It grew out of an experience Diane Kyser and Sandee Gamet had in Davenport, Iowa.

The phone at the Community Mediation Center in Davenport, Iowa rang one day in 1995, "Can you help the community deal with the abortion issue in a peaceful way?" The caller had attended a gathering of pro-choice advocates who were beginning to consider strategies to bring to the area a women's health clinic that would provide abortions. He and a colleague on the other side of the issue, the Director of the Social Action Department of the local Catholic Diocese, had agreed that, given the potential for violence in the midst of adamantly held perspectives on the abortion issue, assistance was needed.

Surprised that our small agency would be called upon, challenged by the scope of the effort given the potential for violence, but determined to grasp the opportunity to bring the hope and skills of respectful conversation and peacebuilding to a community effort, the Community Mediation Center (CMC) stepped into the fray. Diane Kyser, the Executive Director of CMC, suggested a bipartisan group of interested parties be convened to design an approach to the brewing controversy. So began the journey of the authors into the world of dialogue.

Recognizing the need for assistance in appropriately addressing the abortion issue on a community-wide basis, Common Ground for Life and Choice in Washington, D.C. was contacted. Adrienne Kaufmann and Mary Jacksteit, employees of the Common Ground organization and the creators of a dialogue process to consider issues of life and choice, answered the request and came to the Quad Cities to provide a weekend of training and dialogue experience. The bipartisan group of planners, diverse in their perspectives on the abortion issue, continued to dialogue with each other on a monthly basis for the next three years.

Community happenings first focused on efforts to obtain property for a clinic site. City Council meetings were fraught with conflict and were disrupted until the Common Ground group (as they continued to call themselves) presented to the Council a recommended code of conduct to be used during the consideration of zoning issues. The code was accepted, allowing matters to be considered in a productive manner. Dialogue group members, who were both pro-life and pro-choice leaders, attended the Council meetings, providing a model of congenial interaction that was surprising to people in the community. Dialogue group members attended pro-life rallies as observers, providing a calming presence. National attention came to the dialogue group through interviews and media presentations by ABC Nightline, Harper’s Magazine, and The Wall Street Journal. Two members of the group served on the national Board of Advisers for Common Ground for Life and Choice until its demise in 2000.

It can be assuredly said that none of the participants in the dialogues changed their views on the appropriateness of abortion. However, to a person they said they developed an amazing sense of love and respect for each other, becoming advocates for "the other" among their own constituencies. It was not until the end of the experience that some community members who were adamantly pro-life joined the dialogues. Their participation came when common projects began to develop. A curriculum was created for teens to help prevent teen pregnancy. An adoption fair was planned. It was with deep regret that the CMC staff members providing facilitation for the dialogues moved from the area, and the dialogues faded away. The clinic was finished in 2000. Dialogue members remained close friends. The pro-life members would not say that the community survived the building of the clinic violence free. They mourn what they would consider the violence perpetrated to the unborn but rejoiced in the life gained through the creation of new relationships.

At the 2002 World Conference of the Community of Christ, President Grant McMurray (1996-2004) called the church to a period of dialogue on the issue of homosexuality in the church. It was seen as an essential step before proceeding to a decision on the matter. After being part of the Quad City dialogues on the abortion issue, Sandee and Diane were convinced that this same process could benefit the church.  That same evening Sandee Gamet, World Church Peacebuilding Specialist, called President McMurray and left a voice mail saying she would like to be of assistance in developing a process for that call to dialogue. In May she followed up with an e-mail to the First Presidency once again offering her expertise and asking to be of assistance in developing a process. 

That same month, Diane Kyser, a co-trainer with Sandee Gamet, wrote a paper for an Eastern Mennonite University graduate class proposing a dialogue process patterned after that experienced in the Quad Cities abortion clinic struggles.

In September 2002 this paper was presented to the World Church Leadership Council, and approval was given for the implementation of the described process. The First Presidency created a committee to deal with the issue of homosexuality in the church. A subcommittee on the implementation and evaluation of a denomination-wide dialogue experience was initiated, and Sandee Gamet, the World Church Peacebuilding Specialist and a member of the committee, was charged with managing the implementation of the process. Necessary budgetary allotments were made, and word went out to the forty jurisdictional administrators in the United States and Canada that, when they were ready to make this a matter of priority, they should contact Sandee to arrange an organizational meeting to initiate the process in their area. The first organizational meeting was held October of 2003.

Listening Circles is a communication process for difficult issues.  So yes, it is meant for other issues and we agree that there are many other issues that could benefit from using Listening Circles to share perspectives.  However, homosexuality was the topic that was facing the church and the Conference body for several sessions had been called to deliberate the issue of homosexuality in the church and make a decision.  Recognizing that the church was not ready to make a decision that would keep the body united, dialogue was called for. 

In a perfect world, we would have had Listening Circles well developed and commonly used as a way to share perspectives on strongly held perspectives before this issue came before the body.  We did not and so are having to begin with a very difficult topic and learn a new process at the same time. 

We are currently encouraging mission centers to begin with homosexuality but we also have flexibility to place it as one of several topics if the mission center deems that a more viable way for people to be comfortable participating in Listening Circles. 

As noted in the overview, Listening Circles are a confidential process.  NO information is shared or reported regarding people's perspectives or the content of their stories with anyone outside the circle.  Participants agree in writing that the process is confidential prior to participating as one of the guidelines to ensure a safe and respectful experience.

Evaluations of the sessions only ask questions about the process and the job of the facilitator in order to be sure the process is being done properly by the facilitators and to ascertain if the process is helpful and should be continued.  These evaluations are anonymous.

The participants determine the direction of the circle after the first session.  The facilitators are trained to listen to the participants and sense what topic would be of interest to the group and help the group deepen their sharing.  The questions are not the same for every group.  The World Church Peacebuilding Specialist assists the facilitators in framing the topic for the next session so that it maintains the integrity of the LC process.

This is a perspective held by many in the church.  The goal of Listening Circles is understanding of perspectives between participants. Sandee says, “I would not support a process which had an agenda of coercing people to change their minds.”

There is no way to convince anyone that the above perspective is the opposite of the process of Listening Circles.  Participation in a Listening Circle is the only way a person can determine if their perspectives about the agenda of "softening up members" is accurate.

The Listening Circle orientation media streaming has assisted a number of people in clarifying the LC purpose.

Listening Circles are based on the premise that there must be diversity of perspectives in the circle in order for the dialogue process to fully live out its purpose of understanding other perspectives.

It is imperative that the full range of perspectives on any issue be part of the dialogue or we are not able to see the whole picture.  We work very hard with the organizational teams in the mission centers to find ways to encourage, support and invite persons from what some people term the "conservative" perspective but we are struggling getting those persons to participate in Listening Circles.

Listening Circles are about listening to each other, developing and deepening relationships with each other beyond an issue.  None of us are a perspective.  Rather we are the body of Christ who are called to live in community with each other in the midst of our different thoughts and views. 

One of the benefits is that when we develop and deepen our relationships, we will be committed to each other in figuring out how to go about the common mission of Jesus Christ as we find points upon which we are not able to come to agreement.  I don't have an answer about how that will look or sound or feel.  What I do know is that the Holy Spirit is in the midst of the sacred space that develops in Listening Circles. 

That experience will benefit the church in expanding the ways in which we discern God's will and strive to live out being a prophetic people.