war the Allies—the United States in particularrn—were left with the daunting taskrnof ascertaining the rightful owners of thernthousands of artworks recovered fromrnGermany, a task that contmued forrndecades after the war. The United Statesrndid not, for example, return fiungarv’srncrown jewels until 1977, because of therncontroversy over returning priceless relicsrnto countries controlled by Russian communists.rnMany masterpieces, of course,rnwere destroyed or stolen and will ne’errnbe recovered. Yet as I^ynn Nicholas hasrnreminded us, what is staggering is notrnour losses, but what was courageouslyrnpreserved.rn—iheodore FappasrnCaring for Creation: An EcumenicalrnApproach to the Environmental Crisis.rnBy Max Oelschlaeger (New Haven:rnYale University Press), 285 pp., $30.00rnSince Professor Oelschlaeger is himselfrnapparently unchurched, the ecumenismrnreferred to in the title of his book is forrnhis own part only opportunism. IndeedrnCaring for Creation is an appeal to hisrnfellow Greens to harness the energeticrnsuperstition of useful idiots, from RomanrnCatholics to Wiccans, as a means tornsupplant the secular religion of economicrngrowth that is destroying the planetrnand to create a broad and deep consensusrnfor an environmentalist agendum.rnOelschlaeger claims to ha’e written arnconfession of sorts, “though not exactlyrnin the tradition of Augustine and otherrnChristians. For most of my adult life Irnbelie’ed, as many enironmentalists do,rnthat religion was the primar’ cause of thernecological crisis. I also assumed thatrnvarious experts have solutions to the cn-rn’ironmental malaise. 1 was a true believer.”rnThough still convinced thatrn”religion is dccph’ implicated in ecocrisis,”rnhe now believes that, “more important,rnit is in’ol’ed in any solution.”rnSince Oelschlaeger refuses to regard anvrnparticular faith as “privileged,” he is unablernto say what he intends by “religion”rnbut treats all s stems of belief with equalrnindifference. Religion, he savs, “is the institutionrnbest suited to deal with the ethicalrnand political questions raised byrnecocrisis, preciscK’ because it empowersrncitizens to deal with the questions thatrnelude the bureaucratic mentality.” Howrnmight the dominant religious traditionrnin the West shake free of its notoriouslyrnhomocentric iew of Creation? Well,rn”Judeo-Christianit” is unique in its abilityrnto reweave itself in the light of changingrncircumstances without losing its fundamentalrninspiration.” As, 1 suppose,rnthe Social Gospel over 1900 dreary yearsrnevolved gloriously from the original Four.rnAnd “Judco-Christians” have a powerfulrninccnti’e to do more “reweaving”: “Thernreality of ecological crisis has renderedrnthe belief in providence problematic.”rnProfessor Oelschlaeger, however learnedrnhe may be in contemporary academicrnproduction, is an ignoramus when itrncomes to Christianity. “The argumentrnthat the fall . . . created ecocrisis is . . .rnhelpful. . .,” he concedes. Of course, itrnis the crux. “The present world is passingrnaway. . . . ” Has he not heard of thernpromise of a new heaven and a newrnearth? Christianity does not put Manrnabove Creation, but the Earth to comernabove the present one. This is not to sayrnthat Christians or other people, e’en Republicans,rnare justified in trashing thernworld we knoyy. Where Oelschlaegerrnperceives the need to redesign Christianityrnto respond to the problems of thernday, there exists instead the obligation onrnthe part of Christians better to comprehendrnthe teachings of their faith in respectrnof nature, as the Eastern churchrnhas long done. Professor Oelschlaegerrnhas a clue: “caring for creation entailsrnonly that the faithful look to their faithrnyvith new eyes and find therein the wordsrnthat speak of a loving relationship withrnand our responsibilities for the Creation.”rnBut if that should happen, wernwill ha’e no need for environmentalismrnat all.rn—Chilton Williamson, jr.rnLIBERAL ARTSrnHIGHER AFRICATIONrnFriday, October 7,1994rnLibatioiv’Drum ProcessionrnPresentation of the Imhotep SocietyrnW’elconiing Remarks . . .rn”The State of the Discipline: Kemetological Bases forrnan African World”rnAxumite Kingdom—Suite 211rn”Afioceiitric Literacy: Analytical and TheoreticalrnDimensions”rnPantc Kingdom—Suite 201rnDr. Winston Van Home, University of Wisconsinrn”Africology as the Afrocentric Discipline”rnFbn Kingdom^Suite 209rnDr. C. I’sehloane Keto, Temple Universityrn”A Theoretical Base for Graduate Work in Africology”rn”The Diopian Way to Social Health”rnChair—Ms. Miriam MaUat Ka Re, Temple Universityrn”Diop and the Afrocentric Challenge to Egyptology”rnChair—Dr. Theophile Obenga, Temple Universityrn”Warriors, Conjurors, and Priests: The AfricanrnAmerican Writer”rnChair—Dr. Ama Mazama, Temple Universityrn”The Africanity of Ancient Egypt: ContemporaryrnPersonal Perspectives”rnMr. Victor Vega, Middlesex County Collegern”The Hemneter Idea of Kemet”rnChair—Dr. Ella Forbes…rn—from the program for the sixth annual Cheikh Anta DioprnConference, organized by the Department of AfricanrnAmerican Studies, Temple University.rn38/CHRON:CLESrnrnrn