The first step is listening for the key issues and emotional concerns of community people.
In this text by Teresa of Avila, we should listen for the extreme meaning, what I call the "art of stages."
Does the "listening for" mean 'careful listening', 'careful perception' in these sentences? As I see, there is nothing about listening for a definite sound, and, normally, "listening to" is more appropriate here, especially in the first sentence.
Listen for implies that you are alert and waiting to hear something (expected). From M-W,
listen for
to pay attention to sounds in order to hear (something expected) <We listened for (the sound of) his footsteps.> <We saw lightning and listened for the thunder.>
There is a sense of anticipation. In the example above, you can tell that lightning struck (happened) and they anticipated thunder (hadn't happened yet). If instead it said we saw lightning and listened to the thunder, then there is no anticipation. They heard the thunder.
In the OP, the author is saying that the first step is to be alert and ready to hear the needs of the community. The first step is not actually listening to them. Naturally, that would be a consequence.
The second example in the OP is figurative, since you can't literally listen to text. Sometimes you say that something (like a text, music) speaks to you (appeals to you). So in a figurative sense, you can listen for a certain message in a text. Instead, something like be watchful for or pay close attention for would work and might be easier to understand.
