THEAPPROACH TO DEVELOPMENT

OF THE GENEVA1966 CONFERENCE

Pamela K. Brubaker

Dr Pamela Bruhaker is Projessor of Religion at California Lutheran UniversitB.

A Christian social ethicist she researches the areas of economic ethics
and feministstudies in relkion.

The World Conference on Church and Society: Christians in the Technical and
Social Revolutions of Our Time (Geneva, 1966) was the third ecumenical con-
ference called to address “the questions of Church and Society”. Unlike the
first two - Stockholm, 1925 and Oxford, 1937, Geneva 1966 included a sig-
nificant representation (almost half) from the churches in Asia, Africa and
Latin America. The majority of representatives at Geneva were from the laity.
However, only twenty-seven of the 337 delegates were women. The work of
the conference was divided among four sections: 1) economic and social devel-
opment; 2) nature and function of the state; 3) international cooperation; and
4) “man and society”.
W.A. Visser ’t Hooft, WCC general secretary, gave the conference its charge in
his opening address. The ethical criterion of the responsible society, adopted
in 1948 at the First WCC assembly in Amsterdam as the goal for which the
churches should work, needed to be “renewed and reinterpreted in view of the
need for a responsible world community and the demands for international
economic justice.” The Amsterdam assembly declared that,
A responsible snciety is one where freedom is the freedom of men who acknowledge
responsibility to justice and public order, and where those who hold political author-
ity or economic power are responsible for its exercise to God and the people whose wel-
fare is affected by it.’
The notion of the responsible society required “that power be made responsi-
ble to law and tradition, and be distributed as widely as possible throughout
the whole community77and that “economicjustice and the provision of equal-
ity of opportunity be established for all members of society.” The assembly

’ Visser’t Hooft, W.A. ed. The First A.sstwrbl# qfthe World Council of Churches :Qficial Report. London : SCM
Press, Ltd. 1949, p.77.

15
TI IF ECUMENICAL
KEVIEW Vol. 59 No. I . Januarjj ,7007

rejected the ideologies of both laissez-faire capitalism and communism. Chris-

tians are to seek “new creative solutions which never allow either justice or
freedom to destroy the other.”2
Several interpreters of ecumenical social ethics assert that the Geneva confer-
ence broke new ground, as Visser ’t Hooft hoped. However, Richard Dickin-
son thinks that the idea of the responsible society, which had served as a coa-
lescing vision for approximately 15 years, was “one casualty of the Geneva
conference”. He suggests the term “fell into disuse in part” because it seemed
to emphasize political as distinguished from economic factors, while the 1960s
was a period of rediscovery of the vital influence of national and international
barriers to justice and de~elopment.~
Robert McAfee Brown observes that it became apparent during this conference
that “the real struggle” going on in the world then was not between east and
west, nor communism versus capitalism, but north vs. south, rich vs. poor,
white vs. c o l o ~ r e d . ”Marvin
~ Ellison notes the receptivity of the conference,
to recasting the problems of development in terms of the dependency of the Third
World upon the affluent North and that concessions were made about the need for rad-
ical, even revolutionary changes to take place within and among nations.. ..”s

However, Paul Abrecht asserts that although the challenge and appeal of rev-
olutionary ideas is acknowledged, the conference “did not itself endorse gen-
eral revolutionary action”. The radicalism of Geneva, he contends, was prag-
matic - not ideo1ogicaL6An exploration of the conference’s report will help the
reader make his or her own judgments about the conference.

I. Development defined.
The 1960s were the first “Development Decade” of the United Nations. Dick-
inson observes that
The churches, too, searched for innovative and more effective ways to promote devel-
opment, though they tended to absorb and accept the dominant development concepts

Ibid.
Dickinson, Richard, Poor, Yet Making Man# Rich : The Poor as Agents of Creative Jusricc. Geneva :
WCC/CCPD, 1983, p.47.
Brown, Robert McAfee. 7’heolofly in a New Keu :Responding to Liberation Themes. Philadelphia : Fortress
Press, 1978, p.39.
Ellison, Marvin. The Center Cannot Hold : ?he Search for a Glo.ba1Ecotzom# ofjustice. Washington : Uni-
versity Press America, 1983, p.73.
Abrecht, Paul. “From Oxford to Vancouver; Lessons from Fifty Years of Ecumenical Work for Economic
and SocialJustice.” The Ecumenical Review 40, 1988, pp.156-1S7.

16
 of the time, oriented very much towards economic growth and industrialization
through capitali~ation.~

The conference definition of economic development, from the report of Sec-

tion I - “Economic Development in a World Perspective,” illustrates his point:
Economic development is essentially a process of change whose fundamental aim is to
improve the living conditions of all the people in a country. Such change is brought
about by measures to increase productivity, usually through increased investment, sus-
tained over a period of time.K

It does, though, link development to social justice, in asserting that “From the
Christian viewpoint, this change is part of the effort to create a truly just social
~rder.”~
The report observes that changes in technology and economic organization are
bringing numerous social and personal consequences, including growth in eco-
nomic productivity. While these advances are welcomed as “a gift from God”,
the report cautions that “left uncontrolled they accentuate the existing unbal-
ance between rich and poor countries (and indeed within them), which is a
scandal and offence to God and men.”l” (Clearly, this caution was prophetic:
in 1980, the richest thirty countries, income was 17 times that of the poorest
30 countries; in 2002 it was 27 to 1. The income of the richest 10 % of persons
was 103 times that ofthe poorest 10 % .)
The conference charged Christian theology with the task of expounding and
defending “the human” as a criterion for judging economic and social changes.
Thus, technology must serve human purposes,
The task of the Christian is to conserve what is truly human in the present, but alert
to the many existing injustices, to seek to realize fuller possibilities of human life
through the processes of economic growth and social change.”

The churches are to “welcome economic growth because it helps to free men from
unnecessary want and economic insecurity”. However, they are warned against
uncritical enthusiasm about economic growth. The organization of work and its
fruits are not ends in themselves, but should be seen as a means to the end of the
well-being of “the whole man” and the ability to help others. Furthermore,

’ Dickinson. p.46.
Abrecht, Paul arid ’I’hornas, M.M., eds. I‘Wirld CotijirenrP on Church and Socif& :OjJycial Report. Geneva :
WCC, 1967, p.66.
Ibid.
lo Ibid., pp.52-53.
I’ Ibid.

17
TnE ECUMENICAL
REVIEW Vol. 59 No.1.Januaq 2007

an economy cannot be judged only by its overall rate of growth. All richer countries
have to work out a balance of policies relating to full employment and the distribution
of income among individuals, among regions, and among rich and poor countries.’2

The report of the section on “economic development in a world perspective”

is divided into parts on “advanced countries”, “developing countries”, and
“world economic relations”. The discussion of “advanced countries” concludes
that since market economies, welfare states with mixed economies, and cen-
trally planned economies are all capable of rapid economic growth and wide
distribution of income, Christians should “be critical participants in the soci-
eties in which they find themselves.”l3This seems to be a crucial statement,
one that implies ideological “neutrality” - at least on economic systems. How-
ever, there are policies for which Christians in any economic system must
advocate,
income and price policies which will avoid the disaster of inflation, distribute the
nation’s resources fairly, and do justice to those who are unable to contribute to pro-
duction and thus earn income in a market economy.14

A similar perspective prevails in the part on “developing countries”, which

claims that there is no single universal pattern of economic development. (The
definition of economic development cited earlier in this paper, opens this part
of the report.) Although a complex phenomenon, economic development
depends on three basic factors: “motivations, resources, and institutions”.
The basic problem of economic development is to determine how these forces operate,
how they can be modified in order that the objectives of the society may be achieved,
and what new interactions of these forces occur as economic development takes place.
Not all of these interactions may be conducive to sustained economic growth.15

In some countries economic development might demand “revolutionary

change in the structure of property, income, investment, expenditure, educa-
tion” and political organization and “in the pattern of international rela-
tions.”lG
The report then discusses the complexities and challenges involved in bringing
about such change. In regard to international relations, it charges that “many
internal institutional reforms cannot be effective unless changes are made in

l2 Ibid., pp.53-55.
‘I b i d . , p.57,
I4 b i d . , p.62.
I5 Ibid., p.66.
1‘1 Ibid.

18
Pamrh K Bruhakrr T H E AI~IiRoAC‘tiTO or ‘I’IIE GENEVA1966 CONFEKENCL:
DEVELOPMENI’

the international policies and institutions which affect the economies of devel-
oping nations.” These include trade and economic policies of “more developed
nations” and agreements for stable commodity prices, export quotas, etc. “The
problem is to create the political will to make the changes which will diminish
the gap between the have-more and the have-less nations.”17
This part on developing countries concludes that “the particular pattern of
growth that a country should adopt depends upon its environment, the values
of its people, its social goals, and the types of institutions it has or can develop.”
Ironically, given the resurgence of neo-liberalism in the 1980s, it claimed that,
the polemical discussion regarding the relative merits of two extreme positions - unregu-
lated fiee enterprise and completely controlled central planning - has now largely ended,
and a general consensus in favour of some degree of mixed economy has emerged.’*

This affirmation of mixed economies seems to contradict an earlier endorse-

ment of the ability of all three economic systems under discussion - market,
mixed and centrally planned - to generate growth and distribute income.IYIt
also ignores the challenge presented earlier in the report,
Does not the “mixed economy” fail to achieve the advantages of either of the extremes?
... how can governments both press firms to compete in the private sector and also
stress the need for coordinated investment plans and programmes of rationalization
and standardization of production? Does not the whole system tend to produce rigid-
ity and a jerky pattern of

Probably these seemingly contradictory perspectives are indicative of “fissures

and tensions” among the conference participants, a topic examined later in this
paper.
Global economic relations were of particular concern, and are the subject of
the next part of the report on economic development. It begins by claiming that
technological progress brings the possibility “of eradicating want and misery
from the face of the earth”. Noting the increase in international inequality, it
declares that economic and social policies which fail to slow this tendency
“must be radically altered”.
It is not enough to say that the world cannot continue to live half developed and half
undeveloped: this situation must not be allowed to continue. Therefore, all nations,

IT Ibid., p.77.
I” Ibid., p.78.
Ibid., p.57.
.W Ibid., p.59.

19
THEECUMIINICAI.
RIWII*:W Vol. 5.9 No. 1.Jurrr1ur.y 2007

particularly those endowed with great economic power, must move beyond self-inter-
est and see their responsibility in a world perspective.

It then turns to the churches, charging that “The Church must say clearly and
unequivocally that there is a moral imperative behind international economic
development.”21
The report contends that inequalities between nations emerged from past
acceptance of a so-called natural division between poor agricultural and rich
industrialized nations. It rightly challenges this assurnptiomz2The report then
discusses the complexities and challenges of aid, trade, debt, and foreign
investment. The most interesting statement is in regard to foreign capital
investment, “The fundamental problem is that the goal of a businessman - to
make profits - sometimes conflicts with the goal of governments - to increase
the social product and to distribute it e q ~ i t a b l y . ” ~ ~
The report calls for the articulation of “an international development
standard”. This includes, in the short run, a “vast increase” in the quantity
of development aid - at least two percent of GNP is proposed,24its quality -
grants instead of loans, and opening of markets to the products of developing
countries. In the long run, it calls for regional trade groups, a World Econo-
mic Plan, and recognition that the ultimate aim of the restructuring of
world economic relations is “an international division of labour based on the
specific contribution of fully equipped nations that trade with each other as
equals.’’2s
The primary role of the churches is education - theological, economic, politi-
cal, and social. The churches are challenged “to speak with a genuinely
prophetic voice”, to proclaim that “God has created and redeemed the whole
world. This implies a more just distribution not only of wealth but also of
health, education, security, housing and ~pportunity..”~~

11. Women and development.

As in previous meetings, discussion of economic issues is largely silent about
women’s economic reality. The only mention of women in the report on eco-

Ibid., p.80.
:!2Ibid., p.81.
x’ Rid., p.83.
24 Ibid., p.210.

2s Ibid., p.86.
Ibid., p.89.

20
nomic and social development is in a statement of concern that “the wide-
spread employment of married women may conflict with the requirements of
family life.”2iThe pattern in World Council meetings (to this time) of address-
ing the “woman question” separately from social and economic issues is
repeated; this time the discussion is in the section focusing on “Man and
Community in Changing Societies”. This group did not necessarily think
employment of married women was a problem, and claimed that there is no
one normative role for either women or men.Lx
Their analysis of the changing relations between women and men noted
changes in women’s economic reality:
In former times, the woman as wife and mother carried out the burden of household
responsibilities, protected by her family. Today the old image which associated women
with sexual relationship and marriage remains, but in an urban industrial society she
frequently works outside the home, and the dependent status gives way to an as yet
undefined position of codependence or interdependence.29

This section also addressed women’s unpaid work, noting that “the economic
value of the work of women both at home and in the assistance given to men
and husbands in other fields has not been recognized or included in the assess-
ment of the economic product of a country.” It cites a long history of women
working alongside men in agrarian societies. In these situations, detecting and
correcting imbalances is necessary rather than inaugurating “non-domestic
employment” for women.Jo
Both society and the family might benefit “from the passing of the historic mas-
culine culture which tended to downgrade woman’s capacities”. The analysis,
though, focuses more on family strain than on women’s lives. New conditions
combined with old mores cause such strain. In some developing countries, men
are educated while their wives are not, thus inviting “discord and divorce”.
When women work outside the home, while men are not always encouraged
to do household tasks, “wives’ work” is doubled.31
Responsible parenthood, a euphemism for family planning, is endorsed as “an
integral part of the social ethic of the day”.“2Both the welfare of families and
the need to balance population growth with economic and human resources

27 Ibid.. p.65.
28 Illid., p.163.
A!) fiid.
30 Ibid., 11.164.
’I Ibid.
92 Ibid., 17.168.

21
justify this need.33The health of the mother, as well as the health of the child,
motivate the spacing and number of children optimally a family might choose
to have. The plight of “unmarried mothers” is also discussed, particularly the
prejudice and exploitation from which they suffer. The delegates urge that
with the support of family, friends and government, single mothers “be helped
to constitute a family with the children they maintain by their
Equality and participation are highlighted a s norms “preconditional” for
responsible relations between women and men. The section conceded, though,
that the church has not always embodied these norms but has helped “perpet-
uate unjust types of subordination of women”. The churches should:
Press for the establishment by government of laws to ensure that men and women have
equal right to work, status, and pay, and provide ways and means for women to par-
ticipate more fully in their life and
This charge to the churches to more fully involve women in their life and work
prefigures a trend in which the WCC gives “a higher priority” to the partici-
pation of women in its own organizational life.

111. Critical assessment.

This overview of the approach of the Geneva conference certainly supports the
claim of interpreters that it broke new ground in ecumenical social ethics. Not
only did development become a crucial concern,3Bbut as Julio de Santa Ana
noted, Geneva 1966 highlighted the need for structural change in the achieve-
ment of development. Also, women’s economic issues, such as the double day
and the undercounting of women’s work, were included for the first time in
ecumenical social statements.
However, when we look not just at analysis, but strategic proposals, Abrecht’s
assertion that the conference “did not itself endorse general revolutionary
action” seems apt.37As Marvin Ellison contends, although there are conces-

:xi Note: The section on economic development also addressed these issues. It declared that “there is an
urgent need for the rapid disseminationof birth control informationand techniques.”The following para-
graph noted, though, that not all member churches of the WCC agree on family planning and birth con-
trol. It concluded that “The Church must insist on the sanctity of marriage and the right of each couple
to makes its own decisions in accordance with its church‘s teachings on marriage and individual respon-
sibility.” Abrecht and Thomas, p.72.
:I4 Ibid., p.170.

M Ibid., p.177.
:‘Ii Parmar, S.L. “Issues in the Development Debate,” Richard Dickinson, To Set at Libertg the 0ppres.sed:
7‘awurdsan Understanding of Christiun Responsibilitirsfor Development/Libcrution. Geneva: WCC, 1975,
pp.164-185.
.I7 Abrecht, Paul. pp.156-157.

22
Pamela K.Bncbuker THEAPPROACH
TO DEVELOPMENT OF ?‘HE GENEVA1966 CONFERI~NCE

sions to the need for radical changes, the conference’s strategic recommenda-
tions give more emphasis “to persuading those in powerful positions to enlist
in a cooperative venture” for global development than they did to endorsing
people’s movements for liberation and self-reliance.“8
This appeal to cooperation is indicative of the liberal presuppositions which
informed the criterion of the responsible society and the philosophy of devel-
opment based on it. Assumptions about economic life in liberal social theory
are grounded in neo-classical economic theory, which posits market exchange
- the buying and selling of commodities and labour - as the central human eco-
nomic activity. In general, this theory contends that market exchange is an eff-
cient and fair distribution of resources and goods39
Neo-classical economics, with its focus on market exchange and economic
growth, marginalizes non-market activities of care and social reproduction -
primarily assigned to women. Although uncounted, these activities are essen-
tial to personal and social well-being; they undergird economic growth
although often harmed by it. The Geneva conference noted this lack of count-
ing, but like most other development models of the time that focus on increas-
ing productivity and investment, it did not integrate these activities into its
proposals. Likewise, there was no acknowledgement of the environmental dev-
astation caused by growth, also “outside the market”, nor any awareness of
ecological limits to growth.
Rebecca Todd Peters makes a useful distinction between neoliberalism, which
has confidence in the market’s self-correcting capacity, and what she calls
social equity liberalism (similar to the welfare-state), which “recognize a cer-
tain responsibility on the part of government to protect and care for the most
marginalized members of society.” In contrast to neoliberalism, which values
individualism, prosperity, and freedom, this perspective values responsibility,
progress, and equity.40In my judgment, social equity liberalism is an accurate
representation of the Geneva 1966 approach to development.
The Uppsala assembly in 1968 endorsed most of the conclusions of the Geneva
Church and Society Conference. Richard Dickinson observed that although
this assembly,

liR Ellison, Marvin. Tho Crxtrr- Cannot Hold : The Searchfbr a Globul Ecorzotqj of.]usticr. Washington : Uni-
versity Press America, 1983, p.74.
:jY Brubaker, Pamela K. Women Don’t C.’ouar: The CkallenHe of Women’sPoveqj to Christian Ethics. Atlanta :

Scholars Press, 1994, p.60.

li’ Peters, Rebecca Todd, It1 Srarch ~ f ’ l h CiocJd
r L < / i :7’hrEthics of’Globalization. New York and London : Con-
tinuum, 2004, pp.64,70.

23
THE ECUMENICAL
REVIEW Vol. 59 No. 1.Junuarg 2007

glossed over some of the deeper tensions and fissures which were manifest at Geneva,
it did succeed in taking a strong and unifying moral position about the outrageous dis-
parities between rich and poor in the world, and called for responses which moved
beyond charitable concern towards structural change^.^'
However, there is some evidence of fissures in the report on assembly discus-
sion. s.L. Parmar, an Indian economist, challenged the notion of development
through co-operation. One has to search the historical record diligently, he
claims, to find instances where possessing classes willingly gave up their priv-
ileges (a point also made by Martin Luther King, Jr,). The “have nots” have “to
wrest their rights through agrarian movements, worker movements, trade-
union activity and so on”. He pointed out that the welfare state fails to assure
“the full welfare” of minorities in North America or immigrant workers in
Western Europe. Parmar asked if “a projection of this two-group welfare state
would lead to anything except “a projection of the elements of inequality and
injustice it contain^."^^
Parmar’s concerns are echoed by several interpreters of ecumenical ethics, who
criticize the emerging development philosophy of this period for its idealism.
In 1970, Arent Theodor van Leeuwen observed that the “essential weakness”
of this philosophy is that “it deals with the economic issues of world develop-
ment without the political context of international power relations.” A lofty
Christian idealism results, one which “hardly touches the hard facts of a rev-
olutionary world”.43
This liberal idealism informed the discussion on women, as “the hard facts” of
their lives are rarely touched either. The public/private dichotomy of liberal theory,
which separates the family from the public arena and restricts women to the
domestic arena, and the sacralization of the family,%prevented an in-depth analy-
sis of the discrimination and oppression many women face in all areas of life.
Beatriz Melano Couch also noted “the liberal idealism” of the WCC and its
unwillingness “to advocate a political rupture with the sources of oppres-
~ i o n . Ellison
” ~ ~ contends that the Council evinced a “pervasive reluctance to

Dickinson, p.47
4L Goodall, Norman, ed. The Uppsala Report 1968. Geneva : WCC, 1968, p.42.
4 ’ Ihid., p.112.

44 Note: Sacralizationof the family in the ecumenical ethics of this period is illustrated in the assertion of
the WCC Department on Cooperation of Men and Women that ‘“thefamily is the privileged community
to which is given the grace of conjugal love, the mystery of unity wherein the physical bonds and the spir-
itual bonds reinforce each other in order perfectly to fulfill the command of the Saviour: ‘Love one
another.”’(MadeleineBarot, Cooperation of Men und Women in Church, Famil# and Sock&, Geneva: WCC,
1964, p.8.).
li Goodall, Norman. p.204.

24
Pamplu K . Brubakrr ‘ro DEVIXOPMENT
THEAPPROACH OF T H E GENEVA
1966 CONFERENCE

question an ecumenical philosophy based on a presumed harmony of interests

and goals among classes and nations.. .’’46

IV. Looking ahead.

However, the “the real struggle” between “north vs. south, rich vs. poor, white
vs. coloured struggle” that became apparent at Geneva 196647could not be
“glossed over”, as happened at Uppsala 196tL4*The fissures and tensions at
Geneva pointed to an emerging shift in ecumenical social ethics from liberal pre-
suppositions about social change to more radical ones, endorsed at Nairobi 1975.
This shift included a move from appeals to the powerful to bring about change
to support for people’s movements for change. Understandings of justice shifted
from a liberal concern for distributive justice to a more radical understanding of
justice as social justice, which stresses participation. There also was a move from
primary use of neoclassical economic models - market oriented, with an empha-
sis on private initiative and ownership, to “radical political economic models -
participatory planning and social control of productive sectors.”49
The ecumenical concept of development was expanded at the Consultation on
Development Projects (Montreux 1970) to “an inter-related process of eco-
nomic growth, social justice and self-reliance, the last being of greatest impor-
t a n ~ e . ”Nairobi
~~ 1975 endorses this understanding, and challenges liberal
models of development, based on the logic of the “free market”. It noted that
“‘Growth’ in an economic order based on the so-called ‘free market’ system”
has been shown to have “a built-in exploitative tendency where resources are
unevenly distributed’’.s2In a companion volume for the Nairobi Assembly,
Aaron Tolen charged that

Ibid., p.77.
IT Brown, Robert McAfee. Theodogzj in u New KeH :&spondin,q to Liberation Themes. Philadelphia : Fortress
Press, 1978, p.39.
4x Dickinson, p.47.

49 Note: My use of the term radical draws on the work of US.political economists like David Gordon, Prob-
lems in Political Economj4, Lexington, MA: Heath and Company, 1977,Howard Wachel, “Looking a t
Poverty from Kadical, Conservative, and Liberal Perspectives,” Povovcrtg and EconomicJustirr: A PMusoph-
icul Approach, ed. Robert H. Hartman, New York: Paulist Press, 1994, pp. 200-13, and ethicist Beverly W.
Harrison, “The Role of Social ‘Theory in Keligious Social Ethics,” Making the Connections: l ~ s s u in
p Fem-
inist Sorial Ethics, Carol Robb, ed. Boston: Beacon Press, 1985. This approach is similar to the postcolo-
nial approach described by Peters in her chapter, “Globalization as Neocolonialism: The Struggle of‘
People’s Movements for Global Solidarity’’ (Peters, pp. 139-170).
Brubaker, p. 155.
s 1 Santa Ana,Julio de. “What development demands: a Latin American position,” Dickinson, 7’0 Set a t Lib-
ertig, (op. cit.) pp.139-152.
52 Paton, David M., ed. Brrakiry) Barriers: Nairobi 1.975.Grand Rapids, MI : Eerdamns, 1976, pp.122-123.

25
‘rlIE E C L J M B N ~ C A LREVIEW Vol. 59 No. 1.Januarg 2007

until the purpose of economic activity returns to being its real one of assisting people
to satisfy their needs, and until the prevailing law ceases to be that of maximum prof-
its (of whom? for whom?), exploitation will continue to be justified because it is
undoubtedly the most efficient system for obtaining maximum profit.53
However, as evident in the AGAPE process, these matters are still subject to
debate. There is not much support for the neoliberal policies of the US. and
Great Britain, the IMF, World Bank and the WTO. There are those, particu-
larly some in the northern churches, who advocate for social equity liberalism.
Challenges to this approach come primarily from churches in southern coun-
tries. The struggle which emerged at Geneva 1966 is not yet settled. The
stakes, though, are higher than ever as care, social reproduction, and “the web
of life” suffer grievous assaults from forces of militarized globalization and
empire. It is imperative that we act together for an economy of life so that the
oikoumene - God’s household of life - may flourish.

bid., p.158.

26