Posted on by Michael J. Cunningham · 4 Comments

The Play We Have Already Written

A Spiritual Reflection on the Characters We Carry

Somewhere along the way, without quite deciding to, we became playwrights.

Not of fiction. Of the people we know.

We took the person — the partner, the colleague, the difficult brother, the aging parent, the friend who disappoints us in the same way every time — and we began to write them. Slowly, from accumulated evidence. Scene by scene, exchange by exchange, over months and years of shared life, until we had assembled something remarkably complete: a full character, with established traits, predictable responses, known weaknesses, recognizable lines.

We know what they will say before they say it. We know how they will react before they react. We know the shape of their resistance, the particular texture of their defensiveness, the way they will eventually come around or the way they definitively will not. We have, without ever using the word for it, become the expert on who they are.

And we carry that character with us into every encounter. Already written. Already cast. Already placed, in our minds, in the scene that is about to unfold.

Evagrius (fourth century theologian) would have recognized this. He mapped a version of it in his teaching on the logismoi — the thought-streams that arise within us and, if unobserved, construct a narrative so familiar that we mistake it for reality. The logismos of anger, for example, does not simply make us irritable. At its more developed stages it creates an entire interpretive framework — a lens through which the person before us is perpetually seen as threatening, inadequate, or in need of correction. We are no longer responding to what they are doing. We are responding to the character that anger, operating invisibly within us, has written for them.

The same is true of sadness, which writes characters that perpetually fail us. Of vainglory, which writes characters as audiences for our own performance. Of pride, which writes everyone as slightly less than ourselves. Each passion has its preferred cast, its recurring narrative, its predetermined ending toward which every scene is quietly being directed.

We do not experience this as bias. We experience it as knowledge.

This is who they are. I know them. I have seen this before. I know how this goes.

And we are often right enough about enough details that the illusion of accurate perception is very convincingly maintained. The character we have written is, after all, based on real observation. It is not fabricated from nothing. The difficulty is more subtle than simple error.

The difficulty is that the character has become fixed. The person before us continues to live and change and surprise — continues to carry, within them, the full unpredictable depth of a human soul that no amount of accumulated observation has yet fully disclosed. But the character we carry has stopped moving. It was written at some point, with the evidence available at that point, and it has remained largely unchanged since. Because changing it would require us to receive something new about this person, and receiving something new requires the willingness to be surprised, and the willingness to be surprised requires the one thing that long familiarity most powerfully resists.

The Pause. Here is what actually happens, in the ordinary exchanges of ordinary life, when the play we have written meets the person who is supposed to be performing it.

We arrive at the encounter already inside the script. Our position is prepared. Our likely response to their likely response is already assembled. We have, in the privacy of our own minds, conducted a version of this conversation before it has begun — and we have arrived, in that private rehearsal, at the conclusion we need. Now we simply require the other person to play their part so we can arrive there together.

They generally do not comply perfectly. People rarely do. There is usually some deviation from the expected lines — a moment of unexpected warmth from someone we had written as cold, a deflection where we anticipated engagement, a silence where we had scripted defensiveness. These deviations are the grace in the encounter. They are the place where the actual person momentarily exceeds the character we have assigned them.

But we rarely notice them as grace. More often we experience them as interference. An anomaly to be explained, or absorbed back into the existing framework, or noted as an exception that does not disturb the general characterization we have established.

Because the script, once written, is remarkably resistant to revision.

Evagrius called the unobserved operation of the passions a form of captivity — not dramatic captivity, not the captivity of obvious sin, but the quiet captivity of a person who has lost the ability to truly see because the thought-stream operating within them has become the lens through which everything is perceived. The logismos of anger does not announce itself as anger. It presents itself as accurate perception. I am not angry. I am simply seeing this person clearly.

This is the deepest form of the dynamic. We are not performing a script. We are perceiving reality. The character we have written is not a character to us — it is the person. And the narrative we have pre-determined is not a narrative — it is simply what is true.

Sacred Noticing addresses this not by telling us we are wrong about the people we think we know — which is both ineffective and often partially untrue — but by interrupting the sequence at its most critical point.

Between the first movement of recognition and the assembled response, there is a gap.

In that gap, if we allow it, something is possible that the script cannot accommodate.

Notice. Something is arising. A familiar pattern in this person, or so it seems. A movement within me that I recognize — the particular quality of readiness that means I already know what this is and what I think of it.

Notice that too. Notice not just what the other person is doing, but what is already assembling inside me in response. The character I am about to address is not only out there. It is also, and perhaps primarily, an interior construction. I am the playwright. And I am about to perform my own scripted role in the scene I have written.

Pause. Not to interrogate this. Not to analyze the origins of the characterization or work through whether it is fair. Simply to stop, for one moment, before the prepared response is delivered.

In that pause, nothing is required. The script is still there. The character is still there. The accumulated history that produced both is still entirely present. The pause does not erase any of it.

It simply creates, within the encounter, one moment of genuine openness. One moment in which the question is not how do I respond to who I know this person to be but something quieter and more honest: who is actually here?

That question — barely a question, more like a brief interior opening — is one of the most radical acts available to a human being in ordinary relational life. It does not require the dismantling of everything we know. It requires only the willingness, for one unrehearsed moment, to not know completely.

Respond. What comes from that open moment is not the scripted response. It is something less defended, less strategic, less aimed at the predetermined conclusion. It may still say something very similar to what the script would have said. But it will carry a different quality — the quality of something that has actually received the person before speaking to them.

That difference is not always visible from the outside. Sometimes it changes nothing practically. But it changes everything in the quality of the encounter itself — for the person who is finally, even briefly, being met rather than managed. And for the one who has finally, even briefly, set down the burden of already knowing.

The characters we carry are not malicious. They are the accumulated effort of a self trying to navigate a complex world with some degree of orientation and efficiency. They are, in their own way, a form of love — the love that pays enough attention to actually learn the shape of another person’s patterns and difficulties and gifts.

The problem is not that we know the people we love. The problem is when knowing hardens into certainty. When the living, changing, perpetually surprising person before us disappears into the fixed character we have constructed in their place. When the play we have written becomes more real to us than the person standing in front of us, waiting — whether they know it or not — to be received rather than performed at.

Evagrius spent his life in the desert learning to see his own interior movements before they became his perception of reality. He called this nepsis — the unhurried watchfulness that notices what is arising before it becomes the lens through which everything is seen.

Sacred Noticing takes that ancient practice and walks it directly into the encounter — into the moment when the character you have written for someone else is about to be confirmed once again, and the space between recognition and response opens, briefly, like a window.

In that space, you do not have to perform your part.

You do not have to deliver the line the script requires.

You can simply pause — and in pausing, receive the extraordinary ordinary gift of the actual person. Who is always, it turns out, more than you wrote them to be. More complex, more fragile, more capable of surprise. More themselves, and therefore more capable of genuine encounter, than the character ever was.

The play we have written is not the scripture of their life.

It is only, and at most, our first draft.

Grace, when we allow it, is always working on a revision.

 

 

 

© Michael J. Cunningham, OFS — spiritualbreak.com.

Posted on by Michael J. Cunningham · 1 Comment

The Borrowed Cloak

The Borrowed Cloak

A Reflection on the Stripping in the Square

From the Way of Francis  ·  Jubilee Pilgrimage, Station Four

 

In the bishop’s square of Assisi, on a spring afternoon in 1206, a young man took off his clothes.

The story has lasted eight hundred years, and you do not have to be Catholic, or religious, or even particularly drawn to medieval saints for it to land. What happened in that square is one of the great hinge moments in the long human story of refusing to live a life defined by someone else — and it happened because something inside Francis Bernardone had finally broken in the right direction.

His father had taken him to court. Pietro Bernardone — successful cloth merchant, heir-builder, social climber — had run out of patience with a son who would not return to the family business, would not stop giving things away, would not stop kneeling in ruined chapels. He wanted his money back, and he wanted, more than that, his son back. The bishop, (present in the square) was trying to restore the peace, urged Francis to surrender the disputed funds and trust in providence.

Francis did not stop at the money.

He went into the bishop’s house. He came back out carrying every garment he had on him. He folded them with care and laid them at his father’s feet. He said, in essence: I am no longer your son in the way you have meant me to be. I have a different Father now.

The bishop, weeping, wrapped him in his own cloak.

 

WHAT HE SET DOWN

It is tempting to read this story as the renunciation of money, and stop there. Money is a familiar thing to give up — at least in our imaginations. We can picture the cloth, the coins, the warehouse keys. We are practiced at admiring Franciscan poverty in the abstract.

But cloth was not the heaviest thing Francis was carrying.

What he set down at his father’s feet was an entire identity composed by other people. A son’s role. A merchant’s future. The whole architecture of expectation that had been built around him before he was old enough to refuse it. He gave back the story — the one in which he was supposed to become a prosperous and well-regarded citizen of Assisi, in which his charm and ambition would be put to predictable use, in which the shape of his life would be drawn by appetites that were not his own.

He could not become Francis until he stopped being the version of himself that Pietro had been writing.

The genius of this scene — and the reason it has not lost its force in eight hundred years — is that the divestment is total without being cruel. He does not curse his father. He does not tear the cloth. He folds the clothes. He places them down. He simply will not carry them another step.

 

THE BORROWED CLOAK

What strikes me, year after year, is what happened next.

Francis did not stand naked for long. The bishop wrapped him in his cloak. The world he had just renounced — represented in that moment by the Bishop, (dressed in vestments), who could not have predicted any of this — covered him with his own cloak. The freedom Francis was walking into did not leave him exposed. It clothed him in something borrowed, something gifted, something not his own.

This is the Franciscan economy in a single image. We let go of what was given to us by inheritance and self-protection and acquisitive habit. And what we are then given back is received. Borrowed. Held lightly. Returned to its source eventually, gratefully, without grasping.

Lady Poverty — the medieval name Francis gave to this whole way of living — is not the absence of provision. She is the presence of trust.

 

EIGHT CENTURIES ON

Eight hundred years later, in a valley on the other side of the world, in a retreat center named for the chapel where Francis first knelt, the same gesture is still trying to take shape in us.

It does not look identical. We are not, most of us, called to undress in public squares. We are called, instead, to a quieter and more sustained version of the same act — to set down, again and again, the inherited self that gets in the way of the called self.

That is what every retreat is, finally. A square. A clearing. A moment in which we are invited to fold up something we have been wearing too long.

It is also what the Franciscan approach to hospitality has always been. When San Damiano commits that no one will ever be turned away for lack of means — when the suggested donation is offered without ever becoming a gate — that is not marketing. That is the heart of it. That is Francis at the bishop’s feet, and the bishop covering him, and the world shifting an inch closer to what it was always meant to be.

Money is not the enemy. Money as the price of belonging is the enemy. Francis broke the assumption — for himself in 1206, and for us now — that what is most worth receiving must first be earned, deserved, or paid for.

That is the freedom we are still learning to extend.

 

THE SQUARE WE STAND IN

Each of us, in some season, will stand in a version of that square.

The clothes will be different. For some it will be a job that has long since stopped fitting but feels too dangerous to remove. For some it will be a story their family has told about who they are — the responsible one, the difficult one, the one who never quite arrived. For some it will be a grief they have been wearing so long they have mistaken it for skin. For some it will be a successful life that quietly does not contain them.

The square is wherever the costume becomes intolerable.

What Francis shows us is that the right response, when we get there, is not to manage it more skillfully. It is to set it down. Not in despair. Not as protest. As an act of trust that something else will be given.

There is a word for this — detachment — a word that sounds austere until you have actually tried it, at which point it begins to sound like relief.

 

WHAT WE MIGHT GAIN

What we gain is not nothing. This kind of letting-go is never about ending up with less.

We gain the freedom of an unburdened identity — the lightness of finally not having to be someone for anybody.

We gain the capacity to hear the actual call — the one that has been waiting underneath all the inherited noise.

We gain a kind of joy that is unmistakable when you encounter it in the genuinely Franciscan: the joy of a person who is not performing.

We gain, perhaps most surprisingly, the ability to receive. The borrowed cloak. The unearned grace. The provision we did not arrange for ourselves.

We gain a Father in heaven who was never going to send us a bill. We gain — in language that fits whatever tradition or none — the slow, astonishing discovery that what we most needed was never something we could have bought.

 

“Start by doing what is necessary; then do what is possible;

and suddenly you are doing the impossible.”

—  Saint Francis of Assisi

Posted on by Michael J. Cunningham

The Spiritual Footprint You Are Already Leaving Behind

The Spiritual Footprint You Are Already Leaving Behind

On the Gifts of the Holy Spirit and the Franciscan Way

 

There is a moment most of us have had and almost none of us have named.

You are with someone — in their kitchen, across a hospital bed, at the end of a phone call that went longer than you expected — and when you leave, something has shifted. Not because of what was said. Not because anything was resolved. But because of a quality in that person’s presence that you received before you understood what it was.

Peace. A sense of being genuinely seen. The feeling, arriving without explanation, that you are not as alone as you thought you were five minutes ago.

You carry it home. You set it down gently on the counter of your interior life, unsure what to do with it but unwilling to let it go entirely.

That exchange — that unnamed gift moving between two ordinary people in an ordinary place — is what the tradition has always been trying to describe. We have elaborate theological language for it. We have the Gifts of the Holy Spirit: wisdom, understanding, counsel, knowledge, fortitude, piety, fear of the Lord. We have Paul’s list of fruits in Galatians: love, joy, peace, patience, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, gentleness, self-control.

What we are less practiced at is recognizing them in the wild.

Francis of Assisi was, among many other things, the most effective demonstrator in Christian history of what happens when a human life stops getting in the way of these gifts.

He did not acquire them. He did not earn them through virtue or study or the accumulation of holy experiences. He stripped away everything that was sitting on top of them.

The poverty of Francis — the poverello, the little poor man — is usually understood as a social or economic posture. And it was. But it was also an interior posture. Francis divested himself of the armor of assumption. He arrived at every person and every creature without defenses, without a predetermined category, without needing the encounter to be anything other than what it was. And in that radical openness, something that had been given to him long before — at his Baptism, at his Confirmation, in the bread broken at ten thousand Masses — found its way through.

He held still long enough for the Gifts to do what they had always been able to do.

Consider what happens when we do not hold still.

The Gift of Understanding is the capacity to perceive what is actually happening beneath the surface of a moment — the real emotion under the difficult behavior, the fear beneath the complaint, the longing beneath the silence. It is not a skill. It is not emotional intelligence, though it resembles it. It is a grace, placed in us at our anointing, waiting for the moment we stop moving fast enough to use it.

When Francis rounded a bend outside Assisi and found a leper standing in the road, the Gift of Understanding was present in him. What was not present — what had to be overcome — was the entire apparatus of his upbringing telling him what the leper was: a category, a disease, something to cross the street to avoid. Francis stopped. He looked. He held still long enough for the Gift to speak. And what the Gift said, in that held stillness, was: there is a person here. The trace of God is in this face. Look.

He dismounted. He embraced him. And Francis later said that this — not the voice at San Damiano, not the wounds on La Verna — was the moment everything changed. The moment he stopped looking away. The moment the Gift found its opening.

The Gift of Understanding was present in him. What had to be overcome was everything telling him what the leper was.

The Franciscan tradition offers us a word for this capacity to dwell in a moment rather than manage it: contemplatio. Not contemplation as a spiritual specialty reserved for monks in silent enclosures. Contemplation as a posture anyone can carry into any Tuesday.

The disciples had ten days in the upper room before Pentecost. The Gifts arrived in wind and fire and the sudden ability to speak into the hearts of strangers. Most of us will not have ten days. We will have three breaths.

But those three breaths are the same interior clearing, at a different scale. The first breath interrupts the reflex — something is happening here, and I am going to stop and notice it before I decide what it means. The second breath grounds you in this actual moment — not the accumulated weight of similar moments, not the anticipated shape of the conversation yet to come, but here, now, this. The third breath opens you to what is actually needed — not what you prepared to say, not what habit suggests, but what this moment, this person, this encounter is genuinely asking for.

In that third breath, the Gift of Counsel becomes available. Not as a mystical infusion but as a quiet knowing — the right word, arriving from somewhere below your thinking mind, that you did not plan and could not have predicted. You recognize it precisely because it does not feel entirely like you. It feels like something passing through you.

It is.

Paul calls them fruits for a reason that goes deeper than metaphor.

You do not produce fruit. You create the conditions — good soil, sufficient water, the patient willingness to be pruned — and the fruit grows. The Gifts are the root system, placed in you at your Baptism and tended at every sacrament since. The fruits are what grows from that root when the conditions are right: when you are present enough, still enough, undefended enough to stop blocking what has been trying to move through you since before you could speak.

The peace you gave someone who did not know they needed it. The patience that arrived in a moment when impatience would have been entirely understandable. The kindness that surprised even you — that came from somewhere quieter than your intention and landed more truly than anything you had planned to say.

These are not achievements. They are not evidence of your spiritual progress. They are evidence of the Gifts doing what the Gifts do when we get out of the way.

Every life leaves a spiritual footprint in the world. A trace. An impression in the space between people — something of who you are, what you are carrying, where the Spirit is moving in your life — that is available to anyone paying the kind of attention that makes it visible. The person who left you steadier than they found you was not performing a virtue. They were, in that moment, available. The weight had briefly lifted. The fruit grew.

You are leaving that footprint right now. In the kitchen, in the car, in the difficult meeting that went too long. In the silence after a hard conversation. In the small decision — made when no one is watching — about whether to respond from love or from something smaller.

The question is not whether you are leaving a trace. That is happening regardless. The question is whether you are doing it intentionally — whether you are practicing the conditions that allow the Gifts to move more freely, more often, in more ordinary moments.

Every life leaves a spiritual footprint. The question is not whether you are leaving a trace. The question is whether you are doing it intentionally.

The Franciscan charism, distilled to its essence, is the conviction that the Word became flesh — and therefore that no piece of ordinary life is outside the reach of the sacred. God chose the unremarkable. The feeding trough, not the palace. The dusty road, the tax collector’s table, the leper on the bend outside Assisi.

Sacred Noticing is the practice that takes that conviction seriously. It is the discipline of the poverello applied to attention: arriving at each moment stripped of the armor of assumption, open to what is actually there rather than what you have already decided to see. It is the practice of contemplatio applied to the ordinary: holding still long enough for what has been given to speak. It is the expression of fraternitas in its most practical form: recognizing in every person you encounter a brother, a sister, someone in whom the trace of God is present and worth receiving.

Notice. Pause. Respond from the deep place.

Not a system. A description of how wisdom actually moves in a human life when it is not being blocked.

The burning bush was burning before Moses arrived.

He turned aside and looked. That single act — the willingness to stop, to notice, to resist the reflex to keep moving — was enough for the whole conversation to begin. The Gifts were not delivered that morning to a man who had earned them. They were made available to a man who finally held still.

You were anointed. The Gifts are in you, placed there by the God who chose the ordinary as the primary medium of revelation.

 

You only need to notice.

 

 

 

About the Author

Michael J. Cunningham, OFS, D.Min., is Executive Director of San Damiano Franciscan Retreat Center in Danville, California, and a member of the Order of Franciscan Seculars. This reflection draws on the Saturday morning conference “Sacred Noticing and the Franciscan Way,” part of the Rebuild My Church: A Franciscan Jubilee Year Parish Retreat series. Information at sandamiano.org.

His new book, The Practice of Sacred Noticing: Transforming Your Spiritual Footprint, will be published by Contemplative Company on May 15, 2026, and is available on Amazon and most booksellers.

 

spiritualbreak.com  ·  San Damiano Franciscan Retreat Center  ·  sandamiano.org

Posted on by Michael J. Cunningham · 1 Comment

After Easter …

An Easter Reflection on Living in Liminal Space

There is a day in the Christian calendar that nobody quite knows what to do with.

Not Good Friday, with its grief and its grandeur. Not Easter Sunday, with its flowers and its alleluias. I mean the day in between. Holy Saturday. The day the stone is sealed, the disciples are scattered, and the story appears — by every visible measure — to have ended badly.

Most of us skip it. We move from the cross straight to the resurrection, from the darkness straight to the light, and in doing so we miss the one day in the entire liturgical year that tells the truth about what most of our spiritual lives actually feel like most of the time.

We live in the liminal.

There is a word for the in-between space. Liminal — from the Latin limen, threshold. The doorway where you are neither inside nor outside. Not the old room and not the new one. The stretch of ground where what was has ended and what will be has not yet arrived.

We tend to visit the liminal zone occasionally and then try to leave. But the truth is that most of our interior life is conducted there. Not in the peaks of consolation or the depths of crisis, but in the long, undramatic stretches in between — the ordinary seasons that carry no particular name, that do not make for dramatic testimony, that simply continue.

You know this territory. It is when prayer has become routine, the words still said, but the warmth somehow gone out of them. The faith that persists but no longer surprises. The sense that God was closer once; in a retreat, a conversation, a moment at Mass that you have never quite been able to recreate … and that you have been quietly looking for the door back ever since.

It is Wednesday morning when nothing has broken, but nothing sings, either. The year when the person you were before a loss did not entirely return afterward. The stretch of life when you show up and do the right things and still feel, somewhere underneath, like you are waiting for something you cannot name.

This is not spiritual failure. This is spiritual life. The mystics did not write their great works in the high moments. They wrote them from exactly here.

The disciples on that first Holy Saturday did not know they were in a liminal space. They only knew they were in a disaster. What looked, from inside the room, like abandonment was — from outside — the longest breath before the dawn.

This is always the problem with liminal space. It does not announce itself as temporary. It presents itself as permanent. The sealed stone does not say three days — it simply says sealed. The locked room does not say until Pentecost — it simply says locked.

And so, we do what frightened people do in locked rooms. We try to manage the uncertainty. We fill the silence with noise, the emptiness with activity, the waiting with plans. We become very busy maintaining the house from the outside because we cannot bear what it feels like on the inside.

The contemplative tradition has a gentler name for what we are doing. It calls it the mirror. The mirror shows what we present — the managed version, the composed face, the spiritual persona that has learned to look well in the light. Most of us have been practicing this management for so long that we have forgotten we are doing it.

But God, as I have said before, does not use a mirror. God has always been the MRI.

An MRI does not see your presentation. It sees what is structuring everything from the inside — what has always been there, what arrived later, what healed and what still carries its fracture. You cannot manage your way past an MRI. You are already living inside it. And the liminal space, the in-between, the Holy Saturday of the spirit, has a way of dissolving the mirror altogether. Strip away the activity and the consolations and the sense of spiritual progress, and what remains is the actual ground.

The mystic Miester Eckert called it the Seelengrund — the ground of the soul. The place beneath all experience of God, beneath feeling and warmth and spiritual momentum, where God dwells not as a sensation but as a fact. A fact that does not fluctuate. A presence that does not require our performance in order to persist.

This is what the liminal is for. It is not punishment. It is not evidence that something has gone wrong with your faith. It is the condition in which we discover — slowly, often reluctantly — how deep the roots actually go. What remains when the feeling goes away. What we are made of when there is nothing left to manage.

We do not have what the first disciples had — the physical presence of Jesus, the sound of a specific voice answering a specific question. We live on the other side of the resurrection and the ascension. The physical form is gone.

But what we have is not a consolation prize. It is the fullness of what was promised.

We have creation — his first and still-speaking language. Every morning that arrives without our asking. Every face that carries, even unknowingly, the trace of the one in whose image it was made. We have Scripture — not a closed archive but a living word with the capacity to find us precisely in the places where we are most stuck. We have the spiritual footprint of a life fully inhabited, left in us and between us — every honest encounter between two human beings exchanges something of it. And we have love, which is not a feeling to be cultivated but a substance. The Great Commandment does not give us an emotion. It gives us a map for every day — bright and dark, liminal and luminous alike.

The burning bush was not special because it burned. It was special because Moses turned aside to look. That turning aside — that small act of noticing in the middle of an ordinary working day — is what keeps us present to God in the in-between. Not the dramatic encounter. The willingness to look at what is already there.

Holy Saturday earns its place in the calendar precisely because most of us cannot say honestly that we live in Good Friday or Easter Sunday. We live in the day between. We live with unanswered questions, with faith that persists but does not dazzle, with the ordinary texture of a life being lived in the presence of a God we cannot always feel.

The resurrection will not be the arrival of something that was absent.

It will be the revelation of what was always present.

The seed in the ground does not know it is becoming something. It simply stays with what is. It lets the dark do what the dark does. And what the disciples thought was an ending was, in the grammar of God, a gestation.

If you are in the in-between this Easter — if the alleluias feel a little far away, if the dry season has lasted longer than you thought it would — let me suggest that you are not outside the story.

You are in the most honest chapter of it.

Stay a little longer here. The ground holds. The seed is doing what seeds do. And God, who does not use a mirror, has never needed your performance to remain.

What is the liminal season you are in right now? What would it mean to stop managing it — and simply let the ground hold you?

 

Reflection and image copyright 2025 Michael J. Cunningham

 

Posted on by Michael J. Cunningham · 1 Comment

The Anatomy of a Bad Decision

A Spiritual Break Reflection

 

Most of us have made a decision we knew, somewhere inside us, was wrong before we made it.

Not wrong in the abstract. Wrong in the specific; this choice, this moment, this particular departure from the person we are trying to become. And yet we made it anyway. Quickly, often. With a kind of relief that comes not from wisdom but from the exhaustion of holding the tension any longer.

This is worth examining. Not to assign blame — the self is not on trial here — but because the anatomy of a bad decision reveals something true about the territory Sacred Noticing is meant to inhabit.

— ✦ —

What Sacred Noticing Actually Does

The Practice of Sacred Noticing rests on a deceptively simple rhythm: Notice. Pause. Respond.

But the simplicity is not naivety. Each movement carries weight.

To Notice is to bring contemplative attention to what is actually present — not what you expected, not what you hoped for, not what your accumulated history tells you must be there. To see the actual situation rather than the version your nervous system has already prepared a response for.

To Pause is to create the space that makes wisdom possible. The Three-Breath Method interrupts the amygdala’s reactive momentum, grounds you in the actual present, and opens access to the prefrontal cortex where integrated judgment lives. This is not technique layered over spirituality. It is the spiritual act — the ancient contemplative discipline of refusing to let urgency dictate reality.

To Respond is to act from what has been revealed in the pause rather than from what the reactive self had already decided before the pause began.

Together, these three movements form what might be called a spiritual footprint — the accumulated quality of presence you leave in every encounter, conscious and intentional rather than leaked and reactive. Every interaction leaves a trace. Sacred Noticing makes that trace an act of care rather than an accident of circumstance.

This is the practice in its health. Now consider what happens in its absence.

— ✦ —

The Anatomy of What We Skip

When we bypass the practice — and we do, regularly — there is usually a reason. Not a good reason. But a real one.

The most common is urgency. Real or constructed, the sense that this must be decided now collapses the space between stimulus and response into something too narrow for wisdom to enter. We mistake velocity for competence. We confuse acting quickly with acting well. The decision is made before the question has been properly formed.

The second is discomfort. Holding a genuine question open — truly open, without the false resolution of a premature answer — requires tolerating uncertainty. And uncertainty, for most of us, carries a physical signature: the tight chest, the restless attention, the mild but persistent anxiety of not-yet-knowing. The bad decision is often simply the decision that ends the discomfort. Not the right answer. The answer that makes the tension stop.

The third is social pressure — subtler than it appears. We want to be seen as decisive. As capable. As people who do not need more time than the room seems to think is appropriate. The pause that Sacred Noticing requires can feel, in these moments, like weakness rather than wisdom. And so we skip it. We offer the expected response, the reactive one, the one that costs the least in the currency of others’ approval — and costs considerably more in the currency of our actual integrity.

Research in decision science calls these cognitive shortcuts — heuristics that serve well enough in familiar territory but fail precisely when the stakes are highest. Daniel Kahneman’s distinction between System 1 and System 2 thinking maps with uncomfortable accuracy onto what the contemplative tradition has always known: the reactive self and the reflective self operate by different rules, and the reactive self nearly always moves first.

— ✦ —

What Motivates Us to Simply Make a Decision

There is a particular quality to the moment just before a bad decision. It does not usually feel like a mistake in progress. It feels like relief.

The pressure has been building. The competing claims — on your attention, your loyalty, your time, your sense of who you are — have been accumulating. And somewhere in the midst of this accumulation, the mind begins to prioritize resolution over truth. Ending the question becomes more important than answering it well.

This is what I call decision fatigue in spiritual form. It is not simply tiredness, though exhaustion is often a factor. It is the deeper weariness that comes from sustained interior tension — from holding two real claims, two genuine possibilities, two versions of who you might be, in unresolved relationship with each other for longer than your nervous system wants to manage.

The bad decision is frequently not a failure of moral courage, though it can be that. It is more often a failure of endurance — the capacity to remain in the pause long enough for wisdom to surface. Sacred Noticing asks something of us that the culture we inhabit systematically undermines: the willingness to wait for the right answer rather than accept the available one.

— ✦ —

The Spiritual Footprint and the Spiritual Trace

Here is where the anatomy becomes most instructive.

Every decision leaves a trace — not only in the world, but in you. The accumulated pattern of your choices, over time, forms what I have been calling your Spiritual Footprint: the quality of presence you carry and deposit in every room you enter. Some people’s decisions, traced over years, reveal a person who grew more integrated, more genuinely themselves, more available to wisdom. Others reveal a person who gradually accommodated, compromised, and narrowed — not through dramatic betrayal but through the small, repeated choice to end the discomfort rather than remain in the question.

The Spiritual Trace is more immediate. It is what a single decision deposits — in the people who experienced it, in the atmosphere of the room afterward, in your own interior life. A decision made from the pause, from genuine discernment, leaves a particular trace: something others sense even when they cannot name it. Steadiness. Integrity. The quality of a person who arrived in the moment rather than reacted to it.

A decision made to end the pressure leaves a different trace. Others feel it too — often as a subtle wrongness they cannot quite articulate. A closing rather than an opening. And you feel it most of all, in the quiet afterwards, when the relief has passed and what remains is the faint but persistent recognition that you knew, somewhere beneath the knowing, that this was not the answer. Only the exit.

— ✦ —

The practice is not a guarantee against bad decisions. Sacred Noticing does not promise perfect discernment. It promises that you will have been present — genuinely present, in the space between stimulus and response — when the decision was made. And that presence, practiced consistently, changes the quality of what you bring forward. Not all at once. Not without setback. But over time, in the accumulated trace of a life lived with increasing awareness, it forms a footprint that is recognizably yours.

Not the managed version. The inhabited one.

— ✦ —

One question to carry this week — not to answer, but to hold:

Is there a decision you are currently holding that you already know the answer to — and that you are resisting not because you are uncertain, but because the true answer requires you to endure something longer than the false one does?

The pause is not delay. It is where wisdom lives.

— ✦ —

The themes explored in this reflection — the Spiritual Footprint, the Spiritual Trace, and the full practice of Sacred Noticing — are developed in depth in The Practice of Sacred Noticing: Transforming Your Spiritual Footprint, publishing April/May 2026. The book includes structured practices, weekly exercises, contemplative poetry and photography, and guidance for the specific situations where discernment matters most.

 

Michael J. Cunningham OFS

spiritualbreak.com