Theology Journal Club

Northwind Theological Seminary had its journal club last week, and on line attendees to this event are those who are studying or have graduated from the Open & Relational Theology program at Northwind. Our journal club tends to discuss scientific issues in the setting of theology. This combination makes sense when one considers that any observation, including scientific observations, can have associated metaphysical implications whether one is a theist or atheist.

Our two articles were:

“How ‘green’ can religions be? Tensions about religious environmentalism” written by Jens Koehrsen, Julia Blanc, and Fabian Huber (2022) and published in Zeitschrift für Religion, Gesellschaft und Politik. The English translation is open access.

“The Imago Dei: A Bridge to Faith-Infused Reconciliation Ecology” written by Abigail Tamkin and David Wituszynski (2025) and published in Perspectives on Science and Christian Faith. The article is open access.

The former article is more of a sociological study; the latter article is theological in nature.

I would like to highlight some of the interesting topics from the 2 articles that we discussed.

From the Koehrsen, et al. article:

The authors state that “…tensions are an inherent part of religious environmentalism.” This statement is very true. In my opinion, religions that lean toward the apocalyptic side of thinking about the world, seem to be against environmentalism. A good review article about this issue is here. If one thinks Jesus is coming back very soon, one risks thinking that they do not need to worry about the current state of the environment. If one belongs to a religious group that is anti-science and anti-education, then the purpose of environmentalism is lost. If one puts one’s nation ahead of one’s faith (for example, Christian nationalism which is not Christian), then one puts a priority of one’s nation over others, thus risking environmental degradation.

The authors point out that “indigenous religions and new spiritualities” tend to have a stronger belief in environmentalism. They tend to have a closer relationship with nature and likely consider nature as divine. I think this is quite true in the vast number of circumstances. I would point out that Evan Connell’s book (Son of the Morning Star: Custer and the Little Bighorn) points out some possible exceptions to this idea. In the end, humans are humans, and individual humans can cause environmental waste regardless of culture. The readers of this blog can read that specific book to consider his opinion.

Photo from the Alaska Wildlife Alliance

Genesis 1: 28 is read completely wrong by many Christians. The verse states, “God blessed them and said to them, “Be fruitful and increase in number; fill the earth and subdue it. Rule over the fish in the sea and the birds in the sky and over every living creature that moves on the ground.” Subdue it. I think there are some interpretation issues here made by Christians that our Jewish brothers and sisters find lacking in us. Even if “subdue” was part of the original translation, this verse in Hebrew was written thousands of years before modern technology, modern pollution, modern warfare, and the modern risk of global warming. What if “subdue” initially meant “to farm” and further meant “to farm while protecting the land”? By protecting the land, H. sapiens can be the equivalent of a good king, not a tyrant. Good references for such ideas are here and here.

The authors point out that even when the head of religions want their adherents to be better stewards of the environment, the followers under the religious leaders typically ignore such messages. I think this idea is quite true, and I don’t know how to fix the issue. As a physician in an academic medical center, we often do quality improvement studies to improve patient outcomes by changing small things in patient flow or patient care structure. Often the changes occur in small group settings (such as one clinic) first before being implemented throughout the hospital system. Medicine is not religion, but one wonders if a quality improvement-adjacent system could be used in the religious setting in promoting environmentalism.

From the Tamkin and Wituszynski article:

The authors state that Christians should reconcile ourselves to the environment using the FIRE mnemonic. FIRE would be “Faith-Infused Reconciliation Ecology.” I do not always like mnemonics as I think they tend to lose their importance over time in the setting of repetitive use. However, if FIRE helps one to remember that humans need to restore their relationship with non-humans / the environment / nature, then I am all for it.

I took this picture from Alta where I skied today.

The 5 steps mentioned by the authors to reconcile humans with the environment include:

“Recognizing the wrong that was done
(Awareness).

Lamenting personal complicity
(Repentance).

Minimizing further harm and working to fix
the wrong that was done (Restoration).

Accepting forgiveness extended by the
agent that was wronged (Acceptance).

Moving forward in a new relationship
marked by mutual flourishing (Renewal).”

Honestly, I love these 5 steps. I think they are easy to remember personally and in the church setting. I think the steps can be followed in other religious traditions as well as the 5 steps could be considered ideal for interfaith dialogue.

The authors state that we should treat the environment just as Jesus treats us in the setting of the munus triplex. In the Christian setting, we consider Jesus the ultimate 1) king, 2) priest, and 3) prophet (a triplex). What does this mean in the setting of how we should treat the environment? As “king”, we should be the good king of the environment who is a steward, not a tyrant. As “priest”, we should provide loving care for the flock which should be expanded to our planet and to all of nature. As “prophet”, we should speak truth about nature and about how we should protect it. I like this idea.

Earth (image from NASA)

My one issue as an American is that I have a difficulty with the “king” concept as our country has never had a king (even though we have had United States presidents who have wanted to be or tried to be kings). I have a hard time relating to the word. Perhaps, our species should be “regents” and not “kings.” As regents we are assisting God who is the ultimate divine authority. This ultimate divine authority is simply love. We are not God, but as creatures who should love nature and all that it entails, we are there to protect, love, and speak truth to the importance of protecting our wonderful little planet.