[The following 1994 ‘fragment’ describes four ways I experience (and understand) ‘community’. These four ways are presented in order on a spectrum from unconditional to conditional and reflect a sequence from praxis to reflection.]
The first and primary experience of ‘community’ for me occurs whenever/wherever I am unconditionally ‘face to face with the world’. The specifics and peculiarities of this experience of ‘community’ necessarily and richly vary. This experience occurs whenever/wherever I take the risk to initiate and sustain a relationship, a covenant, a friendship that is genuine and without regard for return.
The experience of ‘community’ for me that is nearest to this first and primary experience of ‘community’ forms when I discover others whose way of being ‘face to face with the world’ so resonates with mine that when together we support each other in our shared strengths, our shared weaknesses, our struggle with loneliness. The shared way of being creates and defines this experience of ‘community’. How we have come to this way of being does not define or determine having a place in this ‘community’. This distinction encourages and protects the liberty of each one to speak freely (i.e., without competition) about the traditions, convictions, and resources that make his/her journey special. The shared way of being certifies the validity of each one’s ‘story’. No one in this experience of ‘community’ hears another’s story with a disposition to criticize, undermine, or correct.
The conversations in this experience of ‘community’ nearest to being ‘face to face with the world’ may disclose that some (perhaps many) interpret their life’s core/center -- which is essentially human in focus -- in transcending terms. Such disclosure should be included in the chronicling and communication that overflows from the experience of ‘community’ nearest to being ‘face to face with the world’. Participants are free to explore the proposed association of ‘phenomenal’ and ‘noumenal’ realities that inspire awe and contemplation. The point of reference remains the shared resolve to be ‘face to face with the world’. This more intimate experience of ‘community’ nurtures a perspective that includes room for doubt, ensures a healthy penitence, is modest (i.e., can envision sacrificing its existence to a higher cause), values leavening hiddenness.
If these three experiences of ‘community’ form consistent with the traditions and resources of the participants’ ‘religious’ journeys, then recourse to an experience of ‘community’ within the ‘religious’ sphere becomes appropriate. Given the ‘outsider’ position, the tendency toward idolatry within the ‘religious’ sphere, and the lack of time to spend this far removed from being ‘face to face with the world’ (i.e., the first and primary experience of ‘community’) – such fourth-order experiences of ‘community’ within the ‘religious’ sphere are most likely to be found either in gatherings perceived to be marginal and/or unorthodox by the larger ‘religious’ sphere.
This layered experience of ‘community’ hinges on a view of being human that is not satisfied apart from attention to the human geist and that, therefore, anticipates the possibility of authentic encounters with every human being. This layered experience of ‘community’ promotes a way of being in which the intent (L., to reach or to stretch) is:
The first and primary experience of ‘community’ for me occurs whenever/wherever I am unconditionally ‘face to face with the world’. The specifics and peculiarities of this experience of ‘community’ necessarily and richly vary. This experience occurs whenever/wherever I take the risk to initiate and sustain a relationship, a covenant, a friendship that is genuine and without regard for return.
The experience of ‘community’ for me that is nearest to this first and primary experience of ‘community’ forms when I discover others whose way of being ‘face to face with the world’ so resonates with mine that when together we support each other in our shared strengths, our shared weaknesses, our struggle with loneliness. The shared way of being creates and defines this experience of ‘community’. How we have come to this way of being does not define or determine having a place in this ‘community’. This distinction encourages and protects the liberty of each one to speak freely (i.e., without competition) about the traditions, convictions, and resources that make his/her journey special. The shared way of being certifies the validity of each one’s ‘story’. No one in this experience of ‘community’ hears another’s story with a disposition to criticize, undermine, or correct.
The conversations in this experience of ‘community’ nearest to being ‘face to face with the world’ may disclose that some (perhaps many) interpret their life’s core/center -- which is essentially human in focus -- in transcending terms. Such disclosure should be included in the chronicling and communication that overflows from the experience of ‘community’ nearest to being ‘face to face with the world’. Participants are free to explore the proposed association of ‘phenomenal’ and ‘noumenal’ realities that inspire awe and contemplation. The point of reference remains the shared resolve to be ‘face to face with the world’. This more intimate experience of ‘community’ nurtures a perspective that includes room for doubt, ensures a healthy penitence, is modest (i.e., can envision sacrificing its existence to a higher cause), values leavening hiddenness.
If these three experiences of ‘community’ form consistent with the traditions and resources of the participants’ ‘religious’ journeys, then recourse to an experience of ‘community’ within the ‘religious’ sphere becomes appropriate. Given the ‘outsider’ position, the tendency toward idolatry within the ‘religious’ sphere, and the lack of time to spend this far removed from being ‘face to face with the world’ (i.e., the first and primary experience of ‘community’) – such fourth-order experiences of ‘community’ within the ‘religious’ sphere are most likely to be found either in gatherings perceived to be marginal and/or unorthodox by the larger ‘religious’ sphere.
This layered experience of ‘community’ hinges on a view of being human that is not satisfied apart from attention to the human geist and that, therefore, anticipates the possibility of authentic encounters with every human being. This layered experience of ‘community’ promotes a way of being in which the intent (L., to reach or to stretch) is:
To hope rather than to despair
To give rather than to take
To unite rather than to divide
To enrich rather than to deplete
To care rather than to ignore
To heal rather than to harm
To listen empathetically rather than to speak presumptuously
To educate rather than to force
To trust rather than to suspect
To build on strengths rather than to build on weaknesses
To be thankful rather than to be demanding
To forgive rather than to seek revenge
To revere all life rather than to devalue any life