Tag Archives: Spirituality

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.

Complexity, Psychology, Sustainability & Spirituality

How can understanding complex systems, becoming conscious of our own cognitive biases, taking a sustainability reality check and embracing spirituality all help to make your business or organisation thrive?

Last month I had the opportunity to spend a couple of hours exploring that question with a fantastic class of bright Monash University MBA students at the kind invitation of Jeff McLean. Jeff introduced me and chaired the session.

We covered a lot of ground and I tried to emphasise four points:

1. It is critically important to understand some of the core concepts of complex systems theory. It generally doesn’t occur to us to look for things we don’t know exist, and it’s easy to lull ourselves into believing that our tool kit is fit to solve any problem. But as the saying goes, “when all you have is a hammer, everything looks like a nail.” The lack of understanding of complex systems is a huge problem for economics and for public policy-making in general. (A few years ago I co-taught a unit at Monash on the application of complex systems ideas to economics. If you’re interested, the unit guide with a big list of references is here). But understanding complex systems has application in many other areas, such as business, social science, and even parenting and spirituality – though those are topics for other posts!

2. We need to be aware of the different kinds of logical fallacies and cognitive biases in order to discern good-quality arguments, information and strategies. Understanding some of these fallacies and biases also helps us to understand the ways in which we may be inadvertently fooling ourselves and driving our organisations or personal lives into a ditch.

3. There are some ‘brute facts’ on the sustainability challenge which we must all grapple with – whether as business people, policy makers, NGO staffers, public sector workers, communities, families, parents or individuals. Things are  much more serious than most of the media make out. Like the ancient Romans, our system is designed to keep us endlessly distracted with bread and circuses.

4. Spirituality is critical – and by spirituality I don’t mean simply what religion we profess (or don’t as the case may be). I am talking about our worldviews, the deep drivers of our lives, where we look for meaning, what informs our life-goals, how self-aware we are of our own biases, limitations and possibilities – and how well we attend to our mental and spiritual health and well-being. The groundswell of sacred activism emerging around the world is an important response to the ecological, economic and social challenges we are facing.

The session will make most sense with the accompanying slides. I have updated a couple of the slides since the presentation (e.g. sustainability boundaries, social costs of carbon)  and two other slides have been added because I thought they were useful: an example of cherry picking data and one on plunging renewable energy costs (in case you’re wondering why they’re not mentioned in the talk).

For those not familiar with Australian politics, which gets a few mentions, our ‘Liberal’ party is equivalent to the Republicans in the U.S. or the Conservatives / Tories in the UK. On 14th September 2015, the hardline conservative Liberal Prime Minister Tony Abbott was deposed in a leadership spill by Malcolm Turnbull, who became our new Prime Minister the next day. If you’ve taken any notice of Australian politics over the last five years you may sense something of a theme.

You can listen to the talk, either by right-clicking on the links below and downloading the two mp3 files, or by just clicking on the play buttons and streaming. There is a little bit of background noise at times, since it was a live recording.

Part 1 (58 MB, 1 hr 2 mins)

Part 2 (56 MB, 1 hr)

I hope you will find the presentation and discussion useful. Please drop me a line using the contact form on this site if you have comments, questions or suggestions.

Thanks for reading – and if you liked these talks, please pass on the link to others who may be interested.

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.