The
Hope Conference
1971
At the 1971 Annual Meeting
Ewert Cousins was elected to succeed Dr. Dobzhansky, who became
the first Honorary Vice-President. That year's meeting was held
in one of the buildings of the St. Ignatius Loyola Community
where Fr. Teilhard had lived during the latter part of his life.
Jean Houston gave the address, "More Being and Being More
- Teilhard and the Future of Consciousness," and in the
evening there was an open-ended discussion led by Ewert Cousins,
Robert Francoeur, and Jean Houston on "The Transformation
of Man, Towards the Year 2000." Alice Knight and R. Wayne
Kraft came to the Board. Anna Francoeur resigned as Treasurer,
and that office devolved again to Minna. Bernard Towers, who
was now permanently in California, became a member of the Advisory
Board.
For some years after
their publication in French, volumes 6 and 7 of the Oeuvres
had not been available in this country because Harper & Row
had allowed the publication of the Teilhard books to lapse. Now
Harcourt Brace Jovanovich took over the publication rights of
the remaining books with the intention of bringing them out simultaneously
with their appearance in England. Helen Wolff who was responsible
for this move was a director of the Helen and Kurt Wolff division
of the company and also a member of our Advisory Board. Volumes
6 and 7, Human Energy and Activation of Human Energy
appeared in February of 1971.
What Robert Francoeur
described as "the best conference I ever attended"
- Teilhard de Chardin:in Quest of the Perfection of Man - took
place in the splendid Palace of Fine Arts in San Francisco in
May under the co-chairmanship of Mayor Joseph Alioto and Seymour
Farber, Dean of Continuing Education in Health Sciences, University
of California in San Francisco. Mayor Alioto had been impressed
by the influence that the Franciscan Fr. N. Max Wildiers, the
great Dutch Teilhardian scholar, had had on his son and other
students while he was lecturing at the University in San Francisco.
Here was a voice speaking out to a generation in revolt against
the Viet Nam War, "copping-out" of society, escaping
to Haight-Ashbury. He offered them Teilhard's challenge of the
"grand option": to face their problems and to "build
the earth." Fr. Wildiers inspired the American students
much as Teilhard had inspired the worker priests and the students
of Paris in earlier decades.
Fr. Wildiers, Theodosius
Dobzhansky, Robert Francoeur, Christopher Mooney, S.J. and Bernard
Towers were among the international roster of speakers that included,
among many others, Dr. L. S. B. Leakey,and Connor Cruise O'Brien.
The papers of that conference were published by Fairleigh Dickinson
University Press in 1973 (288 pages, $13.50),and the title of
the book was that of the conference itself.
Back in New York, it
was fitting that a theologian should be in the President's chair
because for over a year plans had been in process for the Association
to sponsor a conference on "Hope and the Future of Man."
It was a theme appropriate to a Teilhardian Conference, for he
had believed that hope was "the essential impetus without
which nothing will be done" and also that there was nothing
more important than creation of the future. The conference was
conceived as a convergence of innovative thinkers who were having
a far-reaching influence on contemporary theology, centering
around three important Hope Theologians from Germany: Johannes
Metz, Jürgen Moltman, and Wolfhart Pannenburg.
The idea for the conference
had been Gertrud Mellon's, and for a number of years, during
summer visits to her native Freiburg and through Goethe House
in New York City, she had sought financial help from the German
government to make it possible. Philip Hefner of the Lutheran
School of Theology at Chicago, on sabbatical in Hamburg, had
been in touch with the German theologians. Now plans had matured
and travel expenses for the three scholars were to be underwritten
by the German government. The dates of the Conference were set
for October 8 to 10.Institutions that were to co-sponsor the
Conference with the American Teilhard de Chardin Association
were the Cardinal Bea Institute of Woodstock College, Union Theological
Seminary, Trinity Institute where the scholars were to stay as
guests, and Goethe House in New York City. Cooperation was also
promised from Riverside Church where the public sessions of the
Conference would be held. The Conference was to be financed through
the operational budgets of the sponsoring institutions and the
sum of $3,250.00 was made available to cover the stipends for
the major speakers and travel expenses for the American speakers.
Among the American scholars
were Carl Braaten (Lutheran School of Theology at Chicago), who
represented the eschatological approach; John B. Cobb, Jr. (School
of Theology of Claremont, California); Lewis Ogden, (The Divinity
School, The University of Chicago); and Daniel Day Williams (Union
Theological Seminary), all of whom represented Process Theology;
Donald Gray (Manhattan College); Philip Hefner (The Lutheran
School of Theology at Chicago); Christopher Mooney, S.J. (President
of Woodstock College, New York City); and Joseph Sittler (The
Divinity School, The University of Chicago), representing the
Teilhard theologians. A number of other scholars were invited
to take part in the working sessions of the conference.
There were to be five
public lectures and, in addition, private discussions between
the specialists, some of which were to be open to students. Until
a week before the Conference it had been planned to hold the
public sessions in the Assembly Hall of Riverside Church which
seats 400. Increasingly the Association had been inundated with
letters and postcards from many parts of the United States and
Canada - a party of four was flying in from California, or a
group of eight were driving from Illinois - asking for suggestions
of places to stay. Now aware of the unexpectedly large response
to the Conference, the Association took the precaution of asking
the church to transfer the public sessions to the huge nave which
seats 1500. It was a wise move for though there was no formal
registration it was estimated that over 2500 people attended.
This large audience was a point singled out by an article in
the New York Times on October 9th. The three German theologians
were themselves impressed. "Who are all those people?"
queried Johannes Metz at the first session as he adjusted his
glasses to peer at the vast sea of faces. "How is it possible
to assemble so many people for a Conference on Theology? And
at 9:30in the morning!"
No précis can
do justice to the Conference, but briefly (borrowing from a report
by Ewert Cousins) it began with a public session at which three
presentations were made on the meaning of the future, from a
process, a Teilhardian, and an eschatological perspective. John
Cobb, Jr. maintained that process theology provides a mediating
position in the tension of present and future. Process does not
guarantee progress. Although God's activity in the world makes
for progress as well as change, "there is no guarantee of
progress in the short run, and in the long run it is inevitable
that life on this planet will become extinct." For Whitehead
"the penultimate value and meaning of history becomes ultimate
in God." Dr. Cobb gave his own speculations on a post-personal
future in which there would be "a rich interpenetration
of each into the other to the intensification and harmonization
of the experiences of all. This will constitute a new kind of
community, transcending both collectivities and voluntary associations
of autonomous persons." Process theology gives Cobb hope
that man can find his way through the now-threatening catastrophes,
but it gives him no assurance that man will do so.
Speaking from Teilhard's
perspective, Philip Hefner developed six statements about the
future: it is one of convergence and unification; of progressive
personalization; it is open, not closed; it implies the worth
and reliability of creation; it activates human energy; finally,
love is the action which fulfills the world's destiny. He concluded
that "the activation of man's energy is the crucial question
of the future, because if that energy is not activated in the
proper direction, we will be only moments away from the abyss."
The eschatological approach
was presented by Carl Braaten. He said, "The symbolism of
the future comes to us in two forms of consciousness: the utopian
and the eschatological. The utopian future is projected as another
time in history; the eschatological future deals with
the final fulfillment end of history." He described
the power of the eschatological future to provide hope thus:
"The future gives rise to hope that a great reversal in
the present can come about." It can have an impact in the
present, reversing trends and starting new ones. "The Christian
view involves an axiomatic reversal in which the new reality
is the starting point." "Ultimately, what we mean by
the future is what we mean by God. For God is our Future, the
fulfilling power of the future in all things."
The three theologians
from Germany gave responses to the opening presentations by the
Americans, and on each evening a public lecture was delivered
by one of them, followed by responses given by representatives
of the Teilhardian and Process points of view.
On the first evening
Wolfhart Pannenberg of the University of Munich spoke on "Future
and Unity," and in a remarkably wide-ranging paper explored
the relation of God to the future, the interaction of the divine
and the human, the problems of the individual and society, the
significance of resurrection and the role of religion in society,
and the meaning of the eschatological future as the future of
God's kingdom in his eternal life and power. Throughout, Pannenberg
discussed issues in the light of the thought of Teilhard and
Whitehead. Donald Gray responded from a Teilhardian view, and
Daniel Day Williams from a process perspective.
On the second evening
Jürgen Moltmann of the University of Tübingen spoke
on "Hope and the Biomedical Future of Man". "For
the first time," he said, "human life in fact has become
a moral task," and he called for a new assessment of illness,
aging and dying. He concluded that because biomedical progress
elicits hopes, yet does not guarantee happiness, it must be guided
by a humane ethics. Christopher Mooney responded from a Teilhardian
perspective and Schubert Ogden of the University of Chicago from
the Process approach.
The final evening lecture
was given by Johannes Metz of the State University of Münster,and
was entitled "The Future ex Memoria Passionais," in
which he contended that the future of our technological civilization
is primarily a political and social problem and proposed the
memory of suffering as a source for political and social action.
The Christian memory of the crucifixion prevents us from ever
becoming reconciled to the so-called "facts" and "tendencies"
of our society. This memory should become "the ferment for
that new political life we are now seeking on behalf of our human
future." Joseph Sittler of the University of Chicago and
Lewis Ford of the Pennsylvania State University responded.
The complete papers of
the conference may be read in the book Hope and the Future
of Man, edited by Ewert Cousins and published by the Fortress
Press in 1972. A modest royalty check that arrives every year
attests to its continuing influence.
Ewert Cousins reported
that "Evaluation of the conference has been positive both
from the audience and the participants. Many claimed that important
communication had occurred and that a significant exchange had
taken place between European and American theologians. The conference
involved a fruitful combination of communication, tension, opposition
and technical clarification."
Successful as the conference
was, it had been conceived as only the first of a two-stage project.
The second stage would bring the same group of theologians together
with future planners: technologists, scientists, sociologists
and political scientists, sociologists and political scientists.
A budget of $25,000.00 was projected. This amount, far larger
than that spent on the Hope Conference, was deemed necessary
because an auditorium would be a more appropriate setting than
a church and would have to be rented at a substantial fee. Also,
speakers in the field of future planning were accustomed to larger
fees than theologians! This second conference never materialized.
In November of that year
Minna reported more cheerfully on the Association's financial
position: for the first time there were more than 500 members,
brought about no doubt by the interest engendered by the successful
Hope Conference.
previous | next
