Creation, preservation and dominion: part 1—God, humanity and the created
order
by Andrew S. Kulikovsky
Despite its fallen state, God has not abandoned His creation. He constantly sustains
and preserves it through His common grace and providence. Although fallen, human
beings are still God’s image bearers and mankind is still the pinnacle of
God’s creation. Furthermore, mankind still has dominion over the rest of creation
and, as God’s stewards, we are still entrusted with the task of caring for,
and tending to, the created order. Likewise, our God-given task to ‘[B]e fruitful
and increase in number, fill the earth and subdue it …’ is still in
effect. Contrary to the assertions of many in the modern environmental movement,
the earth is not overpopulated and human beings are not parasites destroying the
planet.
Figure 1. Stacks billowing white ‘smoke’ are often
emitting only steam and not polluting the atmosphere with CO2
or particulate.
Despite its fallen state, God has not abandoned His creation. He constantly sustains
and preserves it through His common grace and providence. Moreover, humanity still
has dominion over the earth and our charge to tend and take care of the earth and
its resources still stands.
However, there is a great deal of disagreement among Christians in regard to the
scope and extent of this dominion. Some Christians believe development equates to
environmental vandalism and pollution. Other Christians believe development should
be severely limited due to our limited and ever diminishing natural resources. Still
others believe that development can continue indefinitely and that natural resource
limits pose no problem for a faithful and generous God and for human beings made
in His image.
This paper is the first of a three part series. It examines God’s present
work in creation and humanity’s relationship to the created order. The second
part will discuss development and environmentalism from a Christian perspective,
and the third part will propose a Christian approach to environmental issues, including
the perceived threat of climate change.
God’s present work in Creation
Divine immanence
Erickson defines immanence as ‘God’s presence and activity within nature,
human nature and history.’1
Scripture makes it clear that the Spirit of God lives among us (Hag. 2:5; John 14–16; Matt. 28:18–20), and, as Job 34:14–15 indicates, humanity would
perish if God withdrew His Spirit and breath.2
His all-pervading presence and power permeates all creation (Psalm 139). In fact, God fills the universe (Jer. 23:24), and thus, He is never far away from any
one of us—indeed, it is in Him that ‘we live and move and have our being’
(Acts 17:27–28). This notion is echoed by Paul in Colossians 1:17: ‘in him all things hold together.’
However, unlike pantheism or panentheism, God is separate from, and not a part of,
the natural world. God and the world are not ‘one’, and neither is God
the ‘soul’ or animating force of the universe.
Therefore, it is clear that God is still actively involved with His creation. He
continues to preserve it and interact with it both directly and indirectly.
Creation and preservation
Preservation may be defined as God sovereignly, and by a continuous agency, maintaining
in existence all things He has made, together with all their properties and powers.3 Note, however, that God’s
acts of preservation are distinct from His acts of creation. God’s creative
acts ceased on the seventh day of creation week (Gen. 2:3), but He continues to preserve what He has created,
including both mankind and animals (Col. 1:17; Heb. 1:3; Psalm 36:6).
God controls natural processes including cloud formation, rain and photosynthesis
(Psalm 147:8), storms, thunder and lightning, snow, ice (Job 37) and hail (Psalm 147:17). He causes day and night to occur
(Amos 5:8), and controls the waves of the sea (Amos 9:6). He provides food for both wild and domesticated
animals (Job 38:39–41; Psalms 104:14, 21, 147:9; Matt. 6:26), and physical life, in both humans and
animals, is His to give and to take away (Gen. 2:17; 1 Sam. 1:27; Job 1:21, 12:10; Psalms 102:23, 104:29–30; Dan. 5:23). Moreover, His acts of preservation
apply to all people whether good or bad (Matt. 5:45).
Although God has performed many miracles throughout history, His normal modus operandi
is to employ natural laws and use human persons—including non-Christians—to
preserve His creation.
Note that God’s preservation of His creation does not necessarily imply that
He acts or intervenes directly into the natural world. Although God has performed
many miracles throughout history, His normal modus operandi is to employ
natural laws and use human persons—including non-Christians—to preserve
His creation.4
Creation and providence
Thiessen defines providence as ‘the continuous activity of God whereby he
makes all the events of the physical, mental, and moral realms work out his purpose,
and this purpose is nothing short of the original design of God in creation.’5 In other words, God’s
providence seeks the eventual establishment of His kingdom on Earth and the restoration
of His creation. This means that God interacts with His creation in such a way as
to ensure that His will is done and His purposes are achieved. As Carl Henry explained,
the biblical view of providence ‘unqualifiedly affirms … that God works
out his purposes not merely in life’s generalities but in the details and
minutiae of life as well … nothing falls outside God’s will and concern.’6 Before we were born, He saw
our unformed bodies, and knows whatever we will do before we do it (Psalm 139:16). Indeed, not even a sparrow shall fall to
the ground apart from the will of God (Matt. 10:29).
Ultimately, God has supreme dominion over the entire created universe. God can and
will do whatever He pleases with His creation (Gen. 6–8, Psalm 135:6), including subjecting it to frustration,
bondage and decay so that it may serve His purposes (Rom. 8:19–21).7
Figure 2. The Hoover Dam. Damming the Colorado River has provided
drinking water and ‘clean’ power to literally millions of people in
the western United States.
Although the regularity of the natural world is dependent upon God’s will
(Gen. 8:22), the laws of nature, which He established and
set in place, are no barrier to His will (Gen. 18:14). Scripture also teaches that miraculous irregularities
may still occasionally occur. These include ‘coincidence miracles’ which
constitute a number of events or circumstances, all of which are perfectly natural
and plausible, but occur together or in a certain sequence that lead to an extraordinary
result or outcome, and which can only ultimately be explained as an act of divine
intervention. Examples of such coincidence miracles include the extraordinary catches
of fish in Luke 5:4–7 and John 21:6–11, and the presence of the four-drachma
coin in the mouth of the first fish Peter caught (Matt. 17:27). Note that the occurrence of miracles not only
demonstrates the power of God over all creation, but also reinforce that He is distinct
from the natural world and not a part of it or subject to its laws.
Scripture contains many examples of God’s providential interaction with the
natural world. For example, Psalm 148:8 states that lightning and hail, snow and clouds,
and stormy winds do his bidding, and indeed, we see an example of this in 1 Samuel 7:10 when God used thunder against the Philistines
to ensure that they were routed by the Israelites. Similarly, He caused the sun
to stand still for a full day in order to secure victory for Israel against the
Amorites (Josh 10:12–14).8
Job stated that God ‘moves mountains without their knowing it and overturns
them in his anger’ and ‘shakes the earth from its place and makes its
pillars tremble’ (Job 9:5–6) which suggests the occurrence of earthquakes
such as those referred to in Ezekiel 38:18–19, Matthew 28:2 and Acts 16:26. Job also stated that God could stop
the sun and stars from shining (Job 9:7), which is apparently what occurred in Matthew 27:45 when darkness covered the land from the
sixth to the ninth hour.9
The account of Jonah, where God provided a great fish to swallow Jonah and keep
him inside for three days and three nights (Jonah 1:17), provides a good example of God employing other
creatures to achieve His purposes. God also used a donkey to rebuke Balaam orally
(Num. 22:21–33).
What role, then, does God play in the occurrence of natural disasters—especially
those that have caused so much death and destruction? Are they part of His providential
plan? It is clear from Scripture that some natural disasters are instruments of
divine judgment. Floods are repeatedly used to judge evil-doers, starting with the
global Flood at the time of Noah (Gen. 6–9), and elsewhere in the Old Testament (Job 20:28, 22:16; Nah. 1:8). Similarly, most of the plagues that God
brought against the Egyptians as a result of their defiant refusal to release the
Israelites, included natural disasters (Exod. 5–10).10
The Israelites were also on the receiving end when their camp became infested with
deadly serpents (Num. 21:4–9). Revelation 18:8 predicts that such disasters will also
occur in the future.
Figure 3. Genetically modified crops are more disease resistant,
use less water and can produce more grain per acre.
Nevertheless, many natural disasters occur for no apparent reason, and directly
affect God’s people. Yet, it must be remembered that we live in a fallen,
distorted world that has been subjected to frustration and decay, and natural disasters
are manifestations of this frustration and decay.7 It must also be noted
that natural disasters are not mere random events. Many natural disasters (e.g.
volcanoes, storms, tornadoes, hurricanes, floods, forest fires, earthquakes and
tsunamis) serve a natural purpose. Indeed, many catastrophic events occur in order
to equalize the buildup of potential energy, extreme pressure or heat imbalance.
Moreover, specific kinds of natural disasters only occur under specific natural
conditions and circumstances: volcanic eruptions only occur at volcanoes; flooding
only occurs on low-lying land near rivers, lakes or on the coast; earthquakes only
occur at fault lines in the earth’s crust. In addition, some apparent disasters
have beneficial consequences. In ancient Egypt, the agricultural economy was dependent
on a natural disaster—the annual flooding of the Nile river.
Humanity’s present relationship with creation
God’s order in creation
In Psalm 103:19, David declares: ‘The
Lord has established his throne in heaven, and his kingdom rules over all.’
The kingdom of God is a central element of biblical theology. As Graeme Goldsworthy
notes,
‘The kingdom of God is a name which is not used in the Bible until much later,
but the idea of it immediately comes to mind as we think of creation … [Genesis 1 and 2] show mankind as the centre of God’s
attention and the recipient of a unique relationship with him. Thus the focus of
the kingdom of God is on the relationship between God and his people. Man is subject
to God, while the rest of creation is subject to man and exists for his benefit.
The kingdom means God ruling over his people in the material universe. This basic
understanding of the kingdom is never changed in Scripture.’11
This creative order—God, who rules over mankind, who rules over the rest of
creation—is clearly expressed in Psalm 8:
O Lord, our Lord, how majestic is your name in all the earth!
You have set your glory
above the heavens.
From the lips of children and infants
you have ordained praise
because of your enemies,
to silence the foe and the avenger.
When I consider your heavens,
the work of your fingers,
the moon and the stars,
which you have set in place,
what is man that you are mindful of him,
the son of man that you care for him?
You made him a little lower than the heavenly beings
and crowned him with glory and honor.
You made him ruler over the works of your hands;
you put everything under his feet:
all flocks and herds,
and the beasts of the field,
the birds of the air,
and the fish of the sea,
all that swim the paths of the seas.
O Lord, our Lord, how majestic is your name in all the earth!12
Humanity’s special relationship with the Creator and position over the rest
of creation was set in place at the very beginning:
‘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 …
I give you every seed-bearing plant on the face of the whole earth and every tree
that has fruit with seed in it. They will be yours for food.”’
It is clear, then, that not all life is equal. Human life stands above all other
life. Human life is more precious to God because it reflects his own image.
Yet, there are many people who believe that all life, irrespective of its
nature, is intrinsically sacred. Moreover, many Christians deny that human life
is superior or more precious to God that non-human life. For example, Calvin DeWitt
claims,
‘ … if we read the Bible with ourselves in mind, we naturally see this
blessing as ours. And it is. But it is not ours exclusively. It was given before
we came. It was first given thus: “And God created great whales, and every
living creature that moveth … and every winged fowl after his kind: and God
saw that it was good. And God blessed them, saying, Be fruitful, and multiply, and
fill the waters in the seas, and let fowl multiply in the earth” (Gen. 1:21–22, KJV). That other creatures are so blessed,
and blessed first, is not only humbling for us but also critically important. The
populations of creatures—in their wondrous variety of kinds—are expected
by their Creator to bear fruit through God-given means of reproduction; they are
expected to develop biological and ecological interrelationships; they are expected
to bring fulfillment of the Creator’s intentions for the good creation.’13
But there is clearly a substantive and qualitative difference between God’s
blessing of marine life and birds, and His blessing of mankind. God commanded the
marine life He had created to ‘fill the waters in the seas’. Similarly,
He commanded the birds He had created to ‘multiply on the earth’. However,
God blessed Adam and Eve and commanded them to ‘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.’ Thus,
DeWitt’s view of mankind’s relationship with the rest of creation is
explicitly rejected by Scripture. Human beings are not equal with fish, birds or
any other created life forms. Human beings are God’s greatest creative achievement
because they reflect His own image, and have been given dominion over the rest of
creation.
Pope and Edgar, on the other hand, hold to a heretical view of God’s relationship
with His creation. With respect to dealing with climate change, they write on a
rabidly anticreationist website:
‘We must not forget that God’s creation (the world that is being affected
by climate change) is important not only because it is made by God, but because
through his existence as the incarnate Jesus Christ, God is actually a part of
the world … Humanity is the high point of creation only because Jesus is
the New Adam, the perfect human, the one who lives in us. The incarnation is the
only real reason for understanding humanity as uniquely important. It is not for
our own sake that we value the world or humanity but because of Jesus Christ who
became part of creation by becoming human.’14
Thus, Pope and Edgar appear to believe that the incarnate Christ is, in fact, a
part of creation. This is theological heresy, and goes against the early creeds
and the teaching of Scripture.15
Human dominion
In Genesis 1:28, God commands Adam and Eve to ‘Be fruitful
and increase in number, fill the Earth and subdue it, [and] rule
over [every creature].’ This implies an active role for mankind to take charge
of the resources God has provided us in the natural world, and to use them for their
benefit. The Hebrew verb כּבשׁ
(kĕbăš, ‘to subdue, to subjugate’) stresses
the act of dominance by force. In Numbers 32:20–22, 32:29, Joshua 18:1 and 1 Chronicles 22:17–19, kĕbăš
is used in reference to subduing the Promised Land, including the hostile tribes
that were occupying it at that time. In 2 Chronicles 28:9–10, Nehemiah 5:5 and Jeremiah 34:11, 16, it refers to subjugation in
the form of slavery. In Esther 7:8, it refers to subduing or forcing a woman, and
in Zechariah 9:15, it speaks of subduing enemies in warfare.
There is also an overlap in the meaning of kĕbăš and of
רדה (rādāh,
‘to rule, to have dominion’). In Leviticus 25:39, 43, 46, the Israelites are forbidden to
rule fellow Israelite bondslaves harshly or ruthlessly. In Numbers 24:19, Psalm 72:8 and 110:2, rādāh
is used in reference to the dominion of the Messiah. In 1 Kings 4:24, it refers to Solomon’s dominion
over the land and kings from Tiphsah to Azzah. In 1 Kings 5:16, 9:23, and 2 Chronicles 8:10, rādāh
refers to officers ruling over workers. In Isaiah 41:2, God subdues kings before the ruler from the
east, and in Ezekiel 34:4, it refers to the shepherds of Israel ruling
over the people with cruelty.16
Thus, Calvin Beisner rightly concludes that the nature of the command to subdue
and to rule in Genesis 1:28 involves ‘subduing and ruling something
whose spontaneous tendency is to resist dominion.’17
Note also that there is no reason to think that the Fall has diminished or cancelled
God’s charge ‘to fill the earth and subdue it … Rule over [every
creature].’ Rather, the Fall simply made humanity’s task immensely more
difficult. Genesis 3:17–19 implies that in the post-Fall world,
nature has become even more hostile to humanity’s efforts to cultivate and
develop it further. Many wild animals now pose a threat to human beings and their
cultivating efforts, and the ground is now cursed:
‘Cursed is the ground because of you; through painful toil you will eat of
it all the days of your life. It will produce thorns and thistles for you, and you
will eat the plants of the field. By the sweat of your brow you will eat your food
until you return to the ground, since from it you were taken’ (Gen. 3:17–19).
As noted above, mankind stands above the rest of creation, and it all ultimately
exists for the benefit of humanity. Indeed, the Garden of Eden was clearly for the
benefit of Adam and Eve and they had total dominion over it, apart from one tree—the
Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil. The fruit of all the other trees in the
garden, as well as the seeded fruit from every other tree on the earth were theirs
for food. Note also that God’s command to ‘fill the earth and subdue
it’ stands against the common view that the present rate of population growth
is unsustainable and that overpopulation is a serious environmental problem and
will ultimately destroy the earth (see below).
Of course, dominion does not mean or imply that humans have a license to do whatever
they wish, raping and pillaging the land and sea, to the detriment of God’s
creation. As Schaeffer pointed out,
‘By creation man has dominion, but as a fallen creature he has used that dominion
wrongly. Because he is fallen, he exploits created things as though they were nothing
in themselves, and as though he has an autonomous right to them … The Christian
is called upon to exhibit this dominion, but exhibit it rightly: treating the thing
as having value in itself, exercising dominion without being destructive.’18
Humanity has dominion over the rest of creation, but with that power also comes
the responsibility to use it wisely.
Humanity has dominion over the rest of creation, but with that power also comes
the responsibility to use it wisely.
Human stewardship
Moses proclaimed in Deuteronomy 10:14 that ‘the heavens, even the highest
heavens’ and ‘the earth and everything in it’ belong to God. Again,
these ideas are echoed by David (Psalm 24:1) and Paul (1 Cor. 10:26). Yet, Psalm 115:16 also states that although the highest
heavens belong to God, the earth has been given by God to mankind. Creation still
belongs to God, but mankind has been given dominion over it. However, this dominion
is not without limitation or constraints. In Genesis 2:15, God placed Adam in the Garden of Eden to work
it (Heb. עבד ābăd)
and take care of it (Heb. שׁמר
šămăr). The Hebrew word ābăd
communicates the idea of serving another by doing (usually physical) work,19 whereas šămăr
communicates the general idea of ‘paying close attention’ but more specifically,
is used to refer to ensuring conformity to a law, code or covenant, and to the responsibility
one has for another person or thing (cf. Gen. 30:31; 1 Sam. 26:16; Isa. 21:11).20
Indeed, the reason why God’s ‘pleasant field’ will be made ‘into
a desolate wasteland … parched and desolate’ is because ‘there
is no one who cares’ (Jer. 12:10–11). Thus, mankind has the active responsibility
to care about the world, look after it, and ensure that the natural resources God
has supplied us with are not misused or abused, or that they are not used in a way
that is detrimental to other humans. In short, God has appointed mankind to act
as stewards of His creation.
In the context of the natural world, human stewardship comprises the active management
and utilization of the earth’s natural resources for the common benefit of
human society in a sustainable way.
In the context of the natural world, human stewardship comprises the active management
and utilization of the earth’s natural resources for the common benefit of
human society in a sustainable way. Natural resources include land and water resources;
fish, livestock and other animals and animal products; forests and other vegetation
that could be used for food, clothing or building materials; minerals, precious
metals and gems, as well as fossil fuels and any other naturally occurring substances
of potential value or use. By ‘active management’, we mean human intervention,
investment, development, farming and the application of science and technology.
By ‘utilization’, we mean the process of determining which of the various
possible uses of a resource amount to the best or most efficient application. Utilization
of resources should also be directed to the common benefit of human society such
that one society or community should not benefit at the expense of another (e.g.
mining materials for the benefit of one community but polluting or destroying the
water resources of another community), and should be sustainable in the sense that
it can be maintained over a substantial period of time because the resource is abundant
or self-replenishing, and the source of the resource is not destroyed and does not
suffer from any lasting detrimental effects. Much of this should be common sense:
there is clearly no future in burning your own house down, poisoning the well you
drink from, or destroying your own food supply!
Unfortunately, there have been many people and companies who have indeed wrongly
exploited natural resources and caused lasting and significant damage to the environment.
Jeremiah 12:4 indicates that the animals and birds have
perished because the people who live in the land are wicked. Nevertheless, those
who do so will not go unpunished. God will judge those who damage and destroy the
earth. When Christ returns to judge people for their sin, this includes judging
‘those who destroy the earth’ (Rev 11:18). As Ian Hore-Lacy rightly notes, ‘[stewardship]
can never be allowed to mean that we, made in God’s image, treat God’s
creation with any less respect than he does,’21 but adds that it ‘also means that meeting
the needs of all humans, made in God’s image, must be a very high
priority.’ And that ‘Environmental concern must not displace our mediation
of God’s provision.’22
As stewards, it is surely our responsibility to ensure that several billion more
people—all made in God’s image—have better access to food, water,
basic materials and energy.
Overpopulation?
That the earth is overpopulated and that this excess of human beings has caused
mass destruction to the environment via overconsumption and pollution is a common
view among both Christians and non-Christians. But this is by no means a recent
idea. Around AD 200, Tertullian wrote:
‘Everything has been visited, everything known, everything exploited. Now
pleasant estates obliterate the famous wilderness areas of the past. Plowed fields
have replaced forests, domesticated animals have dispersed wild life. Beaches are
plowed, mountains smoothed and swamps drained. There are as many cities as, in former
years, there were dwellings. Islands do not frighten, nor cliffs deter. Everywhere
there are buildings, everywhere people, everywhere communities, everywhere life
… Proof [of this crowding] is the density of human beings. We weigh upon
the world; its resources hardly suffice to support us. As our needs grow larger,
so do our protests, that already nature does not sustain us. In truth, plague, famine,
wars and earthquakes must be regarded as a blessing to civilization, since they
prune away the luxuriant growth of the human race.’23
In 1973, Catholic scholar Arthur McCormack wrote that ‘The population explosion
of the second half of the twentieth century gives rise to one of the most serious
and crucial problems of our day.’24
McCormack asserted that many Christians are interested in the ‘population
explosion’, because they rely on a ‘false notion of Providence’
and ‘think—or perhaps “feel” … —that God will
provide, that we should not look too far into the future, that population projections
may turn out to be as wrong in the future as they have been in the past.’24
McCormack was convinced the earth’s population would soon become unsustainable
and that the introduction of either voluntary or forced population restriction measures
was inevitable.25
In more recent times, David Francis, columnist with the Christian Science Monitor,
wrote that unless the soaring population growth is not reversed, it ‘will
have huge economic, environmental, and political impacts on most people alive today.’26
The stimulus behind such visions appears to be an acceptance of the view that human
beings are no different to the rest of creation, and that all of creation is equally
blessed by God. In other words, human beings have no more rights than any other
animal, nor do they have any special relationship with God. Calvin DeWitt’s
explanation is typical of those who hold to this view:
‘God’s blessed expectation for the populations of other creatures helps
put our human population into context. We, and they, are blessed. We, and they,
are to reproduce, develop our kinds, and fulfill the earth to its God-intended completeness
… Our own population joins with the populations of the other creatures God
has made, participating one with another in the blessed expectation of reproducing
and increasing our kinds, biologically and ecologically developing our kinds, and
fulfilling the earth to its God-intended completeness, and … our own human
kind enjoys this blessed expectation not only ourselves but also for the populations
of all God’s creatures. It is here that we come to our present profound difficulty.
Increasingly we people are occupying the land to the exclusion and extinction of
the other creatures. This leads us to ask, “Does our God-given blessing of
stewardship of creation grant us license to deny creatures God’s blessing
of fruitfulness and fulfillment? May we take this blessing of reflective rule to
negate God’s blessing to the fish of the sea and the birds of the air?”
We have come to a time when the impact of humankind—our exploding number multiplied
by the power each wields and the defilement each brings—not only denies the
creatures fruitfulness and fulfillment but also extinguishes increasing numbers
of them from the face of earth.’27
Note the very negative view of humanity that DeWitt presents in this passage: human
beings wield unchecked power, defile the environment, and cause mass extinction.
But, as Beisner has pointed out, ‘to fear population growth and its impact
on resources and the environment is [to] think more like Lot than like Abram.’
Lot chose the best land, while Abram took what was left (Gen. 13:10–18). ‘Lot’s eyes focused on
material circumstances, Abram’s on the ability of God to bless his servant
regardless of circumstances. Lot’s decision was driven by his thoughts about
the capacity of the land; Abram’s by his faith in God.’28 Indeed, Abram and Lot parted ways precisely because
they thought the land could not support their households and livestock. After Abram
was left with the less fertile land rejected by Lot, God promised him that his offspring
would be ‘like the dust of the earth’—virtually uncountable. Despite
Abram’s and Lot’s present circumstances, this promise to significantly
increase the world’s population is explicitly identified by God as a blessing
and goes against the belief that unchecked population increases are somehow a violation
of God’s plan.29
Indeed, no one worries, for example, about chickens going extinct, even though Americans
alone now slaughter over six billion of them each year. Therefore, it appears that
the best way to ensure the survival of any particular species is to find a commercial
use for it.
Moreover, DeWitt’s argument ‘commits the fallacy of false choice, treating
man’s filling up the earth as if it were exclusive of other creatures’
doing so.’ This does not logically follow. In fact, the idea that human population
growth has been detrimental to the flourishing of other creatures is not supported
by the empirical evidence. Furthermore, to assume ‘that continued human population
growth must result in more species extinctions, and then to argue on that basis
that continued human population growth is therefore not consistent with God’s
blessing/command for other creatures to multiply is to assume the conclusion to
prove the conclusion—to argue in a circle.’29 In reality,
there is no reason why continued human population growth cannot go hand in hand
with the continued growth of other creatures. In fact, history has shown that people
have not only been able to preserve various species from extinction, but also multiply
their numbers far beyond what would naturally occur.30 This is the case with any of the animal breeds
that humans have chosen to domesticate or to use for commercial purposes. Indeed,
no one worries, for example, about chickens going extinct, even though Americans
alone now slaughter over six billion of them each year. Therefore, it appears that
the best way to ensure the survival of any particular species is to find a commercial
use for it.30
In any case, the notion of a population explosion is grossly exaggerated and the
earth is nowhere near becoming full. Most countries in the developed world have
birth rates well below the replacement rate. As Mark Steyn has pointed out, ‘the
developed world’s population is shrinking faster than any human society not
in the grip of war or disease has ever shrunk.’30 In failing to
have enough children developed countries are not only disobeying God’s command
to ‘fill the earth’ (Gen. 1:28), they are effectively committing national suicide.
According to the 2006 revision of the United Nation’s World Population Prospects,
total world population is predicted to peak in around 2050 at approximately 9–10
billion, before it is expected to decline.31
Steyn noted that ‘Birth rates in the so-called ‘overcrowded’ parts
of the world are already 2.9 [births per woman] and falling. India has a quickly
growing middle class and declining fertility.’32 China, also, will soon have an aging and declining
population as it starts to reap the consequences of its ‘one child’
policy.33 This led Steyn
to conclude that human beings are the real dwindling resource, not oil: ‘We’re
the endangered species, not the spotted owl,’34 and that ‘much of the planet will be uninhabited
long before it is uninhabitable.’35
Indeed, even today, human settlements presently occupy only about two percent of
the earth’s land mass, excluding the continent of Antarctica.35
Ultimately, attitudes to human population growth are determined by a person’s
worldview. Most environmentalists assume that people are principally consumers and
polluters. Feminist environmentalist and leftist activist Riane Eisler explains:
‘For behind soil erosion, desertification, air and water pollution, and all
the other ecological, social, and political stresses of our time lies the pressure
of more and more people on finite land and other resources, of increasing numbers
of factories, cars, trucks, and other sources of pollution required to provide all
these people with goods, and the worsening tensions that their needs and aspirations
fuel.’36
In other words, human society is fundamentally destructive! Yet a truly biblical
worldview sees people as principally intelligent, well-meaning, creative producers
and stewards, because that is the way God created them, and the way they are being
transformed through the redeeming work of Christ.37
Similarly, environmentalists believe that human population growth will strip the
earth of its natural resources and smother it with pollution. A truly biblical worldview
holds that continued population growth will result in the increased abundance of
resources, rather than in their depletion, and in a cleaner, more developed environment
better suited to human habitation, rather than a polluted and poisoned Earth.38
Thus, the Christian worldview leads to a very different prediction to that of the
modern environmental movement:
‘ … people, because God made them in his image to be creative and productive,
because he gave them creative minds like his, can bring order out of chaos, and
higher order out of lower order, actually making more resources than we consume.
So the biblical view of human beings and the universe predicts that, as we apply
our minds to raw materials, scarcity of resources will decline … And that
is precisely what we find when we look at history.’39
Conclusion
Many non-Christians would rather bow before Mother Nature than acknowledge their
Father God. They worship creation instead of the Creator (Rom. 1:25). Of course, the same cannot be said of most Christians.
They rightly point out that our God given role is to act as God’s stewards
of creation and to take care of it, not abuse it or destroy it. But in many cases,
they fail to acknowledge God’s order in creation, and that mankind has dominion
over all.
In the second and third parts of this series, the focus is on the Christian view
of development and environmentalism, as well as the Christian response to the perceived
threat of climate change.
Readers’ comments
Steve B., New Zealand, 6 August 2010
Thank you very much for this well written article that puts many of the issues surrounding matters like climate change into a Biblically sound perspective. Much appreciated.
Greg F., Australia, 7 August 2010
I would like to thank CMI for this comprehensive article on the issue of man’s real involvement in ‘climate change’. I am looking forward to parts 2 and 3. |
Related articles
Further reading
References
- Erickson, M.J., Christian Theology, 2nd
ed., Baker, Grand Rapids, MI, p. 329, 1998. Return to text.
- See also Psalm 104:29–30. Return to text.
- Thiessen, H.C., Lectures in Systematic Theology,
rev. ed., Eerdmans, Grand Rapids, MI, p. 120, 1979. Return to text.
- Erickson, ref. 1, p. 337. Return to text.
- Thiessen, ref. 3, p. 122. Return to text.
- Henry, C.F.H., God, Revelation and Authority, 6 volumes,
Crossway, Wheaton, IL, 6:459, 1999. Return to text.
- Smith, H.B.,
Cosmic and universal death from Adam’s Fall: an exegesis of Romans 8:19 23a, J. Creation 21(1):75–85,
2007. Return to text.
- This is a physically correct description in the reference
frame of the earth; in the reference frame of the solar system, the earth stopped
rotating, which explains why the moon also appeared to stand still.
Return to text.
- According to the Roman system of reckoning time used here,
‘the sixth hour’ and ‘the ninth hour’ refer to midday and
three o’clock in the afternoon respectively (Hagner, D.A., Matthew 14–28, WBC, Word, Dallas, TX, p. 843,
1995). Return to text.
- Not including an algal bloom—see Grigg, R.,
The ten plagues of Egypt: Miracles or Mother Nature ? Creation
27(1):34–38, 2004. Return to text.
- Goldsworthy, G., According to Plan, pp. 121–122,
IVP, Leicester, 2002. Return to text.
- Although this is applied as a messianic psalm by various
New Testament writers in which the ‘son of man’ title is applied to
Christ, its original meaning referred to mankind’s relationship to God and
the rest of creation. Return to text.
- DeWitt, C., in ‘Foreword’ to Bratton, S.P.,
Six Billion and More, Westminster/John Knox, Louisville, KY, p. 9, 1992. Return to text.
- Pope, M. and Edgar, B., Climate Change: Problem or Opportunity?
Understanding Climate Change in the Context of the Gospel; www.iscast.org.au/pdf/edgar.pdf.
Original emphasis. Return to text.
- The Apostles’ Creed states: ‘Jesus Christ, his
only begotten Son, our Lord: Who was conceived by the Holy Ghost, born of the Virgin
Mary.’ The Nicene Creed states: ‘Jesus Christ, the son of God, begotten
from the father, only-begotten, that is from the being of the father, God from God,
light from light, true God from True God, begotten not made … ’ Furthermore,
Gen. 1:26, John 1:1–3, Col. 1:16 and 1 Cor. 8:6 all indicate that Christ was a participant
in creation, not its product. Return to text.
- See also the entries for כּבשׁ
and רדה in Koehler, L. et al.,
The Hebrew and Aramaic Lexicon of the Old Testament (HALOT) L., E.J. Brill,
Leiden, 2002. Return to text.
- Beisner, E.C., Imago Dei and the population debate, TrinJ
18(2):184–185, Fall 1997. Return to text.
- Schaeffer, F.A., Pollution and the death of man, in The
Complete Works of Francis Schaeffer, 5 volumes, Crossway Books, Wheaton, IL,
5:41–42, 1982. Return to text.
- See entry for עבד
in Brown, F., Driver, S.R. and Briggs, C.A., A Hebrew and English Lexicon of the
Old Testament, Hendrickson, UK, 1996. Return to text.
- See entry for שׁמר
in HALOT. Return to text.
- Hore-Lacy, I., Responsible Dominion: A Christian Approach
to Sustainable Development, Regent College Publishing, Vancouver,
BC, p. 26, 2006. Return to text.
- Hore-Lacy, ref. 21, original emphasis.
Return to text.
- Tertullian, Opera monastic, as cited in Susan Power
Bratton, Six Billion & More: Human Population Regulation and Christian Ethics,
Westminster, Louisville, KY, p. 76, 1992. Return to text.
- McCormack, A., The Population Explosion: A Christian
Concern, Harper & Row, NY, p. 1, 1973. Return to text.
- McCormack, ref. 24, pp. 6–7. Return
to text.
- Francis, D., Fuse on the ‘population bomb’ has
been relit, Christian Science Monitor 99:17, 21 May 2007.
Return to text.
- DeWitt in Bratton, ref. 13, pp. 10–11.
Return to text.
- Beisner, ref. 17, p. 174. Return to text.
- Beisner, ref. 17, p. 192. Return to text.
- Steyn, M., America Alone, Regnery, Washington DC,
p. 9, 2006. Return to text.
- World Population Prospects: The 2006 Revision—Highlights,
p. 1, United Nations, Department of Economic and Social Affairs, NY, 2007; www.un.org/esa/population/publications/wpp2006/WPP2006_Highlights_rev.pdf.
Return to text.
- Steyn, ref. 30, p. 14. Return to text.
- Steyn, ref. 30, pp. 5, 30. Return to
text.
- Steyn, ref. 30, p. 7. Return to text.
- Beisner, ref. 17, p. 197. Return to text.
- Beisner, ref. 17, p. 177. Return to text.
- Beisner, ref. 17, pp. 195–196.
Return to text.
- Beisner, ref. 17, pp. 189–190 Return
to text.
- Beisner, ref. 17, p. 183. Return to text.
| Expand this site. Besides the 7,000 fully searchable articles on this site, we want to add many more ways to reach a media-soaked culture. But it requires expertise to do it. Help us expand our methods of outreach.  | | |
|