In my early days in peacebuilding, I met with John A. Lapp, the executive secretary of Mennonite Central Committee. I had just been "hired" for a one-year stint of voluntary service with MCC to establish a new unit, the Mennonite Conciliation Service.
As requests for mediation increased, I sensed a call for deeper forfeiture than I had first understood. I could be only one place at a time; conflict is everywhere. To achieve our goal of encouraging constructive resolution of conflict in communities and the nation, I should let go of the goal of becoming the mediator and instead train others as mediators. I loved mediating, but I recognized I must shift my priority to training mediators, a mission I felt pretty shaky about.
I soon came to love training even more than mediating. But as demand for MCS workshops increased, it became apparent that a still deeper level of relinquishment was called for. My calendar couldn’t accommodate all the promising possibilities to lead training workshops. Rather than training mediators I ought to be training trainers.
Of course it didn't take long to see that being at the heart of a network of trainers grateful for what I had taught them was even more rewarding than training itself!
So the “job” as I have come to understand it in recent years is to find and be an ally to those with a vision for peace. Some may become mediators or facilitators, but others will become advocates of tolerance, bridgebuilders to supposed enemies, conveners or funders of fellow peace visionaries, professionals in other callings who use their connections and influence to create processes and institutions that build peace, etc.
And therefore: Since your role must respond to the needs of others, it is transitory. Do not expect or seek permanency. In fact, success depends in part on your ability to precipitate transition wisely, in the service of others. This will probably require relinquishment, letting go of something desirable and rewarding. But that is as it should be, because you have a calling higher than any one job or role; let that higher calling define your role.
To do this requires a conscious commitment to the empowerment of others and a rather substantial personal capacity to contain the ego as the peacebuilder scales back from established roles that are often quite gratifying to the peacebuilder, in order to support others in stepping into them.
Dr. James Laue, the twinkly-eyed, pioneering Methodist layman and early proponent of the US Institute for Peace, used to sketch a comic drawing, the "anatomy of a peacebuilder". Along with a hard head, an iron bladder and a brass butt, a key element was an "ego container".
Holding the goal of "working myself out of a job" helps me create an ego container and locate myself at that intersection of conflict resolution and human development called conflict transformation. Here my longings for professional security and accomplishment are confronted by my vision for integrity and transformation of the world.
When you subscribe to the blog, we will send you an e-mail when there are new updates on the site so you wouldn't miss them.
Revolutionary and radical approach to peace building which you acknowledge is much larger than mere mediating. It's rooted in a deep sense of service. True leadership is rooted in service. But of of course this approach undermines worldly values and interests and would not be popular in most quarters. And to think that Jesus Christ advocated this empowerment of individuals through service more than 2000 years ago. When will mankind learn? Congrats. I admire your approach.
Thanks Charmaine, I agree, and would add only that the theme of service is found in most religious traditions, so the roots are not only old, they are wide. Unfortunately, almost by definition, institutionalized religion tends to become protective of tradition, and it is almost impossible to function in a service orientation when leaders are preoccupied with protection of institutions and traditions. Openness, vulnerability, and letting go of control are required to function in a modality of service. An implication: the organizations best suited for peacebuilding are not likely to be the big, heavily funded, and widely recognized organizations, but the smaller, more flexible ones that don't have as many accountabilities to outsiders. This is not an argument against the big organizations, for they can sometimes do things small ones can't. But it is easy for the big ones to try to monopolize things or to be dismissive of other efforts. There is need for both.