Caring=Exploitation? Rereading events

Ecological issues today are no longer an ancillary issue in the lives of people, but a reality that directly touches the survival of humanity and all creation. Increasingly pronounced climate change, unpredictable seasons, droughts, floods, storms, air and water pollution, species extinction, and depletion of natural resources show that the earth is in an emergency situation.

In Indonesia, these issues are intertwined with poverty and development. Efforts to overcome underdevelopment are often pursued through large-scale development projects. But at the same time, such development often results in deforestation, pollution, and deprivation of indigenous peoples' living space. In this situation, Christians need to honestly ask: is there a connection between how we understand the Bible and how we treat nature?"

Acts 1:26-28 is often a key text in this debate. When God gives man the mandate to "rule" and "subdue" the earth, does that mean man has the absolute right to exploit nature? Or does this text instead call humans to care for creation?"

Critiques of Christianity and Accusations of Anthropocentrism

In modern ecotheological discourse, one of the most influential critiques has been delivered by Lynn White Jr. He argues that Christianity, through an anthropocentric reading of Genesis 1:26-28, has given theological legitimacy to the exploitation of nature. Man, made in the image of God, is understood as the centre of creation, and nature is seen simply as an object of use.

This critique was born in the context of Western modernity which was also influenced by the scientific revolution. Figures such as Francis Bacon and Ren'Descartes encouraged a mechanistic view of nature, that the world was a machine that could be controlled and exploited for human progress. In this paradigm, humans are separated from nature and placed above it.

These analyses deserve serious consideration. But the question remains open: can Genesis 1:26-28 really only be read as a mandate for exploitative domination? Or is there another theological meaning that is more faithful to God's character as Creator?"

Re-understanding the Word “Ruling” (Radah)

In Genesis 1:26, the Hebrew word translated "ruling" is radah. In some Old Testament texts, this word can indeed refer to harsh, even oppressive power. But in the context of Genesis 1, radah appears without the accompanying element of violence.

The creation narrative consistently asserts that creation is "good," even "very good" (tov me’od). Therefore, it is impossible for the mandate given by God to contradict the goodness of His own creation. The power given to human beings must be understood in the light of God's pattern of power.

An interesting parallel appears in Psalm 8, which uses the word mashal to describe humans as rulers over creation. In Psalm 145, God's dominion is described as a loving reign: God nourishes, feeds, and guards all living things. Thus, the pattern of divine dominion is one of protecting and nurturing.

If humans are the image of God, then the mandate of radah is not a licence to destroy, but rather a call to bring order, peace, and well-being to all of creation.

Re-understanding the Word “Conquer” (Kabash)

Acts 1:28 also contains the word kabash which is translated "conquer." In some other contexts, this word can refer to violent action. But when the object is land, the meaning is closer to the act of managing or cultivating.

Acts 2:5 states that there were no crops yet because there were no humans to cultivate the land. Man was created from the earth (adamah) and depended on it for life. Here we see an interdependent relationship: humans need the land, and the land needs human management to remain productive. Thus, “conquering” the earth does not mean destroying it, but managing it to produce life. Wild land needs to be cultivated, not exploited. In this framework, God's mandate is a mandate of responsible management.

From Colonialism to Neocolonialism: Indonesia's Contextual Challenges

Exploitative readings of Genesis 1:26-28 have been used to justify colonialism and land grabbing. In the Indonesian context, this pattern of control did not stop after independence. Forms of neocolonialism through global capital are still ongoing, often with serious ecological and social impacts.

Large-scale projects such as the expansion of oil palm plantations, mining in various regions, deforestation, and national strategic projects show that the exploitation of nature often goes hand in hand with the marginalisation of indigenous peoples. The impact is not only an environmental crisis, but also a crisis of justice.

In the MPL Session in Merauke (30 January-2 February 2026), the Fellowship of Churches in Indonesia through the leadership of Rev. Jacklevyn Frits Manuputty expressed support for the voices of indigenous Papuans who reject land exploitation and deprivation of living space. This attitude shows that the church cannot be neutral towards ecological injustice. Land is not just an economic commodity, but an identity and source of life.

When resource exploitation leads to the systematic destruction of ecosystems, even potentially to ecocide and structural marginalisation of people, the church is called to speak out for justice as part of its witness.

The Call to Ecological Conversion

Rereading Genesis 1:26-28 brings us to the realisation that the mandate to "rule" and "conquer" is not a mandate of exploitation. It is a mandate of care. Humans are called to be God's co-workers: continuing the work of creation by maintaining order, building harmony, and caring for life.

Today's ecological crisis reveals humanity's failure to live up to that mandate. What is needed, therefore, is not just technical policy, but ecological conversion: a change of perspective, sustainable lifestyles, ecological education in the church, and the courage to speak out against structural injustice.

The Christian faith becomes relevant when it is manifested in concrete actions to care for the earth as a common home. Genesis 1:26-28 is not a theological justification for exploitation, but rather a call to be faithful to God's pattern of dominion. A power that preserves, not destroys; a power that gives life, not takes it away.

Taking care, then, is not exploitation. Caring is a form of obedience of faith.