What does it mean to “repair my house?” St. Francis understood it, partly, as a mission to restore the Church to a simpler, less ostentatious culture, where the poor would be welcomed and served; where the theological emphasis would be on the love of God.
Interview with Meggie Nolasco, Centre for Environmental Concerns, on large-scale mining in the Philippines:
Women Hold Up The Sky:
The story of how women activists affected by mining and other forms of large-scale extractives in South Africa, Uganda and the Democratic Republic of the Congo (DRC) are deeply engaged in resistance and an active struggle to take back control of their land, their rights, their bodies and their lives
The Bayou Bridge pipeline in Louisiana, environmental racism
“Resistance: The Bayou Bridge Pipeline”
https://youtu.be/cFk6zWjnk1s
“How Oil Companies Are Destroying America’s Wetlands” [produced by Al Jazeera, 2018]
Maria Full of Grace
María Álvarez, an independent, feisty, and underpaid seventeen-year-old Colombian rose packager is stuck in a tedious life and a dead-end relationship with her good-for-nothing boyfriend, Juan. And as if things weren’t bad enough, an unexpected pregnancy and an ugly altercation with her unfair boss will tempt María to accept the risky offer to become a drug mule, smuggling drugs from Bogotá to New York City. But, as things rapidly spiral out of control, suddenly, the option of an early retirement and a peaceful future for both María and her unborn baby begins to fade away. Is there a way out from this hopeless predicament?—Nick Riganas
The Devil’s MinEr
The Devil’s Miner is the story of 14-year-old Basilio Vargas and his 12-year-old brother Bernardino, who work in the ancient Cerro Rico silver mines of Bolivia. It is believed that more than eight million workers have perished in the mines since the 16th century.
Raised without a father and living in extreme poverty with their mother and 6-year-old sister on the slopes of the mine, the boys assume many adult responsibilities. It takes two months’ work just to afford the clothing and supplies vital to their education. Without an education, the brothers have no chance to escape their destiny in the silver mines.
The Vargas boys chew coca leaves to stave off hunger and keep their wits about them during their long hours in the mines, where they also present offerings to El Tío, the malevolent spirit that is believed to reside there. Each mine has its own statue of the horned demon who guards the mine’s riches. According to local legend the mines are the exclusive province of El Tío, the protector and destroyer of the miners. El Tío is a miner’s only hope of salvation in this heavily Catholic region, where the people believe that the spirit of God does not exist in the hellish underworld inside the mountain.
Filmmakers Kief Davidson and Richard Ladkani spent months with the Vargas family, journeying down into the Cerro Rico mines with Basilio, Bernardino, and the adult villagers who risk their lives to make a meager living. The result is both harrowing and moving, a portrait of a world where children risk their lives daily in hopes of an eventual better life — if the quest doesn’t kill them first.
Prayer and Reflection Resources
Colorado River – I Am Red — 3 minute reflection from the perspective of the Colorado River
Ecospirituality, a 3 minute meditation
Rosary of Creation — Joyful Mysteries
Rosary of Creation — Sorrowful Mysteries
Rosary of Creation — Mystery of the Fullness of the Universe
The history of Extractivism and the Extractive Development Model
Our integral conversation on extractivism begins with listening deeply to the immersive stories of exploitation. These stories come from communities and persons who have been harmed by extractivism. They live in environments that already have been radically altered or are undergoing radical alteration. The hardest-hit communities are most often made up of Black, Indigenous and people of color who have been systemically oppressed and discriminated against—the most vulnerable members of society.
In many cases, community leaders have been criminalized and imprisoned. Some have been threatened, even assassinated. Whole communities have been displaced from their land. These injustices are not a thing of the past; they continue today. While much of this violence is evident, other kinds of violence remain more elusive, with hidden ongoing detrimental effects. Short-term effects of environmental violence may be visible, such as clean rivers becoming stagnant lakes or beautiful mountains being exploded to bits and leveled. But in other cases, deceptively clean-looking rivers carry invisible, dangerous chemicals that are the by-products of production.
As we listen deeply to the stories of trauma, we must engage our whole body in the process of knowing. Knowing is different from empirical knowledge; it is an “inner knowing.” When we move into the place of inner knowing, we engage our hearts, and we hear those who have experienced and continue to experience exploitation and violence. We hear the cries of Earth and those who have been made poor.
The trauma of Earth speaks to us as we listen to what is happening to the air, water and land. We attend to what is emerging within us. The stories of exploitation compel us to understand why and how such suffering is occurring. We also listen to those who study extractivism to understand the scientific and economic data that speaks to these exploitative root causes and effects, including the direct causation of the climate emergency. Specialized data help us see both the visible and invisible, short- and long-term effects of extractivism. Finally, we ask the questions that emerge in us: Are we complicit in this suffering? If so, how?
After listening deeply to these voices, we will engage in contemplative dialogue and consider these questions:
What is emerging from our hearts?
What values are creating tension within us?
What is clear in us. and what remains unresolved?
How is extractivism challenging our complicity?
This is not the moment to retreat into your head. Just listen. Listen deeply. Listen with your heart. Be attentive to the voices that know of Earth’s suffering firsthand. They experienced and continue to experience the exploitative and violent effects of this suffering as it disrupts the lives of vulnerable and impoverished people. We will hear the voices of indigenous communities, who are personally engaged in the struggle against extractivism. The suffering in their own lives and communities is intertwined with the suffering of Earth. For generations, they have respected and worked in harmony with the water and land. What their minds, hearts, eyes, ears, hands and bodies already know, scientists now verify. Scientists inform us of the effects, not just to one ecosystem but to network of ecosystems. They explain the cause and effects of environmental degradation and illnesses that arise from such degradation. We will hear the voices of activists and organizers who seek to shift the balance of power back to their communities, many of whom have been forced off their land. All these voices speak to the same concerns: the suffering of Earth and the suffering of the poor.
Dr. Daniel Castillo earned his doctorate at the University of Notre Dame in 2014. While at Notre Dame, he was a National Science Foundation-funded GLOBES fellow and a Hispanic Theological Initiative fellow. He is currently an assistant professor of theology at Loyola University Maryland and a Bunting Peace and Justice fellow. He teaches courses in ecoliberation theology and environmental ethics.
Castillo has written extensively on Laudato Sí’, including the essay “Integral Ecology as a Liberationist Concept“ published in the journal Theological Studies. In his book, An Ecological Theology of Liberation: Salvation and Political Ecology, Castillo aligns his work with the works of Gustavo Gutiérrez and with Pope Francis’ encyclical, Laudato Sí’. He discusses the significance of integral ecology in the work of liberation and provides the groundwork for an eco-theological spirituality.
Castillo explains how colonialism and the ideology of plunder shaped the global north’s destructive 500-year plunder of the global south. In addition to the plunder of material and resources, colonialism promoted and perpetuated racism, misogyny and cultural superiority, often decimating indigenous languages, spiritualities and cultures. And this colonial plunder was sanctioned in a variety of ways by Christian theology.
After World War II, the old form of colonialism began to collapse. But a new form of colonialism, called neo-colonialism, was on the rise. U.S. President Harry S. Truman sought to ”improve” underdeveloped regions by introducing scientific advances as well as industrial development. This approach to the global south was and continues to be devastating to indigenous peoples, cultures, traditional ways of living and the environment. Neo-colonialism became as destructive as the first colonialism as corporations aligned with national governments to extract resources at the expense of indigenous populations.
During the devastating and violent era of neo-colonialism Gustavo Gutiérrez, a Peruvian philosopher and theologian, put forth the ideas of liberation theology calling for a radical shift toward liberation and urging a break from the developmentalism. The core principle of Liberation theology centered on “the preferential option for the poor.” By the late 1960s, Gutiérrez’s liberation theology took hold in Latin America and played a significant role in compelling communities to respond to oppressive, often deadly injustices perpetrated against the economically poor and dispossessed.
Today, Gutiérrez challenges us to seek liberation from sociopolitical and cultural structures of development. The escalation and urgency of the climate crisis and its effects on the most vulnerable communities demands an imminent conversion, according to Gutiérrez. He believes that it would be devastating to delay our responses into the distant future.
Major Points of Castillo’s Ecoliberation Lens:
Builds off the three essential beliefs of Gustavo Gutierrez’ liberation theology:
Salvation occurs in the here and now through experiences of communion and in solidarity with the vulnerable and marginalized.
Jesus’ teachings urge us to care for our neighbors, most especially those who are poor and oppressed.
Our task is to transform all social, economic and political structures that produce and perpetuate poverty, oppression and death.
Adds ecological underpinnings to Gutierrez’s liberation theology linking the cries of Earth to the cries of the poor and expanding our understanding of “neighbor” to include Earth. Supports the notion of integral ecology as described by Pope Francis in Laudato Sí’.
Calls us to reexamine our understanding of the world. How do we describe the story of the universe? Evolution provides a new way of looking at creation and our place within it. Like Ivone Gebara, challenges us to shift away from understandings of God that lead us to dominate, marginalize and oppress others.
At its heart, liberation theology, requires “a community of believers to practice works of charity and mercy, but also and importantly, to confront and transform the socioeconomic, political and cultural forces that produce injustices, material poverty and oppression (An Ecological Theology of Liberation, 919).”
Calls Christians to respond to our planetary emergencies in a way that is grounded both in the preferential option for the poor and Earth. Our response must reflect our belief in who God is and in what God desires.
Calls us to new consciousness. We are called to see the world with new eyes and create structures and practices that create conditions for all to thrive.
Questions:
What does the phrase: “Salvation occurs here and now in the experiences of communion and solidarity with the vulnerable and marginalized” mean to you?
If we are called to a preferential option for Earth, what reorientation of our lives is required of us?
What does this say to us about corporate decision making regarding the impact of extractivism, especially given climate justice as the intersection of environmental justice and racial justice?
What from the lens of ecological liberation theology is important for you to keep in mind and heart as you grow in awareness of the impact of extractivism on people, communities and Earth?
Sister Ivone Gebara, a Brazilian theologian, has committed her life to the economically poor and currently lives in Camaragibe (Recife, Brazil). She holds doctorates in philosophy and theology and has taught for 17 years at the Instituto Teologico do Recife alongside Dom Helder Camara. She is well-known for her leadership in the ecofeminist movement in Latin America, focusing on the concerns and needs of the poor.
Gebara writes:
I live in a poor neighborhood in order to feel more directly the pains of the impoverished. This allows me to do theology in another way—trying to feel the meaning of being exploited in all ways. This closeness is also a constant invitation to struggle for a different world with a least minimal justice – the right to eat, to work, to live and love with dignity.
In Longing for Running Water: Ecofeminism and Liberation, Gebara discusses the connections between Western thought, patriarchal Christianity and environmental destruction. She stresses the importance of personal conversion, a change of lifestyle in which we commit ourselves to “a new relationship with Earth and the entire cosmos.”
Through Gebara’s ecofeminist lens, we are challenged to reconsider our understanding of God and seek new ways to be in relationship with Earth.
Key points in Ivone Gebara’s Ecofeminist Theology:
Language about God not only forms our theologies about God, but also shapes our behavior toward Earth and the vulnerable of creation.
A renewed image of God is one in which God is embodied in the entire cosmos, in Earth and in all of life.
God can be “encountered in a variety of expressions.”
The immanence and the transcendence of God is inseparable. “Everyone and everything is potentially a sacrament of God.”
When we speak of God, it is out of our personal experience. We experience and conceive of God as relationship and relating.
God does not exist as a being separate from creation; God is always and everywhere present.
God is within all creation.
Through the centuries, two fundamental and dominant beliefs continue to weave through our lives and our theologies: anthropocentric beliefs—superiority of humans and androcentric beliefs—and the superiority of maleness. These two patriarchal and hierarchal lenses permeate many theological presentations and create a false understanding of God, setting up a destructive relationship between humans and non-humans.
Patriarchal and hierarchal views that claim humans are better and have a higher status than the rest of creation have led to a systemic behavior of domination by humans over all non-human creation, creating a sense of superiority over all other life.
God as relatedness compels us to experience our world differently, not better than, the rest of creation.
The first image below is often used to depict the place of all creatures in relationship to –one another—the pyramid of life. The second image includes the same components but puts them in a different relationship with one another—the community of life.
We are challenged to expand our concepts and metaphors of God, and we are called to share experiences of God that are not bound to anthropocentric images. We can shift away from images of God that are hierarchical, dominant and androcentric and embrace the diversity that reflects more fully who God is. Gebara explains:
“The invitation to love and to be mercy does not come from a reality that is external to us; rather it is an urge that is present in our very humanity. Within our very being, there throbs in us an incredible attraction toward other beings, toward creation. We must allow our life experiences to be our first teacher.”
Questions:
How did your family and your childhood experiences shape your perspective of God? In what ways did your perspective of God shape your interactions with creation, creatures and the Community of Life?
In what ways has the community shaped your relationship to God and Earth? What did you find yourself letting go of? How have your values shifted?
What about Gebara’s theological lens challenged you? What about Gebara’s theological lens inspired you or affirmed your own experience of God?
What do these two images of life say to you?
Which ecofeminist values created tension within you as you have listened deeply to experiences of trauma? What has emerged in you?
What from the lens of ecofeminism is important for you to keep in mind and heart as you grow in awareness of the impact of extractivism on people, communities and Earth?
This encyclical by Pope Francis is one of the most significant documents about creating mutually enhancing relationships among humans and the rest of creation. Like any encyclical, its purpose is to assist the reader in the formation of conscience on a specific issue. If you have time, you may want to reread the whole encyclical. Through poetic, scientific and religious imagery and language, Pope Francis challenges us to Care for our Common Home. (Click here for the whole document).
For our purposes, we will be focusing on a few sections of Laudato Si’ that will help us move toward a new consciousness related to extractivism. Allow yourself time to savor the words and be formed by their meaning.
You are invited to read and mull over each of the following quotes and connect them with extractivism as it impacts our Common Home—Earth.
What ideas from Laudato Si’ do you want to keep in mind as you view videos and read materials about extractivism?
Chapter One—What is Happening to Our Common Home? (par 17-61)
# 52) The foreign debt of poor countries has become a way of controlling them, yet this is not the case where ecological debt is concerned. In different ways, developing countries, where the most important reserves of the biosphere are found, continue to fuel the development of richer countries at the cost of their own present and future. The land of the southern poor is rich and mostly unpolluted, yet access to ownership of goods and resources for meeting vital needs is inhibited by a system of commercial relations and ownership which is structurally perverse. The developed countries ought to help pay this debt by significantly limiting their consumption of non-renewable energy and by assisting poorer countries to support policies and programmes of sustainable development. The poorest areas and countries are less capable of adopting new models for reducing environmental impact because they lack the wherewithal to develop the necessary processes and to cover their costs. We must continue to be aware that, regarding climate change, there are differentiated responsibilities. As the United States bishops have said, greater attention must be given to “the needs of the poor, the weak and the vulnerable, in a debate often dominated by more powerful interests”.[31] We need to strengthen the conviction that we are one single human family. There are no frontiers or barriers, political or social, behind which we can hide, still less is there room for the globalization of indifference.
Chapter Two—The Gospel of Creation (par 62-100)
#92) Everything is connected. Concern for the environment thus needs to be joined to a sincere love for our fellow human beings and an unwavering commitment to resolving the problems of society.
#93) Whether believers or not, we are agreed today that the earth is essentially a shared inheritance, whose fruits are meant to benefit everyone.
Chapter Four—The Human Roots of the Ecological Crisis (par 137-162)
#138) Ecology studies the relationship between living organisms and the environment in which they develop. This necessarily entails reflection and debate about the conditions required for the life and survival of society, and the honesty needed to question certain models of development, production and consumption.
#139) When we speak of the “environment”, what we really mean is a relationship existing between nature and the society which lives in it. Nature cannot be regarded as something separate from ourselves or as a mere setting in which we live. We are part of nature, included in it and thus in constant interaction with it. Recognizing the reasons why a given area is polluted requires a study of the workings of society, its economy, its behaviour patterns, and the ways it grasps reality. Given the scale of change, it is no longer possible to find a specific, discrete answer for each part of the problem. It is essential to seek comprehensive solutions which consider the interactions within natural systems themselves and with social systems. We are faced not with two separate crises, one environmental and the other social, but rather with one complex crisis which is both social and environmental. Strategies for a solution demand an integrated approach to combating poverty, restoring dignity to the excluded, and at the same time protecting nature.
#145) Many intensive forms of environmental exploitation and degradation not only exhaust the resources which provide local communities with their livelihood, but also undo the social structures which, for a long time, shaped cultural identity and their sense of the meaning of life and community. The disappearance of a culture can be just as serious, or even more serious, than the disappearance of a species of plant or animal. The imposition of a dominant lifestyle linked to a single form of production can be just as harmful as the altering of ecosystems.
#156) An integral ecology is inseparable from the notion of the common good, a central and unifying principle of social ethics. The common good is “the sum of those conditions of social life which allow social groups and their individual members relatively thorough and ready access to their own fulfillment”.
Chapter Five—Lines of Approach and Action (par 163-201)
#182) An assessment of the environmental impact of business ventures and projects demands transparent political processes involving a free exchange of views. On the other hand, the forms of corruption which conceal the actual environmental impact of a given project, in exchange for favours, usually produce specious agreements which fail to inform adequately and to allow for full debate.
#183) Environmental impact assessment should not come after the drawing up of a business proposition or the proposal of a particular policy, plan or programme. It should be part of the process from the beginning, and be carried out in a way which is interdisciplinary, transparent and free of all economic or political pressure. It should be linked to a study of working conditions and possible effects on people’s physical and mental health, on the local economy and on public safety….The local population should have a special place at the table; they are concerned about their own future and that of their children, and can consider goals transcending immediate economic interest.
#185) In any discussion about a proposed venture, a number of questions need to be asked in order to discern whether or not it will contribute to genuine integral development. What will it accomplish? Why? Where? When? How? For whom? What are the risks? What are the costs? Who will pay those costs and how? In this discernment, some questions must have higher priority. For example, we know that water is a scarce and indispensable resource and a fundamental right which conditions the exercise of other human rights. This indisputable fact overrides any other assessment of environmental impact on a region.
Chapter Six—Ecological Education and Spirituality (par 202-246)
#202) Many things have to change course, but it is we human beings above all who need to change. We lack an awareness of our common origin, of our mutual belonging, and of a future to be shared with everyone. This basic awareness would enable the development of new convictions, attitudes and forms of life. A great cultural, spiritual and educational challenge stands before us, and it will demand that we set out on the long path of renewal.
#217) Living our vocation to be protectors of God’s handiwork is essential to a life of virtue; it is not an optional or a secondary aspect of our Christian experience.
#220) This ecological conversion calls for a number of attitudes which together foster a spirit of generous care, full of tenderness. First, it entails gratitude and gratuitousness, a recognition that the world is God’s loving gift, and that we are called quietly to imitate his generosity in self-sacrifice and good works … It also entails a loving awareness that we are not disconnected from the rest of creatures, but joined in a splendid universal communion. As believers, we do not look at the world from without but from within, conscious of the bonds with which the Father has linked us to all beings.
#225) An integral ecology includes taking time to recover a serene harmony with creation, reflecting on our lifestyle and our ideals, and contemplating the Creator who lives among us and surrounds us, whose presence “must not be contrived but found, uncovered”.
#229) We must regain the conviction that we need one another, that we have a shared responsibility for others and the world, and that being good and decent are worth it.
#230) Saint Therese of Lisieux invites us to practise the little way of love, not to miss out on a kind word, a smile or any small gesture which sows peace and friendship. An integral ecology is also made up of simple daily gestures which break with the logic of violence, exploitation and selfishness. In the end, a world of exacerbated consumption is at the same time a world which mistreats life in all its forms.
#231) Love, overflowing with small gestures of mutual care, is also civic and political, and it makes itself felt in every action that seeks to build a better world. Love for society and commitment to the common good are outstanding expressions of a charity which affects not only relationships between individuals but also “macro-relationships, social, economic and political ones”. [156] That is why the Church set before the world the ideal of a “civilization of love”. [157] Social love is the key to authentic development: “In order to make society more human, more worthy of the human person, love in social life – political, economic and cultural – must be given renewed value, becoming the constant and highest norm for all activity”. [158] In this framework, along with the importance of little everyday gestures, social love moves us to devise larger strategies to halt environmental degradation and to encourage a “culture of care” which permeates all of society. When we feel that God is calling us to intervene with others in these social dynamics, we should realize that this too is part of our spirituality, which is an exercise of charity and, as such, matures and sanctifies us with all creation which Saint Francis of Assisi so radiantly embodied.
Questions for reflection:
What ideas from this document speak to your conscience around the impact of extractivism on people, communities and Earth?
As we learn about relationships between extractive industries corporations and local communities what do we need to keep in mind about creating mutually enhancing relationships? How do our option for Earth and our option for the poor impact where we stand?
What from the lens of Laudato Si’ is important for you to keep in mind and heart as you grow in awareness of the impact of extractivism on people, communities and Earth?
The Institute of the Sisters of Mercy of the Americas embraces the tradition of Catherine McAuley. We have been shaped by her vision and her living of the Gospel and by her commitment to walk with the economically poor. Following in her footsteps, we vow to be of service to persons who are made poor, persons who are sick and persons who are uneducated. We have continued to deepen our Mercy tradition in these contemporary times. In the course of our last three Institute Chapters (2005, 2011 and 2017), we intensified our desire to live in solidarity with our suffering world and with all of God’s creation. We continually seek to transform ourselves toward greater integrity of word and deed.
“The God of Mercy, Wisdom and Mystery is calling us, as Sisters of Mercy of the Americas, an international and intercultural community, to deepen our relationship with God and one another, and to intensify our work in communion with others who seek a more just and inclusive world.”
Through an expressed commitment to our Critical Concerns, we give special attention to five interrelated areas of need in our suffering world—Earth, Immigration, Nonviolence, Racism and Women. We understand that our commitment to these Critical Concerns must be considered within a broader context and in relation to one another. (Click here for more on the Critical Concerns.)
Call to a New Consciousness
During the 2017 Institute Chapter, we deepened our commitment to listen to the cries of people, communities and Earth most deeply impacted by extractive industries. We committed to respond with “integrity and clear intention” to their demand for justice and the flourishing of life for all.
As Mercy, we are called to consider more profoundly our responsibilities to Mother Earth. We seek to live in harmony and interrelatedness with Earth and to support the right of the Earth and her inter-related communities to fulfill their important roles in the ever-renewing processes of life (Berry 1999). The “demand to embrace our Critical Concerns through the lens of nonviolence” compels us to listen to people, communities and Earth—who have been brutally impacted by extractive industries.
As Mercy, we are called to listen to the communities of color and indigenous communities—those who continue to be disproportionately and violently impacted by extractive industries. We must actively work in becoming an anti-racist community and to address our climate emergency. It requires a recentering of the stories and experiences that drive our decision-making. We ask what it means today for Mercy to stand in solidarity with communities harmed by extractive industries and to address their exploitative systems and to be part of the solution to avoid the worst impacts of our climate emergency.
“Called in this moment to act,” we are compelled to respond to the impact of extractive industries on people, communities and Earth. By committing ourselves to a decentered way of listening, seeing and making decisions, we engage in decolonized analyses of the exploitative extractive development model and our own structures and practices that enable extractive industries. We seek right relationship and harmony with the community of life, in which we strive to embrace a reciprocal, cooperative and non-dominant relationship with all of God’s kindom.
“We hear the call of our suffering world. The impoverishment of peoples, the devastation of Earth and oppressive social norms and systems call us at this moment to act…To intensify our efforts to align our investments with our values and especially now, to pursue education and action against practices of extractive industries that are destroying people communities and Earth.”
Chapter 2017 Recommitment statement
Key Points in Using a Mercy Lens:
We serve the suffering of our world with a special commitment to our Critical Concerns.
We work toward transformation of greater integrity in word and deed.
We exercise a preferential option for and listen to the cries of communities, especially communities of color, Indigenous Peoples and the marginalized, demanding justice from where they stand and in their own experience.
We seek right relationship and harmony with Earth’s community of life through reciprocal, cooperative and non-dominant relationships.
We listen to the stories and experiences of others from a decentralized and decolonized place.
We caution against the imbalance and destructive forces perpetrated by the dominance of the powerful, privileged, white, patriarchal, and capitalistic/imperialistic perspective.
We continue to ask questions to get to the deepest root causes of the suffering of people and Earth.
Questions:
What stays with you from this description of the Mercy lens?
Is there a concept or element in the description that you need clarified? If so, what?
What is the key word that speaks most to you about using a Mercy lens to analyze the impact of extractivism on peoples, communities and Earth?
How do we get to the decolonized and decentralized place referenced? What, if anything, looks different there from how most of your time and energy are spent? What are the opportunities you find with this approach? And the challenges?
How have you seen the use of the Mercy lens to uncover the root causes that impact action or decision making for yourself or Mercy as a community?
As we move forward in our conversations on extractivism, we engage in the familiar process of contemplative dialogue. We will engage in contemplative dialogue in each session and sometimes several times within a session.
The First Session: SEEING—Deep Listening
The Second Session: JUDGING—Deep Reflection
The Third Session: ACTING—Deep Transformation
This process will help us center ourselves through deep listening and inner silence. We seek to create within and among ourselves a place of attentiveness that grounds us in our communal interconnectedness. It is in this circle that we make space for new ways of seeing and knowing. We open ourselves for something new to emerge. It is in this kairos moment that we seek metanoia—a conversion of heart.
Some helpful reminders as we enter our contemplative dialogue. Pay attention to what holds deep meaning for you. Open your body to feel the impact of another’s sharing. Let go of what you already know so that something new can emerge. Recall that we are transformed by conversations that we have never had before.
As we engage in the process, remember to speak briefly, share what matters in a few sentences. Speak to the center, not toward an individual. As you listen, look to the one who is speaking. Listen without thinking about what you are going to say. Relax and hold your own understandings lightly.
SILENCE. The process begins with a period of silence (It is helpful for some participants to know the amount of time for the silence. If the time exceeds 10 minutes, allow time for silent walking as some participants center better with movement).
SHARING. After the silence, allow some time for a brief sharing of how each person is coming to this moment.
Here, the convener poses a question and invites each participant to respond briefly. (The purpose here is to create a space of trust and connection among the participants to move the group to a deeper level).
The question might be, what has stayed with you or touched your heart as you listened and reflected?
DIALOGUE. Then the convener shifts the group into a period of silence, perhaps with instrumental music. Again, it is helpful for some people to announce the length of time for reflection. Once the time of reflection seems sufficient, the dialogue begins. Here the group will consider the questions posed in a particular section of a session.
It might be helpful to provide a brief period of silence in the transition between questions.
During the dialogue, each person should be given an opportunity to share before anyone speaks a second time. It is helpful to encourage participants to build on one another’s insights, contribute their own insights, and be aware of the emergence of shared wisdom.
Dialogue stops when there is a natural ending.
INSIGHT. The convener concludes the process by inviting each person to share on two questions:
How have you experienced this process of sharing?
What did you notice about what was being created in your dialogue?
