of things – pets, farm animals, trees, pandas, garden furniture perhaps. In general slippery slope arguments are extremely weak, because the simple response is that if another question arises, then we discuss it and use our judgement based on the objective evidence like mature adults. And no, this certainly does not open the gates to the marriage of children, because the rights of children are also protected by the requirements of informed consent, and we have a much greater understanding nowadays of the need for a child to be of a certain age and stage of brain development before informed consent around sexual activity or marriage is even possible. In other words, there are watertight, evidence-based arguments against child marriage, whereas there are none that would prevent marriage equality between consenting adults.

What kind of society would you want to live in if you didn’t know your position beforehand?

Let’s try a thought experiment: you get to choose the system of government you want to live under. You can choose either a secular liberal democracy where the rights of all citizens are protected under law. Or you can choose a form of government where the majority decides what rights minorities will have. Now, the kicker is that you don’t know in advance whether you’ll be in the majority or the minority. And for some added realism, let’s assume you have to choose before you’re born. You might be born a straight white able-bodied male. Or you might be born a person of colour. Or a woman. Or an LGBTI person. Or a person with a physical or mental disability. What system will you choose? Be honest.

It seems to me that if you support the ‘No’ campaign, you want the second option, where the majority decides what rights minorities will have. I hope it is clear that this is precisely the same political logic by which the rights of Christians in some Muslim majority countries are being crushed under Sharia law. That’s how theocracy works. So I have two questions for conservatives:

  • Are you so hypocritical that you would support theocratic majority-rule if you’re in the majority, but secular liberal democracy if you’re in the minority?
  • Are you so blind that you cannot see that your approach weakens the very institution of secular liberal democracy which you should be trying to strengthen globally in order to end the persecution of Christians?

The non-scriptural arguments against marriage equality are dishonest

The arguments being mustered to support a ‘No’ vote are toxic because they are fundamentally disingenuous and dishonest. They are not motivated by an objective consideration of the evidence, but by a prior conviction about what can count as a ‘real’ marriage based on particular interpretations of particular scriptures. Non-scriptural arguments are then sought and cherry-picked, however dubious their quality, to support the supposedly scriptural position. And that is precisely why the arguments in this plebiscite are so damaging.

The ‘No’ campaign, including many church leaders, are using all manner of specious arguments to support a position which does not in fact derive from those weak arguments, but is rooted instead in a particular interpretation of scripture. And in propagating those half-baked non-scriptural ‘No’ arguments, a torrent of damaging disinformation is being disgorged into the public arena and onto some of the most isolated, vulnerable and historically marginalised and persecuted people in our society. LGBTI people are being told they are damaged and deficient, that their relationships are inadequate, that they cannot be good parents, and on and on the vile, poisonous lies flow. None of this toxic nonsense is supported by objective evidence, and it should be beneath people of supposed integrity to propagate such hateful and damaging falsehoods.

Some suggestions for the ‘No’ campaign

So by all means conservatives, make the case for your traditional view of marriage – our secular liberal democracy gives you that right after all. But stick to scripture and frame your arguments as your religious beliefs. If you go further and argue that you should have the right to legislate that view, or worse, start disparaging LGBTI people and their relationships, do so knowing the incredibly damaging effect you are having on LGBTI people, on the reputation of the churches, which are increasingly seen as morally bankrupt, and on the ability of generations of Australians to hear the message of Jesus.

Please encourage all of those on the ‘No’ side to have the integrity to make their case explicitly and solely on the basis of their interpretation of the scriptures of their tradition – and for added integrity points, make it clear that there are alternative interpretations by well-respected theologians who fully support marriage equality. And please encourage your conservative compatriots not to pollute the discussion with pseudo-scientific, spurious and hateful claims about the mental health of LGBTI people, the quality of LGBTI relationships, the abilities of LGBTI couples to be good parents, or baseless claims that these relationships can’t possibly be considered a marriage by definition, simply because your tradition doesn’t recognise them. That is the very essence of bigotry.

If you’re a conservative, vote ‘Yes’

Many conservative clergy and pastors seem unable to comprehend, from within their ecclesiastical bubbles, that the moral reputation of the church in the West is in freefall – for reasons which have nothing to do with upholding the message of Jesus. The ‘No’ campaign is only accelerating that decline. It is a pointless, damaging campaign that will inevitably be lost, if not this time, then the next, simply because in a secular democracy there are no sound evidence-based reasons to deny marriage equality and an overwhelming human rights principle of equality under the law to affirm it.

If Christians acknowledge that a governance framework that protects the religious freedoms of minorities is essential to protect the churches in countries where Christians are a minority, then they should uphold and protect the principles of secular liberal democracy. And in a democracy, the human rights of all must be upheld. That is why, even if you are a conservative Christian who might personally be opposed to same-sex marriage, you should vote ‘Yes’ to support marriage equality – and do so with a clear conscience. Right now, Christian minorities around the world need non-Christians to support their human rights and to stand up for their personal and religious freedoms. One day you might too. That is how a democracy works and that is how we can flourish together.

Cultivating Joy

Last year a friend confessed to how a simple question over drinks in the pub sent him off on a tirade about the abysmal state of politics in his country. He described his animated rant as ‘throwing the toys out of the cot’ like an enraged toddler. He was surprised by the depth of his anger.

I have certainly felt like that at times. To engage in sacred activism, we need to maintain open hearts – open to some of the harsh realities of the world, and seeing enough of those realities that we can be informed and motivated to try to help change things for the better. Sometimes though, it can become overwhelming. We can’t be actively engaged in everything – and being open to too much can leave us feeling overwhelmed or paralysed. So we also need to filter and focus on a small number of issues that we feel passionate about – maybe only one or two.

While filtering and focussing can help manage our time and energy, the process of filtering itself can take its own toll. I find that with just clearing my emails, going through my Facebook and Twitter feeds, watching the news, or opening a newspaper – the headlines alone often send torrents of pain and sadness into my consciousness. Maybe you’ve had a similar experience.

One solution of course is just to block it all out – and I can understand why many of us do that. Some spiritual teachers actually encourage people to avoid the news or anything ‘negative’ – which is another way of counselling us to turn away from those in need. The way of sacred activism demands instead that we engage with some of the pain of the world and to respond to it with active compassion. The key of course is ‘some’ of the pain. We have to filter. But one of the challenges with even effective filtering is that we may not notice the creeping sadness and rising anger. Over time, it can make us feel jaded, bitter, cynical and frankly, not a lot of fun to be around.

So this is a two-fold challenge for those of us who want to maintain open-hearted, compassionate engagement with some of the world’s pain.

First, we need to remember to draw deep from our spiritual practices – prayer, meditation, yoga, dance, music, making art – in order to be refreshed enough to be able to pour out love and compassion without burning out. In one of his talks in Turkey, Andrew Harvey told this story:

I once asked Mother Theresa in the late 80s how she did what she did – I’d been to Calcutta and it takes an enormous amount of courage just to stay in Calcutta. She said, “Honestly, I don’t do it. What I do, is that I get up at 4.30 in the morning and I spend an hour and a half just gazing at the host, and I fill up. And then quite consciously during the day, I give away everything that I’ve had, then go to bed totally empty and exhausted. Then in the morning I get up. I fill up. I give everything away. I go to bed exhausted. I get up. I fill up. I give everything away. I go to bed exhausted.” The Dalai Lama gets up at 4.00 every morning and practices for two hours, so that he can be this bonfire of love and generosity. That just doesn’t come naturally. That’s something that he works on. I didn’t come into this room without praying deeply beforehand. I do it because I love you and respect you and I want to give the best of myself. I want to be absolutely here. That doesn’t come naturally. It’s divine work. You breathe it in, in order to be able to breathe it out in acts of love and compassion. And you must give it all! All! Because if you give it all, you create a bigger space of emptiness to be filled. And then if you give it ALL, you create an even bigger space – and so on.

Second, we need to actively cultivate joy and celebration.

One of my favourite movies is O Brother, Where Art Thou?, and on the soundtrack is a song, which at one level can be taken as a naïve Pollyanna-ish view. But at another level it is a work of spiritual genius. You probably know the song:

There’s a dark and a troubled side of life;
There’s a bright and a sunny side, too;
Tho’ we meet with the darkness and strife,
The sunny side we also may view.

[chorus]
Keep on the sunny side, always on the sunny side,
Keep on the sunny side of life;
It will help us every day, it will brighten all the way,
If we keep on the sunny side of life.

Tho’ the storm in its fury break today,
Crushing hopes that we cherished so dear,
Storm and cloud will in time pass away,
The sun again will shine bright and clear.

Let us greet with a song of hope each day,
Tho’ the moments be cloudy or fair;
Let us trust in our Savior always,
Who keepeth everyone in His care.

(Written in 1899 by Ada Blenkhorn.)

I have some issues with the last line, (if it’s talking about ‘care’ in the sense of protection from misfortune, I don’t think that’s really how things work – but that’s for another post!), but overall I think there is a certain genius to this simple song. It holds two important aspects of reality together.

It looks the hard times square in the eyes and says, “Yep, there’s a dark and troubled side of life, and storms that can take away everything we hold dear.” That’s how the world is. That’s how the Universe is. There are no guarantees. Misfortune happens – and it doesn’t only happen to people who are bad, or who deserve it, or who attracted a bad reality with their thoughts, or who didn’t set their intention right, or who accumulated bad karma – all of these are forms of victim blaming. Sometimes shit just happens. I don’t believe God or the Universe minutely calibrates each hurricane, drought, bushfire or disease according to who deserves what. This song was written in a relatively prosperous country in an era when young mothers often died in childbirth, babies and young children were regularly lost to to disease, and when a poor harvest meant a long, hungry winter. They didn’t have the modern luxury of a spirituality of privilege which blamed victims for ‘attracting’ misfortune.

But here’s the thing: they remembered that there’s another side of life too. We mustn’t allow that darkness or fear to shape our life. Misfortune or calamity doesn’t necessarily mean you’re out of step with God. It doesn’t necessarily mean there is something wrong with you. It’s not necessarily a ‘sign’ at all. Storms happen – that’s life – and this storm too will pass: “Storm and cloud will in time pass away, The sun again will shine bright and clear”, so “Let us greet with a song of hope each day.”

We need to remember to cultivate the strength and compassion to be open-hearted, to draw deep from our spiritual practices and also to cultivate the joy that makes life worth living and celebrating in the first place.

Marrying East and West

Statue of Jesus meditating in the meditation hall. Photo: Brett Parris

This week I had the privilege of staying at Saccidananda Ashram in Tamil Nadu, India – the home of one of the greatest spiritual teachers of the twentieth century. The ashram, also known as Shantivanam (meaning ‘Forest of Peace’), lies on the banks of the Kaveri River, called the Ganges of the South. Sandy paths wind their way between red-brown huts, beneath coconut palms and banana trees. The gentle rain smells sweet.

Fr Bede Griffiths – portrait in the dining hall. Photo: Brett Parris

Saccidananda Ashram was founded in 1950 as a place of meeting and interspiritual dialogue between Christians and Hindus by two French priests, Fr Jules Monchanin, who adopted the Indian name Swami Parama Arubi Ananda (bliss of the Supreme Spirit) and Fr Henri Le Saux, who adopted the name Swami Abhishiktananda (the bliss of Christ). The ashram is most famous though, for the man who arrived in 1968 and who lived there until his death on 13th May 1993, Father Bede Griffiths.

Inside Bede Griffith’s hut. Photo: Brett Parris

Father Bede was a towering figure of twentieth century spirituality, whose vision stretched into our own time and beyond. Born in 1906 and educated in England, he was deeply grounded in both the Christian and Indian Vedantic traditions. He was gently spoken, wrote prolifically and travelled widely, becoming a beloved figure across the word.

View of the library. Photo: Brett Parris
The main gate. Photo: Brett Parris

The Sanskrit name for the ashram, Saccidananda, means ‘Being-Consciousness-Bliss’ and was understood by its founders to be another way of describing the Christian Trinity. Bede recognised that Christianity had been largely shaped for its first 1900 years by Greek philosophical systems and Roman institutions, and that it now needed to be enriched and challenged by serious engagement with the ancient thought of India. In The Marriage of East and West (pp. 190-192) for example, he wrote:

“The doctrine of the Trinity was developed from St John’s Gospel by the Greek fathers, using the language of Greek conceptual thought, in terms of essence and nature and person and relation, and this has become the normal form of the doctrine in Christian tradition. But it is possible that the same experience could be interpreted in other terms, drawn from a different tradition. …Would it not be possible to interpret the experience of Jesus in the light of the Hindu understanding of ultimate reality? We could then speak of God as Saccidananda – Being, Consciousness, Bliss – and see in the Father, sat. Being, the absolute eternal “I am’, the ground of Being, the source of all. We could then speak of the Son, as the cit, the knowledge of the Father, the Self-consciousness of the eternal Being, the presence to itself in pure consciousness of the infinite One; Being reflecting on itself, knowing itself, expressing itself in an eternal Word. We could then speak of the Father as Nigurna Brahman, ‘Brahman without attributes’, the infinite abyss of Being beyond word and thought. The Son would then be Saguna Brahman, ‘Brahman with attributes’, as Creator, Lord, Saviour, the Self-manifestation of the unmanifest God, the personal aspect of the Godhead, the Purusha. He is that ‘Supreme Person’ (Purushottaman) of the Baghavad Gita, the ‘unborn, beginningless, great Lord of the world’, the ‘Supreme Brahman, the supreme abode, the supreme purity, the eternal divine Person (purusha), the primal God (adideva), the unborn, the omnipresent (vibhum).”

“Finally, we could speak of the spirit as the Ananda, the Bliss or joy of the Godhead, the outpouring of the super-abundant being and consciousness of the eternal, the Love which unites Father and Son in the non-dual Being of the Spirit. This Spirit is also the Atman, the Breath (pneuma) of God, which is in all creation and gives life to every living thing, which in humanity becomes conscious and grows with the growth of consciousness until it becomes pure, intuitive wisdom. The Atman is the Spirit of God in humanity, when the human spirit becomes pervaded by the divine spirit and attains to pure consciousness. It is conscious Bliss, consciousness filled with joy, with the delight of Being. This was the spirit that filled the soul of Jesus and gave him perfect consciousness of his relationship as Son to the perfect ground of Being in the Godhead.”

“Hindu experience can also help bring out another aspect of the godhead, the concept of God as Mother. The Hebrew tradition was patriarchal, and Christianity has preserved only a masculine concept of God. The Father and the Son are masculine in their very names, and even the Spirit, which is neuter in Greek, has been given a masculine character. But the Hebrew tradition also preserves a word for the spirit (ruah) which is feminine, and in the Syrian church this feminine gender was preserved so that they could speak of the Holy Spirit as Mother. There is also in the Old Testament the beautiful figure of Wisdom (hocmah) which is also feminine. …”

 “But it is in the Holy Spirit that the feminine aspect of the godhead can be most clearly seen. She is the Sakti, the power, immanent in all creation, the receptive power of the Godhead.”

It was both humbling and deeply moving to pray and meditate in Bede’s small hut, with its wicker bed, simple wooden chair and modest book case. In that small place I had the sense of being connected to a vast, spacious, blissful ocean of peace. Not a sleepy, placid peace – rather a peace crackling with Divine energy and power – the Shakti of God. I could have swum in that ocean forever.

The ashram’s work continues under the leadership of Brother Martin, a prolific author and speaker in his own right. Though it is primarily a place for prayer and meditation, the ashram also runs a number of social programs to help the poor. It operates a home for the aged and destitute, provides books, clothing and school uniforms for some 420 local children each year, and also provides milk to children under three years of age to supplement their nutrition.

What a joy to have the chance to stay in a place, not only of tremendous historical significance, but also one which continues to nurture deep interspiritual transformation and which provides an ongoing example of true sacred activism.

The unlimited possibility of transformation

If you could sum up the purpose of life in a single word, just one, what would it be? Love? Enlightenment? Salvation? Family? Friendships? Growth? What if there was a word that drew all of these ideas together?

Epektasis is an ancient Greek word that was used to describe the endless expansion and unlimited possibility of an authentic spiritual transformation – a transformation that can lead to the fulfilment of a potential within each of us that is beyond our wildest dreams.

Spiritual traditions emphasise different aspects of this transformational journey: Christian mystics speak of the journey towards union with God through divinization or theosis – the idea that human beings may take part in the very life of God through union with the Divine. The great Buddhist and Hindu sages speak similarly in terms of the liberation and enlightenment that comes through the realisation that we already are that One – that we are not separate from the pulsating heart of the universe. The Islamic mystics, the Sufis, yearn for baqa or the ‘life in God’ that comes from surrendering to the transformative power of divine grace. These are not simply once-off events resulting in a new static state. They describe a dynamic invitation into ever deeper and richer transformation, like the unfurling of the petals of a rose, or the transformation of a caterpillar into a stunning butterfly.

Spiritual growth and transformation necessarily overflows into the rest of life, so Epektasis also encompasses the journey of deepening transformation in our whole beings, in our intimate, family and social relationships, in society, in our relations with all sentient beings and with the earth itself. It is an invitation into the deep, transformative journey of sacred activism – the fusion of our spiritual path and its natural overflow into the world.

Epektasis is not something to be ‘achieved’ or to become attached to, like the ultimate goal on our bucket list. We are already beloved of God, children of the Divine, and held in grace. But there is always the possibility of allowing more of that grace to shine through us and to allow its healing warmth into the corners of our souls where we feel vulnerable, limited, constricted and maybe even ashamed. Through this transformative, sacred journey of love, healing and grace, we can grow into divine beings more beautiful, luminous and powerful than we had ever imagined possible.

Epektasis is a state of grace, a journey to be taken and an ever more brightly shining vision of our future selves. Not bad for a single word.

Psycho-spiritual development, vulnerability and creativity

Last week I was on a panel for One Just World at Federation Square’s Edge theatre for a discussion on the post-2015 international development agenda called The Recipe for Eradicating Poverty: Is there a Missing Ingredient? It was a great discussion and a fun night, with some terrific questions from the public. If you’re interested, here’s the video:

One young woman stood up and asked about the role of creativity and innovation in dealing with the multiple crises we are facing. I was glad she asked because we’re going to need an awful lot of creativity and innovation! I mentioned that a willingness to make ourselves vulnerable is a critical aspect of creativity, because we’re putting ourselves on the line whenever we try to do something new and authentic. For me this illustrates the whole issue of the role of psycho-spiritual development in responding to the challenges of poverty reduction, climate change and the transition to a sustainable pathway for humanity. Judging by comments afterwards, including on twitter, the idea of psycho-spiritual development seemed to resonate with a lot of people. It’s not something you can make an international development goal out of, obviously, but our individual development as human beings certainly plays a critical role in whether we can achieve the goals to eliminate poverty and achieve ecologically sustainable development.

When I talk about ‘psycho-spiritual development’, I am not simply talking about the roles of religion, ethics and psychology in development, though of course these are all relevant. My friend Matthew Clarke for example has recently published two books on religion and development here and here, and the newish field of behavioural economics is booming.  I am talking primarily though about our individual  psychological and spiritual development and how that contributes to those larger goals: how we treat people, how we express ourselves, whether we develop or stifle our creativity, how we conduct ourselves in resolving conflicts, whether we can forgive and move on or whether we cling to bitterness, and whether, in the end, we flourish as human beings. Much has been written about all of this of course, and I would like to explore different facets in future posts. For this first post on this topic, I want to highlight the work of Brené Brown on vulnerability, shame and ‘wholehearted living’ and how they are connected to creativity and behaviour change.

Brené Brown is a research professor at the University of Houston’s Graduate College of Social Work who has spent the past 10 years studying vulnerability, courage, authenticity, and shame. Her talk at TED in 2010 went viral. If you watch it, you will see why:

Brené Brown – The Power of Vulnerabilty TEDxHouston 2010

Brené also did a follow up talk last year:

Brené Brown – Listening to Shame TED 2012

I am a huge fan of Brené’s work, which includes:

Brené makes the point that there can be no creativity or innovation without a willingness to make ourselves vulnerable – to put ourselves out there. In fact, she says, “The only unique contribution that we will ever make in this world will be born of our creativity.” (The Gifts of Imperfection, p. 96). And the more supportive the culture we’re in, the more free we’ll feel to be creative, whether we’re talking about the culture of our school or university, our work place, our family or household, and of course, our country. In a fabulous series of talks on The Power of Vulnerability, Brené tells a story of how, after her 2010 TED talk on vulnerability went viral, she received a number of calls from Fortune 500 companies who wanted her to speak. Most of them also wanted her to ‘nix the stuff on vulnerability’, because, “We don’t do vulnerability here.” What did they want her to talk about instead? “Our biggest problem – the lack of innovation and creativity.”

In a corrosive, hyper-competitive culture, where ‘failure’ is punished, where people are torn down, where anonymous trolls lurk in the sewers of the internet spewing bile over anyone they disagree with, and where our political and corporate leaders attack each other and those who work for them with monotonous savagery (especially in Australia it seems!), is it any wonder that so many people stifle their creativity? Is it any wonder that it is so difficult to have sensible, nuanced, and creative public policy discussions about how to extract ourselves from the mess we’ve created?

One of the biggest challenges that Brené highlights is that while shaming our opponents may be tempting, it is invariably counter-productive. In a recent take-down of a New York Times article advocating shaming as a means of behaviour change, she wrote:

Here’s the rub:

Shame diminishes our capacity for empathy.

Shame corrodes the very part of us that believes we are capable of change.

You can’t depend on empathetic connection to make a campaign effective, then crush the needed empathy with shame. …

A man is convicted of domestic abuse and the judge sentences him to stand downtown during rush hour holding a sign that says, “I am a wife beater.” Would you like to be the woman he comes home to that night? Are you safer when he’s in shame or repairing shame? …

I define shame as “the intensely painful feeling or experience of believing we are flawed and therefore unworthy of love and belonging.” Along with many other shame researchers, I’ve come to the conclusion that shame is much more likely to be the source of dangerous, destructive, and hurtful behaviors than it is to be the solution. …

Making the distinction between good and bad shame, and promoting so-called good shame is like saying there’s “good starvation” and “bad starvation” and that we need to address the obesity epidemic with “good starvation.” Just like there’s no such thing as “good starvation,” there’s no such thing as “good shame.”

The “good shame” that Reeves describes is actually a combination of guilt and empathy. And, interestingly, there is actually significant research on the important roles both guilt and empathy play in pro-social, positive behavior.

Is this just a case of semantics? No. We don’t refer to balanced, healthy eating as “good starvation” because it’s confusing, inaccurate, and misleading. It also obscures and confuses what we really need to do to move toward positive social outcomes.

The majority of shame researchers agree that the difference between shame and guilt is best understood as the difference between “I am bad” and “I did something bad.” Shame is about who we are, and guilt is about our behaviors. …

Empathy is the ability to put ourselves in someone else’s place in order to understand what they are feeling. When we are empathetic, we can listen and respond authentically to others, and we have the skills to consider how our actions will impact others.

Again, why don’t we just refer to guilt and empathy as “good shame”? Because it’s inaccurate. It clouds the fact that being empathetic and communicating with others (colleagues, children, partners, friends) without using shame requires most of us to develop new skills. Labeling these skills “good shame” moves us away from the hard work of understanding, identifying, and acquiring the knowledge we need to change.
… shame never works as a catalyst for healthy, lasting change.

Shame is at the core of violence, addiction, disengagement, and fear. Shame is about anger and blame, not accountability and change.

Why all this focus on shame and empathy? Because I think there is a strong temptation for those of us working on social issues, poverty and the environment to climb onto our moral high horses and to ‘name and shame’ our opponents. We need to be very careful about that. Sometimes it can work – such as when particular corporations are challenged on their behaviours. But I think we need to focus on playing the ball, not the individual person and where possible, to appeal to people’s higher selves. Martin Luther King didn’t lead the civil rights movement by demonising and attacking his opponents, but by painting a picture of a brighter future together – a shared vision – and by appealing to the best instincts of the American people, calling that country to live up to its promise.

I am reminded of a scene from the 2001 film The Last Castle, set in the U.S. Disciplinary Barracks at Fort Leavenworth. Robert Redford’s character, a highly decorated Lieutenant General, who has been court martialled and sentenced for insubordination, at one stage grabs the raised arm of a guard who was about to beat a prisoner and says to him, “You are better than that.”. He makes a critical distinction between the guard’s inherent worth and potential as a human being, and the destructive behaviour he was about to engage in. He called on the guard to live up to his potential – to embrace his higher self.

For what it is worth, I think that is where we need to begin. We are all broken. We are all imperfect. We all struggle. We are facing an unprecedented, potentially nightmarish future. We need our best selves. We need to be out there, showing up, being authentic, being creative, treating each other with respect and kindness and encouraging friends and opponents alike to do the same. I am not talking about platitudes and warm fuzzies – I am talking about some of the most challenging and difficult work we will ever do: taking the risks to be creative, learning better interpersonal skills around negotiation and conflict resolution, letting go of perfectionism, taking off our armor, showing up, letting ourselves be seen, working on our hangups, phobias and assorted personal demons with a counsellor, therapist or spiritual director, and learning to live ‘wholeheartedly’. We will still cop brickbats and sniping from armchair critics and trolls, but so what? The title of Brené’s book Daring Greatly, comes from a 1910 speech by U.S. President Theodore Roosevelt, which is worth quoting:

It is not the critic who counts; not the man who points out how the strong man stumbles, or where the doer of deeds could have done them better.

The credit belongs to the man who is actually in the arena, whose face is marred by dust and sweat and blood; who strives valiantly; who errs, who comes up short again and again, because there is no effort without error and shortcoming;

but who does actually strive to do the deeds; who knows great enthusiasms, the great devotions; who spends himself in a worthy cause; who at the best knows in the end the triumph of high achievement, and who at the worst, if he fails, at least fails while daring greatly …” (Daring Greatly, p. 1)

This imperfect post is the tip of an iceberg, and I’ve hardly even touched on the spiritual side of psycho-spiritual development. More in another post. I’d like to hear your thoughts.

A bit more integrated …

I’ve been building this ‘new’ site for almost a year now, posting (very) intermittently, and uploading much of the content from my old site, as well as updating it. The focus has mainly been on economics, development, climate change and sustainability, under the banner of ‘integrated development’. But I realise I’d left out a whole area – that of spirituality and religion. I’m not sure why really – it’s such a critical area of life for most of the world’s people. It shapes cultures, countries and geopolitics. As my friend Matthew Clarke points out in his new book Development and Religion, when development agencies ignore religion, they ignore a fundamental part of what is important to local communities and societies.

Spirituality and religion is also deeply personal of course, and it was also a core part of my own journey, having studied theology in my 20s. Over the past few years that importance had been fading for me for various reasons, but now, to my great surprise, it has surged back into my consciousness, both for my own personal journey and also its relevance and importance for eradicating poverty, and shifting to an ecologically sustainable economic path.

So I’ve added a new static page on Spirituality, which I’ll update periodically. I welcome suggestions for resources and links. I’ll also start making my posts a bit more diverse than the purely ‘professional’ stuff on economics, climate change etc, which, let’s be honest, can be a bit dry at times. Hopefully this broader approach will make this site a bit more reflective of a truly integrated development policy research agenda.