[Dialogue] Some Reflections

[Janice Ulangca]

Very helpful, Doris, in at least 2 respects:  1) Articulating what you know, and don't know, about present ICA structure - and I'll bet many of us have the same degree of understanding (or misunderstanding).  2) You put into words very well my sense that ICA has the potential to serve the global future more effectively than any "renewed" form of the institutional church that I can see signs of.  In that sense, EI seems like going back, like narrowing the focus.  With the turn to the world, I felt we learned to find profound spirit dynamics everywhere, not just within the church.  Town Meetings were a great example of this.  I remember arriving at the summer research assembly and the shock to hear "secular" love songs playing on the elevator - and found my ears, eyes, heart open to singing these love songs to communities and the world as profound hymns.  ICA is not "the" answer - right.  But drawing on the resources of many faith communities (as does the Network of Spiritual Progressives) and offering our experiences, skills and understandings in partnership with other carefully selected entities - possibly including churches - ICA may be a signficant part of what the future needs.

Janice Ulangca
  ----- Original Message ----- 
  From: Charles or Doris Hahn 
  To: Dialogue 
  Sent: Wednesday, January 24, 2007 5:00 PM
  Subject: [Dialogue] Some Reflections


  Some Reflections

  As I tried to gather my thoughts after the first
  revelation of the November actions of the Board of the
  ICA, I realized first and foremost that I had only the
  vaguest understanding of how the ICA is structured in
  any of the many places and countries where it works.
  1) I knew that since the Global Council of 1984
  "primary units" had gone their own way and that within
  each country these units (provided there was more than
  one in a given country) figured out how to relate to
  one another. 2) I did know that there was one Board of
  Directors in the United States, but I did not know how
  it actually played out its role. 3) I was even less
  knowledgeable about the Ecumenical Institute in the
  21st century. I tended to lump everything under the
  wing of the ICA. 4) I have visited the Kemper Building
  several times during the past 20 years, but I was not
  clear that many of my colleagues who live there had no
  primary relationship to the ICA. Then, there was
  Phoenix, with people living together and apart; Denver
  which I really didn't know at all; and some separate
  families (like the Grows, who had some stunning
  accomplishments) that worked under the ICA flag. 5) I
  knew that the ICA International had moved its office
  to Canada and was busy trying to organize itself to
  play some sort of legal (and symbolic) role for
  various national entities of the ICA-that seemed to me
  to be a good idea. 6) I have an understanding of "the
  Order," but whether that matches up with anyone else's
  understanding, I can't say. And that pretty well sums
  up what I know about things to this very moment.

  Now, for a couple of reflections-one more personal and
  the other more contextual:

  1) People have been scared, and people have been hurt.
  And those who have been hurt, feel betrayed on the one
  hand and abandoned on the other. The silence following
  the Board's first announcement seemed puzzling (even
  though I was in the silent camp). No doubt, we all
  knew that what had been done could not be undone. At
  that moment, maybe the better part of wisdom was to
  let it be.

  In times of pain, anger and distrust, I try to remind
  myself that the name I give the situation defines my
  relationship to the event. Then I try to recast things
  so that I am neither victim nor irresponsible genius.
  Finding a name that takes into account as much truth
  as possible is always releasing for me, and creating
  an appropriate symbol helps me to live life in a new
  (and sometimes healing) light.

  2) The world of 1954 at the time of the Evanston
  Council of Churches and the first rustlings of The
  Ecumenical Institute (Chicago) can hardly be imagined
  from our present vantage point. E.I. served well, but
  it seems to me that the ICA became a far more
  authentic vehicle for spirit ecumenism in the 70's and
  to the present day-and perhaps the future. I attend
  church, and I live out of our theological insights
  (more and less faithfully), but the church just
  doesn't seem comprehensive enough to play the role of
  a global spirit vessel in our present world. I don't
  intend to imply that the ICA is THE answer; still it
  has viable global experience and is doing some
  creative work.

  These are simply my present reflections. Certainly, I
  don't ask you to agree, but maybe it's worth saying.

  Grace and Peace (what a great secular/religious phrase
  that is!),

  Doris Hahn


  _______________________________________________
  Dialogue mailing list
  Dialogue at wedgeblade.net
  http://wedgeblade.net/mailman/listinfo/dialogue_wedgeblade.net
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://wedgeblade.net/pipermail/dialogue_wedgeblade.net/attachments/20070124/305b96d4/attachment.html