Notes to shape a chapter on global organisation

Waiting and seeing is what makes for fecundity in a time of paradigm shift. None of our existing world pictures make sense. Nothing of what we think we are as the observers of the scene completely holds together. This a time when degradation and chaos, stand out and contradict the impressive orderliness and success of established institutions and enterprises - for example in the way huge wealth and chronic povery can live side by side in cities equally sophisticated, all over the planet.

This is a time of uncomfortable gestation of a new unifying perspective - my God is it uncomfortable. This time, it's not about individuals conceiving something great which makes sense to others because it is so original and truthful; it's about something shared at the outset - shared in the sense that many people have part of the entire picture that makes the whole, and nobody has the whole picture. So each needs to trust the other to share their parts in order to see the whole.

All are propelled by the same desire for and discipline in finding the truth, even if each is driven by different motives to find the truth. All are different, and cannot integrate what they know unless they accept each other's differences as part of the key to the whole picture. This requires so much work on the part of everyone involved, not least work on oneself - more than existing religious ways on their own can provide, unless they have their own internal more modest kind of paradigm shift, leading them to renounce their claims of exclusive superiority, and humbly to recognise themselves as 'members of one another'.

The growth rate of academic and industrial scientific research into the material universe, and every aspect of human existence, biological and social, is such that the factual knowledge base of mankind is now doubling every decade. The unprecedented expansion of scientific data is matched by growth of inventiveness in devising ways of putting it to use. Even the organisation of this vast body of information, in order to make it accessible and useful, is now a science in its own right.

One of the most revolutionary aspects of successive scientific and industrial revolutions over the past two centuries has been the scale on which human co-operation has developed. This has occurred in terms of

1. numbers of people involved with a common purpose

2. geographical diversity of locations from which they operate

3. complexity of the organisations which enable collaboration to take place.

4. degree and kind of specialisation required to participate in collaborative enterprise.

Today we can point to organisations embracing millions of people in a common purpose. Not just armies for making war or keeping peace, but millions linked by manufacturing, broadcasting, transport, or health, even millions competing energetically with other millions organised to the same end in order to put their (similar) products into the global market place.

The big collaborative project may be exploration, research, trade, crisis management, war, law making, education, or building cities, infrastructure for transport, communications or energy supply. Within two centuries, human enterprise has evolved in practice from being national to international, from intercontinental, to being global in scope, embracing all countries on earth in different ways. This development has not been uniform or universal, but the very visible changes many people have witnessed in their lifetimes, whether they live in the developed or the underdeveloped parts of the world, demonstrate the far reaching nature of change that has occurred.

With so much knowledge to be acquired and put to use, nobody can specialise in everything. Not even those that specialise in organising or regulating human enterprise, through politics, management and legislation, can control the whole without the participation of many whose expertise they do not share.

In earlier millennia, great creative projects – wonders of the world – were realised by the collaboration of a few, but relying upon the enslavement of many. This is still reflected in the economic imbalances between people within countries and across the world. The larger the scale of human projects, the more free collaboration rather than coercion proves to be effective and efficient in achieving the end result.

The emerging world of the third millennium is one of inter-dependency, rather than domination and dependency, democratic rather than autocratic rule. This does not dispense with the need for creative and enterprising initiative leadership, but authority has to be earned and asserted, rather than imposed and enforced, if an organisation is to function harmoniously. Negotiation, exchange and consent in this context are important dynamics, contrasting markedly with traditional notions of dictate, submission and obedience. We are in a period of transition in which the effectiveness of the former over the latter is being put to the test – usually by conflict and contention between ‘believers’ of one regime or the other.

Thanks to the world wide web, the entire knowledge base of humankind is becoming more accessible to people everywhere. The global reach of communications means that it is no longer necessary to concentrate research or production facilities in one place and bring all materials and ideas together there. Tasks and resources can be allowed to flourish wherever in the world these can be most efficiently deployed, since distance is no longer a great concern in communication of ideas or sharing of results. The distribution of technology and education in scientific method now provide tools and a common language for collaboration which spans the planet. Even so, there remains a profoundly geographical and cultural component to what kinds of knowledge are favoured and put to best use in different places.

Tools and common language assist the emergence of a common vision of humanity and the cosmos. The more people have access to the same information, the more dialogue between people rooted in different cultures and regions clarifies what they hold in common, and what sort of future they envisage for themselves and their descendents.

People can be fufilled and motivated to achieve a common aim for quite different reasons. Movement beyond competition between differing reasons and intentions, towards mutual value and respect, makes possible collaboration for common aims. Threats to the future of the world from total war, poverty, disease and environmental catastrophe are the shadow side of industrial and technological development. Neveretheless, they serve to concentrate the mind and the will on the important task of seeing things whole, and recognising for the sake of survival the total interdependence of all people and the environment on each other.

The troublesome factor in all this is that political leadership so often appeals to ignorance or prejudices based on the way things were in the past. Leadership in science, industry and business looks way ahead, aware that past successes are no guarantee of survival tomorrow. Whilst the Bush administration sought to hinder the development of a concensus response to the challenges of climate change by denying and challenging the evidence of global warming, the American business community heeded the warnings of science, and got on with developing the appropriate responses to eco-crisis.

Whilst global pharmaceutical companies tried to hold fast to their monopoly on anti-retroviral AIDS treatment drugs, for a host of considered reasons, some third world countries went ahead, manufactured and delivered drug supplies on their own, outside existing laws and conventions, and proved by doing this that it was possible to save lives on a credible scale. Moreover, it has not resulted in the collapse of the drugs industry or its research programme. But it did rely one someone being able to think outside of the box, beyond convention and precedent, something apparently difficult in such complex circumstances.

What is making a significant difference in this new century is not simply the fact of global communication via the internet, but the fact that it is quickly becoming accessible through visionary projects, not merely to the powerful of the middle classes, but also to the poor, to people without work or housing. Due to open internet access schemes in libraries, schools, and community centres, let alone those available at low cost commercially, it is now possible for a homeless person to have an internet address, to share their social and political concerns with others across the world, and make common cause on creative projects that do not depend upon peoples' social status or wealth. Being able to have a voice, and public recognition, no matter how small and insignificant it may seem, is the beginning of empowerment and self-help. The dark side of this promise, is that the same systems can be used to organise terrorist attacks without drawing too much attention to oneself, or being identified easily by a fixed location.

The choice to use these resources of such immense potential either to do good or to do evil still rests with each individual.

Leaving behind the twentieth century.

.
It was a century of violence of a scale without precedence in human history. There were two world wars, hundreds of more localised conflicts, with genocidal struggles altogether claiming a hundred million lives. Weapons of mass destruction were manufactured on an industrial scale - sufficient to wipe out earth’s population several times over - all in the name of peace and security. The pollution of the earth, air and seas, the plundering and wanton destruction of the biosphere occurred to such an extent that the future of life on earth as we know it begins to look uncertain.

Yet, it was also a century of encounter and breakthrough between people of different cultures and convictions, of monumental collaborations in science and industry spanning the planet on a scale envisaged only by a few prophetic dreamers at the outset. It was a time of exponential expansion in knowledge and understanding about humankind and all other species of life and the environment, a time of new scientific disciplines and philosophies enabling us to envisage the interconnectedness of all the parts and the whole of existence.

Science and technology made possible huge steps forward in the quality of life of billions of people, yet this was not achieved universally. The gulf between the ‘haves’ and ‘have-nots’ is as wide as it ever was, if not wider, despite some improvements for the majority of people in comparison with life a century ago. In a disturbing way, progress in human development has proved possible to halt and even to reverse due to unmanageable conflict, and the resurgence of ancient hatreds in situations where social progress masked but did not eliminate tribalism. Recognition is growing that the intellectual and social evolution of humankind has not been matched by moral and spiritual development.

At the same time, a huge decline in the numbers of people supporting both Christian and other faith communities was recorded, especially in developed and industrialised cultures. The old theocentric, religious world-views were supplanted by a world view dominated by scientific method and technical know-how. Religious and spiritual perspectives came no longer to be owned in common, but were marginalised and reduced to being no more than the option and concern of the private individual. Churches struggled to cope with decline, by responses within a range of extremes. On the one hand they tended to retreat into exclusive conservative groups of committed members for security from which to mount a crusade against secularism, or on the other hand, they modernised their belief and practice in an effort to appear more relevant to the age in ways which de-valued their spiritual core and their distinct identity.

Nevertheless, remarkable, influential holy people and teachers appeared in many religious traditions during the century. Their presence or actions raised them above the dichotomy appearing in religious communities, influencing the faithful, the lapsed, and even those for whom religion had played no part in their lives. Religious communities in the less developed countries of the world continued to play a major part in enabling their faithful members to resist deprivation and injustice, and to work through faith and hope to improve their lot.

Towards the end of the century a widespread dissatisfaction began to emerge, in part of the developed world with the achievements and experience of living with a merely functional and materialistic world view. More and more people began to speak of a hunger and a quest for spirituality in their lives, and to express a willingness to explore beyond the giveness of their original culture and tradition for something that would address their inner need. A new age of pilgrimage emerged in the barren land of secular materialism.

While division and destruction raged, the desire for real peace and human unity was bringing to birth a new consciousness of the interdependence and equal value of all people and their environment, and the unity of physical, spiritual, moral and social aspects of human existence. In post-war ruins, in the gulags, under the yoke of apartheid, neo-colonialism, and dictatorial regimes, a new sense of responsibility began to emerge for forging a common human destiny, ensuring planetary survival with trust-building and co-operation instead of violent conflict.

New political institutions like the European Community, inter-governmental and humanitarian agencies began to develop as means to work for peace, justice and equity for all. Church denominations, long isolated from each other and antagonistic towards each other, despite, or because of their decline and shaken self confidence, began to open themselves to dialogue within and across the divides of faith and culture. Mutual respect and understanding began to lead to their collaboration on moral and spiritual issues like global poverty, peace-making, human rights and environmental protection.

A remarkable feature of the years bridging the end of the century was the international Jubilee 2000 campaign to rid the world’s most heavily indebted poor countries from their crippling burden of accumulated un-repayable loans. The movement began with a small Christian ecumenical third world action group, and quickly spread to involve people from other faith communities, humanitarian and political organisations around the world. As a result the advice of world religious community leaders on the social implications of economic issues is now being widely sought by leaders of international financial institutions.

In the second half of the twentieth century, movements for peace and for the renewal of the earth and all its living inhabitants began to contend more confidently with the inherited culture of violence and exploitation, that has for so long dominated the way human beings deal with each other. Political and religious leaders began to exhort their followers to make resolves that would foster a new world view and culture of non-violence, mutual inter-dependence and collaboration.

The Geneva Spiritual Appeal proclaimed and signed by leaders of humanitarian organisations and religious communities on United Nations day 1999, represent a growing convergence on essential convictions around which people of all faiths and ideologies can unite. These are an expression of the new global consciousness that has been emerging through the dark and violent times of the past century.

“Because our personal convictions or the religions to which we owe allegiance have in common a respect for the integrity of humankind -

Because our personal convictions or the religions to which we owe allegiance have in common a rejection of hatred and violence -

Because our personal convictions or the religions to which we owe allegiance have in common the hope for a better and more just world -

Representing religious communities and civil society we appeal to the leaders of this world, whatever their field of influence, to adhere strictly to the following three principles :

A refusal to invoke a religious or spiritual power to justify violence of any kind,

A refusal to invoke a religious or spiritual source to justify discrimination and exclusion ;

A refusal to exploit or dominate others by means of strength, intellectual capacity or spiritual persuasion, wealth or social status.

Grounded in the Genevan tradition of welcome, refuge and compassion, our appeal is open to all whose convictions are in accordance with these three demands.”

In Britain the Millennium Resolution was published at the end of 1999, with the backing of political and church leaders.

“Let there be :

Respect for the earth

Peace for its people

Love in our lives

Delight in the good

Forgiveness for past wrongs

and from now on a new start.”

Although much simpler in content, together with the Geneva Spiritual Appeal, this represents an important creative moral impulse arising at the end of the twentieth century, to be carried forward into the new millennium. They represent the broad vision of a non-violent society in which peace and right relationships are goals towards which people resolve to work They require great strength of understanding and commitment on the part of all participants in the community of nations - both leaders and the led. They raise the question: from whence now comes the strength, the wisdom, the inspiration, the understanding needed to succeed?

In the past century, old religious institutions, political ideologies were tried and found lacking by multitudes of their adherents. The moral and spiritual movement towards a non-violent social order has arisen from great individuals who participated in the old institutions and ideologies but transcended them with the quality of their own integrity, inner resolve and faithfulness to the spirit and intention of their belief systems. As we recognise the wisdom and value of their contribution to human progress, how do we apply and advance their work? What sort of moral and spiritual education is required for rising generations to be aware of the roots of the horrific errors of past human behaviour? What kind of religious institutions and communities are needed to celebrate and nurture this spirituality and ethic? Are existing institutions capable of being converted, so that their essential role and task is honoured, and so that they are no longer pre-occupied with their history, status, protocols and other issues inessential to the work of reconciliation, peace-making, healing and community building?

Many people in religious institutions, both Christian and no-Christian appear to be trapped within a conflict of understanding and interests determined by conservative or liberal attitudes to doctrine and faith practice. All are concerned with making a right and proper response to one question : How can I be loyal to the ideals and precepts of the God whose worship gives my life meaning and purpose? The problem is that there are differences in the way God and the divine will and purpose are being understood, between world religious communities, but within those communities themselves. Differences are exacerbated by ignorance and distorted perception of each other’s true experience and situation.

In the era of international travel and communications, of the ‘global village’, people of different faiths and cultures are now living and working alongside each other and getting to know about each other’s beliefs and religious practices. Mutual knowledge and acceptance can lead to trust and respect, a willingness to learn from each other and see one’s own life and spiritual journey in the life of the other person’s. As a result, for some people, an awareness is growing of common experiences of living their faith in God, and of spiritual exploration that leaps over the ancient divides of denomination, religion, culture and even the contemporary conservative – liberal divide.

Religious believers of all kinds find themselves immersed in a sea of secularism in daily life, surrounded by others for whom the spiritual pilgrimage means little. Instinctively they realise that they have more in common with someone whose value system derives from their faith. Even though they may disagree on issues, they find themselves more at home with the follower of another religious faith than they would feel with someone whose values are determined by egotistic secular materialism. A shared value system and ethic depends ultimately on a deep common experience of what it means to be human, that goes beyond culture or conditioning, to the extent that external beliefs and behaviours become irrelevant.

The past few centuries produced some people of high moral and spiritual qualities who found that the beliefs and institutions of religion are not necessary to their personal development. They are in a class apart from those whose denial and rejection of traditional concepts of God and morality were an expression of rebellion against society, and a pretext for evil doing. Denying a place for any concept of God and a pre-defined religious and moral order was part of a quest for truth and authentic living within the limits of their own perception and reason. The idea of ‘religionless’ spirituality, a humanism that excludes transcendence and theism was of itself an expression of an urge to transcend the limitations and compromises of given social and religious norms. It takes and detaches an important aspect of traditional spiritual thinking – the apophatic, via negativa, in order to give it proper attention and extend the human capacity for reasoning about the essential values and principles of life. However, it still needs to draw from the pool of conceptual language generated by religious thinking to communicate its insights and precepts.

Pure reasoning needs to be clothed in the symbolism of art, poetry and music to be effective, and ‘religious’ spirituality has been a powerful source of inspiration in the creation of the complex world of symbols we rely upon to share meanings with each other in depth. A sense of kinship can exist between a person of religious faith, and one who has no place for religion in their lives if they are bonded by a shared experience of higher consciousness in their common search for the truth of existence. This search for truth continues wherever the struggle for renewal of our humanity goes on, in the face of the betrayals, bewilderments, terrors and tragedies of everyday life.

We have arrived from the twentieth century with a sobering sense of what the consequences are of religious and social institutions settling for something less than the truth. Dangerous partial understandings, as well blatantly false and foolish notions of what it means to be human, held governments and religious communities captive, under fascism, communism, and neo-fundamentalism. More recently a range of new quasi-religious movements have appeared all over the world in developed and underdeveloped countries alike. These are pessimistic about the future, obsessed with the possibility of the world being rescued from its fate by extra-terrestrials – whether they be new messiahs, angels, or technologically superior beings from other galaxies. The promise of a fix-all solution, or an ultimate rescue from the mess we have created for ourselves, each in their different ways, detract from everyone taking responsibility for themselves and their share in the fate of the world. In many instances the promises of the leaders of these movements have proved not only to be false but fatal to their adherents. This has helped increase distrust in any kind of religious movement that asserts its position with authority and confidence. Both authentic and inauthentic religious communities are challenged as a result.

As we look to the future, fully aware of the world’s problems, and the responsibility all share for tackling them, there are special lessons to carry forward from our most recent history, simply because huge changes have taken place through industry, science and technology which were scarcely imaginable a century ago. Most importantly, the emerging sense of inter-connectedness, interdependence and mutual responsibility among many in the end-of-century generation is nurtured by world travel and global telecommunications. We are perhaps in the midst of another great paradigm shift, like that of the renaissance, the first industrial revolution, or the era of Einstein, Freud and Jung.

Any great universal change in the way people look at and talk about their world is preceded by the accumulation of a wealth of information which cannot be interpreted by existing means. As yet there is no universal theory of interpretation that succeeds, in the sense that it has influenced the language, ideas and shared symbols of people world wide. Almost everywhere on earth there is evidence of international commerce and mobility. This has brought about widespread changes of awareness and understanding, but so far this unites some, but not all of the human race. People are still divided into political and economic blocks striving for supremacy or survival, rather than for co-existence, harmony and partnership. Unifying the world’s population depends upon what can be done to overcome the unjust imbalance between sections of the population, and what can be done to repair the damage to the planet, and restore right relationships between people and their environment.

Putting an end to the fear and insecurity, on which all exploitation and injustice thrive, seems impossible. It has to happen at an individual as well as a collective level to succeed. Force has manifestly failed to achieve this. Non-violence, by methods of persuasion, motivating and reconciling, has shown it can succeed where it is allowed to operate. It springs from the heart of the religious and spiritual quest for truth – sometimes at the very point where it causes discomfort to ordinary religious institutions with a taste for the comfort of general acceptance and tolerance.

At its best religious and spiritual quest for truth is a creative irritant to religious institutions and stimulates change. Religious history, however, contains both ancient foundations which have mutated through reform, and a succession of new institutions, born of a need to make a space for the inspirations of the day to flourish on their own terms. For example, the development of Christian monasticism at several stages from the fourth to the twentieth century represents different desires to live the faith in new ways without the compromises made necessary by living entirely within the existing status quo.

Monasticism, and missionary movements in the history of Christianity have sought to re-state and reclaim the founding vision of faith to communicate to people in their own time and circumstances. The individuals who articulated the vision served as a gathering point for their contemporaries. They did not set out to create new institutions but, by their expression of the spiritual quest in their age, they became builders of new communities in worship and service, for their contemporaries and their inheritors.

Wherever teaching about God is expressed in a way that is genuine and in touch with the spiritual hunger of the age, the outcome is manifested in new faith-communities that express their values and respond to issues of most concern to contemporaries. Sometimes this occurs within existing church institutions alert to the ‘signs of the times’. Sometimes a ‘new creation’ emerges from the search for truth, or a response to crisis. The relationship between established and innovative expressions of community has often been a problem.

As the paradigm shift occurs, setting the tone for global consciousness, reconciled diversity, mutual interdependence and collaboration in human affairs, what will happen to current, and already declining religious institutions? Will they keep fighting old battles, occupying themselves with the detail of their identity, defending their territory and their insights against emerging communities with different agenda? Do they see themselves as preserving old ways for as long as extinction takes, and no more? Or will they opt for openness, exchange, and dialogue, understanding that the quest for knowledge of and faithfulness to God is equally precious to every spiritually seeking person, and worthy of affirmation? These questions underlie the crisis of established religious institutions at a time which is most propitious for experiment, adventure and innovation.

The need to explore new ways of being a community centred upon religious faith is very strong today. It exists because of changes taking place in global society, which are still not properly interpreted or understood. There are many expressions of spiritual hunger around, seeking a home in new faith-communities. But sowing the seeds for their emergence is important not just for today, but also for tomorrow. Clearing the ground, making space for the spiritual and moral evolution of humankind where our descendents may feel free and creative to make their own lives as community of the Spirit, is a major project for the beginning of the new millennium

Both good and bad habits are learned from our forebears. We have an opportunity to consider carefully what we want to hand on to those who succeed us, that will enable them to live by justice and peace with each other and in harmony with the earth. Rules, codes, ideals and philosophies all have their place in the scheme of things, but all are secondary to the lived experience of being with people united across the differences of religioun, race, class and culture by a common desire to seek God, and to live together in justice, compassion, truth and peace, conscious of being God’s children.

What are the distinguishing marks of this kind of community expressing the shape of the ‘church’ to come, at the beginning of the twenty-first century?