FALL 2009 | VOLUME 11 | NUMBER 4

INSIGHTS AND NEW HORIZONS

 “For those who have seen the Earth from
space, and for the hundreds and perhaps
thousands more who will, the experience
most certainly changes your perspective.
The things that we share in our world are far
more valuable than those which divide us.”
DONALD E. WILLIAMS, RETIRED U.S. ASTRONAUT
VISION FALL 2009
 IN VISION FEATURES

4 Is God Green? Environmentalism is the subject of ongoing heated debate all over the
globe. But let’s set aside the political and commercial aspects of the discussion in order
to ask, Where does God stand on the issue?
12 The Sensitive Explorer Astronaut Michael Massimino has traveled to space twice to help
repair the Hubble Space Telescope. He talked to Vision about some of his experiences
and about his views on (and of) our amazing planet.
20 Who Am I? The Question of Youth Violence Research suggests that a child who lacks a
positive sense of identity is much more likely to turn violent. Gina Stepp explores five keys
to help parents protect their children from becoming victimizers.
28 Watchdogs of the Sea Marine biologist Eric Montie studies the brains of marine
mammals. In this interview, he discusses some of the challenges inherent in determining
not only the presence of chemicals such as DDT in these animals, but also their long-
term effect.
36 The Apostles, Part 16: Son of Thunder, Apostle of Love John, the last surviving
apostle of the first century, lived a long and challenging life. In this installment, we look at
some of his early experiences as a follower of Jesus Christ.
44 Rediscovering Leadership At some point every one of us has the opportunity to lead.
What are the principles that enable us to lead with the interests of others foremost in mind?
50 God Exists In this issue we offer a sample module from our Foundations Web site, a free
study course for those who are interested in learning more about the Bible’s teachings
on specific subjects. Foundational to such a study, of course, is the very question of
God’s existence.

DEPARTMENTS

3 Insight Human Ecology

32 Bio Vision Rachel Carson: A Voice That Broke the Silence
56 Book Review God and Your Brain
The God Virus, by Darrel W. Ray; How God Changes Your Brain,
by Andrew Newberg and Mark Robert Waldman
60 Eye on the News Related stories from Reuters
62 Viewpoint Comments from our readers
63 Web Sight Further information and links
COVER IMAGE: JOHN FRENCH
 INSIGHT
“The principle of balance and
integration demands research
into man’s whole nature and
all its interrelationships with
the environment.”
SIR GEORGE STAPLEDON, HUMAN ECOLOGY
Human Ecology
Ecology has become a term that sets people at odds. It is often used synony-
mously with environmentalism, which itself has come to be a lightning rod.
Global warming has its proponents and its detractors. “Tree huggers” are
both despised and celebrated. There are those who avidly support the new
ecological movement of our time and others who suspect that political
and/or commercial agendas underlie it.
Reflecting on the etymology of the word might help untangle and bring
balance to the debate. The origin lies in the Greek word oikos, “house, house-
hold,” and logia, “study of.” Surely there is nothing wrong in studying rela-
tions with and between living things that are part of the same household. But
we should beware when politics or economic agendas invade such study.
The study of how we humans relate to each other and to our environ-
ment, we might call “human ecology.” That, in fact, was the title of the final
incomplete manuscript of pioneer English grassland scientist and environmen-
talist Sir George Stapledon. In the late 1940s he distilled what he had learned.
His work was published posthumously in 1964 and contains much wisdom,
including perspectives on how we think of progress, education, the impor-
tance and benefits of rural and family life, and the relationship between work
and the development of positive human traits. He wrote, “My primary inter-
est is in the proper use of land surface in relation to human life, and the influ-
ence of association with nature in the raw on human behaviour and character.”
To regard Stapledon as an environmental extremist would be equiva-
lent to dismissing out of hand the profound writings of conservationist Aldo
Leopold, economist E.F. Schumacher, and farmer Wendell Berry. Each of them
invites us to redirect our thinking about our most fundamental relationships.
Leopold is known for A Sand County Almanac (1949), voted—along
with Rachel Carson’s Silent Spring—one of the 20th century’s two most influ-
ential books on the environment. Leopold wrote, “We abuse land because
we regard it as a commodity belonging to us. When we see land as a com-
munity to which we belong, we may begin to use it with love and respect.”
Schumacher’s Small Is Beautiful: Economics as if People Mattered
(1973) was hailed as worthy of a Nobel prize. He wrote, “Wisdom demands a
new orientation of science and technology towards the organic, the gentle,
the non-violent, the elegant and beautiful.”
Berry’s extensive body of literature centers on the observation that man
has created a world desperately in need of spiritual healing. He writes, “Most
of the important laws for the conduct of human life probably are religious in
origin . . . : Be merciful, be forgiving, love your neighbors, be hospitable to
strangers, be kind to other creatures, take care of the helpless, love your
enemies. We must, in short, love and care for one another and the other
creatures. We are allowed to make no exceptions. Every person’s obligation
toward the Creation is summed up in two words from Genesis 2:15: ‘Keep it.’”
As humans, we are at the center of our own universe. How we rightly
relate to other humans and to the environment we inhabit is dependent on
spiritual laws. They govern all relationships. We can ignore them to our
detriment or align ourselves with them and reap the benefits they promise.
This issue of Vision looks at various aspects of the contemporary
concern with the environment, without political or commercial intent. It
VISION FALL 2009 | 3
seeks simply to discover the right thing to do.
DAVID HULME, Ph.D.
PUBLISHER
david.hulme@visionjournal.org
IS G D
GREEN
To some, environmentalism is a cause that calls for political
activism, grass-roots campaigning, or even violence if necessary.
To others it’s nothing but alarmist nonsense or part of a left-wing
conspiracy, or perhaps it’s just an opportunity to make money.
Retracing the development of his own views on the subject,Vision
publisher David Hulme explores an alternative approach in the
light of Scripture.

ooking back over the forma-
tion of my views on environmental issues, I realize
that it has come from a variety of practical experi-
ences, personal conversations, and the written
works of what many would see as alternative
thinkers. The very question “Is God Green?” begs
several other questions, of course. “What has God
to do with it?” some might say. “Why bring God
into the discussion of environmentalism? Hasn’t He
long abdicated in any case?” And then there’s the
thought that greenness is surely a political term and
VISION FALL 2009 | 6
would not be in God’s vocabulary anyway. So
please bear with me as I begin with some of those
practical formative experiences and conversations
and my gradual introduction to another way of
looking at the world.
“Our remnants of wilderness will yield bigger values
to the nation’s character and health than they will to
its pocketbook, and to destroy them will be to admit
that the latter are the only values that interest us.”
ALDO LEOPOLD, “A PLEA FOR WILDERNESS HUNTING GROUNDS” (1925),
REPRODUCED IN ALDO LEOPOLD’S SOUTHWEST (1990)
AN ENLIGHTENING AFTERNOON
Robert Rodale’s garden in rural Pennsylvania
was a remarkably serene place. We taped a video
interview together there on a warm afternoon in
July 1990. Rodale Press, cofounded by Bob and
his experimental-farmer father, J.I., is best
known for Organic Gardening and the health
magazine Prevention.
At the time, Bob Rodale struck me as
unusually at peace with the world. During our inter-
view I asked if he was not disappointed that after
so many years in the forefront of the organic move-
ment in the United States, the opposing agribusi-
ness was winning the day with its philosophy of
fewer and fewer farmers, larger and larger holdings,
and more and more automation and chemically
based agriculture. He said he was not and that
within five years we would see organically grown
foods in the average supermarket. Of course, he
was proven right; today many U.S. stores have
produce sections devoted to organically grown
foods. In the United Kingdom, some supermarket
chains even participate in the sale of locally grown
organic produce.
Before I left his institute, Bob mentioned that
a different environmental spirit was evident a
couple of miles down the road, where grain mono-
culture was being practiced intensively. His own
organic garden, with its great variety of crops paired
with flowers and other plants that naturally discour-
aged pests, had a harmonious effect. Sure enough,
on the way back to town the feeling among the
grain fields that stretched away on all sides was not
the same, and it was certainly not better.
Rodale had learned much from his pioneering
father and had discovered for himself that there are
truths about the environment that lead to harmony,
balance, integration and wholeness. But it wasn’t
just about improving land; it was also about individ-
ual growth. Writing in appreciation, he said, “I will
always remember J.I. Rodale not only as my father,
but as a man who taught me to think of myself as

an organic person, trying to live in nature, striving
always to improve the environment while working
to improve myself, too.”
Rodale would move forward in his thinking,
developing the concept from the organic person to
the regenerative person. He began to travel widely
and realized that a right relationship with land and
nature could lead people to regenerate them-
selves. Regenerative food production could lead to
“people working together to improve themselves
and their world.”
Bob Rodale’s unusual calmness that day in
Pennsylvania came forcefully back to mind when
three months after our interview I learned that he
had been killed in a road accident. During a visit to
Russia, after signing an agreement to help start a
magazine for farmers and gardeners, he was involved
in a car crash on the way to Moscow’s airport.
His son, Anthony, wrote that just before his
death his father had entered the fourth phase of
his life, the spiritual. Though, as Bob told me in our
interview, he was not a religious man in any con-
ventional sense, yet some of the practices and
principles he discovered certainly have spiritual
connections. Of his father and grandfather,
Anthony said, “[Their] strength came from an
understanding, love, and respect for the soil and
for nature itself.”
FOUNDER OF MODERN WILDLIFE MANAGEMENT
The values taught by this kind of approach to land
and nature echo the work of another 20th-century
environmentalist, Aldo Leopold.
Leopold’s A Sand County Almanac (1949)
assumed a prominent place among the environ-
mental works of the past century. Ranked alongside
Rachel Carson’s Silent Spring, it contains this mem-
orable statement, “We abuse land because we
regard it as a commodity belonging to us. When we
see land as a community to which we belong, we
may begin to use it with love and respect.” Leopold
was a professor of game management at the Uni-
versity of Wisconsin–Madison and is regarded as
the founder of wildlife management in the United
States. His interest in nature led him to see that
humanity’s involvement with it from a domineering
perspective led to difficulty for both parties. He
wrote, “A thing is right when it tends to preserve
the integrity, stability, and beauty of the biotic
community. It is wrong when it tends otherwise.”
There is the question of right use and wrong use.
Right use will produce good results for all. Wrong
use will ab-use.
What Rodale recognized about regenerative
relationships, Leopold had realized before him. It
struck me after rereading the almanac recently that
Leopold’s wisdom about treating land with love and
respect applies equally to how we humans treat
each other. When we realize that no one is our pos-
session, our commodity, then we may begin to treat
fellow human beings with love and respect too.
ALTERNATIVE ECONOMICS
Another eye-opening book was Small Is Beautiful:
Economics as if People Mattered (1973) by E.F.
Schumacher. Twenty years after its publication it
was regarded by the London Times Literary Supple-
ment as one of the 100 most influential books in the
post–World War II period. It opens with a quote
from Aldo Leopold about the need to use technol-
ogy in a “gentler and more objective” way.
In addition to his many years as a respected
economist, Schumacher was a strong supporter of
intermediate technology and a member of the Soil
Association, one of Britain’s oldest organic farming
organizations, of which he was president in 1970.
(And not surprisingly, there is also a history of coop-
eration between the Soil Association and the
Rodale family.)
But Schumacher did not start out as an alter-
native thinker. The son of a German political eco-
nomics professor, he was a Rhodes scholar at New
College, Oxford, in 1930 and remained in the
United Kingdom during the Nazi period. A protégé
of economist John Maynard Keynes [see “John
Maynard Keynes: Capitalism’s Savior?” in the Spring
2006 issue or at www.vision.org], he also worked
with John Kenneth Galbraith and helped in the eco-
nomic restructuring of Germany following the war.
He later wrote critically of Galbraith’s ideas
and of his mentor’s willingness to take advantage
of a system he admitted was morally wrong. In 1930,
as the world was reeling under the Great Depression,
VISION FALL 2009 | 7
Keynes had speculated that the day of universal
prosperity was approaching. Schumacher quoted
him as saying that nevertheless “for at least another
hundred years we must pretend to ourselves and to
every one that fair is foul and foul is fair; for foul is
 “The land ethic simply enlarges the
boundaries of the community to
include soils, waters, plants, and
animals, or collectively: the land.”
ALDO LEOPOLD, A SAND COUNTY ALMANAC (1949)
VISION FALL 2009 | 8
useful and fair is not. Avarice and usury and precau-
tion must be our gods a little longer still. For only
they can lead us out of the tunnel of economic
necessity into daylight.” Schumacher demolished
this approach in Small Is Beautiful, arguing, “If
human vices such as greed and envy are systemati-
cally cultivated, the inevitable result is nothing less
than a collapse of intelligence.” He knew that the
relentless pursuit of materialism destroys both men
and women and their environment. The carrying
capacity of the world cannot sustain limitless
growth, and the moral development of humanity
cannot be ignored. Schumacher continued, “There
is a revolutionary saying that ‘Man shall not live by
bread alone but by every word of God.’”
By 1973, Schumacher’s spiritual journey had
taken him through Buddhism to Catholicism. It’s not
surprising that along the way he wrote the acclaimed
paper “Buddhist Economics” (“production from
local resources for local needs is the most rational
way of economic life”) and freely admitted his belief
in biblical truths. He wrote, “We still have to learn
how to live peacefully, not only with our fellow man
but also with nature and, above all, with those
Higher Powers which have made nature and have
made us; for, assuredly, we have not come about by
accident and certainly have not made ourselves.”
Schumacher died suddenly in 1977, and his
daughter Barbara Wood took up his cause. A follow-
up to her father’s work, titled Small Is Still Beautiful,
was published in 2001.
FARMER AND PROPHETIC VOICE
Many of the preoccupations of the alternative
thinkers mentioned so far come through in the
work of the contemporary American writer Wendell
Berry. He describes himself as a Kentucky farmer,
though he is also a renowned author of essays,
poems and novels. One of his dominant themes is
the global cult of bigness and the dis-ease that it
causes. It is, of course, related to the growth of
industrialized solutions and the development of
technology for the sake of it. While many of his
works speak to ecological concerns, his analyses
encompass the broader human condition and how
health and peace can be restored to people.
In a work that I discovered in the early 1980s,
Berry invites us to consider that the demise of
small-scale agri-culture is simply an echo of the
crumbling of culture itself. He addresses our fasci-
nation with the future as an obtainable paradise:
“All our implements—automobiles, tractors,
kitchen utensils, etc.—have always been conceived
by the modern mind as in a kind of progress or pil-
grimage toward their future forms. The automobile-
of-the-future, the kitchen-of-the-future, the
classroom-of-the-future have long figured more
actively in our imaginations, plans, and desires than
whatever versions of these things we may currently
have. We long ago gave up the wish to have things
that were adequate or even excellent; we have pre-
ferred instead to have things that were up-to-date.
But to be up-to-date is an ambition with built-in
panic: our possessions cannot be up-to-date more
than momentarily unless we can stop time—or
somehow get ahead of it. The only possibility of
satisfaction is to be driving now in one’s future
automobile” (The Unsettling of America: Culture
& Agriculture).
When I wrote to Berry requesting an inter-
view in the late 1980s, he replied politely in a hand-
penciled note on paper without letterhead, that he
didn’t think television was his medium. At the time
I had just read one of his essays where he wondered
whether his use of a power saw was justified (at the
time he was plowing reclaimed open-cast mine
land with a team of horses rather than a tractor).
Thirty years after his book on culture and agri-
culture, Berry is still consumed by many of the same
VISION FALL 2009 | 9
concerns and the problems arising from the global
“order.” The difference is that the natural world is
now in worse condition. What hasn’t changed are
the spiritual precepts and biblical statements that
underlie his prescription for healing. He writes, “Most

of the important laws for the conduct of human life
probably are religious in origin—laws such as these:
Be merciful, be forgiving, love your neighbors, be
hospitable to strangers, be kind to other creatures,
take care of the helpless, love your enemies. We
must, in short, love and care for one another and the
other creatures. We are allowed to make no excep-
tions. Every person’s obligation toward the Creation
is summed up in two words from Genesis 2:15:
‘Keep it.’” I am intrigued by the fact that he under-
stands spiritual law to be the basis of right use.
BIBLICAL BASIS
Forty years ago, before I read any of the works men-
tioned here or conducted any interviews for televi-
sion on environmental issues, I was introduced to
organic gardening and farming as a student. In the
United Kingdom I had the privilege of studying
agronomy and working as a gardener and composter
with men dedicated to the organic tradition. Hence
the resonance with the writers I have quoted so far.
But there was more: the people I learned from
did what they did because it had a biblical basis.
For example, the farming program included the
observance of the sabbatical year—a year of rest
for the land every seventh year. This is an ecological
law established long ago. Further, it demands faith
to deliberately avoid planting or harvesting with
only the promise that there will be sufficient food in
the sixth year to cover the seventh and eighth years.
Chapter 25 of the book of Leviticus spells out the
law and the promised benefits.
As Berry indicates above, there are biblical
precepts that require of us conservation, care for
the environment, love of land, balance, harmony
and personal growth. His mention of the instruction
to Adam to dress and keep the garden in which he
VISION FALL 2009 | 10
had been placed is a reference to one of the first
ecological principles in the Bible. It’s significant that
this book of human origins has a statement about
how we should relate to the natural world around
us. The Hebrew words for dress (abad) and keep
“Small-scale operations, no matter how numerous,
are always less likely to be harmful to the natural
environment than large-scale ones, simply because
their individual force is small in relation to the
recuperative forces of nature.”
E.F. SCHUMACHER, SMALL IS BEAUTIFUL (1973)
(shamar) indicate working and guarding, cultivating
and protecting. Certainly there is no suggestion of
exploiting and ruining. The oft-quoted reference to
Genesis 1:26 about humans being given dominion
over all of creation is to a beneficent leadership
role, not a dominating or domineering one. They
are expected to do so with care and love and
wisdom [see “Vexing Verbs” in the Summer 2009
issue or at www.vision.org].
We are told that at the end of six days of cre-
ation work, “God saw everything that he had made,
and behold, it was very good” (Genesis 1:31,
English Standard Version throughout unless other-
wise noted). It is not just good (as on other individ-
ual days), but very good. The human view is all too
often that the natural world is in need of improve-
ment by human intervention, but God said that it
was already very good.
The apostle Paul explained that God’s “invisi-
ble attributes, namely, his eternal power and divine
nature, have been clearly perceived, ever since the
creation of the world, in the things that have been
made” (Romans 1:20). In other words, there is evi-
dence of God’s existence and creative work for
those who want to see it in the natural world around
us. But not all are willing, and so Paul adds that
some “exchanged the truth about God for a lie and
worshiped and served the creature rather than the
Creator, who is blessed forever!”(Romans 1:25).
They see the natural world but idolize it and ignore
its maker.
Yet God put the first humans in a garden
knowing that there is something about communing
with the natural world that benefits us. We are part
of an interdependent, mutually beneficial, created
biosphere. Many people recognize that. The young
Jewish girl Anne Frank, while hiding from the Nazis
in a secret room in a Dutch house, wrote, “The best
remedy for those who are afraid, lonely or unhappy
is to go outside, somewhere where they can be quite
alone with the heavens, nature and God. Because
only then does one feel that all is as it should be and
that God wishes to see people happy, amidst the
simple beauty of nature. . . . I firmly believe that
nature brings solace in all troubles.”
In the Genesis account, time is also of great
significance. God makes the Sabbath for humanity
by resting on the seventh day. This signals that
regular weekly rest is necessary for human well-
being. Like nature around us, we operate within
limits. We function according to daily, weekly,
monthly and annual cycles or seasons. Humans
take nine months to be ready for birth. Cedars take
80 years to come to maturity; only then do they take
on their characteristic shape. Resting food-growing
land every seven years matches the needs of land
for rejuvenation. Conservation and sustainability
are essential elements of a responsible relation-
ship with creation, governed by the law of love.
The recently published Green Bible
(HarperCollins) is a welcome addition to all the
other available versions. It comes with several
introductory articles and includes one of Wendell
Berry’s “Sabbath Poems.” Every ecologically
related verse in this Bible is printed in green; it’s a
surprise how many green verses there are.
On the prophetic side of the ledger, there are
some striking passages that show that God has not
abdicated his care and concern for the environ-
ment, despite what humans have done to it since
the days of the first man and woman, and He will yet
demonstrate it. Take for example the judgment on
those who have damaged the earth: in the book of
Revelation the time comes “for destroying the
destroyers of the earth” (11:18). Paul writes about “Once our personal connection to what is wrong
the groaning of creation for liberation that will
come at Christ’s return (Romans 8:19–22). And the becomes clear, then we must choose: we can go on
apostle Peter describes that day as “the time for as before, recognizing our dishonesty and living with
restoring all the things about which God spoke by it the best we can, or we can begin the effort to
the mouth of his holy prophets long ago” (Acts
3:21)—which would include all that has been
change the way we think and live.”
WENDELL BERRY, THE UNSETTLING OF AMERICA (1977)
degraded by man’s hand.
Is God green? Not in any human political or
material sense. But if we are talking about the right
way to live in and treat the natural world, then He
has laid out a way based on love and concern,
respect and care, nurturing and keeping now, in
preparation for a full restoration yet to come.

DAVID HULME
david.hulme@visionjournal.org

SELECTED REFERENCES:
VISION FALL 2009 | 11

1 Wendell Berry, The Unsettling of America: Culture & Agriculture (1977).

2 Wendell Berry, “Two Minds” in Citizenship Papers (2003). 3 J. Matthew
Bonzo and Michael R. Stevens, Wendell Berry and the Cultivation of Life:
A Reader’s Guide (2008). 4 Aldo Leopold, A Sand County Almanac (1949).
5 Joseph Pearce, Small Is Still Beautiful (2001). 6 Anthony Rodale, “Robert
Rodale: A Retrospective, 1930–1990” at http://www.seedsofchange.com
(2009). 7 E.F. Schumacher, Small Is Beautiful: Economics as if People
Mattered (1973).
INTERVIEW
Michael J. Massimino

The Sensitive Explorer

 Forty years ago Neil Armstrong stepped
out of the Apollo11lunar module onto
the moon’s surface. His words,“That’s one
small step for [a] man, one giant leap for
mankind,” will be forever recognized as
symbolic of that amazing first moment
of human imprint on another world.
Unfortunately, Armstrong’s crewmate
Edwin “Buzz” Aldrin never took a photo-
graph of him actually on the moon. That
is an amazing anomaly even for that time,
before photography was ubiquitous as it
is today. Aldrin composed many interest-
ing photos, including his own shoe print
in the lunar dust. But because getting a
shot of Armstrong was not on the check-
list and time was so tight, Aldrin says, he
just missed it.
Four decades later, Michael J. Mas-
simino’s May 2009 spaceflight marked
the 126th mission of the Space Shuttle
program, which began in 1981, nine
years after the Apollo program ended.
And while Aldrin never turned the
camera on Armstrong, cameras were
pointed continually at mission specialist
Massimino. Very little of a manned
mission goes undocumented now.
Whether it’s successful or not, the world
is always watching.
On this mission to refurbish the
VISION FALL 2009 | 14
Hubble Space Telescope (HST), all the
normal still and video photography equip-
ment rode along on the space shuttle
Atlantis, as did an extra large IMAX
camera. The IMAX film documenting the
flight and the crew’s repair of the HST is
expected to open in the spring of 2010
and will show not only the mission’s ulti-
mate success but also the rarely publicized
glitches, such as when a handle that
needed to be removed during one phase
of the repair refused to budge because
of a stuck bolt.
Massimino, known to his million-
plus Twitter followers as “Astro Mike,”
was the astronaut who had to implement
a solution to that problem. Vision con-
tributor Dan Cloer spoke with him about
this and other aspects of his historic
journey following an August 2009 program
in Hollywood, California, hosted by the
Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sci-
ences in honor of the Atlantis STS-125
crew’s work.
DC What impact do you hope the
Hubble film will have?
MM Working with the IMAX people was
just wonderful. I am always interested in
ways to help people learn more about
the space program and to experience,
in a way, what we get to experience. This
movie will tell the story of the Hubble
Space Telescope and our mission, and it
should provide some of that experience.
I think it will be great.
DC After your presentation in Holly-
wood, many in the audience were very
impressed with the crew’s enthusiasm
and willingness to share the experience
on an emotional, heart-to-heart level.
This is something that was not initially
expected. We all have the sense of an
astronaut as a rather stoic, “right stuff”
kind of personality. The early astronauts
were a rather narrow cross section,
honed as military test pilots but not as
public communicators. What is “the right
stuff” for an astronaut today?
MM When we think of the original seven
astronauts, we need to remember that
they were all from similar backgrounds,
including being active-duty military test
pilots. We still have guys and gals from
that background, but we also now have
much more variation because of the dif-
ferent jobs that need to be done. I do
not know the exact statistics, but we are
about half and half military and civilian.
So now you have a wider range
of people. On our flight, for instance,
Megan [McArthur] was an oceanogra-
pher, Drew [Andrew Freustel] was a geol-
ogist, I’m an engineer, John [Grunsfeld]
is an astronomer, and all of us are civil-
ians. The other three guys had the mili-
tary background.
Right now I think the right stuff for
an astronaut is someone who is interested
in exploration, who enjoys actually doing
the work as opposed to just observing;
someone who is not satisfied reading
about it but wants to touch it. I think that
is what we all have in common. It is also
having a strong sense of teamwork and
being able to get along with people.
Back then, if the right stuff was the steely-
eyed-test-pilot kind of guy, now I think it
is more like the sensitive explorer.
DC But you still need the steely-eyed
guys to “drive the bus to work.”
MM Yes, but even those guys are more
sensitive than they were, because they
have to work with us. You can’t be too
over-the-top. That’s what I was getting at
with the teamwork idea: we have various
kinds of backgrounds, but whatever the
background, we must get along with
everybody else in order to be successful.
DC You used the word traumatized to
express your feelings when things
weren’t going as planned in the Hubble
repair. Because the mission subtext was
to fix the space telescope and reveal
“the secrets of the universe,” failing at
your task would have been a great disap-
pointment. You didn’t want to go down
in the books as the one who closed our
eyes to the universe.
MM Yes, the textbooks might have read,
“We would know if there was life on other
planets except for Massimino, whose
children are Gabby and Daniel, and they
go to such and such a school. . . .” Know
what I mean?
DC Sure, but this was a team effort.
How were you the right person at the
right time for that situation? How did the
repair play out?
MM For some reason that task ended
up on my plate, and how that happened
I have no idea. It was just the way things
worked out. So I was feeling pretty bad at
the time, but looking back we were lucky
the way things happened.
The way they match us up for a
spacewalk, unless there is some other
compelling reason, is to put a veteran
with a new guy. John and I were going
to be split up for sure, but who Drew and
Mike [Michael Good] would work with
was up for grabs, a flip of the coin. There
is no scientific way to form the pair. In the
end, Mike had some other duties so he
was paired with me, and Drew was
teamed with John. I had trained with
Drew and we had become good friends
over the last couple of years, so we
thought that it would have been really
cool to spacewalk together.
In retrospect, however, because
Drew and I worked together so well—we
had practiced that repair task together
for hours and hours at a replica of the
work site across the hall from the office—
it was actually better for him to be on the
inside guiding me through the task when
the problems arose.
At one point, for example, I remem-
ber going back toward the airlock, and I
looked up at Drew in the window. I was
just feeling horrible. I kept saying, “This
“None of the tools and solutions they were coming up
with . . . were going to work. I was thinking,‘We’re dead.
It’s over. We’ve failed.’”
cannot be happening. It’s impossible that
this is happening right now!” I’m thinking,
“From a religious standpoint, or karma,
or the future of the universe, or whatever
it is, this has to work.” Since I was the
man on the spot—not that the problem
was my fault—I felt responsible that this
thing wasn’t working. What could we do
to fix it? None of the tools and solutions
they were coming up with (before they
finally mentioned pulling the handle off)
were going to work. I was thinking,
“We’re dead. It’s over. We’ve failed.”
And it was dark out; we were over
the nighttime of the Earth. So it was
depressing and scary and just added to
the whole mood. It wasn’t bright and
sunny over California; it was dark over
Abu Dhabi or wherever we were. I didn’t
want to look or say anything to anybody,
but when I drifted up toward the front of
the cargo bay to get some tools, I saw
Drew in the cabin. Everything was dark,
but his little head was lit up because the
lights were on in the cabin, and he was
giving me a smile and a big thumbs-up.
He didn’t want to say anything that people
would hear, so we were just lip reading.
I’m mouthing a lot of bad things
and he just looks down and basically
says, “What are you worried about?
Everything is going to be fine.” That was
very meaningful to me—having Drew’s
support was very important. That was
one fortunate way that things aligned.
The other was that the CapCom
[the capsule communicator at the
Johnson Space Center in Houston] was
[fellow astronaut] Dan Burbank, who is
very good at fixing things. His father was
an industrial arts teacher and Dan can do
just about anything. He’s one of my best
friends in the astronaut office. So he was
explaining the way we were going to fix
this thing with a very positive attitude.
VISION FALL 2009 | 15
“I was thinking at that moment,‘Humans are not
supposed to see this.This is some sort of secret
that is beyond our comprehension.God doesn’t
want anyone to see this. Don’t look!’”
 If we had not had one of those ele-
ments in place, the way everyone was sit-
uated and how those tasks fell out like
that, I don’t think we would have got that
job done that day. We never could have
planned that ahead of time.
DC This episode seems to make a
case for sending people into space. As
an engineer working on the human-
machine interface, do you think that
machines will ever be able to create a
solution to an unforeseen problem?
MM The flexibility and adaptability to
make changes on the fly is what humans
bring; it’s why astronauts are important.
It’s also important not to get too down
while doing the job. The other thing I was
thinking about out there was not to make
the situation worse. The tools can easily
float away; they’re not on tethers and
they just friction-fit in the case. So as bad
as things were, I could have made them
even harder for us.
When Hubble was first canceled, we
were looking at a robotic mission. I was
involved in trying to make an unmanned
mission to do this fix. It was a very inter-
esting, creative and enjoyable project,
but in the end it was going to be too
expensive to even attempt and it would
not have been able to repair most of
what we were sent to do. So in hindsight,
even the little adaptive things that
humans do would have been impossible.
A robot mission here would not have
been successful.
The real need is to have humans
working with machines. In our case, we
have the robot arm, which is more like a
crane; it does automatic sequences. But
it’s really a machine helping the astronaut
do his job during the spacewalk. There is
a role for each, not just man or machine
but both.
IMAGES: © NASA
DC You have said that seeing the Earth
from space is like the difference between
looking into an aquarium and scuba
diving: looking in as opposed to being
in. It’s hard to imagine being in space
and not looking back at the Earth, yet
you were hesitant to take that first look.
MM My first look at the Earth was during
my second spacewalk on my first flight
in 2002. I was too busy on my first space-
walk to even pause for a look; the tasks
were 100 percent engaging. But on the
second one there were some relaxed
moments, and I was more relaxed. It
seemed okay to take the reward of
looking around a little bit.
This was an earlier Hubble repair
mission and I was in a foot restraint, so
I’m just standing out there. We had just
put in the advanced camera for surveys,
which is one of the instruments we
repaired again on this mission—it takes
the cool pictures that “unlock the secrets
of the universe” and fill the calendars,
and people “ooh” and “aah.” So I was
waiting by the storage bin for the old
instrument that we had removed, and I
had a couple of minutes. More thumbs-
up in the cabin, and we were just coming
up on the sunlit area of Africa for a day
pass. I could see the ocean, and it was
just beautiful; so I said this is the time I
am really going to take a look.
But after a short glance I had to
turn away. I couldn’t even bear to look,
because I was thinking at that moment,
“Humans are not supposed to see this.
This is some sort of secret that is beyond
our comprehension. God doesn’t want
anyone to see this. Don’t look!” That was
my first reaction. It was just too beautiful,
like this little secret—big secret—I was
looking at.
DC Why would God not want us to
see this?
MM I have no idea! This was just going
through my head. It was so beautiful and
so unique and such a fantastic perspec-
tive; I felt that it was beyond what we
were supposed to be looking at. It was
kind of like the Indiana Jones movie—
when the guy looks into the ark and turns
to dust? It was like that; “This is so beauti-
ful that you are going to turn to dust!”
Then when I did look the second
time I just started tearing up. It was
getting a little emotional out there and
I was getting worried that this was going
to cause trouble, because water inside
your spacesuit is not good. It can short
something out; water can mix with the
anti-fog on the visor and get loose and
cause eye irritation. And I didn’t need any
of these problems, and I didn’t want to
admit that the way I got the water was
because I was crying like a little school-
girl. That’s when “the right stuff” works
against you! Then the tough guys make
fun of you.
So I got myself under control and
looked for the third time. People can
say “awesome” or whatever, but there
are no words to describe this thing. My
thoughts were, “If you were in heaven,
this must be the view.” But then the
thought that replaced that was, “This is
so beautiful, this must be what heaven
looks like.” I do not consider myself to
be an overly religious person. I am a reli-
gious person, but I do not necessarily
relate everything to religious terms. So
it was not like this was a big religious
moment, but I could think of no other
description other than as “heaven.”
While I was out there my other
thought was, “How could there be
another place this beautiful?” If you think
about what Hubble does, it discovers
how huge the universe is and all these
other solar systems and all these
planets—billions of planets potentially
VISION FALL 2009 | 17
out there. And you would think, intellec-
tually, that somewhere there is another
place where there is life. I don’t think
we’ve found any evidence of that, and
there is no evidence (that I would believe)
that we have been visited by other
 “As a father . . . you always want to make things nice
for the children. . . . And that’s what I thought when
I saw the Earth: The Father made the house nice!
Someone took really good care of us. We should
not wreck the place as though it’s a frat house on
a Saturday night!”
people; if there were space visitors, I don’t
think they’d go to the middle of South
Dakota; they’d go to New York or L.A. to
see a show. If you’re that smart to travel
here, aren’t you going to see some-
thing—take in a movie, at least?
After viewing the Earth, I didn’t think
there could be another place as beautiful
as our planet. It’s something you want to
share but just can’t completely.
DC In a conversation at the academy,
someone asked you to describe the most
profound thing that you have learned
from your experience. You answered,
“The Earth is a planet.” You described it
as a “paradise in the middle of chaos.”
What did you mean?
MM That was another thing that hit
me. This was on my first spacewalk, and
I remember looking over my shoulder and
seeing the moon very clearly. You see stars
and the blackness of space out there, and
you’re zipping around this Earth pretty
quick. And you look out and then back
and your perceptions are changed.
On my first flight Duane “Digger”
Carey, the pilot, was a rookie with me;
we went through astronaut training
together. As pilot, he doesn’t get to do
any spacewalks, so he told me that he
wanted to hear everything about it when
I came back in—“I want to hear every-
thing: descriptions, details—explain
everything perfectly right away,” he said.
So sure enough, when I come in, Digger
takes my helmet off and puts it to the
side. He’s staring right at me and says,
“What was it like?” He’s right in my face,
and I’m stuck in this spacesuit, and all I
can answer is “The Earth is a planet.”
He says, “What have you been
VISION FALL 2009 | 18
smoking inside your spacesuit?” But that
was my revelation! It is strange what goes
through your mind out there. Of course,
I learned that the Earth was a planet when
I was a little kid; “Every good mother does
fine” or “My very educated mother just
gave me nine pizza pies,” whatever the
planet saying is. Sure, I knew that. But
when you truly see it, you realize that it
is not this two-dimensional home we
think it is.
Right now we are on Earth. I look
out my office window, and I have a kind
of two-dimensional relationship with this
place. It’s home, where you live; you go
places, take your kids to a baseball game,
make dinner, go to the store, maybe go
on an airplane ride once in a while, go
running or hiking, go to your house, hang
out, or whatever you do. Your interaction
with the Earth is this 2D, safe-haven,
moving-around, driving-around relation-
ship. That’s how I thought of it.
When I saw it from space, all of a
sudden what hit me was “No, that’s not
it, man! We’re not protected; we’re in
the middle of all this chaos.” We’re out
here in the middle of all these other
things zipping around really fast; the
sun’s right there, the moon’s over there,
the other planets are out there, stars
and galaxies—and the Earth is part of
that. It’s a safe place to live, but it is whip-
ping around in all the rest of the stuff in
the universe.
DC Down here we still debate the
influence of human behavior on the
planet. Looking back from space, do
you have this debate?
MM You can see deforestation and
lakebeds drying up. You can see how thin
the atmosphere is—that’s kind of a
classic astronaut line: thin and fragile and
blah blah blah blah. Some astronauts
really get into global change, but to me it
was just “This is unbelievably beautiful—
such a cool thing to look at.” We defi-
nitely have an impact, and there is
definitely fragility, and the Earth is a
pretty awesome place to live.
One thing that came across my
mind as a father (I have two kids, 14 and
16) has a somewhat religious aspect to it.
 With kids yourself you know the drill: you
always want to make things nice for the
children, particularly when they’re little.
Everything has got to be perfect—build
a nice tree house, and all this other stuff.
And we drive ourselves crazy because, of
course, they don’t care!
And the father is always to blame.
I forgot to ask the movie people, “Why
is the father always the bad guy?” But
the father always tries to make the house
nice. And that’s what I thought when I
saw the Earth: The Father made the
house nice! Someone took really good
care of us. We should not wreck the
place as though it’s a frat house on a Sat-
urday night!
From whatever viewpoint—reli-
gious, or that the place just happens to
be here—we have this really nice house
and we should not wreck it. If you do
believe in God, and he’s a father looking
out for us, he gave us a really nice place.
Some of the kids are taking care of it, and
IMAGE: © NASA/ THIERRY LEGAULT
some kids are treating it like a frat house.
If you would want to look at it from
a religious viewpoint, you could say God
really loves us, because, you know, as a
father I really love my kids and I want my
kids to have a nice place. God really gave
us a nice place.
DC Einstein said that religion without The space shuttle Atlantis passes in front
science is blind and science without of the sun. The photo was taken in Florida
religion is lame. Does that ring true in on May 12, 2009, 24 hours after lift-off. At
your experience? that point the shuttle was about 160 miles
MM It’s funny the things you think at (260 km) from the earth, or nearly halfway
these moments in your life when you to the Hubble Space Telescope.
have the opportunity to see how every-
thing melds together. I agree with that.
What we are trying to find out through
our science and with the Hubble is Who
“What we are trying to find
are we and what are we in this whole out through our science
universe? How did it all form, and where and with the Hubble is
did we come from? We really don’t
know that. The Bible tells us some reli- Who are we and what are
gious things and science other things, we in this whole universe?
but we really don’t have a clue about
what all this is made out of; dark matter
How did it all form, and
and energy—we don’t even recognize where did we come from?”
what it is, what the elements that make
up most of the universe are. People have
curious questions that science tries to
answer, but it also has to be open to
ways of creating out there that we don’t
yet understand.
The space program is for explo-
VISION FALL 2009 | 19
ration and also for increasing our under-
standing. In 500 years we might be a lot
closer, but right now we don’t know how
we fit in. We can build skyscrapers and
drive around in fancy cars, but we still
don’t really know what we are doing.
 THE QUESTION
OF YOUTH
VIOLENCE

“In violence we forget who we are,” wrote American novelist and literary critic Mary McCarthy
in 1961. Her indictment was aimed at writers who had come to depend heavily on “sensa-
tion” and had “lost interest in the social,” but it has become all the more relevant in a world
where a focus on the sensational has escaped from fiction to permeate real life. And sadly,
concern about losing oneself in violence has become as relevant to children as it has always
been to adults. Almost half a century after McCarthy wrote, there is reason to believe that far
too many young people—despite any number of profile pages they may have on such social
networking sites as Facebook, MySpace or Bebo—may not be entirely sure of their identity.
 Though simple extrapolations from youth vio-
lence statistics are hazardous to make, news reports
across the globe, even just within the last two years,
nevertheless paint a picture that is unsettling to many.
“Violent Youth Crime Up a Third,” asserted a
January 2008 headline in the online edition of the
U.K.’s Telegraph. Beneath this header followed sta-
tistics illustrating that between 2003 and 2006 the
number of violent crimes committed by British youth
increased by 37 percent. And there is no shortage of
subsequent news items implying that the problem
persists. A cursory search of British news reports
published in 2008 and 2009 unearths the following:
January 2, 2008: A father of two, 52-year-old
Ron Sharples, dies after being assaulted by a group
of youths while out looking for the family dog.
January 16, 2008: A British court finds three
teens guilty of murdering 47-year-old Garry Newlove.
The father of three had stepped out of his home to
speak to a group of teenagers who, he believed,
had been vandalizing his wife’s car. The teens kicked
him to death.
April 19, 2008: Three young men (two of
whom are teens) are sentenced to life in prison for
stamping another 47-year-old father of three, Mark
Witherall, to death after breaking into his house in
Whitstable, Kent.
May 21, 2009: A 16-year-old is found guilty of
killing 68-year-old George Thornley during a botched
burglary of the older man’s home. The teen attacked
Thornley with a rubber mallet and a knife.
GIRL TROUBLE
Of course, the United Kingdom is not the only
nation regularly reporting violence among teens,
and perhaps surprisingly, males are not the only
perpetrators. According to American FBI figures,
VISION FALL 2009 | 22
in 1996 girls accounted for 15 percent of all violent
juvenile arrests in the United States. And by 2002,
24 percent of juveniles arrested for aggravated
assault were girls, as were 32 percent of those
apprehended for lesser assaults.
Does this mean the nature of females is chang-
ing? Are girls becoming as violent as boys? In their
2007 paper, “Patriarchy Matters,” researchers Lyn
Mikel Brown, Meda Chesney-Lind and Nan Stein
propose that “steep increases in girls’ arrests are
not the product of girls becoming more like boys.
Instead, forms of girls’ minor violence that were
once ignored are now being criminalized.”
While girls may not be completely abandoning
their nature—whatever one might consider that to
be—it may be difficult for some to believe that the
full increase in female juvenile arrests is attributable
solely to “minor violence” becoming criminalized.
When in the past would (or should) the follow-
ing incidents have been considered minor violence?
January 14, 2008: In West Philadelphia, 10
girls attack two other female teens who are waiting
for a school bus. Using what is either a box cutter or
a straight-edge razor, the attackers slash 15-year-
old Shakia West, severely wounding her in the face.
February 4, 2008: In Halifax, Nova Scotia, two
teenage girls are sentenced for a crime they com-
mitted the previous summer. Apparently, using
metal table legs as clubs, the girls waylaid a 66-year-
old woman as she walked through Halifax Common
and beat her repeatedly, leaving her with a broken
rib and severe bruising.
March 30, 2008: 16-year-old Victoria Lindsay
is beaten unconscious by six other teen girls who
videotape the attack, intending to post it on
YouTube. Lindsay requires hospitalization and
suffers blurred vision and hearing loss, among
other injuries.
July 14, 2009: A girl gang in Washington, D.C.,
hunts down a girl from a rival gang to retaliate for
alleged MySpace postings. The attackers carry
hammers, sticks and other weapons, swinging them
as they approach the victim, who is later hospital-
ized with multiple stab wounds.
July 29, 2009: 17-year-old Alexis Harris dies
after being stabbed by another girl during an argu-
ment on a basketball court in Cleveland, Ohio.
 “Children are more aggressive and grow up
more likely to become involved in violence—
either as a victimizer or as a victim—if they
witness violent acts. The home is the most
fertile breeding place for this situation.”
AMERICAN PSYCHOLOGICAL ASSOCIATION,
“IS YOUTH VIOLENCE JUST ANOTHER FACT OF LIFE?” (1996)
IMAGES: © ANDREW PENKETH

VISION FALL 2009 | 23

 If Brown, Chesney-Lind and Stein are correct
and such examples have always been common
among girls, one can only muse that it’s about time
such behavior became criminalized. However, if such
examples have not been as common as they are now,
what has changed? Perhaps, as McCarthy noted,
the violent simply forget who they are. But why have
so many teens forgotten who they are? Are some
children just born with more aggressive traits?
“There is no gene for violence,” says the
American Psychological Association’s Web site; “vio-
lence is a learned behavior, and it is often learned in
the home or the community from parents, family
members, or friends.”
WEIGHING THE RISKS
Researchers have noted that the factors leading to
youth violence are so complex that multiple theories
are needed to account for the many forms in which
it occurs. Patterns leading to school shootings, for
instance, differ in important ways from those leading
to gang violence, so protective interventions would
need to cover a wide range of behaviors. On the
negative side of the equation, factors thought to
contribute to aggression include exposure to vio-
lence, whether community, media or intrafamilial
violence; poor family, peer and community relation-
ships; and lower levels of moral and abstract reason-
ing and problem-solving skills. In addition, mental
disorders and biological factors (including brain
damage and other abnormalities) come into play.
However, it is important to note that while
large numbers of teens may be exposed to various
combinations of any or all of these factors, they do
not all become violent. Vincent Ramos, former chief
psychologist and director of clinical services at a
southeastern U.S. facility for adjudicated youth,
says some kids resist the effects of these factors
better than others. “The fact is, we cannot deter-
mine risk with any significant reliability,” he told
Vision. “More youth than not are resilient and are
capable of surviving the worst of conditions without
“A family history of criminal behavior and substance
abuse, family management problems, family conflict,
and parental attitudes favorable toward crime and
substance abuse have been linked with youth violence.”
VISION FALL 2009 | 24
JAVAD H. KASHANI ET AL., “YOUTH VIOLENCE: PSYCHOSOCIAL RISK FACTORS, TREATMENT, PREVENTION,
AND RECOMMENDATIONS” IN JOURNAL OF EMOTIONAL AND BEHAVIORAL DISORDERS (WINTER 1999)
becoming criminals or resorting to violence. For
instance, the fact that most of the school-shooting
subjects were loners and were not connected to a
community does not mean that all subjects with the
same characteristics will turn to violence. Most do
not. It is rare when they do, in fact.”
In placing the emphasis on resilience, Ramos
presents the perspective of a “strength-based”
approach to the problem of teen violence rather
than a “risk-focused” approach. In a 2008 report
funded by the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and
Prevention (CDC), Nancy Guerra and Catherine
Bradshaw explain: “From [a strength-based] per-
spective, successful development is viewed not as
the absence of risk behavior but as the presence of
positive attributes that enable youth to reach their
full potential as productive and engaged adults.”
In reviewing the existing body of research
focusing on these positive attributes, Guerra and
Bradshaw identified five “core competencies” that
affect positive youth development. Their col-
leagues—Terri Sullivan, Albert Farrell, Amie Betten-
court and Sarah Helms—point out that these
competencies also “play a central role in many the-
ories of childhood aggression and youth violence.”
These protective core competencies include a
positive sense of self, self-control, decision-making
skills, a moral system of belief, and prosocial con-
nectedness. “Although these competencies clearly
are interconnected,” acknowledge the researchers,
“each has received substantial attention in its own
right.” They have indeed. In fact, anyone who is
familiar with resilience studies will immediately pick
up on the fact that the core competencies that
protect against childhood aggression and youth
violence look a lot like the traits that have been
found to protect against the effects of trauma (see
“Building Resilience in a Turbulent World” in the
Summer 2008 issue or at www.vision.org).
A central premise of Guerra and Bradshaw’s
research is that “high levels of these competencies
provide a marker for positive youth development,
and low levels of these competencies increase
the likelihood of adolescent risk behavior.” Clearly
parents are in the best position to encourage a
child’s development of core competencies from
infancy onward. However, success in doing so
requires that parents understand how competency
in these areas is expressed. It also requires that
they take an active, intentional role in teaching the
related skills. But what are these skills and how do
parents teach them on a practical level?
KNOW THYSELF
The first competency, a positive sense of self,
includes a realistic self-awareness marked by the
ability to accurately assess one’s strengths and
weaknesses, but also, say Guerra and Bradshaw, by
“a more refined and integrated conceptualization
of the self that lays the groundwork for one’s future
life course. ‘Who I am’ sets the stage for the ‘Who
I could become’—providing hopefulness, direction,
and a sense of purpose.” McCarthy’s 1961 words
reverberate: “In violence, we forget who we are.”
How do children gain a realistic self-awareness?
The foundations are laid even in infancy, as caretak-
ers respond with warmth and affection to a child’s
basic physical and emotional needs. It expands
during the toddler stage, as parents point out the
connection between the child’s actions and their
consequences. Certainly parents must point out the
negative consequences of a child’s negative actions.
But it’s important to reinforce positive actions by
pointing out their positive consequences as well.
The sense of self-mastery children gain as they reap
the rewards of doing well also breeds authentic self-
esteem (see “Doing Well Versus Feeling Good: The
Self-Esteem Debate” at www.vision.org).
Self-awareness is tied closely to the self-
regulation skills that are precursors to the develop-
ment of the next core competency: self-control.
While even young children are capable of regulat-
ing certain aspects of their behavior, especially in
response to reward and correction, personal man-
“Self-control is an important skill for all children
to learn. It refers to having power or control
over one’s own actions. It also means that an
individual knows right from wrong.”
NATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF SCHOOL PSYCHOLOGISTS,
“TEACHING YOUNG CHILDREN SELF-CONTROL SKILLS” (2002))
agement of this skill increases over time as the
standards they are taught become internalized.
Self-control—the ability to manage behavioral
and emotional reactions appropriately—is a criti-
cal indicator of positive adjustment for children
because of its importance in setting and reaching
goals throughout a person’s lifetime.
As parents interact socially with infants and
respond consistently to their needs, infants learn
to distinguish between important and unimportant
stimuli, a skill that leads to the ability to predict what
is likely to happen next after a particular action.
Once they can do this, the groundwork is
laid for the development of problem-solving skills.
A toddler discovers that a round block won’t go
into a triangular hole, but it will go into a round
hole. If he pulls himself up to a standing position
he can reach interesting things that couldn’t be
reached while crawling. At this stage children may
also begin to try socially unacceptable forms of
problem-solving. To obtain a toy they want, they
may forcefully take it from another child. “I want it . . .
he has it . . . I take it . . . problem solved!”
This is where adults, who ideally are present
and engaged, would actively teach the child that
certain actions are unacceptable. Part of this vital
lesson includes teaching youngsters how to recog-
nize the feelings that precede unacceptable behav-
ior (in this case, wanting something that someone
else has) and then replacing automatic actions with
those that are less automatic. (Instead of taking it,
I find another toy to play with until the other child
is finished playing with that one.) While it takes
time for these self-regulation skills to develop into
mature self-control, children do not internalize
them automatically. They require the active influ-
ence of adult figures within their so-called attach-
VISION FALL 2009 | 25
ment network—ideally their parents.
FACING CHOICES
The third competency, effective decision-making
skills, also develops with time and practice and
 must be actively taught. By adolescence, abstract
reasoning skills should be sophisticated enough
that a child is able to accurately predict outcomes
and imagine consequences. However, because
teens are less experienced at assessing the real
harm in negative consequences, parents must still
regularly discuss decisions with them to help them
assess potential risks and outcomes.
“In general,” explain Guerra and Bradshaw,
“when compared with adults, adolescents overesti-
mate risk.” Nevertheless, “perceived benefits, as
opposed to risks, are more likely to drive [teens’]
decisions.” While the most successful decision-
makers prefer to avoid dangerous risks completely
rather than face choices that may require weighing
significant risks against benefits, most teens still
need a parent’s help in decision-making until there
is clear evidence that they have succeeded in devel-
oping mature judgment.
Sullivan, Farrell, Bettencourt and Helms
further note that stark differences have been found
between the decision-making processes of aggres-
sive teens versus their nonaggressive counterparts.
Aggressive youths use different information and
goals in decision-making and are affected by differ- “Adolescents who were maltreated
ent biases, “including selectively attending to neg-
ative social cues, attributing hostile intent to these as children commit more violence
cues, and prioritizing revenge-based versus pro- than do adolescents who were not
social goals in addressing these situations.” maltreated as children.”
On the other hand, nonaggressive youths
JAVAD H. KASHANI ET AL., “YOUTH VIOLENCE: PSYCHOSOCIAL RISK
were able to use social skills to handle conflict, and FACTORS, TREATMENT, PREVENTION, AND RECOMMENDATIONS” IN
JOURNAL OF EMOTIONAL AND BEHAVIORAL DISORDERS (WINTER 1999)
they were less likely to assume that negative social
cues stemmed from purposefully hostile intentions.
Such positive patterns of thinking and behavior can
be gradually instilled throughout childhood as
parents and children share their daily experiences
and discuss their social interactions, encouraging
VISION FALL 2009 | 26

healthier views of and responses to conflict.

Healthier views and responses would, of
course, be based on the fourth core competency,
a moral system of belief. From a research perspec-
tive, a moral system of belief involves the use of
empathy and perspective-taking to develop deeply
held judgments about issues such as harm, fairness
and integrity. Even infants show a certain level of
moral awareness, such as empathic distress and
pleasure in response to the feelings of others. But
a more concrete system of belief gradually emerges
with the help of the crucial social interaction chil-
dren need to experience during development. And
again, parents should ideally be the key providers
of this interaction through frequent conversation
as well as by example.
“Mirroring,” in fact, is one of the first learning
tools available to children. Infants imitate significant
others within the family and community cultures,
and each mirroring episode makes a particular
neural connection that much stronger. If a child’s
role models—particularly those with whom he or
she most strongly identifies—are compassionate
caretakers who exhibit integrity, the standards they
model and teach form the basis for the child’s moral
beliefs. In contrast, when caretakers model negli-
gence, anger or violence, children are more likely
to become aggressive and to consider violence an
appropriate response when they are angry.
THE RIGHT CONNECTIONS
All of this underscores the importance of the final
competency offered by Guerra and Bradshaw, pro-
social connectedness, which could be considered
foundational to the four that precede it. Prosocial
connectedness refers to positive social engage-
ment between the child and significant others
across a range of social venues. In particular, secure
attachment and family support are known to exert
a protective influence against the development of
aggression in children.
It should come as no surprise that children
learn best from people with whom they have secure
emotional connections. Neuroscientists have
demonstrated what psychologists, parents, theolo-
gians and teachers have known all along: strong
family relationships and good role models con-
tribute to the formation of the brain, mind, person-
ality and character. Sullivan and her colleagues
underscore that secure attachment is associated
with self-regulation, empathy, and moral and
emotional development “from infancy through
adulthood.” Genetically, humans are social beings,
and from the first bonds that form between infants
and caregivers, behavior is highly influenced by
social connections.
“Early attachments lead to internal working
models of social relationships that serve as prelimi-
nary rules to guide both behavior and feelings in
social interactions,” Guerra comments. The effects
of these attachments on future potentially risky
behavior are pervasive and are later supplemented
by connections with peer groups, siblings, adults
outside the family—and now even those in online
social networks. Of course, other community factors
such as poverty and high crime rates may also
affect teen aggression. However, Sullivan’s team
points out that “microsystem connections such as
family relationship characteristics may exert a pro-
tective influence even for youth at risk of violence
perpetration due to community-level factors.”
In other words, the engaged and supportive
family relationships that instill a positive identity
in children are of critical importance in youth vio-
lence prevention.
With this in mind, and because there is no
gene for violence, a society with a violent youth
culture must ask some searching questions. Do we
as parents know who we are? Do we spend enough
time engaging positively and constructively with
our children to pass this understanding along? Do
our children know who they are?
If they don’t, perhaps we as parents are failing
them. And a society that fails its children fails itself.
GINA STEPP
gina.stepp@visionjournal.org
SELECTED REFERENCES:
1 Lyn Mikel Brown, Meda Chesney-Lind and Nan Stein, “Patriarchy
Matters” in Violence Against Women (December 2007). 2 Deborah
Burdett Schiavone, “The Effects of Exposure to Community Violence on
Aspects of Adolescent Identity Development” in Journal of Child and
Adolescent Psychiatric Nursing (May 2009). 3 Nancy G. Guerra and
Catherine P. Bradshaw, “Linking the Prevention of Problem Behaviors
and Positive Youth Development: Core Competencies for Positive Youth
Development and Risk Prevention,” in New Directions for Child and
Adolescent Development (Winter 2008). 4 Javad H. Kashani et al.,
“Youth Violence: Psychosocial Risk Factors, Treatment, Prevention, and
Recommendations,” in Journal of Emotional and Behavioral Disorders
(Winter 1999). 5 Mary McCarthy, “Characters in Fiction” in The Partisan
Review Anthology, edited by William Phillips and Philip Rahv (1962).
6 Bruce D. Perry and Maia Szalavitz, The Boy Who Was Raised as a Dog:
What Traumatized Children Can Teach Us About Loss, Love, and Healing
(2006). 7 Terri N. Sullivan et al., “Core Competencies and the Prevention
of Youth Violence” in New Directions for Child and Adolescent Develop-
ment (Winter 2008). 8 U.S. Department of Justice, Office of Juvenile
Justice and Delinquency Prevention, “Juvenile Offenders and Victims:
2006 National Report.”
VISION FALL 2009 | 27
 INTERVIEW
Eric Montie

Watchdogs of the Sea

Eric Montie is a research associate specializing in marine sensory

biology at the University of South Florida’s College of Marine Science.
In 2006 he completed his doctorate in biological oceanography in
the MIT–Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution Joint Program in
Oceanography (Cambridge, Massachusetts). Montie was the lead
author of a study published in the August-September 2009 issue of the
journal Environmental Pollution. The study outlined his team’s findings
with regard to chemical pollutants such as DDT found in the brains of
stranded marine mammals. He spoke with Vision contributor Lindsay
Keefer regarding the research and its implications.
VISION FALL 2009 | 28

LK How did you stumble on the study
of neuro-ecotoxicology?
EM About 15 years ago I became inter-
ested in how marine mammals (particu-
larly dolphins and seals) accumulate very
high levels of persistent organic pollu-
tants such as DDT and polychlorinated
biphenyls [PCBs]—and now flame retar-
dants. I also became interested in how
these chemicals are transferred to the
young through milk and how this may
affect the way the brain develops.
LK How do you go about this kind
of study?
EM At Woods Hole Oceanographic
Institution [WHOI], we collaborated
with the Cape Cod Stranding Network,
which responds to marine mammal
strandings in Cape Cod, Massachusetts.
In some cases, the animals have to be
euthanized because they’re not healthy.
At that time, their tissues become
readily accessible to scientists with a
permit and can be used for scientific
research. So I started a “brain bank”
for marine mammals.
I was trying to develop a method
to look at the brain, as well as determine
the types and levels of contaminants
present there. An animal would be euth-
anized, and we’d take it to an MRI facility
to capture images of the brain. Then we
would dissect the brain and collect cere-
brospinal fluid [CSF] and cerebellum
gray matter for chemical analysis. We
performed the wet chemistry in Dr. Chris
Reddy’s lab at WHOI and then sent the
fractions [the individual portions] to
Canada for analysis on a GC–MS [Gas
Chromatography–Mass Spectrometer].
That’s it in a nutshell.
LK And did you find some level of
these contaminants?
EM Yes, we saw detectable levels of
PCBs, major organochlorine pesticides
such as DDT and its metabolite DDE,
and also the common flame retardant
“Our paper did not by any means link these
contaminants to strandings. We have no
idea whether or not chemicals like these
actually cause strandings or hearing
deficits or brain defects in these animals.”
congeners that make up a class of poly-
brominated diphenyl ethers, or PBDEs.
We found that the chemicals accu-
mulate more in the cerebellum gray
matter than in the cerebrospinal fluid—
except for one class of chemicals, the
hydroxylated metabolites of PCB, which
were more present in the CSF. In the case
of the gray seal, the levels were in the
parts-per-million, which is very high.
You rarely find concentrations that high
in a stranded marine mammal.
LK How does that kind of con-
taminant get there, and why does it
settle in a certain part of the brain
rather than another?
EM That’s a great question. These
hydroxylated PCBs [OH-PCBs] actually
look very similar to thyroid hormone, a
major hormone in vertebrates. It’s been
shown in rat studies that OH-PCBs have
a high affinity for transthyretin, a thyroid
hormone carrier protein. In mammals,
this protein is produced in the liver and
the choroid plexus of the brain. In the
liver it’s secreted into the plasma of the
blood, and in the choroid plexus it’s
secreted into the cerebrospinal fluid.
So, we speculate that the hydroxylated
PCBs are accumulating in the CSF
largely because of that affinity.
We’re trying to figure out whether
the high concentration of OH-PCBs in
cerebrospinal fluid is also present in
other pinnipeds. So we’re working with
the Marine Mammal Center on the West
Coast to see whether California sea
lions have OH-PCBs in cerebrospinal
fluid, and whether or not the levels are
very high.
LK Many of these contaminants were
VISION FALL 2009 | 29
banned in the 1970s, so how is it that
we’re still finding them? Is it because this
generation of animals got it from their
mother’s milk?
EM PCBs and DDT were banned in the
’70s, but they are found ubiquitously in
 Postgraduate student Eric Montie conducts
lab work at Woods Hole Oceanographic
Institution in Massachusetts.
VISION FALL 2009 | 30
the marine environment. The chemicals
are persistent (don’t break down). These
animals accumulate them at very high
levels because they are apex predators.
The chemicals accumulate in the fatty
blubber layer and can be passed from
one generation to the next, through
the milk.
LK Recent press reports noted that
scientific evidence exists on how these
chemicals may affect neurodevelopment
in rats and suggested a similar link in
stranded sea mammals. Have we seen
actual side effects in sea mammals?
EM Our paper did not by any means
link these contaminants to strandings.
We have no idea whether or not chemi-
cals like these actually cause strandings
or hearing deficits or brain defects in
these animals. We know to a certain
extent that they can affect the thyroid
hormone system, although that data is
still a bit iffy. And we know to a certain
extent that it may affect their immune
response and also reproduction. But we
are really still in the infancy of trying to
figure out what these chemicals do to the
central nervous system of these animals.
That’s why part of the work that I’m
doing now is actually with rats. We’re in the
process of exposing rats to compounds
that interfere with the thyroid hormone
system. Then we image the brain using
a really high-end MRI magnet. We’re
hoping to show that disruption of the
thyroid hormone system, or exposure to
such-and-such environmental chemical
during pregnancy and lactation, leads
to abnormalities or defects in the brain
that are observable by MRI. Then we
can look for those pathologies in the
brains of marine mammals and corre-
late to the concentrations of environ-
mental pollutants in their tissues. That’s
the goal.
LK Do you have any idea what you’re
likely to find?
EM I don’t know. When you expose a
pregnant rat to PCBs, there are severe
neurological defects in the pups. Their
hippocampus, a region of the brain that’s
involved in spatial memory, doesn’t work
very well. Their cerebellum doesn’t work
very well, meaning that they’re not as
quick, they don’t have as much dexterity,
and they’re deaf.
But how does that translate to
marine mammals? The thyroid hormone
system and the toxicology are different
between rats and dolphins. You have to
do investigations with wild animals, and
it’s difficult to determine relationships

because of normal variability in the pop-
ulation. So we’re trying to work with
groups that are doing research on animals
that are very contaminated and assess
how the nervous system functions—for
example, through hearing tests.
LK If you do find a problem, what can
you do about it?
EM Well, I don’t know if there’s anything
to do about it, but first and foremost is
not to repeat our mistakes with a differ-
ent chemical.
I can give you examples of that.
Right now, our society uses flame retar-
dants excessively in ways that we
shouldn’t, like in baby clothes and sofas.
Another example is triclosan, which
is a bactericide found in many soaps. It’s
getting into waste water, which then ends
up in estuaries and bays. It has been
shown to affect the thyroid hormone
system in rats. So here’s a chemical that’s
used by many households and most hos-
pitals because we fear bugs, but is that
really necessary?
LK Have there been studies similar
to yours in other places?
EM The thing that’s unique about our
work is that we’re the first group to do a
really detailed assessment of the chem-
icals that accumulate in the brains of
IMAGES: © TOM KLEINDINST, WOODS HOLE OCEANOGRAPHIC INSTITUTION
marine mammals. And this is the first time
that anybody’s looked at the cerebrospinal
fluid. It’s also the first time that anybody
has looked for flame retardants.
LK You’ve said that we’re a chemically
dependent society. Do you think we’ve
come a long way since Rachel Carson’s
Silent Spring [see “A Voice That Broke
the Silence” on page 32], or are we still
going in the wrong direction?
EM Well, you know, it’s complicated.
As an example, we use computers.
Nowadays they have these huge proces-
sors, and you have to make sure they
don’t catch on fire, so you use flame
retardant in the circuit board.
“I think maybe we’re heading into a period
of a lot of non-point-source pollution,
where chemicals are going on the market
and we’re really not sure what they do,
but they may have a harmful effect.”
From the standpoint of overtly And truthfully, we should follow
dumping chemicals in the environment, the three r’s: reduce, reuse and recycle.
I think we’ve come a long way. I grew You’d be surprised what that does to
up on the shoreline of Connecticut, and the overall chemical burden in our
I remember my mom and dad telling me marine environment.
about the Connecticut River and how, And one last thing we should
40 years ago, it was a cesspool. Now it’s always ask ourselves: Do we even need
a beautiful river. So I think we’ve probably to use the chemical in the first place?
come light years. I think the population is
much better at dealing with hazardous
waste and so on.
With regard to pesticides, I’m
not sure. I still think we’re a pesticide-
dependent society. I mean, what can
we do in order to feed all the people on
this earth? We need to have fresh food
supplies, and pesticides allow that to
happen—although I’m not at all an
expert in the area of using pesticides
and whether or not there are alternatives.
I think maybe we’re heading into
a period of a lot of non-point-source
pollution, where chemicals are going
on the market and we’re really not sure
what they do, but they may have a
harmful effect. Bisphenol A is a perfect
example of that—a chemical in plastics
that may affect the way the brain devel-
ops. Like in anything, we need to have
checks and balances, and scientists like
me and all my colleagues, we’re sort of
environmental watchdogs. We’re going
to go out there and measure these
chemicals in wildlife. We’re going to
see whether they’re there, and if they
are, we’re going to see if they have
negative effects.
LK So where do we go from here?
EM It would be nice if our society
became less chemically dependent and
made more efforts to use green chemi-
VISION FALL 2009 | 31
cals. So, when you’re at the supermarket,
buy organic; buy green chemicals. Try to
find the organic way of ridding your yard
of fire ants. The more demand we put on
big companies to be green, the more
green they’ll become.
 BIO VISION
Rachel Carson
AVoiceThatBroketheSilence
The mid-20th-century boom of scientific
and technological discoveries created a
new society of consumers drunk with the
power of instant gratification. The idea
that life could become easier prevented
many from seeing problems with
advances in convenience, particularly
VISION FALL 2009 | 32
any potentially negative effects on the
earth or even on future generations. But
some did see problems and cautioned
restraint; perhaps the first and most
notable—at least among Americans—
was Rachel Carson.
A writer and biologist, Carson was
passionate about her work, which at first
focused on sea life but later on indiscrim-
inate pesticide use. The result of her
efforts would be the controversial Silent
Spring, a book that bore fruit far beyond
what Carson would have imagined had
she lived to see it.
Born May 27, 1907, on a small farm in
Springdale, Pennsylvania, Carson inherited
a love of nature from her mother, as well
as a love of books, which blossomed into
an avid interest in writing. She submitted
 numerous pieces to magazines through-
out her childhood and saw her first article
published at the age of 10.
After graduating from high school,
Carson went on to study at the Pennsyl-
vania College for Women (now Chatham
College, which opened the Rachel Carson
Institute in 1989 to promote environ-
mental awareness). There she became
intensely interested in marine biology.
Graduating in 1929, she went on to com-
plete a master’s degree in zoology at
Johns Hopkins University.
EARLY CAREER
Upon graduation, Carson taught
zoology for a few years at the University
of Maryland, followed by a tenure with
the U.S. Bureau of Fisheries (which later
became the Fish and Wildlife Service). She
began in 1935 as a radio show scriptwriter,
eventually moving to a post as scientist
and editor. During her subsequent 15
years there she would rise to be editor-
in-chief, writing numerous pamphlets on
conservation along the way. She also
wrote regularly for the Baltimore Sun,
contributing feature articles on nature.
Carson, who never married, was
most interested in marine life and spent
much of the 1940s writing about the envi-
VISION FALL 2009 | 34
ronment under the sea. Her first book,
Under the Sea-Wind, was published in
1941. This was followed in 1952 by The
Sea Around Us, which won her the
National Book Award in nonfiction.
Carson resigned from the Fish and
Wildlife Service that same year to focus
on writing full-time. The Edge of the Sea
joined her collection of published works
three years later. Her almost poetic treat-
ment of oceanography in the latter two
books boosted her to prominence in
both marine biology and nonfiction
writing circles.
In all of her writing, Carson focused
on a central theme—that, unlike animals,
humans have the capacity to drastically
alter nature. She also believed that
humans, if they take the time, can learn
from nature. “It is a wholesome and nec-
essary thing for us to turn again to the
earth and in the contemplation of her
beauties to know of wonder and humil-
ity,” she wrote.
This belief escalated as she tackled
a new facet of conservation: the use of
pesticides.
CONVICTIONS AND CONTROVERSY
During her work for the government,
Carson became increasingly troubled by
the indiscriminate use of pesticides, partic-
ularly dichloro-diphenyl-trichloroethane
(DDT), which had become popular during
World War II. First used on wartime sol-
diers to get rid of lice and thus reduce
the spread of typhus, DDT caused no
immediate side effects, so it was widely
assumed the pesticide would not affect
humans or wildlife. Carson believed other-
wise, and indeed this pesticide was soon
blamed for the decreasing bald eagle
population. According to the U.S. Fish
and Wildlife Service, DDT residue began
to contaminate lakes and streams, thus
harming the eagles’ food and disturbing
the reproduction process.
Carson contended that such con-
tamination would not stop with wildlife.
As she pieced together her own observa-
tions with research and information from
colleagues, she saw a frightening picture
of the future—for man as well as nature.
Convicted by her findings, the biologist
later wrote to a friend: “There would be
no peace for me if I kept silent.”
She originally planned to write a
magazine article exposing the risks of
pesticides, but no one would publish the
controversial content for fear of losing
advertising. In the end, however, she
had gathered enough research to write
“Carson . . . courageously
spoke out to remind us that
we are a vulnerable part of
the natural world subject
to the same damage as the
rest of the ecosystem.”
LINDA LEAR, BIOGRAPHER
 “Only within the moment of time represented by the
present century has one species—man—acquired
significant power to alter the nature of his world.”
RACHEL CARSON, SILENT SPRING
a book and determined that no other
project in her life could prove as impor-
tant. The book, Silent Spring, was a best-
seller even before its 1962 release.
In the book, Carson estimated that
the U.S. alone sees 500 new chemicals to
which “bodies of men and animals are
required somehow to adapt each year,
chemicals totally outside the limits of
biologic experience.” She added that
insects eventually grow immune to pesti-
cides and, as a result, come back in
greater numbers. “Thus, the chemical
war is never won, and all life is caught
in its violent crossfire.”
Many scientists today disagree with
Carson’s conclusions, making her work
no less controversial now than in her own
time. They claim, for example, that the
biologist misrepresented a study pub-
lished in a 1956 issue of the Journal of
Agricultural and Food Chemistry regard-
ing the effects of pesticides on quail and
pheasants. Scientists also debate the
effect of the DDT ban that resulted from
Silent Spring. Though the ban specifically
allowed the chemical’s use for “disease
control,” critics nevertheless cite it as the
main reason why malaria—a mosquito-
borne disease—still kills so many chil-
dren in developing nations.
Unlike many of her most devoted
followers, however, Carson herself did
IMAGE ON PREVIOUS SPREAD: TIME & LIFE PICTURES/GETTY IMAGES
not advocate a complete ban on pesti-
cides. “It is not my contention that
chemical insecticides must never be
used,” she qualified. “I do contend that
we have put poisonous and biologically
potent chemicals indiscriminately into
the hands of persons largely or wholly
ignorant of their potentials for harm. We
have subjected enormous numbers of
people to contact with these poisons,
without their consent and often without
their knowledge.”
ENVIRONMENTALISM IS BORN
When Silent Spring was published in 1962,
the chemical industry mocked its author,
calling her an alarmist. Carson, who was
fighting a battle against breast cancer,
would not be beaten and fought hard,
not for her life but for her convictions.
President John F. Kennedy, as a
result of her efforts, set up a Science
Advisory Committee to study the
problem she addressed. The committee
issued a pesticide report in May 1963,
noting that while the proper use of pesti-
cides could be considered necessary,
more research was needed before they
were indiscriminately sprayed.
That was just the beginning of the
effects of Silent Spring. In the United
States it led, as already noted, to the
eventual banning of DDT in 1972, as well
as to the formation of the Environmental
Protection Agency, which developed
various regulations such as the Clean
Air and Clean Water Acts.
However, much of this fruit
remained unseen by Carson, who died
of cancer in 1964 at the age of 56. And
while the science that undergirded her
claims regarding DDT has been reevalu-
ated and in many cases superseded in
the intervening years, her life’s work was
clearly instrumental in the creation of a
more environmentally conscious world.
“The beauty of the living world I
was trying to save has always been
uppermost in my mind—that, and anger
at the senseless, brutish things that were
being done,” Carson wrote to a friend.
“Now I can believe I have at least helped
a little.”
LINDSAY KEEFER
lindsay.keefer@visionjournal.org
SELECTED REFERENCES:
1 Rachel Carson, Silent Spring (1962). 2 J.B. DeWitt,
“Pesticide Toxicity: Chronic Toxicity to Quail and
Pheasants of Some Chlorinated Insecticides,” in
Journal of Agricultural and Food Chemistry (October
1956). 3 Linda Lear, The Life and Legacy of Rachel
Carson, http://www.rachelcarson.org/ (1996–2008).
4 William D. Ruckelshaus, Environmental Protection
Agency, “Consolidated DDT Hearings: Opinion and
Order of the Administrator” (1972). 5 U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Service, Bald Eagle, “Fact Sheet: Natural
History, Ecology, and History of Recovery,” http://www.
fws.gov/midwest/eagle/recovery/biologue.html (2009).
VISION FALL 2009 | 35
THE APOSTLES
Part Sixteen

SON OF

THUNDER
APOSTLE OF

LOVE
In this series on the apostles of Jesus
Christ, we’ve now arrived at the life of
the last surviving apostle, John. By the
end of the tumultuous first century,
John had experienced all the joys and
disappointments of life as a follower of
Jesus. He had been there from the start
of Jesus’ ministry, had witnessed the
transfiguration of his Teacher, and knew
who Jesus was. He had seen thousands
of people come into the newly formed
New Testament Church—three thousand
in one day, and five thousand shortly
thereafter. And he had cared for Jesus’
mother Mary, perhaps taking her with
him to Ephesus.
 John had also wrestled with the growing
spread of Gnostic ideas. A so-called fellow minis-
ter had even prevented him from teaching. He had
been held captive on Patmos, a Roman prison island.
And while there in the middle of the 90s C.E., by
which time he was quite old, he received the over-
whelming series of visions known as the Apoca-
lypse, or Revelation.
All of this happened over a period of about
70 years. It is thought that John lived into the reign
of the emperor Trajan (98–117).
As noted, Ephesus apparently became his
base after the departure of the Church from Jeru-
salem in the late 60s as they fled from the advanc-
ing Romans. The Anchor-Yale Bible Dictionary
notes: “The common tradition of the church
affirmed that, after his leadership role in the church
of Jerusalem, John moved to Ephesus, where he
lived to an old age and died a natural death. The
tradition is summarized by Eusebius.”
Church historian Eusebius of Caesarea, who
wrote in the late third and early fourth century, often
quoted earlier writers whose works are in some
cases no longer extant. He mentioned a few of
them as supporters of the tradition that John lived
in Ephesus, that he worked there, and that he was
alive at the end of the first century. One of his
sources was Irenaeus (ca. 130–202), whose works
are still in existence. Irenaeus claims he got reports
about John’s ministry in Ephesus from Papias (ca.
60–130) and Polycarp (ca. 70–156), whose lives over-
lapped with John’s. Polycarp was in fact a disciple
of John. Others also testified to John’s ministry in
Ephesus, though pertinent texts exist only to the
extent that they were quoted by later writers such
as Eusebius.
SONS OF THUNDER
In the Bible the apostle John is mentioned by name
30 times—in Matthew, Mark, Luke, Acts and Gala-
tians. We are first introduced to him in the book of
Matthew: “While walking by the Sea of Galilee,
[Jesus] saw two brothers, Simon (who is called Peter)
and Andrew his brother, casting a net into the sea,
IMAGE ON PREVIOUS SPREAD: © SANFORD/AGLIOLO/CORBIS
“To James the son of Zebedee, and to his
brother John, He gave the name ‘Boanerges’
(that is, ‘Sons of Thunder’).”
MARK 3:17, HOLMAN CHRISTIAN STANDARD BIBLE
for they were fishermen. And he said to them,
‘Follow me, and I will make you fishers of men.’
Immediately they left their nets and followed him.
And going on from there he saw two other broth-
ers, James the son of Zebedee and John his
brother, in the boat with Zebedee their father,
mending their nets, and he called them. Immedi-
ately they left the boat and their father and fol-
lowed him” (Matthew 4:18–22, English Standard
Version throughout).
Here we are introduced to John as the brother
of James, both of them sons of Zebedee. Their
mother, it appears, was a follower of Jesus and was
present at the crucifixion. Perhaps she was one of
those women who helped Him when He was in
Galilee; based on references in Mark 15:40 and
Matthew 27:56, her name may have been Salome.
When the brothers left their father to follow Jesus,
hired hands remained to help him in his fishing
business. The fact that the family had enough
money to hire servants suggests that it was proba-
bly a reasonably successful business (Mark 1:20).
In Mark’s Gospel we also learn that just as
Jesus renamed Simon, He also gave these brothers
a special name: “And he went up on the mountain
and called to him those whom he desired, and they
came to him. And he appointed twelve (whom he
also named apostles) so that they might be with
him and he might send them out to preach and
have authority to cast out demons. He appointed
the twelve: Simon (to whom he gave the name
Peter); James the son of Zebedee and John the
brother of James (to whom he gave the name
Boanerges, that is, Sons of Thunder) . . .” (Mark
3:13–17).
Perhaps this is a clue to their nature. Three
examples show why Jesus might have given them
this name, each of which provided opportunities
to teach certain principles. These experiences
undoubtedly affected John, who did not write
the books we have until near the end of the first
century. By the time he set them down, he was a
very mature person. Earlier in life, he seems a rather
different man.
VISION FALL 2009 | 39

THREE EXAMPLES
At a certain point in Jesus’ ministry, “John said to
him, ‘Teacher, we saw someone casting out demons
in your name, and we tried to stop him, because he
was not following us.’ But Jesus said, ‘Do not stop
him, for no one who does a mighty work in my
name will be able soon afterward to speak evil of
me. For the one who is not against us is for us. For
truly, I say to you, whoever gives you a cup of water
to drink because you belong to Christ will by no
means lose his reward’” (Mark 9:38–41).
Here Jesus spoke to having a more measured
approach to life’s events—not getting immediately
overexcited about things that happen. It doesn’t
say that Christ considered everyone who did things
in His name to represent Him, or to be equal in any
sense. Many people misunderstand this scripture,
thinking it means that everyone’s work is equally
valid as long as they use the name of Christ. But
Jesus didn’t say that. He just said, in effect, “Relax,
don’t get too excited about it. If that’s what they’re
doing, as long as they’re not opposing us, then that’s
fine.” He didn’t say, “We’re all the same” or “Go
VISION FALL 2009 | 40
join them.” He simply said, “Leave them alone.”
In a second example, Mark relates that
“James and John, the sons of Zebedee, came up to
him and said to him, ‘Teacher, we want you to do for
us whatever we ask of you’” (Mark 10:35). That’s
“Whoever wants to be a leader among you
must be your servant, and whoever wants
to be first among you must be the slave
of everyone else.”
MARK 10:43–44, NEW LIVING TRANSLATION
quite a statement. “Why don’t you just do every-
thing we want?”
“And he said to them, ‘What do you want me
to do for you?’ And they said to him, ‘Grant us to sit,
one at your right hand and one at your left, in your
glory’” (verses 36–37).
This is presumption in the extreme—naked
ambition. Jesus used the opportunity to teach
humility, not behaving as many leaders in the world
behave, not ruling as many human beings rule.
“[He] said to them, ‘You do not know what you
are asking. . . . To sit at my right hand or at my left
is not mine to grant, but it is for those for whom it
has been prepared. And when the ten heard it,
they began to be indignant at James and John.
And Jesus called them to him and said to them,
‘You know that those who are considered rulers of
the Gentiles lord it over them, and their great ones
exercise authority over them. But it shall not be so
among you. But whoever would be great among
you must be your servant, and whoever would be
first among you must be slave of all. For even the
Son of Man came not to be served but to serve, and
to give his life as a ransom for many’” (verses 38–45).
By now the brothers had been with Jesus for
about three years. But what was their state of mind?
Here’s the third example, which perhaps best illus-
trates the aptness of the title Jesus gave them:
The Tomb of St. John, as its name
implies, is the traditional location of
the apostle’s burial. It is situated near
Ephesus in modern-day Turkey.

“And as he sat on the Mount of Olives

opposite the temple, Peter and James
and John and Andrew asked him privately,
‘Tell us, when will these things be, and
what will be the sign when all these
things are about to be accomplished?’”
MARK 13:3–4, ENGLISH STANDARD VERSION
VISION FALL 2009 | 41

“When the days drew near for him to be taken up,
he set his face to go to Jerusalem. And he sent mes-
sengers ahead of him, who went and entered a
village of the Samaritans, to make preparations for
him. But the people did not receive him, because
his face was set toward Jerusalem. And when his
disciples James and John saw it, they said, ‘Lord,
do you want us to tell fire to come down from
heaven and consume them?’ But he turned and
rebuked them. And they went on to another
village” (Luke 9:51–56).
Despite this strong, demanding, fiery, impetu-
ous aspect of the brothers’ nature, John was later
known not as a “son of thunder,” but as the “apostle
of love” for his promotion of outgoing love as a
godly attribute. As we saw in Peter’s case (see Parts
13–15 in this series, available at www.vision.org), this
is an indication of how much a person can change
under God’s guidance.
A DEVELOPING LEADER
As they matured, the two brothers were singled
out for an important role. The naming of James and
John early in the list of disciples (Matthew 10:2–3)
reflects in part the chronological order of their
calling, but it’s also an indication of their eventual
leadership based on their experiences from the
beginning of Jesus’ ministry.
For example, they were present when He per-
formed an early miracle. Jesus “left the synagogue
and entered the house of Simon and Andrew, with
James and John. Now Simon’s mother-in-law lay ill
with a fever, and immediately they told him about
her. And he came and took her by the hand and
lifted her up, and the fever left her, and she began
to serve them” (Mark 1:29–31).
The two brothers were also among the few
VISION FALL 2009 | 42
allowed to be present at the raising of Jairus’s
daughter (Jairus was a local synagogue leader):
“Someone from the ruler’s house came and said,
‘Your daughter is dead; do not trouble the Teacher
any more.’ But Jesus on hearing this answered him,
“Peter and John answered and said to [the
rulers and elders and scribes], ‘Whether it
is right in the sight of God to give heed to
you rather than to God, you be the judge;
for we cannot stop speaking about what
we have seen and heard.’”
ACTS 4:19–20, NEW AMERICAN STANDARD BIBLE
‘Do not fear; only believe, and she will be well.’ And
when he came to the house, he allowed no one to
enter with him, except Peter and John and James,
and the father and mother of the child. . . . Taking
her by the hand he called, saying, ‘Child, arise.’
And her spirit returned, and she got up at once”
(Luke 8:49–55).
Later, James and John accompanied Jesus
up a mountain and saw a vision of their Master in
the kingdom of God: “And after six days Jesus took
with him Peter and James, and John his brother,
and led them up a high mountain by themselves.
And he was transfigured before them, and his face
shone like the sun, and his clothes became white
as light” (Matthew 17:1–2). John saw it and was
convicted, and this became an important aspect
of his biography.
Further, according to Mark, Jesus’ explanation
of the end of the age was directed to James, John
and two others: “And as he sat on the Mount of
Olives opposite the temple, Peter and James and
John and Andrew asked him privately, ‘Tell us, when
will these things be, and what will be the sign when
all these things are about to be accomplished?’”
(Mark 13:3–4).
And again, when the time came for the final
Passover meal, John was one of two disciples sent
to prepare it: “Then came the day of Unleavened
Bread [that is, the start of the Passover season], on
which the Passover lamb had to be sacrificed. So
Jesus sent Peter and John, saying, ‘Go and prepare
the Passover for us, that we may eat it’” (Luke 22:7–8).
Finally, during Jesus’ most intense time in the
Garden of Gethsemane, “he took with him Peter
and James and John, and began to be greatly dis-
tressed and troubled” (Mark 14:33).
JOHN’S GROWING PRESENCE
John is not mentioned again in the three synoptic
Gospels as they go on to relate Jesus’ death and
resurrection. And the Gospel of John doesn’t
mention him at all, at least not directly.
 But he is named again at the beginning of the
book of Acts: “Then they returned to Jerusalem from
the mount called Olivet, which is near Jerusalem,
a Sabbath day’s journey away. And when they had
entered, they went up to the upper room, where
they were staying, Peter and John and James and
Andrew, Philip and Thomas, Bartholomew and
Matthew. . . . All these with one accord were devot-
ing themselves to prayer, together with the women
and Mary the mother of Jesus, and his brothers”
(Acts 1:12–14).
Note that John, who had been asked by Jesus
to take care of His mother (John 19:26–27), now
takes precedence over James—an indication of his
developing role.
By this time John is often linked with Peter,
and this continues through the early chapters of
Acts: “Now Peter and John were going up to the
temple at the hour of prayer, the ninth hour. And a
man lame from birth . . . fixed his attention on them,
expecting to receive something from them. But
Peter said, ‘I have no silver and gold, but what I do
have I give to you. In the name of Jesus Christ of
Nazareth, rise up and walk!’ And he took him by
the right hand and raised him up. . . . While he
clung to Peter and John, all the people, utterly
astounded, ran together to them in the portico
called Solomon’s” (Acts 3:1–11).
Peter explained to them how all of this had
happened. The account in Acts says that John was
also involved in the speaking, and that their speech
attracted the attention of the religious leaders:
“And as they were speaking to the people, the
priests and the captain of the temple and the Sad-
ducees came upon them, greatly annoyed because
they were teaching the people and proclaiming in
Jesus the resurrection from the dead. And they
arrested them and put them in custody until the
next day, for it was already evening. But many of
those who had heard the word believed, and the
number of the men came to about five thousand.
On the next day their rulers and elders and scribes
gathered together in Jerusalem. . . . And when
they had set them in the midst, they inquired, ‘By
what power or by what name did you do this?’”
(Acts 4:1–7).
Peter told them how it happened and who
Jesus was. Though Peter is credited with speaking,
it was the courage of both men that took the reli-
gious leaders aback: “Now when they saw the bold-
ness of Peter and John, and perceived that they
were uneducated, common men, they were aston-
ished. And they recognized that they had been with
Jesus” (verse 13).
Unable to act against the two men, the reli-
gious leaders had to let them go. “When they were
released, they went to their friends and reported
what the chief priests and the elders had said to
them. And when they heard it, they lifted their
voices together to God. . . . When they had prayed,
the place in which they were gathered together was
shaken, and they were all filled with the Holy Spirit
and continued to speak the word of God with
boldness” (verses 23–31).
This was yet another experience that
informed John’s ongoing ministry.
FURTHER GROWTH
John’s role continued to grow as the young
Church increased. When the gospel went out to
the region north of Judea through Philip, and “the
apostles at Jerusalem heard that Samaria had
received the word of God, they sent to them Peter
and John, who came down and prayed for them
that they might receive the Holy Spirit, for [it] had
not yet fallen on any of them, but they had only
been baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus”
(Acts 8:14–16).
One of those baptized was Simon Magus.
But the magician, who was involved with incipient
Gnosticism, had ulterior motives. John was present
when Peter severely rebuked the false teacher
(verses 17–23). This was a significant event, for
John later had to deal with Gnostic influences
within the Church.
In time John was mentioned by Paul as one of
three leaders in Jerusalem following Christ’s death
and resurrection. Paul wrote: “When they saw that
I had been entrusted with the gospel to the uncir-
cumcised, just as Peter had been entrusted with
the gospel to the circumcised (for he who worked
through Peter for his apostolic ministry to the cir-
cumcised worked also through me for mine to the
Gentiles), and when James [the brother of Jesus]
and Cephas and John, who seemed to be pillars,
perceived the grace that was given to me, they
gave the right hand of fellowship to Barnabas and
me, that we should go to the Gentiles and they to
the circumcised” (Galatians 2:7–9).
We will further explore John’s developing
role, as well as his writings, next time.
DAVID HULME
david.hulme@visionjournal.org
VISION FALL 2009 | 43
REDISCOVERING
LEADERSHIP
SERVICE VERSUS SELF-INTEREST
 “LEADERSHIP IS A FORM OF SERVICE. IN ORDER TO
LEAD, A LEADER SHOULD BE WILLING TO MEET
THE NEEDS OF THE INDIVIDUALS IN THE TEAM.”
JOHN ADAIR, NOT BOSSES BUT LEADERS: HOW TO LEAD THE WAY TO SUCCESS (THIRD EDITION, 2003)
WHATEVER HAPPENED TO LEADERSHIP?
HAVE ALL THE GREAT LEADERS GONE FROM
THE WORLD SCENE? ARE LEADERS BORN,
OR DO THEY EMERGE IN APPROPRIATE
CIRCUMSTANCES?
A few years ago the London Sunday
Times ran an article with the title “What-
ever Happened to Real Leaders?” It read
in part: “The foreign secretary was a
stuffed shirt. But the prime minister was
not even that: ‘he was just a hole in the
air.’ The words are George Orwell’s,
applied to Lord Halifax and Stanley
Baldwin, in the late 1930s. What reso-
nance they have today! . . . What the
country needs is leadership, and this is
true of the Western world as a whole.”
The article continued, “The gap
between the desirable and the real has
never been as great in this respect. As
you open the newspapers or watch the
television news, is there a single political
leader in the West whose words you
would expect to remember? Would you
expect to learn anything from them? Do
you expect them to do anything inspiring
or creative, or even just the right thing?
We have reached a real low point in lead-
ership, lower than at any other time in
recent history. . . . ‘I sowed dragons,
and I reaped fleas,’ said Nietzsche.” It’s
a powerful plea for the kind of leadership
VISION FALL 2009 | 46
that can deliver humanity from the grip
of its many problems and evils.
Late American newspaper com-
mentator Walter Lippmann, in his syndi-
cated column Today and Tomorrow,
defined leaders as “the custodians of a
nation’s ideals, of the beliefs it cherishes,
of its permanent hopes, of the faith which
makes a nation out of a mere aggrega-
tion of individuals.”
Custodian. The word means a
keeper, a guardian or a caretaker. It is a
proactive word that implies action on
the part of the bearer. Custodians hold
something in trust on behalf of others.
Custodianship does not imply behavior
motivated out of self-interest.
A custodian, then, is an individual
who upholds what is best for all people,
even if it may not be in his or her own
interest to do so. A custodial role must
be approached as a temporary role,
preserving something greater than the
self—principles of enduring and lasting
value. This embodies an attitude that
focuses on the task at hand and not on
what the leader may gain from the posi-
tion. It implies a caring and concerned
relationship between leaders and follow-
ers; it implies individuals motivated by
their constituents’ best interests.
This idea seems at odds with what
we see happening around us. In all too
many arenas, we see leaders holding
nothing in trust for those they purport
to serve, instead merely advancing their
own ideals and hopes. It is often difficult
to tell whether our leaders are serving
themselves or us. And it is all too common
to find leaders simply helping them- Washington is remembered for his unmanageable? Today our world is faced
selves to privilege, prosperity and power. strength of character and discipline, his with serious, even life-threatening prob-
Mismanagement, deceit, greed and loyal patriotism, his principled leadership lems of a global nature. Where will we
from-the-frying-pan-into-the-fire and his selfless devotion to public duty. find the wisdom to deal with modern
problem solving all beg the question, He held in trust for the American people civilization’s most pressing dilemmas?
Where are our leaders leading? the very values and beliefs that made
To whom can we look for the direc- their nation possible, without regard for IT’S EVERYONE’S BUSINESS
tion we need? Is Lippmann’s statement his own gain. Clearly leadership is an issue that affects
merely an idealistic, unrealizable dream? True leadership is and always has all of us. Not only are we impacted by it,
been a selfless action. It involves taking but we are also called upon to exercise it.
SERVICE OR SELF-INTEREST? yourself out of the picture and consider- Whether we are involved in leading gov-
Throughout time, leaders who have ing the needs of others. It is a way of ernment or business; guiding young
exhibited the proper kind of custodian- thinking that takes other people into minds; leading a family, a sports team or
ship—that is, leaders who have sought account even when your own needs are a committee; organizing a dinner, a class
service over self-interest—have been pressing. It asks what is right or best in project, a carpool or a household; or just
held in high regard. People have gladly the wider interest. Few would doubt the standing for what is right—everyone has
looked to them for direction and guidance need today, in this respect, for more a leadership role to play. We are each
in times of indecision, turmoil and trouble. leaders like Cincinnatus and George thrust into many different leadership
One such custodian stood out in the Washington—leaders who will complete roles again and again throughout our
fifth-century B.C. Roman republic. The the job they are asked to do without lives. We are each called upon to be cus-
Roman army was surrounded, and the regard for themselves, and who will lead todians of what is right and good, lasting
country was in need of a leader who would rather than merely registering the collec- and of value, for those in our care.
seize the moment and turn impending tive will of the people. Surprisingly, this idea of custodian-
defeat into victory. They called upon a man Yet it would be difficult to build a ship even runs through the work of the
who was out plowing his field, a farmer consensus as to how a leader might Renaissance writer often thought to be
named Cincinnatus. He came. He saw. accomplish this—how a leader might be among the most cynical political thinkers
He conquered. He went home. Cincinna- a custodian of or hold in trust a nation’s of all time, Niccolò Machiavelli (see “Bio
tus gained fame for his selfless devotion or a group’s values and beliefs. Vision” in the Spring 2000 issue or at
to his country. This half-legendary hero How might we answer this ques- www.vision.org). Today Machiavelli is
gave his all in a time of crisis, and then, tion in a world that has seemingly grown most often mentioned in connection
when the task was done, he gave up the
reins of power and went back to his plow.
A more modern example is
America’s first president, George Wash-
ington (see “Bio Vision” in the Spring
2000 issue or at www.vision.org). Con-
sidered the “father of his country,” he
provides a paramount example of the
kind of custodial leadership that Lipp-
mann espoused.
Washington was an aristocratic
gentleman farmer of distinctive charac-
ter. When called upon to defend the
interests of a fledgling nation as com-
mander in chief of the Revolutionary
Army during the American War of Inde-
pendence, he rose to the challenge and
persevered against all odds. Then, after
eight and a half years of being the most
powerful man in America, he resigned his
commission and returned to his agricul-
tural pursuits.
Not surprisingly, he was the auto-
matic and unanimous choice to become
the first president of the United States.
VISION FALL 2009 | 47

He served two terms, and following this

supreme act of service to his country, like
Cincinnatus (to whom he had often been
compared by his contemporaries), he
stepped out of the limelight and retired
to his Mount Vernon estate in Virginia.
 with deception and duplicity. Yet he
insisted that leadership was virtuous only
if the good of the community was sought
out and achieved above all else. A good
leader, in other words, was a steward of
the community.
When we are called upon to lead,
what kind of custodian we are will
depend greatly on what we understand
a custodian to be, how we think about
other people, and how we determine
what is right and worth holding in trust.
The word custodian, in this context,
is the same as the word steward as it is
used in the Bible and throughout history.
A custodian or steward watches over that
which is placed in his or her trust by the
one who owns it or for those who will
benefit by it. Stewardship is a service per-
formed for others. It is not about owner-
ship or control. It is not a technique. It is
who and what the leader is. It is an atti-
tude—a state of being—a way of looking
at the world. But it is not the passive,
hands-off leadership that some have
attributed to this way of thinking. It is a
component of leadership without which
leaders cannot fully function.
In the context of what Lippmann
talked about, it means not only maintain-
ing the vision of and faith in ideals,
beliefs and hopes, but also living those
values as a model and example for
others to follow. It means raising the
sights and holding the focus of those
we lead so that they are empowered to
reach their potential. It means enabling
people by getting the roadblocks out of
their way and often out of their thinking.
To do this, of course, the leader must
visualize the big picture at all times and
VISION FALL 2009 | 48
hold the course for the benefit of all.
UNDERSTANDING
CUSTODIAL LEADERSHIP
In the widening chasm between what we
want and expect from our leaders and
what we are getting, it seems only natural
to take a hard look at leadership itself.
And many do. Finding that the leader-
ship we see around us is lacking, we think
that traditional views of leadership must
be inadequate and outworn. Out of sheer
frustration, we toss out many traditional
ideas for new and, we hope, improved
ideas of what leadership is all about.
Because we believe there are problems
with what leaders are doing, the faults of
the old views seem sufficient to float the
new. Yet these new ideas all too often
prove to be myopic and ineffective.
The self-serving nature of many of
the leaders we have looked to in the past
has led some to call for more passive,
follower-driven leadership. One such
version has called for replacing leadership
with a concept also called stewardship.
Although this new “stewardship” might
appear at first blush to be what Lipp-
mann was referring to, it is not. Neither
does it refer to the biblical concept. True
stewardship cannot replace leadership,
because it is an integral part of it.
This nouveau stewardship, as we
will refer to it here, has as a guiding prin-
ciple the belief that people have the
knowledge and the answers within them-
selves. As such, there is no need for a
leader to manage other adults—no need
to teach others how to think, behave or
conduct themselves. While this sounds
very appealing, democratic, liberating
and almost mystically primal, it is naïve.
We know from experience that people
do not always act in their own best inter-
est, much less that of others.
To suggest that this approach is
naïve might sound arrogant in a society
that has placed personal knowledge in
higher esteem than external guidance.
As we see the structures and institutions
that have traditionally provided us with
external guidance dissolving—family,
schools and religion—the desire to
believe that we are our own best source
of wisdom and will act accordingly is
strong. Theoretically, it would seem to
make sense. Practically, however, it has
never worked in any sustainable way.
Studies have shown that we all take our
cues not from the realities of the environ-
ment but from our own biases, desires,
perceptions and distractions. A function
of leadership, then, should be to help fol-
lowers create a more accurate and con-
structive view of reality by painting the
big picture.
TRUE STEWARDSHIP
The nouveau-stewardship model is
based on a myth that leadership—where
direction, vision and guidance come
from the top of an organization—creates
a dependency on the part of the follow-
ers and removes personal responsibility
and satisfaction.
Let’s analyze that idea. When the
concept of nouveau stewardship is pre-
sented, it most often claims to have roots
in the Bible. Perhaps so. But then propo-
nents of this brand of stewardship go off
on a tangent that the Bible does not
support. The concept of stewardship is
first presented in the Bible in Genesis 2:
Adam was instructed to “dress and
keep” God’s physical creation. This does
not present the picture of a passive,
hands-off approach. Adam was to apply
God’s laws and thinking to the physical
realm God had created. Adam was
expected to do something. While living
in harmony with that creation, he was to
actively maintain a standard in accor-
dance with laws and thinking higher than
his own.
In the same way, when we are given
any leadership responsibility, we, too, are
obliged to maintain a set of standards
that is in line with higher laws. Again, we
should not impose our own thinking
and desires on those we lead, but rather
“WITHOUT A HEALTHY DOSE OF HEART, A SUPPOSED
‘LEADER’ MAY MANAGE—BUT HE DOES NOT LEAD.”
DANIEL GOLEMAN, RICHARD BOYATZIS, ANNIE McKEE, PRIMAL LEADERSHIP: REALIZING THE POWER
OF EMOTIONAL INTELLIGENCE (2002)
apply those standards that were designed
to be best for the whole. Naturally they
should be implemented with respect for,
and in two-way communication with,
those we serve.
True leadership does not take away
the freedom, choice, accountability or
responsibility of others. Just as leaders
should serve and take into account the
ideas and needs of those they lead, those
following that lead should do the same
thing. In doing so, they, along with the
leader, practice self-restraint, develop
character, integrate discipline, and prac-
tice love and respect for other people.
This creates a kind of self-leadership at all
levels of the group. It promotes an envi-
ronment where all are empowered and
working toward the good of the whole
because that is in the best interest of all.
Daniel Goleman, author of Emo-
tional Intelligence, refers to this kind of
concern for the feelings, ideas and opin-
ions of others as empathy. But, he cau-
tions in a Harvard Business Review
article, that empathy “doesn’t mean a
kind of ‘I’m okay, you’re okay’ mushiness.
For a leader, that is, it doesn’t mean
adopting other people’s emotions as
one’s own and trying to please every-
body. That would be a nightmare—it
would make action impossible. Rather,
empathy means thoughtfully consider-
ing employees’ feelings—along with
other factors—in the process of making
intelligent decisions” (“What Makes a
Leader?” 1998). In other words, true
stewardship or custodianship means
taking others’ ideas and feelings into
account while holding in trust—keeping
as boundaries or guardrails—the group’s
ideals, beliefs and hopes. Ironically, an
attitude of service keeps leaders aware
of others’ needs while in turn enabling
them to become better leaders.
The nouveau-stewardship model
sounds right on the surface, but it plays
out more like a defense mechanism than
a constructive method to get leadership-
thinking back on track. As Lippmann
correctly defined it, leadership is truly
about choosing service over self-interest.
Leadership, properly executed, is not a
consensus-building exercise but an exer-
cise in outgoing concern for others,
including defining and setting bound-
aries as needed.
A FIRM FOUNDATION
What is critical to the leadership process
and its success is where the values come
from that determine these boundaries.
They can’t come from a single individual.
Nor can they come from the collective
whole. Where do we get the ideals, the
beliefs and the permanent hopes that
Lippmann wrote of and that define the
boundaries—those guides that mold
and shape us?
George Washington believed that
those values and boundaries came from
God. In his first inaugural address he
asserted that “the propitious smiles of
Heaven can never be expected on a
nation that disregards the eternal rules
of order and right which Heaven itself
has ordained” (emphasis ours).
Again, truly effective boundaries
must come from something outside of
ourselves. An effective leader has an
agenda designed to produce results,
but is guided by a core of values that
come from outside and not from within.
This process is maintained by means of
the leader’s integrity—his custodianship
of those values.
Stressing the need for integrity to
an outside core of values in the perform-
ance of proper leadership, John Adair,
visiting professor of leadership studies
at the University of Surrey and Exeter in
England, stated: “Although it is impossi-
ble to prove it, I believe that holding
firmly to sovereign values outside your-
self grows a wholeness of personality and
moral strength of character. The person
of integrity will always be tested. The first
real test comes when the demands of the
truth or good appears [sic] to conflict with
your self-interest or prospects. Which do
you choose?” (Effective Leadership).
Perhaps it is time to apply those
“eternal rules of order and right,” those
“sovereign values,” to the leadership
roles we perform at every level in life.
Even everyday, mundane activities are
opportunities to demonstrate and illus-
trate the values and beliefs for which we
must be custodians. If each of us works
to uphold such values, the element of
empowerment is introduced into our
lives: every person becomes in some
sense a leader, rather than only those
over us who provide us with direction
and instruction.
The Being who created us is the
ultimate source of the values we must
demonstrate to function effectively. In
His Word He teaches us how to serve,
how to look after each other, how to
esteem others more highly than our-
selves, how to teach—in other words,
how to lead. The Bible is where we will
find the guidelines we seek to steer a
course through this complex age. We
would do well to become more familiar
with it.
MICHAEL McKINNEY
michael.mckinney@visionjournal.org
SELECTED REFERENCES:
1 John Adair, Effective Leadership (1988). 2 Daniel
Goleman, “What Makes a Leader?” in Harvard Business
Review (November-December 1998).
VISION FALL 2009 | 49
(This article first appeared in the Spring
2000 issue of Vision.)
Exploring the Bible’s message for the 21st century

GOD EXISTS
The apostle Paul said that the creation around
us is evidence that God exists. But those who
hold to the scientific method for determining
facts demand a different standard of proof.
Is a scientific approach the best way to establish
whether there is a God?
On the following pages, Vision presents
a sample of the study modules available
at www.vision.org/foundations.
The Foundations site is designed for those
readers who would like to learn more about
the Bible’s teachings on specific subjects.

Study Area 1
Building Block 1
Module 1
DOES IT MATTER?
We live in a world where many have found their
own way of life apart from God. Deciding what is
right or wrong has become a matter of individual
decision-making.
But how can we be sure we‘re going the right
way? If there is no God, who has the ultimate knowl-
edge of what the right way is? Philosophers? Politi-
cians? Some other human authority?
Many would say it doesn‘t matter—that there
is no such thing as a right or a wrong way, or that it
all depends. Some would claim that the way itself
is the goal, or that we have to discover the best way
for ourselves. Those who believe in situation ethics
say that right and wrong are determined by the cir-
cumstances at the time.
But how successful have such approaches
really been? Look at some of the consequences. Do
the results we see in the world around us and in
the record of history demonstrate that we have
found the way that leads to peace and happiness
for everyone?
On the contrary, the results show how right
God is when He states, “There is a way that seems
right to a man, but its end is the way of death”
(Proverbs 16:25).
Absolute values cannot exist apart from God.
If there is no God, then everyone and
everything may be right—even the most
perverse ideas and practices.
Where did everything that exists come from?
Who are we? Where are we going? What is the
purpose of life? Is there any reasonable alternative
to the belief that a living God provides the answers
to these most basic questions?
If God does not exist, then we must ask, How
did life begin? And how did it become capable of pro-
creation? How is it that the nutritional needs of every
living creature are satisfied in a way that produces
VISION FALL 2009 | 52
the delicate balance we see within and between the
plant and animal kingdoms? Even after many
decades of research, the theory of evolution still
leaves the basic questions open, as we have shown
in numerous articles. ®See Expanded Study below
Module 1.1.1
Basic Teachings
The Good News for Humanity
God Exists
• Without a living God, there are no satisfactory,
logical and reasonable answers to these funda-
mental questions.
• Belief in the existence of a living God is essential
to understanding life.
Whether we believe in God and what we
believe about Him does matter. Belief or lack of
belief can drastically affect each of us personally,
as well as society at large.
Personal belief in a living God changes our
perspective. It changes our view of life, of work, and
of what comes after death. It changes our relation-
ship with parents, spouses and children, and even
our behavior toward enemies.
Belief or nonbelief in a living God can change
whole societies. Consider how certain societies
developed under the atheistic communist system in
the 20th century. Ask yourself how Western society
changed as the moral and ethical principles derived
from the Bible were gradually set aside.
• If there is a God, then it matters whether we
believe in and serve Him.
• God exists: this is good news and our only hope
for a better world.
• God exists: this is the basis of the Foundations
study program.
SCIENTIFIC EVIDENCE IS LIMITED
Where can we find factual evidence proving that
God exists?
By definition, science is confined to estab-
lishing truths by means of evidence derived from
physical observation, experience or experimenta-
tion—all fundamental elements of the scientific
method. The nature of scientific enquiry is such that
it cannot deal with unobservable phenomena.
Science can neither confirm nor deny the truth
of anything that lies beyond the limits
of what is verifiable by the scientific method.
We are physical beings, and as a result we
receive our information via the five physical senses.
Therefore scientific truth is what can be naturally
 seen. But much truth lies beyond scientific investi-
gation through observation and experimentation.
Verifying the existence of God, for example, is
beyond the capacity of science. It can be neither
proven nor disproven by scientific means.
• What kind of evidence would you accept as
proof of God‘s existence?
WHAT EVIDENCE DOES GOD PROVIDE?
The word proof means different things to people.
What constitutes proof to one person will not be
acceptable to another. Different people demand
different amounts or types of proof.
• Proof is evidence that convinces the mind and
is accepted as truth or fact.
For many, proof of God’s existence lies in the
creation around them. They look up at the Milky Way
stretching across the sky on a clear night, or they
see photographs of distant stars and nebulae taken
with modern telescopes (see Psalm 19:1). They see
a convincing beauty and design in the universe, and
for them it is reason enough for belief in a Creator.
The Bible talks of a man named Job, who was chal-
lenged to study the creation to see the power and
majesty of God revealed in it (Job 36–41).
Predating the theory of evolution by nearly
two thousand years, the apostle Paul wrote that
God’s creation is indeed extremely powerful testi-
mony of His existence. But that testimony has been
corrupted, undermined and almost obliterated in
the minds of men because they have replaced
worship of the Creator with that of the creation.
Paul said that “what may be known of God is
manifest among them [those who do not believe],
for God has shown it to them. For since the creation
of the world His invisible attributes are clearly seen,
being understood by the things that are made,
IMAGES: © ANDREW PENKETH
even His eternal power and Godhead, so that they
are without excuse, because, although they knew
God, they did not glorify Him as God. . . . Professing
to be wise, they became fools . . . who exchanged
the truth of God for the lie, and worshiped and
served the creature rather than the Creator, who is
blessed forever” (Romans 1:19–25, emphasis
added). Paul said that people should be able to see
that there is a God by observing the nature of the
world around them.
God’s eternal power can be seen in all the
processes of His creation. The witness of
creation is inescapable; it surrounds and affects
us always and everywhere.
No evidence can be strong enough, however,
to compel people to believe against their will.
And so it has been through the ages: “Although
they knew God, they did not glorify Him as God,
nor were thankful, but became futile in their
thoughts, and their foolish hearts were darkened”
(Romans 1:21). ®See Expanded Study below: Origin
of a Specious Theory and other articles
• Supernatural evidence is no less real than
“natural” evidence simply because we cannot
detect it scientifically.
A person’s belief in God can’t be dismissed
as unreasonable just because he or she cannot
produce scientific evidence as a basis for that
belief. The apostle Paul said that spiritual concepts
are “spiritually discerned” by those who have the
Holy Spirit at work in their minds (1 Corinthians
2:12–14). The Creator God’s handiwork is physically
visible in the universe. But what is physically seen
is only part of the certainty that God provides.
• The main reason we accept that God exists is
that the Bible reveals Him as the Creator, Sus-
tainer and Ruler of the universe.
Belief in God requires that we accept the
Bible as the inspired Word of God. When it says
that God created the heavens and the earth
(Genesis 1:1), either it is true or it is not. We must
VISION FALL 2009 | 53
accept that fact on faith before we can proceed to
know and understand the Creator God; “for he who
comes to God must believe that He is, and that He
is a rewarder of those who diligently seek Him”
(Hebrews 11:6).
 But faith isn’t unique to those who believe in
God. The chances that we and everything around
us resulted from a random evolutionary process
(with no known starting point or cause) are so
remote that believing this also requires faith.
Unlike a purposeless process of evolution,
however, knowing and understanding God brings
tremendous satisfaction (Jeremiah 9:23–24). And
we can come to know and understand Him because
He has revealed Himself in the book He inspired,
the Holy Bible.
• The evidence of God’s existence is there for
those who have their eyes opened to see—to
comprehend and understand what it means.
After we have accepted the existence of God,
we can proceed to other biblical revelations about
who and what God is. ®See Expanded Study below
Essentials of this module:
• Absolute values cannot exist apart from God;
otherwise everything and anything is acceptable.
• Belief or nonbelief in God can change personal
lives and societies.
• Science can neither confirm nor deny God’s
existence.
• Supernatural evidence is just as real as physical
evidence.
• God’s eternal power as Creator can be seen in
His creation.
• The Bible reveals God as the Creator, Sustainer
and Ruler of the universe.
ROBERT C. BORAKER
bob.boraker@visionjournal.org
®Expanded Study for this subject:
( Foundations modules listed below can be
accessed at www.vision.org/foundations; articles
from past issues of Vision are posted at
www.vision.org.)
Module 2.(1.1.1).1 Who and What Is God?
Module 1.1.2 Jesus Christ: Yesterday, Today and
Tomorrow
Module 2.(1.1.1).2 What Is the Holy Spirit?
Jesus Christ: The Myth and the Reality ( Vision,
Premier Issue)
Intelligent Designs ( Vision, Premier Issue)
Bio Vision: Charles Darwin ( Vision, Premier Issue)
Science and the Bible: A Point of Convergence
( Vision, Winter 2000)
Evolution: Science’s Center of the Universe
( Vision, Winter 2002)
Origin of a Specious Theory ( Vision, Winter 2002)
Equivocal Evidence ( Vision, Spring 2002)
Turning the Intellectual Tide ( Vision, Summer 2003)
The God Confusion ( Vision, Spring 2007)
Sources of Knowledge ( Vision, Summer 2007)
Crunch Time ( Vision, Fall 2007)
VISION FALL 2009 | 55
 BOOK REVIEW
God and Your Brain
VISION FALL 2009 | 56

The God Virus: How Religion Infects
Our Lives and Culture
Darrel W. Ray. 2009. IPC Press, Bonner
Springs, Kansas. 241 pages.
Does belief in God help or hinder
people’s thinking? Does believing what
we have been taught—perhaps as chil-
dren—and acting on it make us stronger
or just more prone to follow the leader
and not think critically about important
issues that arise in our lives?
What effect, if any, does religious
belief have on us?
Even if you haven’t taken the time
to ponder these questions, others have.
Two books, both published in 2009,
tackle the topic but come to very differ-
ent conclusions.
ONE DIAGNOSIS
In The God Virus, Darrel Ray, a psycholo-
gist and self-professed student of reli-
gion, suggests that religious belief is like
a virus or a parasite. He claims that those
who suddenly come to believe in a god
become different people—radically for
“The main thing that separates non-theists from
religionists is that we are not infected with a god virus.”
DARREL W. RAY, THE GOD VIRUS
How God Changes Your Brain:
Breakthrough Findings
From a Leading Neuroscientist
Andrew Newberg and Mark Robert
Waldman. 2009. Random House,
Ballantine Books, New York. 368 pages.
the worse—and he correlates this with
animals hosting a parasite that makes
them behave in non-instinctive or even
suicidal ways.
To help make his case, Ray notes
some of the frequent and not unreason-
able criticisms of religion, such as the
bickering and fighting between people
of different faiths, the widely publicized
sexual indiscretions of some religious
leaders and clergymen, and stubborn
reliance on blind faith on the part of many
believers when confronted with oppos-
ing scientific data. And on that basis he
paints all religion with a single stroke of
his very broad brush. But can all reli-
gious views be dealt with so generally?
Ray doesn’t try to prove or dis-
prove the existence of a supreme deity.
He seems to presuppose that his readers
agree with him that there is no God and
that religion has no redeeming value,
and he says as much in his introduction:
in a note on terminology, he explains,
“I use the term ‘non-theist’ to refer to
you, the reader.” So he essentially con-
fines his audience to those who already
share his views.
The psychologist intimates that a
believer’s faith is always misguided. He
states that a once-rational person,
having experienced “a religious conver-
sion,” will defend any irrational aspects
of his new beliefs with such statements
as “It is a mystery and we are not meant
to understand it,” or “God expects us
to follow his commands without ques-
tion.” He thus paints a picture of blind
VISION FALL 2009 | 57
faith inevitably trumping rational minds.
What he doesn’t realize is that while
people who make statements such as
these are typically very sincere, the
Bible provides no evidence to back
them up.
 “Recently there has been a spate of antireligious books . . .
that argue that religious beliefs are personally and
societally dangerous. But the research, as we will outline
throughout this book, strongly suggests otherwise.”
ANDREW NEWBERG AND MARK R. WALDMAN, HOW GOD CHANGES YOUR BRAIN
Ray states that “the big difference
between science and religion is found in
the presence or absence of error correc-
tion mechanisms. Through error correc-
tion, science builds a continuing body of
knowledge that can be objectively tested
and relied upon.”
Religious organizations that are
unwilling to admit errors and set about to
correct them are indeed going to face
credibility issues. On the other hand, how
much faith does it take to believe that
given enough time, scientists will be able
to answer the monumental questions of
life, and that those answers will be final
and error-free?
Ray was not always so cynical
about God and religion. Disclosing that
he grew up in a very strict religious sect,
he says he had many questions over
time that were simply never answered,
and this led him to doubt and eventually
turn away. His own religious experience
thus clouds and biases his view of reli-
gion in general.
To bolster his position, he cites
Albert Einstein as a respected individual
who had serious doubts about the effec-
tiveness of religious belief. It is true that
Einstein didn’t believe in a personal God
who directs traffic in the universe and in
our lives. “I cannot conceive,” he wrote,
“of a personal God who would directly
influence the actions of individuals.” But
he went on to explain in the next para-
graph, “My religiosity consists of a humble
admiration of the infinitely superior spirit
that reveals itself in the little that we, with
our weak and transitory understanding,
can comprehend of reality.” So, even
though he didn’t ascribe a face or a per-
VISION FALL 2009 | 58
sonality to God, Einstein did attribute the
intricate design and beauty he saw in the
universe to a higher, unseen power that
he was quite content to call “God.”
Ray remarks, “For me, Albert
Camus and Voltaire have been far more
helpful than Jesus or Moses. Albert Ein-
stein and Viktor Frankl have given me
more moral guidance than any minister.”
It is ironic, therefore, that Einstein wrote
in 1937 regarding moral standards:
“What humanity owes to personalities
like Buddha, Moses, and Jesus ranks for
me higher than all the achievements of
the enquiring and constructive mind,”
(Albert Einstein, The Human Side: New
Glimpses From His Archives, 1979).
Perhaps Einstein regarded God
and certain aspects of religion more pos-
itively than Ray is willing to concede.
A SECOND OPINION
Andrew Newberg and Mark Waldman
present a very different view in their
book, How God Changes Your Brain.
They set out to demonstrate that, far
from being a destructive virus, belief in
God has remarkably positive effects on
the believer.
The authors, who are billed as
“scientists with no religious agenda,”
certainly do not approach the subject
from a biblical standpoint. Acknowledg-
ing early in the first chapter that “neuro-
science cannot tell you if God does or
doesn’t exist,” they note that “if God
has meaning for you, then God
becomes neurologically real.” They
then explore from a neuroscientific
angle whether belief, whatever form it
may take, benefits believers—even if
they can’t actually prove God’s existence
or if their concept of God is completely
different from someone else’s. The
brain doesn’t even worry about that, say
Newberg and Waldman. Instead, the
brain responds to the effect of belief:
is it harmful or beneficial?
According to these researchers,
benefit to the brain depends largely on
how believers view the god they worship.
Is it a kind god that teaches self-sacrifice
and service to others for the good of all,
or is it a vindictive god that allows or
encourages followers to believe that
it’s okay to inflict harm on others? If the
latter, “such a belief can actually damage
your brain as it motivates you to act in
socially destructive ways.”
With this Ray would certainly
agree. But his insistence that religious
belief in general is destructive to the
mind of the individual, and to society
as a whole, is very much at odds with
Newberg and Waldman’s findings.
A positive view of God, according
to them, appears to go a long way in
helping believers achieve not only peace
but the faith that their belief will benefit
more than themselves. Their “spiritual
experiences . . . have the power to
change people’s religious and spiritual
orientations, as well as the way they
interact with others.”
Faith is an important part of reli-
gious belief, and according to Newberg
and Waldman, it is a basic human drive:
“Behind our drive to survive, there is
another force, and the best word to
describe it is faith.” Their definition of
the word is much different, however, than
the biblical definition (“Faith is the sub-
stance of things hoped for, the evidence
of things not seen. . . . He who comes to
God must believe that He is, and that He
is a rewarder of those who diligently seek
Him” [Hebrews 11:1, 6]). Once again
showing their humanistic perspective, the
scientists offer their version: “Faith not
just in God, or in science or love, but faith
in ourselves and each other.” Newberg
notes that “without such hope and opti-
mism—synonyms for what I am calling
faith—the mind can easily slip into
depression or despair.”
Based on their research, the
authors of How God Changes Your Brain
go on to say that “spiritual practices also
can be used to enhance cognition, com-
munication, and creativity, and over time
can even change our neurological per-
ception of reality itself.”
They further report the benefits
of meditation (to which they also assign
a broad definition by biblical standards)
in improving memory, enhancing “one’s
intention to reach specific goals,” or
increasing awareness of whatever it is
that believers deem important, such as
feeling closer to their God. Also, note
the scientists, prayer and meditation
practices “permanently strengthen
neural functioning in specific parts of
the brain that are involved with lowering
anxiety and depression, enhancing social
awareness and empathy, and improving
cognitive and intellectual functioning.”
According to them, belief in God—
however one defines that—can help
rewire an individual’s brain to gain a
better perspective of the world and of
his or her interactions within that world.
THE DOCTOR’S ADVICE
It is somewhat ironic that neither
Newberg nor Waldman would actually
classify himself as a believer, so they
have brought no religious bias to their
work but have rather tried to be objec-
tive in their research. One could not say
the same for Ray, who appears to be
heavily biased because of the less-than-
fulfilling experience of his own reli-
gious upbringing.
Ray’s conclusion is that we would
do just fine without religion because we
live in a civil society with laws and rules
already in place. We should be able to
navigate any remaining decisions on an
individual basis as needed: “You are
responsible for developing your own
moral compass. Most of the time, it is not
a big job. As a member of this culture,
you already abide by and agree with the
basic code of behavior.” He holds that
members of any culture will come to right
decisions without a moral code from a
higher power, remarking that “you didn’t It’s equally illogical to conclude that
need a preacher to tell you not to steal, because people have perpetrated terri-
lie, cheat, rape, pillage, murder or to ble evils in God’s name, God therefore
strive for honesty in your daily interac- approved of their human actions. And
tions and dealings with people.” haven’t the irreligious initiated similar
But where is the evidence of this evils? The problem is not God but man—
in the world around us? Are honesty and including man’s misinterpretations of
integrity pervasive? If people should God and the countless man-made reli-
know on their own that it’s wrong to steal, gions that have sprung up as a result.
lie or cheat, then why are stealing, lying Ray has nevertheless labeled all
and cheating so common? It appears believers with the same unflattering
that the moral code that Ray suggests generalization: in his view they are all
should have developed on its own has infected with a debilitating virus. Though
fallen woefully short by even the lowest the research that Newberg and Waldman
of standards. have documented is very broad in scope
Could it be that Newberg and (in terms of their definitions), it strongly
Waldman, however humanistic their per- suggests a much more positive effect of
spective, have hit on something in their belief on the believer.
research? Based on their conclusions, a The next question is whether we
neuroscientific truth underlies the words shouldn’t go a step beyond mere belief
of one believer, the apostle Paul, to his toward a more thoughtful and informed
fellow believers in first-century Rome: belief. To lead readers on that journey
“May the God of hope fill you with all joy is the aim of the journal you are cur-
and peace in believing, that you may rently reading.
abound in hope by the power of the Holy
Spirit” (Romans 15:13). JERRY DE GIER
The fact that Ray wasn’t given satis- jerry.degier@visionjournal.org
factory answers to his questions in child-
hood has led him to the logically flawed
conclusion that religious belief as a whole
makes no sense and leads only to misery.
“Mark and I are particularly disappointed with the lack
of empirical evidence that these writers have cited
that even mildly suggests that religion is hazardous
to your health. The psychological, sociological, and
neuroscientific data simply disagree.”
VISION FALL 2009 | 59
ANDREW NEWBERG AND MARK R. WALDMAN, HOW GOD CHANGES YOUR BRAIN
 EYE ON THE NEWS
Related stories from Reuters

...............ONE QUARTER OF PEOPLE SAY CAPITALISM IS FATALLY FLAWED by Kylie MacLellan.................................

LONDON, Nov. 9 (Reuters) – Nearly a

quarter of people across 27 countries
worldwide believe free-market capital-
ism is fatally flawed, according to a poll
published November 9 to mark 20 years
since the fall of the Berlin Wall.
The fall of the Wall, which sepa-
rated communist East Germany from
capitalist West Germany for nearly 30
years, was seen as a pivotal moment in
the collapse of the communist bloc and
a triumph for the free-market system.
The survey, carried out by GlobeScan
for the BBC World Service, found an
average of just 11 percent of the more
than 29,000 people surveyed between
June 19 and Oct. 13 believed capitalism
worked well and did not think greater
regulation was needed.
On average, 23 percent of people
felt capitalism was fatally flawed and a new
economic system was needed, although
they did not specify which alternative
they favored. Around half said the prob-
lems with capitalism could be addressed
through regulation and reform. The United
States and Pakistan were the only two
countries where more than one in five
felt capitalism worked well as it stands.
“It appears that the fall of the Berlin
Wall in 1989 may not have been the crush-
ing victory for free-market capitalism that A demonstrator pounds away the Berlin Wall as East Berlin border guards look on from
it seemed at the time,” said Doug Miller, above in this November 11,1989, file photo. REUTERS/David Brauchli/FILES JDP
GlobeScan chairman. “Particularly after
the events of the last 12 months.” more active in owning or directly control- (See “Mortally Wounded? Global
The global economic crisis, which ling their country’s major industries—a Finance and Banking—Systems in
has hit many former communist eastern view particularly widely held in the former Crisis” in the Spring 2009 issue, as well
European countries hard, has prompted Soviet states of Russia and Ukraine. as our three-part series, “Everymoney:
many people to question the merits of the Among former Warsaw Pact coun- Capitalism, Democracy and Global
capitalist approach. The survey showed tries, the majority of Russians and Wealth” beginning in the Winter 2006
some features of socialism, such as Ukrainians said the breakup of the Soviet issue. All are posted at www.vision.org.)
VISION FALL 2009 | 60

equalizing wealth, continued to appeal
to many. In 22 of the countries, a major-
ity of people supported the idea of gov-
ernments distributing wealth more
evenly. In 15 countries a majority said
they would like their government to be
Union was a bad thing. By contrast four in
five Poles and nearly two-thirds of Czechs
felt the disintegration of the USSR was a
good thing.
© 2009 Reuters
...............NOVEMBER 9 NOT JUST A BERLIN WALL RED-LETTER DAY by David Cutler.................................................

Giant domino pieces fall in front of the Brandenburg Gate in Berlin November 9, 2009, during celebrations
to mark the 20th anniversary of the fall of the Berlin Wall. REUTERS/Fabrizio Bensch (GERMANY)

Nov. 4 (Reuters) – The 20th anniversary of
the opening of the Berlin Wall on Novem-
ber 9 coincides with other significant
20th-century anniversaries for Germany,
some far darker:
• Nov. 9, 1918—As defeat approached
in World War One, Kaiser Wilhelm II abdi-
cated and Social Democrat Philip Scheide-
mann declared Germany’s first republic
from a window of the Berlin Reichstag
parliament building. Known as the
Putsch—quickly fizzled and the Nazi
leader was imprisoned.
• Nov. 9, 1925—The Nazi Schutzstaffel
—the SS—was founded. The elite
armed wing of the party, it spearheaded
the genocide of Jewish people through-
out Europe.
• Nov. 9, 1938—Nazi thugs went on the
rampage against Jews and Jewish prop-
erty. At least 91 Jews were killed, 26,000
rounded up to be sent to concentration
• Nov. 9, 1989—The Communist leader-
ship of East Germany, clutching at straws to
win back popular support for the impover-
ished regime, opened the Berlin Wall and
the frontier with West Germany. Within a
year, the two Germanys were reunited.
© 2009 Reuters
(See “The Mending of a Nation” in the
Fall 2000 issue and “Hearts of Dark-
VISION FALL 2009 | 61

Weimar Republic, it collapsed in 1933
when Adolf Hitler and his Nazi Party
exploited its weaknesses to seize power.
• Nov. 9, 1923—Launched in a Munich
beer hall the night before, Hitler’s first
attempt to seize power—the Beer Hall
camps, and thousands of synagogues, ness” in the Fall 2006 issue or at
shops and other Jewish buildings were www.vision.org.)
damaged. The broken glass that littered
the streets of Berlin and other cities next
morning gave the pogrom a name—
“Kristallnacht” (Crystal Night).
 VIEWPOINT
Comments from our readers
Oh, the serendipity of the Internet. I was
searching for something on covetousness
or envy, to follow up something I’d heard
about how humans and animals covet or
value something much more if someone
else values it or has it. We’ve seen this with
our dogs. Bonnie discards something—
until Ace picks it up or shows interest in
it. Then she wants it more than before.
Anyway, I Googled on this and
came to your article [Spring 2009, “Capi-
talism: Unknown Ideal?”], which I’ve
printed and plan to pore over with a
highlighter. A mostly retired psychother-
apist, I’ve read a lot of Albert Ellis over
the years, but missed what he said about
Ayn Rand. If anyone knows about ration-
ality and emotionality, he does.
Thanks for the excellent and
timely article.
United States
I feel I should contribute practically—but
how? I contribute my heartfelt thanks for
the stimulus to my thinking from the wide
variety of deeply researched topics. My
thanks, as I send free vouchers to other
thinking friends and family. I encourage
them, too, to think in faith. Faith needs
works for meaningful action. God bless
you David Hulme and contributors.
New Zealand
I want to take this time to express my
appreciation for your excellent periodi-
cal. Additionally, as a Christian, the arti-
cles are right on target and well written.
I have in the past encouraged several
friends, and even my old English teacher,
to read and subscribe to your periodical.
VISION FALL 2009 | 62
United States
Vision magazine’s articles are always in-
depth, educative, and entertaining. It’s
a necessity for every home.
Nigeria
Vision has been an inspiration and has
given my family an opportunity to enjoy
excellent reading over the past few
years. We thank you indeed.
Australia
The scholarship and depth in your period-
ical (Vision) and films is impressive. I would
like to know more about your organiza-
tion and to receive your videos and pub-
lished material.
United States
You have no idea what happiness I feel to
have found Vision; it is something I have
been looking for for such a long time.
Finally I have found something coherent
that will help me to solidify my faith in
Christ and in His grace.
Spain
We have been receiving Vision for some
time. It is a beautifully done periodical;
however, please remove our names from
your mailing list. My husband has Parkin-
son’s disease and although he reads, he
does little more than the morning paper
and his Bible. So often everything else
just stacks up—I can’t keep up with it. I do
recycle your periodical to the local library
for distribution, but it takes extra time and
effort, and only I drive. I am up to little
more than taking care of my husband,
the house and the yard. Thank you in
advance—we do recycle, but it’s such a
waste for something as well done as this.
United States
Vision is an amazing piece of work that has
given me much in the past years. I used
to receive copies when I was in Italy, but
since I moved to Norway, I have been out
of touch. I just wish to reconnect and con-
tinue feeling the outstanding intelligence
your crew pour out in many different
areas of life—principally religion and the
truths of Christ and the Bible. Thank you
so much, and I look forward to receiving
a copy of Vision. God bless your work!
Norway
Thanks so much for your fabulous maga-
zine packed full of excellent, thought-
provoking material in each issue. Our
copies pass through many hands of thor-
ough perusal before ending up on the
coffee table, from where they regularly
spark further discussions. The enclosed
donation is long overdue and will be the
first of many.
Australia
Your literature looks very interesting and
helpful to the family who is having difficulty
communicating positively and lovingly.
Hope to pick up some strength and know-
how to make right decisions. I thank you.
Canada
Many thanks for continuing to send me
Vision, your excellent publication, pre-
sented as it is in such an attractive format
and, even more importantly, to the glory
of God, declaring the absoluteness of His
sovereignty over all of His creation.
Australia
Very stimulating and thought-provoking
articles. Congratulations.
Greece
I do enjoy the range of articles and also
enjoy signing up my friends and neigh-
bours to receive your wonderful publi-
cation. My wife and I are both Christians,
so we read from our point of view, but I
think the magazine is for everybody.
Keep up the wonderful standard of work
in your articles.
Australia
Editor’s note:
Comments may have been edited for length or clarity.
WEB SIGHT
Further information and links
1 2
http://www.soilassociation.org/
1 Founded in the United Kingdom in
1946 “by a group of farmers, scientists
and nutritionists who observed a direct
connection between farming practice
and plant, animal, human and environ-
mental health,” the Soil Association’s
stated aim is to promote “planet-friendly
food and farming.” The site offers infor-
mation and resources tailored to farmers
and growers, to businesses, and to
schools—from defining the term organic
to offering advice on how to go organic
and even helping members of the public
arrange a visit to one of the one hundred
British organic farms that are part of the
Soil Association network.
http://www.smallisbeautiful.org/
This site is the Web home of the E.F.
Schumacher Society, which was founded
in 1980 with a mission “to promote the
building of strong local economies that
link people, land, and community.” In
addition to the full text of a biography of
the economist written by his daughter,
Barbara Wood, the site features a search-
able online library (containing not only
some of Schumacher’s writings but related
essays and articles by dozens of others,
including Wendell Berry).
http://www.youtube.com/reelnasa
2 YouTube features more than 200 video
clips produced by the National Aeronau-
tics and Space Administration under the
banner of ReelNASA, showing “the
action behind the real story at NASA.”
Included is a series of short videos collec-
tively titled “STS-129: Behind the Scenes,”
hosted by astronaut Mike Massimino,
which gives viewers an inside look at the
preparations and crew for the space
shuttle’s November 16 mission to the
International Space Station.
http://www.nasa.gov/
3 From NASA news, to detailed infor-
mation about past, present and future
missions, to an amazing multimedia col-
lection, the official NASA Web site is so
deep and so extensive that you’re likely
to spend more time browsing than you
planned on. The multimedia section cat-
alogs thousands of still images (including
many taken from the International Space
Station, by the Hubble Space Telescope,
and from various space exploration craft
as they travel to other planets in our solar
system). Among the hundreds of fea-
tured videos is partially restored footage
of man’s first moon landing, as well as
scenes from more recent missions.
3
www.vision.org
Check us out on the Internet. Here’s
a sample of what you’ll find at our
companion Web site.
EUROPEAN UNION IN CRISIS
Two decades after the fall of the Berlin
Wall, Europe appears poised for another
moment of pivotal historic change. Will
the Lisbon Treaty enable the European
Union to play a more active role in inter-
national affairs?
FOUNDATIONS
Foundations is a free study course for
those Vision readers who want to know
more of the biblical background to the
articles and videos offered on the Web
site and in the quarterly print edition.
Listing of external Web sites on this page does
not necessarily constitute Vision’s endorsement
of everything posted on them.
VISION FALL 2009 | 63
 VOLUME 11 | NUMBER 4 INTERNATIONAL ADDRESSES

PUBLISHER David Hulme, Ph.D. AUSTRALASIA

MANAGING EDITOR Jeannette B. Anderson
DESIGNED by CDT Design
CREATIVE DIRECTOR Neil Walker
ART DIRECTOR Nevs Hamling
SENIOR RESEARCH EDITOR Peter Nathan
ASSISTANT EDITORS Alice Abler, Laura Cloer,
Gina Stepp
Vision, GPO Box 3455,
Melbourne, Vic. 3001, Australia
CANADA
Vision, P.O. Box 21006, 11-200 Burrard Street,
Vancouver, BC V6C 3L0, Canada
Phone: (888) 777-7203 (toll-free)

CONTRIBUTORS John C. Anderson, Robert NEW ZEALAND

C. Boraker, Bill Butler, Dan Cloer, Martin Coates, Vision, P.O. Box 5970, Wellesley Street,
Jerry de Gier, Michael Jack Elliott, Stephen Auckland, New Zealand
Elliott, Thomas E. Fitzpatrick, Winfried Fritz,
Neal H. Hogberg, Donald R. Hornsby, Lindsay PHILIPPINES
Keefer, Michael McKinney, Brian Orchard, Vision, No. 6 Block 9, PHHC,
Robyn Page, David Paszkiewicz, Peter Roberts, Bacolod City, 6100 Negros Occ., Philippines
Ph.D., Bob Rodzaj, Michelle Steel, William
Welch, C.P.A., Donald Winchester SCANDINAVIA
Vision, P.O. Box 27,
DESIGNER Sam Stephens N - 1306 Bærum Postterminal, Norway
DESIGN ACCOUNT MANAGER Lynn Harris
CIRCULATION MANAGER Sandra McKinney SOUTHERN AFRICA
DIRECTOR OF DEVELOPMENT Edwin Stepp Vision, P.O. Box 1331,
TREASURER Steven D. Andrews, J.D., C.P.A. Fontainebleau 2032, South Africa
Phone: 011-888 7776
MANAGING EDITOR, Web Edition Gina Stepp Fax: 011-888 4445
ASSISTANT EDITOR Donna Butler
I.T. MANAGER Paul Coleman UNITED KINGDOM
TECHNICAL SUPPORT Michael Caudle Vision, P.O. Box 770,
Oxford, OX1 9GJ, United Kingdom
SUBSCRIPTIONS In the United States, call (888) Phone: 01235 859145
777-7203, or write to Vision, P.O. Box 90607, Fax: 01235 851899
Pasadena, CA 91109-0607. If you live elsewhere,
contact the office in the country nearest you FRENCH LANGUAGE
(see international addresses at right). Vision is Vision, Rue de la Servette 91, Case postale 154,
free upon request. We will not give or sell your 1211 Genève 7, Switzerland
name to any other individual or organization.
Your subscription is provided by the voluntary GERMAN LANGUAGE
contributions of members of the Church of Vision, Postfach 6234,
God and others. We regret that unsolicited D-53595 Bad Honnef, Germany
manuscripts, photos and other material cannot Phone: 02224-820313
be returned. Scripture references in Vision are Fax: 02224-972958
from the New King James Version (© 1988
Thomas Nelson, Inc.) unless otherwise noted. SPANISH LANGUAGE
Vision, P.O. Box 90607,
Vision (ISSN 1528-9893) is published quarterly by Pasadena, CA 91109-0607, U.S.A.
the Church of God, an International Community,
476 South Marengo Ave., Pasadena, CA 91101. ON THE INTERNET You can find Vision at
http://www.vision.org. Visit this site for addi-
POSTMASTER Send address changes to tional information and updates. The site also
Vision, P.O. Box 90607, Pasadena, CA 91109-0607. features articles on news, issues and trends. You
© 2009 Church of God, an International Com- may contact us via e-mail at info@vision.org.
munity. Printed in the U.S.A. All rights reserved.
Reproduction in any form without prior written Vision is available on the Web in three
permission is prohibited. Periodicals Postage additional languages.
Paid at Pasadena, California, and at additional French: http://www.fondation-vision.ch/
mailing offices. German: http://www.visionjournal.de/
Spanish: http://www.visionjournal.es/
VISION FALL 2009 | 64
Vision is dedicated to highlighting the challenges
that face society today. We examine and research
the complex social, moral and philosophical
issues of our world from a biblical and historical
perspective. Our aim is to bring insight and
knowledge through this research, and to present
the Bible as a credible source of solutions to the
problems humanity faces in the 21st century.
In so doing, we neither proselytize nor promote
any political agenda. Our message is simple:
it is one of hope for a better world to come.