Ird board of directors and bob who has come all the way from toronto to be here with us this evening for this special book unveiling. Bob is associate professor of politics and International Studies and founding director of the center for christian scholarship at Redeemer University in toronto. Eric patterson is the current Vice President of the religious Freedom Institute here in washington and scott are at large at Rutledge University in virginia beach. It should be pointed out that our providence executive editor mark contributed a chapter to this book. I am mark tooley, president of the ird and editor at providence. Special welcome to all of you here physically this evening in downtown washington, d. C. , to all of our viewers on facebook and put her at twitter, and our future viewers on cspan book tv. Where this video will be airing, no doubt, many times in the near future. Eric where this video will be airing no doubt many times in the near future. Eric patterson will speak first and there will be plenty of time for questions later. I am sure you will be experiencing intellectual overload. That should be time for all of you. Eric my name is eric patterson, executive Vice President of the religious Freedom Institute in washington dc on scholar at large up Regent University in virginia beach. Thanks to the institute for religion and democracy and providence, its journal. Several essays in power politics and moral order were given to us gratis to print in this book. I would like to thank the two universities, redeemer and regent. Both provided a Natural Resources for copyrights for chapters in the book, they provided research assistance. We could not have done it without them. Let me take you to the summer of 1940. London and other british cities are being bombed. It is the battle of britain. World wars world war ii officially started a year before as heckler invaded poland. Hitler invaded poland. Why is it than with bombs falling on london and other cities that cs lewis had go to Oxford University and give a famous speech. This beach was, why i am not a pacifist. How is it, seven years after hitlers takes over germany hitlers takes over germany hitler takes over germany, that lewis has to defend selfdefense against the nazis. Part of that lies in what was called the twentyyear crisis, from the end of world war i to the beginning of world war ii, in which the western world bide to look the other way and not a problem of hitler and the nazis or japanese imperialism. They didnt because of pragmatic pacifism. By that, i mean world war i was so destructive, we will do anything to avoid being responsible for our neighbors and standing up to hitler. There was also a utopian idealism that maybe we could legislate war away. The kelloggbriand pact of 1935, the league of nations, these things were designed to outlaw war. And if it was outlaw, who then would break the rules and cause a war . Hitler just needed a little bit of elbow room, right . That is the context of the growth of what we call christian realism, associated with the United States and United Kingdom. It is a reaction to the utopian, idealistic, irresponsible pacifism and the like. This book goes beyond reinhold neighbor, the famous christian realist. What we do is, we document a history of 90 years of christian realism. One of the contributions of this book is laying the tradition out in three generations. The first generation being the fight against fascism and early communism, 19321965. The second era is from the vietnam war in the late decolonization period to the end of the cold war, 1990. The last generation with names you would know is the disorder of the 1990s and the era of terrorism since 2001. The names are people like george weigle, James Turner Johnson, mark love vicki, daniel strand, myself, rob jost struck rob jostra and many others. You will find the writings in this book. Lets step back. I assume that by identifying a counter pacifism and idealism, let me mention a couple of tenants that make up christian realism. For those who study Political Science or International Relations, you know there are all sorts of realisms out there. It means a realistic, nonutopian Foreign Policy analysis. We distinguish pragmatic forms of realism like mikey valley machiavelli, thomas hobbes, from moral forms of realism, christian realism. Christian realists to look at policy analysis, security, power politics. But they dont only look at it through the lens of government versus government and the security dilemma. Instead, we recognize this is an augustinian tradition rooted in early christian sources, most likely in the way augustine things about anthropology and politics. Christian realists are united in recognizing human beings are sinful. Much of what motivates us is selfinterested. But that is not all there is to the story. Christian realists also tend to be helpful, so individuals have worth, but also responsibility to act in political life. That is the difference between that and irresponsible forms of that is someone elses problem or i cant dirty my hands by trying to save and protect. Christian realism in a sense is a species of this augustine tradition. Another part of this is a focus on ways that not just individuals, but that groups have their own, natural forms of limitation and sin it seems humans in groups are more chauvinistic fascism, communism, f no nationalism, we are more chauvinistic in a group that we are as individuals. Christian realists i like the way, whether it is ethnic basis, racial basis, some other form of prejudice based on ideology, that all of those are idolatrous. They put the group and some sort of populist leader in an idolatrous position instead of the god of the bible. You will also find that christian realists are very concerned about unintended consequences. So, they will often debate limits and restraints when thinking about foreignpolicy action. There is a lot more about that in the book you can read for yourself. But the second part of this, this idea of generations of christian realism, we found christian realists typically answered the same sorts of questions decade after decade. In that first generation in the 1940s and 50s, they thought about how we have a liberal world order that dresses the piece responsibility and doesnt fail like the league of nations . How do we think about atomic weapons . Etc. The same types of questions are asked today. You will find that there is a commonality of the questions and approaches to how they are answered. In conclusion for my portion, rob and i are both going to point out a couple of readings that are our favorites from the book. A runner up is that, in the last section, we have contrasting chapters where we slightly disagree on the importance of potency of International Institutions and multilateralism. That reflects my american bias and his canadian highest canadian bias. Another great chapter is by george weigle, well known in town, an essay he wrote in the book with James Turner Johnson defining peace and tucked to think about peace when confronting Saddam Hussein and the disintegration of the cold piece of the cold war. I would like to read a couple of excerpts from 1948 by martin white, in an essay called the church, russia and the west, and martin white is the father of modern International Relations theory, what we call the English School, and primarily, we teach this in british universities. It is very influential. His two text books published after his death are still best sellers today in International Relations theory. He is writing in 1948 about the jumble of International Relations after 1945. The soviet union doesnt leave iran. Soviet union leaves troops in eastern europe. There is communist infiltration all around the world. Atomic weapons. China seems to be teetering. He lays this all out in the first pages and then steps back and says, how should we as christians think about this . What categories should we use . Let me read what he says about history. The distinction between secular and sacred history is the stuff of our argument, between history as process only and history as purpose. If we use one metaphor, we can say that secular and sacred history enter penetrate. If we use another metaphor, and perhaps a truer one, we will see secular history as just the surface of the time process, dead and glassy. But we see sacred history is that same time process, but transparent indivisible against the light of attorney. Paternity. The sum of all the depths of destiny. This is the same distinction is augustines two cities, the earthly city in the heavenly city, built by the love of god to the contempt of self. He goes on to say, two beliefs have hitherto underlain the ordinary nonchristian attitude toward the present crisis, the attitude of the ordinary secular liberal in our postchristian world. One of these is the belief that we are on the whole, wellmeaning people doing our best and will somehow model through. The other secular approach is an optimistic belief that, because we are wellmeaning at doing our best, things will tend to come out right, that what happens will be for the best anyway. Hence, perhaps the way it has been used in modern times is just to see Public Affairs as a suggestion as a succession of questions or problems to be solved in time. We are not all meaning people doing our best. We are miserable sinners living under judgment with a heritage of sin to expiate. We will not somehow model room. Model through muddle through. The promise of being safe carries no assurance of muddling through the world. Nor do we find in the bible anything resembling secular progress. We find redemption through suffering. We find redemption through suffering. He goes on to talk about dealing with the soviet union. I will leave that to you. Thank you. [applause] mark thank you, eric. Thank you for hosting the launch for the institute. We are grateful for inviting a canadian to talk about politics and power. I trust by the time i finished talking, you will shoo me out of town for all my middle power institutionalism and lifting americans have to do. My heart was warmed as eric was reading the passage. My calvinist part was warmed as i heard youre reading about the depredations of sin. I came to the tradition of christian realism. I did not initially study politics in college. I studied history and calvinism. When i first encountered herbert butterfield, i encountered him as a historian, not as a political scientist. One contribution, one journey i went on was coming from the other side of the ocean, over, back to, which is for a lot of people who think about christian realism, they think about the american experience, they think about reinhold niebuhr. I think about paul ramsey. When the contributions we are able to make in this reader was that yes, and amen to the great fast of American Christian realists. But also, a transatlantic perspective as well. People like white, that we just heard from. People like herbert butterfield. Ennis bertinelli and extraordinary insensitive scholar and had views on Nuclear Weapons that might be closer to my canadian sensitivities. I will let you give me a hard time about that later. I was deeply entrenched in English School. And as others have argued, this tradition that has residents, also perhaps something they called the Amsterdam School. People like Abraham Kuyper and hermann bob beck and others known as pastors and theologians but also were politically active, active in politics and policy. Kuyper served as Prime Minister of the nuns and made Foreign Policy i would be remiss Foreign Policy. I would be remiss if i didnt mention i published a book with another joster, and there is a wonderful book for you to go and sink your attention in. This to me adds essential flavor to the tradition of christian realism. I dont want to step away from the american school, i dont want to step away from niebuhr, certainly not paul ramsey. But the witnesses, those in the late imperial context of the u. K. , at least the way we in canada measure it, we talk about the decline of the British Empire happening around 19 if when conveniently the minister of external Affairs First on the scenes and introduced the United NationsEmergency Force we have come to call peacekeepers. They say this is the moment in which the United Kingdom was coming to terms with it postwar decline. There was a question, what does christian realism look like there . Not at the height of super at the height of superpower promise or the school asking questions that to a canadian like myself, would ask, there are really powerful countries right nextdoor and sometimes they are friendly and sometimes they are not and how do we make Foreign Policy where we do not dominate the agenda, set the terms, so we cannot by virtue of coercive force imagine solving this resolution. It is why when given the choice about teaching american or canadian Foreign Policy, i would rather teach canadian Foreign Policy. The joke i hear is, but what do you do after the first two weeks . There is a full course of content. Students who enter into american Foreign Policy, and often with the premise of imagining the problems in the world are there is to solve. How can we solve this . We have the power to affect this change. You almost have to spend a whole semester debunking that impulse and helping them understand the limitations, the hubris of power, the irony of american history. In canadian Foreign Policy, we start there. We dont have to do a lot of heavy lifting to convince you that this major quandary is going to be solved by canada. Maybe in partnership, may be collaboration, but that is a more humble and productive and collaborative and yes multilateral place to start. That is one of the reasons the transatlantic perspective in addition to the generational perspective in this volume is so helpful. We will hear from the american school, but also the English School and also the after dam school. That will help us think about late imperial power, middle power, lesser powers but still powers, still countries that have responsibilities, ethics, obligations, and what does justice mean for them . Justice is not simply the purview of the great superpowers, it is the purview of anyone with political power. And that is the way augustine would put it to us. I think this is really helpful. I love the introduction of this transatlantic dialogue on christian realism. I wish there was more work excavating the English School and making it contemporary. At also building up the Amsterdam School and help us your voices from other parts of tradition around the globe. This is one of the exciting pieces of contribution, but i want to focus on two pieces. One is English School and one is an empty dam school what is it Amsterdam School. They both nine on aspects of American Christian realism. Certainly realism in the case of butterfield. I had a friend of mine convince me to listen to audio books, and now i am in it to win it. I have been listening to general mcmasters dereliction of duty, he reads it himself, and his impressions of president johnson are not to be missed. In his reading it out loud, he is critical of the quonset, the whiz kids, as they begin to set the terms for power politics, for communication. This is one of the things butterfield gets to the heart of, human nature and the dominion of fear. He says we think about fear is this feature of the International System, it is there, whether we talk about whether it is natural, but he says it is not always something we can quantify easily. There is an emotional element to it. It is such a risk rich aspect of the English School. He says fear is a thing that is extraordinarily vivid while we are in its grip, but once it is over, it leaves little trace of itself in our consciousness and is one of the experiences we can never properly remember, one also which, since we may be ashamed of it, we have no reason for wishing to remember. We are in the position of those unsympathetic parents who, though they can recall concrete things that happened in their lives, have forgotten what it really felt like to be in love. It is curious that the moods and sensations which have mastered us in the past, and which all which almost may consume a man, are significant to recover or reimagine afterwards. Because it is so hard for us to recapture the feeling in our imagination, what can be nonparticipating when there is a question of fear that is not our own. If another person is the victim of it, we may fail, or it may never occur to us to apprehend the thing itself or the range of its possible consequences. It would seem we are not always easily convinced of the existence of fear in other people, especially political rivals are potential enemies. Historians are not easily convinced when they deal at a later time with former enemies of their country. Above all, if the thing which the other party dreaded is the danger that n