Common Fire is the report from a big research project. It
has four authors who, oddly enough, always refer to themselves as “we” when
they describe themselves in the book. It’s only a couple times, but still. I
believe we’re talking about 2 married couples working together on the research,
too. Their project was this: find the kind of people exercising positive
leadership in a new global commons – among the complexity, diversity, and
ambiguity – and see what makes them tick. Basic requirements of these people:
engaged for a long time, not burnt out, decent human beings. (i.e. you don’t
have to be perfect, but your home life shouldn’t be a travesty, either. John
Howard Yoder would not qualify.) Each of the four researchers chose some people
to interview and then asked them for references to other mentors, mentees,
contacts, etc., eventually interviewing a body of about 100 participants who
qualified, and then maybe another 20 in a comparison group who almost
qualified, but were showing signs of burnout or other problematic issues. This
isn’t a control group, but a group that might help isolate more strongly some
of the qualities that made the study group successful in the face of all the
stress involved in the kind of leadership they were doing.
Reading the book in some ways was like reading a quiz in
Cosmo – does this apply to me? Does this? Do I qualify there? I think the
writers’ goal, though, was to figure out how we can have more of these leaders –
people who do good work in a complex, global community, to make the world
better for everyone. As a pastor, that’s one of my goals, too, or maybe one way
of describing what my goals are.
Here are some threads that stick out, as in, I remember them
from the reading and am still chewing on them:
-Constructive engagement with “the other.” It was rare for
people who hadn’t have some kind of positive cultural immersion to have the
distance from their own culture and the compassion for others that would make
it possible to work for change in their home culture.
-Building bridges across tribes – the global commons means
working across race and class boundaries, as well as nations and cultures.
These people found ways to both clearly be themselves and members of their
respective “tribes,” and also build relationships with members of other “tribes.” Great quote – “White people are a tribe, too, they just don’t realize it. They
think everyone else is a tribe and they’re just normal individuals.” (somewhat
paraphrased)
-a sense of the work as core to the person’s identity: this
is who I am, what I am fundamentally about – I can’t NOT do this work.
-This commitment often developed because of family members
engaged in the good of the commons. Examples: the white mom who takes a poll test, the
union family talking politics after the kids are “in bed” but really listening
at the top of the stairs, that kind of thing.
-sometimes kids develop a commitment and conscious through
other important adult figures in youth or young adulthood. A lot of this
behavior was set by young adulthood. It was rare for people to start in after
30 or so (granted, the study wanted people who had been at it a while, so….)
-community – it was important for these people to have a
sense of connection to others who were also doing similar work. For example, a
married couple both highly committed to neighborhood work. Or a community of
activists who all sit on each others’ nonprofit boards of directors. There was
a fascinating chain of mentors in the first interlude – a woman from the late
1800s, coming down to the present – a young black man developing real power
from the inside in the investment world, thanks to his mentor in business – a man
who is also a pastor. One woman had a powerful experience in the peace corps
and now works on a global scale, keeping in mind what her friends in Africa
would say about what she is doing and how it speaks to them and their needs.
-confession and forgiveness were important practices for
continuing in the work without sinking into despair. A tolerance for not having
things be perfect – doing what’s needed even in spite of difficulties.
-dialogue and complexity - seeing the interconnected whole of everything. These people had a strong sense of 1. everybody matters because 2. we are all interconnected. They didn't look for simple answers to problems, but were willing to engage the complexity and then move forward with a best possible response, not necessarily seeing that response as the silver bullet.
-sense of proportion - related to this, the study participants both saw their work as very important and as very limited - "I'm only one person, this struggle will continue long after me, but I have to do the part that belongs to me."
For religious communities, the authors recommend, in
response to their findings:
1.
Create inclusive communities that practice Love,
Justice, and Mercy. A community that can be a hospitable place to have
constructive engagement with people who are different, to learn compassion,
develop wisdom, is well on its way to being somewhere that helps people expand
their vision of who counts and why work for the global commons is important.
2.
Pay attention to symbol and story – the power
and the limitation of both
3.
Help people see life how it really is – give people
tools for interpreting the world accurately
4.
Foster a sense of vocation
5.
Bring religious insight into dialogue with the
commons.
So, no pressure religious leaders of America! :)
This is a good book, but a hard one to
summarize. Might be worth a re-read sometime down the road.
No comments:
Post a Comment