The Story of Strangers

by Dr. Robert Terry

The community of Us rejoiced as its renewal celebration concluded, marking the beginning of a new year. Hope stirred in Us. It had been a prosperous year; the community looked ahead to the next year with justifiable optimism.

Looking across the broad stretch of land toward the horizon, a few of Us noticed a barely visible cloud of dust. As it settled, large numbers of Them could be seen, moving relentlessly toward Us. Our hope quickly gave way to fear. A few of Us asked, What is going on? Nevertheless, rumors spread with the speed and intensity of a raging fire. Invasion, enemies, destruction! Still, some of Us remained curious. “Wait and watch,” they counseled. “See what happens.”

They were certainly strangers and also strange. They appeared different in clothing, language and life style. What an odd group, many of Us thought. Wonder what their history is. The community of Us had no clue or connection. Who are they and what are they going to do? A curious thing did happen. Instead of moving closer, as was expected, the group of Them stopped. It became apparent to Us that many of Them were settling in and taking up what looked like permanent residence adjacent to Us. A few of Us wept. Life would never be the same. Yet others of Us were intrigued. What would life for Us be like, living next to Them? What impact would their lives and history have on us? Would our freedom be limited and our choices change? Are there new opportunities for exchanges of ideas and things? Us did not know.

Some of us convened a council to determine what to do. Slowly, after serious, intensive, and often fear-filled debate, a strategy emerged. A few of Us, selected for insights and talents of dealing with strangers, would commit to meet Them, if they were willing. We wanted an exchange, where we could share our histories and freely express our interests and concerns. Many warnings accompanied the first meeting. “Always be on guard.” “Return immediately if you are in danger.” Some skeptics did not think the meeting would even occur.

When the task force returned, the whole community of Us could hardly wait to hear the news. Was the community of Them warlike, friendly, or like Us at all? Two facts hit Us hard. The most troubling was their commitment to move in permanently. The second reinforced the impression of Us. Them was very different from Us. Language, customs, appearance, manners—aspects Us had experienced were reinforced. Many of Us were scared; some of Us were intrigued with the possibilities of creative exchanges, maybe even mutual benefits.

As time passed, and periodic meetings between Us and Them occurred, a small, intense group of Us argued forcefully that the only strategy to address the ever-present danger of Them was to attack, to eliminate Them before they wiped Us out. A majority of Us, while deeply concerned about the permanent presence of Them and the strange behavior exhibited by Them, did not agree. Yes, they were there and different. So what? Us did not know the extent of their power or weapons. Was war the answer? No sure victory was guaranteed. And no direct threat came from Them. Maybe some of Us read in more than what was really there. Did the community of Them have a history of war? The community of Us did not know. The debate among Us was unsettling.

Amid the doubts and suspicions that Us had of Them and, presumably, Them had of Us, members of Us went about life’s daily routines, securing the necessities of life, caring for the children, exchanging good, producing, buying, and selling, and generally flourishing. Some of the trades were made with Them. And they worked. Nevertheless, there was still the worry. Was trust possible between Us and Them? Would trades be rigged? Was the freedom of Us threatened by the freedom of Them? The community of Us did not want its freedom limited by Them.

The issue of unchecked freedom triggered a community of Us meeting. Could Us make an agreement with Them to recognize each others being and history, not invade each other, and to structure regular exchanges of goods and services? The idea thrilled Us. Now the unnerving question was, would the community of Them agree and keep their promise? There was no doubt that promises made by Us would be honored. The worry was about Them. The proponents of the deal knew, in their heart of hearts, that Us was morally and culturally more advanced than Them. Would and could the community of Them match and perhaps exceed the standards of Us? Doubt still filled the air. The community of Us knew it was better than the strange gathering of Them.

A task force was assembled to pursue the strategic meeting between Us and Them. The meeting occurred and last a number of days. Task force members were both astonished and pleased with the overall results. In the discussions with Them, it had become abundantly clear that the community of Them believed it was morally and culturally superior to Us! In order to find a basis for an initial agreement or contract, the parties finally agreed that the communities of Us and Them had equal claims to moral and cultural supremacy. From there, it was politically difficult, yet intellectually easy, for each community to recognize and affirm the other’s history and location, agree not to attack and invade each other and commit to create more opportunities for market exchanges.

Another issue came up—justice. Were the communities of Us and Them committed to equality? Was the playing field level and, if not, would it be made so? Each community had experienced inequality in the past and did not like it. Also, each wondered what could be done if one of the communities suffered great hurts by weather storms or some upheaval or injustice that was unexpected. Would the other community take proportional actions to right the wrongs? As one of the task force members said, “Sometimes equality must be strengthened with proportionality.” Heads nodded in agreement. “Treat similar people who have been unfairly treated differently so they can be more similar,” another member added. Again, heads nodded.

One person suggested what she labeled restorative justice. Crimes in the community needed to be addressed by the community and the violators held accountable by community members. Following the law was not enough; build community togetherness by We addressing the crime issues and taking action to restore community coherence. The idea caught on and one group in the We community decided to do it.

The communities also reached a clear recognition that any need for new rules and arrangements would be tested by adequacy, because what is appropriate at one time may be inappropriate at another, owing to new knowledge, technology, or other factors shifting the context for action. Rules and systems were needed and had to be flexible or arthritis limits fluidity.

The suspicion that prevailed during the dialogue also surprised Us sine the community of Us believed itself to be totally trustworthy. Given the mutuality of suspicion, however, Us and Them agreed to reciprocal monitoring of each other’s commitments and plans.

Afterward, a sense of calm and relative well-being pervaded both Us and Them. The identities of both groups seen solid and mutual respect apparently thrived. Each community felt physically secure in safe geography, wrestled with its past and owned the good and bad parts of that sacred history, felt free to act guided by fair rules of engagement and had a bright sense of the future.

As many of Us soon realized, no system functions smoothly without glitches. Politics entered the scene in a new way. Rules were differently interpreted by Us and Them, and at times, each claimed the other had violated rules and broken promises. Disturbingly, many of Us began to take for granted that the promises made to Them functioned independently of human power. The community of Us became passive. Waning energy and commitment opened the door to abuses of power by those seeking to exploit the vulnerabilities of Them. Aggression by those perceived to have the upper hand triggered deviousness in those who felt less powerful. Commitments to justice were ignored and new oppressive behaviors rationalized. Only lip service was given to prior promises. The new behaviors sent shock waves of fear through many of Us. Was all that had been accomplished to be lost to the actions of an adventuresome few? Calls for a preemptive strike reemerged. If the threat presented by Them could not be removed through agreement, then it should be resolved by aggression.

Us blamed Them and the reverse. No one took any responsibility for one’s actions. A vicious cycle took over with each side’s behaviors only intensifying the reaction on the other side. Rationality seemed to have left the scene and old history and bad memories confounded the struggle. No one seemed to know what to do to break the cycle of violence, blame and shame. The community of Us believed it was more powerful and inappropriately attacked; the community of Them thought they were victims of oppression and did not deserve the attacks.

Then two strategies were proposed, each aimed to build a new peaceful relationship between Us and Them. Both groups appeared ready for a better future. The current fights were exhausting and damaging both parties. Neither trusted nor had any credibility with each other. An approach was desperately wanted and needed.

At a community gathering, it was decided to share power with Them in regional governance, thereby encouraging participation by both Us and Them. Further, a serious effort was to be made to care for the well-being of Them, as well as Us. Instead of relying upon the constant threat of domination, overthrow or victimization, the communities’ would count on power sharing. The move was from ‘power over’ to ‘power with.’ Moreover, by attending to the well-being of Them by understanding Them, the community of Us would know the genuine interests of Them and would discern the common ground that could be embraced and acted upon. The community of Us could not afford to be indifferent or apathetic toward Them; nor could it rely on pseudo-insight about Them. The community of Us decided it had to love Them. Love meant sharing stories, concerns and interests. Love also meant listening. Dialogue was to be replaced with conversation with no agenda except understanding and appreciating what was really going on. Caring differed from curing. Stand with, do not fix. Depth of alignment opens profound possibilities for creating shared direction and anticipating the future.

Forgiveness came up in the conversation with Us. Do we require repentance of the hurt giver before forgiveness is offered by the victim? Often the perpetuator does not realize the pain s/he caused. Forgiveness is a choice, a gift to open a new future. Some one in the meeting said, “Yes, forgive and forget.” An elder spoke up. He had had his daughter murdered by one of Them. His response captured the attention of the gathering. “Do not forgive and forget. That is not possible. Remember and forgive.” The memories do not go away. Embrace the pain, honor it and open the possibility to move through and beyond it. He continued, “Forgiveness does not have to be asked for or required. It is a profound willingness to offer a new alignment and a new future.” The room was silent.

New actions clicked in with amazing impact. Listening to each other encouraged story telling. As both communities swapped history, myths, and experiences and as trust and credibility expanded, exchanges that started on the safe arena of swapping stories were transformed into serious reflection on common ground and shared direction. People were enchanted with the depth of the sharing. Yes, differences existed. What was more intriguing was the commonality of experiences. What a surprise when the conversations produced unexpected similar actions and interpretations. The communities of Us and Them began to say ‘We.’

Fears about each other were named, anxieties disclosed, and claimed superiority was replaced with mutual acceptance, regard and respect. The communities of Us and Them both admitted to breaking promises and seeking to exploit the other’s vulnerabilities. Mutual remorse opened the possibility of unity. Forgiveness was offered and new actions of caring ignited. The spiral of escalating revenge, blame and shame were replaced with humility and openness to others and one’s self. Both the shared power and caring as sharing and listening worked. Then, as both Us and Them have learned over the years, there was back sliding. Some arrogance popped up along with indifference and withdrawal of engagement. Some people wanted to take charge; others withdrew to deal with own lives separate from others. Love triggered resentment that it was not appreciated when offered; love collapsed into sentimentality as shallow caring replaced deep ‘standing with.’

What was missing was Us and Them taking responsibility for what was going on. As people owned up to their actins, both good and bad, new energy entered both communities. Responsibility pushed community members to admit and own their commitment to and for others and themselves. It was not just private. The deeper responsibility was expressed, the deeper the creative connection of community members. Them and Us joined together as We and co-created an action center. They loved to improvise and invent fresh ways to make ‘music’ together. Over time We captured the spirit as ‘serious play.’

We thrived, were hope-filled and enjoyed the present. Gifts abounded with them knowing they were coming.

We gathered periodically for reflection on their lives. It dawned on them that We lived a polarity—one and many. They were managing it well, figuring out how to unify and be diverse at the same time. Looking back over the years, We learned that the challenge was difficult and the solutions worked. Figuring out how to be fully one and fully different simultaneously pushed them to deeper places they had not explored before. Once seen, it became obvious. Human being are the same and unique, one culture and many, connected and separate, private and public, inside and outside, there for others and themselves. They rejoiced in the wisdom garnered over the years of Us and Them discovering a We while treasuring each other.

Then a terrible gift arrived. We’s water was poisoned. Bio-terrorism took over. We was hit by another Them. No one saw it coming. Thousands were killed. What had been taken for granted as secure was now shattered. Safe places and sacred history, freedom, justice, participation, love, responsibility and the polarities were threatened. What should one do? It was not clear. Everything one had been taught and learned to trust was undermined.

Terrorism, where actions are taken to shake the foundation of a people by killing innocent persons, thereby threatening the security and hope of a culture, transformed the new community of We. It had not been experienced so intensively ever before. Yes, there were smaller examples, however, this one almost overwhelmed the We community.

In spite and because of the terror attack, We came together, protecting and supporting each other. In the midst of chaos, Them was the new enemy and We the new community of Us. The cycle reemerged. Back to square one We went. The polarity transformed into a paradox. One can stand back and manage a polarity. We was in charge. The paradox grabbed the new Us, forcing a profound struggle with evil and good. Both hit as the same time. No rationale made sense. Both had to be faced, embraced and addressed.

What was worthy of ultimate trust? What is God? Evil hit Us. What is dependable when all of life’s comforts are threatened and undermined? The new Us gathered, engaged in theological conversations and concluded God was authenticity, worthy of trust and the foundation of hope, courage and leadership. Evil was real, derailing God, and not as fundamental as God.

When everything is suspect, all one has is the promise of authenticity. Trust the promise, keep the faith, live the truth in real life everyday. The new Us looked forward to building an authentic relationship with the new Them over time to create a new We. The principles are present, everyday, in every relationship, even when negated. Their proof is in the rejection. The community of Us now knows what will emerge over time, as the principles take hold and reveal themselves. Leadership that serves the promise of authenticity will ultimately succeed with significance. The process never ends; it is the challenge for all of us who have the courage and hope to incarnate the principles in the present. The calling is ever present, awaiting listening and action.

Return to Action Wheel Leadership Home Page