A Quiet Reminder from Reinhold Niebuhr

Editorials 111

Editorials

The 2009 Aarhus Conferenceon the Future of ReformationTheology

What people believe and think about their faithmakes a difference. Reformation theology standsas an excellent example of the way in which amovement of faith can have enormous impact ona society, from politics to institutions of educationand to family life. What theologians discuss canheavily impact public sentiment. This also goes forcontexts where the public majority is unaware oftheology, or even hostile to it, as the currentDarwin celebrations show.

In 2003 Lutheran theologians from all over theworld gathered in Aarhus in Denmark to discussurgent matters regarding the future of Lutherantheology. The book The Gift of Grace: The Futureof Lutheran Theology (Minneapolis: Fortress Press2005) came out of that conference. Six years havepassed, and now Aarhus University again invitesLutheran theologians, as well as other Reformation-inspired voices, to continue the important discus-sion on how to shape Reformation theologies today.

Since the 2003 conference, the world economyhas experienced both ups and downs, and we arenow in a down phase. In light of the current eco-nomic recession, participation in deeply theologicaldiscussions may not be an insignificant contribu-tion. Basic questions on the formation of societallife, on virtues and vices have come up naturally

in the present situation. Just as our churches asktheologians for clarity and creativity, the societyasks the church for moral and spiritual input tocope with the financial crisis and its devastatingconsequences.

The conference “Reformation Theology: Recep-tion and Transformation” (August 21-24, 2009) willhave special focus on (a) the influence of Reforma-tion theology on culture and politics, (b) the de-velopment and changes of Reformation theologiesin the last century, and (c) the contemporary the-ological potentials and challenges to Lutheran andother Reformation-inspired traditions.

Emphasis will be placed on the development ofReformation theology during the 20th century, andits position in theology, culture and politics at thebeginning of the 21st century. But even more em-phasis will be placed on constructive options forReformation theologies today.

For example, one type of question could be:Is the Lutheran emphasis on pure grace and hu-man passivity historically related to the politicalemphasis on social security ‘for free’ in NorthernEurope? Another type of question might be: Arethere key formulations in the Reformation tradi-tions, which now have to be reformulated? Howshould the inspiration from Reformation theologybe ‘materialized’ in order to facilitate a fruitful in-teraction with society? Do Lutherans have more tosay in societies marked by a high level of individu-alism or marred by an achievement culture? Couldtoday’s economy find inspiration or contradictionin an ‘economy of another world’? Can societieslive without a concept of grace, and if so, howshould this then be understood?

C© 2009 Wiley Periodicals and Dialog, Inc.

112 Dialog: A Journal of Theology • Volume 48, Number 2 • Summer 2009 • June

It’s all about theology. But it’s also all aboutculture and politics, about art and science.In our world today, these things cannot becompartmentalized.

So, come to Aarhus in August. More informa-tion, including a registration form and a call forpapers with a list of workshop topics can be foundat the conference web site: www.teo.au.dk/aarhus2009.

Bo Kristian HolmAarhus University

Niels Henrik GregersenUniversity of Copenhagen

Dare to Believe

One of the best perks of editing this wonderfuljournal is that, when the theme of the issue isright, I have the opportunity to research and writeon topics that are close to my heart. This issueprovided just such an opportunity, and afforded methe chance to correspond with one of my personaltheological heroes, Andrew Linzey, and to get toknow his work a little better. Now, if you don’tknow Dr. Linzey or what he does, you may bewondering, “Why is he so special?” Well, let metell you.

The Reverend Dr. Andrew Linzey teaches atthe University of Oxford, and is the Director ofthe Oxford Centre for Animal Ethics (you canfind more information about him and his work athttp://www.oxfordanimalethics.com). He is notablefor the fact that he previously held the world’s firstacademic post in Theology and Animal Welfare—first at Mansfield College, Oxford (1992-2000),and again at Blackfriars Hall, Oxford (2000-2006).Another triumph of Dr. Linzey’s career is that in1990 he was honored with the Peaceable KingdomMedal for outstanding work in the field of theologyand animals; and in 2001, he was awarded a DDdegree by the Archbishop of Canterbury in recog-nition of his “unique and massive pioneering work

at a scholarly level in the area of the theology ofcreation with particular reference to the rights andwelfare of God’s sentient creatures.” This is thehighest award that the Archbishop can bestow on atheologian, and it was the first time it was awardedfor theological work on animals. In 2006, he wasplaced on The Independent’s ‘Good List’ of 50 peo-ple who have changed Britain ‘for the better.’

I find this to be awe-inspiring, and yet it allstems from (what should be) a rather ordinary the-ological conviction: as Linzey stated in a 1996 in-terview, “because I believe in God I’m concernedabout God’s creatures.” Basically, Linzey has theaudacity to believe that animals, and our relation-ship to them, are worthy of sustained, penetratingtheological reflection. He believes that we have anobligation to treat animals with care and respect,and he believes that because God loves animals, weshould love them, too. He has devoted his careerto spreading that message, and educating Christiansabout why animals matter.

Such thinking is transformative, as once you re-alize the truth in Linzey’s arguments, you can nolonger live your life in the same way; and you areforced to ask yourself hard questions about howwhat you eat, how you spend your time, what youwear, and how you treat the animals you comein contact with on a daily basis faithfully reflects(or does not) your Christian beliefs. It isn’t easyby any means, but, then again, the Christian faithdoesn’t come with an ‘easy’ button (unlike Staples,if you have seen their TV ads). Simply put, Linzeydoes what all Christians are called to do: read theBible, and believe it. So, Linzey actually believes itwhen the Bible tells us that God saw the animalsthat God created, and called them good—inherentlygood, not simply instrumentally good insofar asthey can fill a human need. He actually believesthe Bible when it tells us that God so loved thewhole world, that God became incarnate to saveall of creation and all God’s creatures, not simplyhumanity. And finally, he actually believes the Biblewhen it tells us that the lion will lie down with thelamb, and that animals, too, are a part of the newcreation that awaits all of us. What a radical idea,actually believing what the Bible says, and actingaccordingly!

Editorials 113

Sure, I know it isn’t that simple. Good Chris-tians all over the world disagree on what the Bibleand the Christian tradition teach us about a wholehost of issues, animal rights being only one ofthem. But frankly, on this issue at least, I don’tthink it is as hard as we make it sometimes. Whenit comes to animals—their care, their integrity, theirwell-being, and their status as beloved creatures ofGod—Andrew Linzey dares to believe that whatthe Bible says actually might be true; and he givesme the confidence and the courage to believe ittoo.

Kristin

The Jordan River: A NewWay Forward?

If you are like me, the very sound of ‘Israel’ and‘Palestine’ in the same sentence leads to an im-mediate feeling of despair. In fact, most peoplealive today have no other context than ‘conflict’to think about these two places together. I wasborn in 1976, and in the course of my whole life-time there has never been a significant amount oftime when there was ‘peace in the Middle East.’Instead, I have seen only failed attempts at nego-tiations, peace talks, cease fires, etc. Arguments onall sides cry for justice, yet I only see unjust actsperpetrated. After all these years, maybe it is timeto re-think the field on which some genuine dia-logue might occur. International leaders don’t seemto be able to draw the two entities into any realagreement, but maybe a non-human entity in theirown backyards will: the Jordan River.

By any environmental assessment, the JordanRiver is dying. Over-irrigation and pollution fromagricultural and urban runoff have ensured thatthere is nearly no life in the river, and that theriver barely reaches the Black Sea. One of the prob-lems is that a viable environmental plan to ‘save’the river would have to include Israel, Palestine,Jordan, and Syria. So, my proposal is simple: focus

all international efforts on saving the Jordan River.If these entities can come together to save a riverheld in common, then just maybe some commongrounds for future dialogue will be provided. Atleast the focus of the debate will change away fromthe ruts that it seems to be in now toward some-thing new that might lead to new directions, newlines of dialogue, new associations, new ideas, newactions.

If the Jordan River can be saved, then, too, cannew hope re-enter the dismal and depressing cycleof violence that has characterized Israeli-Palestinianrelations. Not only that, but if these countries cansave the Jordan River, then too, can they bringhope to the rest of the world; hope, for instance,that the international community can come to-gether and effectively address and deal with climatechange. Imagine if the words ‘Israel’ and ‘Pales-tine’ became associated with hope rather than de-spair. Saving the Jordan River may not bring aboutworld peace, but the process would at least giveus another reason to hope and believe that we canchange even in the face of the greatest sources ofdespair. And from where I stand, looking aheadto all of the social and ecological problems that Iwill face in my lifetime, I need all the hope I canget.

Whitney BaumanFlorida International University

Middle East Peace andUnpleasant Listening

For some of us baby boomers the 2008 victoryof Barack Obama marked the fortieth anniversaryof our right to vote in presidential elections. Forthis relatively new Chicagoan the November 4th

celebration in Grant Park felt immensely betterthan the atmosphere of assassinations and post-Democratic convention hostility that characterizedmy first Chicago arrival as a graduate student backin the fall of 1968.


Another milestone that seemed to pass with lessnotice in 2008 was the thirtieth anniversary ofthe 1978 Camp David agreement between Egyptand Israel, engineered by the diplomatic tag teamof Jimmy Carter and Henry Kissinger. Carter hadpromised that settling the Israeli-Palestinian disputewas next on his agenda. The Iranian hostage crisisand Carter’s defeat by Ronald Reagan ended thosehopes.

Twelve years later, in the midst of the U.S re-sponse to Iraq’s 1990 invasion of Kuwait, I wrotean editorial for Dialog : “Seven Middle East Lessonsthe United States Should Have Learned (and Ap-parently Hasn’t).”1 Now in 2009 most of theselessons still appear unlearned: when the U.S. actsalone to resolve conflicts, the results are often lessthan satisfactory; “a military solution is almostnever a lasting solution;” and, “inadequate analy-sis characterizes not only our government policy-makers, but the media as well.”

As the Middle East recovers from the January2009 war in Gaza and deals with instability inboth the Israeli and Palestinian governments, an-other one of my 1991 lessons remains pertinent:the United States “must listen to voices in theArab world and learn to see ourselves as otherssee us.” During the first half of January 2009 Idid both, accompanying 44 Lutheran bishops fromthe United States and Canada, as well as numer-ous spouses and staff colleagues, during a ten-dayvisit to Israel and the occupied Palestinian territo-ries.2 The trip’s chief purpose was to walk with andsupport our Lutheran partners in the region, espe-cially the Evangelical Lutheran Church in Jordanand the Holy Land (ELCJHL) and the LutheranWorld Federation-Jerusalem, and to learn abouttheir ministries and humanitarian work. But alsoimportant was the goal of listening to diverse Is-raeli and Palestinian voices so that these bishopscould become more effective advocates for a justpeace for all persons in the region.

Not all of that listening was pleasant. From aseries of Israeli government officials we heard thesame, seemingly scripted words of justification forIsrael’s disproportionate military bombardment andinvasion of Gaza in response to Hamas rocket fireon Israeli border towns. From church-related aid

workers we heard that some medical supplies anddoctors were failing to reach Gaza not becauseof lack of money or transportation, but becauseof hold-ups in receiving permits and Israeli De-fense Forces’ failure to recognize even valid permits.From some Palestinian Lutheran friends we heardthat Palestinians were united in their opposition toIsrael’s military attack but divided in the degreeto which they held Hamas accountable for incitingthe brutality. From Palestinian farmers we heardthat the separation barrier and attacks by Israelisettlers often prevent them from working in theirfields and olive orchards.

The Israeli-Palestinian context suggests at leastone reason for unpleasant listening: being willing tolisten even to our perceived enemies can serve theends of fairness and diplomacy. The 1978 CampDavid agreement succeeded only because then Pres-ident Jimmy Carter convinced Sadat and Begin tolisten to him and to each other during their now-famous ‘walk in the woods.’

A second reason to listen is that no matter howsure we feel about our own positions, the fact isthat we can be wrong: wrong in absolute terms, andwrong in practical terms. Some of us growing oldercan see how our minds have changed over time re-garding things we felt absolutely sure about at ayounger age, and so we know that they can changeagain. The 1999 reversal of mutual excommunica-tions and condemnations by Roman Catholic andLutheran Churches is a case in point.

In my current work coordinating the ELCA’sMiddle East peace efforts, I’ve often had to lis-ten to criticism of our policy positions and choiceof language. For example, as I opened myself tosuch voices, as well as to those of peace partnersin the Jewish community, I came to recognize thatthe provocative phrase ‘separation wall’ could be re-placed by ‘separation barrier.’ Indeed, the latter isa more accurate and illuminating term for a struc-ture that may serve security but that surely dividesnot only Israelis from Palestinians, but Palestini-ans from their fields, schools, hospitals, places ofworship, and family members.

Finally, listening to dissenting voices may bethe only effective way to achieve a solution whenparties have competing narratives and seemingly

Editorials 115

mutually-exclusive goals, as is often the case forIsraelis and Palestinians. Marc Gopin, an Americanrabbi and scholar of conflict resolution at GeorgeMason University, has argued that past Middle Eastpeace initiatives have failed, in part, because theyneglected to take account of religious and cul-tural factors, to involve “the masses of people inthe peace process,” to bridge the gap between the“deeper needs of the people and elite diplomacy,”and to “mandate an incremental change in the wayeveryone was treated on both sides as human be-ings.”3 In other words, they failed to listen to theIsraeli and Arab ‘street,’ to use Thomas Friedman’smetaphor.

During the January 2009 bishops’ trip some ofthe most painful listening happened the eveningwe met with two representatives of the Parent’sCircle/Families Forum, which consists of Israelisand Palestinians who have all lost family mem-bers in the conflict, but who have found waysto become dialogue partners and in many casesgood friends. The Israeli man had lost his 14-year-old daughter in the 1997 suicide bombing on BenYehuda Street. The Palestinian speaker, raising histwo young daughters as the third generation togrow up in a refugee camp, suffered the death ofhis father, shot by Israeli soldiers for no appar-ent reason. Last year these two men spent 33 daystouring the United States together and speaking asa team.

Obviously it will require political leaders on allsides to create permanent and just peace in theHoly Land. However, don’t discount the value oforganizations that facilitate listening on the grassroots level. The Parent’s Circle “Hello Peace” pro-gram has initiated one million telephone calls be-tween Israelis and Palestinians in the past threeyears, and last year they gave 1200 presentations inhigh schools on both sides. “Hello Peace” takes ongreater significance when one remembers that mostPalestinians are prohibited from traveling beyondthe West Bank or Gaza, and that Israelis are notallowed into such West Bank towns as Bethlehemand Ramallah—officially for their own safety. TheIsraeli speaker described the Parent’s Circle workagainst hatred and separation this way: “We bangour heads against this wall, and we make cracks in

this wall. It’s a long road, but the other way leadsto nowhere.”

Although these days I write about the Arab-Israeli conflict from Chicago instead of Minneapo-lis, the closing words of my 1991 editorial stillapply: “From this vantage point in the hinter-lands one can only hope that Washington is listen-ing.” Early in the Obama administration there arepositive signs that some in Washington are now lis-tening. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton has voicednew willingness for direct dialogue with Iran. Spe-cial Envoy George Mitchell’s first visit to the regionwas described as a ‘listening tour.’ Indeed, PresidentObama, in his interview with Al Arabiya, said hehad told Mitchell to “start by listening, becauseall too often the United States starts by dictat-ing.”4 In the words of M. J. Rosenberg, Directorof Israel Policy Forum’s Washington Policy Center,“Obama promised change and he is already deliver-ing.”5 Recent events in the Holy Land, like manyin the past, have contributed to a climate not ofdialogue and negotiation, but of humanitarian cri-sis and reciprocal retaliation. Once again, we arereminded that authentic dialogue demands some-times unpleasant listening to our enemies as wellas to our friends. I feel certain that my fellow trav-elers would agree that we saw this truth come aliveduring our time among the stones, both geologicand living, of the Holy Land.

Carol Schersten LaHurdLutheran School of Theology at Chicago and

ELCA Global Mission

Endnotes

1. Dialog: A Journal of Theology, 30 (Winter 1991) 6–9.

2. See trip reports and photos at http://blogs.elca.org/09cobacademy/ .

3. Holy War, Holy Peace: How Religion Can Bring Peace to the Middle East(New York: Oxford University Press, 2002) 139, 225–227.

4. Alan Cowell, “On Arab TV Network, Obama Urges Dialogue,”New York Times, January 27, 2009, A8.

5. “Post-Gaza Sea Change,” IPF Friday 400 (January 30, 2009);http://www.israelpolicyforum.org/display.cfm?id=6&Sub=15.


Six Reasons Why the ELCAShould Keep Quiet AboutIsrael

The ELCA and Canadian Bishops have returnedfrom their rather expensive trip to Israel and is-sued a report. Our Presiding Bishop continues toissue statement after statement urging peace andjustice in Israel. As usual, the statements tip towardthe Palestinian side and hector the Israelis aboutthe wall and their alleged ‘disproportionate’ incur-sion into Gaza. Not only is the slant of the NorthAmerican Lutheran churches something to be de-plored, but that they speak at all is lamentable.Here are the reasons why we should keep quietabout the Israeli/Palestinian conflict.

1. The vast majority of the members of the UnitedNations scrutinize Israel’s actions far beyondthose of any other nation. As we all know,those nations make resolution after resolutioncriticizing Israel for every conceivable misdeed.Large UN conferences are hijacked to denounceIsrael. Do you think we have come up withsomething original that will have more weightthan the United Nations resolutions?

2. It has been documented by the Institute ofReligion and Democracy that Israel is chidedfar more than any other nation by the lib-eral Protestant mainline churches. Israel’s poli-cies have become the target of criticism by allthose churches, never mind Christians and ad-herents of other religions in really repressive na-tions like North Korea or China. A numberof those denominations have even mounted di-vestment campaigns against companies that dobusiness in Israel. Do you think that the ELCAcan come up with anything new or especiallyconvincing in its criticisms?

3. Lutherans have a horrendous record in theirtreatment of the Jews, beginning with our cher-ished founder’s rants to our abysmal recordin Germany of pretty much going along withthe Nazis. True, there were noble Lutheran

resisters but most were intimidated into si-lence or outright complicity. Hitler almost erad-icated the Jewish communities of Europe. Now,when Jews have a national haven whose ex-istence is tenuous amid nations, and terroristgroups that swear to its eradication, we lec-ture them on how they are to defend them-selves. Peace, not walls, we repeat as a mantra,when in fact the walls may be a neces-sary, though hopefully temporary, instrument ofpeace. Who are we to tell them what defensepolicies are necessary when their survival is atstake?

4. We hold grossly double standards in the treat-ment of Palestinian Christians. We blame theirdiminishing numbers on oppression by Israelwhen the real reason for their departure isincreased oppression by radical Muslims, whowill viciously retaliate against them if they pub-licly point to the real source of oppression. Soby forcing the Palestinian Christians to remainsilent about Muslim persecution and vociferousabout Israel’s misdeeds (of which there defi-nitely are some), the Palestinian authorities—Fatah and Hamas—can use the PalestinianChristians as marvelous instruments of anti-Israel propaganda. And we go along with it,much like we did in the Cold War when wewere silent about those who resisted the So-viets while we catered to the ‘approved’ vis-itors to the West, who used their visits tocall all ‘peace-loving nations’ to cooperate withthe Soviets. Thirty years ago I hired a Chris-tian cab driver to drive to the Masada andto Hebron. He told us he was leaving Israelbecause of pressure from the Muslims. If wecan’t point to the major cause of oppressionof the Palestinian Christians, we should keepquiet.

5. We seem to worry only about diminishingChristian communities in Israel, mainly be-cause we can blame Israel for it. But where isour solidarity with the disappearing Christiansin Gaza, Sudan, Iran, Lebanon, and Pakistan,where Israel cannot be cast as villain? Until weare more even-handed about the persecution ofChristians in other Muslim countries, we ought

Editorials 117

to be quiet about their far better plight inIsrael.

6. This piling on Israel by mainline denomina-tions may in fact add weight to the generalundermining of Israel’s political legitimacy, de-sired and promoted by those who want Israelto disappear. We may get what they want, toour everlasting shame.

Does this mean that Lutherans should do nothing?Of course not. It is very important to supportPalestinian Christians monetarily and spiritually.We should visit them and show support for themand their churches and schools in their difficultsituation. We should work hard to maintain theVictoria hospital as a major medical resource forall Palestinians, and we should use back-channeldiplomacy with the Israelis to assure that it canflourish. (I would guess that the Israelis might lis-ten to our humanitarian concerns more seriously ifwe kept quiet on the political front.) But we neednot become instruments in a propaganda war. Let’sjust keep quiet.

Robert BenneRoanoke College

A Quiet Reminder fromReinhold Niebuhr

One basic idea I learned long ago from one ofReinhold Niebuhr’s early books, Moral Man andImmoral Society,1 seems newly fresh and importanttoday, as we theologians and ethicists try to figureout what to say in these days of financial collapse.Some recent work in ethics brings support to hisviews.

Niebuhr warned the well-meaning religionistsand liberal ethicists of his day against thinkingthat social ills could be healed if only individuals‘find the Lord,’ or succeed in implementing somesuch religious or moral transformation. Billy Gra-ham used to say something like that all the time

in his preaching, and I’ve heard religious leadersin other traditions say it too. The assumption isthat society is simply an accumulation of individ-uals whose actions, taken together, tilt society oneway or the other, towards righteousness or unrigh-teousness.

Fortified by extensive reading in history, the so-cial sciences, and political philosophy, Niebuhr saw,way back in the early ’30s, that such an assump-tion simply is not true. You can have a majorityof moral individuals, but because of the nature ofall political (and I’d add here also economic) struc-tures, those groups that live out of those structuresare still going to be self-serving, even ‘immoral,’judged by their own standards of individual be-havior. Even if all the individuals in a society areethical and upright and law-abiding, that societyitself still will necessarily act ‘immorally.’ Once weare aware of this, Niebuhr went on, we’ll try to cre-ate societal structures that balance the self-serving,aggressive powers over against one another, in thisway achieving as much peace and tranquility aspossible. But we shouldn’t ever expect too much.Our U.S. founding documents are a good exam-ple of this realistic, ‘low’ view of human naturephilosophy.

Recently I’ve been working with some new ma-terial that gives solid support for Niebuhr’s in-sight, something called ‘design’ thinking.’2 Basi-cally it’s this: ethics must now take the hu-man design of things into account, and notplace all the blame on the intentional actions ofindividuals.

For example, a few decades back the Ford MotorCompany lost a lawsuit involving its Pinto car. Itwas found that the Pinto’s designers had placed thegas tank too close to the rear bumper so that arear end collision would too easily rupture the gastank and cause unnecessary fires, even occasionallyexplosions. So it was determined that design waspartly at fault here.

Yet another example from the auto industry.3 Anew form of cruise control was invented and in-stalled on some cars, a control that would automat-ically slow down when it sensed other cars aheadof it were moving more slowly. It would also regainits original speed automatically once that car ahead


was no longer there. Seemed like a wonderful newidea.

Well, one driver had set one of these cruise con-trols and had come upon slower moving trafficahead; his car automatically slowed down to theslower speed. But then he pulled off the freewayand as he did, his car automatically sped up, therebeing no more slow-moving cars ahead of him. Theresult was a serious crash. He’d forgotten to turnoff the cruise control. Now, was this accident dueentirely to driver error? Design engineer DonaldNormal argues no. In our society there has beenthe assumption that cases like this are always drivererror, because the design of things people use isalways faultless. But this is wrong, he argues. Weneed to change our thinking here. Designers alsocan be at fault. In this case, this accident couldhave been avoided, say, if the cruise control hadbeen designed to never increase speed automaticallyafter having slowed down for cars ahead. One ofthe principles of design is to anticipate all the waysa thing can be mis-used as well as properly used.Technology has to be fitted better to the humanmind and body, and less to simply what’s techni-cally possible.

Returning now to organizational design . . . thisis the point we’re trying to make here. We churchleaders and theological ethicists need to keep inmind that the way we design our political andeconomic structures determines, or at least influ-ences strongly, the way we act. So what we need toblame now in our present financial ‘tsunami’ is asmuch faulty design as individual greed and malfea-sance on the part of our Wall Street tycoons. It’s asmuch the design of our economic structures that’sat fault today as are greedy, unscrupulous individ-uals. Our mostly unregulated free market system iswhat needs to be blamed for what’s happened. Wereligionists tend to vent all our righteous anger atthe Bernie Madoffs and other crooks like him. Butwe should also save some for the poor design ofour current global financial system.

We know that the over-regulated market systemof the former Soviet Union was not the answer,so that’s no way to go. But we now need to seethat totally free market capitalism can also self-destruct. I think, then, that this is one of the

suggestions Niebuhr would make, were he hereto advise us in our disastrous financial meltdowntoday.

John BensonAugsburg College

Endnotes

1. Moral Man and Immoral Society: A Study in Ethics and Politics. NewYork: Scribner’s Sons, 1932.

2. For example, H. A. Simon, The Sciences of the Artificial. Cambridge,MA: MIT Press, 1981.

3. Donald A. Norman, The Design of Everyday Things. New York:Doubleday, 1990.

The First iPresident

“For the times they are a-changin’.” When Bob Dy-lan first penned and performed these words backin 1963 it was a time of uncertainty and change,the outcome of which no one could predict. Thoseof us old enough to remember the original socialcontext of this song, which included civil rightsmarches and eventually Vietnam war protests, couldnot stand by with dry eyes as the first AfricanAmerican, multi-ethnic president was elected. His-toric? Yes. Sea change? Yes. Affirming of the Amer-ica spirit? Yes. One cannot underestimate the sig-nificance of this election for persons of color in thiscountry and abroad. The juxtaposition of the Inau-guration with Martin Luther King, Jr. Day couldnot have been more appropriate. It is a time ofchange and a desire to restore hope and affirma-tion of fundamental human rights and equality ofall. Nothing can, nor should, take away from thishistoric moment.

But there was also another type of change afootin the election of Barack Obama. He is the firstiPresident. He is the first president elected by mas-sive, organized, committed, efficient and effectiveuse of the Internet for campaign organization. Thepundits were stupefied and then star-struck by

Editorials 119

the efficiency and effectiveness of the campaign.It raised the largest funds and involved the mostpeople in the history of presidential elections. Itwas, if you will, electronic or digital populism. Itwas also a harbinger of things to come. In theirbook iBrain: Surviving the Technological Alteration ofthe Modern Mind (New York: HarperCollins, 2008),Gary Small and Gigi Vorgan address the physiolog-ical changes that regular and extended use of digitaltechnology have on information processing in thebrain (evolution in action.) But they also point outhow it is changing social networking and the fun-damental means of human social interaction: Face-book replaces face to face, and technological me-diation (texting, blogging, Skyping, Twittering andNinging) becomes automatic and second nature.They acknowledge that a new digital divide hasemerged between ‘Digital Natives’ and ‘Digital Im-migrants.’ Digital Natives (primarily the MillennialGeneration born after 1980) have grown up withcomputers, cell phones, iPhones, iPods, the Inter-net, etc. and have never known a world withoutthem. For ‘Natives’ digital interaction is intrinsicand automatic—it’s ‘just the way things are.’ Digi-tal Immigrants are the rest of us born before 1980or so and for whom computers, cell phones, theInternet, etc. are technologies we have had to mi-grate into (sometimes unwillingly). We can becomecompetent, proficient even, but we will never beNative.

For the most part, Barack Obama’s election waseffected by Digital Natives. He was able to accessthe energy, enthusiasm, effectiveness and yes, ideal-ism of this younger Digital Native generation andhe plans to continue to do so. The ‘apparatus’ (anantiquated, non-digital, mechanical term) will stayin place after the election. This network will func-tion not only as a means for re-election but alsoas a social organizing tool for congressional lobby-ing, as well as social service organizing. This ‘socialmedia tool’ as Gabriel Kasper and Diana Scearcerefer to it in their article “Working Wikily: HowNetworks are Changing Social Change”1 can create‘smart mobs’ who appear seemingly from out ofnowhere to demonstrate, to lobby or to serve in aparticular area of social need and then melt backinto the electronic ether until needed again. Obama

has connected with this new world abornin’. Hegets it! He has his ‘Barackberry’ and apparently willbe able to keep it as president. He may be able tolive, at least partially, outside the presidential bub-ble and maintain contact with everyday, non-staff,people. “Yes, we can!”

Is this change just a passing technological blip ora sea change in human social interaction? I thinkit is the latter. I think this latest election demon-strates the power of the digital world (universe?)and how younger people have come to live in it asauthentically as in the so-called ‘real’ world. Theymove seamlessly and effortlessly between what usedto be called ‘virtual’ and ‘real’ realities, a distinctionbecoming one without a definable difference. Oldwork-a-day reality is not going to disappear, butthe interface between these realms has become di-aphanous for the Digital Native. Social organizationhas undergone a sea change. It has been develop-ing for a long time but the Obama election signalsa tipping point in how social (or political) move-ments are formed and motivated. The contrast inthe way in which McCain’s and Obama’s campaignorganization functioned is one way to highlight thissea change, independent of political perspective orideology. It is a technologically mediated social rev-olution but then again, wasn’t the Reformation?

What will life be like within this digital world?Certainly, it brings with it great new opportunitiesfor social organizations and the potential for moreefficient and effective use of human and other fi-nite resources. However, like many technologicallymediated systems of the past, it also can be usedto exploit or manipulate. I am hopeful because ofthe democratic and egalitarian dimensions of thisemerging Wiki World. There is a lot of collectiveself-correcting and self-modifying that goes on inthe broader digital world, even if there are racistand other bigoted websites/networks out there. Itis harder to hide and to misrepresent with so manypeople checking your facts and figures, much lessyour conclusions.

Finally, of course, what does this mean for thechurch? What will an iChurch look like? It will cer-tainly be more than simply a webpage or a televisedbroadcast of a worship service. That is so yester-day, even Neolithic (read television here), by Digital


Native standards. Instead, churches will have to fig-ure out ways, with the help of such Natives, tomove seamlessly between the digital and physicalworlds. The implications for social organization forgood are enormous and the resources needed af-fordable and available, even for congregations withlimited resources. Also, the worldwide interconnect-edness that this makes possible for the developingworld is remarkable. Cell phone growth is explod-ing in the developing world with web access soonto follow. Sister parishes can be connected virtuallywith minimal expense and collaboration, supportand mutual dialogue facilitated. The church alwayshas been worldwide, but until now, it has con-nected only sporadically at councils, assemblies, andgatherings. What of continual connection? Howwould global social organization work on a con-tinuous, not intermittent, basis? It is an excitingtime to be alive as a person of faith. One can onlyimagine what St. Paul might have done with suchresources. I end with one of the stanzas of Dylan’scall (hymn?) which reminds all of us to be awareand open:

Come senators, congressmenPlease heed the callDon’t stand in the doorwayDon’t block up the hallFor he that gets hurtWill be he who has stalledThere’s a battle outsideAnd it is ragin’.It’ll soon shake your windowsAnd rattle your wallsFor the times they are a-changin’.

Welcome Mr. iPresident, the times are indeeda-changin’.

Ernest SimmonsConcordia College

Endnote

1. (http://www.packard.org/assets/files/capacity%20building%20and%20phil/organizational%20effectiveness/phil%20networks%20exploration/Working_Wikily_29May08.pdf).

Georges Rouault: Thoughtsat the End of an Exhibit

This was a blockbuster exhibit that was one ofthe art world’s best kept secrets. From August 30to December 7, 2008 Boston College hosted whatmay well have been a once-in-a-lifetime retrospec-tive of works by Georges Rouault. Did anyone no-tice? Did anyone care? Fifty years ago Rouault wascelebrated as one of the great artists of his age.When an exhibit of his works appeared at the Mu-seum of Modern Art, philosopher Jacques Maritainwrote, from Princeton, words highlighted by artcritic Leo J. O’Donovan in a superb essay in Com-monweal (October 10, 2008), stating that Rouault’s“present glory is the purest glory a great painter hasever known in his lifetime.”

Rouault was an important figure in my ownspiritual development. As an undergraduate at Har-vard College in the nineteen-fifties I was intro-duced to his images of clowns and of the Christfigure at University Lutheran Church, Cambridge.As one who had grown up with representations ofthe Christ figure like Sallman’s Head of Christ (afriend of mine once called that the image of DeusBusinessmanus), I was overwhelmed by the powerof Rouault’s Christ and clown and other figures.They helped to keep my faith, such as it was inthose days, alive and growing. Rouault was also afavorite of Paul Tillich, with whom I took sev-eral courses during my undergraduate years. Tillichwas a great interpreter of art, especially of existen-tially challenging imagery such as often appearedin Rouault’s works. Today very few even knowRouault’s name. That an exhibition of this im-port was held at—where?—Boston College and notat the MoMA or some comparable institution (nodisrespect to B.C. intended; kudos only), tells itsown tale, as does the fact that this blockbusterevent was a kind of aesthetic one-night stand, nota traveling exhibit intended to introduce a majorvoice in twentieth-century art to seekers or to thejust-curious in a variety of settings. Why was thisone of the art world’s best kept secrets? O’Donovan

Editorials 121

observes that, after Rouault’s mid-twentieth centurypublic accolades, Rouault’s approach to art—duringhis own lifetime he was called, with scornful in-tent, ‘the last romantic’—gave way to Pop and OpArt, to Conceptualism and Minimalism. In otherwords, Rouault’s works went ‘out of style,’ which,of course, is commonplace in art history.

But I think that that was only part of the story.The audio commentary on the exhibit by its cura-tor, Stephen Schloesser of Boston College, is mostrevealing in this respect. Schloesser interpreted theexhibit as a kind of dialectical unfolding (my term)of two aesthetic perspectives, realism (e.g. Daumier)and symbolism (as in the French poets knownas Symbolists and in some of their painterly fol-lowers, one of whom was a teacher of Rouault).Sometimes, Schloesser told us, Rouault’s works weremore realistic, sometimes they were more symbol-istic, and sometimes they found a way to integratethe two perspectives That was, in many ways, anilluminating interpretive stance to take.

I had expected something more, however, sig-naled by the exhibit’s theme, and also the titleof the exhibit’s companion volume, Mystic Masque:Semblance and Reality in Georges Rouault (Chicago:University of Chicago Press, 2008), edited bySchloesser. Several essays in that volume, as a matterof fact, explore or at least refer to Rouault’s spiri-tual heritage. But the experience of the exhibit itselfwas something else, both as the exhibit was orga-nized and as it was introduced to museum-goers(very few of whom, in all likelihood, were going topart with eighty dollars for the companion volume).This was Boston College, mind you, a historic cen-ter of Catholic learning. Strikingly, Schloesser nevereven mentioned that Rouault was baptized as anadult or that Rouault’s art is suffused with peren-nial themes of Catholic spirituality, above all thesuffering Christ and the suffering poor. Think ofthe case of St. Francis, who was marked with thewounds of the cross and who ministered to thesavior in the persons of the poor. In this sense,you can call much of Rouault’s painting iconic,even christological. That is a historical fact. Butif Boston College cannot bring itself to introduceRouault’s creations to the public in those terms,who will? And if what is arguably the creative

center of Rouault’s life-work, his profound christicmysticism, is no longer of interest to those mostresponsible for framing the discourse about artisticexpression, the critics and scholars themselves, is itany wonder that the entirety of Rouault’s achieve-ment has more or less been shelved, as far as thepublic mind is concerned?

Not that Rouault’s spirituality must be welcomedby everyone. But it should at least be publiclyacknowledged. (I find the same thing going on inpopular and scholarly interpretations of VincentVan Gogh’s works, but that is another story.)If scholars, to begin with, will not talk publiclyabout Rouault’s iconic spirituality, whether becauseof aesthetic fashion or personal taste or academicparochialism, how are the eyes of all the rest of uswho care about art to be tutored in a way thatwill allow us to encounter the animating power ofworks by artists such as Rouault?

H. Paul SantmireWatertown, MA

Klaatu Barada Nikto:Reviewing “The Day theEarth Stood Still”

Seldom do I go to movie theaters, but on Decem-ber 12, 2008 I went. That evening was the premierof the remake of The Day the Earth Stood Still by20th Century Fox, starring Keanu Reeves as Klaatu.This film could have hit a cultural home run. In-stead, it struck out.

I remember watching the original 1951 ver-sion, with Michael Renny as Klaatu, at the ClaraBryant Junior High School in Dearborn, Michiganas a seventh grader. Each day at lunch we’d watchtwenty minutes of the film, beginning on Mondayand concluding on Friday. Friday was the big day,because it ended with Klaatu’s memorable exhor-tation to us Earthlings. The impression this filmmade on me was deep and profound. It has lasted


a lifetime. The impression of the 2008 remake willbe as shallow as water in a finger bowl. It will lastuntil I can find a hand towel to wipe it off.

Meaning is contextual, say the hermeneuticalphilosophers. So, let’s return for a moment to thecultural context within which the original versionof The Day the Earth Stood Still appeared on sil-ver screens. World War II ended in 1945 withthe dropping of atomic bombs on two cities inJapan. Efforts to establish a global authority tomaintain a peace secure from nuclear weapons hadfailed and the Cold War was heating up. In thisunique context of the late 1940s and early 1950s,the world trembled in fear over the nuclear armsrace. The Cold War produced anxiety and politicalleaders were too inept to deal with the magnitudeof the problem. Blinded by nationalism and jingo-ism, people in nearly every nation dreaded that aworld leader would hastily drop a bomb leading toan uncontrollable retaliatory exchange. The resultwould be World War III, global self-destruction.

Anxiety over the Cold War expressed itself inour culture’s interpretation of a new wonder, fly-ing saucers. The UFO phenomenon began withKenneth Arnold’s sighting of ‘flying saucers’ nearMount Ranier in June 1947, the same month asthe alleged crash of an alien spaceship in Roswell,New Mexico. In 1950, the first flying saucer book,Behind the Flying Saucers by Donald Keyhoe, waspublished. The book contained reports on UFOsightings and promoted the fear of conspiracy—thatthe U.S. government was engaged in a cover upof important inter-planetary information. Like twohot wires coming together, the Cold War and theUFO phenomenon converged, and cultural sparksflew. They lit a fire in the secular mind, a hope thatwe on earth could be saved from our self-inducedthreat of nuclear annihilation. We could be savedby science and technology superior to ours—an ex-traterrestrial science and technology. Aliens couldsave us from self-destruction!

In both versions of the movie one fre-quently hears the word ‘evolution’—meaning moralprogress. Both versions rely upon a pre-existing re-lationship between the UFO phenomenon and thetheory of evolution. Whether a flying saucer re-port is a simple sighting of a flying disc or a

close encounter with a being from an extraterres-trial world, witnesses must try to explain the ex-perience in terms of a logical terrestrial worldview;curiously, the resulting explanation often incorpo-rates the theory of evolution combined with subtlereligious symbolism.

UFO explanations are scientized myth. Life de-veloped on a distant earth-like planet and followeda path of evolution similar to ours. Since alien lifebegan earlier, it has had more time to evolve. Inher-ent in evolution is progress and since the alien civ-ilization has progressed further than we have, it ismore advanced. Aliens have developed the technol-ogy for space communication and even space travelthat we have not. If space visitors bring their moreadvanced technology and perhaps even their moreadvanced spirituality, they can help us heal our mal-adies; they become our celestial saviors. I refer tothis belief as the UFO Myth: a subtle amalgam ofreligious symbolism and modern science mixed withbelief in the doctrine of evolutionary progress. Eventhough our word ‘evolution’ refers usually to speci-ation in biology, it is applied to progress in bothtechnological and moral development. UFO expe-riencers speculate: if aliens have developed spacetravel technology, perhaps they have developed ahigher form of morality and politics. Evolutionaryadvance connotes moral advance.

The UFO Myth, was incorporated into a morecomprehensive myth, the ETI Myth. Belief in theExtraterrestrial Life (shortened to ETI) myth leadsastrobiologists to generate research programs tosearch for extraterrestrial life. The key doctrineis that extraterrestrial evolution is progressive, andaliens are more highly evolved than we are. Thisis widely believed despite the lack of empiricalevidence. This speculation created sparks when itcame into contact with the post-World War II nu-clear arms race, and was the backdrop of the 1951film. The logic went like this: if our visiting aliensdeveloped nuclear power and successfully avoidedself-destruction, perhaps they can teach us how toestablish peace and avoid the threat of nuclear self-annihilation. Peace on earth can be won throughthe advances of extraterrestrial science.1

During the Cold War, scientists were viewed asthe only ones who could save earth. We were proud

Editorials 123

of the genius of scientists who invented the atomicbomb, who put an end to World War II. “Sincethe bomb exploded over Hiroshima, the prestigeof science in the United States has mushroomedlike an atomic cloud,” wrote Martin Gardner in1952.2 Science represented power. Science couldalso claim another virtue, namely, internationalism.The scientific community crossed national bound-aries; scientists communicated with one another re-gardless of national loyalties. Could a confederacyof international scientists do what political lead-ers could not do, and provide an institution forarms control? Could they develop a single plane-tary policy that would maintain world peace? Ourculture also posed the existential question: couldterrestrial scientists save us? No. Why? Although theworld’s scientists were multi-national, they still vac-illated between nationalism and internationalism.On the one hand, the scientific community seemedto hold the power to save. On the other hand, sci-entists were feared because they, like other mortals,could be swayed and bribed by national intereststo perpetuate the spiraling competition for nuclearsuperiority.

This love-fear tension in the relationship be-tween science and culture is reflected in the ca-reer of atomic bomb maker, J. Robert Oppen-heimer. “The physicists have known sin; and thisis a knowledge which they cannot lose,” wrote Op-penheimer in 1948 in Technology Review and Time.3

Once Pandora’s box had been opened and nuclearweapons knowledge began spreading, Oppenheimersought to slam the lid down again through inter-nationalizing atomic oversight. He proposed in theNew York Times Magazine “that in the field of atomicenergy there be set up a world government. That inthis field there be a renunciation of sovereignty . . . toprotect the world against the use of atomic weaponsand provide it with the benefits of atomic energy.”4

He pressed his case in the White House and theUnited Nations. His efforts failed. Then PresidentHarry Truman led America into the dizzying armsrace of the Cold War. Science, despite its knowl-edge and power, could not save us. In AmericanPrometheus, Kai Bird and Martin Sherwin com-ment, “After Einstein, Oppenheimer was undoubt-edly the most renowned scientist in the country—

and this at a time when scientists were suddenlyregarded as paragons of wisdom. His advice waseagerly sought in and out of government.” CitingFreeman Dyson, Bird and Sherwin aver that Op-penheimer tried to become “the savior of human-ity.”5 However, this attempt at terrestrial salvationthrough science failed. Could an extraterrestrial sci-ence accomplish it? Enter the ETI Myth in theform of the UFO myth.

In the 1951 version, a flying saucer lands on themall near the White House in Washington. Thepilot is an extraterrestrial, Klaatu. He has come toearth to negotiate with the heads of state of everynation. The issue is serious and urgent: unless earthcease and desist its development of rocket propelledatomic weapons, Klaatu’s confederacy will eliminateus before we can become a threat to them. Suspensebuilds when Klaatu fails to convince our myopicpolitical leaders of the urgency of planetary peace;they will not even give him a hearing. Only sci-entists take the celestial diplomat seriously. Klaatuexplains to an aging physicist that the aliens fearfurther development on earth of atomic weaponry.Until this point the interplanetary confederationhad not concerned itself with wars on earth, be-cause we had not yet evolved to the point of beingable to affect the extraterrestrials. But now atomicweapons could be tied to rockets and shot intoouter space, and human violence might spill intothe extraterrestrial domain. Klaatu’s mission is towarn earthlings of the dire consequences. Earth’sscientists, not its politicians, are able to understandthis warning and take appropriate preventativeaction.

The final exhortation is the climax of the filmwhen Klaatu makes a speech. “The universe growssmaller every day, and the threat of aggression byany group anywhere can no longer be tolerated.There must be security for all or no one is secure.Now this does not mean giving up any freedom,except the freedom to act irresponsibly. Your an-cestors knew this when they made laws to governthemselves and hired policemen to enforce them.We of the other planets have long accepted thisprinciple. We have an organization for the mutualprotection of all planets and for the complete elimi-nation of aggression. The result is we live in peace,


without arms or armies, secure in the knowledgethat we are free from aggression and war, free topursue more profitable enterprises.” The extrater-restrial confederacy has evolved to where war is nomore. They bring peace as an option and we canchoose either it or obliteration. This is the founda-tion of the UFO myth.

I, like many scholars, try to piece together cul-tural anxiety over science and technology with thedevelopment of the ETI and UFO myths. DianaTumminia describes the UFO myth as a postmod-ern phenomenon: “Postmodern myths, such as fly-ing saucers, extraterrestrial deities, and alien abduc-tions, express pluralistic collage-like symbolism ofrelatively recent origin. With the dawning of therational technological age, social scientists expectedsecularization and science to wipe out superstitionand magical religions. This has not happened. In-stead, a magical enchanted worldview subvertedthe scientific paradigm into an animistic accountof space being that was readily available for ourmass consumption. That condition now pervadesin our popular culture.”6 Tumminia suggests thatthe UFO myth subverts the scientific paradigm byreintroducing magic. I do not want to debate thisissue here, but when we look at the ETI mythas believed by SETI scientists, we see no obviousmagic—we see only science in a very speculativeform. It is not the return of magic that definesthe ETI myth or its UFO variant; it is the be-lief that salvation comes to earth from the heavens,from outer space. The 1951 film reflects the UFOmyth with the assumption that science is savior.But, because earthly science has ‘known sin’ by let-ting loose the nuclear arms race, putting the entireplanet at risk, only a terrestrial science augmentedby an extraterrestrial science can provide salvationthrough world peace. Extraterrestrials can do forus what we almost but not quite can do for our-selves, namely, establish security through a systemof global arms control. Perhaps the more highlyevolved UFO-nauts can save us from destroyingourselves.

The 2008 version substitutes ecological crisis forthe threat of international war. The logic of the2008 film is that because we earthlings have failedto evolve to a higher level of morality in which

we take responsibility for the ecological health ofour planet, we deserve judgment and condemnationfrom our alien observers. Because of our failureto evolve quickly enough, the 2008 extraterres-trials have decided not only to allow humanityto become extinct, but to hasten our extinctionthrough destruction. The aliens become eco-earth’ssaviors, not ours. The salvation of our planet re-quires the elimination of one mis-evolved species,humankind. Whereas in 1951 the human race wasfaced with a decision to choose peace on earth,in 2008 we are simply sentenced to evolutionaryextinction.

What was a loud wake up alarm in the 1951film becomes a requiem in the 2008 variant. Thepitting of politics (nationalism) against science (in-ternationalism) is so muted it passes by without theviewer’s notice. Eco-catastrophe is now the sourceof our anxiety. The health of our planet is a no-ble cause, but the new film disregards the concernfor peace so prominent in the earlier one. The2008 version tantalizes the viewer with guns fir-ing and bombs exploding and military machismo.It looks like an IMAX video game without viewercontrols.

Despite the change from the threat of war to thethreat of eco-catastrophe, the 2008 film might havesucceeded had it maintained the logic of the firstversion. In both cases we find humanity lockedinto near hopeless patterns of self-destruction—what theologians would call ‘original sin’—andboth versions challenge us with a Pelagian chanceto make the right decisions and to choose a heal-ing future. Yet, the 2008 version leaves us with-out the equivalent of a church—that is, withouta prophetic fraternity of scientists within terrestrialsociety to carry on the mission of advocating eco-logical health, let alone global peace. In 1951, theworldwide fraternity of scientists was ordained withthis mission. In 2008, no one was so commis-sioned. In sum, we have less hope in 2008 thanwe did in 1951. Poor Earth!

Klaatu Barada Nikto

Ted PetersPacific Lutheran Theological Seminary

Editorials 125

Endnotes

1. See: Ted Peters, UFOs—God’s Chariots? Flying Saucers in Politics,Science, and Religion (Louisville: Westminster John Knox Press, 1976).

2. Martin Gardner, Fads and Fallacies in the Name of Science (NewYork: Dover, 1952, 1957) 3. Gardner analyzes the UFO phenomenon,dismissing it as hysteria. What Gardner does not recognize is the culturalconnection between UFO beliefs, evolution, and the prestige of science.

3. Kai Bird and Martin J. Sherwin, American Prometheus: The Triumpthand Tragedy of J. Robert Oppenheimer (New York: Random House, VintageBooks, 2005) 388.

4. Ibid., 347.

5. Ibid., 390.

6. Diana Tumminia, “From Rumor to Postmodern Myth:A Sociological Study of the Transformation of Flying SaucerRumor,” Encyclopedic Sourcebook of UFO Religions, edited byJames R. Lewis (Amherst NY: Prometheus Books, 2003)103.

Documents

A Quiet Reminder from Reinhold Niebuhr