Home > Blogs > About Rich's Work > Rich's Blog: Redeeming Hope
Printable Version
Tell a friend
Civic spirituality
-
Mar 20, 2006 Posted by Rich HarwoodWhen I was speaking at the LBJ Presidential Library last week, a woman rose from her chair to ask me if I had links on our Web site to various spiritual and religious thinkers. I had mentioned earlier in my talk that I believe America is in desperate need of a new kind of “civic spirituality.”
I responded by saying that we didn’t have links to such thinkers – and I didn’t think we would. I noted that such thinkers are important and that many Americans look to them for guidance. (See “Can religion bring us together?”)
My belief is that we need a civic spirituality in America. The two words placed together – almost an oxymoron these days – is the power and currency I’m looking for.
Civic spirituality calls us to belong to the civic realm; it asks us to see ourselves as belonging to something larger than ourselves; it would have us hold a belief in the innate goodness of people – even, maybe especially, as we see and experience evil and unfettered materialism and corruption around us.
The civic spirituality I have in mind – no, the civic spirituality that I can feel in my heart – would have us know of the progress we have made in our collective past, and thus provide us with a sense of possibility about our common future.
This civic spirituality would call on us to know, as the author Kathleen Norris has so eloquently written about, the “necessary other” – that we must hear and see and come to know that which is different from ourselves … that we purposefully test our thinking and our passions before locking into a fit of certitude.
The civic spirituality I am thinking about would cultivate our sense of humility – and remind us that humility is vital to any common experience.
It would engage us to live with a sense of grace, in which we are willing to leave room for the unimaginable or inexplicable to occur – and that we do not close ourselves off in our attempts to squeeze out ambiguity, uncertainty, and fear.
The civic spirituality I ask us to consider will require at least one more element: courage. But here I do not mean the modern-day courage of beating our breasts with bravado or of raising our voices to intimidate one another. No, while I may mean many things, let me suffice to say here that I am referring to the courage it takes to step forward and be seen and to engage.
My personal dream is to write a book about civic spirituality. It is the other half of the story of public innovation about which I wrote two weeks ago. We need both: public innovation and civic spirituality – for today, we are in short supply of both.
It doesn’t have to be that way. We can create new pathways in public life and politics that offer authentic hope. I know that’s what many of you who read this blog are already doing.
So, I thank the woman who rose from her chair to ask me the question.
-
Apr 4, 2006 | Mike Hochleutner | mike@alfsv.org
Words can have many meanings, especially when they deal with topics that have strong emotional currents, such as race, sex or religion. So it is no surprise that those of us commenting have had slightly different reactions to the term 'civic spirituality.' I love the fact that it provokes a reaction, and my hope is that the reaction it provokes in most people is one that leads them to seek a deeper explanation of its meaning, which is what I see here.
I imagine that some people will not be open to this term, either because (1) they have such strong emotional connections to a religious faith that they are suspect of any effort that associates spirituality with anything other than religion, or (2) they are so repelled by religious faith that the notion of spirituality in public life strikes them as a threat to the separation of church and state. In either of these cases, I must admit that it doesn't concern me. I think the major challenge of our time is to engage the reasonable majority--those who don't want to have to only choose between two extremes.
For me, spirituality has most often meant 'a sense of connectedness', which can involve other people, the natural world, or something beyond. Patrick noted that because it does not necessarily imply anything more active than being connected, it may not spur engagement. Still, if most citizens felt truly connected to their civic institutions, I think our government and public attitudes would be utterly transformed. Moreover, I think the comment that spirituality implies a sense of aloneness is based on an interpretation of how some people practice spirituality, rather than of spirituality itself. It may be true that some people who are not 'religious' invoke spirituality out of a sense of aloneness or laziness, but this only confirms that there is a hunger for the connectedness that comes from real spirituality--the kind that leads to humility, grace and courage, as Richard described it. I would rather not give up on the ideal of civic spirituality, or allow it to be defined solely by how spirituality is practiced by some.
Even for the most spiritually advanced, maintaining humility, grace and courage is not a one-time effort (or so I have been told by those far more advanced than I). It requires constant renewal and practice. For those of us who need all the help we can get, engaging in dialogue about the meaning of spirituality, and how it might apply to civic life, is one way to develop a better understanding of what is 'SHOULD' mean, and that is a step toward being able to put civic spirituality into practice. http://www.alfsv.org
-
Mar 29, 2006 | Patrick
I have to say I'm a bit troubled by the invocation here of spirituality rather than faith in the civic realm. "Spirituality" as a concept seems to be often adopted by those who are renouncing organized religion, but want to maintain a connection to something larger than themselves. I cannot begin to count the number of times I have heard people say, "I'm not religious, but I am spiritual". To me this always indicates a desire to find something beyond themselves, without a willingness to actually engage beyond themselves, or to play by anyone else’s rules, or even listen to their views. Spirituality, in this sense, is the last refuge of the selfish.
I agree with Casey that “spirituality” implies a sense of ownership, but I think it also implies a sense of aloneness. Whereas the concept of faith requires that we trust, believe in, and depend on forces outside of ourselves, spirituality allows us to exist entirely within a web of our own design. As you know, such a close-knit web is antithetical to a stronger public life. I can certainly see a place for spirituality in public life, but we cannot give sort shrift to faith.
-
Mar 21, 2006 | Casey Dawes | casey@RadicalRetirement.com
Civic spirituality implies a sense of ownership to me. I own my connection to others, my community, the world and earth. I own my actions and my words. I can no longer use excuses of stress and too much to do and other people's expectations. I need to face fear right now and have the courage to speak the truth in a loving manner.
It cannot be religated only to the religious. It is an important part of being human. http://cdawes.blogs.com/retire/
-
Mar 20, 2006 | Mattice | mattice@communitypartnershipinc.org
My comment is related to civic spirituality but in direct response to the "authentic civic engagement" piece included in your most recent newsletter. I completely agree with what was said in both. But how does an organization, desiring to be catalytic, allow the time for this process to unfold when funders and even citizens themselves are looking for efficiency and results?