Biblical Creation Stewardship:

Doctrine, Science, and Practice in a World that has forgotten God.

Mark T. Kennedy, P.E.
Associate Professor of Environmental Engineering
Department of Engineering, Geneva College
June 23, 2021

Executive Summary
This is a draft of my final paper. If you feel a chill, put on a sweater or a throw and check the
windows. If they are all closed, then it is probably just the draft from this paper, which admittedly is
still a little drafty. I appreciate you taking the time to bundle up and give this a read and I welcome
your comments and criticisms. You should also know that I hated reading most of the material on
eco-heresies and other modernist tripe, and I am glad it is over. There are reasons why some people
go into engineering and others go into liberal arts and theologies. I’ll be glad to stay on the terra
firma of the Word of God or the Book of God’s Works (i.e., operational science) once again.

Introduction
The Faculty Personnel Committee (FPC) met on Wednesday, November 13, 2019 to complete
my 5-year review. I prepared a review package and was present for an interview on that day. The
conclusion of this review was a recommendation that I be continued in my faculty position at Geneva
College (see Appendix A) with the following proviso:
“…that Mark Kennedy be continued with the request that at his year-end review with
Dr. Comer, Mr. Kennedy will articulate in writing clear evidence of integration and how
his views of creation align with the Foundational Concepts. At the conclusion of this
annual review, documentation of integration will be passed on to FPC.”
The FPC provided further clarification in the Continuation Recommendation as follows:
“…the FPC wants to see evidence that there has been faculty development in the area
of faith integration over the course of the year. They are particularly interested in seeing
depth and breadth of reading specifically in the area. This reading would focus on but
not be limited to, the view of creation and stewardship of the earth. The committee
would also want to see the theological underpinning of these two topics and engineering
in general. It is suggested that this documentation be read by colleagues in his
department and their input solicited.”
The formal recommendation proviso and the subsequent clarification will each be addressed in turn in
this paper. The first (i.e., the continuation recommendation) refers to Geneva’s Foundational
Concepts (see Appendix B), and the most relevant paragraphs are the Christian View of the Universe
and the Christian View of Mankind.
The Christian View of the Universe.
The universe, as the creation of God, serves to reveal God; and its revelation is true, valid, and

Page 1 of 37
 useful in itself. The created universe, being full of God's glory, is to be understood,
appreciated, ruled and used by us. God in his goodness has bestowed upon us the ability to
discover and use truths about the universe, which may be learned irrespective of a person's
spiritual relationship with Him. In seeking to understand the truth of the universe in all of its
dimensions, we are responsible to use every faculty and effort, but the facts of the universe
can be understood in the fullest sense only when viewed in relationship to God. Ultimate
judgments must finally be made in the light of God's Word, the Holy Scripture, which is the
only adequate and inerrant standard of truth.
The Christian View of Mankind.
Men and women are unique among all living creatures, being distinguished from the animals
by being created in the image of God as rational, moral and spiritual beings. The purpose of
human life is to glorify and to enjoy God, and only when life is so viewed can the highest
happiness, welfare and honor be experienced. We are created as immortal beings. Earthly life
is therefore preparatory to the life after death and should not be regarded as an end in itself,
though as God's creation the present earthly life has a real value of its own.
As stated above in The Christian View of the Universe, we are to use every faculty and effort
to understand the truth of the cosmos, but this can only be done fully in light of God’s Word, the
Holy Scripture, which is the only adequate and inerrant standard of truth (my emphasis). Much use
has been made of the word “science”, which has become bloated to mean almost anything in our
modern society and is used to lend credence to almost any cause. This is particularly true in the
environmental movement. By submitting to God’s revelation on a subject and opening one’s heart
and mind, with the help of the Holy Spirit to understand what the will of God is, one can guard
oneself from the false philosophies of this world and walk as children of light (Ephesians 5). In
scientific pursuits, this means more than just collecting and analyzing data. All facts and data are
interpreted, and this is true in any field of endeavor – health care, politics, the environment, etc.
There are no “raw facts” waiting to be discovered by objective, dispassionate observers. The
meaning of the data, its significance and purpose, must be discerned through the lens of scripture and
revelation of the Holy Spirit. Worldly interpretations and methods will mislead. Ultimate judgments
must finally be made in the light of God's Word, the Holy Scripture, which is the only adequate and
inerrant standard of truth.
Therefore, to understand Environmental Science, Creation, and Stewardship, theological
understanding flowing from the revelation of Scripture must take precedence rather than worldly or
pagan ideologies. This is the basis of the Foundational Concepts: Theology First. I will begin with
two Theological Systematics: Cosmology and Anthropology.
Biblical Cosmology

Cosmology is the study of the cosmos (the created order) but creation is a truth that cannot be
proven by naturalistic means. Physical science can observe and record changes, but it knows nothing
of origins. The doctrine of Creation depends entirely upon revelation in Scripture. Scripture
enlightens true science and makes its explanations of the universe meaningful. Some basic axioms
regarding creation are listed as follows (Strong, Systematic Theology, Vol. 2):

Page 2 of 37
1. Creation is not a fashioning of preexisting materials, nor an emanation from the substance of
God, but is a making of that to exist which once did not exist, either in form or substance (i.e.,
ex nihilo).

2. Creation is not an instinctive or necessary process of the divine nature but is the free act God
to manifest His own glory (i.e., God was not compelled or required to create by any force
outside Himself).

3. Creation is the act of the triune God. All the persons of the Trinity, themselves uncreated,
have a part in creation: the Father as the originating, the Son as the mediating, and the Spirit
as the realizing cause. Creation is not a mere manufacturing; it is a spiritual act.

4. The fall of man into sin resulted in the curse of God on both man and creation. Neither man
nor creation are “good” in the way they were prior to the fall. Death comes to all men (for the
Christian, in the hope of the resurrection), and God will create a new heavens and new earth at
the end of days.

Scriptural Proofs (Berkhof, Systematic Theology, p 138)

Scriptural proofs for the doctrine of creation are found throughout the Bible. There is an
abundance of clear and unequivocal statements that speak of the creation of the world as
historical fact, beginning with the first two chapters of Genesis. These chapters certainly
appear to the unbiased reader as a historical narrative, and the many cross-references scattered
throughout the Bible do not regard them in any other light. They all refer to creation as a fact
of history; notably Exodus 20:11:

“For in six days the LORD made heaven and earth, the sea, and all that is in
them, and rested on the seventh day. Therefore, the LORD blessed the Sabbath
day and made it holy.”

A sample of the various passages touching on creation are organized as follows:

(1) God’s omnipotence in the work of creation, Isa 40:26,28; Amos 4:13.
(2) God’s infinite exaltation above and apart from nature, Ps 90:2; 102:26,27; Acts 17:24.
(3) God’s wisdom in the work of creation, Isa 40:12-14; Jer 10:12-16; John 1:3;
(4) God’s sovereignty and purpose in creation, Isa 43:7; Rom 1:25.
(5) Creation as God’s exclusive work, Isa 42:5; 45:18; I Cor 11:9; Col 1:16; Rev 4:11; 10:6.
(6) God’s pledge to renew all things, Isa 65:17; 66:22; Eze 47:12; Matt 19:28; 2 Cor 5:17;
Heb 1:11-12; 2 Pet 3:13; Rev 21:1-5

Page 3 of 37
 An excellent summary is found in Nehemiah 9:6:

“You are the  LORD, you alone. You have made heaven, the heaven of
heavens, with all their host,  the earth and all that is on it, the seas and all that is
in them; and you preserve all of them; and the host of heaven worships you.”

Biblical Anthropology

Anthropology is the study of man. In Scripture, man is the crown of creation and the object of
God’s special care. God’s revelation in Scripture is given to man, and it is a revelation about which
man is vitally concerned. Scripture is not a revelation of God in the abstract, but a revelation of God
in relation to His creatures, and particularly in relation to man. It is a record of God’s dealings with
people, and a revelation of the redemption which God has prepared for, and for which He seeks to
prepare, man. This is why man occupies a place of central importance in Scripture, and why we must
understand our relationship to God.

General Anthropology includes all those sciences which have men as the object of study. These
sciences concern themselves with the origin and history of mankind, physiology, psychology, culture,
language, and so on. Theological Anthropology can acknowledge these aspects of mankind but is
principally concerned only with what the Bible says respecting man and his relationship to God. Its
source is Scripture alone and evaluates the teachings of human experience in the light of God’s Word.
Some basic axioms regarding Anthropology are listed as follows (Berkhof, Systematic Theology, Part
2):

1. Man’s creation was preceded by solemn Divine counsel. Gen. 1:26 “Let us make man in our
image, after our likeness”.

2. The creation of man was an immediate act of God. There was no gradual development or
“springing forth” from something as with the plants and animals.

3. Man was created in God’s image. Other living creation comes from “their kind” but man is
made “in our image, after our likeness.” As it is the image of God being considered, the
distinction cannot be overstated.

4. The body and soul of man are clearly distinguished.

5. Man is immediately placed in an exalted position. Man stands above all the created orders.
God has assigned him dominion over all creatures. Therefore, it is his duty and privilege to
make all nature and all the created beings that were placed under his rule, subservient to his
will and purpose, in order that he might magnify the almighty Creator and Lord of the
universe, Gen. 1:28; Ps. 8:4-9.

6. Man is fallen in sin and rebellion against God resulting in the death of all men and God’s
curse on all creation.

Page 4 of 37
 Scriptural Proofs (Berkhof, Systematic Theology, p 138)
Scriptural proofs for the doctrines of anthropology are found throughout the Bible. They
speak of the unique creation and value of people even to the point of distinguishing man’s
flesh from that of the rest of creation (1 Cor. 15:39). This immeasurable value flows from the
will and love of God set upon us (Sos. 2:4; Lk. 15:7ff; Rom. 5:8; Eph. 3:18-19; Heb. 12:2).
Redeemed man’s future dwelling with God is anxiously anticipated by God, the angels, and
even inanimate creation, notably at Romans 8:19-21:

“For the creation waits with eager longing for the revealing of the sons of God. For
the creation was subjected to futility, not willingly, but because of him who subjected
it, in hope that the creation itself will be set free from its bondage to corruption and
obtain the freedom of the glory of the children of God.”

And again in 1 Peter 1:10-12:

“Concerning this salvation, the prophets who prophesied about the grace that was to
be yours searched and inquired carefully, inquiring what person or time the Spirit of
Christ in them was indicating when he predicted the sufferings of Christ and the
subsequent glories. It was revealed to them that they were serving not themselves but
you, in the things that have now been announced to you through those who preached
the good news to you by the Holy Spirit sent from heaven, things into which angels
long to look.”

A sample of the various passages touching on anthropology are organized as follows:

(1) The image of God in man, Gen 5:1; 9:6; I Cor 11:7; Col 3:10; Jas 3:9.
(2) The original righteousness of created man, Gen 1:31; Eccl 7:29.
(3) Man is spiritual, Num 16:22; Job 32:8; Pro 20:27; Zec 12:1; Heb 12:9; Rev 22:6.
(4) Man’s exalted position in creation, Gen 1:26-28; 9:1ff; Ps 8:4-9; Heb 1:14.
(5) Man’s fallen nature in sin, Gen 3:22; 6:5; 8:21; Mk 7:21; Lk 6:45; 11:29; John 3:19.
(6) Redeemed man’s glorious future with God, Ps 118:27; Pro 4:18; Matt 13:43; Rev
21:1ff.
It was necessary to review and establish basic Biblical Cosmology and Anthropology to
provide an adequate foundation for instruction about the universe as guided by the Foundational
Concepts. In particular, the section on the Christian View of the Universe, which states:
1. … the facts of the universe can be understood in the fullest sense only when viewed in
relationship to God, and,

2. Ultimate judgments must finally be made in the light of God's Word, the Holy
Scripture, which is the only adequate and inerrant standard of truth.

Page 5 of 37
 Having begun with this theological underpinning, I will now move on to the state of
Environmental Science and applications regarding Christian stewardship of creation.

Environmental Science
Environmental Science, like other sciences in our post-modern, post-Christian culture, has
been taken over by materialists and secularists. However, due to the intimate nature of the natural
environment on practical living and ecology, spiritistic and political elements are also present. All
available textbooks on the subject, including those written by professing Christians, contain
assertions of fact such as:
 The world is in an environmental crisis
 Resource use is unsustainable
 The world is overpopulated
 Food supplies are in danger
 Resources are disappearing
 America is the primary culprit for environmental degradation because of our wealth and
affluence
 Government control of the economy is necessary to prevent global collapse
Proper stewardship of the earth means ascribing to all these claims and surrendering one’s freedom of
action to a policy elite for the common good.
In my Environmental Science lectures, I do use a standard textbook because it is important for
our students to understand the state of the science in the popular modern age. However, the false
textbook teachings are challenged by emphasizing scriptural truth and objective environmental data.
Assessing the earth’s environmental data is fairly straightforward since there are few authoritative
data sources (mostly governmental). The data overwhelmingly indicate a remarkable improvement in
the levels of pollution, human prosperity, animal habitat, and human-instituted remediation activities.
There is much to be grateful for and most (if not all) the popular environmental crises are false
propaganda. Truth-telling is important, but if our grip on truth is lost, how can “true truth” be
discerned? My teaching emphasizes real data and trends and distinguishes from pop-culture
narratives primarily by emphasizing biblical principles for assessing the data. Data assessment and
subsequent actions in light of biblical revelation form the basis for Christian Creation Stewardship.
That is, how we should respond to current environmental conditions in light of our obedience to God.
The primary biblical principles (as opposed to the false textbook principles) are listed as follows:

1. Creation Stewardship is a command of God.

Creation Stewardship is one reason God has given man dominion over the earth. One cannot steward
that over which one does not also control; dominion and stewardship are not different concepts. Stewardship
is only possible where dominion exists. God is the owner as stated in Psalm 24: 1-2,
“The earth is the Lord’s, and everything in it, the world, and all who live in it; for he founded it
upon the seas and established it upon the waters.”

Page 6 of 37
The working out of the creation mandate must be done in light of the fall of mankind into sin and rebellion and
God’s subsequent curse upon creation. Creation is not cursed because man is despoiling it (although that does
happen) but because of “the will of Him who subjected it” (Rom 8). Therefore, man is commanded (both
Christian and non-Christian) to exercise dominion and seek a “substantial healing” (Schaeffer, 1992) for an
environment that is not as it should be. Christians are to use wisdom to understand what is wrong and use wise
means to address and alleviate problems in keeping with our limitations. Nature, unimproved and untouched
by man, is no better off than the “noble savage” would be without the gospel. We are rather, called to move
from wilderness (formerly a pejorative term) to garden. Ultimately, the New Jerusalem is a garden city.

2. Resources are provided by God for people to use.

Resources are to be used to fulfill the creation mandate. Ignoring resources and just accepting a cursed
environment and suffering are to hold God in contempt. We commonly cite John Calvin saying,

“But if the Lord has been pleased to assist us by the work and ministry of the ungodly in
physics, dialectics, mathematics, and other similar sciences, let us avail ourselves of it,
lest, by neglecting the gifts of God spontaneously offered to us, we be justly punished for
our sloth.” ” (John Calvin’s Institutes  II.ii.16)
Blocking access to resources for the sake of unnamed “future generations” shows no love or compassion on
those with real needs living now. We are called to creatively confront the effects of our fallen world, not to
acquiesce to them. We are not to see ourselves as out of step with an impersonal, uncaring “mother nature”,
but instead as being loved by God in whose image we are made. We do not live merely on such fruits, nuts,
and plants as nature might provide without our aid, but on every word that proceeds from the mouth of God
(Matt 4: 4) and that word instructs us to plow against thorns and thistles, dig iron and copper from the hills,
and to love our neighbor enough to struggle for their spiritual and physical survival. Addressing real human
needs and implementing effective (though imperfect in this world) solutions can certainly mean changing the
face of nature. Where nature alone sets the terms for human existence, each person will be treated “naturally”,
i.e., without respect for real needs arising out a life in a fallen world (Schaeffer, p 118).

3. We are sustained and cared for by God.

We are sustained and cared for by God through myriads of means; some we understand, some are
surprising, few can be predicted, most are beyond our comprehension. The Apostle Paul said to the men of
Athens (Acts 17),

“And he made from one man every nation of mankind to live on all the face of the earth,
having determined allotted periods and the boundaries of their dwelling place, that they
should seek God, and perhaps feel their way toward him and find him. Yet he is actually
not far from each one of us,  for ‘In him we live and move and have our being.’”
Again, in Psalm 65:

“You care for the land and water it;  you enrich it abundantly.
The streams of God are filled with water to provide the people with grain,
     for so you have ordained it.
You drench its furrows and level its ridges;
     you soften it with showers and bless its crops.
You crown the year with your bounty,

Page 7 of 37
      and your carts overflow with abundance.
The grasslands of the wilderness overflow;
     the hills are clothed with gladness.
The meadows are covered with flocks and the valleys are mantled with grain;
     they shout for joy and sing.”
Notice that these acts of God are not miraculous in the ex-nihlo sense. God is working
through people; people who are acting as His stewards exercising dominion over nature. People built
the cities, created cultures, planted grain, and managed flocks of animals. God is properly given the
glory and people are His co-workers, properly working the works of God as His stewards.
A common observation of naturalistic environmental science is that mineral resources will not
last forever, and that “future generations” ought to be given access to them by controlling access in
the present. This is faithless, materialistic folly on display. Even if the earth were a hollow ball filled
with oil, and we used only one gallon per day, eventually we would run out. Christians need not be
troubled by this kind of reductio ad absurdum.
Basic economics can help us understand the nature of scarcity and how people have always
coped with shortages. An item (e.g., oil?) is considered scarce when the demand exceeds the supply.
The price goes up until the demand is lowered to meet the supply. If the price is high enough, more
of the item is developed or a cheaper substitute is found. Human ingenuity and creativity result in
new resources and the cycle repeats itself. All this is from God.
“I have seen the business that God has given to the children of man to be busy with.  He
has made everything beautiful in its time. Also, he has put eternity into man’s heart, yet
so that he cannot find out what God has done from the beginning to the end.  I perceived
that there is nothing better for them than to be joyful and to do good as long as they
live; also, that everyone should eat and drink and take pleasure in all his toil—this is
God’s gift to man. (Ecc 3:10-13)
This is why commodity prices fluctuate but tend to decrease over time (USGS, 2012). The
United States is the world’s leading producer of oil because high oil prices made the development of
innovated fracking technology worthwhile to investors. The price of crude oil used to be over $100
per barrel. As of this writing (Dec 29, 2020) it was $48 per barrel.
Because of this supply/demand/innovation dynamic, no resource will ever completely run out
in the foreseeable future (Simon, 1996). Julian Simon’s conclusions in light of rational time
economics, are completely in accord with the testimony of Scripture; that God provides for His
people over all ages. The apocalyptic, dystopian predictions of Malthusians (i.e., those who believe
the earth will run out of resources in the extreme future) will not have enough time for that sad end to
occur. Even the Sun will burn out eventually (viewed naturalistically) and this world will not last
forever.

4. People are Eternal and Priceless; Creation is not.

Because people are made in the image of God and will live forever (in either heaven or hell),
and, because Jesus came into the world to save sinners (1 Tim 1:15), and, because the ultimate event
Page 8 of 37
revealed in scripture at the end of time is the marriage of the lamb and a new heaven and earth (Rev
21), therefore: a Christian ought to understand that people are priceless and worth more than all the
Panda Bears that have ever lived (we are worth more than many sparrows). This world will be
replaced (“rolled up like a garment”) as stated in Psalm 102:
“Of old you laid the foundation of the earth, and the heavens are the work of your
hands. They will perish, but you will remain; they will all wear out like a garment. You
will change them like a robe, and they will pass away, but you are the same, and your
years have no end. The children of your servants shall dwell secure; their offspring shall
be established before you.
Note also that the “children of your servants shall dwell secure”. God has his people foremost in
mind. There is a secure home for the redeemed. Jesus said (John 14),
“I go and prepare a place for you, I will come again and will take you to myself, that
where I am you may be also.”
One emphasis in scripture when describing the glory to come is the word “new”. The new world is
described in part (Rev 21),
“Then I saw a new heaven and a new earth, for the first heaven and the first earth had
passed away, and the sea was no more.  And I saw the holy city, new Jerusalem, coming
down out of heaven from God, prepared as a bride adorned for her husband.  And I
heard a loud voice from the throne saying, “Behold, the dwelling place of God is with
man. He will dwell with them, and they will be his people and God himself will be with
them as their God.
And further,
“And he who was seated on the throne said, “Behold, I am making all things new.” Also
he said, “Write this down, for these words are trustworthy and true.”
This description of the future heaven and earth is in keeping with the future of redeemed
people; we will also be made new and suited for a new existence. This is clearly described by the
Apostle Paul in 1 Corinthians 15 where he says:
So will it be with the resurrection of the dead: What is sown is perishable; it is raised
imperishable.  It is sown in dishonor; it is raised in glory. It is sown in weakness; it is
raised in power.  It is sown a natural body; it is raised a spiritual body. 
And continuing:
Now I declare to you, brothers, that flesh and blood cannot inherit the kingdom of God,
nor does the perishable inherit the imperishable. Listen, I tell you a mystery: We will not
all sleep, but we will all be changed—  in an instant, in the twinkling of an eye, at the last
trumpet. For the trumpet will sound, the dead will be raised imperishable, and we will be
changed.  For the perishable must be clothed with the imperishable, and the mortal with
immortality. When the perishable has been clothed with the imperishable and the mortal

Page 9 of 37
 with immortality, then the saying that is written will come to pass: “Death has been
swallowed up in victory.”
There has been much written decrying “anthropocentric” views of scripture. Stung by such
criticisms, some Christians have advocated a “theocentric” view of scripture. Religious naturalists
speak instead of “earth-centered” exegeses. The impetus of both these latter views is to inject a
preferred interpretive worldview into the cultural hermeneutic, and this is a blasphemous endeavor.
The actual result of these reinterpretations is not to elevate nature (which does not change) nor to
diminish man (although they do that), but rather, to drive a wedge between Christ and His church.
This is a fearful position (Rev 19:11ff). Careful handling of scripture is imperative and those who
teach are subject to a stricter judgement. Wood, hay, and stubble will be burned up, and gold, silver,
and costly stones will be refined (I Cor 3:10ff).
“Knowing, therefore, the terror of the Lord, we persuade men; but we are well known to
God, and I also trust are well known in your consciences.” NKJV 2 Cor 5:11

The Current State of Environmental Science Curricula.

Environmental Science has become an increasingly popular subject because of the increased
interest in environmental stewardship and a general interest in environmental causes. It is also
popular because no introductory course of environmental science study I have found requires any
mathematics or statistics; rather, environmental science textbooks contain concepts drawn from
ecology, earth sciences, and socialist political economics. Unfortunately, these textbooks do not
include references or bibliographic material either, and therefore do not point students towards further
resources for study and research.
We (i.e., Ms. Marjorie Tobias and I) use a standard textbook in environmental science in order
to address the subjects currently in circulation (in “vogue”) that our students will be faced with. Our
text, Environmental Science, by Miller & Spoolman, is the best one available (in our opinion). It
presents facts and environmental issues in a more balanced way than others we have reviewed. In
keeping with other textbooks, the connecting theme is “sustainability”. Three Scientific and Social
Science sustainability principles are offered as follows:
The Three “Scientific” Principles of Sustainability.
1. Solar Energy. The idea here is that the sun is our ultimate energy source and will outlast
terrestrial sources of energy. Therefore, the sustainable option is to go solar (until, of
course, the sun fails as the universe experiences ‘heat death’ – an eventual inevitability in
keeping with the second law of thermodynamics and increasing entropy).

2. Chemical Cycling. Chemical cycling refers to the way all matter is recycled and reused on
our planet. The textbooks all assert that human activity needs to change so that resource
use (i.e., consumption) does not result in resource scarcity for future generations.
Renewable resources (e.g., wood) are distinguished from non-renewable resources (e.g.,

Page 10 of 37
 mineral ores, fossil fuels) for various regulatory schemes. The phenomena of chemical
cycling comes from basic earth science.

3. Biodiversity. Biodiversity includes a) Species Diversity (the number and variety of

species, and breadth of genetic makeup), b) Ecosystem Diversity (the variety of habitats
species live in), and c) Functional Diversity (how species live within ecosystems including
matter and energy pathways within and among species). Maintaining biodiversity is the
goal of sustainable human behaviors. The scientific basis for biodiversity is ecology and
biology, with an emphasis on symbiotic relationships.

The Three “Social-Science” Principles of Sustainability.

1. Economics. Economics studies the flow and generation of wealth in human societies.
Measures such as the Gross Domestic Product (GDP) are used to assess overall economic
health in a large society (e.g., a country). Economics are also used to assign monetary
value and perform cost-benefit analyses for alternative activities. “Sustainable”
economics advocated in environmental science textbooks teaches that Natural Capital (i.e.,
resources) and Natural Services (i.e., natural systems) should be properly included in
economic evaluations. One alternative measure from the GDP that seeks to include such
environmental costs is the Green Economy Progress Index (GEPI), which considers
income, quality of life, equity, and environmental damage. Another alternative measure is
the Human Development Index (HDI), which incorporates life expectancy, education, and
aspects of the GEPI (less gender equity). Full Cost Pricing (FCP) is another concept that
artificially adds environmental costs to goods, raising prices and awareness of the true cost
(to sustainability) of common goods. All these revisionist economic measures are
hampered by the subjectivity needed to assign numeric value to intangibles. Nonetheless,
the HPI and other indices are published annually in the United Nations Human
Development Report (UN HDR, 2020).

2. Politics. Environmental protections and regulations on human activity are to be imposed

by political authority. The better books advocate a win-win compromise where interested
and affected parties cooperate to develop workable, realistic proposals. This is the
American regulatory model. Rarely are individual actions considered sufficient to meet
the needs of the current “crises”, but individual actions are encouraged (e.g., recycling,
reducing water and power waste, and political activism). Biographical sketches of
prominent environmental activists are featured in the environmental “science” textbooks
as exemplars to follow.

3. Ethics. Environmental ethics address the moral dimension: whether an action is right or
wrong / good or evil. Ethics are dependent on worldview, and we teach a Christian
worldview at Geneva College. Alternate worldviews (i.e., non-biblical) are also presented
for information regarding the world we live in, and these are conveniently included in all
the standard textbooks. Environmental science becomes the religion of

Page 11 of 37
 environmentalism” when the environment (i.e., the created cosmos) takes the place of God
in the soul of a person (Rom 1: 18ff).

Much more ethical and moralistic academic work has been performed with respect to
environmental ethics than objective scientific work (i.e., environmental science), and it is the former
that drives policy and media coverage and the imaginations of many of our students. Most of the
worldviews espoused and solutions/actions advocated to ameliorate environmental crises (typically
avoiding whether the crises are genuine) flow from naturalistic or spiritistic (but not Christian)
understandings of the world. I will describe these in the following pages beginning with spiritistic
Ecotheology.
ECO-Theology
Ecotheology is a movement to use theology to critique cultural and social practices affecting
the environment and simultaneously uses environmental science to critique theology and practice.
Any religion or theological standard will do, but most Ecotheology is Christian-based. A goal of
Ecotheology is to become a dimension of all theological reflection, including interfaith dialogue, and
contribute to a “green” spirituality (Conradie, 2014). As expected, there are many nuances of
understanding and application, some going even so far as to place the incarnational Christ into the
created order. This is a variant of Christogenesis sometimes called “deep incarnation” (Deane-
Drummond, 2014). McFague (2008) goes so far as to say the earth is God’s body enveloped by the
presence of the Cosmic Christ.
The ecotheological works I surveyed are all very religious, philosophical, ethereal, and
spooky, and are being churned out in great volume, partly in response to the perceived apocalyptic
crises the world is facing. It is far easier to accept current pop science as fact (along with the
predictions of doom) than to analyze data, use mathematics, bore your audience, and lose funding.
Airing your own opinion and recycling/acknowledging other’s opinions about God, the universe, and
everything, in light of the imminent environmental catastrophe, gets attention (and even advanced
degrees). Chapter titles such as “What Are the Resources for Building a Christian Ethos in a Time of
Ecological Devastation?” (Deane-Drummond, 2014) will grab a reader’s attention and affirm one’s
worst fears. Almost all the works have a strong liberation theological bent. The ecological crisis
gives previously discredited movements new traction. Marxists have adopted religious means to
advance their utopia, moving from eco-justice, to eco-feminism, to social-justice, to liberation
theology and the triumph of the eco-collective. The arc of progress of ecological paradigms flows
from Dominion, to Stewardship, to Eco-theology, and finally culminating in Oikotheology (oikos =
household) (Alokwu, 2009). The household aspect collectivizes economies to support our common
humanity and earth citizenship while incorporating the best aspects of previous paradigms, each
advance removing human-centered (i.e., anthropocentric) elements until we eliminate poverty,
injustice, and marginalization, and live at peace with one another and the environment.
Oikotheology is, admittedly, a better construct than some in that it acknowledges the
importance, and inseparability of economics in how people live (hence, one’s ‘livelihood’).
However, its Marxist/socialist bent belies a poor understanding of economics and human dignity and

Page 12 of 37
will result in the continued depravation of individuals and societies. An objectively scientific
understanding of ecology and current environmental conditions is not the focus of the various eco-
isms, nor is it meant to be. Rather, the movements seek moral, eco-justification for more
fundamental utopian restructurings of society.
Naturalistic Environmental Science
The other environmental focus currently popular in our culture flows from a
materialist/naturalist worldview. Economic analyses are performed purporting to show the
limitations of the earth to support human activity and the inevitable collapse of the ecosystems all
creatures need to survive. As with Ecotheology, environmental economics of this variety is a
growing field of research due to popular environmental concern and increasing federal grants for
publishable work. Many textbooks and treatises have been published for this specialized field.
One major difficulty in enviro-economic analyses is the subjective way environmental costs
(e.g., resources depletion and pollution) are valued. A thing is typically valued by how much
someone is willing to pay for it (i.e., an appraisal). Environmental costs vary notoriously with
stakeholder interests. For instance, an industry will consider its environmental regulatory compliance
costs to be the cost of pollution, but a nature group may consider the aesthetic value of polluting
activity much higher. A frequently advanced solution is to artificially raise prices on goods
connected with polluting activities both to discourage their use and to make funds available for
pollution remediation and reduction. Naturally, a central authority of some kind would be needed to
impose such “taxes” and an insightful corps of bureaucrats needed to quantify their magnitude. All
economically based scenarios have, however, a basis in environmental crises that drive their
necessity. The most common fears are addressed as follows:
1. Resource Depletion/Minerals
Resources are things people use for subsequent purposes. Anything can be a resource.
The key is ingenuity and inventiveness on the part of the user. The difference between a
lump of taconite rock and iron is the creative understanding of the iron smelter.
Abundance and scarcity are relative terms; relative to the ability of a user to acquire the
resource at a reasonable cost (including costs of labor, capital, regulations, etc.).
Therefore, price is the best way to assess resource availability and whether a thing is
considered abundant or scarce. The prices of all commodities fluctuate as the market
fluctuates in response to many factors – not the least is government policy. Because of the
freedom to innovate, most commodities have exhibited a drop in price over the long-term
(USGS, 2013).

Environmentalists point out that the earth has limited resources and point to “proven
supply” estimates by government agencies compared to our current rates of consumption
and use. This kind of analysis belies a misunderstanding of the nature of resources and the
limitations of estimates. Proven supply quantities constantly change as more effective and
economical extraction/development of resources are invented, such as hydraulic
fracturing. Resource use rates change inversely with the price of a commodity, cheaper
alternatives being preferred. This fluctuating dynamic is driven by human innovation and

Page 13 of 37
 societal pressures. Proven reserve and utilization analyses are useful in the short-term
only because inventiveness changes the equation whenever the need is apparent – at least
in free societies. Therefore, economists such as Julian Simon (Simon, 1996) confidently
assert that resources cannot be exhausted in a meaningful sense. Innovation, substitution,
and recycling are resource perpetuating activities.

2. Biodiversity
Biodiversity is presented as a tripartite concept as stated previously: Species Diversity,
Ecosystem Diversity, and Functional Diversity. Species diversity consists of both the
variety of species and the genomic diversity within the specie. All three of these
biodiversity aspects work together. A large variety of species will perform a large number
of functions, all of which influence other species and their habitats. Genetic diversity
within a specie results in a robust population without as many debilitating effects of
genetic mutation, commonly called “inbreeding”.

A classic example of poor genetic diversity is the Cheetah. For unknown reasons, a
devastatingly low population of cheetahs lived in the past and their descendants survived
in Africa. Their genetic diversity is so low that many cannot reproduce fertile (or any)
offspring. Splicing of genes from other large cats into the cheetah genome to increase its
genetic diversity could help cheetahs to survive. The hope is that such genetically
modified (GM) cheetahs will thrive and avoid extinction. Absent such efforts by man, the
Cheetah will go extinct due to natural genetic entropy.

But what if the cheetahs did go extinct? Then other species (cats, hyenas, etc.) would step
in as they are able and provide similar “ecological services”, probably in many new
combinations. This is what is meant by “functional diversity” – no one specie is essential
to the survival of all the others. Functions overlap and are adaptable, although there are
some unique symbiotic relationships that may be exclusive for practical purposes (e.g.,
vanilla flowers and the Melipona bee). The reason to help cheetahs is not to save the
ecosystem from collapse, but because cheetahs are valuable to God. As people are able,
they have helped many such animals (e.g., Pandas, White Rhinoceros, rare frogs, etc.).
Many animals have gone extinct, most without our notice, and other are speciating now
(becoming new species via genetic entropy). The planet’s robustness with respect to
biodiversity is mainly due to bacteria and viruses. Figure 1 shows the relative mass of all
living things on earth in terms of gigatons (Gt) of carbon (Yinon, 2018). Note that the
water weight as been removed; these are “dry weights”.

Page 14 of 37
 Figure 1. Total Biomass of all Living things on Earth (as gigatons of carbon – Gt C)

It is the bacteria, archaea, and viruses, living in symbiosis with all living things and
carrying DNA from place to place, that provide the necessary biodiversity for our living
biosphere. Those who deal in fears of a “mass extinction” (impossible to predict) either
ignore how God preserves and maintains the world (Col. 1:17, Heb. 1:3) through these
hidden, microscopic means, or (more likely) are uninformed. We are only beginning to
learn about these interactions of endless complexity. For instance, there are about 15
trillion cells in the human body but three times as many bacteria in the body (45 trillion?)
that live symbiotically and make the body function. Altogether, the bacteria weigh about
three (3) pounds. All these populations are estimates, of course, and there is no firm
consensus on this interesting, but uncontroversial, topic.

3. Population
Most environmentalists and environmental science texts consider human activity on the
earth as essentially anti-nature. Therefore, much is made of the human “carbon footprint”,
humans as “consumers” rather than producers (only plants are ‘producers’ or autotrophs),
and the effects of human sources of pollution. All the texts discuss ways of reducing birth
rates, such as increasing education and employment for women outside the home and
increasing the overall material wealth of a society, both of which correlate well to
decreasing birth rates. Poorer countries often have higher birth rates, and
environmentalists with a population reduction focus call for increased aid to such
countries more for the purpose of reducing their numbers rather than improving their lives.

Current population trends do not support out-of-control growth threatening the earth with
an avaricious anthropocene era. Earth’s human population growth rates are declining, and
absent a change of attitude about the value of families with children, the total population is
expected to peak at about 9.5 billion in 2060 (or perhaps 10.5 billion in 2100) and
declining thereafter (UN DESA, 2019). See Figures 2 and 3. The current 2019 total
population is estimated at only 7.76 billion.

Page 15 of 37
Figure 2. World Population Projections to 2100 (UN DESA, 2019)

Figure 3. World Population Growth Rate Projections to 2100 (UN DESA, 2019)

Page 16 of 37
 Such population projections are tenuous (how would such projections have held up in the
20th century?) but the decade-to-decade details have garnered the attention and action of
countries around the world. Problems foreseen with declining populations include a
decline of human capital (human ingenuity and creativity), unsustainable elder care,
reduced retirement savings and investment, and real estate market declines. If
environmental enhancement is to occur, it takes people and money to do it.

4. Climate Change
Climate change has become the cause for everything and anything that is bad and has
attracted worldwide interest as a crisis requiring worldwide governance. Predictions of
eco-apocalypse due to the increase of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere are presented as
evidence for the need for technically advanced (typically western) countries to reduce their
energy consumption from fossil fuels and replace those with “renewable” wind and solar.
However, the dire predictions have not been observed when actual climate data are
considered. Instead of being chagrined and moving away from such rhetoric, advocates of
global governance (ostensibly to combat climate change) have doubled down on crises
predictions and push the “deadline” for climactic tipping points a little further out (e.g., in
the next 10 years…if nothing is done now).
Several aspects of science and ignored and some false theories are embraced that drive this
misinformation.

a. Carbon dioxide (CO2) is plant food. Carbon dioxide is a trace gas in the atmosphere
and serves as a source or sink in the natural carbon cycle. Plants absorb CO2 to create
their own biomass via photosynthesis. Plants absorb CO2 better, and use less water
while doing so, in atmospheres with higher CO2 concentrations. This is why
greenhouse growers sometimes enhance CO2 in their young seedling operations.

b. Temperature effects. While no one can predict the future, it is unreasonable to

suppose that barely measurable changes in daily temperatures will have a significant
effect on climate apart from other factors (such as oceanic behaviors and solar
strength). The daily variation of temperature is often several tens of degrees (e.g., 55
at night, 85 at noon). The draconian measures proposed to reduce the world’s effect
on “temperature” is supposed to result in only a few degrees difference. This will not
be noticed. The temperature fluctuations published, such as in Figure 4, show
variances of less than one degree (Celsius) from a 20-year average.

Page 17 of 37
Figure 4. Global Lower Atmosphere Equivalent Temperatures: 1979 – 2021.
https://www.drroyspencer.com/lastest-global-temperatures/ 6/18/21

c. Fossil fuels. Oil (from algae, some say) and coal (from plants) were once a living part
of the ecosystem and the natural carbon cycle. Burning fossil fuels puts carbon
dioxide back into play instead of being sequestered under the earth. Calvin DeWitt
(2012) believes that God sequestered these carbon bearers (i.e., trees) in coal to
remove carbon from the atmosphere and thereby “sustain our biosphere as habitable…
the ancient carbon stores of earth are great stabilizers of earth’s climate”. He
apparently forgets that people lived and prospered (although wickedly) prior to the
global flood that buried the trees. Many people (e.g., contributors to
www.co2science.org) understand that increased CO2 in the atmosphere would continue
to make the earth greener and better for both people and animals, but such views do
not elicit government funding or favorable media publicity.

d. Model results are not data. Modeling predictions of earth temperature is a subject
fraught with its own problems. Temperature is a state (scalar) characteristic, and the
movement of energy through media is measured indirectly by it, but temperature in
itself is not a fundamental characteristic of anything. Modelers do their best to convert
energy into an equivalent temperature at the earth’s surface or other atmospheric
locations, but their predictions have been embarrassingly high. Figure 5 shows the
inflated results of many modeling predictions compared to actual satellite data
(Spencer, 2019 and LLNL).

Page 18 of 37
Figure 5. Coupled Model Intercomparison Project Phase 5 (CMIP5) Model results Compared
to Observations
The likely causes for the overestimation of temperature in most of the models include
a lack of understanding of cloud formation, assumed CO2 positive feedback forcing,
and the chaotic nature of atmospheric interactions (Spencer, 2010).
Actual earth data, conveniently available from the UN which compiles data from
around the world, shows improving measures: increased forested area, decreased
agricultural impacts, decreased poverty, reduced commodity prices, cleaner air and
water, and increased CO2 emissions. CO2 emissions and atmospheric concentrations
will continue to rise regardless of actions taken by western nations, and we can be
thankful that the earth is recovering some it its lost carbon balance via the burning of
fossil fuels. What is good for plants is also good for the environment.
In summary, global climate change (GCC) is a minor but mostly beneficial
phenomenon, so long as the temperature is increasing. Global cooling would shorten
growing seasons, reduce plant biomass, and negatively stress all living things. The
greatest danger from GCC is that politicians will make energy more expensive,

Page 19 of 37
 regressively increasing living costs, preventing the world’s poor from escaping
poverty, and increasing environmental degradation because people cannot afford
pollution controls.

5. Water and Air Pollution

Water and air pollution control are two of the major success stories in environmental
work. Our air and water have never been cleaner or safer and the real data is available on
government websites to verify this (e.g., EPA and PaDEP). Air and water, like any matter
on earth, are never absolutely consumed, but are always recycled so they will never run
out. The environmental and human health issues are with respect to the availability of
water and air that is safe to drink and breathe. Countries with sufficient wealth and
stability can develop water resources for their populations and this is vital for cities and
other high population areas (even Beaver Falls). Air emissions can be controlled to
minimize smog formation and other undesirable events. The key to pollution control now
that so many technologies have been developed is wealth creation. This is why Calvin
Beisner says, “economic development is the most important environmental issue facing
American Christians today” (Beisner, 2014).

6. Toxic Substances
The fear of being inadvertently poisoned by toxic contamination of the environment or
nature suffering a similar fate is often at the forefront of environmental news reporting and
people’s anxiety. Federal programs requiring controls on certified toxic substances are
part of our regulatory landscape in America, but less so in countries that cannot afford
such protections. The Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA) requires the USEPA to
evaluate risks from new and existing chemicals and to reduce such risks to reasonable
levels via industrial best practices. The TSCA inventory now lists over 86,000 chemicals.
Well know chemicals include DDT, Agent Orange, Alar, pyrethrins, and various organo-
phosphates. Chemical agents such as these are blamed for a host of unfavorable
outcomes, most of which are anecdotal and not supported by honest research (Wildavsky,
1995). Toxicological experimentation, usually on mice but sometimes on rabbits, dogs, or
pigs, exposes the lab animals to various chemical doses to elicit a toxicological response.
Various endpoints include the Lowest Observed Effect Concentration (LOEC), the No
Observed Effect Concentration (NOEC), and the 50% lethal dose (LD50). Mutagenicity,
carcinogenicity, and teratogenicity can also be assessed. Symptoms and data are then
passed through a series of statistical analyses layered with subjective assumptions, usually
very conservative (e.g., a “one-in-a-million chance”), and both preliminary results and
final determinations are published for review and adoption as regulations or standards.

Critiques of the methods and assumptions are often made, usually by environmentalists
(e.g., the National Resources Defense Council) desiring to reduce the proposed regulatory
thresholds. Occasionally, affected parties will offer their own analyses, all of which use
the same basic data because toxicologic data is expensive to generate. A summary of
critiques made to EPA’s approved methods is contained in Milloy (1994). Scientists,
Page 20 of 37
 statisticians, engineers, industrialists, and environmentalists of all kinds argue and
advocate for different approaches to address the toxicity of the chemicals being introduced
to society that can make life better (or worse?). The end result is always some kind of
practical, political compromise.

Numerous studies have been done to determine carcinogenicity. Interestingly, a meta-

analysis of these is almost always inconclusive. Figure 6 shows the results of cancer risk
from different foods and different studies. Each dot represents the result of one medical
study. A relative risk of unity (one) means there is no significant effect on developing
cancer from the food in question. Less than one protects against cancer and greater than
one promotes cancer. The only three foods without contradictory reports are pork, salt,
and bacon, all of which indicate a cancerous effect in all the studies reviewed. I will
continue to eat these anyway.

Figure 6. Relative Risks of Developing Cancer from Foods. Each dot is the result
of one medical study. (Schoenfeld & Ioannidis)

7. Solid Wastes
Management of solids waste, discards from normal human activities, has been practiced
(or ignored) for all recorded history. The Valley of Hinnom, outside Jerusalem, was a
destination for refuse, which would be taken out through the appropriately named Dung
Gate and burned. Sanitation, including waste disposal, was commanded by God to the

Page 21 of 37
 Israelites in the wilderness (Deut. 23: 12-14). Cities have always had to plan and work to
take care of whatever refuse and detritus its citizenry and their animals produced. This is
a proper responsibility of sanitation engineers (a.k.a., environmental engineers) and
municipal planners.

Environmentalist concerns include landfill space scarcity (there is none, and we can
always build more), landfill leachate contamination (there are controls for that), and the
fact that we throw away anything at all (unavoidable in the absolute sense, but certainly
reduceable in modern societies). Countries without solid waste management systems in
place will have difficulty avoiding unsightly trash buildups, particularly in societies
experiencing economic growth. The recent awareness of plastic pollution in the oceans is
one example. Asian countries are experiencing rapid and unprecedented economic growth
and contribute the bulk of ocean plastic wastes. Solid waste management is a growing
field in China as the country becomes wealthy enough to safely dispose of its garbage and
refuse. There are recognized challenges and potential improvements for solid waste
management, but these are being dealt with in the due course of normal societal activity
and development. If economic development in Asia continues, ocean plastic pollution
will be a short-lived event.
Summary
My presentation of the preceding seven primary areas of environmental concern (but one may
always further refine these or conceive of new categories) indicates a lack of true environmental
crises when considered in rational, evidence-based historic terms. Both human and non-human life
have improved significantly, especially in the last 100 years. The clean, healthy world we live in,
including the abundance of wildlife, is a feat our forebears and ancient fathers could hardly have
believed. The proper Christian response for this happy situation is gratitude. These improvements
are due to combinations of things attributable to the working out of Christian faith in lives and
cultures. Advances in agriculture, medicine, sanitation, construction, energy resource development
(e.g., electricity) have all played a part, and all these may be fodder for debate and discussion. But
such debate should be undertaken by grateful people. For instance, longevity and affluence are facts
and we should be grateful for them. Without thankfulness, our discussions are likely to be seriously
misdirected.
This passage from Doug Wilson (2020) helps to highlight the need for a Holy gratitude as an
antidote for gullibility:
“The reason this must be emphasized is that even though we have this longevity,
we are a nation of worriers. And because we are worriers, we have low sales
resistance. We believe anything (although different groups of people believe
different kinds of “anything”). Some people are so ga-ga over conventional
medicine, they not only believe their doctor, but also believe someone who “plays
one on TV.” Other people will buy alternative products because they “contain no
chemicals.” Oh? What are they made of then? Are they molecule free also?

Page 22 of 37
 We are not to be children in our thinking, but rather mature (I Cor 14:20). A
spirit of complaining and ingratitude creates gullibility, and this gullibility knows
no borders.”
Further,
“People who are all in a dither about paper diapers and the environment,
demanding we go back to cloth diapers, are probably the kind of people who
never thanked the Lord for either.”
Gratitude and contentment resist false worldview problems. Ungrateful and discontented people,
worriers, and complainers, create problems for themselves and others wherever they go. Proper
environmental stewardship is impossible without 1) God’s bequeath of dominion over nature and the
enabling power of the Holy Spirit to carry out His purposes, and 2) obtaining wisdom and
understanding on activities we should pursue in the time we have been given. All this is, of course,
the gift of God. (I Cor 4:7, Jas 1:17).
Conclusions
God has assigned us the responsibility of exercising dominion in the world. This is first stated
in His covenant with Adam, renewed with Noah, and ultimately in the Great Commission of Christ
(making disciples, teaching them to obey, going into all the world). Environmental stewardship is
kingdom work and can, at times, progress just as slowly as has the spread of the gospel around the
world. Exercising stewardship of a thing is impossible without being given some authority (i.e.,
dominion) over the thing under stewardship. But exercising this dominion as a steward in obedience
to God is a noble pursuit. Therefore, Jesus requires we pursue it in a noble way, with wisdom and
understanding, all of which come from God who gives the Spirit without measure (John 3:34).
Applications for Geneva College
There is no small debate among genuine Christians about what environmental stewardship
means in practical terms in the age we live in. Unfortunately, many believe the pop-culture
pronouncements of environmental crises du jour and try to squeeze what are actually Marxist and
Naturalist worldviews into a Christian lexicographical framework. This is one way false teachings
can seem to broadly follow the outline of the gospel story, which is what all false gospels do. This
distortion, like other false teachings, will draw students and faculty away from God’s truth (not
necessarily anti-salvifically) and dishonor our Lord Jesus Christ.
A generation ago there was panic about the “population bomb” – that too many people would
be alive, and it would destroy the earth. Western nations pushed a gospel of birth control all around
the world based on this flawed, Malthusian worldview. That many professing Christians embraced
this fallacy is an embarrassment now that the population trajectories are tilting the other way. The
population bomb is becoming an implosion.
Therefore, I recommend that informative speakers affiliated with the Cornwall Alliance for
the Stewardship of Creation (e.g., Dr. Calvin Beisner) be invited to speak to students at Geneva,
perhaps through the GVALs program. Such speakers would counter the prevailing worldly wisdom

Page 23 of 37
on environmental issues, including pseudo-Christian views embraced by many, and stimulate good
discussion and meditation on God’s command to steward the earth as we go forth unto all the world.

References and Bibliography

1. Abeyasingha, Nihal, 2015, “Protecting the Environment: Christian Perspectives.” Dialogue New Series
42& 43(2015 & 2016)111-148.

2. Abuja Journal of Philosophy and Theology, Vol 6 (2016), ed. Rev. Dr. Raymond, The National Missionary
Seminary of St Paul, Gwagwalada, Abuja. 253 p.

3. Ali, Muhamad, 2014, “Integrating Islam and Ecofeminism: A Monotheistic Approach to Earth Crisis”,
Body Memories: Goddess of Nusantara, Rings of Fire and Narratives of Myth, Jurnal Perempuan, YJP
Press, Jakarta.

4. Alokwu, Cyprian Obiora, 2009, “The Anglican Church, Environment and Poverty: Constructing a Nigerian
Indigenous Oikotheology,” unpublished dissertation, University of KwaZulu-Natal, Pietermaritzburg,
South Africa.

5. Anderson, Terry L., ed., 2004, You Have to Admit It’s Getting Better: from Economic Prosperity to
Environmental Quality, Hoover Institution Press No. 525.

6. Asamoah, Rev. Moses Kumi, 2013, “Religious Environmentalism: The Church’s Environmental
Sustainability Paradigm (The Case of the Church of Pentecost in Ghana),” European Journal of Business
and Social Sciences, Vol. 2, No. 8, p 59-76.

7. Bastardi, Joe, 2018, “The Climate Chronicles: Inconvenient Revelations You Won’t Hear from Al Gore –
and Others,” Relentless Thunder Press.

8. Batten, Don, (2020), “Anthropogenic Global Warming (AGW) – a biblical and scientific approach to
climate change,” Creation.com, Creation Ministries International.

9. Beisner, Calvin 2018, The Cosmic Consequences of Christ’s Crosswork, GoodTrees Press.

10. Beisner, Calvin E., 1990, Prospects for Growth: A Biblical View of Population, Resources, and the Future,
Crossway Books, Westchester, IL.

11. Beisner, Calvin E., 1997, Where Garden Meets Wilderness – Evangelical Entry into the Environmental
Debate, Acton Institute and Eerdmans, Grand Rapids, MI.

12. Beisner, Calvin E., 2014, “Evangelical Environmentalism: Bought and Paid for by Liberal Millions?”,
Cornwall Alliance for the Stewardship of Creation.

13. Beisner, Calvin E., 2014, What is the Most Important Environmental Task Facing American Christians
Today?, Mount Nebo Papers, Cornwall Alliance, Burke, VA.

Page 24 of 37
14. Beisner, Calvin E., 2020, Creation Stewardship: Evaluating Competing Views, Cornwall Alliance for the
Stewardship of Creation, Chattanooga, TN.

15. Beisner, Calvin E., et al., undated, “A Biblical Perspective on Environmental Stewardship,” Acton
Institute.

16. Beisner, Calvin E., et. al., 2000, “A Biblical Perspective on Environmental Stewardship”, Public Policy:
Environmental Stewardship in the Judeo-Christian Tradition: Jewish, Catholic, and Protestant Wisdom on
the Environment, ed. Michael B. Barkey, Acton Institute, 54 p, April 17, 2000.
https://www.acton.org/public-policy/environmental-stewardship/theology-e/biblical-perspective-
environmental-stewardship

17. Bell, Larry, 2015, Scared Witless: Prophets and Profits of Climate Doom, Stairway Press, Mount Vernon,
WA.

18. Benjamin, Daniel K., 2003, “Eight Great Myths of Recycling”, Property and Environment Research Center
(PERC) Policy Series, PS-28.

19. Berkhof, Louis, 1969, Systematic Theology, reprint, Banner of Truth Trust, London.

20. Berry, Evan, 2015, Devoted to Nature – The Religious roots of American Environmentalism, Univ of
California Press, Oakland, CA.

21. Brissos-Lino, José. (2019), “The Influence of Socio-Religious Culture from an Environmental Perspective,”
39th International Scientific Conference, Economic and Social Development.

22. Brown, Amy L., 2006, “Environmental Conflict Among Evangelicals,” unpublished thesis, University of
Vermont, Burlington, VT.

23. Calvin, John, The Institutes of the Christian Religion, trans. Henry Beveridge (Edinburgh: Calvin
Translation Society, 1846).

24. Chias, Daniel D., 2016, Environmental Science, 10th ed., Jones & Bartlett Learning.

25. Claerbaut, Dale, 2007, God’s Covenant with the Creation – A Theology for Ecology, Xulon Press,
Maitland, FL.

26. Cunningham, William and Cunningham, Mary Ann, 2017, Principles of Environmental Science, Inquiry
and Application, 8th ed., McGraw Hill Education.

27. Davies, John A., 1999, “Toward a Biblical Theology of the Environment, Part 1: Introduction and
Creation”, IIIM Magazine Online, Vol. 1/15, Third Millennium Ministries, Casselberry, FL.

28. Davies, John A., 1999, “Toward a Biblical Theology of the Environment, Part 2: Rebellion and
Resurrection”, IIIM Magazine Online, Vol. 1/16, Third Millennium Ministries, Casselberry, FL.

29. Deane-Drummond, Celia, 2008, Eco-theology, Darton, Longman and Todd, London, UK.
30. Deane-Drummond, Celia, 2014, “Who on Earth Is Jesus Christ? Plumbing the Depths of Deep
Incarnation,” chapter 3 and ”What Are the Resources for Building a Christian Ethos in a

Page 25 of 37
 Time of Ecological Devastation?” chapter 9 in Christian Faith and the Earth: Current Paths and Emerging
Horizons in Ecotheology, ed. Ernst M. Conradie et al., Bloomsbury Publishing, London.

31. Delingpole, James, 2013, The Little Green Book of Eco-Fascism, Regnery Publishing, Inc., Washington,
DC.

32. Devine, Daniel James, 2015, “Rolling in Green,” World Magazine, World News Group, 2015/05.

33. DeWitt, Calvin B,. 2012, Song of a Scientist: The Harmony of a God-Soaked Creation, Square Inch, Grand
Rapids, MI.

34. Driessen, Paul, 2003, Eco-Imperialism: Green Power Black Death, Free Enterprise Press, Bellevue, WA.

35. Easton, Thomas A., 2013, Taking Sides: Clashing Views on Environmental Issues, 15 th ed., Contemporary
Learning Series Group, McGraw Hill, New York.

36. EPA, “National Air Quality: Status and Trends of Key Air Pollutants’, https://www.epa.gov/air-trends,
6/17/21.

37. EPA, “Water Data and Tools”, https://www.epa.gov/waterdata, 6/17/21.

38. Evans, W.C., et. al, 1993, “Gas Buildup in Lake Nyos, Cameroon: The Recharge Process and its
Consequences,” Applied Geochemistry, Vol. 8, p 207-221.

39. Finders, John Rev., 2005, “Biocentric Theology: Christianity celebrating humans as an ephemeral part of
life, not the centre of it”, unpublished dissertation, Flinders University, Adelaide, Australia.

40. Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO), 2018, The State of the World’s Forests
2018 – Forest pathways to sustainable development, Rome. License: Creative Commons NC-SA 3.0 IGO.

41. Garcia, Peter, 2014, “Toward an Ecotheological Anthropology,” unpublished thesis, George Fox
Evangelical Seminary, Portland, OR.

42. Gnanakan, Ken, 2014, “Responsible Stewardship of God’s Creation,” World Evangelical Alliance Global
Issues Series, Vol. 11.

43. Goklany, Indur M., 1999, Clearing the Air – The Real Story of the War on Air Pollution, CATO Institute,
Washington, DC.

44. Goklany, Indur M., 2001, The Precautionary Principle: A Critical Appraisal of Environment Risk
Assessment, CATO Institute, Washington, DC.

45. Goklany, Indur M., 2007, “The Improving State of the World – Why we’re living longer, healthier, more
comfortable lives on a cleaner planet”, CATO Institute, Washington, DC.

46. Goreham, Steve, 2017, Outside the Green Box – Rethinking Sustainable Development, New Lenox Books,
Inc., New Lenox, IL.

47. Grudem, Wayne & Asmus, Barry, The Poverty of Nations: A Sustainable Solution, Crossway, Wheaton, IL.

Page 26 of 37
48. Grudem, Wayne, 2010, Politics – According to the Bible, Zondervan, Grand Rapids, MI.

49. Guha, Ramachandra, 1989, “Radical American Environmentalism and Wilderness Preservation: A Third
World Critique,” Environmental Ethics, Vol. 11/1, p 71-83.

50. Guridi, Roman, 2016, “Imago Dei as Kenosis: Re-imagining Humanity in an Ecological Era,” unpublished
dissertation, Creative Commons Noncommercial 4.0, Boston College, Chestnut Hill, MA.

51. Haglund, Brent M., & Still, Thomas W., 2005, Hands-On Environmentalism, Encounter Books, San
Francisco, CA.

52. Hayward, Steven F. 2011, Mere Environmentalism: A Biblical Perspective on Humans and the Natural
World, American Enterprise Institute Press, Washington, DC.

53. Hayward, Steven F., 2009, Index of Leading Environmental Indicators 2009 – 14 th ed., Pacific Research
Institute, San Francisco, CA.

54. Hitzhusen, Gregory E., et. al., 2020, “Religion and Environmental Values in America,”, PBPressbooks,
Creative Commons NonCommercial 4.0, The Ohio State University, Columbus, OH.

55. Horner, Christopher C., 2007, The Politically Incorrect Guide to Global Warming and Environmentalism,
Regnery Publishing, Inc., Washington, DC.

56. Idso, Craig D., et. al., 2015, Why Scientists Disagree About Global Warming – The NIPCC report on
Scientific Consensus, Heartland Institute, Arlington Heights, IL.

57. Intergovernmental Science-Policy Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services (IPBES), 2019, “The
Global Assessment Report on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services: Summary for Policymakers,” IPBES
secretariat, Bonn, Germany. 56 p.

58. Ioanna Sahinidou, 2018. “Feminist and Ecofeminist Christology”, International Journal of Social
Science Studies, Redfame publishing, vol. 6(4), pages 30-37.

59. Jacoby, Karl, 2014, “Crimes Against Nature: Squatters, Poachers, Thieves, and the Hidden History of
American Conservation”, Univ of California Press, Berkeley, CA.

60. Jenkins, Willis, 2019, Chapter 37 : The Oxford Handbook of Karl Barth, ed. Jones, Paul Dafydd and
Nimmo, Paul T., Oxford University Press, Oxford, UK.

61. Jones, J.Y., 2009, Worship Not the Creature: Animal Rights and the Bible, Nordskog Publishing, Ventura,
CA.

62. Kaoma, Kapya J., 2016, “From Missio Dei to Missio Creatoris Dei,” Globethics.net.

63. Kennedy, D. James & Beisner, Calvin E., 2007, Overheated – A Reasoned Look at the Global Warming
Debate, Coral Ridge Ministries.

64. Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory (LLNL), ongoing, Program for Climate Model Diagnosis &
Intercomparison, https://pcmdi.llnl.gov/mips/cmip5/, Livermore, CA.

Page 27 of 37
65. Layton, Christopher (undated), “Farmworkers in Hood River, OR: A Nexus of Ecotheological Concern,”
unpublished thesis, www.academia.edu, George Fox University, Newberg, OR.

66. Layton, Christopher, 2012, “The Promise of Trinitarian Panentheism”, unpublished thesis,
Portland Seminary, George Fox Univ., Portland, OR.

67. Light, Andrew 2007, “The Moral Journey of Environmentalism: From Wilderness to Place,” Daniel J Evans
School of Public Affairs working paper series #2007-07, University of Washington, Seattle, WA.

68. Lin, Johnny Wei-Bing, 2016, The Nature of Environmental Stewardship – Understanding Creation Care
Solutions to Environmental Problems, Pickwick Publications, Eugene, OR.

69. Lomborg, Bjorn, 2001, The Skeptical Environmentalist – Measuring the Real State of the World,
Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, England.

70. Lomborg, Bjorn, 2007, Cool It – The Skeptical Environmentalist’s Guide to Global Warming, Alfred A.
Knopf, New York.

71. Lomborg, Bjorn, 2014, How to Spend $75 Billion to Make the World a Better Place, 2 nd ed., Copenhagen
Consensus Center, Tewksbury, MA.

72. Longbottom, Henry, SJ, 2016, “Redefining the Common Good: An Exploration of the Integral Ecology of
Laudato Si and Its Interface with the Ecological Cosmology of Thomas Berry and Leonardo Boff,”
unpublished STB dissertation, Heythrop College, London, England.

73. Lowe, Ben, 2009, Green Revolution – Coming Together to Care for Creation, InterVarsity Press, Downers
Grove, IL.

74. Mangalwadi, Vishal, 2011, The Book that Made Your World: How the bible created the soul of western
civilization, Thomas Nelson, Nashville, TN.

75. Martin-Schramm, James B. & Stivers, Robert L., 2003, Christian Environmental Ethics – A Case Method
Approach, Orbis Books, Maryknoll, NY.

76. McCoy, Bowen H., 2001, “Counselors of Real Estate (CRE) Perspective: Free Market Environmentalism”,
Real Estate Issues, Fall 2001, Vol. 26, Issue 3, p 84.

77. McFague, Sallie, 1993, The Body of God: An Ecological Theology, Fortress Press, Minneapolis, MN.

78. McFague, Sallie, 2008, A New Climate for Theology: God, The World, and Global Warming,
Fortress Press, Minneapolis, MN.

79. McKibben, Bill, 1989, The End of Nature, Anchor Books, New York.

80. McKinney, Michael L. et.al., 2013, Environmental Science – Systems and Solutions, 5 th ed., Jones &
Bartlett Learning.

81. Miller, Tyler G. and Spoolman, Scott E., 2013, Environmental Science: 14th ed., Brooks/Cole, Cengage
Learning.

Page 28 of 37
82. Milloy, Steve, 2009, Green Hell: How Environmentalists Plan to Control Your Life and What You Can Do
to Stop Them, Regnery Publishing, Inc., Washington, DC.

83. Milloy, Steven J., 1994, Choices in Risk Assessment: The Role of Science Policy in the Environmental Risk
Management Process, Regulatory Impact Analysis Project, Inc., prepared for Sandia National
Laboratories.

84. Moebius-Clune, B.N., et. al, 2016, Comprehensive Assessment of Soil Health Training Manual – The
Cornell Framework, ed. 3.2, Cornell University, Geneva, NY.

85. Montgomery, David R., 2008, Dirt – The Erosion of Civilizations, Univ of California Press, Berkeley, CA.

86. Montrie, Chad, 2018, The Myth of Silent Spring – Rethinking the origins of American Environmentalism,
Univ of California Press, Oakland, CA.

87. Mukaria, Andrew Ratanya, 2018, “The emergence of 20 th Century eco-theology, its main figures, and key
contributions”, public lecture, MF Vitenskapelig HØyskole School of Theology, Oslo, Norway.

88. Nalwamba, Kuzipa M.B. (2016), “Vital Force as a Triangulated Concept of Nature and Spirit,”
unpublished dissertation, University of Pretoria, South Africa.

89. Navjot S. Sodhi and Paul R. Ehrlich, ed., 2010, Conservation Biology for All, Oxford University Press.

90. Nugent, Stephen 1993, “From ‘Green Hell’ to ‘Green’ Hell: Amazonia and the Sustainability Thesis,”
Occasional Paper No. 57-1993, Amazonian Paper No. 3, Latin American Studies, University of Glasgow,
Scotland.

91. Orhan, Ozguc 1999, “A Critical-Reconstructive Analysis of Eco-philosophy,” unpublished thesis, Keele
University, Keele, England.

92. PaDEP, “Air Quality Reports”, https://www.dep.pa.gov/DataandTools/Reports/Pages/Air-Quality-

Reports.aspx, 6/17/21.

93. Paeth, Scott R., 2011, “’You Make All Things New’: Jonathan Edwards and a Christian Environmental
Ethic”, International Journal of Public Theology 5 (2011) p209-232.

94. Palutikof, Jean P., et. al. (editors), 2015, “Applied Studies in Climate Adaptation”, Wiley Blackwell,
Hoboken, NJ.

95. Paredes, Jose’ Christo Rey Garcia, CMF (undated), “Eco-Theology: Only Wholeness is Sacred. Towards a
New Theological Vision,” www.academia.edu, Universidad Pontificia de Salamanca, Madrid, Spain.

96. Pederick, Evan Dunstan (2016), “Christ and Creation: A Model for Ecotheology,” unpublished
dissertation, Murdoch University, Perth, Australia.

97. Pielke, Roger A. Jr., 2004, “When Scientists Politicize Science: making sense of controversy over The
Skeptical Environmentalist”, Environmental Science & Policy 7 (2004) p 405-417.

Page 29 of 37
 98. Pilkey, Orrin H. & Pilkey-Jarvis, Linda, 2007, Useless Arithmetic – Why Environmental Scientists Can’t
Predict the Future, Columbia University Press, New York.

99. Sadar, Anthony J., 2016, In Global Warming We Trust: Too Big to Fail, Stairway Press, Mount Vernon,
WA.

100. Sahinidou, Ioanna, 2015, “Searching for a Biblical Ecotheological Worldview”, 4 th ECOTHEE:
International conference on Ecological Theology and Environmental Ethics.

101. Schaeffer, Francis A. & Middelmann, Udo, (1992), Pollution and the Death of Man, Crossway Books,
Wheaton, IL.

102. Schlesinger, Eugene R., “A Trinitarian Basis for a ‘Theological Ecology’ in Light of Laudato Si,” Theological
Studies 2018, Vol. 79(2) 339-355.

103. Schoenfeld, Jonathan D. and Ioannidis, John PA, 2012, “Is everything we eat associated with cancer? A
systematic cookbook review”, American Journal of Clinical Nutrition 2013:97(1).

104. Scott, Peter Manley, 2012, “At home on the Earth? Theological reflections on anthropology and
cosmology in the light of the current global environmental crisis”, Christian Faith and the Earth, Univ. of
Manchester, UK.

105. Scott, Peter, 1997, “Ecology: Religious or Secular?”, The Heythrop Journal vol 38, p1-14.

106. Seaman, Matthew 2011. “Aldersgate Papers: Theological Journal of the Australasian Center for
Wesleyan Research.” Red, Yellow, Blue and Green: Eco-Theology within the Salvation Army” vol. 9, p. 48.

107. Simon, Julian L., 1996, The Ultimate Resource 2, Princeton University Press, Princeton, NJ.

108. Sintado, Carlos Alberto, 2015, “Social Ecology, Ecojustice, and the New Testament: Liberating Readings,”
Globethics.net Theses 6, Creative Commons 2.5.

109. Spencer, Roy W., 2008, Climate Confusion: how global warming hysteria leads to bad science, pandering
politicians, and misguided policies that hurt the poor, Encounter Books, New York.

110. Spencer, Roy W., 2010, The Great Global Warming Blunder – How Mother Nature Fooled the World’s
Top Climate Scientists, Encounter Books, New York.

111. Spencer, Roy W., 2016, A Guide to Understanding Global Temperature Data, Texas Public Policy
Foundation and Cornwall Alliance.

112. Spencer, Roy W., 2019, “Coupled Model Intercomparison Project Phase 5 (CMIP5) Model Atmospheric
Warming 1979-2018: Some Comparisons to Observations”,
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2019/12/cmip5-model-atmospheric-warming-1979-2018-some-
comparisons-to-observations/ 6/18/21

Page 30 of 37
113. Spiegel Staff, 2013, “Germany’s Energy Poverty – How Electricity Became a Luxury Good”, Spiegel
Online, Germany. https://www.spiegel.de/international/germany/high-costs-and-errors-of-german-
transition-to-renewable-energy-a-920288.html 6-11-2021.

114. Strong, Augustus Hopkins, 1903, Systematic Theology, public domain, Bennie Blount Ministries
International.

115. United Nations Development Programme (UNDP), 2020, 2020 Human Development Report, UNDP, New
York.

116. United Nations Department of Economic and Social Affairs, 2019, World Population Prospects, Creative
Commons 3.0, New York.

117. US Geological Survey, 2013, “Metal Prices in the United States Through 2010: USGS Scientific
Investigations Report 2012-5188, 204p. http://pubs.usgs.gov/sir/2012/5188.”

118. Van Dyke, Fred, 2010, Between Heaven and Earth: Christian Perspectives on Environmental Protection,
Praeger, ABC-CLIO, LLC, Santa Barbara, CA.

119. Van Dyke, Fred, et. al., 1996, Redeeming Creation – The Biblical Basis for Environmental Stewardship,
InterVarsity Press, Downers Grove, IL.

120. Vigil, Jose Maria (ed) 2010, Along the May Paths of God – Toward a Planetary Theology, EATWOT,
Dunamis Publishers, Montreal, Canada.

121. VOICES 2013, Vol 36, 2013/2-3, “Ecological Vision in a Groaning World,” Theological Journal of the
Ecumenical Association of Third World Theologians.

122. VOICES 2014, Vol 37, 2014/2-3, “Deep Ecology, Spirituality, and Liberation,” Theological Journal of the
Ecumenical Association of Third World Theologians.

123. VOICES 2016, Vol 39, 2016/2, “Laudato Si’ and Ecology,” Theological Journal of the Ecumenical
Association of Third World Theologians.

124. Wanliss, James, 2013, Resisting the Green Dragon – Dominion, Not Death, 2 nd ed., Cornwall Alliance,
Burke, VA.

125. Weaver, John and Hodson, Margot R. ed., 2007, The Place of Environmental Theology: a course guide for
seminaries, colleges and universities, International Baptist Theological Seminary, Prague, Czech
Republic.

126. Whelchel, Hugh 2016, All Things New: rediscovering the Four-Chapter Gospel, Institute for Faith, Work &
Economics.

127. White, Richard 1996, “Are you an Environmentalist or Do You Work for a Living? Work and Nature,”
chapter 7 in Uncommon Ground, William Cronon, ed., W.W. Norton & Company. P 171.

128. Wildavsky, Aaron, 1995, But Is It True?, Harvard University Press.

Page 31 of 37
129. Wilson, Douglas, 2020, Dominion or Ruin, Blog & Mablog Press and Tire Center, Moscow, ID.

130. Wolters, Albert M,, 2005, Creation Regained – Biblical Basics for a Reformational Worldview, 2 nd ed.,
Eerdmans, Grand Rapids, MI.

131. Yinon M. Bar-On, Rob Phillips, and Ron Milo, 2018, “The Biomass Distribution on Earth”, Proceedings of
the National Academy of Sciences (PNAS) June 19, 2018 115 (25) p6506-6511.

132. York, Richard, 2017, “Why Petroleum Did Not Save the Whales”, Socius: Sociological Research for a
Dynamic World, Vol 3: 13p.

133. Zachariah, George, undated, “Towards a Non-anthropocentric Theological Anthropology: Voices from
the Margins”, Trinity Methodist Theological College, Auckland, New Zealand.

134. Zubrin, Robert, 2012, Merchants of Despair: Radical Environmentalists, Criminal Pseudo-Scientists, and
the Fatal Cult of Antihumanism, Encounter Books, New York.

Page 32 of 37
 Biblical Creation Stewardship:
Doctrine, Science, and Practice in a World that has forgotten God.
Mark T. Kennedy, P.E.
Associate Professor of Environmental Engineering
Department of Engineering, Geneva College
June 23, 2021

APPENDIX A
FPC Continuation Recommendation Letter to Provost Dr. Melinda Stephens,
November 13, 2019.

Page 33 of 37
 Biblical Creation Stewardship:
Doctrine, Science, and Practice in a World that has forgotten God.
Mark T. Kennedy, P.E.
Associate Professor of Environmental Engineering
Department of Engineering, Geneva College
June 23, 2021

APPENDIX B
Geneva College Foundational Concepts of Christian Education
October 26, 1967

Page 34 of 37
Page 35 of 37
Page 36 of 37
Page 37 of 37