My Initial Sacred Acticvist Manifesto

Click on the above icon to view all the symbols better.

The overwhelming majority, in my observation, of all of the world’s both conservative and progressive social justice activism is excruciatingly focused on a fundamentally dualistic approach to that activism. And let me be quick to add that unlike many people coming from various spiritual understandings of the world, I do not automatically view dualism as something to be demonized, as something “bad.” To the contrary, I believe dualism is an inescapable and important aspect of human existence. However, that being said, I am also aware of distinct places where it can become problematic and limiting depending on what ones goals are in a particular life domain or area. So another way of presenting my ideas around this is to assert that most of the words activists, regardless of ideological stance, are overwhelmingly focused on “the other” and further, this activism is primarily focused on what the other must or needs to do in order to make the world better. In other words, activism tends to be highly concerned with action. And most activism seems to be concerned with what actions the other needs to engage in or achieve in order for the world to be made better. I am going to call this the seemingly ultimate goal of what I am going to refer to as secular activism.

 

          Also, in my unique way of constructing my ideas about all of this, I am also going to say that even if an expression of activism is seemingly or professed as being grounded in a religious or spiritual tradition or awareness, yet is still heavily focused on the other, however the other may be defined, for my purposes here, I am still going to define that essentially as an expression of secular activism. So for me, and this may not be true for other sacred activists, the conceptual stance that distinguishes a sacred activist from what I am calling here a secular activist, is what I call the locus of principal focus. In other words, I view the principal locus of focus for a secular activist to be the other and I view the principal locus of focus for a sacred activist to be the self. So for me the ultimate work of the sacred activist is self-reflection and self-transformation.

This, for me, is reasonable for many reasons. However, the baseline reason this is reasonable for me is my understanding that the lion’s share of the spiritual journey historically, as expressed through all the wisdom traditions I have some degree of intimacy with and also in a contemporary context as well, is overwhelmingly concerned with one’s inner journey and process. And I view sacred activism as essentially being a spiritually based form of activism. 

However, because I cut my activism teeth on the teachings of Liberation theology (as expressed in the Roman Catholic tradition) and engaged Buddhism (as expressed in Thích Nhất Hạnh’s version of Zen and mindfulness training) and for various other reasons as well, I also have the understanding that one’s inner journey must then somehow be expressed through one’s engagement in the world in some concrete and meaningful ways. So the inner flows into the outer. However, it is still the inner journey that is running the show in terms of the inspiration for and the fruits of what might be seen as one’s outer activism work.

Now let me return to the fascination with the other that appears to underpin much of secular activism and to walk us through some of my current thinking about all of this just a little bit further. First I want to say a little more about who the other might be conceived as being. 

First, the other might be viewed as obviously being another person or a certain set or group of people. It is these people who are seen as being a major part of the problem. So, for example, in some conservative activism circles, the focus on the other might be expressed as a focus on the other in the form of LGBTQI people and the belief that such people are intrinsically problematic with regard to what is interfering with making the world a better place, according to the way the conservative activists who hold a critical gaze toward LGBTQI people think. In this case, either the people themselves or the behaviors of the people, depending on the virulence of the conservatism adhered to, would need to be eliminated in order to make the world a better place.   

The other can also be constructed as a system or a certain set of systems. So for example, many progressive social justice activists tend to be very focused on what are viewed by them as various systems of oppression—white supremacy, patriarchy, colonialism, cultural appropriation, racism, heteronormativity, the binary system of gender identity and expression, etc. And so with this type of conceptualization, it is often “the system” that needs to be subdued, changed, or eliminated in order for the world to have a real chance of becoming a better place for all of us to live in. 

The other might also be constructed as a particular way of thinking or what might be viewed as an intrinsic way of being and from this conceptualization flows the idea that this way of thinking or this intrinsic way of being is what is problematic. So, for example, some progressive social justice activists believe there is a real, scientifically provable thing called “white fragility” and that this is somehow an intrinsic trait of white people, in general (Otherwise if it wasn’t thought of as an intrinsic “whiteness” trait, it wouldn’t be called white fragility. It would be called something like intermittent or randomly occurring white fragility). And so it follows, for people who believe in this, that this way of being is what somehow needs to be owned, admitted to, addressed, shifted, transformed, and possibly completely eliminated in order for the world to become a better place for all of us, at least in some small measure.

There are many other constructions of the other as well, within the conceptualization of both conservative and progressive social justice activism. However, the ones I have listed give us a fairly good indication of the general way this form of thinking goes and is construed.

With each of these constructions it is the other, in some concrete shape or form that needs to be addressed somehow, in order for the world to begin the process of healing itself, making itself whole again or for the first time, and becoming a place that is better for us all. 

The one thing that screams out to me in all of these conceptualizations is that “the self” is rather conspicuously ignored. In other words, the gaze is always an outer gaze. These conceptualizations do not seem to have the capability of including a real inner gaze. There is always the seeming exercise of opening up one’s eyes up and immediately having one’s view fixated outward in order to identify both what is wrong with the world and who or what needs to be corrected in order for it to be made whole again or for it to be made better. 

It occurs to me that this is also an extraordinarily convenient way to conceptualize things. How wonderful it is for the one doing the gazing outward if everyone that needs to address or change something in order to make the world a better place is somehow always someone other than oneself. How wonderful if everything that needs to be changed to make the world a better place resides completely or mostly in someone else other than oneself. 

I am also aware, because I was not born yesterday, that almost everyone who holds these views and has them underpinning their activism work also probably has many readymade rebuttals to this where they will quickly try to convince both themselves and us that they really do in fact understand that they, obviously, eminently understand that they too need to work on themselves. However, if one were to read a transcript of their recorded words and rhetoric—either through their own writing, recorded lectures, recorded other public appearances, social media posts, YouTube videos and such—one would likely see that any real evidence of this understanding in them was probably conspicuously missing, in most cases. 

So for me, it is the inner gaze, the openness and absolute thirst for inner reflection, confrontation, work, analysis, and transformation that for me is that which distinguishes the sacred activist from what I understand as the secular activist. And so understanding my motivation for why I may have a tendency to want to place my principal attention on the other needs to be addressed and looked at. Obtaining the deepest understanding possible what wholly and deeply lies underneath my anger, rage, need to be right all the time, need to make people who disagree with me bad or wrong all the time, understanding why if someone disagrees with me I feel triggered, why I need to always understand their disagreement through the lens of something being somehow wrong with them—needing to believe that there is always some limitation that has to be housed in them instead of being fearlessly and fiercely open to discovering if there is indeed something within myself that needs to be honed in on, looked at, confronted, admitted to. And simultaneously while all this inner reflection is taking place I also have the courage and the hutzpah—I love that word--anyway, I have the hutzpah to also encourage this same inner reflection to be taken up by my fellow secular activists.

Further, beyond my simply reflecting on my own motivation, I’m also dedicated to looking deeply into how I am when I am engaged in my activism work. How do I engage the Brahmaviharas, for example? Am I always looking for new ways to construe or tweak them that allows me to justify my anger, or my experienced pain, or my experienced trauma, or my lashing out at those I consider to be “the problem?”

How do I apply or not apply the golden rule in my activism life? Do I only apply it to those whom I like or those I see myself as being the most strongly in alignment with? Why am I always drawn to what might be viewed as revolutionary or “radical” expressions of activism? Is it because it gives me an excuse to be unmindful, overly aggressive, bullying, mean, snarky, impatient, belittling, harsh, cold, unfeeling, insensitive, rude, unkind, a jerk? 

How much does my unacknowledged, disowned, unresolved, unhealed, or projected onto others pain, hurt, trauma, anger, rage, grief, and feelings of loss play a role in my activism work? Why does it play whatever role it does play? Should it? Does it have to? Do I need to be in therapy around some of this stuff? Can I go into therapy around some of this stuff and simply admit and gently and lovingly and consciously surrender to the possibility that I am broken in some important ways without having a need to simultaneously blame my potential brokenness on my family of origin, on the fact that I was sexually assaulted or raped, on “the man,” on the fact that I am a gay black man and I am sometimes scared shitless that I am going to be stopped one day by a law enforcement officer and that my body is going to end up in the county morgue as a result of our encounter? Do I have to project that fear onto all people in law enforcement? 

Can I simply want to be healed for the sake of wanting to be healed—for the reality that I want the world to be healed without always making my decision to be healed and my desire for the world to be healed be a passive aggressive action and exercise against someone, some group of people, some thing, some generational oppression, the fact that my great, great, grandparents were slaves, some fucked up system that exists on the planet, some potentially evil and thoughtless God, something, something, something, anything that is wrong? Can’t I see and engage my desire to heal both myself and the world as being motivated by something that is right yes right with the world and go with that for a change? 

Oh my Jesus, lead me, guide me. Magníficat ánima mea Dóminum. Et exultávit spíritus meus: in Deo salutári meo. (My soul magnifies the Lord. And my spirit rejoices in God my savior). Ek Ong Kar Sat Nam Siri Wahe Guru. Hare Kṛṣṇa, Hare Kṛṣṇa, Kṛṣṇa Kṛṣṇa, Hare Hare
Hare Rāma, Hare Rāma, Rāma Rāma, Hare Hare. Hail, hail Lion of Judah! How wonderful You are! Hail, hail Lion of Judah! How powerful You are! Gate, Gate, Pāragate, Pārasaṃgate Bodhi Svāhā (Hallelujah!).

This, for me, is the work of the sacred activist. 

And so it is! Soli Deo Gloria, (To God Alone the Glory.)