4

Our call to stewardship

“Somehow the awe over Noah’s ark has fallen through the cracks of the adult church. Christian church discussions about creation are much more likely to focus on the Creation vs. evolution debate than on stewardship of God’s world.” (Sheldon & Foster 2003, p. 365)

Quilts are used for keeping warm. There are two ways to keep warm with a quilt: by covering up with it, and by burning it. When my wife gives away a quilt she’s made, it would be pretty short-sighted on the part of the receiver to burn the quilt in a fireplace in order to keep warm. Instead of keeping people warm in perpetuity (or at least until it falls apart), the quilt is gone. Not only would we deem it foolish and short-sighted for someone to do that, we would also view such action as incredibly inconsiderate and ungrateful of the love and care that went into making the quilt. And if my wife learned of the fate of the quilt, she would not be pleased, to say the least. It might even make her more reluctant to give away quilts in the future. The gift of God’s creation is much more amazingly beautiful than one of Mary’s quilts. What shall we do with this gift?

Actually, this quilt analogy is not quite perfect, as Psalm 24:1-2 says:

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.

So technically, God’s creation does not even belong to us. God has gifted us the use and enjoyment of creation, but it is not ours. Since it is not ours to do with as we wish, we turn to scripture to learn what God’s “fair-use” policy looks like … that is, what God expects of us regarding the use and stewardship of creation.

In the above passage and repeatedly throughout scripture, God reminds us that all of creation belongs to him, which in and of itself should tell us to treat creation with care and respect. Of course, as we saw in a previous chapter, we have the oft-misinterpreted Genesis 1:28 telling us to oppressively dominate creation. Many people (especially non-Christians wanting to blame all environmental woes on Christians) do not even make it to Genesis 2:15, where God tells Adam to take care of the Garden.

We see the appropriate response for being given dominion over God’s creation in Psalm 8. In this psalm, David seems to be in awe of God, his works, and his love for humankind, and he seems humbled by the position given to humankind as “ruler” over God’s works:

3 When I consider your heavens, the work of your fingers, the moon and the stars, which you have set in place, 4 what is man that you are mindful of him, the son of man that you care for him? 5 You made him a little lower than the heavenly beings and crowned him with glory and honor. 6 You made him ruler over the works of your hands; you put everything under his feet: 7 all flocks and herds, and the beasts of the field, 8 the birds of the air, and the fish of the sea, all that swim the paths of the seas. 9 O Lord, our Lord, how majestic is your name in all the earth!

Of course, we have already examined scripture regarding the many purposes of creation beyond human use, including the fact that God enjoys his creation and uses creation to reveal himself. We have likewise examined scriptural support for the argument that all of creation groans in its bondage to decay, awaiting the same redemption promised to all believers. When I ask my environmental science students about God’s purposes for creation, every so often a student will propose that God uses creation as a “training ground” for his servants. In essence, those who are faithful in their responsibilities on earth will be given greater responsibilities in heaven,[1] reflecting Jesus’ words in the parable of the loaned money:

His master replied, 'Well done, good and faithful servant! You have been faithful with a few things; I will put you in charge of many things. Come and share your master's happiness!' (Matthew 25:21)

Likewise, Jesus describes the faithful steward in Luke 12:42-44:

Who then is the faithful and wise manager, whom the master puts in charge of his servants to give them their food allowance at the proper time? It will be good for that servant whom the master finds doing so when he returns. I tell you the truth, he will put him in charge of all his possessions.

Not only does God establish in scripture that those who are faithful will be rewarded, he also has some choice words for those who put themselves first and ignore their stewardly responsibilities, with verses in Ezekiel and Revelations specifically mentioning environmental abuse:

That servant who knows his master's will and does not get ready or does not do what his master wants will be beaten with many blows. (Luke 12:47)

Is it not enough for you to feed on the good pasture? Must you also trample the rest of your pasture with your feet? Is it not enough for you to drink clear water? Must you also muddy the rest with your feet? 19 Must my flock feed on what you have trampled and drink what you have muddied with your feet? (Ezekiel 34:18-19)

The nations were angry; and your wrath has come. The time has come for judging the dead, and for rewarding your servants the prophets and your saints and those who reverence your name, both small and great-- and for destroying those who destroy the earth. (Rev. 11:18)

Given that a) creation is God’s and not ours, b) God purposes creation for much more than just use by humans, c) God loves his creation, d) God has given us stewardship responsibility[2] for his creation, e) God condemns those who abuse the earth and do not sustain its resources for use by others, and f) the appropriate response is one of gratitude when given any gift (especially a gift from the creator of the universe!), it behooves us as God’s people to change our attitudes about God’s creation and to take our stewardship responsibilities seriously. Wendell Berry (1993) refers to our destruction of nature as tantamount to “flinging God’s gifts into his face,” raising more than a few eyebrows and ruffling more than a few feathers with his position that our abuse of nature is blasphemous:

“…[W]e and all other creatures live by a sanctity that is inexpressibly intimate, for to every creature, the gift of life is a portion of the breath and spirit of God... We will discover that for these reasons, our destruction of nature is not just bad stewardship, or stupid economics, or a betrayal of family responsibility; it is the most horrid blasphemy. It is flinging God’s gifts into his face, as if they were of no worth beyond that assigned to them by our destruction of them.... We have no entitlement from the Bible to exterminate or permanently destroy or hold in contempt anything on the earth or in the heavens above it or in the waters beneath it… We have the right to use what we need but no more…” (p. 41)

Others (e.g., Sheldon & Foster 2003) have since also jumped on the “blasphemy” bandwagon:

“The loss of species at the hand of the steward rather than the owner, the pollution of the air and the defiling of the water that supports life are blasphemous acts and mark our failure as stewards... It is the steward’s job to ensure that problems do not arise as a result of human disregard or neglect.” (p. 368)

Even if we ignore our God-given stewardship responsibilities and simply consider how our abuse of the environment affects humans both now and in the future, the logical conclusion is that we must immediately do whatever we can to stop the irreparable harm occurring to the environment.

How and where do we start?

Unfortunately, even knowing what God calls us to do, many people will still not respond to God’s call to creation care. Why is this so? In her (secular) essay Symbols, writer Kris Hardin (1993) explains that our lifestyle and consumption patterns are so ingrained that we resist making real changes in our lifestyles and instead just do those actions symbolic of concern for the environment, such as donating money to environmental causes or slapping an environmental bumper sticker on the family car:

“There are countless examples of environmentally conscious actions that have been adopted in the flurry of a cause only to be abandoned when the next cause appears... These and many more instances show that we have chosen the easy way out. Anyone interested in stewardship must begin to ask why this is so. The answer can only be that we really don’t want to make changes or even adjustments to the lifestyle and consumption patterns that are embedded in the... human psyche. It is much easier to decide to put a bumper sticker on the family car than to decide not to use that car three days a week... Recognizing this is a first step toward, if not changing, at least working against this ethos. Another step is to begin to ask questions about our place in the world and the consequences of our actions for that world.” (pp. 28-29)

Van Dyke et al. (1996) blame the inertia preventing people from taking action on the sinful nature of humanity:

“The sinful nature of humanity is nowhere more evident in a world in which we possess the means to care for creation but not the will. And to admit this is one of the most penetrating and painful confessions that an unbelieving world can make. Yet the facts force this admission upon us.” (p. 63)

As Clements and Corapi (2003) point out, stewardship may impact our time and financial resources,[3] two things Americans hold near and dear, and until we individually decide that obedience to God’s call is more important than these two things, we will not work toward restoring creation.

With eyes that see…

The “groanings” of creation can be deafening and overwhelming once you can “hear” them. Blissful ignorance is not acceptable, and once we experience God’s creation and become acutely aware of its bondage, it is so easy to become depressed and just give up in despair. Sometimes I wish as an ecologist that I could just enjoy a walk on a recreational trail or a hike through a forest without noticing all the things that are “wrong with the picture.” I took seven ecology students to Colorado last summer. As we drove down the west side of Trail Ridge Road in Rocky Mountain National Park, surrounded by creation’s incredible beauty, my students began commenting on the state of the park’s forests. “Wow, this place is gonna burn! Look at all the fuel,” noted one student.[4] Another student commented on all the trees that been killed by bark beetles. With eyes that see, it becomes difficult to enjoy creation…

Although it is easy to despair because it seems like we cannot make a difference, God does not call us to fix everything. We are simply called to work toward the restoring of creation in a work that ultimately will not be complete until the day of Christ’s return. As Van Dyke et al. (1996) explain:

“As God’s children, we have a special responsibility toward the rest of creation… Indeed the Bible declares that all creation eagerly awaits the revealing of the children of God… Because we live in covenant bond with God, we begin the process of restoring creation. The completion of this work is an act of God, and we cannot presume to do that. But we do, we must, demonstrate the reality of Christ’s work in our treatment of creation, and we should expect substantial healing to occur if we treat creation in obedience to the covenant God established with it.” (p. 88)

Van Dyke et al. explain that in our witness to the world, we are called to begin the work of redemption within our sphere of influence… in our own homes, churches, and campuses:

“The work of redemption must begin on lands entrusted to each Christian individually, and to us as a church corporately. In homes and on farms, on church grounds and camps, at college campuses and retreat centers, we must begin to live out these principles... Unless we show both commitment and practicality of doing things properly in our own house, it will never be an attractive option for our neighbors. Yet it is precisely our neighbors whom we must influence. The lands we can influence directly are small. It is corporations and government which must be persuaded by words and deeds. Only this way can we influence the redemption of creation that lies beyond our control... For now, we must simply remember what it means to rule and subdue. If we would rule as God rules, and subdue as God subdues, then we must change both our thoughts and our tactics. To rule creation means to serve creation. Any other response to nature is no imitation of Christ, no help to creation and no witness to the world.” (p. 100)

Within our homes and on our campuses, we can do simple things like recycle, use less electricity and water, and the like, but none of those things reconnect us with God’s creation. Perhaps a trip to the garbage dump, wastewater treatment plant, or even a coal strip mine[5] is warranted, so we can see how simple actions like flushing our toilet and turning on a light affect our environment.

Even better, we can all work to restore a little piece of God’s creation. Northwestern College has a thriving 16-acre restored prairie near Hawarden. Margo Vanderhill gathered native prairie seeds from old cemeteries and railroad beds in the area, planted the seeds (with Rein’s blessing and assistance), and now has a restored prairie on her land just outside of Alton. She brings school groups in to harvest seeds to be used for starting other native prairie restoration projects in the area. Unfortunately, this restorative work is made more difficult by invasive species. For example, in its infancy, Northwestern’s prairie was faced with an invasion of shattercane Sorghum bicolor, and only because of the vigilance, early detection, and quick action of wise ecology professors, a major shattercane invasion was thwarted. The prairie now faces invasion by downy brome Bromus tectorum and Canada thistle Cirsium arvense, two invasive species that are always looking for new areas to conquer. If one does not have the land and/or the wherewithal to attempt a new prairie restoration, one can find a “natural area” (to the extent that they exist around here) to protect against invasive species. For example, not only does Oak Grove Park have problems with redcedar and buckthorn, an even more insidious invader called leafy spurge Euphorbia esula has found its way into the park. Thought to have been brought into the park by a geocacher[6] inadvertently transferring seeds on his/her clothing, leafy spurge is now spreading through much of the park and actually puts other parks in jeopardy, as geocachers stopping at Oak Grove may inadvertently pick up seeds on their boots, sock, or pants, and transfer the seeds to geocaching sites in other parks.

On restoring an ecosystem groaning from invasive species, Clements and Corapi state:

“The end result of restoration… is a display of God’s glory, whether its object is a people held in captivity or vegetation like the o’hi’a tree (Metrosideros polymorpha) held captive to the onslaught of invasive species.” (p. 52)

My students find it incredibly rewarding to restore natural areas held captive by invasive species, as the “display of God’s glory” is visible and tangible (unlike other laudable activities like recycling and water conservation). This kind of restorative work helps us see God’s creation up close and personal, allowing us to “meet” the captive local species and learn their names (probably the first steps toward caring)[7]. We are called to participate in the restoration of creation, and to the extent that we can work toward this restoration (or at the very least, work toward preventing the spread of invasives), we should aspire and strive to do so. Psalm 24 reads:

I went past the field of the sluggard, past the vineyard of the man who lacks judgment; thorns had come up everywhere, the ground was covered with weeds, and the stone wall was in ruins. I applied my heart to what I observed and learned a lesson from what I saw: A little sleep, a little slumber, a little folding of the hands to rest-- and poverty will come on you like a bandit and scarcity like an armed man. (Psalm 24:30-34)

A groaning creation awaits the unfolding of our hands…

Works cited

Berry, W. 1990. What are people for? North Point Press. Berkeley, California.

Berry, W.  1993.  Christianity and the survival of Creation.  Pages 38-54 in Sacred trusts: essays on stewardship and responsibility. M. Katakis, ed.  Mercury House. San Francisco, California.

Bible Plants. Available from: < http://www.deer-haven-farm.com/plants> [Accessed 25 July 2007]

Boland, C. 2004.  Introduced cane toads Bufo marinus are active nest predators and competitors of rainbow bee-eaters Merops ornatus: observational and experimental evidence.  Biological Conservation 120: 53-62.

Bouma-Prediger, S.  2001.  For the beauty of the earth: a Christian vision for creation care.  Baker Academic. Grand Rapids, Michigan.

Bouma-Prediger, S. 2003. Education for homelessness or homemaking? The Christian college in a postmodern culture. Christian Scholar’s Review 32(3): 281-295.

Brennan, S., and Withgott, J.  2005.  Environment: the science behind the stories.  Pearson/Benjamin-Cummings. San Francisco, California.

Calvin, J. Institutes of the Christian Religion. Library of Christian Classics Volume XX. Edited by J. McNeill, translated and indexed by F. Battles. Westminster Press, 1960.

Campbell, N., and Reece, J. 2002. Biology. Sixth edition. Benjamin Cummings. San Francisco, California.

Campolo, T.  1992.  How to rescue the Earth without worshiping nature.  Thomas Nelson Publishers. Nashville, Tennessee.

Clements, D., and Corapi, W. 2005. Paradise lost? Setting the boundaries around invasive species. Perspectives on Science and the Christian Faith 57(1): 44-54.

Cooper, C., Hochachka, W., and Dhont, A. 2007. Contrasting natural experiments confirm competition between house finches and house sparrows. Ecology 88: 864-870.

Coupland, D. 1995. Life after God. Pocket Books. New York, New York.

Crosswalk.com. The KJV New Testament Greek Lexicon, Strong’s number: 3089 “Luvw.” Available from: <http://bible1.crosswalk.com/Lexicons/Greek/grk.cgi?number=3089&version=kjv> [Accessed 17 October 2007]

Daws, Gavan. 1989. Hawai’i: the islands of life. The Nature Conservancy of Hawaii.

DeWitt, C. B. 1994. Christian environmental stewardship: Preparing the way for action. Perspectives on Science and the Christian Faith 46: 80-89. Available from: <http://www.asa3.org/ASA/PSCF/1994/PSCF6-94DeWitt.html> [Accessed 17 October 2007]

Drake, B., and Todd, P.  2002.  A strategy for control and utilization of invasive juniper species in Oklahoma: Final report of the redcedar taskforce.  Oklahoma Department of Agriculture, Food, and Forestry.  Available from: <http://www.ok.gov/~okag/forms/forestry/rcstf.pdf> [Accessed 20 July 2007]

Elliott, J. & R. Arbib. 1953. Origin and status of the House Finch in the eastern United States. Auk 70: 31-37.

Fagan, M. and Peart, D.  2004.  Impact of the invasive shrub glossy buckthorn (Rhamnus frangula L.) on juvenile recruitment by canopy trees.  Forest ecology and management 194: 95-107.

Finger, T. 1998. Evangelicals, eschatology, and the environment. Scholars Circle Monograph #2. Evangelical Environmental Network.

Frappier, B., Eckert, R., and T. Lee.  2003.  Potential impacts of the invasive exotic shrub Rhamnus frangula L. (glossy buckthorn) on forests of southern New Hampshire.  Northeastern Naturalist 10(3): 277-296.

Frappier, B., Eckert, R., and T. Lee.  2004.  Experimental removal of the non-indigenous shrub Rhamnus frangula (Glossy buckthorn): Effects on native herbs and woody seedlings.  Northeastern Naturalist 11(3): 333-342.

Global Invasive Species Database (GISD), 2005a.  Welcome to the global invasive species database. Available from: <http://www.issg.org/database> [Accessed 21 July 2007]

Global Invasive Species Database, 2005b. Boiga irregularis.  Available from: <http://www.issg.org/database/species/search.asp?sts=sss&st=sss&fr=1&sn=brown+tree+snake&rn=&hci=-1&ei=-1> [Accessed 21 July 2007]

Global Invasive Species Database, 2005c. Carpodacus mexicanus.  Available from: <http://www.issg.org/database/species/ecology.asp?si=485&fr=1&sts=> [Accessed 19 July 2007]

Global Invasive Species Database, 2005d. Coptotermes formosanus.  Available from: <http://www.issg.org/database/species/ecology.asp?si=61&fr=1&sts=sss> [Accessed 22 July 2007]

Global Invasive Species Database, 2005e. Cronartium ribicola.  Available from: <http://www.issg.org/database/species/ecology.asp?si=550&fr=1&sts=sss> [Accessed 2 August 2007]

Global Invasive Species Database, 2005f. Cryphonectria parasitica.  Available from: <http://www.issg.org/database/species/ecology.asp?si=124&fr=1&sts=sss> [Accessed 2 August 2007]

Global Invasive Species Database, 2005g. Eichhornia crassipes.  Available from: <http://www.issg.org/database/species/ecology.asp?si=70&fr=1&sts=sss> [Accessed 21 July 2007]

Global Invasive Species Database, 2005h. Felis catus.  Available from: <http://www.issg.org/database/species/ecology.asp?si=24&fr=1&sts=sss > [Accessed 15 August 2007]

Global Invasive Species Database, 2005i. Harmonia axyridis.  Available from: <http://www.issg.org/database/species/ecology.asp?si=668&fr=1&sts=sss > [Accessed 13 August 2007]

Global Invasive Species Database, 2005j. Herpestes javanicus.  Available from: <http://www.issg.org/database/species/ecology.asp?si=86&fr=1&sts=sss> [Accessed 25 July 2007]

Global Invasive Species Database, 2005k. Lythrum salicaria.  Available from: <http://www.issg.org/database/species/ecology.asp?si=93&fr=1&sts=sss> [Accessed 2 August 2007]

Global Invasive Species Database, 2005l. Miconia calvescens.  Available from: <http://www.issg.org/database/species/ecology.asp?si=2&fr=1&sts=sss> [Accessed 2 August 2007]

Global Invasive Species Database, 2005m. Ophiostoma ulmi.  Available from: <http://www.issg.org/database/species/ecology.asp?si=130&fr=1&sts=sss > [Accessed 2 August 2007]

Global Invasive Species Database, 2005n. Passer domesticus.  Available from: <http://www.issg.org/database/species/ecology.asp?si=420&fr=1&sts=sss> [Accessed 2 August 2007]

Global Invasive Species Database, 2005o. Puereria montana.  Available from: <http://www.issg.org/database/species/ecology.asp?si=81&fr=1&sts=sss> [Accessed 2 August 2007]

Global Invasive Species Database, 2005p. Rhamnus cathartica.  Available from: <http://www.issg.org/database/species/ecology.asp?si=809&fr=1&sts=sss > [Accessed 17 October 2007]

Hardin, K.  1993.  Symbols.  Pages 21-29 in Sacred trusts: essays on stewardship and responsibility. M. Katakis, ed.  Mercury House. San Francisco, California.

Hartzler, B., and Pope, R.  2001.  Buckthorn control and soybean aphids.  Iowa State University Weed Science Online.  Available from: <http://www.weeds.iastate.edu/mgmt/2001/buckthorn.htm> [Accessed 22 July 2007]

Heneghan, L., Clay, C., and Brundage, C.  2002.  Rapid decomposition of buckthorn litter may change soil nutrient levels.  Ecological Restoration 20(2): 108-111.

Heneghan, L., Fatemi, F., Umek, L., Grady, K., Fagen, K., and Workman, W.  2006.  The invasive shrub European buckthorn (Rhamnus cathartica, L.) alters soil properties in Midwestern U.S. woodlands.  Applied Soil Ecology 32: 142-148.

Henry, Matthew. 1706. Commentary on Isaiah 17. Matthew Henry Complete Commentary
on the Whole Bible. Available from: <http://bible.crosswalk.com/Commentaries/MatthewHenryComplete/mhc-com.cgi?book=isa&chapter=017>. [Accessed 27 July 2007]

Hill, G. 1993.  House Finch (Carpodacus mexicanus).  In The Birds of North America, No. 46 (A. Poole and F. Gill, Eds.). Philadelphia: The Academy of Natural Sciences; Washington, D.C.: The American Ornithologists’ Union.

Lever, C. 2001. The Cane Toad: the history and ecology of a successful colonist. Westbury Publishing, West Yorkshire.

Lockwood, J., Hoopes, M., and Marchetti, M. 2007. Invasion ecology. Blackwell Publishing. Malden, Massachusetts.

Lockwood, R. 2005. Locust: the devastating rise and mysterious disappearance of the insect that shaped the American frontier. Basic Books. New York, New York.

Louv, R. 2005. Last child in the woods: saving our children from nature-deficit disorder. 1^st paperback edition 2006. Algonquin Books of Chapel Hill. New York, New York.

Lowe, S., Browne, M., Boudjelas, S., and De Poorter, M.  2000.  100 of the world’s worst invasive alien species: A selection from the Global Invasive Species Database.  Invasive Species Specialist Group (ISSG) of the Species Survival Commission (SSC) of the World Conservation Union (IUCN).

Mahan, D. 2001. Practicing a sense of place: a northwest Michigan example. Seminars in Christian Scholarship. Available from: <http://www.calvin.edu/scs/2001/conferences/125conf/papers/mahanda.htm> [Accessed 12 July 2007]

McKibben, B. 2006. The Gospel of green. OnEarth. Available from: <http://www.nrdc.org/OnEarth/06fal/greener1.asp> [Accessed 26 June 2007]

Michigan Department of Natural Resources (Michigan DNR). Highest priority: Invasive plants and animals. Available from: < http://www.michigan.gov/dnr/0,1607,7-153-10364_31324_43607-154886--,00.html> [Accessed 17 October 2007]

Michigan State University (MSU).  2005. Vegetable crop advisory team alert.  Vol. 20, No. 4, May 18, 2005. Available from: <http://www.ipm.msu.edu/CAT05_veg/V05-18-05.htm>  [Accessed 2 August 2007]

Minneapolis Park and Recreation Board (MPRB).  Aquatic plants.  Available from: <http://www.minneapolisparks.org/default.asp?PageID=504>  [Accessed 22 July 2007]

Minnesota Pollution Control Agency (MPCA).  Creature of the month: Eurasian watermilfoil.  Available from: <http://www.pca.state.mn.us/kids/c-june98.html>  [Accessed 22 July 2007]

Moyers on America. "Is God Green?" 2006. Video transcript. PBS. Available from: <http://www.pbs.org/moyers/moyersonamerica/print/isgodgreen_transcript_print.html>  [Accessed 8 August 2007]

Murray, B., and Hose, G.  2005.  Life-history and ecological correlates of decline and extinction in the endemic Australian frog fauna.  Austral Ecology 30: 564-571.

National Geographic.  2005.  Strange days on planet Earth.  Episode 1: Invaders. 

National Park Service. Integrated Pest Management Manual. Available from: <http://www.nature.nps.gov/biology/ipm/manual/exweeds1.cfm>  [Accessed 2 August 2007]

NeXtBible. Thorn in the flesh. Available from: <http://net.bible.org/dictionary.php?word=Thorn%20in%20the%20Flesh> [Accessed 25 July 2007]

O’Brien, D.  1993.  Life on the myopian frontier.  Pages 12-20 in Sacred trusts: essays on stewardship and responsibility. M. Katakis, ed.  Mercury House. San Francisco, California.

Packard, G., Lang, J., Lohmiller, L., and Packard, M.  1997.  Cold tolerance in hatchling painted turtles (Chrysemys picta): Supercooling or tolerance to freezing?  Physiological Zoology 70: 670-678.

Perley, E.  The loess hills of western Iowa.  Available from: <http://www.nfinity.com/~exile/loesspg.htm#vegetation>  [Accessed 22 July 2007]

Petersen, K. 2003. The educational imperative of creation care. Christian Scholar’s Review 32(4): 433-454.

Plummer, M.  2005. Impact of Invasive Water Hyacinth (Eichhornia crassipes) on Snail Hosts of Schistosomiasis in Lake Victoria, East Africa.  EcoHealth 2: 81-86.

Prior, J. Iowa Department of Natural Resources. Geological survey. Geology of Iowa: Iowa's Earth History Shaped by Ice, Wind, Rivers, and Ancient Seas. Available from: <http://www.igsb.uiowa.edu/Browse/geoiowa/GEOIOWA.HTM> [Accessed 17 October 2007]

Regional Pest Alert.  USDA-CSREES North Central Regional 
Integrated Pest Management Program, the North Central Pest Management Center, and NC-502.  Available from: <http://www.ag.ndsu.nodak.edu/aginfo/entomology/entupdates/Soybean_Aphid/sybn_aphd_20425.pdf> [Accessed 22 July 2007]

Rolston III, H. 1994. Conserving natural values. Columbia University Press, New York.

Schmidt, K., and Whelan, C. 1999 Effects of exotic Lonicera and Rhamnus on songbird nest predation. Conservation Biology 13: 1502-1506.

Schultze, Q. 2005. Here I am: now what on Earth should I be doing? Baker Books. Grand Rapids, Michigan.

Schuurman, D. 2004. Vocation: Discerning our callings in life. Eerdmans Publishing Co. Grand Rapids, Michigan.

Sheldon, J., and Foster, D. 2003. What knowledge is required for responsible stewardship of creation? Christian Scholar’s Review 32(4): 365-380.

Stott, J. 2001. The Birds Our Teachers: Biblical Lessons from a Lifelong Bird Watcher. Baker Books. Grand Rapids, Michigan.

Taylor, R., and Edwards, G. 2005. A review of the impact and control of cane toads in Australia with recommendations for future research and management approaches: a report to the Vertebrate Pests Committee from the National Cane Toad Taskforce. Available from: <http://www.feral.org.au/feral_documents/CaneToadReport2.pdf > [Accessed 14 August 2007]

Townsend, C., Begon, M., and Harper, J. 2003. Essentials of ecology. Second edition. Blackwell Publishing. Malden, Massachusetts.

Tyler, J. 1992. History of the House Finch in Oklahoma, 1919-1991. Proceedings of the Oklahoma Academy of Science 72: 33-35.

United States Census Bureau. World POPClock Projection. Available from: <http://www.census.gov/ipc/www/popclockworld.html > [Accessed 10 August 2007]

United States Department of Agriculture Agricultural Research Service (USDA ARS).  Cereal Disease Laboratory: Buckthorn.  Available from: <http://www.ars.usda.gov/Main/docs.htm?docid=10584> [Accessed 22 July 2007]

United States Department of Agriculture Forest Service: Fire Effects Information System. Species: Taraxicum officinale. Available from: <http://www.fs.fed.us/database/feis/plants/forb/taroff/all.html#INTRODUCTORY> [Accessed 13 Sept 2007]

United States Department of Agriculture National Agricultural Library (USDA NAL).  Aquatic species/Species profiles/Eurasian watermilfoil.  Available from: <http://www.invasivespeciesinfo.gov/aquatics/watermilfoil.shtml> [Accessed 21 July 2007]

United States Department of Agriculture Natural Resources Conservation Service (USDA NRCS).  PLANTS profile: Juniperus virginiana Eastern redcedar. Available from: <http://plants.usda.gov/java/profile?symbol=JUVI> [Accessed 20 July 2007]

United States Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS).  Tallgrass prairie.  Available from: <http://www.fws.gov/midwest/news/documents/TallgrassPrairie.pdf>  [Accessed 22 July 2007]

University of Minnesota (UM) Extension.  Just for growers: My soybean production.  Insect and insect management: Soybean aphids.  FAQ 7/18/07.  Available from: <http://www.soybeans.umn.edu/pdfs/2007/aphid/7-18-07soybeanaphidq&a.pdf> [Accessed 22 July 2007]

University of Queensland Institute for Molecular Bioscience (UQ IMB).  Killing off the cane toad.  Available from: <http://www.imb.uq.edu.au/index.html?page=48437>  [Accessed 22 July 2007]

Urban, M., Phillips, B., Skelly, D., and Shine, R.  The cane toad’s (Chaunus [Bufo] marinus) increasing ability to invade Australia is revealed by a dynamically updated range model.  Proceedings of the Royal Society B. 274: 1413-1419.

Van Dyke, F., Mahan, D., Sheldon, J., Brand, R.  1996.  Redeeming creation: the Biblical basis for environmental stewardship.  InterVarsity Press. Downers Grove, Illinois. 

Vincent, M. 2006. Allelopathic effects of the fruit of European buckthorn, Rhamnus cathartica. Honours thesis. Department of Biology, University of Winnipeg. Available from: <http://ecommons.uwinnipeg.ca/archive/00000158/01/Vincent2006.pdf>  [Accessed 6 August 2007]

Washington State Department of Ecology (WSDE).  Non-native freshwater plants: Purple loosestrife.  Available from: <http://www.ecy.wa.gov/programs/wq/plants/weeds/aqua009.html > [Accessed 2 August 2007]

Williams, A. Water Hyacinth (Eichhornia crassipes). University of Waterloo (Canada) and FIRRI (Uganda) Collaborative Project.  Available from: <http://freespace.virgin.net/ae.williams/WH.htm> [Accessed 21 July 2007]

Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources.  Invasive species: Eastern red cedar.  Available from: <http://www.dnr.state.wi.us/invasives/fact/redcedar.htm> [Accessed 20 July 2007]

---

[1] However these heavenly responsibilities may manifest themselves…

[2] Our role as stewards of ALL of God’s creation is often acknowledged and described in Christian vocation books, although the role of serving non-human creation is generally de-emphasized. For example, in his book chapter entitiled The Product of Work: Vocation Creates Meaning, Douglas Schuurman ultimately lays out a seemingly incomplete view of “religiously meaningful” work by failing to mention service to non-human creation (although a wise reader would understand that a healthy environment is a “human need”):

“The product of one’s work is another source of meaning. Knowing that fruit of one’s labor is meeting the genuine needs of others creates meaning and adds joy to work... By meeting the needs of others through their work, workers participate in God’s providence, as agents through which God’s care and love are expressed in the world… The needs of people are numerous and varied... Through various callings, God’s provident care for the world is expressed. Insofar as work meets genuine human needs, then, it is religiously meaningful as cooperation in God’s provident care for the world.”(p. 168) (cont.)

[2]^(cont.) In his book Here I am: Now What on Earth Should I Be Doing?, author Quentin Schultze seems to present a more explicitly inclusive view of “vocation,” summarizing our stewardship role as follows:

“Just as God cares for his entire universe, we are called to be caretakers of God’s world. God calls us to love Jesus Christ by caring FOR and ABOUT our neighbor. When we live faithfully as caretakers under God’s authority, our many stations become opportunities for us to participate in Jesus Christ’s renewal of all things... Our overall vocation is to care for God’s world.... By the grace of the Triune God, wholehearted caring transforms our compensated or volunteer stations into royal service under the King. God redeems us and invites us to a partnership in this divine purpose. “All things” are ours for caring service. Each station offers an opportunity to participate... in the renewal of his broken world. ... we tend to concoct short-term, egocentric plans. We think in small, secular terms, wrongly assuming that the world is merely ours and that we humans can determine the future apart from God. As a result, we fail to care for the world as God’s special creation.

“True caretakers accept responsibility for others’ needs under God’s authority (like the Samaritan)... If we reject this higher calling, we become carelessly selfish. For example, we might drive recklessly, speeding, skipping stop signs, and throwing trash out of car windows. Instead we should drive carefully, leaving notes of apology and responsibility when we ding someone else’s vehicle. We should offer rides to friends when they are emotionally distraught, overly tired, or have been drinking. By God’s grace, we can accept our own vehicle and driver’s license as gifts for caretaking.” (pp. 45-49)

While acknowledging our responsibility as caretakers of “all things,” Schultze relies on examples that directly involve our relationship with other people. One might argue that throwing trash out of a car window affects the environment as a whole and not just people, but its main impact is felt by people in that a) people have to look at it, and b) people have to clean it up.

[3] According to Clements and Corapi, “Passion for the well-being of creation should arouse more than a utilitarian ethic. From a biblical perspective, humans have a priestly role, and we are called to intercede on behalf of creation, seeking to restore proper relationships. The priestly role requires a sacrificial spirit that may impact our time and financial resources.” (p. 51)

[4] We had just completed a 3-day fuel-reduction service project at the YMCA of the Rockies near Estes Park. Because small ground-fires have been prevented in the area, dead wood (“fuel”) has accumulated on the ground. One way to protect one’s property from a catastrophic wildfire is to remove all the dead wood from the ground. We did so in a particularly “bad” area of the YMCA grounds. The prevention of small fires has also contributed to the development of catastrophic wildfires by allowing too many trees mature to adulthood, overcrowding forests that were not designed to have adult trees touching each other. With trees touching, a crowning wildfire can spread directly from tree to tree. Some forests in the Colorado Rockies have upwards of 100 times the number of trees as a “healthy” forest.

[5] My students and I visited the Cordero Rojo coal mine near Gillette, Wyoming, while on our trip last summer.

[6] Geocaching involves the use of a handheld GPS unit to hide and find waterproof containers containing a logbook and trinkets. Trinkets are exchanged, and their whereabouts are logged and tracked on the worldwide web. While this is a wonderful opportunity to re-connect people with nature, the unfortunate by-product of this activity is that it gives hitchhiking invasive species easy access to remote areas where they may never have reached on their own.

[7] In his book, Louv describes his interview with Elaine Brooks, who single-handedly worked to protect from development a 30-acre natural area in La Jolla, California. Brooks (and many Christian ecologists) believe that people are unlikely to value what they cannot name. “One of my students told me that every time she learns the name of a plant, she feels as if she is meeting someone new,” said Brooks.