Reflections on emotional intelligence as a spiritual practice — the slow work of self-awareness, staying present to others, and growing whole from the inside out. These posts explore where EQ and the contemplative life meet

The Shadow Nobody Wants to Lead With

/0 Comments/in , , /by

The Shadow Nobody Wants to Lead With

I was dragging for years and calling it leadership.

We spent eight months preparing before Varment Guard opened its doors. Permits, trucks, equipment, the thousand small decisions nobody tells you about. And at some point in there I had four words put above the door where every person who worked for us would walk under them.

Failure is not an option.

I believed it. I still believe some of it. That sentence built a company that eventually employed hundreds of people, and I am not going to stand here at seventy-four and pretend it was a mistake. It worked.

But I have been thinking lately about what a sentence like that cannot admit, and about who pays for the part it leaves out.

What the shadow actually is

Richard Rohr has a line that has been following me around for a couple of years now: what we do not transform, we will transmit. He is talking about pain, mostly. But I have come to think it is just as true of the parts of ourselves we have never looked at directly — and that a leader transmits those at a volume nobody else in the building can match.

That is what the shadow is. Not the evil in us. The denied part. The material we have decided is not us, which goes on operating anyway, from underneath, with all the force of something that has never been questioned.

And here is the thing about shadow in leadership specifically. It does not usually show up as the obvious vice. It shows up disguised as your greatest strength, running past the point where the strength was useful.

Drive becomes a refusal to let anyone move at their own pace.

Decisiveness becomes an allergy to being slowed down by someone else’s thinking.

Protectiveness — and this one is mine — becomes the conviction that you are the only one who can carry it, which is not actually protection. It is a failure to trust the people you hired.

The ceiling I painted

Failure is not an option is a fine thing to say when you are eight months from opening and everything is uncertain. It is a different thing entirely when it becomes the air a hundred people breathe. Because what the people underneath that sentence hear is not courage. What they hear is: there is no room here to be struggling. No room to say the route is wrong, the schedule is impossible, I am in over my head, my marriage is coming apart and I cannot give you another sixty-hour week.

I thought I had painted a standard above that door. I had also painted a ceiling.

There are relationships from those years that are painful for me to think about now.

My drive was not fair to the people in the room. I harmed them. I am not going to dress that up or soften it into a lesson. I was not a monster — I was something more ordinary and more common, which is a man who mistook his own urgency for the right thing, and who ran people over while believing he was carrying them.

Most of them have gone on to successful lives in spite of me. That is the phrase that costs me. Not because of the hard training I thought I was giving them. In spite of me.

A few are still bitter. I understand why.

You cannot drag people

What I learned, far later than I should have, is the thing Jim Collins spent a book establishing: you cannot drag people along by sheer force of will. Collins went looking for what turned good companies into great ones and found that the leaders who did it were not the force-of-will personalities. They paired ferocious professional resolve with genuine personal humility — Level 5, he called it — and the magnetic, driving celebrity CEO turned up mostly in the comparison companies, the ones that did not make the leap. He put the sequence plainly too: first who, then what. The right people do not need to be dragged.

And if you are dragging, that is information about you. Not about them.

I was dragging for years and calling it leadership.

Why I keep teaching the Enneagram

This is where the Enneagram earns its keep for me, and why I keep teaching it to people who come in thinking it is a personality quiz.

The Enneagram is not fundamentally a description of how you behave. It is a description of what you are defending against, and the strategy you built so young that it stopped feeling like a strategy. Each type has a passion — the old tradition called them deadly sins, which overstates it — and the passion is precisely the engine that runs in the dark. For the Eight it is intensity, excess, too-muchness: the conviction that more force is always the answer, because force is what kept me safe once.

Nobody wakes up and decides to lead from their passion. That is the point. It is operating before you are awake.

And the instincts underneath — whether you are organized around self-preservation, around the social field, around the intensity of one-to-one connection — determine where that passion shows up first and most destructively. A self-preservation Eight hoards control over resources. A social Eight makes everything a question of loyalty to the group. These are not abstractions. They are Tuesday afternoon, in a meeting, in the thing you said that landed harder than you intended.

What the Enneagram gives a leader is not insight. Insight is cheap and most of us have plenty. It gives you a place to look before the damage, and a vocabulary for the thing you are about to do again.

Management with a title on it

Which brings me to what I actually want to say.

There is a kind of leadership that is competent, organized, well-reviewed, and entirely unexamined. The budgets balance. The people stay, mostly. The metrics are fine. And underneath it the leader is transmitting something they have never looked at — a fear, a hunger, an old wound in a good suit — and everyone in the organization is arranging themselves around it without ever being able to name what they are arranging themselves around.

That is not leadership. That is management with a title on it.

The difference is not charisma or vision or any of the words we put on the job posting. The difference is whether a person has done the work of meeting the part of themselves they would rather not meet, and keeps doing it, because it does not stay done.

Rohr’s point about transmission is the whole case for shadow work in a practical, unsentimental, bottom-line sense. You are going to transmit something. That is not optional. The only question on the table is whether you have looked at what you are sending.

The Strength That Went To Far Reflection Sheet

The door

I think about that door a lot now.

If I were painting it today, I would not take the words down. They were true about the work. We were building something that genuinely could not afford to fail, and saying so out loud was honest.

But I would want the people walking under it to know the rest of the sentence — the part I was not able to say then, because I had not met it yet. That failure was not an option for the company, and that this was never the same thing as there being no room to be human underneath it. That I was more afraid than I let anyone see. That the force I was leading with came from somewhere, and I had not yet asked where.

I would want to have known, standing there with the paint still wet, that what would cost us most was never going to be a bad quarter.

It was going to be the part of me I had decided was not worth examining, operating at full strength, for twenty years, over the heads of everyone walking through that door.

Peace and every good.

 

About Jim & Lynette Vaive

Jim and Lynette Vaive are the co-founders of spirit of EQ and co-authors of The Mystical Seeker. They are Master Certified Coaches, certified Narrative Enneagram teachers, and Certified Spiritual Directors. Together they hold credentials in Spiritual Emotional Intelligence (SEQ) — a framework rooted in Lynette’s Doctor of Ministry research — and serve individuals, small groups, and organizations across faith traditions. Learn more at spiritofeq.com.

Sources

Richard Rohr on the shadow and on transformation — a recurring theme across his work, developed at length in Immortal Diamond (2013) and Falling Upward (2011).

Jim Collins, Good to Great (2001) — Level 5 Leadership and “first who, then what.”

The Circles You Didn’t Know You Were Drawing

/0 Comments/in , /by

Closeness has a shape, and most of us were never taught it.

There is a moment that happens in my work more often than any other, and it usually arrives early. Someone sits down, we exchange the ordinary opening courtesies, and then — twelve, fifteen minutes in — they hand me something enormous. A marriage that is failing. A diagnosis. A thing they did in 1987 they have never said out loud. It comes out in a rush, and when it is finished there is a particular silence while they wait to see what I am going to do with it.

In that room, it is the right thing. That is what the room is for.

What concerns me is what I hear next, which is that the same thing happened on Tuesday with someone at work.

People tell me this about themselves without quite hearing what they are telling me. They say it lightly: I’m an open book, I don’t really have a filter, I just say what I think. It is offered as a virtue, and in a sense it is one. These are not calculating people, and I would rather sit with them than with someone who has never let anything slip in their life. But then I ask how it tends to go, and the stories come out, and they are not good stories.

They go wrong in three ways, and it is worth separating them, because they are not the same problem.

The first is the one everyone braces for: someone takes what you gave them and uses it. Not always with malice — sometimes it is repeated in a meeting as context, or passed to a third person as concern — but the effect is that something you said in one register is now operating in another, where it can be held against you. This is the rarest of the three.

The second is more common and gets talked about less. The information is not weaponized; it is simply misread. You said you were struggling, and what got filed away was unstable. You said the marriage was hard, and what they carry now is she’s leaving him. Nothing was done with it. It sat in someone else’s head and finished itself in a shape you did not choose.

The third is the quietest and the most costly. You tell someone something large, and they hear it as an announcement of intimacy. You were overflowing. They understood it as being chosen. Now there is a closeness on the table that one of you believes in and the other does not, and that asymmetry has to go somewhere. Usually it becomes disappointment, and the disappointment lands on you, and you cannot work out what you did.

None of these are failures of honesty. Every one of them is a failure of proportion.

The contemplative tradition saw this early. John Cassian, writing in the fifth century about what he had learned from the desert monastics, called it discretio — discretion — and he did not mean keeping quiet. He meant the capacity to judge rightly what a particular moment asks for. He ranked it above the more dramatic virtues, above fasting and vigils, because those could all be practiced to excess and do harm, and discretion was the thing that knew how much. It is not a rule about secrets. It is a sense of measure.

What I could not find anywhere was a way to put that in front of someone in thirty seconds. So I built one. This is my own model, worked out over about twenty-five years — with clients, in direction, and on myself — and refined every time it turned out to be wrong.

The Circles of Disclosure.

(NOTE–If you would like the Diagram, let me know.)

You are the whole field. Everyone in your life sits somewhere inside it, and how much of yourself you hand over changes with the distance from the center. The percentages are approximate; nobody is doing arithmetic in a hallway. They are there to give you something to feel for.

The Whole Self — 100%. At the center, your number one person. A spouse, a partner, whoever that one is. This is where you bring all of it: body, mind, emotions, spirit. Not a report on those things — the things themselves, including the parts you have not finished figuring out. You do not have to arrive at understanding before you speak. You can say it while it is still shapeless and be received anyway. I want to be plain about this, because it is the center of everything else on the page: you cannot do this with everyone, and attempting it will fail. Not might. Will. The whole self is more than any other circle is built to hold, and handing it to a circle that cannot carry it does not create closeness — it creates damage, usually to you. Most people have one such person. Some have none, and that is its own grief, worth naming rather than working around.

The Trusted Few — 75%. Children, parents, a confidant or two. Real struggles and doubts go here, with one difference that matters: once you have sat with them yourself. The distinction is not how much you say, it is whether you are talking with someone or at them. A grown child can carry the fact that you are frightened about something. They should not be the place where you first discover it.

And notice what has already happened by this ring. The whole self does not travel outward. It stops at the center. Everything from here on is a portion — a real portion, chosen and offered, but a portion — and that is not a loss or a compromise. It is what these relationships are for. The mistake people make is assuming that if they love someone enough, or trust them enough, the center should expand to include them. It does not work that way. The interior ring is interior because it is the only one built to hold all of you, and the moment you try to widen it, you have not made two people closer; you have only moved the weight somewhere it cannot be carried.

The Companions — 50%. People who know the shape of your life, who would recognize your handwriting and your worst habits. What you are working through goes here, but not the raw middle of it. Not the three-in-the-morning version. This is where you can be honest that something is hard without handing over the whole weight of it, and most real friendship lives at exactly this depth. It is not a lesser closeness. It is a different one.

The Daily Company — 25%. Colleagues, neighbors, the people you see constantly and know slightly. Facts and plans. Feelings in passing, if at all. You can say the week has been rough; you do not have to say why. There is a version of this that becomes armor, and that is not what I am describing — an office where nobody says anything real is its own kind of sick. But most of the damage I hear about here came from a mistaken register, not from excess warmth.

The Crowd — 5%. Strangers, anyone you have just met, and anything you post. Pleasantries and surface detail. Nothing you would mind being repeated, because it may be, and you will not be there when it is.

Circles of Disclosure Reflection Sheet

Here is what it looks like when the first circle’s contents land in the fourth.

Something has gone badly at home. You have not slept. On Monday a colleague you like well enough asks how your weekend was — a Daily Company question, asked in that register, expecting a Daily Company answer. And instead of rough, but fine, the true thing comes out: the marriage is in trouble, you are frightened, you do not know what happens next.

Watch what follows. They have nowhere to put it. They were making conversation and now they are holding something they did not ask for and cannot hand back. Whatever they say next will be inadequate, because the register they were standing in has no adequate response available — and you will feel that inadequacy as rejection, on top of everything else. Then they adjust. More careful around you, or more solicitous, either one a small distance where there wasn’t one. It travels a little, mentioned to one other person as genuine concern. And here is the part that costs the most: by Thursday you have come up for air. The information has not. It is still Monday morning in their head, and the version of you they are now working from is the worst hour of your year, frozen, with no way for you to go back and update it.

Nobody did anything wrong. The content was true. It was simply put in a circle not built to hold it.

Which brings me back to that room, and the silence after something has been set down.

What I listen for is not whether someone has told me too much; the room can hold it. I listen for whether the telling was aimed — whether this was said to me, here, for a reason, or whether it is simply what comes out of them now, in every room, to whoever is sitting there. Because if it is the second, the thing that looks like openness is doing something else. It is not connection. It is spillage. And spillage does not create intimacy; it only looks like it from the inside, for about an hour.

Most of the trouble comes from a mismatch — handing a Daily Company person something that belonged at the center, or holding back from the center what they had every right to hear. The first kind usually costs more, because what you said keeps travelling after you have stopped talking. Where the rings sit, and who belongs in each, is yours to work out.

Peace and every good.

——————————————————

About Jim & Lynette Vaive

Jim and Lynette Vaive are the co-founders of spirit of EQ and co-authors of The Mystical Seeker. They are Master Certified Coaches, certified Narrative Enneagram teachers, and Certified Spiritual Directors, and together they hold credentials in Spiritual Emotional Intelligence (SEQ) — a framework rooted in Lynette’s Doctor of Ministry research. Learn more at spiritofeq.com.

Sources

John Cassian on discretion as the governing virtue — Conferences, Conference II (“On Discretion”), c. 426. Cited as context for the problem, not as a source for the Circles of Disclosure model, which is the author’s own.

 

Intent Verses Impact and Its Causes

/0 Comments/in , , /by

Impact vs. Intention

Why “I didn’t mean it that way” is almost always true — and almost never the point.

There is a sentence almost every one of us has said, usually with real feeling, usually while something in the room is going badly: I didn’t mean it that way. It is usually true. And it almost never helps.

The gap is built into us

This is something we have all experienced; it is standard human equipment. The actor–observer bias means I explain my own behavior by my circumstances — the pressure, the fatigue, the good intention I started with — while I explain yours by your character, even though I don’t know what is inside of you. (actor–observer bias). I am late because the meeting ran long. You are late because you are the kind of person who is late.

Layered on top of all of this is the illusion of transparency — we badly overestimate how clearly others can read what we are thinking (illusion of transparency). I know my short reply was a joke. I know my silence meant I was thinking, not disapproving. I know it so vividly that it feels broadcast. It is not broadcast. They received the words, or the tone, or the silence. They did not receive the intention behind it. They never do. Ever.

I want to say this part gently, Intention is not meaningless — it is the difference between a mistake and a cruelty. But intention is a fact about me, and impact is a fact about you. The error is offering a fact about myself as though it settled a question about someone else. Your foot still hurts.

The zinger I was proud of

I was co-leading a group of about twenty-five people with a friend. We were both sarcastic and both good at it — that was part of how we worked together. It had always been play.

She landed a zinger on me. I fired one right back, and I will be honest: I thought it was world class.

And she started to cry.

In that half second everything I had meant by it evaporated. It did not matter that it was a joke, or that she had gone first, or that this was how we always talked. What I intended never made it across the room. What landed was something else entirely, and I could see it on her face in front of twenty-five people.

So, I stopped the meeting and apologized to her out loud, in front of everyone who had just watched it happen. I have not done it since.

And I try very hard not to use sarcasm; you see sarcasm is a sharpened instrument. I had been telling myself I was using it well. I was just using it on people.

What repairs

Roy Lewicki and his colleagues at Ohio State tested the six components of an apology to see which ones truly land. The two most effective were acknowledgment of responsibility — this is my fault — and the offer of repair — here is what I will do about it. The least effective, in both studies, was the request for forgiveness (Ohio State, 2016).

That is worth sitting with, because the weakest element is the one most of us lean on hardest. “I’m so sorry. I really didn’t mean it. Are we okay?” Listen to the shape of what I just wrote, my feeling, my intention, and then a request that the person I hurt do something for me — reassure me, release me, restore me to being a good person. It is an apology organized around the comfort of the apologizer. What the injured person needs is simpler and harder: own it and fix it.

Restorative justice has been built on that shape for decades. Since I did Kairos prison ministry for decades, I know a little about this. Rather than asking what rule was broken and what the offender deserves, it asks: who was harmed, what do they need, and whose obligation is it to make it right — not one of which is a question about what anybody meant. And it is not soft. A 2025 meta-analysis finds restorative approaches produce modest but highly cost-effective reductions in reoffending, significantly higher satisfaction among those harmed, and greater accountability from those who caused it (Criminology & Criminal Justice). Centering impact is not merely kinder. It works better.

The repair that stayed with me

Years later I was on the other side of it. A man who I will call George W. came to me and apologized. A situation had gone badly because of choices George made, and those choices had landed on me.

What hurt was not only the outcome. It was that he had decided who I was — and decided wrong. George acted on a version of me that did not exist, and I had to live inside the consequences of a story about me that was not true.

When George apologized, he did not explain. He did not walk me through his reasoning or ask me to understand the pressure he had been under. He named what he had done, he named that it had hurt me, and he did not ask me to make him feel better about it.

It did not undo everything. We never got along well after that. But something in me softened that had been hard a long time. Being seen accurately at last, by the person who had gotten me wrong — that was the repair.

Intent Verses Impact Reflection Sheet

What love asks

In emotional intelligence terms this is a trainable skill, one that we in the west are so to acknowledge and it is not the same as being nice: the ability to hold what I meant and what landed at the same time, without collapsing either. Most of us can only hold the first, so the moment impact is raised we defend intention, and the conversation quietly becomes about whether I am a good person instead of what happened to you. The practice is small and genuinely hard. Do not explain yet. Ask — “tell me more about how that hit you” — and stay in it longer than is comfortable. Then own your part, with no but anywhere in the sentence, and ask what would help.

The contemplative tradition arrived here long before the research did. The first act of love, said Abba Poemen, is to leave the other person free — and part of what we must leave free is their account of their own experience. I do not get to tell you that what happened to you did not happen, simply because I would prefer to be the kind of person who did not cause it. That is why this is spiritual work and not a communication technique: centering impact means giving up the story in which I am the good guy, and that takes a true strength to survive being wrong.

I did not mean it that way. Almost none of us ever do. The question is what I do in the next thirty seconds, once I know.

Peace and every good.

 

About Jim & Lynette Vaive

Jim and Lynette Vaive are the co-founders of spirit of EQ and co-authors of The Mystical Seeker. They are Master Certified Coaches, certified Narrative Enneagram teachers, and Certified Spiritual Directors, and together they hold credentials in Spiritual Emotional Intelligence (SEQ) — a framework rooted in Lynette’s Doctor of Ministry research. Learn more at spiritofeq.com.

Sources

Ohio State University — the six elements of an effective apology (Lewicki et al., 2016): news.osu.edu

Actor–observer bias: EBSCO  ·  Illusion of transparency: overview

Meta-analysis of restorative justice outcomes (2025): Criminology & Criminal Justice

When Matter Becomes Prayer

/0 Comments/in , , /by

When Matter Becomes Prayer

A companion to Thin Places — because the holy ground may be in your hands.

Last time I said the thinnest ground you will ever stand on is probably within a mile of your bed. Here is the next turn of that same screw: it may be closer than that. It may be in your hands.

Most of us were handed a quiet assumption somewhere along the way — that the spiritual life is the part of life that is not physical. Prayer happens with eyes closed. Holiness happens in sanctuaries, or at least in silence. Everything else — the dishes, the commute, the sanding of a board, the chopping of an onion — is the ordinary stuff you get through in order to arrive at the real thing. It is the life we have, right? It is also, according to nearly every contemplative who ever lived, exactly backwards.

The monk in the kitchen

In the 1600s a Carmelite lay brother named Lawrence, whom I love, was assigned to the monastery kitchen, work he did not particularly want. He spent decades there among the pots and pans, and what he discovered became one of the most beloved little books in Christian spirituality. He said he felt as close to God with his hands in the dishwater as he did kneeling at the altar. He put it with a kind of homely joy that still disarms people four hundred years later: “I turn my little omelet in the pan for the love of God” (The Practice of the Presence of God).

Notice what he is not saying. He is not saying he thought holy thoughts while cooking, using the omelet as background noise for a more important interior event. He is saying the turning of the omelet was the prayer. The egg, the pan, the wrist, the attention — all of it, offered. Matter became prayer in his hands, and he did not have to leave the kitchen to find God, because God had not left the kitchen either.

The most material faith there is

There is real theology under all of this, not just a nice sentiment. Christianity makes an almost scandalous claim about matter, that God took a body. “The Word became flesh” (John 1:14) — not became an idea, or a feeling, or a philosophy. Flesh. And ever since, the central rites of the faith have been stubbornly physical: bread, wine, water, oil, hands laid on a head. A sacrament, as the old definition has it, is an outward and visible sign of an inward and invisible grace. Which is to say the material world is not a distraction from the spiritual one. It is the way the spiritual one reaches us.

Teilhard de Chardin, the Jesuit who spent his life with his hands in actual dirt as a paleontologist, said it as plainly as anyone has: “By virtue of Creation, and still more the Incarnation, nothing here below is profane for those who know how to see” (The Divine Milieu). Nothing here below. Not the sink, not the garage, not the body, not the work.

Running in the grey mist

I used to run marathons. Really — I did. I was never a world-class runner, not close, but I did all right.

I would lace up in the dark and get out on the road while the grey mist still hung over the street in the early twilight. And there were mornings when I stood there stretching and thought, I am not in a place mentally to run today. Some days I went anyway, for no better reason than that one foot could go in front of the other.

And then something would happen. A mile or two in, a rhythm would find me — breath and stride and pavement all arriving at the same time — and I would smooth out. The effort did not disappear. It changed, simple.

And then, in that rhythm, came the moment. I touched something. You know what I mean, don’t you? All was right with the world, and I was not running anymore. I was communing. I had no language for it then. I would call it prayer now.

How we learned to split them

If this is true, why does it feel so unfamiliar? Two reasons, and they come from opposite directions.

The first is old. There has always been an impulse in religion to treat spirit as high and matter as low — to assume the body is a problem to be managed and the material world a waiting room for something better. It is an ancient instinct and the church has flirted with it for centuries, but the Incarnation keeps embarrassing it. You cannot build a faith around God taking on flesh and then quietly teach that flesh does not matter.

The second reason is new, and it is the machine I have written about before. A culture organized around output does not want your attention on the onion. It wants the onion chopped fast so you can get to the next thing, ideally while listening to something that makes you more productive. Hurry makes matter mute. Not because the dishes stopped being holy, but because nobody is home while they are being washed.

Who sweeps a room

The practical tradition here is wonderfully unglamorous. George Herbert, who wrote in 1633, put it in two lines that have outlived nearly everything else he said: “Who sweeps a room, as for thy laws, makes that and th’ action fine.” The Hebridean households I wrote about in the last piece blessed the kindling of the fire and the milking of the cow. Jewish practice has a blessing for bread, for wine, for the body working as it should. None of these are poetic decoration laid over ordinary life. They are claims about what ordinary life already is.

The book on my father’s kitchen island

My father died. And when my brother and I went to clean out the house, we found the book he had been reading at the end: Chop Wood, Carry Water.

My father was not a religious man. He had no use for church and did not talk about his soul. So why was he reading that? I never found out. There was no one left to ask, and I have made a kind of peace with never having the answer.

But I read the book, it changed my life. Its whole argument is that the spiritual path is not somewhere else — it is in the chopping and the carrying, in the office and the kitchen and the ordinary hours. Living here, now, is what matters most. The end of my life will take care of itself, won’t it?

I still do not know what my father found in those pages. I know what I found. And I know he handed it to me without ever meaning to.

There is one more thing I only learned later. That book, published in 1984, is sometimes credited with almost single-handedly creating the modern literature on finding the sacred in ordinary work. My father — who had no use for organized religion — died with the founding text of the thing I would spend the rest of my life trying to understand sitting on the kitchen island. I have never known what to do with that, except be grateful.

When Matter Becomes Prayer Reflection Sheet

Matter does not become prayer. We do.

I titled this blog “When Matter Becomes Prayer,” and now I want to take part of it back. Matter does not actually become prayer at some point, as though a bowl of soup were inert until the right thoughts were applied to it. In the last piece I wondered whether the veil is thin everywhere and we are the thick ones. The same correction belongs here. The onion was always the handiwork of God. The water was always water of baptism, in its way. What changes is not the matter. What changes is whether anyone is present to it.

Attention, then, is the thing we actually bring. Not belief, not feeling, not the right words — attention. Simone Weil said that absolutely unmixed attention is prayer, and anyone who has ever lost themselves in making something with their hands knows the truth of it from the inside, whether or not they would have called it prayer at the time.

Practices for hands

Do one thing at a time, with your whole self, and let that be enough. Make something with your hands this week — bread, a repair, a meal, a line of paint — and do not listen to anything while you do it. Eat one meal slowly enough to taste it. Bless the thing in front of you, out loud if you can stand it. And when words will not come, which happens to all of us eventually, let the body pray instead: walk, dig, cook, hold a hand. The body has been praying since long before you had language, and it has not forgotten how.

Brother Lawrence stayed in that kitchen the rest of his life. He is not remembered for a system or a doctrine. He is remembered because he discovered that the distance between the sink and the sanctuary was a distance he had invented, and once he stopped defending it, God was simply there — in the pan, in the water, in the hands.

Your hands are already in the water. That was never the obstacle. It was the invitation.

Peace and every good.

 

About Jim & Lynette Vaive

Jim and Lynette Vaive are the co-founders of spirit of EQ and co-authors of The Mystical Seeker. They are Master Certified Coaches, certified Narrative Enneagram teachers, and Certified Spiritual Directors, and together they hold credentials in Spiritual Emotional Intelligence (SEQ) — a framework rooted in Lynette’s Doctor of Ministry research. Learn more at spiritofeq.com.

Sources

Brother Lawrence — The Practice of the Presence of God: overview

Pierre Teilhard de Chardin — The Divine Milieu, “nothing here below is profane”: Center for Action and Contemplation

Rick Fields et al. — Chop Wood, Carry Water (1984).

George Herbert, “The Elixir” (1633); John 1:14; Simone Weil on attention.

THE BRIDGE BETWEEN US PART TWO OF TWO

/0 Comments/in , , /by

The Bridge Between Us

What changes when you stop expecting people to meet the world the way you do.

Picture three people around a table with a hard problem in front of them. One wants to slow down and think it through — get the facts straight, see the whole picture. One keeps scanning the faces, quietly asking whether everyone is all right. The third is already halfway out of the chair, ready to do something about it. Within ten minutes all three are frustrated with each other. Each is convinced the others are missing the point.

They are not, in fact, disagreeing about the problem. They are speaking three different first languages.

In Part One we looked at the three Centers of Intelligence — Head, Heart, and Body — and at the first connection, the one within: noticing your home center and gently inviting the quieter ones to the table. This is the second connection, and in some ways the harder one. It is the bridge between us.

We mistake another center’s gift for a flaw

Here is the trouble. Each center, seen from inside, feels like plain good sense. Seen from another center, it can look like a defect. The head-led person, doing exactly what the head does best, can read as cold, detached, slow to commit. The heart-led person, doing exactly what the heart does best, can read as dramatic, over-involved, too much. The body-led person, doing exactly what the body does best, can read as blunt, impulsive, steamrolling.

None of those are character failures. They are intelligences doing their work — and being judged in a language they do not speak. An enormous amount of what we call a personality conflict is really a translation problem.

Three questions, all of them legitimate

Underneath, each center is asking a different question, and each question deserves an answer.

The Head asks: Does this make sense? The Heart asks: Are we okay? The Body asks: What are we going to do?

Most conflicts are three people answering three different questions and assuming everyone is answering theirs. And when only one question gets honored — usually the loudest, or the one belonging to whoever holds the power — somebody leaves that room unseen. Not disagreed with. Unseen. Those are different wounds, and the second one lasts longer.

The people I thought were moving too slowly

For years I got so frustrated with everyone around me. They moved so slowly. I would be three steps ahead, already seeing where this was going, already wanting to move — and the room would still be talking. I would sit there thinking, we could have done this by now.

And here is the part I have to say plainly: I was not wrong about the big picture. I did see it clearly, and I saw it fast. That was real, and it was a gift.

But being right about the big picture made me deaf to everything else in the room. While I was waiting for people to catch up, they were making points that mattered — about how a decision would land on someone, about what we had not thought through, about who would be affected. I missed them. Not because they were not said, but because I had already decided the conversation was slow rather than deep. What I called impatience was really me refusing to learn anyone else’s language.

Empathy is not agreement

This is where emotional intelligence stops being a concept and becomes a discipline. Empathy is not agreeing, and it is not being nice. It is the deliberate work of entering another person’s experience before responding to it — of asking what question they are actually asking, and answering that one first. You can do this without surrendering your own center. In fact you can only do it well from your own center, grounded enough to lean toward someone without losing your footing.

The old image for this is still the best one. Paul wrote to a fractured community that the body has many members, and that the eye cannot say to the hand, “I have no need of you” (1 Corinthians 12). Read that with the centers in mind and it lands differently. A family, a team, a church that honors only one intelligence is a body missing limbs. It will be clever and cold, or warm and directionless, or busy and unreflective — and it will keep wondering why it cannot quite get where it wants to go.

Three-centered justice

This is a large part of why we have been drawn more and more toward restorative justice. Restorative justice does something deceptively simple: it changes the questions. Conventional justice asks what rule was broken, who broke it, and what they deserve. Restorative justice asks instead: who has been harmed, what do they need, and whose obligation is it to make things right (Howard Zehr, Changing Lenses, 1990).

Sit with those three questions for a moment. Who was harmed is a Head question — it asks for truth, clearly seen. What do they needis a Heart question — it asks us to feel our way into another’s experience. Whose obligation is it is a Body question — it asks somebody to actually move. Restorative justice, at its best, is three-centered justice. It refuses to let us settle for a truth that costs us nothing, a sympathy that changes nothing, or an action taken without understanding.

And it asks for exactly the capacity the centers teach: the ability to see a person who is not like you as fully, stubbornly real. Almost all harm begins where someone has been reduced — to a caricature, a category, a nuisance, a threat. Repair begins the moment we can finally hear the question they were asking all along.

When I was the one doing the harm

I have to tell a harder piece of this. There were times I hurt people — not by accident, and not because I meant to. I was so certain I was right that I used what I had to get traction: my size, my presence, the force of my personality. I could fill a room. And when I did, people got quiet.

I told myself I was moving things forward. I was not. I was shutting down the very forward motion that would have served the whole room instead of just me. The ideas that needed air did not get it. The objections that should have slowed me down never got said out loud. People did not change their minds; they just stopped offering them.

It took me a long time to see that clearly, and longer to sit with it without flinching. Those are the three questions I now have to ask of myself before I ask them of anyone else: Who was harmed? What do they need? And whose obligation is it to make it right? The answer to that last one, in those rooms, was mine.

The Bride Between Us Reflection Guide

Practicing the bridge

The practice is small and surprisingly hard. Before you react, translate. Notice which center you are standing in, and then ask yourself what question the other person is really asking. If they need to know the plan makes sense, give them the reasoning before the reassurance. If they need to know you are okay with them, say that before you present your logic. If they need to know something is actually going to happen, name the next step. You are not managing them. You are refusing to make them come all the way over to your side of the bridge to be understood.

Do that often enough, in a marriage or a team or a community trying to repair real harm, and something quietly changes. People stop bracing. They start telling the truth. The body gets its limbs back.

The bridge between us turns out to be built of the same material as the bridge within us: a willingness to enter a room we do not naturally live in. Practiced long enough, and with enough tenderness, that willingness has another name. We call it love. And if each center is a doorway to God, as we said in Part One, then the person sitting across from you — the one whose first language you have never quite learned — may be standing in a doorway you have never walked through.

Peace and every good.

 

About Jim & Lynette Vaive

Jim and Lynette Vaive are the co-founders of spirit of EQ and co-authors of The Mystical Seeker. They are Master Certified Coaches, certified Narrative Enneagram teachers, and Certified Spiritual Directors, and together they hold credentials in Spiritual Emotional Intelligence (SEQ) — a framework rooted in Lynette’s Doctor of Ministry research. Learn more at spiritofeq.com.

Sources

The Narrative Enneagram — The Three Centers of Intelligence: narrativeenneagram.org

Howard Zehr — restorative justice principles and the three questions (Changing Lenses, 1990): Zehr Institute

The Three Intelligences You Already Carry

/0 Comments/in , , /by

PART ONE OF TWO

The Three Intelligences You Already Carry

We were made to know the world — and God — with all three centers.

Most of us move through our days meeting the world through one favorite doorway, and we rarely notice we are doing it. One person walks into a room and immediately reads the feeling in it. Another instantly begins working out what is going on. A third simply senses, in the body, whether to move toward or away. Same room, three completely different first languages. The Enneagram calls these the three Centers of Intelligence — Head, Heart, and Body — and it names something the contemplative traditions have always known: that we were made to know with all three.

 

What each center gives

Consider what each one offers, at its best.

The Head is the intelligence of the mind — the capacity to think, to plan, to step back and see the pattern, to imagine what is not yet here. Its gift is clarity and perspective: a quiet, steady knowing that can hold complexity without panicking. (Points Five, Six, and Seven make their home here.)

The Heart is the intelligence of feeling and connection — the capacity to sense what matters, to attune to another person, to be moved. Its gift is empathy and meaning: the warmth that makes a life more than a list of tasks. (Points Two, Three, and Four live here.)

The Body is the intelligence of instinct and action — the gut-level knowing that registers a situation before the mind has words for it, and then moves. Its gift is grounded presence and right action: the steadiness that shows up and does the next true thing. (Points Eight, Nine, and One are at home here.)

Head thinks. Heart connects. Body acts. All three are real intelligence, and every one of us carries all three.

Your home, and the rooms you rarely enter

But we each have a home base — one center we default to so automatically that it feels less like a preference and more like simply “reality.” And here is the catch: when we lean hard on our strongest center, the other two grow quiet, sometimes to the point of neglect. The heart-led person may not trust their own clear thinking. The head-led person may lose touch with what they actually feel. The body-led person may act before the heart or head has had a chance to weigh in. None of this is a flaw to be fixed. It is simply the shape of a life that has leaned one way for a long time — and the beginning of an invitation.

The center I meet the world through

I have always met the world body first. It simply makes sense to me — I feel how my body moves through the world, and I move through it with intention. For as long as I can remember, the things that drew me were the things that lived in the body: martial arts, running, painting, cooking. Each one told me I was alive. In them I could shut my mind off and give myself entirely to what I was doing in that moment — the breath, the motion, the knife on the board, the brush on the canvas. There was no analyzing it, and no performing it. There was just the doing, and the quiet knowing that came with it.

For a long time I did not have language for this. I only knew it was how I was built. It never made me wrong — it was simply who I was: a person who comes home to himself through the body, and who trusts what the body knows.

Three doorways to God

From a spiritual standpoint, this is not personality trivia. Each center is a different doorway to God. The head meets God as truth and light — the mind grown quiet enough to receive. The heart meets God as love — the felt sense of being known and cherished. The body meets God as presence — a nearness that arrives not as an idea but as a settling in the bones. “God is closer than our very breath,” as one teacher puts it, and can be found in each of our centers, each offering a different way of experiencing the loving presence and voice of God (Center for Action and Contemplation). To lead only from one center, then, is to keep meeting God through a single door while two others stand open.

The old teachers had a phrase for the goal: to become “three-centered” — a whole human being who can think, feel, and act in concert, rather than being run by whichever center happens to shout loudest. That wholeness has a simpler name in the contemplative life. It is called presence.

A tender word about the growth edges

There is a softer truth underneath each center, too, and it is worth naming gently — because it is where grace most wants to meet us. The head, for all its clarity, tends to carry a low hum of worry, and reaches for certainty to soothe it. The heart, for all its warmth, tends to carry a quiet question about worth, and reaches for approval or image to ease it. The body, for all its strength, tends to carry an underground current of frustration, and reaches for control. These are not labels or verdicts. They are simply the growth edges — the places where each center is invited to stop clenching and to trust.

When a quieter center woke up

And then, somewhere along the way, came the whoa — the realization that there was more out there than just my body, that I was not only an instrument of motion and action. Things began to rise in me that I did not know what to do with. My heart had something to say, and I had no idea how to embody that. How do you “do” a feeling? How do you act your way through grief, or longing, or love?

For the first time I sensed that huge parts of my life had been sitting in the dark — whole rooms I had never entered, because I did not have the language or the courage for them. So I set out to find the missing pieces. And I will be honest: I went with a great deal of trepidation. Leaving the center you have always trusted, to go looking for the ones you have neglected, is not comfortable work. But it was the beginning of becoming whole.

The Three Intelligences you Already Carry Reflection Sheet

The first connection is within

Which brings us to the practice, and to why we called this series Making Connections. The first connection is the one within — learning to notice which center you are operating from, and then deliberately inviting the others to the table. Before a decision, the head-led person might pause to ask, “What am I feeling about this, and what does my gut say?” The heart-led person might ask, “What do I actually think, apart from how everyone will feel?” The body-led person might slow the impulse to act just long enough to let the heart and head catch up. Small moves — but over time they weave the three intelligences into one, and a fuller, steadier self begins to emerge.

You already carry all three. You always have. The spiritual journey is not acquiring a center you lack; it is making the connection between the ones you were given — and discovering that God has been waiting at every door.

In Part Two, we will turn from the connections within to the connections between: how understanding the centers can transform the way we love the people whose home base is nothing like our own.

Peace and every good.

 

About Jim & Lynette Vaive

Jim and Lynette Vaive are the co-founders of spirit of EQ and co-authors of The Mystical Seeker. They are Master Certified Coaches, certified Narrative Enneagram teachers, and Certified Spiritual Directors, and together they hold credentials in Spiritual Emotional Intelligence (SEQ) — a framework rooted in Lynette’s Doctor of Ministry research. Learn more at spiritofeq.com.

Sources

The Narrative Enneagram — The Three Centers of Intelligence: narrativeenneagram.org

Center for Action and Contemplation — The Three Intelligence Centers: cac.org

The Illusion We’re Living In

/0 Comments/in , /by

What’s behind the matrix — and how we got handed the script.

There’s a reason The Matrix struck such a nerve with me. Beneath the science fiction was a question most of us feel but rarely say out loud: what if the life I’m working so hard to keep up isn’t entirely mine? What if some of what I call “just the way things are” was handed to me — a script written by someone else, running quietly in the background of my days? The film gave us an image for the suspicion: that we might be earnestly, exhaustingly living inside an illusion, and not even know it.

We want to be careful here, because this territory attracts a lot of heat. We are not talking about a secret cabal pulling every string. We are talking about something better documented and, in a way, stranger: that many of the “wants” we experience as most personally our own were, at least in part, manufactured — and there are historical receipts.

The machinery was built on purpose

In the 1920s, American industry had a problem: people mostly bought what they needed, and then they stopped. So a new idea took hold. Paul Mazur, a banker at Lehman Brothers, put it with startling honesty in the Harvard Business Review in 1927: “We must shift America from a needs to a desires culture. People must be trained to desire, to want new things even before the old have been entirely consumed… Man’s desires must overshadow his needs.” (Quote Investigator / HBR)

The man who knew how to do the training was Edward Bernays — Freud’s nephew and the father of modern public relations. Bernays grasped that you don’t sell people products; you sell them emotions, identities, freedoms. In 1929 he staged a group of debutantes lighting cigarettes at New York’s Easter parade and called them “torches of freedom,” rebranding a smoking habit as women’s liberation. It worked (History Today). The desire felt personal. It had been engineered.

The engineering reached into the products themselves. On a December day in 1924, the world’s leading lightbulb makers met in Geneva, formed what became the Phoebus cartel, and quietly agreed to make their bulbs worse — cutting lifespans from 1,500–2,000 hours down to 1,000, with fines for any bulb that lasted too long (IEEE Spectrum). It is the first well-documented case of “planned obsolescence”: designing things to fail so you’ll buy them again. The throwaway world we take for granted was, in part, a decision.

Even the dream had an author

Our highest aspiration turns out to have a byline and a date. The phrase “the American Dream” was coined in 1931 by the historian James Truslow Adams, and his original meaning was beautiful — “a land in which life should be better and richer and fuller for everyone, with opportunity for each according to ability or achievement” (Britannica). But somewhere along the way the dream got quietly translated into square footage and a second car, and we inherited the translation without ever reading the original. We were handed a script and told it was our own ambition.

The life you’re supposed to want

And it isn’t only things we’re sold — it’s a whole way of living, a template for what a life is even supposed to look like. There’s an approved sequence: the degree, the career ladder, the house in the right neighborhood, the milestones hit roughly on schedule. And there’s a quiet scoreboard running underneath it all, measuring you against everyone who seems to be doing it better.

We even have a name for the game. “Keeping up with the Joneses” began as a comic strip that debuted in 1913, about a family straining to match the neighbors next door — the Joneses, who were talked about constantly but, tellingly, never once shown (Wikipedia). The cartoonist based it on his own life, living beyond his means to match the family down the street. The Joneses were invisible then, and in a way they still are — a standard we chase without ever quite seeing it clearly.

Today the neighbors are global, and they are never off. Social media turned comparison into an around-the-clock feed of everyone’s curated highlight reel — the vacations, the renovations, the bodies, the milestones — and “lifestyle” became something we consume and perform at the same time. Marketers noticed this long ago and largely stopped selling products; now they sell you a lifestyle, and the quiet promise that buying it will finally make you a certain kind of person. Even our exhaustion got rebranded: hustle culture took being consumed by the machine and renamed it “the grind,” a thing to be proud of.

The lifestyle, like the dream, arrived pre-assembled. Few of us ever stopped to ask whether we would have chosen this particular life at all, if it hadn’t been handed to us with the price tag already attached.

I was sure I saw through it

In the late sixties I was a hippie in Detroit — long hair, and the absolute certainty that I saw through everything the establishment was selling. I was part of the pack. We knew the game was rigged, and we weren’t going to be fooled the way we thought our parents had been. When the draft lottery came, my number was 2 — about as low as it gets. So rather than wait for the Army to take me, I joined the Navy on my own terms. That much, at least, felt like a choice I was making.

What I didn’t notice was what boot camp was doing. Somewhere between the haircut and the drills and the endless repetition, the way I saw the world quietly changed — and not into something I had chosen. The kid who was so sure he saw through the illusion had simply traded one script for another. I had walked out of one pack and into a tighter one, and I never felt the switch happen. I thought I was the awake one. I was asleep. It would take me years to realize I’d been handed a new set of eyes and told they were my own.

The newest layer of the illusion

The most recent update to the matrix is the one in your pocket. The average American now spends more than five hours a day on a phone, unlocking it dozens — by some counts nearly a hundred — times a day, on apps engineered by very smart people to be as hard to put down as possible (Exploding Topics). This is not a moral failing on your part. It is the attention economy working exactly as designed. Bernays sold desire; the feed sells your attention — and it is winning.

The contemplatives saw it coming

None of this is new to the contemplative traditions. Twenty-four centuries ago Plato pictured human beings chained in a cave, mistaking shadows on a wall for reality — and the ache and disorientation of the one who finally turns around and walks out into the light. Howard Thurman warned that if you cannot hear the sound of the genuine in yourself, “you will spend your days on the ends of strings that somebody else pulls.” And the apostle Paul wrote what may be the oldest red-pill line of all: “Do not be conformed to this world, but be transformed by the renewing of your mind” (Romans 12:2). Conformed is the key word. The default setting is to be shaped by the machine. Transformation begins the moment you notice it running.

Here is the ache the whole system depends on and can never satisfy: the next thing never quite does it. The purchase, the promotion, the upgrade, the scroll — each promises arrival and delivers a brief hit and a fresh wanting. Psychologists call it the hedonic treadmill. The saints called it the restless heart. Either way, the machine needs you a little dissatisfied, and the soul was made for something the machine cannot sell.

The Illusion We Are Living In Reflection Sheet

 

How much more is the right amount?

Years later I started Varment Guard, and I wanted it to be a different kind of company — one where the worker mattered, where everyone was treated the same, where the point was not simply the number at the bottom of the page. For a while I thought that was just how I would build it.

Then we grew, and the message started arriving from every direction: I was wrong. My partners said it. Most of my managers said it. Even the banks said it — we needed more profit, more margin, more growth. It wasn’t one voice; it was all of them, all the time, until questioning it felt naive.

Here’s the thing: I am not against making money. Of course a company has to bring in more than it spends. But the question nobody wanted to sit with was the one that actually mattered — how much more is the right amount? “More” was simply assumed to be the answer, forever, with no ceiling. And I slowly realized the pressure I felt wasn’t really about my company at all. It was the machine, insisting that “enough” is a word you are never allowed to say.

Waking up is a practice, not a purchase

The way out is not rage, and it isn’t escape to a cabin in the woods (though a little of that never hurts). It is awakening — the slow, unglamorous practice of noticing the script while it runs and choosing, in small daily ways, not to be conformed. Silence is a form of unplugging. Sabbath is a quiet rebellion against a culture that measures you by output. Gratitude short-circuits manufactured wanting by insisting you already have enough. And spiritual direction is, among other things, someone sitting with you while you learn to tell the difference between the desires that are truly yours and the ones that were installed.

You cannot un-see it once you’ve seen it — and that’s the good news hidden inside the hard news. The red pill, it turns out, is not a dramatic exit from the world. It’s just attention: the willingness to look honestly at the life you’re living and ask how much of this did I actually choose, and how much was I handed? That question is the beginning of freedom.

Peace and every good.

 

About Jim & Lynette Vaive

Jim and Lynette Vaive are the co-founders of spirit of EQ and co-authors of The Mystical Seeker. They are Master Certified Coaches, certified Narrative Enneagram teachers, and Certified Spiritual Directors, and together they hold credentials in Spiritual Emotional Intelligence (SEQ) — a framework rooted in Lynette’s Doctor of Ministry research. Learn more at spiritofeq.com.

Sources

Paul Mazur, Harvard Business Review (1927), on shifting from needs to desires: quoteinvestigator.com

Edward Bernays and “torches of freedom”: History Today

The Phoebus cartel and planned obsolescence (1924): IEEE Spectrum

James Truslow Adams and the origin of “the American Dream” (1931): Britannica

“Keeping up with the Joneses” — origin of the phrase (1913 comic strip): Wikipedia

Smartphone / screen-time statistics (2025–2026): Exploding Topics

When Family and Values Collide

/1 Comment/in , /by

On loving people, you deeply disagree with — and staying whole at the table.

Every family has a table, and every table has a moment. It might arrive over a holiday meal, or in a text thread that turns suddenly ugly, or in the silence after someone finally says “the thing”, they’ve been holding back. It’s the moment when the people you love and the things you believe stop pointing in the same direction — when staying close to your family seems to require betraying something true about yourself, and staying true to yourself seems to require distance from your family. Love and conviction, pulling opposite ways. And it hurts!

If you’ve felt that pull, you are neither unusual nor failing. A recent 2025 survey found that nearly four in ten American adults are currently estranged from at least one family member (YouGov, 2025). And researchers who have followed thousands of parent–child relationships keep arriving at the same finding: differing values are among the strongest predictors of a family rift (Knowable Magazine). The collision we’re describing is not a private failure of your family. It is one of the defining strains of this cultural moment. Right here right now!

The two escapes

When values and family collide, most of us reach instinctively for one of two escapes. The first is to capitulate — to go quiet, to soften what we believe, to laugh off the comment and keep the peace by making ourselves smaller. The second is to cut off — to protect our values by withdrawing our presence, to win the argument by leaving the room. Both feel like solutions. Which is dualistic thinking and both are really forms of self-protection. One abandons the self to keep the relationship; the other abandons the relationship to keep the self. And neither does the thing we most deeply want, which is to remain both whole and connected.

I’ll say it plainly: I’m a centrist, and much of my extended family is not including my children. We don’t line up on politics, and honestly, and sometimes not on a few other things either. For a long time I treated those gaps as problems to be solved — as if the right sentence, delivered at the right moment, would finally fix everyone around. It never did. What changed wasn’t them; it was my awareness. I started catching the exact moment my chest tightened and my mind began drafting a rebuttal before the other person had even finished — that little internal lurch toward being right. Naming that reaction, instead of riding it, is where everything else becomes possible. I can hold my convictions firmly and still notice when I’m about to trade a relationship for a point.

Once I could see my own reactivity, the real question came into focus, and it turned out to be one of belonging: the goal at a family table isn’t agreement, it’s connection — and confusing the two is what turns a difference of opinion into a wound. I can disagree with someone and still refuse to make their place at our table contingent on sharing my views. That’s the ground insight grows in. Now, when a conversation heads toward the cliff, I get curious before I get defensive: What is my aunt actually afraid of losing? What does my cousin love that I haven’t bothered to see? Underneath most political positions is a value, and underneath most values is a story. When I stay with the story instead of arguing the position, the temperature drops. I don’t win those conversations anymore — but I don’t lose the people, either, and after years of trying it the other way, I’ve decided that’s the trade worth making.

The harder capacity: staying yourself while staying close

There’s a name in family-systems work for what this moment asks of us- –differentiation. It’s the capacity to stay connected to people without dissolving into them — to hold on to who you are and what you value while remaining in relationship with people who see the world differently. Differentiation is the opposite of both escapes. It doesn’t melt into the family’s expectations, and it doesn’t sever the tie to feel safe. It stays. It stays, and it remains itself.

This is emotional intelligence doing its hardest work. The collision at the table triggers something in us — the flush of anger, the old childhood urges to please, the fear of being cast out — and EQ is the discipline of catching that reaction early enough to choose a response rather than be run by it. It asks the question we return to repeatedly in this work: what is rising in me right now, and is it something to act on, or something to manage? The sting you feel when a father dismisses your faith, or a daughter dismisses yours, is information about your own tender places. It is not, by itself, instruction about what to do next.

The Enneagram makes the pattern concrete. A Nine keeps the peace by quietly disappearing. A Six manages the anxiety by over-explaining and over-defending. An Eight (this one I know well) turns a difference of belief into a contest of wills. Knowing your pattern doesn’t excuse it — it buys you the half-second of freedom in which you might do something other than the automatic thing.

Love is not the same as agreement

Here the contemplative tradition says something bracing. We tend to imagine the spiritual ideal is a family in seamless harmony. But Jesus, of all people, said otherwise — that he came not to bring a false peace but, at times, a sword; that fidelity to the deepest things would sometimes set a person at odds even within their own household (Matthew 10:34–36). He was not blessing conflict. He was telling the truth about what integrity can cost. Love and agreement are not the same thing. You can love someone with your whole heart and still be unable to pretend their conviction is yours. Sigh!

 

The desert mothers and fathers understood the discipline this requires. Abba Poemen said the first act of love is to leave the other person free — not to coerce them into your understanding of the good, not to make your love conditional on their agreement. And that freedom runs both directions. Your family is free to believe what they believe. You are free to remain who you are without needing their permission, or their approval, to be at peace.

A third way through

So, there is a third way through the collision, and it is harder than either escape. It is to stay at the table without surrendering your center. To love people you disagree with, out loud, while refusing to pretend the disagreement isn’t real. To set a boundary not as a weapon but as an act of love — because a boundary is often the only thing that keeps a relationship possible at all. Sometimes faithfulness looks like showing up to the dinner and letting the comment pass. Sometimes it looks like saying, gently and without apology, “I love you, and I can’t talk about this the way you want me to.” And sometimes — this is the hardest one — faithfulness looks like distance for a season, chosen not in anger but as the only way to stay whole. Distance is not always the failure of love. Occasionally it is love’s most honest available form.

None of this dissolves the tension, and that is precisely the point. The contemplative life trains us to hold what cannot yet be fixed — to remain in the discomfort of loving people who wound us, without lunging toward either surrender or exile. That capacity to hold tension without collapsing it is, in the end, what maturity is made of, emotionally and spiritually alike.

When Your Values Collide Reflection Guide

What you were made for

Your values are not weapons to win the family with, and your family is not a jury whose verdict decides your worth. The goal was never to conquer the table or to flee it. It was to remain, at that table, a person who is both loving and true — connected and yourself, tender and unbroken. That is the work of a lifetime. It is also, we think, exactly the work the soul was made for.

If you’re carrying a collision like this right now — a relationship that pulls hard against something you cannot betray — that is precisely the kind of weight spiritual direction is built to hold. Not to fix it, but to companion you as you find your way to staying whole within it.

Peace and every good.

 

About Jim & Lynette Vaive

Jim and Lynette Vaive are the co-founders of spirit of EQ and co-authors of The Mystical Seeker. They are Master Certified Coaches, certified Narrative Enneagram teachers, and Certified Spiritual Directors, and together they hold credentials in Spiritual Emotional Intelligence (SEQ) — a framework rooted in Lynette’s Doctor of Ministry research. Learn more at spiritofeq.com.

Sources

YouGov (2025) — Family estrangement: how often and why it happens: yougov.com

Knowable Magazine — The troubling rise of family estrangement (value dissimilarity as a driver): knowablemagazine.org

Moving the Lighthouse Off the Bushel, Part Three

/2 Comments/in , /by

A CONVERSATION WITH JUDY JOSEPH MCSWEEN · PART THREE OF THREE

Moving the Lighthouse Off the Bushel

On masks, Rottweilers, circling the block, and what she wants to say to the person who is still afraid to be see

She told me about Lent.

She had made a commitment during that season to feed homeless men in her community. Some concrete contained, entirely private act of charity. And one afternoon she drove out to do it — and circled the block three times. She had the food. She knew the men were there. And she found reason after reason, loop after loop, not to stop.

In the quiet of self-examination that followed, she named what was happening: she didn’t want anyone to see her doing it.

I want to sit with that for a moment, because Judy Joseph McSween is not a timid woman. She is a woman who walked into a shop in 1978 and was singled out while every other applicant was turned away. A woman who left a secure consultancy and drained her savings to pursue a calling. A woman who facilitates emotional intelligence retreats for archbishops and clergy across the Caribbean. And here she was, circling a block in Trinidad, afraid of being seen doing something good.

“I didn’t want anybody to see me doing it.”

She names this as the central interior struggle of her life: the movement from hiding under the bushel to becoming a lighthouse. Matthew 5:14-16 — “You are the light of the world” — was the scripture she received at her very first Life in the Spirit seminar, and she has been holding it ever since as both a promise and a provocation. She knows what she is called to be. The bushel is still close.

The masks arrived during her training as an OD Facilitator. She was asked, as all the participants were, to identify the mask she was wearing. Her response — characteristically — was to draw five Rottweiler faces. She owned five Rottweilers. She turned it into a joke. The facilitator was not deterred.

When she was required to write what the mask represented, the exercise became painful and deeply personal. She looked at her dogs. She thought about what she valued in them: unconditional love, empathy, presence, the quality of being met without reservation. She realized, sitting with the exercise, that these were precisely the qualities she was giving abundantly in her marriage and not receiving. The dogs were not a distraction from the question. They were the answer.

She was giving unconditional love. She was not receiving it. She had found a way to live with the gap so long that she had learned not to see it — until a training exercise in a room full of strangers made the invisible visible.

The marriage had other textures. Her husband delivered the news of her mother’s death with a flat “Your mother died” — no preparation, no comfort, no reaching toward her in the shock of the moment. When she was excited about something — even something as simple as a new bottle — her effervescence met near-silence. A road trip to Disney World that got them lost became an adventure for her and an irritation for him. His son made her feel unwelcome in her own home, and her husband did not manage the dynamic. These were not dramatic betrayals. They were the slow accumulation of a particular kind of loneliness — being present in a marriage while being fundamentally unseen in it.

She filed for divorce. She handed her husband the papers in an envelope after a football match, having arrived in separate cars. She never saw his reaction. Her lawyer was focused on material assets. She had a single focus: freedom. “All I need to do,” she said, “is to get out of this relationship, and I’ll be happy.” She prayed that all ties would be severed in a single court hearing with no ongoing entanglement. The prayer was answered.

The divorce, she says, was filed for the right reason. She has no regrets. And it was the catalyst for the most intensive period of interior work in her life — the meditation practice, the OD training, the introspective turn that eventually led her to Maine, and then to the 22-acre retreat facility, and then to sixteen years of helping others do what she had done for herself: pause long enough to hear what truly matters.

The archbishop called her out of the blue. He was not yet an Archbishop when she met him — a former cloistered nun named Rose had asked Judy to introduce herself to the priest who said mass at her parish one weekend. Judy had no real intention of following through. God, she says with a quiet smile, has a sense of humor. Fr. Jason said the mass that weekend. She introduced herself. Years later, now serving as Archbishop and Chair of the Caribbean Archbishops, he called her to facilitate a six-day clergy retreat for sixty priests.

She describes this as one of the moments when God pulled her from under the bushel and placed her on top — not once, but twice. She did not seek the platform. She did not engineer the relationship. She was asked to show up, and she showed up.

This is the pattern she has named across her whole life: every time she hid, she was found. Every time she circled the block, something eventually stopped the car. Every time she tried to make herself smaller, the calling found a way to make her visible. She is not naive about it — she knows the fear is real, that visibility invites judgment, that there are people who actively seek to diminish what rises. She also knows that the light is not hers to keep.

“I’m feeling the lighthouse next to the bushel — eventually it’s gonna get on top of the bushel.”

She does not claim to have arrived. She does not offer the finished version of herself as evidence that the journey is complete. She says the lighthouse is still moving — that each day may call the light to shine in a different place, that no one fully becomes a lighthouse once and for all, that the movement is ongoing. She is sixty-something years into a life of being found, and she is still learning to step into the light rather than wait to be placed there.

To the person watching who is still circling the block — who has the food, who knows where the need is, who has made the commitment and is now finding reasons not to stop — she said this:

“You’ll never find your fullest strength until you learn the power of the pause and be able to listen to the true source of strength that lies within you. In life, we must take risks. Without taking a risk, you’ll never know what you have the potential to achieve. There is always something that must be released to move to the next level. You cannot conceive what God has in store for you unless you are willing to let go.”

Three conversations with this woman. Three movements of a life that has always known more than it was willing to show — and that has spent decades learning, slowly, gracefully, with humor and honesty and the occasional Rottweiler, to let the light out anyway.

The bushel is still close. The lighthouse is closer.

If this conversation touched something in you, we invite you to explore what it means to step out from under the bushel and into your calling — at spiritofeq.com.

Peace and every good.

 

She Went to the Retreat Alone, Part Two

/0 Comments/in , /by

A CONVERSATION WITH JUDY JOSEPH MCSWEEN · PART TWO OF THREE

She Went to the Retreat Alone

On leaving a secure life, draining your savings, and what happens when you show up even when everyone else cancel

There is a moment in most vocations — if you are paying attention — where the path you have been building and the path you are being called toward stop running parallel and begin to diverge. The question is not whether you will notice. The question is what you do when you do.

Judy Joseph McSween noticed in Maine.

She had traveled to Bethel, Maine for an introspective program — not yet sure what she was looking for, only aware that something was pulling her toward stillness. It was there that she encountered meditation for the first time. And in that stillness, a clarity arrived that she had not been able to manufacture through ambition or analysis: she was called to help people find themselves.

Not to fix them. Not to train them. Not to plan their strategies or optimize their processes — though she had done all of those things and done them well. To help them find themselves. To create the conditions in which something true and buried could surface. To ask the question that went one level deeper than the question they came with.

“My superpower is listening to my inner voice and to the other — and crafting questions that stimulate inner transformation.”

To understand how she arrived in Maine, you have to understand the arc that preceded it. Industrial Chemist. MBA. On-the-road post with the Industrial Development Corporation, meeting manufacturers, foreign investors, high commissioners, government ministers across Trinidad — a whirlwind that let her do what she loved most, which was connect with diverse people. A stint in finance that ended with retrenchment. A role in a Syrian conglomerate where the chairman gave her random projects across the business and she later said was the period of “really finding myself.” A represented role with a European technical assistance firm that required her to travel to Belgium. And eventually, the position that would bring her closest to the edge of her calling: Lead Strategic Planning Consultant at her cousin’s OD firm.

She was good at all of it. That is the thing that makes this kind of story complicated. She was not leaving failure. She was leaving competence — which is, in many ways, harder. Competence has its own gravity. It offers security, identity, the esteem of people who depend on you. Leaving competence requires a different kind of courage than leaving difficulty. It requires you to trust what you feel more than what you have built.

She noticed, in that consulting role, that clients needed something the firm was not designed to offer. They needed to pause. They needed someone to help them go inward, not just outward. The strategic plans were technically excellent. They were not producing sustainable change. And Judy knew why: because the people making the plans had not yet done the interior work that would allow them to carry the plans through.

She left impulsively. At the end of a month, she heard a presentation about taking the leap — about the moment when you stop waiting for conditions to be perfect and simply go. She turned to the woman next to her and said: “My plan is, if I don’t do it now, I’ll never do it.” She handed in her notice.

She took the leap at the same moment she was sending her daughter to university in Canada. She drained her savings. She entered what she describes plainly as a financial pit. Every time the discomfort became acute enough that she considered returning to corporate life, she felt a clear inner no. Not a feeling of peace, necessarily. Just a no. Sixteen years later, she is still in this vocation.

Every time she considered going back, the inner voice said no. Not with fanfare. Not with a vision. Just: no. And she listened.

The first Time Out Retreat she scheduled, all the participants cancelled. Any reasonable person would have rescheduled. She heard an inner voice — which she now names without hesitation as the Holy Spirit — that said: go anyway. She drove to the 22-acre retreat facility alone, on a Friday evening, and arrived as the only person who had registered to be there.

She became both the facilitator and the participant. She asked herself the questions she had prepared for others. She listened. She went inward. She let the silence work on her the way she had learned to let silence work on others. And in that solitude, insights arrived that shaped every programmed design she uses to this day — the architecture of what it means to help a person pause long enough to hear what truly matters.

The second retreat brought executives, staff, and an ordained person. Within twenty-four hours, the feedback was already that the depth of her questions had surfaced more value than the cost of the retreat. She had not manufactured that depth in the intervening weeks. She had received it in an empty room in Maine, alone on a Friday evening, because she trusted a voice that told her to go even when there was no one waiting for her.

This is the pattern that the contemplative tradition names and the Enneagram illuminates and the Six Seconds EQ model grounds in research: the people who help others go inward are almost always people who have learned to go there themselves. Not once, dramatically, but repeatedly, quietly, in the ordinary discipline of listening before speaking, of pausing before acting, of trusting what arrives in stillness over what can be engineered in noise.

She describes her superpower as listening to her inner voice and to the other — and even in the middle of a facilitated session with executives or clergy, she is constantly going inward: asking herself what the stirring is, what the question beneath the question is, what the participant most needs and least expects. She frequently surprises herself with what emerges. Her clients feel it. They do not always know what to call it. She knows exactly what it is.

“Your first response,” she tells the people she works with, “is the superficial response. Let’s go a little deeper.”

She has been saying that for sixteen years, in corporate boardrooms and clergy retreats and prison ministry circles and coaching sessions with executives who have more power than peace. She says it with the calm of someone who has already gone to the depth she is inviting others toward. That is not technique. That is formation.

In our third conversation, we will go into the interior life itself — the masks she wore, the divorce she filed because of five Rottweilers, the Archbishop who called her out of the blue to lead a retreat for sixty priests, and what she wants to say to the person who is still, even now, circling the block because they are afraid of being seen doing the thing they are called to do.

But here, in this middle movement, I want to name what I see when I look at her arc whole: a woman who left competence for calling, who showed up to an empty room because a voice told her to, and who has been helping others find their inner voice ever since by first learning to trust her own.

If this reflection stirred something in you, we invite you to explore what a Time Out might open in your own life — at spiritofeq.com.

Peace and every good.