Theology, Science, and Creation: Extending the Horizon of Science and the Christian Faith Calvin B. DeWitt Institute for Environmental Studies Scholarship on the inter-relations of theology, science, and creation often finds its focus on the question of origins. While often fruitful, this focus may preclude a view across the broader horizon of these inter-relations. Work that might prepare us to answer the question, "How did God make the world?" might limit our view of the panorama that encircles us. Given its significance and magnificence, creation might well be at the core of a question in the final judgement, but that such a question would deal with origins is brought up short by God's challenge to Job: "Where were you when I laid the earth's foundation?"0. All of which leads us to ask, "If we were given a question about creation in the final judgement, what might that question be?" I once sat in a council of theologians and scientists. We had come to the point where we were ready to establish the outline of our report on theology, creation, and science. A draft outline had been prepared and was about to be distributed when I said, "Wait!" Holding back discussion of our draft outline on origins, we came to consider, "If we were asked a question about creation in the last judgement, what might that question be?" It is the answer we gave that is the reason this paper is not about origins. Instead it seeks to open an extended horizon on theology, science, and creation. No matter how God made the world, there is something non-debatable about all of it: creation is with us here and now. We are in creation; we are part of it; we are responsible for it. While our field of vision may be limited by assuming we deal with creation when discussing creation and evolution, we need to see creation for what it is; we must see what we and our species are doing to creation's integrity; we need to explore our relationship with creation as we respond confessionally to God's love for the world. No matter how people may debate how God made the world, there is something else that is non-debatable about all of it: human beings today are changing the face of the earth, its waters, and its atmosphere in ways no other single species has ever done. We human beings are distinctive among biotic species, and it is worthwhile to consider our distinctiveness as disclosed by creation itself. The heavens are telling the glory of God; the earth is telling the distinctiveness of the human species.0 Listening to what heaven and earth are telling will extend our horizon and might better prepare us to answer our Creator. HUMAN DISTINCTIVENESS AND THE IMAGE OF GOD Human Distinctiveness in Creation.-- A longstanding interest in religious and secular thought is in the difference between human beings and other creatures. The present status of human impact on creation can provide us with new insights on this difference, not because of markedly new scholarship, but because of new empirical observations and data from the world around us. In recent years we have become aware of various environmental degradations that have attained an extent and intensity not experienced heretofore in human history. These include (1) alteration of energy exchange between earth and our star the sun particularly earth's energy balance and receipt of ultraviolet radiation;0 (2) degradation of the land consisting of wide scale soil erosion, salinization, desertification, and urban consumption of agricultural lands;0 (3) deforestation that destroys more than 100,000 square kilometers of primary forest each year;0 (4) species extinctions that at current rates will reduce the 250,000 species of flowering plants by one quarter by 2050;0 (5) water degradation in quality and quantity worldwide that, despite improvement in some places, is making it increasingly necessary to produce and import bottled water;0 (6) global toxification brought about by injection of biocides and by- products of human activity into global circulations of air and water;0 and (7) human and cultural degradation that includes loss of long-standing varieties of well-adapted local food crops and degradation and extinction of cultural knowledge on how to live sustainably in local environments0. Without exception, these degradations have one causative agent in common. They are not due to deficiencies in the way the natural world works; neither are they by-products of otherwise beneficial natural processes. The common element in these degradations is that all derive from the same causative agent. The human species is responsible for them all. Recognition that human action is the common agent of earth's degradations brings us to realize that human beings are peculiar among the creatures: human beings have the capacity to destroy any other creature, they have the capacity to degrade and destroy the various provisions in the natural world by which it refreshes and rejuvenates itself, they even appear to have the capacity to destroy the habitable earth. Our species is distinctive at least in this: our species has the capacity to destroy the earth.0 There is an obverse side to this capacity of human beings that also illumines our distinctiveness in creation. Not only do we have the capacity to destroy the earth, we also have the capacity to save it from the destruction we bring to it. We have this capacity through exercise of insight and effort to diminish and desist from behaviors that degrade and destroy creation0. Beyond this, empirical data also will show that human beings have the capacity to restore at least some of what they have degraded. In such restoration we enlist other creatures, creating for them the conditions for restorative activities and processes. Thus a prairie, destroyed by conversion to agriculture or a parking lot, can to a large extent be restored by us through our re- introduction of the plants and animals once native to prairies on a site we have made suitable so that they can do their restorative work0. Finally recognizing that we can destroy, refrain from destroying, and restore creation leads us to realize that even before our manipulation of a given part of creation we can assure that its integrity is maintained. Before we even touch a particular part of the world we can decide to take care of it, use it sustainably, or stay clear of it.0 In our day, then, we can see perhaps more clearly than at times past that human beings are distinctive in creation in at least four ways: (1) we can destroy the earth, (2) we can decide to refrain from destroying the earth, (3) we can (at least to some extent) restore the earth, and (4) we can decide to take care of the earth. This does not mean that another species cannot destroy, refrain from destroying, restore and take care of their own habitat, kin, or species with which they have symbiotic relationships. But not in the same way and to the same degree. These four abilities that reside in our species have such a wide scope that they permeate the whole creation. While perhaps inadequately stated and fruitlessly debated, human distinctiveness is real; we are distinctive in our ability to interact with the earth.0 This is everywhere apparent-- across the face of the earth, to the depths of the seas, to the heights of the atmosphere and beyond. Our impacts on creation awaken us to our distinctiveness. Human Beings and the Image of God.-- In Judeo-Christian theology the distinctiveness of human beings has been assessed largely with respect to the biblical teaching that people are made "in the image of God."0 The meaning of "the image of God" has been the subject of a great deal of theological study and discussion over the centuries, and has been seen by various authors to indicate one or more of the following: (1) it means God is the original of which people are a copy; (2) it includes "original righteousness" that consists of true knowledge, righteousness, and holiness; (3) it includes intellectual power, natural affections, and moral freedom; (4) it includes human spirituality; (5) it includes the body as a fit instrument for the self-expression of the soul; and (6) it includes human immortality. Beyond these, some theologians have thought that the image of God (7) includes human dominion over creation.0 When we consider the empirical data and observations concerning the distinctiveness of human beings in the world simultaneously with these various understandings of the image of God, our attention is drawn to the seventh of these, namely that "the image of God" includes human dominion over creation. If being made in the image of God confers to human beings a distinctiveness not shared with the rest of creation, and if current conditions point to the unique ability of human beings to affect creation on a global scale, we clearly are compelled to investigate the meaning of dominion. The biblical concept of human dominion is most related to the empirically-derived conclusion that people can and do behave toward creation as destroyers and sustainers. ENVIRONMENTAL DOMINION, DOMINATION, AND STEWARDSHIP Human Dominion over Creation.-- If we evaluate from empirical data and observations how dominion is being exercised in creation we find it operating at two extremes. At one extreme is dominion in behalf of self (point 1 of the 4 ways of human distinctiveness given above); at the other extreme is dominion in behalf of creation (points 2 through 4 of these 4 ways). Dominion at the first extreme can be called domination, where domination is service in behalf of self at the expense of another or others. Dominion at the other extreme can be called stewardship, where stewardship is service in behalf of the interest of another of others. More specifically, when related to creation and "the environment," domination is service in behalf of self at the expense of creation and stewardship is service to creation in behalf of the Creator. Thus, we can distinguish between two kinds of dominion: domination and stewardship. For environmental dominion these become environmental domination and environmental stewardship. Environmental Domination.-- It is to the wrongness of domination, and domination of creation0, that much of Genesis 1- 11 is addressed. The Scriptural view is that seeking first one's own selfish interests at the expense of creation and its creatures is sinful domination worthy of punishment, even death. Thus, (1) Adam and Eve's pressing into service the forbidden fruit to know good and evil is domination; its consequence is their personal death and degradation of the ground. Next (2) is the murdersome domination of Cain over Able; its result is Cain's being cursed by God, made restless, and driven from the land and the ground no longer yields crops for him. Then comes (3) the corrupting of creation by human society with its consequent deluvian destruction along with the animals.0 Following this is (4) Ham's proclamation of his drunken father's nakedness; with Ham's children in following Ham's ways reap the penalty slavery and bondage. And then (5) comes the rebellious event at Babel where people "undertook and united and godless effort" to make for themselves "by a titanic human enterprise," a worldwide reputation and renown through which they "would dominate God's creation"0; the consequence of this was their scattering across the earth. In the biblical view, exercise of dominion as domination violates God's will and produces severe and dire consequences. From Genesis 1-11 we learn that domination can result in death, land and soil degradation, cursedness, restlessness, crop failures, societal destruction, loss of domestic and wild animals, slavery, and dispersion.0 In Scriptural language, domination, defined as seeking first ourselves at the expense of creation, is "missing the mark," it is failing to meet the Creator's expectations for us, it is sin.0 Environmental Stewardship.-- Thus far we have distinguished between two kinds of dominion: domination and stewardship. And we have cited evidence that the biblical view of domination, as we have defined it, is a negative one. In arriving at the second kind of dominion, that of stewardship, we come to the remaining three of the four identified ways human beings are distinctive in creation, namely, we can decide to refrain from destroying the earth, we can at least to some extent restore the earth, and we can decide to take care of the earth. Again, it is to this that much of Genesis 1-11 is addressed. The Scriptural view is that seeking first to do the will of God with respect to creation, instead of first seeking one's own selfish interests, is the right exercise of dominion. We already have approached this topic on its negative side finding from Genesis 1-11 what stewardship is not. Now we can approach it from the positive side to learn from the early teaching of Genesis to find what it is. And we come to Genesis 2:15. Here we learn that Adam and Adam's descendants are expected to serve and keep the garden. Positive words these are, "serve" and "keep" and they call for some investigation. The word "keep" is a translation of the Hebrew word, "shamar." I probing its meaning it is most useful to consider its use the Aaronic blessing given in Numbers 6:24, "The Lord bless you and keep you...," a blessing very widely used in Jewish and Christian congregations to this day. When God's blessing is invoked to keep the assembled people, it is not merely that God would keep them in a kind of preserved, inactive, uninteresting state, like one might keep a museum piece, preserved specimen, or pickles in a jar. Instead, it is that God would keep them in all of their vitality, with all their energy and beauty. The keeping expected from God with this invocation is one that would nurture all life-staining and life- fulfilling relationships-- with family, spouse, and children, with neighbors and friends, with the land that sustains human life and the living creatures, with the air and water, and with God. "Shamar" is an extremely rich word with a penetrating reticulated meaning. It invokes a loving, caring, sustaining keeping. And so too in Genesis 2:15. When we act on God's will and expectation that the garden be kept, we make sure that the creatures under our care are maintained with all their proper connections-- connections with members of the same species, with the many other species with which they interact, with the soil and air and water upon which they depend. The rich and full keeping that we invoke with the Aaronic blessing is the kind of rich and full keeping that we should bring to the garden of God-- to God's creatures and to all of Creation. As God keeps those who invoke God's keeping, so those kept by God keep creation. Human beings should be engaged in the care and keeping of creation with all the richness and fullness this implies.0 In addition to recognizing the fullness of the meaning of "shamar" in Genesis 2:15 it is also helpful to our understanding of stewardship to attend to the preceding word, "'abad." In Young's Literal Translation of the Holy Bible0 it is rendered thus, "And Jehovah God taketh the man and causeth him to rest in the garden of Eden, to serve it and to keep it." Here, "serve" is a translation of the word, "'abad." For all who have heard this translated "cultivate," "till," or "dress" this comes as a surprise. The word, "'abad" is also used in another famous passage, "...choose for yourselves this day whom you will serve... But as for me and my household, we will serve the Lord." A search of the use of "'abad" and its translation will show that it is translated "serve" as it is here in Joshua 24:15, except when applied to agriculture. No matter how one deals with the proper translation of the text, however, whether as having to be translated with agricultural language or literally as "serve," the idea of service comes through its meaning. While serving the Garden, or serving creation might have a peculiar ring in modern ears, we might consider of what it was that the Garden consisted in Eden. The Scriptures say that it was planted by God (Gen 2:8) which brings us to wonder how God plants things in creation. In God's garden, hoe, shovel, and plow might have simply been out of place, especially if was more like the gardens of some tropical peoples where interplanting and high diversity are the rule. Perhaps it was a tropical garden not amenable to turning over the ground, but still open to service? In any case, in our attempt to understand the meaning of stewardship it is helpful to ponder the meaning of service. Reflection of the stewardship of Jesus Christ, described in Philippians 2:5-8, may be helpful here: the One who "made himself nothing, takes the very nature of a servant."0 Environmental Dominion.-- Turning again to the first chapters of Genesis, we have additional teaching on the meaning of dominion. It is that of Genesis 1:26-28, which when taken in the context we have thus far summarized adds immense power to our analysis and study. The passage is as follows: 26 Then God said, "Let us make man in our image, in our likeness, and let them rule over the fish of the sea and the birds of the air, over the livestock, over all the earth, and over all the creatures that move along the ground." 27 So God created man in his own image, in the image of God he created him; male and female he created them. 28 God blessed them and said to them, "Be fruitful and increase in number; fill the earth and subdue it. Rule over the fish of the sea and the birds of the air and over every living creature that moves on the ground." In the King James Version, this is rendered as follows: 26 And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness: and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth. 27 So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them. 28 And God blessed them, and God said unto them, Be fruitful, and multiply, and replenish the earth, and subdue it: and have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over every living thing that moveth upon the earth. Here, in the King James Version (KJV), we have explicit use of the word, "dominion," a translation of the Hebrew, "radah," that in the New International Version (NIV) is translated "rule." Even more forceful is another word introduced here, "subdue," a translation of the Hebrew, "kabash." Apart from our earlier analysis, we might not have come to the distinction between the two kinds of dominion we identified. Without this distinction, this passage might suggest that "anything goes." However, even here there is powerful guidance by very close association and textual interweaving of another concept with the concept of dominion. This closely associated concept is "the image of God." We already have observed what the image of God has been seen by various theologians to mean, and now we should additionally note that none of what has been associated with the bearing of this image is ungodly. Being made in the image of God may include knowledge, righteousness, holiness, intellectual powers, natural affections, (godly) moral freedom, human spirituality, self- expression of the soul, and immortality, it is not intended that it violates the nature of God whose image people bear. Thus, in addition to clear evidence from Genesis 1-11 that dominion as dominance is sin, we find that whatever insights and understanding have come from the study of what it means to have been created in the image of God does not provide license to ungodly behavior. The fact that ungodly behavior, including degradation and destruction of the land and its creatures does occur is thus not attributable, according to Scriptural analysis, to God's intent for people. This fact is illumined by the study of people who in Scriptural writings have been explicitly given rule, the kings. In Deuteronomy 17:18-20 it clearly is God's requirement that the one given dominion must fully reflect God's will in their rule. The king must write for himself a copy of God's law that he is to read all the days of his life "so that he may learn to revere the Lord his God and follow carefully all the words of this law and these decrees..." Thus, being given dominion does license one to do as they please. On the contrary it confers responsibility to reflect God and God's will in everything that is done. Those given dominion are reflectors of God in the way they relate to their subjects, mirroring, representing, reflecting, and imaging God's will and God's relationship to creation.0 Thus, dominion may not be exercised for the ruler's selfish interest; rather, it must be exercised in behalf of God whose image is borne and in behalf of the creatures under the ruler's care. This rules out domination, prohibits oppressive dominion, forbids harsh and brutal rule. Thus, God's proclamation through Ezekiel, "Woe to the shepherds of Israel who only take care of themselves! Should not shepherds take care of the flock? You eat the curds... but do not take care of the flock... You have ruled (radah) them harshly and brutally" (34:2-4). The Lord, whose care the rulers should be reflecting, shows by divine example what should be done: I myself will search for my sheep and look after them (34:11). I will pasture them on the mountains of Israel, in the ravines and in all the settlements in the land... I myself will tend my sheep and have them lie down, declares the Sovereign Lord (34:13b,15). I will search for the lost and bring back the strays. I will bind up the injured and strengthen the weak, but the sleek and the strong I will destroy. I will shepherd my flock with justice" (34:16). And lest people should take God's statement on subduing the earth (Gen 1:28) as license to serve self rather than God and creation, he judges between those who use creation with care and those who abuse it: "Is it not enough for you to feed on the good pasture? Must you also trample the rest with your feet? Is it not enough for you to drink clear water? Must you also muddy the rest with your feet? Must my flock feed on what you have trample and drink what you have muddied with your feet?" (34:18-19). What then is dominion? What then is subduing the earth? It is serving God and creation. It is reflecting God's love for the world, God's law for creation, and God's justice for the land and creatures. Dominion as domination is forbidden; dominion as stewardship is required as the God-given responsibility of all people. Appropriation of Dominion.-- When dominion is taken as license to do whatever can be done and whatever meets one's self- interest, it is a misappropriation of the image of God. However, responsible appropriation of this image is to seek first not self, but the Kingdom of God. To image God is to image God's love and law-- as God would have it imaged. To be made in the image of God is to be endowed with dignified responsibility to reflect God's goodness, righteousness and holiness. It is the use human, intellectual powers, natural affections, and moral freedom to reflect the wisdom, love, and justice of God. To be made in the image of God is to commune prayerfully with God to seek guidance and direction; it is to express the depths of one's soul in praxis and to anticipate the ultimate fulfillment of all things. Dominion and the Image of God in Theology.-- We already have noted that some theologians have thought that the image of God (7) includes human dominion over creation. We now are ready to explore their thinking further. According to Berkhof, Witsius says: "The image of God consisted antecendenter, in man's spiritual and immortal nature; formaliter, in his holiness; consequenter, in his dominion." Acknowledging that "A very similar opinion is expressed by Turretin," Berkhof concludes that the image of God, among other things, consists "In the body, not as a material substance, but as the fit organ of the soul, sharing its immortality; and as the instrument through which man can exercise dominion over the lower creation" and "In man's dominion over the earth." Concluding that the image of God "constitutes the essence of man," he puts importance, through his use of italics, on the image of God being an appointment to an office or function.0 Problematic in some theologian's recognition that being made in the image of God includes human dominion over the earth was their reaction against the theology of the Socinians and some early Arminians who maintained that "the image of God consists in man's dominion over the lower creation, and this only."0 Nonetheless, there is early recognition by some theologians that being made in the image of God includes human dominion over creation. Beyond these considerations, many theologians have concluded that the perfection of the image of God in human beings, if not the image of God in its entirety, was lost by sin.0 Thus, theological thinking by at least some theologians parallels the findings of the empirically-derived conclusion presented earlier in this paper. In seeking the greatest attainable harmony between our empirical analysis, and the widely-supported theological conclusion that the image of God consists in what makes human beings distinctive in creation, which may or may not be lost, we can make the following series of assertions: (1) human beings are distinctive with respect to other species in their exercise of dominion over creation, (2) to the extent that being made in the image of God confers upon human beings what is distinctive with respect to other species, the exercise of dominion is part of the consequence of their being made in the image of God, (3) failure to seek God's purposes in creation by human beings leads to a perverted and sinful dominion, a domination whose goal is serving self rather than the Creator or creation, (4) that the proper exercise of dominion, as conferred upon human beings who would seek truly and fully to mirror God's wisdom, love, and justice, is stewardship, (5) that human beings should make every attempt to overcome the forces that would compel them to dominate creation and, diligently seeking creation's integrity, vigorously and prayerfully pursue a life of stewardship with God's Kingdom as its goal. Extending the Horizon of Science and the Christian Faith.-- "If we were to be asked a question about creation in the last judgement, what might that question be?" This is the question with which we began. I of course have assumed that the answer to this question might be much more like "What did you do with it?" rather than "How did I do it?" The question, "What did you do with creation?" gives us incentive to go beyond origins to look into the relations between theology, science, and creation. By introducing creation-degrading dominion (domination) and creation-sustaining dominion (stewardship) we have provided the opportunity for extending our horizon. If we should need any additional biblical incentive we only have to ponder Revelation 11:18, where in the last judgement the proclamation is made, "The time has come... for destroying those who destroy the earth." In the biblical view, those who follow in word and deed the One who made, sustains, and reconciles the world0 will be given the gift of everlasting life,0 while those whose domination destroys, defiles, and condemns creation, will be destroyed. EXTENDING THE HORIZON OF SCIENCE AND CHRISTIAN FAITH What Then Must We Do?-- Stewardship of creation is a way of life. It is a way of life that seeks first the Kingdom of God, believing that the other things will come as by-products.0 As the noun "creation" was not necessary in the Old Testament (because everything created is "creation"), so the word, "stewardship," (for some people over the ages) was not necessary because it was the way of life. Today, we must introduce both of these words because both have become something "other" than ourselves. Thus we can point to some biblical principles of stewardship that we should put into practice (but likely do not because it is not our way of life). And we can present these principles in the context of the integral creation (but likely do not because we see "the environment" as something apart from ourselves). Stewardship of creation, then, is the care and keeping of the life-sustaining integral system of which people are but a part, which, when fully practiced by all, becomes a way of life, and thus no longer has to bear the label, "stewardship."0 We already have introduced one of the cardinal principles of stewardship, that of earthkeeping. This, and two related principles, are as follows: 1. The Earthkeeping Principle, whose name derives from "shamar" in Genesis 2:15 means that people should be about keeping the earth to the full extent of the meaning of "shamar," the Hebrew word for "keep." 2. The Sabbath Principle, derived from teachings in Deuteronomy 5, Exodus 20, and Leviticus 25 and 26 is the biblical teaching that the creatures under our care, and the land, must be given its times of rest, rejuvenation, and restoration. As the physician assures giving the conditions necessary for patients to heal themselves, so the steward of creation provides the conditions for the land and creation to heal themselves. 3. The Fruitfulness Principle, derived from Genesis 1:22 and 28 and supported by the passage we already cited from Ezekiel 34:18-19, has us preserving the ability of creation abundantly to produce, while allowing human beings and other creatures to partake of its fruits. Earthkeeping, Sabbath, and Fruitfulness: these components of a positive use of dominion, these principles inform our answer to our question, "Then what must we do?" And, once having heard this biblical call to stewardship, it must be put into practice.0 Science and Stewardship.-- But putting these and other principles for stewardship into practice cannot be done without knowledge, and here the relation between theology, science, and creation becomes critically important. It is through the employment of our science that we know three very important things that are fundamental to the practice of environmental stewardship: (1) how does the world work? (2) what are we human beings doing in and to creation? and (3) what in the world needs correcting? Thus, stewardship cannot be left to the theology or ethics. Neither can it be left to praxis. Instead, there must be a continual interplay between theology, science, and praxis. For our time, given the kinds and scope of the environmental degradations we confront, science cannot rest at the sidelines, neither can theology and ethics. And praxis, if it proceeds uninformed by science and theology, can make things worse, not better. Thus this paper not only puts forth a call to expand our science and theology beyond consideration of origins to include its proper stewardship; it calls for a stewardship-relevant science and a stewardship-relevant theology. And it calls for the practice of environmental stewardship by everyone who wants to be counted among those who would follow the Creator, Sustainer, and Reconciler-- among those who would mirror God's love for the world, among those children of God into whose glorious freedom creation will be brought.0 SUMMARY Scholarship on the relations of theology, science, and creation usually is focussed upon questions of origins. This paper expands the horizon for this scholarship to include the place of human beings in these relations, and proposes that such expansion is necessary for understanding the relations between science and the Christian faith. In thus expanding the horizon to include human inter-relationships with creation, empirical observations on human interactions with creation raise the question of human dominion that discloses a polarity between two different kinds of dominion: domination and stewardship. In biblical teaching, human beings differ from others in their being made in the image of God. Critically understood, this concept allows for only one kind of dominion: that of stewardship. Imaging God, the children of God should mirror the wisdom, love, and justice in their dominion over creation, thus assuring stewardship rather than domination. Examination of how the responsibility of environmental stewardship connects to the inter-relations between theology, science, and creation broadens the horizon on the relationship of science and the Christian faith. It also should bring to creation a loving care and keeping. Endnotes _______________________________ 0. Job 38:4a. All Scripture in this paper, unless otherwise indicated, is taken from the Holy Bible, New International Version, copyright 1973, 1978, 1984 International Bible Society. Used by permission of Zondervan Bible Publishers. 0. This is not to say of course that the earth does not proclaim the glory of God, for we know from Romans 1:20 that its testimony is so powerful that all people are left without excuse about knowing God's divinity and everlasting power. This also is the message of Acts 14:17. 0. Building on 25 years of nearly continuous ozone measurements from the British Antarctic Survey station at Halley Bay, a study by Anderson, Toohey and Brune shows detection of brief periods of ozone decline extending over a 6-week period following the return of solar illumination each spring. Although the effect was subtle in the late 1970s, it strengthened throughout the 1980s such that by 1984 ozone depletion levels reached 30% in the October monthly mean values. Ozone levels have continued to drop such that in 1989 70% of the total column ozone content over the Antarctic continent (10% of the area of the Southern Hemisphere) was lost during the month of September and early October. (Anderson, J., D. Toohey and W. Brune. 1991. Free Radicals Within the Antarctic Vortex: The Role of CFCs in Antarctic Ozone Loss. Science 251: 39-46.) See also Clark, Colin. 1992. Empirical evidence for the effect of tropical deforestation on climatic change. Environ Conserv 19(1):39-47. 0. The 1975 Potential Crop Study (Soil Conservation Service) reports that the annual urbanization of rural land increased from 1.2 million acres during 1958-67 to 2.1 million acres during 1967-75. The study estimates also indicate that 36% of the land lost to urbanization is prime farmland. The 1977 National Resource Inventories (NRI) (built on a much larger sample) indicate that the average annual loss of rural land to urban and built-up uses during 1967-75 was 2.9 million acres. The NRI identified about 135 million acres of land not currently being cropped and with a high or medium potential for conversion to cropland. Of this total, about 47 million acres is prime agricultural land. (Plaut, R. 1980. Urban Expansion and the Loss of Farmland in the United States: Implications for the Future. American Journal of Agricultural Economics. August 1980: 537-542.) 0. According to Given, there were probably about 1.6 billion hectares of tropical forest worldwide before widescale human-caused deforestation began to accelerate. Current deforestation rates have been conservatively estimated by given at about 30 hectares each minute or 15 million hectares (150,000 km2) annually; other estimates range up to over 26 million hectares each year (1 hectare = 2.47 acres). There has already been a loss of 27% to 37% of tropical forests, and a further 12% to 25% is likely to be lost before the end of this century. (Given, D. 1990. Conserving Botanical Diversity on a Global Scale. Annals of the Missouri Botanical Gardens. 77:48-62). See also Barbier, Edward B., Joanne Burgess and Anil Markandya. 1991. The economics of tropical deforestation. Ambio 20(2):55-58 and Perrings, Charles, Carl Folke, and Karl-Göran Mäler. 1992. The ecology and economics of biodiversity loss: the research agenda. Ambio 21(3):201-211. 0. To illustrate this problem we can consider Ecuador, where since 1960 the original rainforest has been almost totally eliminated and converted to cash crops. A small remnant at Rio Palenque of less than one square kilometer is now the only remaining site for 43 plant species. The adjacent Centinella Ridge once supported 100 endemic plant species which were eliminated by clearance for agriculture between 1980 and 1984. (Given, D. 1990. Conserving Botanical Diversity on a Global Scale. Annals of the Missouri Botanical Gardens 77:48-62.) See also Allan, J. David and Alexander S. Flecker. 1992. Biodiversity conservation in running waters: identifying the major factors that threaten destruction of riverine species and ecosystems. Bioscience 43(1):32-43; Dodson, C. H. and A. H. Gentry. 1991. Biological extinction in western Ecuador. Ann. Missouri Bot. Gard. 78:273-295; Green, G. and R. Sussman. 1990. Deforestation History of the Eastern Rain Forests of Madagascar from Satellite Images. Science 248:212-215; Redford, Kent H. 1992. The empty forest: many large animals are already ecologically extinct in vast areas of neotropical forest where the vegetation still appears intact. Bioscience 42(6):412-422; and Dodson, C. H. and A. H. Gentry. 1991. Biological extinction in western Ecuador. Ann. Missouri Bot. Gard. 78:273- 295. 0. An example of water degradation come from a 1986 USGS study which found that 44 state summaries mentioned the detection of pesticides in groundwater. A 1986 study found that 46 pesticides had been detected in groundwater, and 26 states reported finding one or more pesticides that can be attributed to normal agricultural use. The most common were atrazine and aldacarb. (Moody, D. 1990. Groundwater Contamination in the United States. Journal of Soil and Water Conservation March-April: 170-179.) 0. For example, atmospheric transport of chlorinated hydrocarbons like PCB, DDT and toxaphene distributes the pollutants on a global basis. These pollutants have been found in the atmosphere of industrial regions as well as in remote areas far from urban centers such as the Arctic and the Antarctic, and in the atmosphere over the oceans. The results from this study show that persistent pollutants deposited from the atmosphere are reflected by uptake in terrestrial animals. Animals in locations subjected to high atmospheric exposure of pollutants reflect the contamination situation despite their trophic level position. An ecosystem subjected to high inflow of chlorinated hydrocarbons from the air will contain animals with high pollutant load. (Larsson, P., O. Lennart and P. Woin. 1990. Atmospheric Transport of Persistent Pollutants Governs Uptake by Holarctic Terrestrial Biota. Environmental Science Technology 24:1599-1601). See also Atlas, E. and C. Giam. 1980. Global Transport of Organic Pollutants: Ambient Concentrations in the Remote Marine Atmosphere. Science 211:163-165. 0. One study of indigenous technical knowledge, for example, described a "bushman informant who was able to identify by name 206 out of 211 plant varieties collected and could draw finer distinctions between different types of plants than the professional taxonomist for who she was working," and a 1975 study of plant taxonomy among a Filipino tribe, the Hanunoo, found that an "average adult could identify a staggering 1,600 different species, which was some 400 more than had previously been recorded in a systematic botanical survey." Similar findings were reported from Nigeria and elsewhere in the Third World. In addition, peasants were found to be knowledgeable about the medicinal and other uses of plant life, the different topographical features of their region, and the major and minor vegetation groupings in their environment. Howes (1980) concludes that these studies "suggest that the perceptions of indigenous observers are not only superior to those of the scientist as far as the identification of individual species is concerned, but that this superiority also extends to the empirical understanding of localized eco-systems on a whole." (Awa, N. 1989. Participation and Indigenous Knowledge in Rural Development. Knowledge 10:304-316). See also Browder, John O. 1992. The limits of extractivism: tropical forest strategies beyond extractive reserves. Bioscience 42(3):174-182 and Bennett, Bradley C. 1992. Plants and people of the Amazonian rainforests: the role of ethnobotany in sustainable development. Bioscience 42(8):599-607. 0. Here I am using the word, "destroy," in the biblical sense, as used for example in I Peter 3:6: where in reference to the flood the statement is made, "By these waters the world of that time was deluged and destroyed." The scriptures, combined with our knowledge of the world as it is today, inform us that "destroy" means something like what happens from the biblical flood rather than a geophysical dissolution or annihilation of Planet Earth. 0. Paul confirms this ability through his admonishment, "Do not be overcome by evil, but overcome evil with good" (Rom 12:21). 0. In so doing, human beings act toward the land much like a physician acts toward the body: the body heals itself through the processes with which it is endowed while the physician sets the conditions for these processes to act in unimpeded ways. In severe cases where the body no longer the tissues necessary, the physician may use surgical procedures to transplant such tissues to the properly prepared sites so that they can re-knit and restore what previously was damaged, degraded, or destroyed. 0. This, as the previous point, has its medical counterpart. It is preventative medicine and maintenance of physical fitness through proper care of oneself that human health and integrity is maintained. As preventative medicine and measures for proper nutrition and physical and mental fitness (stewardship of the body) can be applied to the human being, so can preventative and supportive measures be applied to maintain the integrity of ecosystems (stewardship of creation). For this aspect of human response to creation, see DeWitt, C. B. 1989. Let it be: a wetland scientist and restorationist reflects on the value of waiting. Restoration and Management Notes 7(2):80-81. 0. This of course is not the limit of human distinctiveness, but it is the part of human distinctiveness that is focussed upon here. 0. Gen 1:26-27; 9:6. 0. Berkhoff, Louis. Systematic Theology. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1939, pp. 203-205. 0. The word, "creation," in this paper is used in its biblical sense, namely that it is comprised of all created things, including people. Thus, in the listing that follows, there are cases of human beings exercising domination over other human beings, and this is thus viewed as a form of domination over creation. 0. For a description of Noah's faithfulness in relation to this see DeWitt, C. B. 1989. The price of gopher wood. Faculty Dialogue 1989(12):59-62. 0. Quote is from the footnote to Gen 11:4, p. 23, in The NIV Study Bible: New International Version, Grand Rapids: Zondervan Bible Publishers. 0. This is a listing derived from Genesis 1-11 and is not an exclusive listing. Empirical data as well as illustrations throughout the rest of the Scriptures show many other deleterious consequences of the exercise of domination. 0. In modern control-system science, systems diagrams are used that contain a set- point or desired goal and a comparator that elicits corrective action on any deviation between existing behavior and the desired goal. Scriptural teaching takes a similar approach with the goal being set by the Creator and the deviation of human behavior beings described as "missing the mark" or sin. It is sin that the Scriptures admonish people to overcome. In other words, corrective action must be taken to bring human behavior in accord with the divine goal. This goal is clearly stated in Matthew 6:33 and elsewhere, "Seek ye first the Kingdom of God and his righteousness..." A good treatment of the meaning of the Kingdom of God that human beings are admonished to seek is given by Gordon Zerbe in his "The Kingdom of God and the Stewardship of Creation," in The Environment and the Christian: What Can We Learn from the New Testament? (C. B. DeWitt ed., Grand Rapids: Baker, 1991, pp. 73-92). 0. That the phrase, "care and keeping" in this regard has been recognized well before our time, is evident in a prayer published in 1566: "Finally, O Lord, wilt Thou take us and our dear ones and all that concern us into Thy care and keeping" (from "A Prayer for all the Needs of Christendom, to be used on the Sabbath after the First Sermon," from the Psalter by Petrus Dathenus published in translation in the Psalter Hymnal, Grand Rapids: Board of Publications of the Christian Reformed Church, 1976, p. 183). That the connection is made in this prayer with Numbers 6:24 is indicated in its conclusion which is a recitation of the Aaronic Blessing: "Jehovah bless thee, and keep thee; Jehovah make his face to shine upon the, and be gracious unto thee; Jehovah lift up his countenance upon the, and give thee peace. Amen." 0. Revised Edition, Grand Rapids, Michigan: Baker Book House, 1953. Emphasis on the word, "serve," in this and the following quoted text from Joshua has been added. 0. It is interesting to ponder something Loren Wilkinson pointed out to me in this regard, that Jesus Christ following the resurrection is mistaken as a gardener. We might then rephrase this sentence as follows, "Reflection of the stewardship of Jesus Christ as described in Philippians 2:5-8, may be helpful here, especially the observation that the One who is mistaken as a gardener (John 20:15), had "made himself nothing, taking the very nature of a servant." 0. Again, creation here must be understood in the biblical sense of being comprised of all things created, including human beings. 0. The Compact Edition of the Oxford English Dictionary, Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1971. 0. Berkhof, p. 208. 0. Berkhof, pp. 206-208. 0. cf. Col 1:15-20. 0. cf. John 3:16-17. 0. Matt 6:33. 0. For application to Christian colleges and universities, see DeWitt, C. B. 1992. Christian Colleges at an Ecological Turning Point. Faculty Dialogue 1992(16):43-58 and DeWitt, C. B. 1993. Integration in the Life and Mission of the Christian College: Binding Together its Life and Work. Faculty Dialogue 1993(19):129-133. 0. For contrast, see Ezekiel 33:31-32, Luke 6:46, and James 1:22-25. 0. cf. Romans 8:21.