Make Patriotism Great Again: some ideas from a British guy abroad

I have a strange habit when I am bored. It involves Ricky Gervais. Or rather, some video clips of him on stage. I must have watched him hosting the Golden Globe Awards a dozen times. The film stars are in their tuxedos and gowns, knowing the camera is panning across their faces. Ricky expresses shock at being invited to host again, then takes a sip of beer at the lectern, and tells his audience they shouldn’t try to lecture us on anything, as “most of you have spent less time in school than Greta Thunberg”. He then cracks a joke about Jeffrey Epstein, and as the groan spreads, tells them: “Shut up. I know he was your friend.” The camera cuts to shocked faces in the audience – rather prophetic editing, in retrospect.  

When I watch it, I don’t just smirk. I don’t just recognise it as familiar. I also feel an involuntary pride. That mockery of pomp, deflation of status, and saying what’s uncomfortable. It is a comedy directed at the powerful, and I instinctively place that as something I call “British.” Which is a bit odd, if I think about it. Because it isn’t the pride of seeing a sibling succeed, or a friend flourish at something I helped them work on. The pride arises from my imagined common identity with the kind of attitude and behaviour Gervais is engaged in. It is a story about an “us” that I feel is being embodied by him. But the emotion arrives without analysis: a flash of identification with a national characteristic I like. I know other Brits don’t feel the same way and share an identity around completely different characteristics. And that’s what’s so malleable about our common identities and, therefore, national pride. This got me thinking about ‘patriotism’ today, as someone who emigrated from the UK and now looks back at the country during an era of economic decline, ‘metacrisis’, and even systemic breakdown, which I outlined in the book Breaking Together.

From here in Indonesia, I often watch my clips of British comedy with a mug of milky tea in hand — a ritual that feels quintessentially British. I noticed that Sonny Green opens his poem “What England Means To Me” with mention of a ‘cuppa’ with Nan. Recently, on “Britain’s Got Talent,” he received a fantastic reception for his poem about a kind and curious pride in one’s country. Like Sonny, I also remember having tea with my Nan, and that one of her favourite phrases was that she’d not do something “for all the tea in China.” We knew the British cuppa was harvested in India from plants that originally grew in China. Just as we knew that much of what we know as “British” are assemblages from around the world, which then came to feel native. It’s an awareness of connection and interaction at the heart of our history that I’ll return to: as it’s essential to an authentic national story. 

In recent times, I hear more people back home saying we need to feel more pride in Britain or the country will lose its way. Research shows a continued decline in standard of living, and a rise in the view that the future will be more difficult than the past. That’s one reason for a perceived loss in confidence. In comparison with today, the past can seem rosy. But it’s not possible to reverse the clock. Instead, we can look honestly at what we value, and what we want to restore in our ways of living. In that process of cultural reflection, I think we can be grateful, positive and proud of what and who we truly are, while not confusing and belittling ourselves with dishonest boasting about our country. I think that’s why Sonny’s poem on Englishness is such a hit with audiences today. 

Feeling ‘pride’ in the perceived quality or behaviours of a group one identifies with is an interesting phenomenon, and not one that any thoughtful and ethical person should accept without reflection. To begin with, any national identity is a social construction: a story about who “we” are, told often enough, through institutions powerful enough, that it begins to feel natural. Before the consolidation of nation states in the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries, people conceived of themselves primarily through other frames, such as kinship and ethnicity, allegiance to a monarch, adherence to a religion, or attachment to a region. These, too, were constructed and maintained through narrative, ritual, and coercion. If we forget that our own national identity is made rather than given, we stop interrogating how it is being made in our own time. That means we become susceptible to those who narrow its meaning for their own ends, and we surrender our capacity to help shape the stories that orient collective life toward humane and constructive purposes.

It is also striking how selective our pride can be. Out of the countless experiences that form our sense of belonging within a country, we elevate some to the status of national virtue and ignore others. What is it about comedy, for instance, that does not only make me feel at home, but inspires some pride? Where does that affect originate? Is it a subtle compensation for anxieties about my own life, or about the future? Is it a delusion of borrowed glory? Probably! But it is also a form of self-respect and self-encouragement to celebrate and uphold what I believe in (in this case, having a laugh while resisting pomposity and questioning power). The leap from comfort to pride is something we can all be mindful of. Because then we can retain a bit more agency over our emotional life, rather than treating any ‘pride’ in what feels familiar and positive as an unquestionable good (or uncritically accept it when we are told to feel proud). 

Key to this inner move towards pride is our very human capacity to feel joy for another’s joy, to swell with warmth at a stranger’s accomplishments and acclaim. This vicarious happiness helps to weave us into a collective, allowing us to celebrate as one. And yet, this openness of spirit, makes us vulnerable to manipulation. We can feel pride when Britain wins many gold medals. But what if that is a distraction for why the fields where children played have been sold and the cost of a sports kit or the bus to training are now a luxury? If we marvel as British music tops the global charts, do we ignore how few of us now play instruments at home, that the school choir is a memory, and we have become a nation of listeners, not makers? Our capacity for vicarious joy is beautiful; but when it is used to blind us to the exploitation which reduces the richness of our own lives, it becomes our constitutional weakness. 

Patriotism, as devotion to one’s country, is not of one kind, as it is an ideologically shaped experience, involving the influence of powerful institutions. Therefore, stories about what to be patriotic about can be empowering or distracting, uniting or dividing. Some forms of patriotism promoted by elites, and their hired hands in politics, can be a way to distract us from reality, so we don’t act as true patriots in protecting our communities and country from real threats. Over in China, many thousands of years ago, Lao Tsu warned everyone about this process quite concisely: “When a nation falls to chaos, then loyalty and patriotism are born.” Living in Asia and looking back at Britain over the last few years, I’ve been curious about what kind of loyalty and patriotism could help the country alleviate its decline, and even turn some of that around, in the context of unavoidable global difficulties. Rather than leaving our pride in Britain to be spoken about by pompous elites and grumpy fools, I think there is the chance to make patriotism great again, starting with being honest about the past and present of our country, and recognising we get to decide what we do and don’t feel proud about. The audience reaction to Sonny Green points to that widespread craving for a patriotism that makes sense, rather than the one that seems to excuse elite privilege, racial discrimination, and unnecessary foreign wars. 

With that intention, and an awareness of the social construction of national identity, I wondered what me and my fellow Britons could feel positive about, in a way that might offer an opportunity for meaningful pride. Perhaps because I was born in Portsmouth, and travelled the world in childhood due to my father being in the Navy, my mind immediately turned to the fact we are an island nation. I saw the potential for some pride about the history of a great weaving of both local and distant peoples and their gifts, as an alchemy of the whole world that was made possible by the seafaring capabilities of anyone who travelled to, and from, the British Isles. With that background in mind, I wondered on what basis I might feel positive about how Britain is evolving today in the context of global trends — something which depends on our current actions, which arise from internal dialogue and contestation. In this essay I am sharing my initial reflections, to invite your own ones on this matter of having pride in identity and pride in nation. 

A whole world in Britain

Living outside the UK, I realise there is much about the British Isles one can be impressed by. For a start, despite Britain only being less than 1% of the world’s population, people around the world speak English. It is partly the legacy of the Empire, and the subsequent dominance of the US, but it is still a remarkable feature of modern life. It’s a language with subtleties that provided the tools of our bards from Wordsworth to Zephaniah, and Shakespeare to Sonny Green — many of whom then developed it further. But when appreciating the cultural reach of English, we can also recognise this language was the product of an international mix. It was forged in the meeting of Angle and Saxon, Jute and Dane, seafarers from the marsh-fringed coasts of northern seas, who adventured across the swells. Then came the language of the Romans, then the Normans, adding to the mixture we speak today as English. Some of those Italians also brought us stories from the Middle East of a forgiving God. As that took root across Britain, spires sprouted towards the sky, shaping both landscape and culture.  

One thing I miss about Britain is the way we do Fish n’ Chips. Whenever I return home, I look forward to ordering a haddock, chips and mushy peas. Once over the shock of the very ‘modern’ price tag, I can enjoy the taste of nostalgia. Remembering how happy my Dad sounded when one of us went to pick up our order from the chippy, is part of my experience today. But hey, let’s not forget facts. The reason we aren’t stuck with fish and boiled turnip, is because the Native Americans learned to cultivate the potato before the British sailors brought it back for us. I’m making a serious point here: it’s a mix of things from everywhere that shaped the UK today. And that isn’t just about language, food and drink. Our politics also imported ideas from abroad. The fact we have rights and democracy today is due in part to our ancestors’ curiosity about the ideas developed and fought for in France. From across the English Channel came their incandescent ideas of liberty and fraternity. Recognising that we are sovereign people helped kindle the long evolution of our own politics, our own hard-won rights, which, in turn, influenced others around the world. 

So if we feel a thrum of pride for Britain, can it be a greater pride, for the world that made Britain? And if we choose to focus on what the greatest Britons did within these islands, then let’s focus on the true heroes, who shaped our society the most. We could start with Ada Salter, the first woman Mayor in London, who in the early 20th century advanced social housing, public health, urban greenery, and women’s political participation. She embedded dignity and beauty into one of London’s poorest districts — showing what could be done everywhere and for everyone. Figures like her, emerging from labour movements, co-operatives, nonconformist chapels and trade unions, were instrumental in building the institutions that structure modern British society: municipal housing, sanitation systems, welfare provision, and democratic local governance. The elites want us to focus on the royalty, military, and war leaders, but it was the grassroots reformers who altered mortality rates, living standards, education levels, working standards, and political enfranchisement. In this sense, the texture of daily British life — from clean water (!?) and public parks to voting rights and affordable homes (!?) — owes everything to these working-class organisers and reformers and nothing to do with the ruling classes. 

When thinking of national pride, we can also have deep respect for the many ordinary men and women who fought in actual defence of the UK. When fascism spread across Europe in the 1930s, and much of the continent fell under occupation, people from the UK, alongside allies, fought in the Second World War. There was painfully remarkable bravery in the skies above southern England and on the beaches of D-Day. I remember the tales of one of my grandfathers, who landed on the beaches in Normandy, and my other grandfather who was sunk twice in one day in the Mediterranean (yes, the rescue ship went down too). Yet even here, caution is needed. To make military struggle the centrepiece of a patriotic story would be to narrow our moral imagination to moments of organised violence, however defensive or necessary. The decision to elevate these moments as the defining essence of “who we are” is not a recital of historical fact, but an ideological choice about what to celebrate and what to ignore. Instead a mature patriotism can honour courage under fire without allowing war to become the primary theatre in which national worth is staged.

A Britain in the whole world

It might be a byproduct of the complex history of the Empire, just like the ubiquity of English, but I am happy to marvel at how a country as small as the UK has created so much that the world has adopted and enjoys today. For instance, this summer, when the world switches on to the World Cup, I’ll marvel at how the world plays a game we invented, and continue to lose at. Years ago, when I played cricket with the kids outside a church in Kochi, India, I quietly smiled at how something from English county culture could travel so far and wide. Nowadays, when I play my harmonium at a kirtan, I know, but don’t mention, it was the British who introduced the instrument to India. In any case, the role of British music is fairly widely recognised. From the pop rock of the 60s, to the progressive rock of the 70s, and the synthesiser pop of the 80s, innovations from Britain reshaped sounds around the world. More people are aware of that than how the computer was first conceptualised and then built by Brits, that the World Wide Web was invented by a Brit, as was the concept underpinning Artificial Intelligence. At least many people know about our comedy. The most famous character, spotted on TV screens on cross country buses in South America, inter island ferries in Asia, and immigration waiting rooms here in Indonesia is not Ricky Gervais. It’s Mr Bean. Yep, the weird looking clown with a pathologically fragile ego and inability to form a sentence is one of the cultural exports with the most reach – and that makes me proud. How. Delightfully. Weird. 

I know that there is an imperial shadow to the popularity of some British culture worldwide — we don’t know how widespread our reach would be if we had not had an Empire. As I stood by the well in Jalianwalla Bhag in Amritsar, looking back to where the British armoured car opened fire on everyone, including women and children, I knew that there is no merit in trying to downplay the violence of the British Empire, either by saying it wasn’t as bad as others, or that much good came from it. But what of that good? Sure, I love the trains in India. But nothing balances the scales when the racist voluntary mass murder of innocents weighs on one side. Just as we need not be proud of every thread in the world’s great tapestry of cultures and nations, we need not be proud of every thread in our own. To cherish a country and its culture is also to have wrestled with it, to have resisted its failings and struggled for its better expression. We do not need to be the wardens of an airbrushed past. Instead, it is part of my personal and collective pride that British people study our history, including the mistakes and horrors that occurred. It’s the same impetus for some of us to question our country’s international relations today. That criticality is essential to my current sense of identity as my country of birth continues to be led by hypocritical instigators and appeasers of violence abroad. 

Although I think it important to look critically at the history of where we are from, I don’t think we personally carry any shame for the cruelties of an Empire we did not build. Our ancestors, for the most part, were not the architects of that power, but its raw material. Yes, some of our ancestors did OK. One of mine even made it from Yorkshire shepherd to mill owner. But most of my ancestors and yours toiled in the shadow of the ruling class that drew the maps of colonies, marshalled armies, and counted the profits of exploitation. Our ancestors were exploited here, even as others were exploited abroad. 

British values can be aspirations not yet consistently upheld, nor exclusively

Despite complicated histories, many people think that the values that a country claims to uphold are what we can feel both pride and allegiance to. It can be useful to identify such values as collective aspirations. When a fellow Brit speaks of ‘fair play’ and ‘tolerance’ as values they consider positive national qualities, I can regard that as benchmarks for analysis rather than shaky boasts about reality. We are a people who have, at our best, aspired to these things, and we can continue to aspire to them. That can involve celebrating each other for the embodiment of such values. Recently, for instance, many British muslim citizens voted for a female plumber representing a party led by a Jewish gay man. Their shared values and interests, around peace, tolerance, fairness, and a healthy environment, transcended the differences which others want to divide us by, to send a Green MP to Parliament

However, I fear a regressive magic if people claim that specific values are self-evident in Britain today. Like any country, the UK does not uphold values consistently: the fair play that governs the cricket pitch does not govern the zero-hours contract; and the tolerance we celebrate is extended selectively, both at home and abroad, requiring our ongoing resistance against authoritarians and warmongers. The regressive magic is accentuated by those who ignorantly claim that certain values belong to their country alone. I say ignorant, as looking at nearly any other country and you will see some similar principles. Kodo fairplay in Japan, reciprocity in Pacifica cultures, tolerant pluralism (historically) in India. Many of the values we wrap in a flag are actually the common inclination of humanity. I mention the possessive praise of virtues that we only intermittently practice as being a ‘regressive magic’, as it creates the context for people to think and act in negation of such values. For if we agree they are both essential and endangered, then anyone who claims there is a threat to them can demand our loyalty, sacrifice, and suspension of dissent. So the politician stands before Parliament and warns that “British values” such as tolerance, are  under siege from immigration — never mind that tolerance should involve living alongside the stranger, and fairplay should involve due process not discrimination. Their rhetoric can work because we truly appreciate the values being mentioned, and can be hoodwinked into thinking they are our country’s alone. The tragedy is that the real threats to these values — the gross exploitation leading to poverty, inequality, the corrosion of community, the decline of public life — are not brown folks in boats, but power ceded to the rich folks within.

I have this regressive magic in mind when I hear people claiming that we should give more attention to the role of the European and British adoption of Christianity in subsequently shaping the rule of law in countries around the world. Their wish to frame some of modernity’s core principles of human rights, bureaucratic fairness, and universal compassion as uniquely Christian-based requires a poorly selective reading of history. They overlook the ethical philosophies flourishing in Asia centuries before Jesus Christ or the subsequent evolution of Christianity in Europe. To give just a couple of examples, the Tao Te Ching advised rulers on compassionate governance and “placing themselves below the people” around 500 BCE, while the Buddhist emperor Ashoka promoted religious tolerance and social welfare in the third century BCE. The wish to claim moral authorship of values now espoused globally, points to a cultural insecurity. For good reason, as the uncomfortable truth is that Christian societies, for much of their history, have been agents of violent colonialism and military aggression. To claim that compassion and justice are Western gifts to the world is not only historically inaccurate, it compounds the racism that is required to justify the abuse of peoples today. 

It takes me a whole essay to explore such ideas, but poetry can embody them in a few lines.  Sonny Green’s Englishness is “neighbours saying “Happy Eid, mate,” and Muslim mums saying “Merry Christmas, love.” By celebrating the neighbourliness of people whose ancestors originated around the world, it’s obvious we don’t need to be proprietary about the values of tolerance and respect. We can remind ourselves it’s the kind of people we want to be, individually and collectively. I remember meeting Sonny when he was a teenager, staying in Stoke Newington. When I asked him what he did, his eyes smiled as he told me he was following his joy. And then he encouraged me to follow mine. I’m not sure I did that, but I remembered his vibe and followed him on Facebook. As a bard who did the hard yards, rhyming to share his lived experience, and inviting us to follow our hearts, as more people discover his work, it can help our conversation on the direction of Britain today. 

A peaceful patriotism for regeneration 

If you and I dislike racism, as I expect, then that is an aspect of our identity we can be proud of, despite some of our fellow citizens confecting stories of superiority to feel a fragile pride. Our patriotism can be an honest and relational one, where we recognise the world’s gifts woven into modern Britain, and neither feel guilty for the sins of the dead, or try to excuse them. We can be proud not of a perfect inheritance, but of our affinity with the people who participate in the building of what is good, just, and true, today.

I’m speaking of the locally rooted, but globally aware, grateful but curious, patriotism we can express today, freed from delusion and the tactics of division. That peaceful patriotism is the only kind which is not a symptom of societal decay. Confident and happy people in a healthy society do not parrot the fictitious and divisive forms of patriotism. Instead they speak like English poet Sonny Green, and applaud those who do likewise. It might be painful to explain that to some of our friends and family, but our own peaceful patriotism could motivate us to have difficult conversations with them. Our peaceful patriotism could help us explore what we can do to help British citizens, of all kinds, to feel safe, supported, and contributing to society. Freed of confected pride and fake enemies, we can look at the real threats to our wellbeing, such as the takeover of our neighbourhoods by transnational capital. Moreover, a peaceful patriotism might encourage us to tell national stories that help us adjust in solidarity, during these times of increasing hardship, societal disruption, and even the collapse of old ways of living – something that is within the work I do at the Metacrisis Initiative.

And guess what? Humour is one of the best things to help alleviate the stress of difficult times. Maybe Britain could become a world leader in ‘doomer humour’. So, let’s hear it for Ricky, Sonny, and the rest, while telling Yaxley-Lennon to F-off back to the Canary Islands to spend his Elon-gotten gains. In the meantime, from Indonesia I’ll be tuning in to Great Britain, drinking tea while watching some of my favourite bands, bards and comedians. 

Ta ta for now, Jem x

What England Means To Me: Spoken Word & Poetry: Amazon.co.uk: Green, Sonny: 9798242282698: Books

Transcending stories about spirit and matter to act from our wonder about both

“If the flesh came into being because of the spirit, it is a wonder. If the spirit came into being because of the body, it is a wonder of wonders. But I, I am amazed at how this great wealth has come to dwell in this poverty.” Saying 29 of Jesus, in The Gospel of Thomas. 

Have we modern humans poisoned and degraded our living home and brought society to collapse due to our delusion that we are separate from nature and that nature is separate from the divine? That is a view I’ve had a lot of time for. It was part of my motivation for exploring different religious ideas, as well as taking a revisionist perspective on the religion of my upbringing — Christianity. That led me to look at some of the Gnostic Gospels, over the past year. What I learned has shifted my perspective on the deeper causes of our overly destructive habits as modern humans. In this essay I’ll share my realisations through a focus on one specific saying of Jesus, according to a text called the Gospel of Thomas, which was unknown in the modern world before the 1970s. 

The traditional view of ancient Christian Gnostic belief is that they thought the material world was ungodly, or even bad, and that we humans each have a divine spark in us which we need to identify with in order to escape this world into the divine realm. However, this view came from the condemnations of ancient ‘heresiologists’ like Irenaeus, who painted Gnostics and their texts as dangerous distortions of the ‘true’ Christianity. The discovery of the Nag Hammadi library in 1945 has changed how we can engage with Gnostic ideas. When the 13 codices, including the Gospel of Thomas, were finally translated and published in the 1970s, they revealed a far more complex picture. I previously wrote about the Gospel of Mary Magdalene, which was discovered some decades earlier. It revealed a Gnosticism that invites a direct mystical experience of personal union with the divine. That is not seen as an escape from the material realm but as awakening to the true reality of our interbeing with everything as sacred. The beauty of it inspired me to compose a mantra last year. Reflecting on one Nag Hammadi text, the Gospel of Thomas, over recent months I see something similar, but with an invitation to accept we don’t need to be certain about our stories of this aspect of existence. The implication from that Gospel is that the stories we tell about the matter-spirit relationship are less important than how those stories make us feel and move us to act. 

In my experience, many people are responding to their awareness of metacrisis and collapse by becoming more curious about spirituality and religion. That is why I feel it might be useful to share with you some reflections on my own philosophical and spiritual journey, which includes Christian Mysticism.

Saying 29 on spirit and matter

Thomas reports Jesus as saying, “If the flesh came into being because of the spirit, it is a wonder. If the spirit came into being because of the body, it is a wonder of wonders. But I, I am amazed at how this great wealth has come to dwell in this poverty.” At first glance, this Saying 29 could appear to be a classic statement of spiritual dualism. The “great wealth” of the spirit and the “poverty” of the flesh seem to be set in stark contrast, evoking a worldview where the divine is trapped in the material. That is how many scholars have interpreted the gnostic view of matter and spirit. But that applies a perspective on Gnosticism that is inherited from views of their persecutors in ancient times. I think that legacy has coloured the way they read the texts translated in the 1970s. This is illustrated by a closer reading of Saying 29. If we foreground the saying’s unique structure, it reveals something more open-ended and, ultimately, far more powerful. 

Saying 29 does not declare a doctrine; it invites reflection on the nature of the relationship between spirit and matter, spirit and body. It presents possibilities, marvels at a central mystery, and implicitly asks the most profound question of all: why would spirit enter a world without it? The subtle genius of this Saying lies in its two opening hypotheticals. By stating that both a spirit-caused body and a body-caused spirit would be wonders, it acknowledges any explanation for the human condition is astonishing. Is the material world a product of metaphysical divine spirit? A wonder. Did that divine spirit emerge from the complex beauty of the physical? An even greater wonder. This structure invites us to feel humbled and honoured to experiencing life as we are. It also helps us from settling into a single dogma. It primes us not to search for the correct ontological view, but to contemplate possibilities and how each view could inspire us. 

The third point in the saying does not negate the first two but adds something new: “But I, I am amazed at how this great wealth has come to dwell in this poverty.” This conjunction of spirit and flesh is stated as a currently observable fact, but also with an invitation to consider process and purpose. The source of wonder includes the question implied by the juxtaposition of “wealthy” spirit and “poor” flesh. So why would spirit do that?

This is where we can move beyond existing orthodoxies on what the Gnostics might have believed. As I mentioned in starting this essay, the classic interpretation, which heavily influences how many scholars read Thomas, sees this cohabitation or indwelling as a kind of cosmic accident or entrapment. The spirit, a divine spark, is imprisoned in the matter of the body. The goal, then, is to realize this inner divine energy and seek for it to guide us until we can escape from this material world with it.

But if we sit with the question of “why” then another answer emerges, one that is more aligned with a theology of incarnation and love. Why would a great wealth go to join a great poverty? The only motivation that makes sense of such a radical move, is to share. Wealth that hoards itself is not truly wealth; its purpose is realized only in its distribution. Therefore this saying is expressing wonder at how the spirit enters into the relative ‘poverty’ of the flesh not because it is trapped, but because it is on a mission of enrichment. It comes to infuse the material with its own quality, to lift up the physical into something greater than it could be on its own.

In this text Jesus is reported as saying that the wonder is not that the spirit is here, but that it chose to be here. The ‘poverty’ of the flesh is not a prison to be escaped, but a medium to be transformed. The body is not the spirit’s cage, but its project and partner. This shifts the spiritual task from one of escape and separation to one of integration and embodiment. The question for believers is not “How do I identify with my spirit to escape the entrapment of my body?” but “How do I allow this indwelling wealth to permeate my entire being — my body, my mind, my actions?”

This perspective aligns more closely with the first hypothetical (spirit causing the material world including life) than the second. It implies intent and purpose on the part of the spirit. It suggests a creation story where the divine wills itself into materiality for the sake of relationship and elevation. However, it diverges from a simple “spirit-made-flesh” model by maintaining a sense of distinctness. The wealth remains wealth; the poverty remains poverty. They are not the same thing. Their union is a dynamic partnership, not a blending into one substance. The spirit retains its identity as a “distinct force” that acts upon and within the physical.

This leads to the next inevitable question: what aspects of our consciousness are this spirit? Is it a small, discrete spark deep within us, a “soul” that we must identify with against the rest of our being? Or is it a force that, in its desire to share, seeks to infuse and elevate the totality of who we are — our thoughts, our emotions, our physical experiences? In this sense, the “great wealth” is not just a part of us; it is a potential state for the whole of our being.

Saying 29, then, invites us to replace a narrative of entrapment with a narrative of voluntary, loving presence. If we read Saying 29 alongside Saying 77’s “I am the All” present in wood and stone, Saying 3’s Kingdom inside and outside, Saying 113’s Kingdom spread out but unseen, a picture emerges: Thomas presents Jesus as sharing a fundamentally ‘panentheistic’ vision. That is where the divine is not merely a distant creator nor identical with the universe, but rather the living reality in which all things exist, which exists in all things, as well as beyond all things. 

Interestingly, there is nothing in the Gospel of Thomas to suggest that this cohabitation of spirit in matter is limited to humans. Saying 77 is the most explicit: “Split a piece of wood; I am there. Lift up the stone, and you will find me there.” This extends the “I” of divine presence to the most ordinary inanimate matter — wood and stone — implying that no sharp boundary separates the human from the rest of creation in terms of hosting the sacred. The text’s focus on Jesus’s sayings towards human awakening, then, is not claiming that humans possess something other creatures or phenomena lack, but about humans becoming conscious of a reality that pervades all things.

Within this framework, where all is sacred, Saying 29 adds a distinctive aspect. It points to a form of variegated nondualism, which does not collapse matter and spirit into an undifferentiated blur. Instead, it acknowledges a distinction — wealth and poverty, spirit and flesh — before celebrating their reunion through indwelling. This could be regarded as a philosophical fudge, an inability to commit to either strict dualism or pure monism. But it might also be seen as something more elegant: a recognition that unity and separation are not static opposites but moments in a living flow. The spirit’s journey into the flesh is not a fall to be undone but a movement to be completed. Distinction exists for the sake of relation. Separation makes cohabitation meaningful. The wealth enters poverty not to erase the difference but to transfigure it from within.

The form of ‘nonduality’ expressed in the Gospel of Thomas differs from the Eastern traditions which are known for that view, in several distinctive ways. Unlike Advaita Vedanta, which declares that Atman (individual self) is ultimately identical with Brahman (ultimate reality) and that the phenomenal world is illusory (maya), Thomas maintains a real distinction between spirit and matter — the “great wealth” and the “poverty” — even as they unite through indwelling. The material world is not an illusion to be seen through, but a reality to be transfigured. Unlike Buddhism, which sees our liberation as us ceasing our attachment to material form, Thomas presumes an enduring divine presence (“the light within”) that can be discovered. The goal is not transcending the illusion of the self but integration of the self with the indwelling spirit. That also differs somewhat from how Daoism invites the seeker to merge into the rhythmic patterns of the natural world. Perhaps we could regard Thomas’s nonduality as an ‘indwelling nonduality’ rather than an ‘identity nonduality’: spirit and matter remain distinct even in their most intimate union.

Relating these ideas to mainstream Christianities

My interpretation of Saying 29, and related sayings in the Gospel of Thomas, relays a different view on the nature of reality than that of mainstream Christian denominations. They generally maintain a sharper distinction between Creator and creation while still affirming the goodness of the material world. Drawing on the Genesis creation account where God declares the physical world “good,” mainstream theology holds that the material order was an originally good creation, but that when humans “fell” through becoming aware of death and wrongdoing, they disrupted that natural perfection. That means both humans require ‘redemption’ while wider nature is also imagined as distorted and awaiting human redemption so it can return to its past state. In any formulation of mainstream theology, nature after the Fall is seen as God’s handiwork but not God’s own being. The distinction between Creator and created remains. Therefore, Spirit is not seen as the deepest identity of the human person but a divine visitor who takes up residence within the believer. In this formulation, humans remain human and God remains God. Where Saying 29, in my reading, envisions a voluntary descent of wealthy spirit into poor matter for the sake of transfiguration, mainstream Christian denominations envision an original goodness that was marred, a God who remains other even as He (or it) draws near, and a redemption that restores relationship without erasing the fundamental distinction between the One who saves and the ones who are saved. Both views honour the union of spirit and matter, and both affirm that humans can “wake up” to God and be reunited with the divine life. But the Thomas saying suggests something closer to a recovered awareness of what was always already true — that the wealth was always dwelling in the poverty, waiting to be recognized — while mainstream Christianity tends to emphasize that reunion requires a divine initiative that bridges a real separation — the life and ultimate sacrifice of Jesus Christ. I wish to mention here, in passing, that this story of sacrifice-enabled redemption is not one that Jesus himself is reported as clearly articulating, and was developed after his death.

It might seem that my enthusiasm for Saying 29 means I see spirit and matter in the way suggested by its third statement. But I’m not convinced about that. Instead, I am attracted to how it treats all the various stories about the spirit-matter relationship as interesting and inspiring. That’s because I’m a firm believer in the fallibility of any story we can conceive about the metaphysical. As Lao Tsu wrote in ancient times, “the truth that can be told is not the eternal truth”. Hence the title of this essay: Transcending stories about spirit and matter to act from our wonder about both. It is a theme I will return to when concluding. 

Although I’ve been giving some respect, even reverence, to these newly discovered ancient texts, I’ve also been aware that scripture can be internally inconsistent, and so only ever offer a contribution to our understanding, not a prescription for it. In the case of the Gospel of Thomas, it contains some sayings which seem to be more negative about the material realm, including our bodies. In addition, some of the sayings seem incomprehensible, and even objectionable (such as the final one). Freed from any wish to believe texts word for word, we can treat them as tools, alongside other tools of spiritual connection and growth. 

Unfortunately, it appears that most mainstream Christian denominations have not recognized the Gnostic texts as scriptures that contain some spiritual lessons for us. The Coptic Orthodox Church, whose ancestral monks might have buried the codices at the Monastery of St. Pachomius following Bishop Athanasius’s Easter letter of 367 condemning non-canonical books, explicitly states that despite their titles, these “gospels” do not relate the life, ministry, death, and resurrection of Jesus as the canonical Gospels do, and are therefore not comparable to the New Testament. Evangelical scholars have emphasized that the Gnostic materials have a distinctly different “feel” from biblical Christianity, presenting Jesus more as a lecturer on metaphysical abstractions than the Jewish prophet of the canonical accounts, and they caution against taking guidance from them. Catholic and Protestant scholars now engage these texts seriously in academic contexts, not as Scripture, but as invaluable witnesses to the theological debates of the second and third centuries. To them, they reveal Gnostic Christianity as an early religious movement offering an alternate testament to Jesus’ teachings,  rather than simply the deviant cult described by orthodox writers.

We do see the beginnings of a theological impact within Christianity, through some of the Unitarian Universalist and Quaker communities. Both have engaged with the Gnostic texts discovered at Nag Hammadi. Unitarian Universalists, with their emphasis on “deeds not creeds,” have found in these texts a model of reasoned dissent from absolutist orthodoxy; one UU fellowship hosted a Sunday service on “The Gnostic Challenge to Orthodoxy,” inviting members to read and “decide for themselves” rather than accept institutional condemnations. Quakers, with their emphasis on direct, unmediated experience of the Divine and the Inner Light, can also find resonance. For instance, local groups have hosted  lectures on the Nag Hammadi writings. I think this openness stems from shared convictions in both traditions: that revelation is continuous, that individual spiritual experience carries authority, and that ancient texts should be judged by their capacity to awaken presence and transformation rather than by their conformity to doctrinal agreements. My wish is that more Christian denominations take these texts seriously, including how they can point us to what teachings were imposed or excluded due to historical and institutional dynamics rather than any intellectual or spiritual merit. 

Reviving reverence for nature?

In this essay I have focused on the relationship between Spirit and Matter. That’s partly because of what I stated at the beginning of this essay: many people have argued that the greater dualism in Abrahamic religions led to a desacralisation of nature in our minds, which provided a conceptual basis for its oppression and destruction, thus bringing us to the ecological predicament we face today. Therefore it is interesting that the Gnostic texts of Thomas and Mary invite a rethinking of Jesus’ view on the spirit-matter relationship, and thus the extent to which we might recognise wider nature, and all its living beings, as divine. Therefore, theoretically, they could provide a way for some Christian communities to revere nature more than at present. However, my exploration of this topic with Saying 29 as my prompt has led me to a slightly different conclusion. 

The desacralisation of nature in the West cannot be attributed simply to Christian dualism. If that were the case, we would expect more consistently nondualist spiritual paradigms to have fostered greater care for the natural world. Yet the evidence is mixed at best. Advaita Vedanta’s profound nondualism has not prevented widespread environmental degradation across the Indian subcontinent. Balinese Hinduism, with its animist sensitivity and daily offerings to spirits inhabiting every aspect of the natural world, has not shielded the island from ecological degradation. From living in Bali these past years, I have noticed that even cultures rich in nature-based ritual can prioritise social conformity, communal status, and correct performance over ecological protection. I now hypothesise whether the actual relationship with nature is less to do with dualism versus nondualism as metaphysical positions, but the deeper human tendency to fixate on concepts to believe in rather than experiences to inhabit. When theology becomes a set of propositions to affirm rather than a way of perceiving and relating, any tradition — dualist or nondualist or somewhere in between — can become a barrier to the very connection it purports to describe. Indigenous communities who maintain reciprocal relationships with their lands offer a different model, but their care for nature seems rooted less in the sophistication of their concepts about the divine and more in the daily reality of immersion within and dependence upon the living world around them. Their knowledge is not primarily believed; it is lived and felt.

This is where the Gospel of Thomas reveals its deepest wisdom. For me, the beauty of Saying 29 is not that it offers a more interesting nondualism than the alternatives. It is that the saying models a respectful agnosticism toward the various ways we might conceptualise the spirit-matter relationship. It presents two hypotheticals — spirit causing flesh, flesh causing spirit — and calls both wonders. It then names the observed reality of their cohabitation or indwelling as a source of amazement, without insisting on a single explanatory framework. The saying does not invite us to resolve the mystery but to marvel at it. And in that marveling, something can shift. We are no longer trying to get our theology correct so that we can act rightly. We are instead welcoming spirit and matter as participants in some unfathomable dynamic relation, feeling our way into gratitude for the very fact of existence, and engaging the world from that openness and excitement. When theology falls away, what can remain is wonder. And wonder is a more reliable invitation to reverence than a doctrine could ever be. 

I think there is a lesson here for people who experience a disintegration of their old identity and worldview as they awaken to metacrisis and collapse. As is happening with so many people I know, we can become curious about religion and spirituality. The craving for an ordered world, that is agreed upon by a peer group that one is pleased to feel a belonging to, can manifest in both secular modernist and religious traditionalist ways. It comes from the ego’s desire for illusory safety through certainty and agreement, rather than an open-minded and open-hearted presence, curiosity and wonder about existence. In some cases it also engages the ego’s desire to be better than others in some way. My experience aligns with the mystical teachings of many traditions: once we recognise the subtle cravings within ourselves, we can release ourselves from them, and return to loving curiosity. After all, the nature of universal love transcends our attempts to categorise and explain it: something I sang about in the first song I released (Trust We Get There). It is unknown whether religious institutions will help those people who come through their doors in response to metacrisis and collapse to then embrace ‘uneditable’ love… but it is something we could seek to influence. 

Below I share a reflection exercise I used with myself to explore the feelings from some different stories about matter, spirit, and myself.

In our next Salon of the Metacrisis Meetings Initiative on March 2nd we will explore the issue of dread, and to live with that feeling once we anticipate societal collapse. One view is that we can’t live fully with such a feeling unless we have a form of spiritual awakening, so we sense a deeper Ok-ness about life and death, and what might occur in the future. That is one reason why I have been making more time for my own spiritual life and also engaged in comparative religious study. I hope to share more reflections from that in due course.

Reflection Exercise on Matter, Spirit, and Self

It can help to have someone read the following prompts slowly to you. You will lie on a bed and shut your eyes to then imagine a series of different potential realities and notice how they feel. 

Lying down, with eyes closed, imagine or perceive, being full, like an inflated balloon, of energy or spirit. Imagine how your body and your mind are the project and purpose of that spirit within you, animating you from within. Sense how that feels. 

Don’t rush, but next, in the same position, think of your whole body itself as a divine expression in a sacred universe. Imagine the whole room around you as vibrating divinity, just like your body. Consider that the whole world flowed into creating your consciousness right now, where you know it exists. Sense how that feels. 

Next, think of a divine spirit outside of you, which loves you, and you can speak with, not to ask to inhabit you, but to guide you and await your reunion with it after death. You might want to think of this entity as a human-like being, perhaps like a perfect version of a male or female parent. Sense how that feels. 

After rising from the exercise, take some time to reflect on which conceptualisations affected you and in what ways. Was there more energy in some moments, more loving consciousness in some others? 

Know that these descriptions of reality can be tools for your spiritual aliveness and engagement, rather than truths to remember, proclaim or argue over. The differences in these concepts could therefore be seen as a richness, rather than a complication.

My previous writings on Christian Mysticism

In “Next Time, Let’s Put the True Christ Back into Christmas,” Prof. Jem Bendell argues that seasonal appeals to “restore Christ” often ignore Jesus’ radical teachings. He critiques both commercial consumerism and cultural Christians who defend tradition while neglecting Jesus’ rejection of wealth, status, and coercive power. To truly centre Christ, Bendell urges attention to his solidarity with the poor, nonviolence, humility, and inner transformation rather than nostalgic or politicised slogans.

In “Reclaiming ‘Kyrie Eleison’ this Christmas” Prof. Jem Bendell reinterprets the traditional chant *“Kyrie Eleison”* — usually rendered “Lord, have mercy” — as an ancient plea for healing and wholeness rather than penitential guilt. Drawing on Greek roots and Jesus’ actions in the Gospels, he argues the phrase originally invited divine care and unconditional love, not juridical forgiveness. This shift reveals how institutional religion has obscured Jesus’ message of non-judgment, grace, and inner healing, and invites a mystical reconnection with Christian roots.

In *“Christianity and Hope — when the Pope does hopium, what do the mystics do?”* Prof. Jem Bendell critiques the past Pope’s Christmas message urging hope for a materially-better future as linked to love, arguing this reflects ideological “hopium” shaped by privilege and cultural assumptions. He contrasts that with a mystical Christianity where unconditional love isn’t tied to expectations of worldly outcomes. Drawing on theology and mystic teachings, Bendell suggests true Christian hope is more like deep faith and open-hearted acceptance in adversity, not optimistic certainty about global improvement.

In *“Let’s Not Become Attached to Collapse” Prof Jem Bendell draws on *Anthony De Mello’s* teachings to show how attachment — even to collapse narratives — can become a new ego-story that undermines presence, peace, and love. Awareness of societal breakdown can awaken compassion, but clinging to certainty about collapse — positive or negative — reinforces illusion rather than freedom. True spiritual practice, he argues, involves noticing and releasing such attachments, meeting each moment with openness and unconditional compassion.

In *“Mary Magdalene and the Mariam Mantra” Prof Jem Bendell reflects on the non-cannonical *Gospel of Mary Magdalene* and his crafting of a *Mariam Mantra* inspired by its message of sacred interbeing and inner awakening. He highlights Mary’s teachings — unity, compassion, and direct experience of the divine within — contrasting them with hierarchical, patriarchal Christianity that marginalized feminine spirituality. Performed at a kirtan, the mantra embodies cosmic love and challenges cultural distortions of early Christian mysticism, inviting renewed attention to mystic and feminine dimensions of faith.

*“Heartfullness: The Way of Contemplation”* by Reverend Stephen G. Wright is a 12-step contemplative guide for those seeking spiritual depth beyond institutional religion amid metacrisis and collapse. Bendell’s book review focuses on how it invites a “detox from ego addiction,” fostering sustained loving awareness of the sacred and unity with the Divine. It emphasizes the contemplative path — openness, non-attachment, and heartfelt presence — over techniques, drawing on perennial mystical insights to support inner transformation and spiritual awakening in challenging times.

What is the Courageous Response to Climate Chaos? Not eco-authoritarianism.

Are you hearing more people talk about needing to do “whatever it takes to save the planet”? Have you heard people blame democracy as the reason for our intractable problems, including persistent poverty, extreme inequality, and the unaffordable cost of living, or environmental damage and breakdown? I have been hearing variations of that perspective, particularly from people rightly dreading the impacts of climate chaos. Over three decades of work on the topic, I witnessed authoritarian musings of frustrated environmentalists being expressed in private. But now I hear them articulated in public. One person who has brought this topic into the open is the environmental academic John Foster. Writing at the Greenhouse Think Tank, he argues: “the intelligent and informed who do recognise the urgency of transformation must organise themselves for a vanguard seizure of power…” He has a new book out this year, which reminded me I hadn’t responded to his critique of my arguments against such eco-authoritarianism. As John’s Lifeworld book will go deeper into his philosophical justification for authoritarian rule by an ecologically-minded elite, I think it is a good time to rejoin the conversation. If you are interested in the future of politics in a metacrisis, where societies experience environmental breakdown, then I hope this long-form essay will provide some stimuli for your own political opinions and campaigning. 

Continue reading “What is the Courageous Response to Climate Chaos? Not eco-authoritarianism.”

Reflections on the Epstein Scandal and the Wealth Supremacy Culture

In 2012 I had some interaction with Jeffrey Epstein, only remotely by skype, calls and emails, and where we reached no agreement. I mentioned this experience with the deceased and now-infamous criminal billionaire in my 2023 book, and in a 2024 article on the topic (here). The matter of his life (including crimes, accomplices, purposes and death) is highly charged, especially for survivors of sexual abuse and child abuse. The survivors of abuse, by him and his accomplices, as well as independent media, are doing immense work to obtain greater transparency, in the pursuit of truth, accountability, and justice. Because of the bizarre online interaction I had with Epstein, I followed that struggle, as well as the slow release of information about the case. This culminated last week with me finally appearing in the Epstein files, specifically my email correspondence about his interest in alternative currencies. A few people have asked me about it, so I thought it helpful to share what I think I know of what’s most important about this ‘story’ (based on what I have gleaned from the public information). As it would take a long time, I will not elaborate with examples or put in links to sources – so if you are intrigued or doubtful, please use search and/or AI to identify further information about what I mention here. I know some people prefer to dismiss it all as conspiracy-laden speculation, but the evidence is now sufficient to point not just to sex crime, but to both a sinister agenda and network, and to a ‘wealth supremacy culture’ that affects everyone’s lives and the direction of humanity.

Continue reading “Reflections on the Epstein Scandal and the Wealth Supremacy Culture”

Don’t Forget the Dread – Deeper Healing in the Metacrisis

I invited the co-admin of the largest Deep Adaptation group in the world to share her ideas on the difficult emotions experienced by people who awaken to metacrisis and collapse. In this essay Krisztina Csapo explains it is unhelpful to frame such emotions as a form of general anxiety. Instead, more can be gained from recognising and responding to them as dread, grief, trauma and moral injury. I have left comments open for you to share relevant resources and initiatives at the end. Thx, Jem (Image by Ellis Rosen).

How do we psychologically sustain ourselves in times like these? This question arises again and again within communities working on ecological and social harm, and especially on the prospect of societal collapse. Through six years of engagement with the international Deep Adaptation movement, including facilitating the largest such national group, I have become much clearer about what helps — and what does not. That clarity begins with taking seriously the emotional reality people are living with as they confront the full gravity of our predicament.

I have come to see that framing what people — especially young people — are feeling as “climate anxiety” is often a misdiagnosis. It is misleading because it suggests a variant of generalized anxiety, thereby pathologizing responses that are understandable and proportionate to the situation. And it is unhelpful because well-known anxiety-management strategies frequently fail to address the deeper distress involved, sometimes adding shame or a sense of inadequacy when the “anxiety” does not go away.

Continue reading “Don’t Forget the Dread – Deeper Healing in the Metacrisis”

Reclaiming Environmentalism: Saner Responses to the Ecological Crisis

I invited an essay from a conservationist who recently worked in the crucible of US politics, and is now seeking ways to bring more authentic attention to ecological realities. 

By Aaron Vandiver 

Over the past several decades, environmentalism has been driven far from its roots. What began as a movement grounded in ecological understanding, love for the living Earth, and resistance to industrial destruction has been reduced to a narrow technical problem: carbon emissions.

When, on this blog, Professor Jem Bendell explains a pan-ecological perspective, he is calling us back to a truth environmentalists once grasped intuitively. As Rachel Carson wrote, “Nothing in nature exists alone.” Forests, oceans, soils, coral reefs, and natural hydrological cycles are, as philosopher Charles Eisenstein puts it, the “vital organs” and systems of a living Earth. A mechanical climate model focused on atmospheric physics and emissions cannot capture this living dimension. As Professor Bill Rees put it in response to Jem’s essay, climate is not primarily a physical system but a “biophysical” one. Recognizing this requires elevating biology — life itself — to the same status that physics and chemistry have enjoyed in the institutions of science on environment and climate.

Continue reading “Reclaiming Environmentalism: Saner Responses to the Ecological Crisis”

Next time, let’s put the true Christ back into Christmas

How was your Christmas? I had a lovely day walking the dog and recording a video of the amount of colourful trash “decorating” some of the trees here in Indonesia. We are in a majority Muslim country, which happily celebrates Christmas. That might be something to tell any grumpy neighbours who fear a Muslim “invasion” of where you live. Maybe they told you it’s time to put Christ back into Christmas, exhibiting a new religiosity with few prior symptoms (such as care for the poor or foreign). Reflecting on such declarations of the need to remember Jesus, this year I decided they have a point. Here’s why… 

Every December, as the tills jingle and the Christmas songs play, we are invited to celebrate the birth of a man who asked us to stop worshipping money and start paying attention to what was going on inside our own hearts. Naturally, we mark this by maxing out our credit cards as we imagine what random stuff might pass as thoughtful presents. But if we are to be serious about “putting Christ back into Christmas,” we could begin by putting the actual Christ back into view.

Continue reading “Next time, let’s put the true Christ back into Christmas”

Taking time to reflect, remember, and recommit – year end thoughts

The following notes are my end-of-year reflections, which I sent to people who subscribed to receive that from me. I think they may be useful for prompting your own reflections, ahead of the next Metacrisis Meeting, so am posting them here as well. Wishing you bright times in the year ahead, no matter the darker stuff that surrounds . Thx! Jem

When I look back on a year I don’t just consider what I experienced, contributed and accomplished. I always wonder what I have learned, and how I want to apply that in future. I had that in mind recently when I was interviewed by the e-zine Grist. One of their journalists is aware that the creeping collapse of societies has become a more credible framing amongst both experts and members of the public. She was interested in what can happen from such an awareness. So she asked how that awareness has shaped me over the years, and what’s been changing. I realised my own journey might help you with your own reflections, so I wrote them up for this personal newsletter that I send out twice a year… 

Becoming collapse-aware doesn’t mean the process of collapse suddenly concludes around us. Like me, most of you reading these words are fortunate enough not to be living in destitution. We live in the society as we find it, with our identities, assets, skills, networks, responsibilities and desires — which have built up over time within that society. So with collapse awareness, or even collapse acceptance, there are many types of response.

Continue reading “Taking time to reflect, remember, and recommit – year end thoughts”