Journal
of the American Scientific Affiliation 25.1 (March 1973) 4-9.
Copyright © 1973 by American
Scientific Affiliation, cited with permission.
Biblical Perspectives
on the Ecology Crises
Carl E. Armerding
INTRODUCTION
Is There a
Crisis?
Professor Kenneth Hare of the
recently
answered the questionl by
dividing people and
publications
into 3 categories. First, and perhaps
most
vocal today,
are the alarmists, many of whom are prof-
iting
immensely by writing and speaking on a kind
of
apocalyptic level, who see the technological society
as having
created a monster which, if unchecked, will
swallow up
both man and nature within a few short
years. Hare suggests that much of this group's
concern
is with what
he calls "nuisance pollution", i.e., the kind
of thing
like cloud or smog factors created by man in
a city
resulting in a slightly decreased aesthetic or com-
fort state,
but hardly a major threat to life.
A second group consists of those who
attempt to de-
bunk the
whole pollution effort. There is still
land for
more people,
there are still many resources for develop-
ment, and we
have always been able to develop new
methods and
resources when the old were exhausted.
After all,
when coal supplies ran short, we hardly
noticed the
loss. Why not recognize that new forms
of
energy, new
synthetic materials for construction, new
ways of
increasing our ability to feed ourselves, and
new social
structures making it possible for even greater,
4
BIBLICAL PERSPECTIVES ON
ECOLOGY 5a
numbers to
live on this planet are all just around the
corner?
In a third group (the golden mean) Hare
places
himself. His concern is with what he calls
"transcendent"
pollution--i.e.,
the relatively few but vitally important
factors that
affect not one area but the entire ecosphere.
In such a
category he would include the population
explosion,
the problem of non-renewable resources, and
the problem
of atmospheric and water pollutants now
present in
the world-wide system of the earth's surface.
It is not my
purpose to referee this debate. Rather,
I
should like
to suggest that, whatever our view of the
seriousness
of the problem, there is an area in which
we must
develop a response. Even the most
optimistic
'de-bunker'
of the ecology crisis is functioning on the
basis of a
philosophy--usually a philosophy built on an
unlimited
confidence in man and his ability to control
his own
destiny. And, because our response
inevitably
involves
values, and values in our Judeo-Christian
society have
always related to Biblical religion, I feel we
can and
should begin our search for a value-structure
at that
point. Especially for us, as
evangelicals, there is
a mandate
for a fresh look at our sources, partially be-
cause they
are under attack in ecological circles, but
more
basically because we purport to find in them "all
things
necessary for life and godliness".
What then does the Bible say to guide our
response
to the
problems of ecology? Does it speak with
a clear
voice in
favor of concern or does it, perchance, leave
us in the
embarrassing position of 'drop-out' from the
company of
the concerned, or worse yet, does it provide
us with a
mandate for exploitation of the worst sort?
To these questions
my paper will attempt an answer.
Approach to
the Crisis: Ecological or Theological?
Perhaps at this point we should pause to
consider
the
criticism of the "theological strategy" offered by
BIBLICAL
PERSPECTIVES ON ECOLOGY 5b
Prof. Richard
Wright in a recent article.2
Dr. Wright
suggests
that an "ecological strategy" (i.e., educate
people to
see that a proper use of their environment is
beneficial
in terms of their own quality of life) is more
effective
than a theological one, as Christian churches
have neither
the ability to agree on a particular theolog-
ical
strategy, nor the ability to influence the secular
majority in
our society. The theological approach
must
be,
therefore, merely a supplement to the more prag-
matic,
realistic appeal to self-preservation which secular
man can
understand.
I question whether one can separate the
two, even to
the limited
extent proposed by Dr. Wright. If
ecological
decisions
are to be made at all they must be made in
the context
of a human value system. Who is to say
that
self-preservation is a strong enough motive for
action,
especially when, for those in affluent parts
of the
world, it usually is a problem of assuring the next
generation's
survival not our own? What will convince
the consumer
of wood and paper, the traveler in his
fume-spewing
automobile, or the land-speculator pro-
tecting his
investment that to modify his behavior
severely is
necessary? I suggest that a theological
con-
viction,
though traditionally limited in its appeal, may
make more
sense in the context of an increasingly
apocalyptic
debate than even the appeal to an en-
lightened
self-interest. Though we may never
convert
the world,
we may, as Christians, better set our own
response and
activity in the context of a Biblical world-
view, and
thus convince contemporary leaders to follow
after what
we believe is good. It was not, after
all,
through the
conversion of all
Sharpe,
William Wilberforce and John Newton brought
about the
end of child labor and the slave trade.
It was
rather by
formulating a course of action growing out
of a
Christian world-view, convincing themselves and
some
influential contemporaries of its rightness, and
BIBLICAL
PERSPECTIVES ON ECOLOGY 5c
then seeking
legislation on the subject. Thus, I opt for
a
theological approach. But, which
theology shall we
espouse? At least three options are available and I
shall
discuss them
in turn.
Theological
Approaches
1. Attack the Judeo-Christian tradition. Attacks on
the Judeo-Christian
tradition and its view of nature are
by now
familiar to most of us. Wright (and others)
quotes Ian
McHarg's Design with Nature3 in which
man's
"bulldozer mentality" is traced to Genesis 1 and
its alleged
"sanction and injunction to conquer nature--
the enemy,
the threat to Jehovah". We shall
have more
to say
presently about this kind of reasoning; suffice
it to note
for the moment that such a charge is certainly
open to
question, Biblically if not also historically.
2. Modify the Judeo-Christian tradition. Not all at-
tacks on
Biblical theology have come from outside the
Christian
church. It is significant that Lynn
White, in
some ways
the father of modern discussion of the sub-
ject,
recognized that the roots of the problem were
religious
and himself claims to be a faithful church-
man.4 His thoughts on the subject have been
reprinted
in the
Journal ASA and the questionable nature of their
claim to
represent Christian dogma faithfully has already
been
examined.5 However, it should
be noted that many
who claim to
follow the Christian tradition are, in one
way or
another, supporting the contention made by
White. A
called for a
rejection of Genesis 1 as the basis of a new
theology. On a more academic level, Frederick Elder,
a
Presbyterian minister, in his book Crisis in Eden6, has
zeroed in on
the so-called "J" account of creation, as
contained in
Genesis 2:4b ff., with its anthropocentric
view of the
world, as the real culprit. Elder sees
some
hope for
redemption in the "P" document from Ch. 1
(despite its
offensive vv. 26-27), an account in which
BIBLICAL
PERSPECTIVES ON ECOLOGY 5d
man is at
least placed on some equal level with other
parts of
creation. Man is at least
chronologically last in
the
"P" version, in opposition to the "J" document
wherein Adam
is first to appear and he then names the
animals (a
very significant function in light of Hebrew
psychology
surrounding the name.)
Elder goes on to divide mankind, and
especially
theological
mankind, into two groups. The
"exclusion-
ists",
represented by such "traditional" Christians as
Harvey Cox,
Herbert Richardson, and Teilhard de
Chardin,
advocate the kind of anthropocentrism of
Genesis
2. To them man is king, his technology repre-
sents the
height of redemption from the old "sacred
grove"
concept, wherein God and nature were never
distinguished,
and his dominance of the physical world
is but a
step in the direction of the ultimate kingdom of
CARL E. ARMERDING 6a
God. Of course, there are major differences among
such
thinkers as
I have mentioned, and Elder would be the
first to
acknowledge such, but all have in common a view
that God has
somehow ordained that man shall be the
master of
nature and, as its despot (whether benevolent
or otherwise
is debated) does the work of God in
subduction
of what is basically a godless and hostile
entity.
His second group, styled the
"inclusionists", represents
Elder
himself, along with such Christian and marginally
Christian
thinkers as George H. Williams, McHarg,
Rachel
Carson, and Loren Eiseley. Theologically
he
finds roots
of the position in Calvin and H. R. Niebuhr,
in each of
whom there is present that holy regard for
Mother Earth
that Rudolf Otto has called a "sense of
the numinous".
Elder is suggesting that Christian
theology must rid
itself of
its anthropocentrism and begin to see the earth
as a
self-contained biosphere in which man is little more
than a plant
parasite (to use McHarg's terminology).
He must see
himself no longer as custodian of but
rather a
"part” of the environment. Along
with this de-
throning, or
more properly abdication, of the king of
the earth,
will come a fresh sense of man's worth as an
individual,
unique in his ability to perceive eternity in
various
forms of natural history, and set over against a
view of man
as the collective, the mechanical, the
technical
master of the world's fate. In short,
there must
remain in
man that mysterious sense of wonder as he
stands
before the burning bush, though that bush be the
heart of a
simple seed.7
A critique of such a view must consider
first whether
it is
Biblical and second, whether it has drawn adequate
and accurate
conclusions from the sources it has used.
Turning to
the second point first, I would contend that
Otto's
"sense of the numinous" is by no means restricted
to persons
with a so-called "biocentric" world view, nor
CARL E. ARMERDING 6b
is there any
real conflict between a truly Biblical anthro-
pocentricity
and the concern for ecology Elder sets forth
as a
goal. Certainly Calvin, for one, quoted
by Elder
as having an
"inclusionist's" sense of wonder at creation,
was firmly
in the anthropocentic camp when he wrote
''as it was
chiefly for the sake of mankind that the world
was made, we
must look to this as the end which God
has in view
in the government of it."8
Although any
attempt to
see in Calvin the concerns of modern ecology
is doomed
beforehand, there is still here a valid example
of what I
should like to show as a Biblical anthropocen-
trism
combined with the necessary attitudes for dealing
with today's
heightened concerns.
Elder's view has many other problems, but
rather
than offer a
critique of Elder I will suggest a Biblical
alternative. Let me say at the start that I am convinced
that all
talk of man's abdication, of a biospheric world-
view, and of
a sense of mere equality with the animal
and plant
world is not Biblical, Christian, or practical.
In the
appeal to St. Francis of
between man
and nature and in the almost personaliza-
tion of the
natural world one senses more than a hint of
a
pantheistic response. I suggest that, in
a Biblical view,
nature has a
derived dignity as the separate and sub-
ordinate
creation of a transcendent God. Man has
his
God-given
role as under-Lord, as manager and keeper,
and is
possessed of a cultural mandate which includes
submission
of any hostile forces and just as importantly,
dominion
over friendly forces. In this he is a
partner
with God who
created him and, were it not for the Fall
into sin
(which Elder and most theological writers on
the subject
seem to ignore), he might have brought
about the
deepest
secrets of his biosphere en route.
CARL E. ARMERDING 6c
BIBLICAL VIEW
God
Any Biblical perspective on ecology must
begin with
a Biblical
view of God. In this sense, a Biblical
world
view is
really theocentric rather than either anthropo-
centric or
biocentric. Significantly, Genesis 1
begins
this point
and I argue that any value system or truth
structure
without such a starting point must quickly
reduce to
subjectivity. The very extent to which
nature
is
meaningful, whether in a pantheistic, animistic, or
Christian
sense, is a derivative of the view of God
espoused. The God of the Bible is a God who is there
prior to any
and all creation. Though He can stoop to
converse
with his creatures (witness the anthropomorph-
isms of
Genesis 2, to say nothing of the incarnation of
Jesus
Christ) he is still consistently presented as above
and beyond
any and all of his works. In a masterful
summary
delivered on the Areopagus in
said of this
God that He made the world and every-
thing in it
(Acts
and
everything else and He is the determining force in
created
history, but never can be reduced to any spatial
context that
man can identify and enshrine. Thus, our
love of
nature must be in the context of it as the handi-
work of the
Almighty and not as some part of God
(i.e.,
pantheism).
Such a view is important because it has
not always
been
universally held, and we are in position to examine
the results
of alternate views. It should be
self-evident
that such a
view of a Creator-God endows nature as well
as man with
a real dignity, but dignity for nature, at
least, can
also be derived from pantheism. But what
are
the
implications if we lower God to the level of nature
or raise
nature to the level of God?
We have a model for this in the
Babylonian view of
the
universe. "Enuma Elish", representing Babylonian
cosmology in
the 3rd and 2nd millenium before Christ,
CARL E. ARMERDING 6d
has the
usual pagan pantheon, but the notable fact is
that the
world was created out of certain gods and each
element in
the universe furthermore represented the
personality
and will of a particular deity. Thus, deriving
from its
view of god, the society came to view nature
not as an
"it" but a "Thou".9 Such language, reproduced
on a more
sophisticated plane, and overlaid with a
residual
Judeo-Christian world-view, is seen again in
many of
Elder's favorite "inclusionists", and even Lynn
White
himself seems to long for the good old days when
the groves
were sacred.
For the Christian, however, God must be
the God
of
creation. The grove may be perceived as
a wonder
of order and
beauty, but it must never be given the
robe of
divine dignity. Its meaning to man must
be
derived from
the fact of its createdness rather than its
essence. Its mystery must be that God has created it
and given it
properties for man to study and marvel at,
BIBLICAL
PERSPECTIVES ON ECOLOGY 7a
but never
worship or fear. For the Babylonians no
such
confidence
in the grove existed. It was feared, not
ap-
preciated. It was irregular and capricious in its
person-
ality, not
in any sense the ordered subject of scientific
investigation
we know today. It possessed a sense of
authority,
but even that authority was no guarantee
against the
sudden return of chaos. All of this,
which
we call
cosmology, is clearly dependent on one's view
of God, and
I can hardly emphasize sufficiently the
force and
majesty of the Hebrew concept of a depend-
able and
transcendent Creator as presented in Genesis
chapter 1.
Nor is the transcendence of God absent in
the so-called
2nd account
of creation. In Genesis 2:4 we find God
again
completely in control of His work, creating (lit:
"making";
Hebrew 'asah) the earth and the heavens.
No
primitive
mythology is here; rather there is a God who
can be close
to his creation and even direct its affairs
personally,
but who Himself is above it, beyond it and
outside
it. Again the view of the world is
theocentric
rather than
anthropocentric or biocentric. It is
this God
who tells
Adam to till and keep the garden.
Nature
The inclusionists" tell us we must
rid ourselves of
Biblical
views of nature and return to a kind of neo-
pantheism, a
resurrection of the sacred grove, which has
to mean some
kind of independent element of deity
within the
natural order. But what is the Biblical
view?
Is nature a
worthless mass of material to be exploited
and left to
rot as man sates himself in luxury, while
trampling
underfoot his environment? Some would
have
us believe
that this is the implication in Genesis 1:26-28.
Elder
attempts to convince us that the Biblical picture
degrades
nature at the expense of exalting man, but
does the
Genesis account actually reflect such a state of
affairs?
BIBLICAL
PERSPECTIVES ON ECOLOGY 7b
We have already seen in both Genesis
accounts that
the created
order is radically separate from God. Up
to
the sixth
day, with its creation of man, each natural
element
brought into being finds its meaning in ful-
filling a
role cast for it in the benevolent order of things.
Light
dispels darkness and we have day. The
firmament
keeps the
waters separated. The dry land provides
a
platform for
vegetation which in turn feeds all the living
creatures. The seas become in their turn an environment
for the fish
and swarming creatures. The two great
lights rule
(or give order to) the principle parts of the
cycle: day
and night. And finally man, as the
highest
of the
created order, serves to keep all of the rest in
order,
functioning smoothly. In fact, it is in
Genesis 1
with its
penchant for order and its transcendent and
over-arching
concept of a purposeful universe, that a
truly
balanced cosmological system can be found--and
this in the
very document that is supposed to down-
grade nature
by its command for man to subdue and
have
dominion. In this document creation is
seen as
orderly
(note the structure in the chapter), it is re-
peatedly
stated to be good, and it is throughout seen to
be serving a
great and noble purpose.
Genesis 2 has relatively little to add, as
it is, funda-
mentally, a
treatise on the nature of man and his mean-
ing in the
structure. However, contrary again to
what
we might
expect in an "anthropocentric" account10
Genesis 2
also argues for a healthy respect for environ-
ment. Indeed for most ecologists who concern them-
selves with
the Bible at all, Genesis 2 is more palatable
than Gen.
1. Here the garden is full of
"every tree that
is pleasant
to the sight and good for food" (v. 9).
Here
man's
mandate is even expressed in more ecologically
desirable
terms. No longer is he to conquer and
subdue,
but rather
to "till (lit: work) and guard (Hebr: shamar,
keep)"
the treasure entrusted to him. True, its
value is
cast in
terms of its usefulness for man, but at least
BIBLICAL
PERSPECTIVES ON ECOLOGY 7c
one tree had
a value totally separate from any use man
was to make
of it. Note however, that Harvey Cox
and Herbert
Richardson, with their anthropocentric
universe,
are really closer to the mark here than is Elder
and his
so-called "biocentrists", though neither has
grasped the
full fact that theocentrism must precede
either
second option. Cox and Richardson
sometimes
lose sight
of the fact that it is the
Adam, no
matter how central Adam may appear in the
story.
Further testimony to the value and wonder
of nature
is not
wanting in other parts of scripture.
There is the
familiar and
majestic Psalm 19, "The heavens declare
the glory of
God and the firmament showeth his handi-
work. .
." Add to this the prologue of
Psalm 8--"When
I consider
Thy heavens, the work of thy fingers, the
moon and the
stars which thou hast ordained--What is
man. . .
" Or Psalm 104, a marvelous
Creation hymn
in which
nature's beauties are celebrated so graphically,
but the
whole is carefully set in a context pointing to
man's
utilization of nature as the real purpose of all its
beauty and
productivity. The springs in the valleys
give
drink to the
beasts of the field and the earth is satisfied
with the
fruit of God's creative works. But all
is
ultimately
for the service of man (v. 14) whether
directly (as
when man drinks water) or eventually (as
in the wine
and bread made from the plants which
drink from
the springs). Any suggestion that the
rela-
tionship is
exploitive or that nature is degraded by
relegation
to a utilitarian function is, of course, non-
sensical. It is only when man's greed and lack of ap-
preciation
of his own proper role becomes a factor that
nature is
trampled underfoot. In fact, again
nature's
real meaning
comes from her role in the sphere of
created
orders, and in her proper role she shines.
One final
word should be said on the destiny of the
natural
world. Biblical theology is well aware
that we
BIBLICAL
PERSPECTIVES ON ECOLOGY 7d
live in no
pristine Garden of Eden and that we are not
likely to
restore such a paradise, as things now stand.
The reasons
for this I discuss in more detail presently.
But the
Biblical writers never lost sight of the fact that
God's
original purpose for nature was that it should
freely
reflect His glory in a state of untrammeled beauty.
Man was,
from the beginning, to be the center of this
paradise,
and all things were to function in a harmonious
relationship
to man. Thus, when the prophet Isaiah
speaks of
the new heavens and new earth, (ch. 65:17)
his covenant
includes terms for harmony within both
plant and
animal kingdom: vineyards bear fruit,
wolf
and lamb
feed together and none hurt or destroy in all
God's holy
mountain. This ideal of a cosmic element
in
redemption,
combining the theme of creation from
CARL E. ARMERDING 8a
Genesis and
that of redemption from Exodus, is no-
where more
pronounced than in the later chapters of
Isaiah and
is taken up in Paul's letter to the Romans,
an earnest
or eager longing (lit: an uplifted head in
expectation)
for the day when she shall be freed from
bondage and
obtain liberty to function without her
present
decay. Just when this shall become a
reality,
and
particularly the relation it has to our own environ-
mental
efforts, is not clear. What it does say
is that
God's
purpose for the natural world is not abandoned,
and the very
"hope" which is here expressed for the
natural
order should lend continuing dignity to our
efforts in
the field of ecology. When we work to
free
nature from
some of the effects of man's sin we are
upholding
that which is "good" in God's sight, and
expressing a
commitment to a program which will find
its
consummation in some form of eschatological king-
dom of
God. That we can never hope to complete
the
process no
more renders the charge futile than does our
inability to
finally eliminate poverty, racism, broken
homes, or
disease. In fact, by the demonstration
of a
Christian
concern we are witnesses to the continued
expression
of God's ultimate purposes in the world.
Man
The key to the discussion lies in a
theology of man.
We have
already sensed that the fly in the ecological
ointment is
man himself--his greed, his self-centered
economic
motivation, his desire for the kind of "free-
dom"
which regards any restraints as odious.
For the inclusionists the answer seems to
be found
in reducing
man to the level of nature, in ridding him of
this
Biblical anthropocentrism where he sees himself
as something
inherently of more value than "many
sparrows". My own, and I think the Bible's, answer lies
in quite the
opposite direction. Both creation
accounts
place man at
the pinnacle of creation, whether in terms
CARL E. ARMERDING 8b
of its
climactic event (as in Ch. 1) or its primary inter-
mediary (Ch.
2, in which man is first formed and then
completes
creation through his naming of the animals).
In the
former account he is given dominion which
separates
him from the animals and is thus a primary
element in
working out the imago dei within him. Thus,
by his creation,
he already represents the highest
potential
for biological development and we may not,
with Loren
Eiseley, expect that something greater may
yet come
along.
As the highest form of the created order,
he is to be
lord of
nature, not part of it. Herein lies the
origin of
science and
technology, and the inclusionists seem at
times to be
calling for a return to the state existing prior
to the
neolithic revolution, where man would again take
his place as
a gatherer and predator, but would abandon
his role as
organizer, producer, and planner. Such
an
option is,
of course, a practical impossibility, as I'm sure
most
inclusionists would admit. We simply
know too
much science
and technology, and furthermore we have
the
brainpower to duplicate the process again, even if
rolled back
to square zero by some catastrophic event.
But what are the Biblical restraints on man
in his
lordly
role? I think herein lies the key. Herein is the
forgotten
element in most of human development,
herein is
the weakness in any truly anthropocenric
world-view.
For, as C. F. D. Moule has so cogently
pointed out
in his small but weighty book, Man and
Nature in
the NT,11
man is never seen just as lord, but
as lord
under God. Moule uses the term vice-regent
or
sub-manager. Man derives his meaning from God whose
program,
though it from the beginning offered man the
kingdom,
included a recognition of God's ultimate lord-
ship over
all creation and saw man as a responsible
steward, not
an independent tyrant. Every tree of the
garden was
given to man, but there were rules.
Dominion
was given
(never, by the way, as a license to exploit
CARL E. ARMERDING 8c
but it was
dominion within (as Elder himself points
out) a
created order, the violation of which would
naturally
lead to imbalance and disaster. There is
no
such thing
for Biblical man as unlimited freedom un-
limited
rights. His freedom is that of the
operator of a
beautifully
functioning machine. As long as he
treats
the machine
with respect and uses it in a way consistent
with the
functions and properties of the machine, he
may continue
to exercise his managerial function with
no
problems. But when he ignores the rules
and decides
he can
ignore the complexities of his machine and the
instructions
left by its maker, his freedom is lost and he
becomes the
destroyer both of the machine and his own
function as
its lord.
Now man, through his overthrow of the
rules (Bibli-
cally
summarized in Genesis 3) has brought slavery
both to
himself and his universe. Of course, enough
of
God's image
remains within him so that he can still
exercise a
powerful technical control and he can for a
while appear
to be creating a kingdom of his own quite
independently
of that kingdom promised "where
dwelleth
righteousness". But now the books
on the city
of man are
beginning to be audited, and it appears that
this city
has one grave and mortal fault. It
simply cannot
overcome the
selfish desires of its own citizens, even
when those
desires threaten to destroy the whole king-
dom.
The options we are given are all
insufficient. Ecolo-
gists (and
Richard Wright) appeal to self-preservation
but
existence without meaning becomes a farce.
White,
Richard Means and others seem to be calling
for man to
abdicate his role as king of the world, but
this would
simply leave the whole process with no
government.
I believe the only real solution is to
restore the
created
order that freedom it lost, by freeing men from
their
bondage to sin and self and then showing how
CARL E. ARMERDING 8d
they, in
turn, may progressively set their environment
free from
the bondage into which it has been placed
This will
demand a realistic view of man's problem
and perhaps
the Achilles Heel of almost all modern
theological
attempts at solution is that they discuss
creation in
terms of Gen. 1 and 2, but ignore Gen. 3
In setting a man free Jesus Christ did not
promise
instant
return to paradise. Though the head of the
serpent has
been bruised, thorns and thistles continue
to come
forth, I do not believe we will ever see a real
ecological,
or social harmony, until that day when the
glorious
liberty of the children of God shall become
universal
for all creation. But let us never
forget that
in Christ,
we are already free, and we can, despite the
weaknesses
of the "flesh", began to demonstrate our
freedom by
applying it to the many institutions of our
BIBLICAL
PERSPECTIVES ON ECOLOGY 9a
social
order. Christians have often failed to
live as free
men (hence
the continued presence of race prejudice
and
materialism among us) but where they have
grasped the
meaning of redemption (as witness the
Clapham Sect
in
of
magnificent. The
eschatological
consummation, but this has never pre-
vented
citizens of that kingdom from acting out in this
kingdom the
principles of that other. And the unique
Biblical
fact is that in some mysterious sense, that new
order, the
new heaven and the new earth, seem to be
a
re-creation or restoration of that order we now know!
What exactly
is the connection I cannot tell, but the
very fact of
the identification lends tremendous force
and dignity
to my weakest efforts at freeing this order
from its
bondage to sin.
REFERENCES
lIn lectures
given at
1971.
2Christian
Scholars Review (Vol. I, No.1, pp. 35-40).
4Science
(Vol. 155,1967), as quoted in the Journal of the ASA.
(June, 1969, Vol. 21, No.2, p. 45)
5ibid.,
43-47.
6Nashville:
Abingdon Press, 1970, p. 87.
7Much of
this terminology comes from Elder's favorite "inclu-
sionist", Loren Eiseley.
8Institutes
of the Christian Religion, Bk. I, Ch. XVI, Sect. 6.
9T. Jacobsen
in Before Philosophy (H. Frankfort, et al, eds.),
Pelican Books, 1949, p. 142.
l0 Elder, loc
cit., p. 84.
11
This
material is cited with gracious permission from:
American
Scientific Affiliation: ASA
www.asa3.org
Please
report any errors to Ted Hildebrandt at:
thildebrandt@gordon.edu