T HIS YEAR, THE 10TH ANNIVERSARY of the Fellowship for Intentional Community, is also the anniversary of events - nearly 50 years ago - which launched its forerunner organization, the Fellowship of Intentional Communities.
Those of us who gathered at the Community Service, Inc. organization in Yellow Springs, Ohio, in the late 1940s were profoundly affected by World War II, a global tragedy that forced many of us to question the very foundations of the "civilized" world. Most of those present at those initial meetings were men who had refused to be conscripted into military service. My personal refusal had landed me in prison. Others had spent time in Civilian Public Service camps.
Because of the war, we had all become interested in what were then called "co-operative communities." We saw them as a means to build a more humane and equitable society from the grass roots. This meant alternative ways of making a living. For instance, Macedonia Community in Clarkesville, Georgia, was making and selling educational toys. Our hope was that we could develop an entire alternative economy of trading among cooperative communities. So our initial name for the organization was "Inter-Community Exchange." It was only after a year or two that we realized the main thing we had to exchange was fellowship.
Another factor in arriving at the name Fellowship of Intentional Communities (substituting "intentional" for "cooperative") was the need to imply commitment. The original FIC made its decisions by what is now called "consensus." In doing so, we relied on our common commitment to help build the foundations for a more humane and equitable global society. While each of us had arrived at this commitment by a unique personal sequence of events and choices, we all held a similar vision.
In my case, I was deeply affected by many hours of reading and meditation in prison, where, being assigned to the Education Department, I was allowed the latitude to prepare for and conduct discussion classes in philosophy and psychology. I also had ready access to the prison library. The soul-searching that this made possible made it clear to me that I had done the right thing in refusing conscription. Yet I knew I had been privileged to sit out the war in prison while my friends, and millions of others, were killing and dying. My best friend, for instance, was killed at Pearl Harbor. Readers who didn't experience the global turmoil at the time would probably have difficulty picturing the tragic and disruptive social climate which prevailed.
It is important to understand that those of us who refused to participate in "the war effort" could not escape complex moral dilemmas. The military dictatorships in Germany, Italy, and Japan were, after all, a genuine threat to what was left of civilized society. While I believe that moral dilemmas are an inevitable part of lives of free choice--where a choice by one of us may impact the subsequent options open to all of us--perhaps we can live so that they don't build to the life-wrenching level presented to the world during the first half of this century.
For me, the challenge which emerged from this realization was to work at the most fundamental levels of society so as to "take away the occasion for war," as George Fox, the founder of Quakerism, put it.
Soon after my release from prison, our small family of three headed for Yellow Springs, Ohio, to renew my acquaintance with Arthur Morgan (founder of Community Service, Inc.), to experience living in a small community, and to help Arthur and Griscom Morgan's work at Community Service, Inc. While doing research in the communities movement I had come across descriptions of the scattered and struggling "cooperative" communities, so I suggested that Community Service host representatives to a gathering in Yellow Springs following its annual Small Community Conference.
As you can see, these beginnings of what has become the intentional communities movement didn't just emerge without many years of struggle, dialogue, and long meetings.
WHILE THINGS DEVELOPED MORE OR less smoothly during the first 10 years of the FIC, we reached a crisis in 1958 when, during a meeting at Pendle Hill community, the Society of Brothers (the Bruderhof communities) sent word that they would no longer participate. Some of those present at that meeting were Norman and Betty Polster (Bryn Gweled), Staughton Lynd (University Settlement), Bob Luitweiler (Woolmandale), Marion Hoyt and Dan Wilson (Pendle Hill), Art Harvey (Fallsington), Harold Winchester (Gould Farm), Gris Morgan (The Vale), David Gale (Nonviolent Direct Action), Dick Falkenstein and Olga and Bob Pinkston (Koinonia), and Kenneth Balsley, Steve Guthrie, and myself (Tanguy Homesteads).
The Bruderhof gave as their reason that they were only incidentally committed to community - their main commitment was to the Christian way of life they were called to.
A major factor in this estrangement may have been the feeling, on the part of one participant especially, that the Bruderhof was draining other communities of their leadership. Practically the entire leadership from Macedonia had moved to Bruderhof communities during those 10 years. And it was a great loss to Celo community when Doug and Ruby Moody, Dick and Lois Ann Domer, and Wendell and Pepper Hinkey also made the move. I didn't share those feelings. I saw no indication that there had been any coercion involved in these moves. Basically, the Society of Brothers offered a life of deeper commitment, and people who wanted that responded.
In fact, I was saddened by the Bruderhof's departure from the FIC, having worked so closely with Art Wiser (one of those who had moved from Macedonia to the Bruderhof) and other Bruderhof members who had played significant roles in developing the Fellowship over those first 10 years. I felt like I was losing contact with friends.
IN THE REORGANIZATION THAT FOLLOWED, I took on the role of Chair, and Griscom Morgan became the Treasurer. Together, we set about trying to inspire a revival of the communities movement, compensating not only for the departure of the Bruderhof, but also for the fading mem ory of the crisis atmosphere that characterized the war years, and the fact that member communities were putting so much energy into internal challenges that little was left for "the movement." In the 1959 FIC Yearbook, I wrote an article, "The Future of FIC," designed to evoke contributions from all interested parties regarding the future of the movement. Here are selected excerpts:
This quotation emphasizes the importance of depth of commitment in building community. Among the active participants in today's FIC, the importance of common commitment is well recognized. It is essential in making the consensus decision-making process work. And the consensus process, in turn, is essential for constantly applying "reality checks" on both the nature and depth of the common commitment. Difficulty in reaching consensus is often a sign of slippage in agreement about common commitment.
MUCH OF THE DISCUSSION at the Spring '97 FIC Board Meeting at Edenvale, British Columbia, centered around formulating a mission statement and a vision statement.
I see today's FIC at a crossroads similar to that faced by the earlier FIC 40 years ago. In each case, the issue arose after a decade of working together. In each case, the issue became one of clarifying, or reformulating, the basic "common commitment" that makes consensus work and that makes community work.
The earlier FIC never fully met the challenge. We stated it, and made some progress, but not enough to sustain the organization. Thus, despite many and persistent efforts on the part of several of us, that earlier FIC gradually sank into non-existence.
In looking through my records of the earlier FIC, I found a draft statement by a few of us from Tanguy Homesteads dated 1961. Here are excerpts:
We who write this owe you an explanation for the dearth of news about the Fellowship of Intentional Communities. The fact is that FIC has finally been laid to rest. If anyone is interested in reviving it we will be glad to discuss the matter with them. The surplus funds were turned over to the Homer Morris Fund and we have the files in our possession. [Later this fund was called the Community Education Service Council, which has subsequently become the Community Business Loan Fund operated by the current Fellowship - a curious instance of the child becoming the father to the man.]
Why has this been done? Because we who have been trying to revive FIC have been unsuccessful in our attempts. We have failed to raise the banner which could recruit the necessary interest and participation. Our problems were not financial. We got sufficient response from interested individuals, but we felt that we were representing the communities movement to be something which it wasn't. We had hoped for more participation and unity from member communities, but it just didn't come. We saw the communities movement as confused, and we were unable to find a way out of the confusion.
When the Society of Brothers withdrew from FIC, there were those who felt FIC should be allowed to quietly die. But some felt that something precious would be lost thereby. We still feel that something precious is being lost, but we don't see how to make progress through FIC. Therefore, we admit our failure, and we welcome anyone who might see the light of day to move in. However, judging from the sparse participation in the last FIC national conference at Bryn Gweled in 1960, we don't really expect any such thing to happen. The sparse participation at this last conference, plus the failure of those responsible to follow up, convinced us that FIC has reached a peaceful end.
IN 1987 A SMALL GROUP OF COMMUNITARIANS picked up where the original FIC left off and created the Fellowship for Intentional Community. And at the board meeting in British Columbia last spring, we celebrated its tenth anniversary. I have no fears that this anniversary will lead to another laying aside. The movement today is far too vigorous, and the present FIC, not being composed of representatives of member communities, can proceed without participation from communities as such. In fact, I am delighted with the manner in which the present FIC is proceeding, and with the dedication of its leadership.
However, I believe that today's FIC is at a turning point somewhat comparable to the one we faced four decades ago. And I believe that now, as then, the key is the adequacy of the common commitment among the members of FIC. If the nature of that commitment is permitted to remain unclear, or falls short of the challenge that modern civilization poses, then there will be little reason for its existence beyond helping people get into pleasant living situations in which minimal commitment is required.
What degree of commitment, and of what kind, am I implying? At that board meeting I suggested that the membership of every organization with any appreciable power in today's world should be required to commit themselves to justice, in the sense of simple fairness, toward all sentient beings whom they impact by their actions. All over the world injustice is endemic, with the rich getting super-rich and all others sinking deeper into poverty and insecurity, especially in countries being invaded by multinational corporations looking for the cheapest sweat-shop labor they can find.
As I see it, if the FIC is to serve as a moral force in relation to today's societal crisis, its vision statement must include a world in the which governments are comprised of members who share this commitment. Such a widespread commitment to justice as a minimum would not eliminate all moral dilemmas, but it would assure that dilemmas didn't reach the point where, as during the last two World Wars, every practical option would inflict unacceptable injustice.
Most people within the FIC would agree that its mission statement must include promoting a sense of neighborliness. This implies simple sharing ("I'm all out of wheat; can you spare some until I get to town?"). It implies alertness to each other's emergency needs ("I hear Mary is ill; is someone looking after her?"). It implies "carrying" a friend, a neighbor, over a period of years at times, especially at the end of his or her earthly life. It implies all those characteristics of "community" at its healing best, to which I sense a deep commitment on the part of the FIC leadership.
So, what is there to worry about? Perhaps nothing. But I urge participants in the FIC not to neglect "the outside world," and the injustice that is rampant there. It was rightly said at Edenvale that the kind of closeness and inter-connectedness inherent in intentional community necessarily enlivens one's sense of fairness and justice. I agree. I suggest that is so because such inter-connectedness assures constant feedback regarding the impact we are having on one another.
As we all know, it is easy to overlook the impact on people from whom we get no feedback. More specifically, it is possible to be a compassionate, caring neighbor to fellow community members, and at the same time neglect the issues of sustainable justice in relation to the outside world. Without feedback about the consequences of our actions on others, our moral senses have no basis for functioning. Today's global economy is full of breakdown in significant feedback regarding the impact on those far removed from local actions. The most callous CEO can be quite considerate of members of his family and his community. That's why, it seems to me, it's important to think globally as we act locally. Today, global thinking must include an understanding of the global marketplace and the loose cannons operating there.
Finally, this analysis suggests an answer to another question raised at the Spring '97 board meeting: What kindred spirits outside the intentional communities movement should we be in community with? I suggest that these include any group working for economic and social justice, from the local level to the global. These are our spiritual neighbors with whom we can have a common vision, a common mission designed to achieve that vision, and a common commitment designed to implement that mission in the form of concrete action.
Copyright 1998 by Fellowship for Intentional Community. All rights reserved. Opinions expressed by the authors and correspondents are their own and do not necessarily reflect those of the publisher.
Movement groups may reprint with permission. Please direct inquiries to Communities, PO Box 169, Masonville, CO 80541-0169, (970) 593-5615.
comments to communities@ic.org