Dear All,
This is an important email for me, though it will not be for each of you.
It is one I have thought about for months, especially since returning from
a visit in ICA headquarters in Chicago in September 2012. I made that trip
because I was going to be able to meet with Jack Gilles, who was at ICA
working on the archives project. I was also looking forward to meeting with
Pam and Terry Bergdall again. The event turned out to be overwhelming for
me, in part because of the profound memories that welled up within me, in
part because of the conversations Jack and I had and the picture he
presented of the EI/ICA archive (which brought down the full breadth of our
legacy on me), and in part because I really realized that the big corporate
body that constituted EI/ICA was gone.
I left the Order in 1975 and didn’t come back into contact with Order folk
until the Millennium Conference in 2000. I have had four or five occasions
since then to be in Chicago or at a Springboard gathering. I have been on
the OE listserve for some time and on the ICA Dialogue listserve for a
year. Nelson and Elaine Stover and John Cock live nearby and I have been in
contact with them and colleagues who live in Asheville.
The eight years I was in the Order from 1967-75 shaped my life
dramatically, but for the most part my development since 1975 has taken
place apart from EC/ICA. There have been several key influences on me and I
will name three: Thomas Berry, Alfred North Whitehead (and the
International Process Network), and the practice of business law.
EI didn’t help me at all with the overwhelming task I was given growing up
as a Southern Baptist, which was to save the world. I have learned though
to balance this calling to make my life count with humility and self-care.
The basic impulse and teaching of EI is however still strong within me and
indeed is what leads to this email.
There is much to be written, but to write much at this point I feel is a
mistake because what is involved is not for me alone to articulate or
determine. It is a part of a conversation that has been going on some time
and it has to do with what we who have been a part of EI/ICA can contribute
to our time. The subject does not directly concern ICA US or any ICA
organization as an institution, though it is not irrelevant to any of them
either.
Let me start with the easiest issue, our listserves, then go to a
particular project, then to the legacy of EI/ICA.
*1. **The Listserves. *This will border on a gripe. I initially joined
the OE listserv to reconnect with my family/friends. Folks, you are still
the closest friends I have. I use friends with the knowledgeable awareness
that we were and are colleagues first and friends second, but that latter
part seems increasingly important. After going to Oklahoma City a couple of
years ago and meeting with David Dunn, I eventually asked to be added to
the ICA listserve. I thought I would be in a network of a whole different
group of people. To my surprise I found out that it was by and large the
same group of people. I don’t have any recommendation about the two
existing listserves except they are puzzling to me because I honestly don’t
see the difference. The time has passed, however, when I will do anything
other than read emails that stick out for me. I just can’t keep up and it
raises the question for me, as I’m sure it does for many of you, about what
are these listserves for. Nonetheless I keep receiving the emails because I
like to at least read the titles of the various emails. I’ll basically
leave this issue open, though I am considering going back to only being on
the OE listserve. There may be a need for a listserve around the next topic
in this email.
*2. **The Project. *The way I see the world, humanity as a whole is
moving from economic-industrial civilization to ecological-cultural
civilization. The transition we are going through is equivalent to that
which occurred with the Neolithic villages, the establishment of the
classical civilizations, the Medieval/feudal period, modernity beginning in
the 16th century and industrial civilization beginning in the 18th century.
Agricultural civilization, which began 10,000 years ago, and industrial
civilization which began 200 years ago were most fundamental. Now we are
faced with converging crises (rapid in historical terms, but not as fast as
many of us expect) and for the next century or so the changes will occur.
The goal is not Heaven on Earth, but the more Heaven the better. Thomas
Berry spoke of a “viable” human future and I like that more modest
language, but he also spoke of an “ecozoic” future and the need to care for
the comprehensive community of life even for the sake of the human.
A set of circumstances two years ago brought me into work related to
preparing for Rio+20, the third Earth Summit of the UN, which occurred last
June in Rio. Before engaging I took some time to study the “sustainable
development” history in relation to the UN. I came to the conclusion that
this was the language on the basis of which change will occur in the next
few decades if it is to occur. It is a language understood and used by all
192 member states of the UN (and no doubt those who are not members as
well) is readily understood by the business community, and is well
understood in civil society (there are 5,000 civil society groups with
consultative status with the UN). Of course, the language itself, which I
found in the UN documents produced over the last 20 years to be quite
remarkable, will not bring about change in the same way that say a local
village project will. What we are faced with, however, is the problem that
we are in the planetary phase of human development and there are no
solutions to local problems without a global shift, that is a change in the
dominant mode of human civilization globally. This statement doesn’t negate
the idea of “think globally and act locally,” of course that is where the
dominant effort must occur.
I got involved in preparation for Rio+20 with a group that was advocating
for the inclusion of ethics and spirituality in the Outcome Document for
the conference. The group is known as the “Ethics and Spirituality
Initiative for Sustainable Development” or “ESI” for short. The simple
ideas behind ESI are two: (a) if the lack of sustainable development is an
ethical and spiritual problem then ethics and spirituality must have
something to do with the solution, and (b) if we look only to economics and
science to address the issues related to sustainable development, we will
not make the needed changes.
Let me illustrate what I mean on that second point by a quote from a book
by Jorgen Randers, called *2052*:
As a consequence of the increase in the average global temperature of plus
2 degrees Centigrade by 2052, humanity will experience an increasing number
of bothersome climate effects over the decades to come. . . . Each event
will lead to public outrage and create fear for the future. But in most
cases the short-term costs of action will be seen as unacceptably high and
lead to a “well-considered” decision to postpone significant action.
Jorgen also writes of “last to lose” strategies where people will feel
there is no way to control globally either resource use or demand, so their
strategies will promote more economic growth to strengthen their own
strategic positions and ability to strengthen their own resource bases and
defenses. These strategies will only make matters worse.
Do you see the ethical and spiritual problems? People will need to do the
“un-well-considered,” that which in the short-term is not in conventional
terms in their own best interest.
Thomas Berry wrote that humans must become self-limiting. While this has
been honored in spiritual traditions, it is the opposite of the march of
civilization which has always been for more. He said we needed to “reinvent
the human at the species level with critical reflection within the
community of life systems, in a time-developmental context through story
and shared dream experience.”
Now I happen to feel that OE/ICA, or let me speak from my own experience,
the Ecumenical Institute, as I knew it, had a lot of knowledge about how to
call for, teach and prepare people for the task of large-scale change EI
also knew about spiritual formation, the kind that is needed to go through
challenging times and take risks.
Therefore I can see the role of a pedagogical effort coming out of the
historic OE/ICA community in relation to the transition from
economic-industrial civilization to ecological-cultural. I can also see
the remaining EI/ICA network as being helpful in this effort, and without
focusing on the institutional issue, I can see how this could provide an
important role for ICA.
I think there is no doubt a continuing important role for village projects
and local efforts such as the ones ICA US has undertaken in Chicago, but
that is not the subject of this particular email.
My own primary institution now is the Center for Ecozoic Societies. It is
pip-squeak big. My institution, CES, and others will engage in
collaborative efforts related to ESI, ESI will not be an organization in
itself. We will propose various projects and then people can take them up
if they wish.
We had a meeting of all of 20 people in NYC on May 14 and came up with this
initial list:
There was a discussion of authoring a book on ESI (not what this ESI group
is about, but rather a call to leaders of values-based organizations) with
chapters from the people present. The book would also serve as an anchor to
this movement.
One common project all agreed upon was commenting collectively on the
post-2015 UN development agenda.
Other collaborations are possible and these were suggested at the meeting.
Please add to this list:**
* *
· Advocating for culture/spirituality as the fourth pillar of
sustainable development
· Developing an educational curriculum on sustainable development
for VBOs (this is to help enable people to understand how to be global
citizens and the relationship of ethics, spirituality and culture to
sustainable development).
· Host ecological civilization conferences
· Engage teams of interested persons in different regions of the
world to prepare a vision and pathway to ecological civilization (the
transition from economic-industrial civilization to ecological-cultural
civilization)
· Promote the International Ethics Panel for Ecological
Civilization, Ombudsmen for Future generations, Trusteeship of the Global
Commons, Office of Ethical Assessment in the UN Secretariat and other
ethical structures of governance**
* *
· Work on the Global Interfaith WASH Alliance (contribute to the
Global Interfaith WASH Alliance (WASH stands for water sanitation and
hygiene), and support a similar initiative focused on energy)
* *
I can imagine that those who have had the training and experience I have
had through OE/ICA could be very helpful in preparing and carrying out
these two in particular:
· Developing an educational curriculum on sustainable development
for VBOs (this is to help enable people to understand how to be global
citizens and the relationship of ethics, spirituality and culture to
sustainable development).
· Host ecological civilization conferences
Another list that I want to put forward, without comment is this one:
The following were identified as areas where transformational leadership is
needed in books by David Orr and Paul Schafer:
(i) creating a new theoretical, practical, historical and philosophical
framework for the world of the future (with an emphasis on the importance
of the cultural dimension of life and of strengthening this dimension);
(ii) dealing with the intimate relationship between people and the
natural environment,
(iii) providing uncommon clarity about our best economic and energy
options,
(iv) helping people understand and face what will be increasingly
difficult circumstances, and
(v) fostering a vision of a humane and decent future.
I can imagine some of you want to be involved in ESI. I can imagine a new
Ecumenical or Ecozoic Institute to carry out the educational programs. I
can imagine this is connected with ICA though not that ICA would have to be
involved.
Well, I’ve gone on longer than I thought I would. I haven’t brought this
section to a conclusion, but I believe I have provided enough of a flavor
for you to “get it.” I’ll be interested in what you have to say either
through this listserve or by emailing me directly.
*3. **The Order (or EI/ICA) Legacy. *The story of who we were needs to
be told and the past needs to be preserved. I have wondered from time to
time if there needs to be some kind of loose order going forward. Since I
haven’t had any brilliant insights into that I am letting that ride. In
some ways I would like an affiliation where I can honor my vows (the ones I
took long ago in EI to poverty, chastity and obedience), but I can only
presently see work in forming such an order as a distraction. It is part of
our history to say that what needs to come into being must come into being
around the mission and that is enough guidance for me. I am going to do
this work and let the forms emerge.
* *
There are two troubling parts about the legacy about which I would like to
speak. One is the sense that “if we only do this ___________, everything
will change.” The second is the idea that everything is perfectly expressed
in a model. If we are to do this work, it is necessary to let go completely
of dogmatic certainty and the idea that we can make things happen.
A key event in the life of the Order which I keenly remember but no one
else to whom I have spoken seems to have remembered. McClesky gave a
lecture on the turn to the world. He drew a football diagram on the board
and talked of doing an end run around the church. He said we had a decision
to make about whether we would be a force or a leaven. At the time, the
notion was that we would be a force. So we mapped out the world and, being
obsessed with numbers in grids, went out to change it.
In this effort we can only be a leaven.
Herman
--
__________________________________________________
Herman F. Greene
2516 Winningham Road
Chapel Hill, NC 27516
919-942-4358 (ph & fax)
hfgreenenc(a)gmail.com
