[Note this post was edited since first published]

Choices come in many forms:

– Passive Choices:

– Consumer reactions – we chose one product over another; we hit one of several local restaurants for Friday happy hour; we order a new toaster online

– Conformist choices, which come in several flavors:

– Cultural habits – I celebrate national holidays and participate in certain rituals because it’s part of being a citizen in this country; I have a predilection for certain foods and I avoid certain colors; I do or do not do certain things while in public, etc.

– Peer-driven choices – my buddies are all going hunting, so I’ll follow along; I support the local sports clubs

– Implicit choices – I don’t do anything, but because my company is into technology, I am an implicit accomplice to its actions in the market. I didn’t create the policy, but because my church supports a certain stance, so do I; my family has been of a certain denomination, and that’s what I am

– Choices driven by ideology – the pastor presented a dilemma and possible solutions, and described the best choice and I agree; militants from the enemy are evil, and I agree; shedding their blood to defend the homeland is necessary

– Conscious choices:

– Life events – we want to have a baby; we decide I need a new job; or a divorce is inevitable

– World-view shifts – the current paradigms and thinking are not working; I need to think ad live differently

These choices are typically undergirded by one or both of these motivators:

1. Fear – I perceive (rightly or wrongly) that my existence or prosperity is at risk, and therefore I support certain policies or actions

2. Happiness – I am entitled to a certain life style and defend my choices to support it

Think about the hold the passive choices have on our lives. Governments the world over will use nation or origin and other profiling to asses security risks. They have learned that to some extent human behavior is deterministic when it comes to loyalty, especially when people are confronted with decisions that threaten their deeply ingrained religious and ideological assumptions.

Regardless of its driving motivation, each of these more or less active choices we make result in behaviors that in the aggregate determine the course of civilization. ‘We’re all in this together’ is the often heard cliché. If we agree that this planet is well on its way to being exhausted, and the human race along with it, we only have one positive choice to make as a collective. We have to behave in ways that result in a sustainable civilization. This ultimately comes down to individual choices.

Sustainability and scalability have to be new constraints on our choices. Sustainable practices are those that can be repeatedly applied over years and decades without detrimental effect on the environment. Scalable practices are those that can be applied everywhere without detriment to one party. Of course, we need both. For simplicity, when we talk about the Sustainability Constraint, we’re referring to both these concepts. There are of course regenerative practices that go beyond this and heal our environment, and to some extent for a sustainable behavior to be applied everywhere on this injured planet, regeneration will have to be applied first.

The Sustainability Constraint has to be a filter on all our choices, which means that passive choices have to become active for until we form new habits. ‘Is this sustainable behavior?’ has to be the question we ask ourselves in all our decisions, especially consumer choices. This is hard, very hard. Instead of dealing with hard choices, some take refuge in the promise of a resurrection and a new heaven and new earth, as we are reminded this Easter Sunday.

If a pattern of behaviors is not sustainable, how can a good God be behind it? For the faithful, there is no denying the experience of God. Does that mean that religious patterns of behaviors that are not sustainable and scalable are not subject to the constraint because they came from God and His holy intermediaries (the angels, prophets and priests)? On the contrary, we have to apply this litmus test to everything you’re spoon fed by a religious or ideological leader of any level before you passively swallow it:

What behaviors is this affirmation driving, and if done in the by all, are they sustainable in the aggregate?

If the answer is ever ‘no!’, then you have to differentiate between the religion and the connection with God that you so cherish and aspire to. Just because a religious organization helped you get in touch with a spiritual dimension, doesn’t mean that God supports it as it stands today. Reformation or wholesale replacement of beliefs and practices may be in order. For the faithful, this is a bitter pill to swallow. To get your mind ready for change, you must acknowledge and internalize three personal truths that cannot be denied:

• First, a personal connection with the good God is possible. Whether we’ve experienced it personally, or heard about it, the phenomenon is universal. Those who have it, know it on a very personal subjective level.
• Second, nothing humanity does happens without personal choice. Humans are the agents of action. It is our decision. We are the drivers.
• Third, we have a collective conscience. Strip all doctrine and dogma aside, apply the sustainability constraint, and what you have is a set of values and principles that a community can agree on.

The joy of Easter is of course resurrection, a symbol promise that we also will transcend the earthly divisions and come together as one heavenly people. Each culture has its own Easter, so to speak, based on that fundamental human belief in a connection with God. I never really understood those who categorically deny the possibility of that connection. God cannot be proven or disproven (because of the n-level problem described below). An agnostic stance is the best stance for all who have lost hope of achieving a connection with God.

You can and must stand on these pillars (God-connection, effective human agency and community conscience) if you are going to revamp your current thinking. They will provide good footing as we face the realization that what we’ve become accustomed to, what our leaders have spoon fed us, is not sustainable and is in fact harmful.

For example, say we come to the realization that we need to change some of the narratives that drive our life choices, but these narratives are ‘from above’, i.e. from our religion. Whether it’s exclusive and divisive thinking, justification for war, racism, intolerance of gays, a belief in manifest destiny and continual economic growth, subordination of women, or whatever. If the beliefs do not pass the sustainability test, they have to be on the chopping block. How can we cut them if we believe with all our heart in what the prophets said, the miracles that were experienced, and Scripture written by inspired men of God?

We must realize there is no guarantee that God inspired the prophets or scriptures at issue. This is because of what I call the ‘n-level problem’ (described in my book, Dynamics of Myth on Amazon Kindle). Stated simply, the n-level problem is that even if a prophet was visited by angels, and a people experienced miracles, and demonic forces were exorcised, and nobody distorted the facts when they wrote about it, there is no guarantee that the level of beings above them, i.e. the ‘angels’ or ‘demons’ who played out the action, were not in fact themselves manipulated. If there can be one level of spiritual beings above us, there can be one to n-levels above them. If humans can be deceitful scammers, what makes us think other beings cannot be? Corruption in the ‘heavenly realms’ cannot be proven or disproven.

Two or three levels up, all kinds of things might be happening:

• There may be devious aliens playing tricks with us
• There may be an indifferent stand-offish God who only works through intermediaries, and these are so selfish that they convince humans in their territory that their self-interest is good, and the other beings’ are evil
• The Devil may have taken over after creation and is orchestrating an elaborate good vs. evil theater to watch us annihilate each other for spite

We have no way of knowing for certain if there are spiritual beings or aliens for that matter who can manipulate us.

By contrast there is the possibility that there are no shenanigans going on in the heavens (which none of the world religions actually asserts), and that the humans just interpreted it sideways and developed corrupted religious institutions because, well, they were selfish manipulative humans. In this view, the Major Prophets didn’t really get the revelations, but having understood the psychology of the religious masses, decided to create a cult following for themselves. We know for a fact this has happened in some instances – why not in all?

The n-level problem tells us that whatever the personal connections with God may be, in aggregate, as a whole, we cannot be certain someone up the angel chain is deceiving and being deceived. You may ask, if this is the case, wouldn’t your first pillar above (the personal connection with God) be subject to the n-level problem? The short answer is ‘yes, but’. Let me explain.

The connection an individual is having with God cannot be denied by that person. Those who have it say it is deep and spiritual; they know it in their being. These individuals feel extremely passionate about it, and their willingness to not deny it under torture indicates how real it is to them. This is the first pillar, a personal connection and cannot be taken away. Any system of thought that seeks to reform human behavior has to not only account for it, but also make it a foundational pillar because fundamentally that is the aspiration of humanity across eons of time. The personal connection passes the sustainability constraint.

The n-level problem manifests itself in religious schemes and organizations that seek to bend the will of the faithful to some organizational interest, or to the detriment of humanity. Unsustainable behaviors are their fruit. What the n-level problem reveals to us is that we have to be willing to re-write religious and spiritual stories.

We’re talking about fundamental changes here not possible by reformation alone. Reformation will cling to certain core doctrines, and can only go so far. Standing on our core pillars, let go of all doctrines and do that sanity check: what is the minimum I have to have to have a connection with God, make sustainable decisions in line with my community’s conscience? Based on this we can create new narratives to help us in our day to day rapid and slow decision making.

A process for shifting our world view to something sustainable is called Community Mythology (about which I’ve written about elsewhere). This involves communities understanding the core values that are sustainable, and embedding them in richly embellished stories that are assimilated into our psyche and effectively reprogram us, thereby displacing the old unsustainable practices.

The choice of Easter is ours: it is about the death of the old paradigms and the resurrection of a connection with God through a new spirituality that results in sustainable behaviors.

— Roy Zuniga

Easter 2013
Kirkland, WA

The key to a mythology working in the minds of believers is of course the ‘belief factor’. Without it, you’re not a believer. This sounds obvious, you have to believe for a myth to have effect. How do we make that happen if we created the myth? Can we believe in it? Especially if we’re the skeptical kind who doesn’t believe in anything, not even myths we didn’t create. 

We often use phrases like ‘he’s a believer’, ‘he’s acting in good faith’, ‘she’s committed to the cause’, ‘he’s willing to die for it,’ etc. There’s an inextricable connection between belief and behavior. On the flip side, we berate people for not having integrity if they go against their beliefs. ‘We have been betrayed’, ‘he sold out’, ‘he has no moral bearing’, ‘she’s been compromised’, ‘she drank the cool aide’, etc. If you act according to your beliefs, you are praiseworthy; do the opposite, or act according enemy’s beliefs, then you’re reprehensible, even guilty in some measure.

Everything we do pretty much revolves around these two poles: we reward those who commit extraordinary acts for their faith; we punish those who betray it. We’re rewarding or punishing, ourselves and others. Of course we’re more inclined to reward those of our own faith. We don’t generally reward the extraordinary acts of people in foreign faiths. That thought doesn’t even compute in our minds. It’s not our faith. Why would we reward anyone for dying for another’s faith?

So we get to the crux of the problem. We should be rewarding those who act in the name of a praiseworthy faith. This is the conundrum – how do you recognize a praiseworthy faith that on the surface doesn’t look anything like ours? Also, how do we know our faith is praiseworthy?

We actually have to learn to look deeper at the underlying value systems in both others’ and our own faith, and come to some conclusions. First, we have to recognize what is not good in our own and filter. Second, we have to be able to de-construct the stories and beliefs in an foreign faith to understand the underlying values – the good ones (they might also have negative elements that need to be filtered out). In this way we find shared values.

Affirming shared values in different faiths. If we can achieve this, then we have a common basis in humanity to tolerate and support each other in our shared purpose, i.e. a peaceful and sustainable co-habitation of the same planet. Does this resonate with you (even if it sounds idealistic)?

We know deep down that people need to have something to believe in. Without a cause, we’re floating aimlessly through life. With a purpose, we’re motivated. I dare say most believers have had a purpose, a faith handed down. Even though many reject the faith of their parents and find another – they are still acting in faith. Some find faith in what is not generally recognized to be a faith. It could be a system of thought, a movement, etc. By contrast, those who have ‘lost all faith’ are the downtrodden, the apathetic losers, the bland couch potatoes who watch television without really perceiving anything.

In other words, the believing act is what makes this world go around. Change what a person or community believes, and you can change the world. Sounds like a cliché, but it’s true. Question is how?

What do we do if we have succumbed to an unhealthy belief system? Whatever our religious beliefs may be, layered over and around them is also a faith in consumerism which is driving us to pollute our planet to our collective detriment. How do you convert away from a bad faith? We need a new faith, or faiths, that are sustainable. How do you convert people away from consumerism if it’s such a pervasive self-sustaining eco-system?

We brag about how we get deals and spend money. We demand to drive late model cars. We judge people who don’t wear the current fashions and colors. We throw away perfectly good gadgets just so we have the latest smart phone. We complain about how slow the internet is, of how heavy a laptop is when our grandparents did fine without both. We shop to feel good, and glitzy malls make us willing to pay more. We delight in tearing open the boxes at Christmas. When we get bored with our toys, we buy new, and look down on used goods. We perpetuate consumerism because we’ve been programmed to do so. We’ve been programmed through the media and peer pressure. We’ve also built our economy on consumerism. There has to be constant growth, year over year, for us to prosper.

How on earth do you sustain continual growth on a planet with finite resources? We don’t think much about that. The fact is, both our programming and the system destroying us, and we continue to support it! To wake up from this collective blunder we’re going to have to think differently. And to paraphrase the famous quote, the thinking that got us into this mess is not the thinking that will get us out.

That’s both true and false. It is true that we have to change the thoughts that drive behavior. However, the dynamics of programming ourselves can prove useful. We have to step outside of ourselves and determine how both to program ourselves, and what the new programming content should be. This is really hard, and most of use can’t do the mental gymnastics to make it happen. After all, who created their own faith? Don’t we by definition have to believe in something greater than ourselves? The short answer is, no, we shouldn’t. We very much should believe in something as great as ourselves, together.

The big leap is creating our own faith, and the dynamics of this are crucial to success. We have to do something that hasn’t been done before so systematically and explicitly. Sure, we’ve had more than our fair share of prophets coming down from the mountain with holy words received from God or angels. But they represented a received faith, not a created faith. It’s easier to accept authorship from an authority (real or perceived), than to accept a faith that was hatched in our local community house.

We have to define a faith and then believe in it. No one really knows how to do that explicitly, even though it’s been done for millennia implicitly with all the cults and world religions. The first step is recognizing it’s a human-driven process, and then taking control of it. But how? A couple of thoughts come to mind:

– First, the fact that it is a human driven process does not mean it is individual faith. We have developed a shared conscience based on our shared experiences. While it’s personal, it’s also a collective process and value set.

– Second, it’s a collaborative effort. We have to articulate our top priorities together and go about identifying the positive scalable behaviors that will perpetuate the goodness.

– Third, the new programming won’t create itself – we have to lean in and be proactive to make it happen.

– Fourth, making it happen will require a variety of talents, from the organization project management, to the facilitation, to the story making, to the embellishing, publishing, disseminating and teaching.

– Fifth, the process is local, not centralized. This may seem contradictory, but it’s not. We share a common humanity with common ideals that will manifest themselves very distinctly in each locale. This cannot and should not be centrally controlled.

– Sixth, the delivery of the programming is not what we’re used to. Decentralized production means that all kinds of delivery mechanisms will be created. Some will be with new technology, some with very old. We should, in any case, strive for high quality in the artifacts created.

– Seventh, we have to resist the temptation to codify new beliefs into ideology and doctrine. If we do that, organizational interests will take over. You don’t need to spell everything out as a rule for people to get the message. Allusive art can be more powerful than dry doctrine.

– Eighth, as we create and live our new faiths, we should maintain open hearts and homes towards those of other faiths, or we’ll fall back into sectarian tribalism. The only way to both have local faith and global tolerance is by recognizing that our faith is human-driven, that we have created it ourselves.

– Ninth, recognize that the stories will evolve, the priorities will change, lessons will be learned and the process improved. Don’t be offended if the next generation is more interested in creating their own stories than in perpetuating yours.

– Tenth is defensive: we have to stand together against exclusivist thinking. All religious wars have this in common: one side or both is intolerant or has exclusive claims that offends, alienates and even tries to coerce the other. We have to defend the right for communities to create their own stories, and band together if a toxic ‘cancer cell’ manifests itself that seeks to nullify these principles. Let’s face it, there will be hateful bigoted people out there who will try to ridicule, oppose and otherwise annihilate this work. In the face of a questionable faith, ask yourself these questions:

– What are their underlying values?
– How do these values manifest themselves in behavior?
– Is the behavior consistent with their values?
– What is their posture towards other faiths?
– Is it a scalable faith, i.e. can be applied everywhere with good outcome?
– What kind of energy do they have? What does my gut check say? Are they loving or spiteful, hateful?
– What is purpose do we share?
– What can we do to reach out to them and create a dialog and share lessons learned and align on pressing issues?

While we have to be open, we also have to defend our faith against those who would destroy it (and the faith of others). America was founded on the principle of freedom of religion, and we’ve defended that notion our entire history. However, it’s become a one-sided interpretation of what is worth defending. We have to defend not only our core beliefs, but along with it the right of others to ‘make believe’, so to speak.

We have to realize we can step in and out of a believing moment, like we did as kids when we role played heroes in a different world, or as adults when we tune into a movie. Make-believe has to be a grown-up process so we can re-program ourselves and shift our worldviews and collectively stop the mad rush to exhaust our lovely planet. We all know in our hearts we have the power to extinguish quality of life on this planet, and even drive ourselves and many species to miserable near-extinction. We have to do a collective mental reset and get on that plane of higher-consciousness that act here and now in the name of our good belief.

— Roy Zuniga

March 2013

Kirkland, WA