Spiritual Autobiography

This is simultaneously an ideal and what I’m attempting to live out in this life. I am not always so sure of the reality of it; but I must affirm something and strive to keep it true. I hope for nothing less than to fully discover humanity and spirituality in this—though that discovery is sometimes painful if it’s complete. I speak below about scars and wounds, about how I heal and want to heal others. But it’s becoming clear to me that the deepest scars are those self-inflicted ones and the wounds we must first heal in others are those we have given them. Otherwise, these are all just pleasant words on a page. A spirituality that lacks that awareness and action is wholly destructive.
At one time, not so long ago, I would have described myself as a religious person. I was comfortable in that—not really proud or self-righteous, I just felt that God had blessed me by putting me in with the right people (it was a faith of polarities; everyone else was obviously wrong). I was at a time in my life where I needed physical and psychological order. I wanted to be in a place where I knew exactly what was expected of me and how others would react and behave in any given situation. This is something I’ve realised in retrospect and, had I known and been able to discern the underlying motivations at the time, I may have made different decisions. However, these were the decisions of dogmatic youth and perhaps to be expected in the life of a seeker.

I was soured and would even say scarred by my experiences with a presentation of Christianity in a specific cultural and historical context. I have had enough time to reflect and observe that my experiences are not unique, though they were my own. Though I was in what I would call a spiritually abusive environment, it was not so much ‘me’ that was wounded but my concept of God. I was not angry at God nor did I think the idea of Christianity is fruitless. I was just at a loss concerning how to genuinely integrate the religious structure presented to me into my own experience. I emerged from that time with a sorely tried expression of God in my life. Nonetheless, I realise the value of those experiences in opening up space for a genuine and personal reconnection to a world that is spiritual and present with me.

I see, rather than lost time in the past, these experiences as preparatory to the present. I would not be able to comprehend as much now without such a personal history. Thankfully, I’ve been blessed with shepherds along the way who have seen what’s truly happening and have guided me gently from one threshold to the other. My perception of God and my connection to spirituality is now far beyond the box once provided. That’s not to say ‘better than’ or even more ‘right’; it is, simply, the truth of the experience I have had and the response I must make to be alive and growing.

Two things happened as I began to travel extensively outside the US. One, I realised that there were other Christians in the world and, behold, they had different thoughts about the living the Christian life. Two, there were people of other religions (who I had always thought of as The Other) who seemed to have a genuine connection with God and an understanding of their own spiritual lives. What’s more is that I saw interactions between these two groups; the other kinds of Christians were connecting with The Others in ways which I had not thought possible (or, frankly, right).

What I began to see was that my own understanding, or more properly the understanding thrust upon me that I accepted, limited legitimate connections with other people (it was some time before I realised that it also hindered connections with my own spiritual self). The prejudices ingrained in my understanding of other expressions of Christianity, let alone other faiths, placed a cap on my perceptions. I had, prior to this, a severe self-limiting filter that would quickly dismiss anything that was not in line with my own beliefs and methods of faith. Travel, a complete removal from the cultural and religious atmosphere I was accustomed to, made this all apparent.

However, I did not come to a crisis point where I was faced with a decision to move from one system to another; this has been a journey along a wide arc of belief and personal understanding. Also, I have not embraced any particular ‘system’ that wholesale replaces my previous one. I have come to a place that, while I still cannot fully articulate a definitive statement of faith or list of doctrines, I feel more balanced and fulfilled than ever before. Indeed, I don’t feel it necessary to quantify an exact list of these things or match them up against any other. Rather than living by the dictates of a particular denomination or creed, I am attempting to be present with my spirit and the connection with a larger truth that may be beyond ready definition. That’s not to say that faith is ambiguous or that I’m ambivalent about truth; but I believe there is more to what is true than what any one group of people can codify.

God makes a statement of existence in the Old Testament, ‘I AM’. It’s a statement of complete connection; there is no separation of physical and spiritual perception. It’s both a statement of the present and statement of presence; God is present in the moment that ‘is’ and coming to understand this has given me the insight that there is no separation between ‘my’ spirit and ‘your’ spirit (or, ‘us’ and ‘I AM’ for that matter). Essentially, I believe our spirit is; there is a dynamic part related to our understanding of it and that changes over time. But our spirit is not a ‘thing’ that is built like a house. Our experience of the spiritual is a matter of connection or disconnection.

This is not an easy stance to have. It’s not the ‘anything goes’ spirituality that is so derided in any given religious community; that explanation is too simplistic. It’s only now, after a decade or so of living this through, that I am at peace with it. I’m not entirely sure I would still describe myself as a ‘Christian’ in the sense that is generally accepted. I find myself increasingly distanced from the ideals that are promoted by ‘Christians’. However, if I can make the distinction, I’m more open now than ever to the emergence of Christ in me. This emergence is something I meditate upon daily and hold at the forefront of my everyday experience.

About four years ago, I discovered that a maternal ancestor was one of the founders of Quakerism in America. as I began to research and read about Quaker thought, the path of spirituality presented there resonated with me. It was as if the principles were long dormant and emerged when called upon. What I find so compelling about Quaker practice is the almost complete dissuasion from forming dogma. There is discussion surrounding the meeting, but the meeting itself is not to promote a certain set of beliefs or an agenda. It’s an experience where one can be let alone, yet it’s also meeting with the God in each other—the God presence in community. Quakers seek to ‘see that of God’ in others; this is a positive affirmation of the Divinity present in us all rather than a refutation of what others may or may not believe. After many years of holding to a belief that others must acknowledge a god in the shape my people have made, I’m glad to find a way to see the expression of God in every person.

I once saw spiritual growth as a tiered system; one day, I might hope to achieve some advanced level of saintliness with enough work and grace. I’m sure there is some lingering thought of that in my head; but my heart says something different now. I am on an open journey in which I hope there is no ‘ending’, just continued unfolding. I realise that we perceive linear time and the flow from one moment to the next. But there is another reality of spirit that I’ve caught glimpses of. It’s a reality in which the spirit is fully present in a whole and magnificent state; where we see each other as abundant and unlimited beings who are fully connected to the nature of the Universe and each other.

My greatest hope is to bring healing to myself and others through this connection. In my travels and experiences, I’ve met many people who are deeply hurting and wounded physically and spiritually. Though I carry scars myself, I’ve also been blessed with healing and an understanding of wounds. It’s through this that healing comes; Jung said, ‘only the wounded physician heals’. I feel called to be that for the people I encounter in whatever way I can. My name, Jason, means healer. I take that as both what I am called and my calling in this life.

Is God Scarce?

“The quest for inner knowledge is rarely a popular one. It is too far afield of common interests and arouses the suspicion of those who fear and hate anything beyond their own horizons.” —Richard Smoley from Inner Christianity
What do you consider valuable? Is it something limited and precious or unlimited and boundless? Is it a thing that can be counted and sequestered away, hoarded and kept under lock, or not a ‘thing’ at all? What is the value of your spirit? What price would you put on God? Can we somehow lose either or are our essential possessions inseparable from us?

I recently had dinner with a Rabbi friend; we discussed the emerging spirituality1 of our time over beer and pizza, the ultimate Kosher foods. We exist in a very linear time based society; yet, it’s usually moot to connect a ‘time’ to ‘spirituality’. Spirituality isn’t necessarily something that is directly bound to or dependent on time. However, in this case, time is paramount…and may simultaneously still have no bearing. It’s all part of the paradox of our spiritual understandings as we can’t necessarily parse spirituality in a logical manner. I can sit here and dissect the history of spiritual thought and analyse my own; but, in doing so, the life of it is easily lost. However, our personal and societal understanding of spiritual growth and emergence is set in time.

We spoke about various waves of spiritual understanding throughout history—the windows of enlightenment and the drastic measures taken to close them by power-hungry people. The Desert Fathers and the Gnostics were too mystical and directly connected in their understanding of God; they were suppressed by the power of hierarchal thought. The opening of the Reformation gave way to the rationalisation of the Renaissance and the need to codify and explain spirituality.

People (in this and every age) want simplicity; they want a clarified and scripted version of spiritual reality. It removes the need for effort and time. We are in the age of instant everything; there is no surprise that people expect instant faith and spirit. As a side note, one of the criticisms of The Emergent Church and ‘modern’ faith in general is that it does not provide enough structure. Critics say, ‘it’s just a mis-mash of froofy faith with no real foundations.’ I would counter that faith is not at all about structure; religion, yes, but faith is about finding one’s own path to the Divine presence in everyday life. One needs only enough structure to open a space to walk that path. This is part of the reason I feel increasingly drawn to a Quaker consideration of faith.

How much time do we have to reach a common state of spiritual enlightenment before our spirits are irrevocably harmed? I believe we are in a middle state holding something with terrific power; perhaps something far more potent than any weapon we can devise. We have our hands on the red buttons of spirituality and lean upon them with random ignorance. I don’t know that ‘actual’ tangible damage is at hand; but there are strong hints toward this possibility. I think the parallels between weapons of mass destruction and spirituality are valid; both harness potent energies that can be used for some constructive purpose (give me some leeway with nuclear power here) or channelled into the most destructive forms imaginable. I sense right now that energy is building and only hope that it’s harnessed by the opening of our spiritual understanding.

A few weeks ago, I overheard a conversation about the war in Afghanistan (though, of course, it wasn’t really about that; the particular circumstances are only a mask for much deeper issues). The statement this man made was so shocking to me I didn’t know how to respond and missed the moment to acknowledge that I and probably many others think this is distasteful to say the least. He said (in reference to Afghanistan):

I think we should just nuke the place; make it all into a desert. All those people want is war and they’ll keep fighting till the last kid throwing a rock is dead. We are going to keep sending our boys over there…and they are just going to keep getting killed for no good reason. There is nothing there worth anything anyway.

This was said by someone who proports to be a believing Christian and holds a Bible study at his house (maybe he’s been focusing too much on those Old Testament passages where The Children of Israel are given licence to wipe out whole tribes and peoples). Later that evening I thought of what to say: that, obviously, in any war there are people who want nothing of it and are caught in the middle. That the enthusiasm of war isn’t always played out in the quiet rooms of home; parades and propaganda are for the street and that’s what we see on television. That war is not simply a conflict of ‘us’ vs. ‘them’ but a continuum of situations that may lead to conflict. We seem to forget that every time we are in disagreement with someone. Also, more to the point, we must find a way to resolve our differences without resorting to violence. Yet we seem to become more polarised and ‘game oriented’ in war (in that someone must ‘win’ and someone must ‘loose’; if we try to stay in Afghanistan till we ‘win’ we probably will have to level the place and wipe it all ‘clean’). I should have said to him, ‘I personally do not agree with what you have said; are you going to kill me now? Does the very fact that I think differently than you give you cause strike me down?’

But this is the place we are in; most of our conflict at every level is over ideas and ideals (as, essentially, it’s always been). It’s just that now we have an opportunity to massively magnify this conflict in both the physical and spiritual realms. We are at a point of emergency; the emergence of a potent force of spirituality and we are both energised and frightened with the possibilities. My concern is that there is an open route here to aim this spiritual energy in a direction that is superbly harmful.

Much of this comes down to a concept of spiritual scarcity; we’re making decisions based on a materialistic view of the spirit. Much of what this man said reflects an understanding of a material god. Every Christmas there is a ‘necessary toy’ that every child must have; however, there are only a limited number of them, so anxious parents queue outside the store in hopes of purchasing one. We’ve given over to the same view of God; God all packaged up in paper and plastic on the shelf. When the doors open, we think we must rush in and pluck off a box of God before they are all gone. We don’t have an expansive and abundant view of God; we hide our concept of God away with jealousy because there is not enough to go around to anyone else and we are willing to use violence to protect our little paper boxes. (Note that ‘we’ here is not just ‘us’. I’m meaning that this is the trend of Fundamentalism and staid religious thought across the board).

We now find ourselves in a place where God is running out and we have the physical and spiritual weapons to ‘protect’ this concept of a scarce God. I suppose my question is how can we (how can I) foster the idea of a shared spirit of abundance before we hit that button that leaves little opportunity to do so afterward?

Of course, I have to consider my own comprehension of an abundant God; I’ve traversed a wide span of understanding here. I think, at one time, I believed God was super-abundant but limited in scope; that there was more than enough ‘God in store’ but that only certain people had access. Now I’m leaning more towards an unlimited abundance—that God is not someone who is contained at all. This is my emerging concept (not that I’m the first one to think it; but the idea is working its way past my logical brain into my spirit and there are sometimes barriers there). My hope is that I can have clarity with my beliefs of God and our interrelations enough that, when I’m in situations such as the one with the ‘nuke the bastards’ man mentioned above, my response is one of peace and wisdom. It’s far too simple to respond with a counter-argument or feed hostility with hostility. I believe what needs to emerge with us all is a spirit of peace when all seems polarised and contrary. If not we will repeat these cycles seen throughout history; but, this time, with amplified results. I pray we can magnify hope and harmony instead.

1 Note that I’m not necessarily referring to The Emergent Church which is a somewhat distinct though associated concept.

Agency

Some further thought on my previous entry.

I’m not suggesting the creation of a journalist elite class; my thought is that ‘Journalist Citizens’ would be a hybrid between journalists as we understand them now and ombudsmen (think UN special observers). They would be (ideally) distinct from national or editorial demands that might overtly or inadvertently influence the story. This would probably necessitate an independent news agency in Iceland that would act as both a sending agency and repository for the information gathered (it’s just taking the IMMI concept a few steps further than proposed).

This is, of course, idealistic; a special passport is not necessarily going to gain access to a radical madrassa or protect a journalist from harm. However, I think the overall concept has merit both in the present and future. There is a need for neutral observers in our highly polarised and market driven society (and again, I’m speaking from an American perspective noting that there are yet excellent media here and elsewhere). But to look beyond the present, there will be a need for recognised neutral observation fifty or a hundred years in the future. The analogy that comes to mind are the seed banks built to house pure strains of the world’s plant stock. Yes, there is abundant access to these plants now; but the time may come where we need to reference an unaltered seed set aside. We need a ‘seed bank of journalism’ somewhere that is dedicated to the most neutral observation of the present so we can reference and contrast at some point in the future.

Also, I’m not sure this isn’t happening now; obviously responsible journalists and publications rigourously research and then archive their stories; opening another news agency in remote Iceland won’t suddenly plant a beacon of truth superseding previous attempts at journalistic excellence. What it might do is establish a new set of independent benchmarks beyond editorial boundaries set by national and corporate constraints. I don’t want to get overtly cynical about these constraints because there are excellent journalists who work freely under them; however they are there and recognised both within and without. I think the only way to make a distinct separation is to step completely outside the structures into a new and independent agency.

Still mulling on this; thanks to the people who have emailed with comments.

Journalist Citizens

Since my return from India I’ve given much thought to the role photographers and journalists play in world events—or, perhaps that’s not the scale I’m considering—what is our role and responsibility to the individuals we document? This is not a novel question; it’s standard in the curriculum of J-schools everywhere and is (or should be) a primary consideration for any journalist of integrity. However, I’m trying to codify it for myself and make clear what I’m attempting when working with vulnerable people.
I’ve had a profitable discussion with David Wells over the past weeks; David is a former teacher of mine and experienced photojournalist. I suggested we might compose a code of conduct—a sort of Hippocratic Oath for photographers (again, not an original idea but one that might be revisited as the nature of journalism changes). I think it important that, as we travel into communities where we have free reign to work (often without thorough question of our motives), we clearly state our purpose and intent. We may not always fulfil that ideal but neither can a physician always save his or her patient. Journalism and medicine involve a careful balance of skill and serendipity; both carry the opportunity for healing as well as harm.

I celebrate the opportunities we have now for citizen journalism; the tools at hand take us far beyond traditional ‘gatekeeper controlled’ news. When someone with a pocket digital camera and a laptop can bring out hidden truths of a repressive government we’ve crossed a significant threshold. However, I wonder if we should not retain something of the old model—whether we are diffusing too much the role that a person defined as a journalist has to play in society. Everyone should be involved in the exchange of information and engage in the progress of their community, government, and so on; we have the ability to speak directly in a public arena without (generally) sanction or review by our peers. I just hope that, in the mêlée, the voices of Journalist Citizens are not forgotten. There is still room and need for people who are set apart for the specific task of digging deep and bringing out a story held to vigourous scrutiny. We seem to be loosing the ability to discern between citizens who express what they experience and journalists who write about the experiences of others; I speak from an American perspective watching and reading our news here. We readily accept the ‘journalism’ of a random weblogger (again, not to denigrate the medium; there are wonderful and thorough writers on the web) and simultaneously receive the rants of television anchors who speak without the backing of research or fact checking. Whether the medium is new and fluid or ‘old and respected’, truth suffers on both accounts. (Once again, this is an ongoing discussion all over the web and among journalists.)

To my point; I wonder if there is a place for a group of people set apart as far as possible from editorial coercion and political influence as possible. One of the issues photographers and journalists have in the field is their county of citizenship. There is always a political element if one is ‘an American photographer’ or an ‘Israeli journalist’; what if a neutral state offered a special conditional citizenship to journalists (in that, instead of swearing only allegiance to that state, the journalists would swear to uphold a strongly reasoned commitment to truth and transparency)?

Susan Garde Pettie (who will, I believe, be First Minister of Scotland one day) forwarded me a link concerning the Icelandic Modern Media Initiative. IMMI is an attempt to build a haven for journalism by writing best practices for free speech into Icelandic law. Iceland would become a physical repository for free speech via the internet to put information beyond the reach of repressive governments and corrupt corporations (who might otherwise shut down the servers of bloggers and newspapers in their own countries).

Birgitta Jónsdóttir is the Icelandic MP behind this initiative; I e-mailed her yesterday and suggested that Iceland develop a journalism degree program that incorporates the best practices of investigative integrity. After completing the program, the graduates would apply for citizenship (in the same spirit that the British and other countries offer a two year work visa to graduates; it draws students into the country and builds the overall skill pool). The whole process would be open and the ‘Icelandic Journalist’ passport would become a recognised mark worldwide. (It would need to be an actual citizenship as well; I don’t know if people would necessarily renounce citizenship of their home countries; but it would need to be legitimately recognised as full citizenship so people could be linked to the international conventions on citizen protection akin to what they are attempting with the press haven.) Birgitta responded this morning with some positive remarks, so we shall see where that goes. (By the way, Icelandic MP’s e-mail contacts are published on the web and they use their first names in the addresses; access, transparency, and a bit of humanity.)

Addendum: there are, no doubt, conventions that limit the scope of what states can confer upon citizens—but what if the Journalist Citizen had the same level of recognition as an official or diplomatic passport holder? The bearer could apply for ‘journalistic immunity’ in the same sense that diplomats may have immunity to prosecution.

Planning assumptions

This morning, I read an update on the situation in Haiti with the group who were arrested for trafficking. First, I think we should be careful with the term ‘missionary’ here. I would note a difference between a ‘missionary’ who is someone vetted, trained, sent and supported by a body to whom he or she is accountable and a religious group travelling abroad. From past experience with mission organisations and training short-term teams for cross-cultural contact, I know there is are a broad range of skills and expectations in these groups (both the folk travelling and those who are sending).
Of course I don’t know the specific situation with this group, what the backstory is or what kind of training they had beforehand. But I do know how easy it is to carry one’s assumptions about ‘what probably goes on there and what we can do.’ I do know that, no matter how disorganised the (orphanage, shelter, clinic, church, food pantry, etc.) seems to be, that it’s unwise to come with the assumption that one can impose one’s own organisation on them. We often carry an earnest combination of ‘I want to help in whatever way possible’ and ‘let’s get things done’. We tend to drop in and make a superficial survey of the situation and then offer what seem to be reasonable suggestions or take some direct action without fully considering or consulting with the local partner. I’m wondering if this group made a series of these choices that led to their arrest; it’s also easy to assume that there is no defined mechanism in a given country for accomplishing whatever it is the group wants to focus on (otherwise why would a third party need to step in and do the work).

However, and this is a big however, there is a legitimate role that outside groups can play as a third party with fresh insights on what can be accomplished. Beyond the typical financial aid that can be funnelled, there is networking and brainstorming that come from international partnerships (and this is something that goes both ways; there are sometimes things that the local partner has never considered that seem obvious to the visitor and assumptions that a visitor might make beforehand that the local partner can quickly dispel and completely change the focus of a proposed project). The primary thing (and this goes with any kind of relationship) is open communication. There are huge two-way disasters in the making when either the visitors or the local partners have erroneous assumptions about a given project.

It then becomes dangerous (or causes an international incident) when the visitors don’t have a thorough understanding of local cultural norms or regulations. We are in Mumbai this week enjoying the interplay of ideas in a new place where (hopefully) we are both listeners and catalysts for new thoughts. But I’m just realising anew, especially in situations that are especially sensitive like prostitution or trafficking, that things could quickly go south is one is careless in either that listening or speak too quickly ideas that don’t appropriately address the issues at hand.

Success in failed underpants

The last week’s news sounds like the plot of Mel Brook’s The Producers; in the musical/movie the main characters discover that, by producing a musical that will certainly become a flop, they will paradoxically bring in more money. I wonder if there is a terrorist group channelling the ideas of Mel Brooks (and not sure if that would be hilarious or horrifying).

Had the gentleman of the exploding shorts succeeded in his attempt, we would probably never have known what brought the plane down nor possibly where the man was from, etc. (though these groups are usually quick to shout out what they’ve ‘accomplished’). However, what if the set goal was to fail outright? What if they never intended to destroy the plane?

If a plane is brought down it represents a certain financial loss and obviously a loss of life; though these groups seem intent to bring about the most loss of life possible, I would imagine their goals are more nuanced than that. We are essentially talking about a conflict of worldview; it’s more practical to disrupt the norms of living than to kill large numbers of people (the former requires only a bit of leverage in the right place; the latter usually involves a great deal of effort and risk of exposure).

A few years ago, a man attempted to hide a bomb in his shoe and now, all around the world, travellers must remove footwear for inspection. This man succeeded far more in failure; the disruption he’s caused is global rather than just one flight. Now because of the Underbomber, we are now told to arrive four hours early for flights rather than the accustomed two. How much economic and social disruption do these extra two hours represent? How much stress for people who are already stressed (and how much more surly will the already overworked TSA screeners become)?

I think we risk becoming completely subject to the failures of ideologues; but I suppose that is nothing new.