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@gmail.com