I recently presented a paper with this title at the Southwest Regional meeting of the Evangelical Theological Society. The paper was well-received, though I would have wished for more input (don't we all!).

The basic argument of the paper proceeds like this:
1. Worship in the Bible is defined as fulfilling God's commands.
2. One of God's commands is to care for his creation.
3. Creation Care is an act of Worship.
4. Qualifications for what makes an act of service (e.g. creation care) an act of worship.
5. Recycling is an act of Creation Care.
6. Recycling is an act of Worship, and conclusions...

You can read the paper at: http://www.clickcaster.com/conservativeecology

An emphasis on ecology has lead some to rethink terms such as “sin” and “redemption”. When considering these themes in light of ecology, some have come to understand these terms in new ways. Sin has been interpreted as “wrong relationship”, and redemption is seen as restoring people and the environment to the proper relationship (Rosemary Radford Reuther. Gaia and God: An Ecofeminist Theology of Earth Healing. San Francisco: HarperSanFrancisco, 1992, 168).
Certainly this redefinition of the doctrine of redemption has occurred as a result of emphasizing ecology. But, this new definition is largely unacceptable to evangelicals. How can this pitfall be avoided?
Evangelicals must be clear about the position ecology occupies within their theology (worldview). When working alongside others who define redemption in terms of restoring the right relationship with the environment (not with God), evangelicals must be clear from the beginning that they differ with their colleagues in terms of ideology but have enough common ground to work with them.
Even by continually emphasizing the differences between an evangelical understanding of redemption and an eco-feminist understanding of redemption (Ruether’s words), some in the secular realm will no doubt fail to recognize the difference. This can only be counteracted if the evangelical church at large teaches the proper place of ecology as one that is a sub-category of creation, and not the major emphasis of the faith. If churches are consistent in this teaching then evangelicals as well as media should be able to make the distinction between an evangelical understanding and an eco-feminist understanding of redemption.

An article on MSNBC.com discusses the discovery of what seems to be a green or moist period in the region which is now the Sahara Desert (read here). To me this isn't that revolutionary of an idea. If the continental drift theory is remotely correct, then it seems likely that just about any region on earth has been green, desert, and mountain at some point...

One interesting point that the author makes in paragraph 18 is that this greener, moister period was caused by a change in the earth's orbit. My question is: How can that possibly be known? One would have to have atmospheric samples from that period (perhaps ice cores?), as well as some sort of evidence for the amount of light that reached the ground, etc. It just seems that there are too many variables to control for this to be "certain".

While I may be incorrect on the above issue, it seems likely that the author has not considered a 2nd issue. If the earth's orbit was the cause, then how are we to know that fossil fuel pollution causes the greenhouse effect? Could it not be a small variation in the earth's rotation, or perhaps a sunspot cycle?

For the Christian, these questions should not keep one from caring for creation. Our motivation is not found in some sort of crisis mentality. Instead, a Christian's motivation for caring for God's creation is the fact that God created it and entrusted it to us. He still uses his creation as a way of blessing us. We shouldn't treat his gift as a trash can, but instead should seek to take care of it, and treat it properly -with the respect that is due a gift from such a wonderful God.

This picture is located in Mullah Jacob's Synagogue in Isfahan, close to Jame Mosque. Originally uploaded to Flickr by HORIZON.

You may notice that I added a sidebar link to 10 Old Testament Theologians who deal with the topic of ecology.

Four of these were primary sources in my thesis. Of those four, Terence Fretheim's God and World gives the most attention to the topic of ecology. He is inventive in his thinking, but opts for a panentheistic view of God, and incorporates the open-theism of process theology. Then, John Goldingay's Old Testament Theology vol. 1; along with Walter Brueggemann's Old Testament theology, give ample attention to the topic. Goldingay is for the most part a good fit for evangelicals, as far as the doctrine of God as Creator goes. Brueggemann is a little harder to peg because of his method of doing Old Testament Theology. He a different view of ecology present in each of his three categories of testimony about God found within the Old Testament. Bruce Waltke in his Old Testament Theology gives the least attention to this topic. His theology is probably a "normal" evangelical church-goer's idea of the doctrine of God, and ecology. It is a peripheral subject for him.

Ellen F. Davis is currently working on a book entitled Scripture, Culture, and Agriculture: An Agrarian Reading of the Bible which will be published later this year. She has also written articles dealing with ecology and the Old Testament. She teaches at Duke University.

Howard Wallace, Ellen Van Wolde, Eugene C. McAfee, and Norman C. Habel are all contributers to the Earth Bible Project.

Carol Newsom is Charles Howard Candler Professor of Old Testament at Emory University. You may know her from the Women's Bible Commentary (1998).

All of these scholars are developing new ways of better understanding God's relationship to his creation, and how humanity should stand in relationship to creation (ecology).