Life After Death and Suicide

Asked via formspring.me/iamgarrett :

What do you think happens to people who commit suicide when they die? Kinda need closure on this.

- Anonymous

To be honest, I've been rather afraid of answering this question, due to the final statement of "kinda need closure on this." There are two potential reasons for this statement, each of which make me fear for the affect of my answer improperly framed. Out of ignorance of you or your situation, and in recognition that someone else of either situation might read this, I will address both reasons for such a statement before answering the question.

If you need closure because you've been contemplating suicide, please please please take a step back from the ledge. A prevailing message over the last few weeks to the youth of today is that "it gets better" - and it's been a message for a reason. It is the truth. There are few things I ever actively scold adults for saying; one of those things is when I hear "High school is the best years of your life." Ha! When we stay true to our selves, and support our higher self, life truly does get better. Hell, even if we don't life still gets better by your mid-twenties. Even if it is not circumstance, but rather a heavy inexplicable melancholy you find weighing upon you, know that this too will pass. And don't discount a good therapist or minister, etc. either - there's a lot of crappy ones out there, but life has been personally and profoundly affected by one good therapist, and I am a strong advocate of professional assistance when things get dire. Even beyond the tragedy of death itself, and beyond the tragedy of suicide, I find one of the most troubling things about suicide is this: to possess the capacity to actually violate one's animal urge for survival and contemplate suicide is a sign of veritable intellectual and emotional depth - and people with that sort of depth are precisely the sort of people we need to keep on living in this world.

If, on the other hand, you need closure because someone close to you has taken their own life, I offer my sincerest condolences (as useless as they may be). It is never easy to lose a loved one; it is even harder when that individual takes their own life. Grief melds with (causeless) guilt, and the ensuing pain is only embittered further with the question of life after death. I encourage you to remember the good times, the happy days, and celebrate the life your loved one lived. Take your love for that individual and share it with others, such that the world may be lifted up a notch. Know that if nothing else, they continue to live in your heart, and though this does not erase the sense of tragedy and is but a sliver of light, sometimes that sliver will be just what you need. And with time, that sliver can grow even brighter.

That being said, it is my personal obligation to answer the question at hand, which is essentially what happens to us after we die. This is actually one of those things about which I am most uncertain. I don't believe in a physical heaven or hell, and reincarnation as commonly understood seems to me to be more a product of vanity than anything else. If it wasn't for the near death experiences and "ghost" encounters I have heard of from close and trusted individuals, I would likely believe that there is no form of individual continuation after death. Regardless, I still believe that any form of ourselves continuing beyond physical death has little to do with our self as we know it. I believe in a body-mind-spirit both in humanity and the universe/god. The three are separate, yet connected. The self that I am, Garrett, is a combination of these three, and when my body dies these will become separated. The me that I am will only have this lifetime, and any form of myself that may continue will not have the same identity or consciousness that I currently possess in life. Of this much I am certain. What this means to be in contemplation of my eventual death is this: when I die, that is it - whatever I lived, however I felt will in that moment be made eternal and immutable. In my darkest moments, when I myself have stood on the brink of suicide, it has been the knowledge that doing so would not end my misery but rather cement it that has aided me in stepping back. And considering how joyous my life has become, despite my once thinking such joy an impossibility, I am damned glad that I have stepped back from that ledge.

The Question of Evil

Recently, a classmate of mine with whom I've briefly discussed Unity and my personal beliefs, emailed me with the following question(s):

"If God is everything and in all things, does bad/evil/satan exist? If so how? and is that part of God too? And thus, is that part of us too?"

A fundamental aspect of all theologies is an explanation of the existence of evil. The following is my personal belief, influenced, informed, and supported by Unity teachings.

The very first basic Unity principle states that there is only one power and one presence active in the universe, God the good.

            This often gives rise to the belief that everything in the universe is therefore good. This philosophy is incredibly relieving to people who have often felt weighed down by the belief and fear of some supernatural force of Evil out to destroy us. Moreover, the philosophy that everything is good can even be beneficial in dealing with the minor tragedies of life; when faced with an unwanted break-up, a sudden loss of employment, or other unexpected setback, we can keep our spirits high with the belief that it is ultimately a good thing, part of “Divine Order.”

            The problem is that this philosophy, like many others, is one which as Rev. Mark Fisk puts it, “works until it doesn’t.” While the belief that everything is ultimately a good thing can help us deal with the minor tragedies of life, it suddenly loses its uplifting power in the face of the greater tragedies. I refuse to ascribe to any faith or philosophy which attempts to claim that murder, rape, and pedophilia are actually good things, “blessings in disguise” or “part of God’s plan.” And if I’m in mourning, don’t you dare tell me that “it’s just meant to be.” This philosophy that every single thing is a good thing is also ludicrous in the face of the Holocaust, Apartheid, modern sex slaves, or devastating hurricanes, earthquakes, and tsunamis.

            Luckily, this is not what the first Unity principle means.

            Rather, what it is saying is that the only thing with any power, the only thing with any true presence, is good. Yes, bad things do happen. But no matter how great the tragedy, no matter how horrible the wrong, good persists. When a friend of mine was stabbed in the neck while working as a bouncer, there was not one ounce of me that then or now would consider the event a “good” thing. It wasn’t. It was a sad, horrible, tragedy. But afterwards, his friends and family came together supporting each other in kindness and love. Bonds of loyalty were formed, comforts given. The other guys who worked as bouncers took the event to heart, some leaving the job, others exercising greater caution in it. These and other things were all good things. They didn’t outweigh the bad event of the death, but they didn’t have to – the point is that something bad happened, but good persisted. In the international aid after a natural disaster; in the creation of the United Nations after WWII, an organization with lofty goals of peace; in the inspirational words and actions of such figures as Mahatma Gandhi, Nelson Mandela, and Martin Luther King Jr.; in these things we can see the power of good persisting in the face of horrible events and circumstances.

            This, then, is what is truly meant by Divine Order; not that there is some anthropomorphic deity with a micromanaged plan for all our lives, but that the divine presence in all things retains its goodness and need only to be recognized and called on in times of tragedy.

            The point is that goodness can never be destroyed; only suppressed or ignored. I often use the analogy of light – there are shadows in the world, places where the light is not clearly shown, but shadows have no power or presence when exposed to the light.

            Taking this analogy further, one might be compelled to declare the objects casting shadows as representative of evil. I would argue, however, that those objects blocking the light are simply those things which suppress our innate goodness – our fears, doubts, negative adaptations, ignorance, etc.

            One of the great difficulties I have with a belief in evil is just how few people throughout time have ever actually considered themselves to be evil. Our great archetype of evil, Adolf Hitler, certainly believed that what he was doing was a good thing. So too did most if not all of the greatest tyrants and terrible figures of our history. Of course I do not think for one instant that a belief in doing good makes one good, but if evil was truly a separate force vying for control, why then does no one desire to be evil?

            Evil is a convenience. It is easier to simply call some thing or some one evil and avoid it or hate it than actually delve into the questions of why and how something is wrong. Applying the black and white labels of good and evil to life is simply a rather lazy way to go about things – and with just a little bit of critical thinking, it swiftly becomes nearly impossible to ignore the fact that is not a world of black and white but a world of color.

            Of course, this view plays into the idea that good and evil are completely and utterly subjective, and can call into question then the concept of Good as existing.

            But this is an argument against Evil, and while I most firmly believe that Goodness is real, I shall save that lengthy argument for a later date.

[Please note that I am neither ordained, licensed, nor certified with the Unity organization, and the views and opinions I express in this and all other posts are not meant to be representative of what Unity officially believes or teaches. For more information on Unity's official teachings, please visit www.unity.org/aboutunity]

The Once and Future Reverend

Generally, I try to avoid talking about religion. I don't enjoy it. Discussing religion, discussing God and the universe and morality and life, that I enjoy. But talking about religion...not so much.

It used to be easy to avoid, but no longer. At this point in my life, as much as I attempt to escape it, religion often comes up within the first few minutes of meeting a person, within the first few points of small talk.

"So, are you going to school?"

"Yeah, that's why I moved back to Jacksonville." (This is me trying to change the subject, trying to get them to ask about where I lived before, etc. But even if they follow my bait, the conversation still moves back to school...)


"What are you going for?"

"I'm working towards a Bachelor's degree of Psychology and Philosophy" (If I'm lucky they'll seize the opportunity to become the central figure of conversation, discussing their own knowledge of psychology and philosophy, or talking about how they studied it, or telling me all the things I could do with that as if I had never considered or heard of any of it before. But usually, the answer is simply followed by...)


"Oh, what do you plan on doing with that?"

At this point I can say, "I'm interested in doing Humanistic Therapy, but focusing on assisting people achieve self-actualization and personal fulfillment rather than simply deal with traumatic or troubling mental states or life events." There is truth in this statement, but not the whole truth. Because I have no intention of becoming a psychologist.

I am going to be a minister. The Reverend Garrett McLain. Not the therapist.

Once people hear that I am going to be a minister they often do one of two things: they either distract me in enough time to run away in the opposite direction, or they embrace me as a brother and begin quoting biblical passages I don't really care to hear. Unfortunately, it's the ones who run away with whom I have the most in common, and the ones who quote scripture whom I will likely never get through to.

But, given a chance, I get to explain myself. And my beliefs. Of course, this means talking about religion. So I've learned to boil my little church of Unity down into a bit of a nutshell. It's become so routine and rote that a couple of my closest friends can even recite portions of it.

Here's how it goes, more or less:

"Unity functions as a religion, but in practice and by the scholarly definition, it actually isn't one. Unity is more of a spiritual supplement for a pre-existent or developing faith than a religion in and of itself. Rather than focus on specific dogmatic beliefs and teachings about 'God' and the Universe, the truth of which no one can know absolutely, Unity focuses on spiritual tools and practices applicable to all people, regardless of their particular theological beliefs. While it is Christian-based, Unity looks at the Bible in a metaphorical sense, and in recognizing that no one faith has it wholly correct yet that all contain valuable wisdom, Unity sermons often also incorporate passages from the Bhagavad-gita, the Koran, or Buddhist teachings. Many people who attend Unity consider themselves Christian, but others are devout members of other faiths - I've personally known people who are devoutly Jewish, Zoroastrian, Wiccan, Catholic, and Buddhist who regularly attend Unity services as a supplement to their religious practice, and many others don't consider themselves anything at all, and are more or less just spiritual agnostics. I'm happy to discuss my personal beliefs about divinity, the universe, morality, and life after death; but these beliefs are my own, for in Unity these things are not explicitly taught. Rather than tell people what to believe, we help people come to their own answers."

It's a lengthy explanation, difficult to give without sounding like I'm preaching, and still doesn't describe what Unity does believe and teach.

But this - Unity's actual beliefs and teachings - is a point of contention even within the organization. Unity has no dogma, no set list of beliefs that one must ascribe to in order to truly be considered a Unity Student (This, btw, is what we're called - not Unitarians, they're different). What Unity does have is five basic principles, five basic statements which are the foundation upon which all Unity writings are based, and are the things which most people in Unity believe. In its continuing effort to avoid dogmatism, though, there is no official wording for the basic principles, and as such each church is free to modify it as they see fit. And in the great tradition of language, even a slight change can have dramatic effect.

For example, two versions of the First Basic Unity Principle:

1. There is One Power and One Presence active in the Universe and in my life, God the good.
versus
1. There is One Power and One Presence active as the Universe and as my life, God the good.

(Sometimes this is followed by, "omnipotent and omnipresent" or "omnipotence and omnipresence" respectively)
This slight difference has major implications.
Or even more drastically, the Third Basic Unity Principle:

3. We create our experiences by what we choose to think and believe.
versus
3. We are co-creators with God, creating reality through thoughts held in mind.

These are two drastically different beliefs.

The ultimate reason I am entering ministry is simply because it is what I feel I am meant to do, that it is what the path of my life is leading me towards. Rationally, I know that the main reason I feel called to ministry is my love and pride in assisting people on their spiritual journeys and learning to live richer, more fulfilling and authentic lives. A secondary reason, however, is simply my desire to work towards helping Unity become more grounded in its teachings, to create a solid foundation upon which we can build, rather than the current freely shifting foundation that is resulting in increasingly divergent congregations and a confusion of fundamental beliefs.

And so, as much as I might not enjoy it, I talk about religion. Because I need to. Because if I don't, then nothing will change. Because if I don't, someone else will, and who knows what they'll have to say.

Russell's Rant - "The DANGER: in living as a WILDMAN."

There are moments when friends say or write something, which while not necessarily exactly reflective of your thoughts on the world, strike a deep chord within. In these moments, I remember that I am not alone in the quest of my life, and that fact comforts me greatly.


The following by written by Russell Bailey and posted in a note on the Facebook:

"I am legitimately scared of what tomorrow brings. Tomorrow holds so many surprises and so many inevitable words. The world we live in confronts us in every way shape and form. The neon lights burn loop-de-loops into our retinas and implant unwarranted meanings in our minds. Our world is one of inescapable deviations. From detours in our travels to the importance of money controlling what we can and cannot do, we are pulled away from our roots. We have evolved into hairless primates that feel the need to be "civilized". We should live our lives the way we want to live them but society forces us into the roles we live day to day in. Who knew that being part of a species that lets material things control what they do with their lives or what they don't do would present so many problems? I exist in the skin and environment granted to me by...well, all of creation. Not a god, whose likeness I am created in, but by countless seconds of evolution stretched over the cosmos. I am all that I am. I can be no more than I am already, but I can make my existence in this place and time exponentially important. I don't need to be recognized by the world or even my peers, but I do need to recognize myself for what I have accomplished. We feel the need to be accepted, but when you step outside and look around, by being alive you are accepted. If you were not important on this earth, you wouldn't exist. We all make an impact on this world. Each step you take changes the course of all actions now and forever more. The past is gone and the future never comes so all we are left with is a gift. That gift is the present. Take all your footsteps with pride and determination. Do what you love. Love all that you can and make the most of your precious time you spend with whatever or whomever makes you happy. Be happy. Be all that you can be.

The world is waiting to be explored and influenced. Why not be the ones who explore and influence? There is nothing but our imaginations keeping us from these goals. All we need to do is be all that we can be and take a step."

Thank you Russell.  Know that you are not the only one stepping forward, and may many more join us in the years to follow.

Reflections on an "Applied Ethics" reading: Passive Morality

In my Applied Ethics course, taught by the illustrious Prof. Karla Pierce, we recently read two short pieces, an essay by Alice Walker entitled "Am I Blue?" and an excerpt from Ted Kerasote's Bloodties. Both stories dealt with the issues of animal rights and welfare, with Walker's piece describing her relationship with a neighbor's horse and how its life paralleled that of the enslaved, and Kerasote's discussing the experience of hunting, and how he turned to it as an alternative to "supermarket vegetarianism" due to the vast numbers of animals killed as a byproduct of our industrialized farming techniques. While the pieces served to lead our class into a discussion of the Moral Community and who or what is and should be a part of it, it led me to ponder once more the issue of our passive morality...

Every action we take has consequences.

Let me clarify that: every action we take has moral consequences.

What we eat, what we wear, how we travel, how we are entertained, where we live, how we decorate, where we work, what we buy and where we buy it; the list could go on for pages. We are a social species, and today the influence of our actions – particularly for those of us living in first world nations – extends globally. If our goal is to live the best life possible, the most fulfilling and morally just life, then we cannot ignore these things. We must consider them. But finding, and more importantly doing, the right thing is no simple task.

            These are not the great, blatant issues of active morality. This is not the case of whether or not to get an abortion, to react violently to some offense, whether or not to stop at a wrecked car or rush to save a child from a runaway vehicle; these are not issues wherein the results of our action or inaction are clear. These are issues of passive morality, where the deep running consequences of our day to day actions must be studied and pondered if we are to understand them.

            Let’s just take one’s diet for example. One of the most common changes people make to their passive lives in the interest of greater ethical living is becoming vegetarian. Recognizing that the sanctity of life extends to the rest of the animal kingdom, appreciating that even animals have feelings and emotions and desires, many choose to stop eating meat entirely; and it’s not as difficult as some might think. Nearly every restaurant today has some meatless alternative other than salad, and most every supermarket has a variety of tofu, tempeh, and other healthy alternatives to meats.

            But wait: what about the thousands of animals – rabbits, mice, baby birds, snakes – caught up and slaughtered in the massive combines of industrial farms; the road kill littering highways upon which the trucks transport crops; the exhaust of those trucks; the insecticide and fertilizer pouring into our waterways; the indentured servant farmers of poor countries where many crops are imported from. Okay, maybe you could buy only locally produced organic food… but that can be ridiculously expensive, require a lot of time researching and shopping, and may not even be a possibility depending on where you live! And what about eating out? What then?

            This is just in regards to whether or not to eat animals. When we return to the above list of passive moral decisions we can quickly see everything gets more and more complicated and difficult with further consideration.  For someone to perform every passive action of his life to the highest degree of morality, he would have to begin independently wealthy and then devote his life to researching and studying where things come from and how everything is affected. And even then, even then, what good would he be truly doing for the world? What talents would he share, what causes could he fight for, if he had to spend so much time working to do everything else justly?

            The implications are daunting. The impossibility of it all is enough to drive us to throwing our hands in the air and walking away, claiming that we might as well just forget about it and get on with our lives. Problem is, we can’t. Ignorance can’t be restored, and once we recognize that our every action has a moral consequence, to do nothing will slowly but surely eat away at us from the inside.

            So the solution? Do something. Maybe you don’t always eat vegetarian, or buy organic or locally produced food, but sometimes you do. Maybe you don’t always take where your clothes come from into account when shopping, but sometimes you do. Maybe you don’t always walk, ride a bike, or use public transportation instead of driving, but sometimes you do. If we expect ourselves to do everything, we will always fail. But if we do something, anything, to adjust our lives then we will know that we have not given up.

            I know I’ve said all of this before, but I’m saying it again because it truly is important.

            No, doing some things sometimes won’t make any big difference in the world. And yes, if everyone did some things sometimes it would. But that’s not the point.

            The point is to live the best possible life you can live, and part of that is making the decision to do right. And doing right isn’t about being perfect. It’s about being aware. It’s not about making a difference in the world. It’s about making a difference in your world. It’s about not giving up.

I can’t do everything, but goddamit you better bet your ass I’m gonna do something. 

I can only hope you'll join me.

The Education of Human Emotions

The following is an essay I wrote for my Humanities Forum (Philosophy in Television Series) class. It is in response to Dr. Carl Colavito's prompt, "How can emotions be educated or governed?"

Human feelings and emotions, in and of themselves, are natural and can neither be learned nor taught. Even our fundamental expression of these emotions are ubiquitous across vastly different cultures, as has been proven through various experiments in which individuals across the world recognize the emotion corresponding with facial expressions likewise gathered from a variety of cultures. Most probably, emotions are a product of our human evolution, originally and in many cases still serving to aid our survival as a species. Fear and anger aid our defense against that which may cause us harm, such as precarious ledges or natural enemies; happiness and joy encourage us to partake in those things which aid our survival, such as food and intercourse; and compassion, empathy, and love allow us to form bonds with others, aiding our develop into a supportive community in which people come to the aid of others. Over time, however, as we have created a great many stimuli unrelated to our direct survival we have exhibited an emotional reaction to such things, independent of our own survival needs. These types of triggers, as well as which emotion is consequentially felt, its intensity, and how it is expressed, are most certainly both learned and taught.

            The greatest educator of all is experience. The ways in which others react to our actions, achievements, and failures – particularly doing our youth – have a pivotal effect upon our learned emotional response to future such replications of behavior. The child who receives praise and support from his or her parents, teachers and/or peers upon receipt of a good grade on a school assignment will most likely develop a positive emotional reaction to future such grades. Conversely, a child who is in someway ridiculed for achieving high marks in school, perhaps by teasing from friends or family, will most likely develop a negative emotional reaction to achieving high grades. In other words, one child may feel proud and happy from an “A” grade, while another child upon receipt of the same grade may feel scared, ashamed, or embarrassed. This emotional reaction is not the product of evolution but rather the product of environmental education.

            In addition to emotional reactions, we are also taught throughout life the intensity and means by which we express our emotions. These elements, combined with our degree of empathy for others, comprise what psychologists Peter Salovey and John Mayer called emotional intelligence. After their development of the theory of emotional intelligence, and its subsequent popularization via the New York Times, a debate arose regarding whether or not emotional intelligence should be taught in schools. It’s important to note that the debate was not whether or not emotional intelligence could be formally taught, but rather whether or not it should be.

            Regardless of the aspect of emotional intelligence being examined, a conscious education of it would prove difficult to effectively achieve by others. The best way to “educate” an individual’s emotions would be through conditioning, as earlier described. By triggering or rewarding desired emotional expression one could attempt to teach certain emotional behavior. Individuals, however, cannot simply experience an emotion at will. It must be triggered, which means the educator of emotions would need to be always present so that the proper conditioning could occur at every applicable moment. In addition, the means of conditioning itself could prove counterproductive, as individuals may have already learned to have a negative emotional reaction to praise or some other form of reward.

            Can our emotions be trained or governed by others? Absolutely. The best way to achieve an enhanced emotional intelligence, however, is by self education. By examining when and how our emotions are triggered as well as the intensity of those emotions and in what ways we express them, and comparing these things to that which we most desire or the ways we believe we ought to be, we can begin to make adjustments to our emotional behavior. In addition, by becoming aware of the ways in which our emotions are trained - by the conditioning from other people in our lives and from the messages present in media and popular culture - we can choose which “lessons” of emotion we embrace, and which we reject. Only by becoming aware of these subconscious stimuli can we engage in the act of true emotional self education. It is due to this that when it comes to the education of others, the most effective means is not through active conditioning, but rather the encouragement of such reflection combined with the examination of what emotional behaviors and reactions are the best possible ones to exhibit.  

"Rally High" -- SE YOU Summer Connections 2008

The following was the first true speaking engagement I ever had. It was at a week long Youth of Unity (the teen program within my church) retreat where I served as a guest sponsor and speaker.



Watch "Rally High" @ SE Y.O.U. Summer Connections 2008 in Faith & Lifestyle  |  View More Free Videos Online at Veoh.com


Special thanks to Bob Briscoe and the Panama City Chapter!

Rally High by Garrett McLain is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 Unported License.