Coalition for Christian Colleges and Universities
Global stewardship Initiative
Noah and the Endangered Species Act:
Biblical Contributions to Conservation Biology
Messiah College
Joseph K. Sheldon
Messiah College, Grantham, PA
[Please note that this is a draft copy of a manuscript for the journal Conservation Biology. Some work remains to be done on the project. Footnotes and some references are incomplete Joe Sheldon was principle investigator under the grant. The paper will be co-authored by Calvin B. DeWitt and Joseph K. Sheldon]
"The Endangered Species Act is OUR Noah's ark-- Congress and Special Interests are trying to sink it." For many, this statement and the Washington news conference of January 31, 1996 from which it emanated was the first indication that the Judeo-Christian biblical tradition had something to contribute toward the conservation of species and their habitats. Announced in stories by all major U. S. news networks and media, including four successive articles by The Washington Post, this statement and the biblical material supporting it is having a substantial impact on the American public and the U.S. Congress. Coupled with delivery of a special issue of Green Cross magazine to every member of Congress, this message contributed strongly to delaying congressional action that would have seriously weakened the Endangered Species Act (Clapp 1996).
Defense of a strong Endangered Species Act represents the growing determination within the Judeo-Christian tradition of its obligation to revitalize biblical environmental teachings and put them into practice in their congregations and in their life in the broader society as well. This revitalization is exemplified by the National Religious Partnership for the Environment (NRPE). Formed in 1992, the NRPE is comprised of four religious partners: the mainline churches represented by the National Council of Churches, the evangelical churches represented by the Evangelical Environmental Network, the Roman Catholic Church represented by the U.S. Catholic Conference, and the major branches of Judaism in the U.S. Each of these is engaged in a vigorous re-thinking of the contributions of the biblical tradition to their life and work. Each have been producing and widely distributing materials on the care and keeping of Creation for their congregations. This partnership of Jewish, Catholic, mainline, and evangelical biblical traditions, in turn reflects the impetus provided by the Joint Appeal by Religion and Science for the Environment -- an appeal by 115 leading U.S. scientists and religious leaders and its Declaration signed by them at their "Mission to Washington," May 12, 1992.
Of particular interest for Conservation Biology are the two parallel questions asked in the Joint Appeal's Declaration:
The Declaration makes it clear that both science and religion are necessary in addressing environmental issues. Thus, in dealing with the Endangered Species Act, a few years later, it no doubt would have affirmed the need for a report from scientists on the status of biodiversity, such as published by the National Academy of Science in 1996, but it also would have affirmed the need for an ethical response from the religious community, such as embodied in the Noah's Ark statement. Making this explicit, the Declaration states:
Conservation Biology describes the problems and sometimes the solutions for maintaining biodiversity. Conservation biologists expect that scientific analysis on how much and which kinds of land and habitats need protection to assure conservation of global biodiversity will be translated into conservation policy and practice. However, this expectation is not sufficiently being realized. Despite its description, analysis, and recommendations for the preservation of biodiversity, Conservation Biology is confronted with continued and persistent species extinctions, habitat destruction, and ecosystem degradation. Conservation Biology may provide a scientific basis for praxis, but does not appear to provide an effective moral framework for action. Conservation Biology can publish what people need to know, but does not appear to be able to provide them what is necessary to act.
Already in 1937, Max Planck, in his essay, On Religion and Science, recognized this insufficiency of science to engage people in responsible actions. "Man needs science in order to know; religion in order to act," he wrote. It was critical, he believed, for people to "make the sustained effort to understand more deeply the nature and function of science on the one hand and of religion on the other." More recently, environmental philosopher and ethicist, Max Oelschlaeger has elaborated on this belief for our present day. "I think of religion, or more specifically the church-- both the public church and congregations of people or fellowships of believers gathered in places of worship, engaging in discourse about their responsibilities to care for creation in the context their traditions of faith-- as being more important in the effort to conserve life on earth than all the politicians and experts put together," writes Oelschlaeger. He goes even further by saying that "The church may be, in fact, our last, best chance." And he offers his conjecture: There are no solutions for the systemic causes of ecocrisis, at least in democratic societies, apart from religious narrative."
The Joint Appeal by Science and Religion for the Environment expresses these complementary contributions of science and religion, stating in its Declaration, "We believe that science and religion, working together, have an essential contribution to make toward any significant mitigation and resolution of the world environmental crisis." In so doing, the signatories of the Declaration affirm what we have come to realize in recent years and decades: our ecological problems are not so much scientific as they are ethical, contrary to what our legal, technical, and scientific approaches to these problems may have implied. All are deficient in moral imperative practical ethics. The evidences of deficiency abound, in circumvention of laws, inadequately enforced laws, and persistent work to abolish some environmental laws altogether. Not all who espouse morality on religious grounds have included the wider world, and in fact may be complicit participants in Creation's destruction, having not re-thought their belief for our times. Honoring the Creator in word, they in deed might despise the Creator's works. It is thus insufficient to recognize the role of religion. Religion also has to be re-vitalized in the context of the reality of the world in which it operates. Religion must be informed by Conservation Biology and also must become aware both of the ethical deficiency that allows continued destruction of biodiversity.
Scientists were among those first aware of this ethical deficiency. "More than any other single segment of general public today, wrote Douglas John Hall in 1986 "--certainly more than government leaders, lawyers, philosophers, and educators-- more, even than most mainline preachers, it is the scientists who are telling us that our world is in critical shape and that the human element is chiefly to blame for it. Conservation biologists are among the scientists aware of this ethical deficiency. Conservation Biology thus is rather distinctive among the sciences by having an ethical goal.
The ethic implicit in Conservation Biology is that biodiversity and the natural systems upon which it depends ought to be preserved, together with their dynamic integrity. We know this to be the case from the choice of subject matter for our scientific research, and from knowing that our interest in researching the requirements for long-term sustainability includes the achievement of these requirements by the larger society. This ethic rests upon a number of normative postulates, including that biodiversity is good and its corollary that untimely extinction of populations and species is bad, the complex interaction of species in natural communities is good, the evolution of new species is good, and biodiversity has value in and of itself (SoulÇ 1985; Primack 1993).
As a synthetic discipline, Conservation Biology addresses the dynamics and problems of perturbed species, communities, and ecosystems (SoulÇ 1985) and the unprecedented crisis of thousands of species going extinct as a result of human activities (Primack 1993). Rooted in its ethical assumptions, and responding to human-induced extinctions, its goal is global, long-term ecological sustainability that maintains biological diversity at all levels of ecological organization: genetic diversity within species, biodiversity among species, and diversity among ecosystems (Snyder et al. 1996; Meffe and Carroll 1994; SoulÇ 1985).
It appears that most religious institutions have until recently been so involved with other issues that environmental matters often have not entered significantly into their study, life, and practice. Nonetheless, institutions have had tremendous influence on societies through the ages, including our own. And, when uninformed or misinformed on environmental problems, religious institutions can be more a part of the cause of degradation than its solution.
This brings us to ask what religion might have to contribute in practical response to the issues of conservation biology in our time. In particular, what can the "Judeo-Christian" tradition contribute toward ecological sustainability and the interests of conservation biology. Recent developments and discoveries within the Judeo-Christian tradition on environmental biblical teachings indicate what it might have to offer. The statement, "The Endangered Species Act is OUR Noah's ark-- Congress and Special Interests are trying to sink it," is indicative. This statement is informed by the biblical teachings adhered to across the religious traditions represented in the NRPE. In this specific instance, a decade and more of study and discussion among ecologists and theologians, led to the formation of the Christian Environmental Council in 1994 and its The Pike National Forest Resolution on the Care and Keeping of Creation and its Living Species in October, 1995. This in turn was brought to the Washington news conference, mentioned earlier, by one of the four partners of the NRPE, the Evangelical Environmental Network.
This is part of a broader acknowledgement across the Judeo-Christian tradition of the critical importance given in the Bible to the care and keeping of Creation-- an acknowledgement that is perhaps most eloquently put forth by the video, Keeping the Earth, produced by the Union of Concerned Scientists (1996). In this video publication, E. O. Wilson, as one of the signatories of the Declaration, reflects the Declaration when it acknowledges that "We do not have to agree on how the natural world was made to be willing to work together to preserve it. On that paramount objective we affirm a deep sense of common cause." And, the NRPE makes it clear that the deep sense of common cause does not allow for a diminishing of religion for utilitarian ends. At its retreat on November 28-December 1 at Mohonk Mountain House, it affirmed, "Finally, the Scriptures are not the means to an end-- the Scriptures are not a utilitarian means for addressing OUR concerns for the environment. Instead the Scriptures provide us with a pointer to God, the Creator of all things, and the pointer to our responsibility, under God, to care for Creation withwhich we have been entrusted."
Finding it not always necessary to agree on how the natural world was made in order to preserve it is not the only insight that has come from our confrontation with environmental problems. So also is the discovery by those outside the tradition that the Judeo-Christian tradition has the potential for putting forth the moral imperative to care for and keep the earth and its species. Oelschlaeger is among the first to make this discovery in his recent book: "For most of my adult life I believed, as many environmentalists do, that religion was the primary cause of ecological crisis", he writes. I also assumed that various experts had solutions to environmental malaise. I was a true believer: If only people would listen to the ecologists, economists, and others who made claims that they could 'manage planet Earth,' we would all be saved. I lost that faith by bits and pieces, especially through the demystification of two ecological problems -- climate heating and extinction of species -- and by discovering the roots of my prejudice against religion. That bias grew out of my reading of Lynn White's famous essay blaming Judeo-Christianity for the environmental crisis. In some ways this book can be read as accounting for my change of mind or 'conversion experience" (Oelschlaeger 1994, p. 1).
Oelschlaeger, presents a strong argument that without the contribution of religion it is unlikely that human behavior will change from the dominant paradigm of utilitarian individualism. He states that "the road from here to there -- from a cultural paradigm that endangers itself by destroying nature to a sustainable culture that is in dynamic equilibrium -- begins with available resources. Of these, none presents a more potent possibility than religion, since no solution for ecocrisis without a practical time frame can be conceived outside the presently existing cultural framework" (Oelschlaeger 1994, p. 49.).
Science and religion through the Joint Appeal have come to work with and respect one another, but without either one thereby required to reduce its integrity. Based upon this understanding of each other, science and religion as expressed by signatories of the Joint Appeal were inspired to conclude that "We humans, in spite of our faults, can be intelligent, resourceful, compassionate, prudent and imaginative. We have access to great reservoirs of moral and spiritual courage. Deep within us stirs a commitment to the health, safety and future of our children. Understanding that the world does not belong to any one nation or generation, and sharing a spirit of utmost urgency, we dedicate ourselves to undertake bold action to cherish and protect the environment of our planetary home."
We have in Conservation Biology some sense of what the scientific contributions are to the formulation of public policy on biodiversity. However, we have less of a sense of what the Judeo-Christian tradition might have to offer. And since this is the tradition that has received the most attention as affecting the environment, particularly due to Lynn White's widely-published paper, "The historical roots of our ecologic crisis" we will focus on its developments and discoveries.
In our consideration of biblical environmental teaching it is helpful to know that Lynn White, Jr. did not propose abandonment of religion nor even of Judaism and Christianity in meeting our ecologic problem. On the contrary, he concluded that since the root of our problem is largely religious, so must its solution: "More science and technology are not going to get us out of the present ecologic crisis until we find a new religion, or re-think our old one." Our "old one" is the Judeo-Christian tradition, which is the focus of his paper. Moreover, the environmental stewardship ethic within this tradition has a power that is significant in dealing with the issue of conserving biological diversity, including the question of intrinsic worth of species. Environmental philosopher and ethicist J. Baird Callicott recognizes this as he writes, "The Judeo-Christian Stewardship Environmental Ethic is especially elegant and powerful. It also exquisitely matches the ethical requirements of conservation biology. The Judeo-Christian Stewardship Environmental Ethic confers objective intrinsic value on nature in the clearest and most unambiguous of ways: by divine decree" (Callicott 1994, p. 37).
Recognizing the elegance and power of the Judeo-Christian environmental ethic, Carl Sagan in his work with the Joint Appeal of Science and Religion for the Environment, calls for its application to our times by declaring that "we are close to committing -- many would argue we are already committing -- what in religious language is sometimes called Crimes against Creation... Problems of such magnitude, and solutions demanding so broad a perspective, must be recognized from the outset as having a religious as well as a scientific dimension. Mindful of our common responsibility, we scientists -- many of us long engaged in combating the environmental crisis -- urgently appeal to the world religious community to commit, in word and deed, and as boldly as is required, to preserve the environment of the Earth" (Sagan 1990, p. 615).
Thus, in what follows we focus on the re-thinking of our old religion as this has taken place over the past three decades to find its expression as a Judeo-Christian Environmental Stewardship Ethic (Sheldon 1989, 1992). It is a re-thinking that has occurred within the Jewish perspective (cf. Ehrenfeld and Bentley 1985) and within the Christian perspective (cf. DeWitt 1992) as well as across these perspectives.
CONTRIBUTIONS OF THE JUDEO-CHRISTIAN STEWARDSHIP ENVIRONMENTAL ETHIC
Of the many biblical environmental teachings are three, when taken together, which comprise the core. These can be identified as the Earthkeeping Principle, derived in part from Genesis 2:15 where Adam is expected to serve (Heb., 'abad) and keep (Heb., shamar) the garden, the Fruitfulness Principle, derived in part from Genesis 6 through 9 where Noah obediently preserves the species threatened with extinction, and the Sabbath Principle, derived from Exodus 23 and Leviticus 25 and 26 where the law requires that the land must not be relentless pressed, but given its sabbath rests (DeWitt 1995 - Biodiversity and Conservation article).
Of these principles, the Fruitfulness Principle deserves special attention by conservation biologists. Fruitfulness is the capacity of the Creation to be and to remain fruitful. While the fruit of Creation may be utilized, the fruitfulness of Creation must not be diminished or threatened. In Deuteronomy, for example, the law is given that when one comes upon a mother bird and her young on a nest that they may take the young and not its mother (Deuteronomy 22:6-7). This teaching has deeper meaning than may at first be apparent. Interpreting this teaching in the context of other biblical teachings, one finds that it basically is a law that forbids the diminishing the capacity of a species to perpetuate itself and flourish. It complements the expressed desire of the Creator in the first chapter of Genesis that all life would flourish upon the earth. In the Hebrew tradition, this principle often is given in its negative form, "Bal taschit," meaning "Do not destroy." Interestingly in some versions of the Bible, Psalms 57-59 and 75 are to be sung to the tune of "Do not destroy," a tune that has been lost, but once likely conveyed this principle. Unlike the present focus of Conservation Biology to identify minimum viable populations, the Fruitfulness Principle goes well beyond the MVP. Populations that are minimally viable are alive, but barely so. Certainly they are not displaying fruitfulness in the biblical sense.
In another reflection of the Fruitfulness Principle, Ezekiel 34:18 asks, "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?" The sheep here represent people, and these are being chided by their Creator for not only taking of the fruit of Creation, but also degrading and diminishing its fruitfulness. Similarly, in the teaching of Deuteronomy, people are instructed that when one lays siege to a city the fruit trees must not be destroyed (Deuteronomy **:****).
But the most potent teaching on preserving Creation's fruitfulness is the story of Noah and the ark, the story that has figured so prominently in bringing people's attention to the similarities of it with the U. S. Endangered Species Act. The request made by the Creator to Noah and its attendant details likely is the world's first recorded endangered species act. Besides having this distinction, this story also addresses a number of questions that today are being raised by those who argue the merits of altering the U. S. Endangered Species Act. If we employ the approach of the rabbis for exploring the meaning of the scriptures-- of "turning it about and turning it about, for everything you need to know is in it"-- to discover what is conveyed by this story (Ehrenfeld and Bentley 1985), we come up with at least the following:
Utilitarian vs. intrinsic value of species: While a greater number of individuals of each economically important species must be saved than for the uneconomic ones, it is clear that each species of non-utilitarian value must also be saved. Clearly, each species has worth to their Creator beyond their utility for human beings. This also is evident in other biblical texts, for example Job 38-40 in which the Creator exclaims to Job about the beauty and wonder of the creatures irrespective of their economic import. The various kinds of living things are valuable simply because they belong to their Creator and reflect their Creator's qualities.
Knowledge of the needs of endangered species: Noah is asked to build an ark appropriate to the survival of each species that is endangered. He also is asked to "take every kind of food that is to be eaten" by them and properly store it. While these requests by the Creator are not elaborated in the scriptures, they require a very substantial knowledge of the maintenance requirements of every endangered species, including their living arrangements and their specific food requirements. Such knowledge is not intuitive but must be learned from careful study. Noah had to know what he was doing. He had to achieve substantial biological knowledge of all the species he was saving (cf. Job 12:7-8).
Necessity, but insufficiency, of rescuing endangered species: The action of Noah while necessary, was insufficient. When the rescue operation was completed, the species had to be released onto lands sufficient for their support and fruitful propagation. The ark was not an end in itself, but a means to a goal. The goal was that they could once again occupy their necessary habitats "so they can multiply on the earth and be fruitful..." (Genesis 8:17). Restoration of suitable habitats, and restoration of the species to suitable habitats, are necessary to restore species from their threatened status to the status of flourishing creatures.
From human management to self-sustaining ecosystems: Important here is the phrase "so THEY can...be fruitful" (emphasis added). Once Noah has completed his task of rescue and restoration of the creatures to their habitats, the creatures themselves are enabled to be fruitful-- without Noah's further assistance (Genesis 8:17). The goal is to so manage the crisis of threatened extinction so that ultimately it would no longer be necessary to manage the threatened creatures, species by species, by providing each their lodging and specific food needs. This no longer would be the province of Noah but would be provided within the habitats selected by the creatures following their release from temporary protection they were given as endangered species on the ark. Restoration of suitable habitats, and restoration of the species to suitable habitats, are both necessary to restore species from their threatened status to the status of flourishing creatures.
Cost of saving species: The clear teaching of the scriptures is that no expense of time, material, money, or reputation must be spared in the preservation of species. The instructions given to Noah for building the ark (Genesis 6:14-16) necessitate an immense cost in time and resources. Its size is enormous and the materials and construction of high quality. The reputation of the builders also can be presumed to suffer greatly, and those whose obedient faithfulness in saving species receives the mocking derision and humiliation brought to any who would disengage themselves from the culture of the day to build a large boat on dry land at great expense with no visible prospect for its having any utility whatsoever.
Obedience vs. expediency: Noah provides an instructive model of a person who is obedient to the Creator and who faithfully learns to understand the needs of creatures under threat of extinction and to supply what is needed to perpetuate their lineages. Noah engages in freedom for responsibility. Free to choose between life and death, he chooses life (cf. Deuteronomy 30:11-20). This stands in sharp contrast to people who engage in freedom from responsibility. Also free to choose between life and death, they choose the way of death-- for their environment, and ultimately also for themselves.
Consequences of violating the order of Creation: The people who fail to obey the laws and ordinances of the Creator put themselves and Creation in jeopardy. The scriptural reference to laws and ordinances in their greatest breadth goes beyond the decalog (Exodus 20 and Deuteronomy 5) and even beyond the first five books (Genesis through Deuteronomy) to include the Torah by which the whole Creation is ordered, as we are reminded in the rabbinic commentary, Genesis Rabbah, "The Holy One, blessed be He, when He created the heavens and the earth, consulted Torah."
Importance of saving people vs. saving species: While people are very important to the Creator, each being made God's image, saving of individual people is not necessarily given preference over saving species. Disobedient people who forsake the laws and ordinances of their Creator themselves are destroyed by the flood. "I will wipe mankind, whom I have created, from the face of the earth..." is the way it is written in Genesis 6:7, and "I am going to put an end to all people, for the earth is filled with violence because of them..." is how it is recorded in Genesis 6:13. Only the faithful and obedient people are preserved from destruction (Genesis 6:18 and 7:1). In the New Testament, this is brought out with fearsome force in the description of the final judgement of human beings by their Creator: those who destroy the earth will also be destroyed (Revelation 11:18).
Covenant not to destroy the creatures: The Creator makes a covenant with all living creatures of every kind, with all life on earth (Genesis 9:8-17). Significantly, this covenant is described time and again at the conclusion of the story of Noah. Its multiple repetitions speak of its significance for human beings and all life on earth. The Creator through this covenant, signified by the rainbow, provides the model for human behavior toward earth's living creatures. Human beings, imaging God and choosing life, should mirror their Creator's resolve not to destroy earth or its kinds of living creatures. People are expected to image God's commitment to preserve the biological diversity of Creation.
DISCUSSION AND SUMMARY
"The Endangered Species Act is OUR Noah's ark-- Congress and Special Interests are trying to sink it." Clearly, we can see from study of the biblical texts why this message contributed strongly to delaying congressional action that would have seriously weakened the Endangered Species Act. However, whether religious statements such as this will continue to have their effects on the preservation of biodiversity and even the flourishing of Creation remains to be seen. Much will depend upon whether the Declaration by the Joint Appeal is heard by conservation biologists and other scientists, and whether the congregations within the Judeo-Christian tradition hear the teachings of their scriptures and generate the resolve to put them into practice. Without such hearing by science and religion they do this out of the conviction that without widespread reintroduction of these revitalized biblical beliefs into the Judeo-Christian tradition that the biological diversity of the biosphere cannot be maintained and that the present anthropogenic mass extinction event will not be effectively countered.
If heard by science and implemented by religion, biblical environmental teachings and particularly the Fruitfulness Principle, will support not only an effective endangered species act, but also emphasize the importance of bearing its costs. They also will point toward having Creation complete and whole, together with its flourishing creatures, including human beings. The radical monotheism of biblical environmental ethics (Niebuhr, 195****, Wilkinson 1994, Young 1994) calls people to a life of stewardship and service to others and to Creation. Its comprehensive message is one of shalom (peace) within Creation-- a message that calls not for fragmentation, but wholeness; a message that calls not for reductionism, but holism. Its message is one of hope in a world of biospheric degradation.
REFERENCES:
Callicott, J. Baird. 1994. Conservation values and ethics, in Gary. K. Meffe, C. Ronald Carroll, and contributors, Principles of Conservation Biology, p.p. 24-49.
Christian Environmental Council --[insert reference]
Clapp, Phillip. 1996. Environmental Information Center, Washington, D.C. Personal communication.
DeWitt, Calvin B., ed. 1992. The Environment and the Christian: What Can We Learn from the New Testament?. Grand Rapids, Mich.: Baker Book House.
DeWitt 1995 (Biodiv)
Ehrenfeld, David W. and P. J. Bentley. 1985. Judaism and the practice of stewardship. Judaism 34:301-311.
Hall, Douglas John. Imaging God: Dominion as Stewardship.
Joint Appeal by Religion and Science for the Environment.
Meffe, Gary K., and C. Ronald Carroll. 1994. The species in conservation, in Gary. K Meffe, C. Ronald Carroll, and Contributors. Principles of Conservation Biology. Sunderland, Mass.: Sinauer Associates, Inc.
National Academy of Sciences [complete this citation]
National Religious Partnership for the Environment. [complete this citation]
Oelschlaeger, Max. 1994. Caring for creation: an ecumenical approach to the environmental crisis. New Haven: Yale University Press.
Planck, Max. [complete this citation]
Primack, Richard B. 1993. Essentials of Conservation Biology. Sunderland: Sinauer Associates Inc.
Sagan, C. 1990. Guest comment: preserving and cherishing the Earth -- an appeal for joint commitment in science and religion. American Journal of Physics 58(7):615.
Sheldon, J. K. 1989. Twenty-one years after "the historical roots of our ecologic crisis": how has the Church responded? Perspectives on Science and Christian Faith 41(3):152-158.
Sheldon, J. K. 1992. Rediscovery of creation: a bibliographical study of the church's response to the environmental crisis. Scarecrow Press for The American Theological Library Association Bibliography Series: Metuchen, N.J.
Snyder, Noel F. R., et. al. 1996. Limitations of captive breeding in endangered species recovery. Conservation biology 10(2):338-348.
Soule, M. E. 1985. What is conservation biology? BioScience 35(11):727-734.
Stanley, Thomas R., Jr. 1995. Ecosystem managment and the arrogance of humanism. Conservation Biology 9(2):255-262.
Union of Concerned Scientists. 1996. Keeping the Earth.
White, L., Jr. 1967. The historical roots of our ecologic crisis. Science 155(3767):1203-1207.
Wilkinson, Loren. 1994. The new story of creation: a Trinitarian perspective. Crux 25(4):26-36.
Wilson, E. O. 1984. Biophilia. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.
Wilson, E. O. 1992. The Diversity of Life. Cambridge: Belknap Press of Harvard University Press.
Young, Richard A. 1994. Healing the earth: a theocentric perspective
on environmental problems and their solutions. Nashville: Broadman and Holman
Publishers.
|
|