Relational Consciousness as Eco-Spiritual Formation: Interreligious Construction with Rosemary R. Ruether and Neo-Confucianism

Abstract

This study investigates the theological and philosophical interplay between Rosemary Radford Ruether’s ecofeminist theology and Neo-Confucian cosmology in the context of Korean Protestant Christianity. By exploring intolerant interpretations of the Christian creation story, it critiques the anthropocentric domination of nature and proposes a reformed ecological spirituality. The research integrates Ruether’s covenantal and sacramental traditions, arguing for the significance of “relational consciousness” as a framework for eco-spiritual formation. Drawing from Ruether’s examination of creation myths and Neo-Confucian perspectives, this study asserts the necessity in reshaping Christian theology to embrace human interdependence with nature and the cosmos. It proposes that Korean Christians, influenced by Calvinist theology, must move beyond human dominion over nature to a role of co-creator and nurturer of the ecosystem, advocating for an eco-theological renewal that centers on relational consciousness for spiritual formation.

1. Introduction

The Earth, indispensable for human existence, has suffered from the detrimental impact of human actions and industrial mass production since the rise of modernity. Over the last ten thousand years, its once-stable weather patterns have shifted, leading to the phenomenon of global warming. The primary cause of this shift is the burning of fossil fuels—such as coal, natural gas, and petroleum—which has led to a significant increase in atmospheric carbon dioxide levels, thus intensifying the greenhouse effect. This, in turn, has contributed to rising sea levels due to melting polar ice caps and increasingly erratic weather patterns, including droughts, flash floods, and stronger hurricanes (Kennedy 2005, pp. 1–10). Advanced technological activities and other human endeavors have not only degraded the global environment but have also threatened human flourishing, creating a cyclical impact akin to a boomerang returning to its origin (McKibben 2010; Shiva 2010; Ruether 2006; Wallace-Wells 2019). Particularly notable is the new phase of civilization marked by the COVID-19 pandemic, which erupted in 2019. The pandemic has made humanity keenly aware that returning to the prior state of normalcy is no longer possible (Hill 2021; Markard and Rosenbloom 2020, pp. 53–60; Mishra et al. 2021, pp. 455–67). The global crises that humanity has faced over the past decades have challenged our attitudes toward nature and the Earth. It is imperative not only to reformulate human perspectives on nature, restoring the broken relationship between humanity and the environment, but also to establish a solid foundation for the mutual flourishing of both (Plumwood 1993, pp. 3–15; Merchant 1989, pp. xix–xxiii).

The prevailing assumptions of modernity have distorted human epistemology concerning the natural world, as they have consistently positioned nature as an object, while human actions and decisions are treated as the sole subjects (Ruether 1992, pp. 195–99). This framework has unjustifiably legitimized the exploitation of nature for human benefit. Christian theology has contributed significantly to these modern assumptions. Current theological doctrines and the traditional teachings of the church lack a holistic consideration of the lived experiences of humankind, which has led to a diminished focus on environmental issues stemming from human activities over the centuries. For example, Calvinism has been a predominant influence in shaping the theology of Korean Christian churches, particularly in the context in which I was raised and have ministered. Its emphasis on human depravity and divine grace often leads to the disregard of a sacramental cosmology, in which humans are capable of participating in God’s creative work (Kim 2012, p. 210). This theological outlook has led Korean Christians to devalue the environment and nature as integral aspects of Christian theology and spiritual formation.

Rosemary R. Ruether has been widely recognized as both an ecofeminist pioneer and a constructive theologian, not only among Christian scholars but also beyond religious boundaries (Douglass 2022). Her theological legacy has gained even greater relevance in the post-pandemic era, where Christian perspectives on nature are being reassessed and reformed in light of new ecological imperatives. This interreligious inquiry draws heavily on Ruether’s innovative theological contributions, particularly her critique of how Christian creeds on creation have historically been distorted through hierarchical and patriarchal projections onto the relationship between humanity and nature (Cornille 2013, p. xii; Berthrong 2013). Simultaneously, Ruether’s prophetic insights resonate on the opposite side of the globe, where Neo-Confucian thought has shaped East Asian philosophy, particularly within the Korean context. Neo-Confucian cosmology has long been regarded as one of the principal philosophical and spiritual frameworks for understanding nature and the cosmos in Korean religious history (Tucker 1998, pp. 6–10). Neo-Confucianism uniquely synthesizes religious traditions—including Taoism, Buddhism, and Confucianism—into a cohesive worldview that highlights humanity’s inherent connectedness to nature (Lee 2024). Both theological and philosophical endeavors in this tradition converge on the idea that human nature is not meant to dominate or control the environment but rather to reflect and harmonize with the laws of the cosmos and earthly nature (Ruether 2005a, pp. 290–94; Ruether 2005b, pp. ix–xiii). For modern Christians, especially in the post-pandemic world, this offers a critical eco-spiritual foundation that invites a reimagined relationship with the environment.

This study operates on the foundational premise that some interpretation of the Christian creation story presents a significant obstacle to reshaping theological perspectives and spiritual formation within the context of Christian ecological spirituality. The primary theoretical assumption is that misconceptions about nature, as represented in the Christian creation narrative, have critically hindered the development of a balanced understanding of the relationship between humanity and the natural world (Ruether 1992, pp. 26–31). Although the Christian creation story is deeply rooted in Scripture, it has increasingly come to be seen by ecofeminist theologians as the primary theological source contributing to the manipulation and distortion of the relationship between humankind and the Earth. Consequently, this inquiry seeks to construct a theological framework grounded in an ecofeminist understanding of both nature and humanity. The ultimate objective is to demonstrate that restoring a harmonious relationship within the interconnected web of life is essential to fostering a more authentic Christian theology and spirituality.

To develop this argument, this study follows four theoretical steps: First, it equips Ruether’s analyses to examine the three creation stories that have influenced the construction of the Christian creation narrative, using these sources to describe the human relationship with nature and the cosmos. Second, it analyzes the Neo-Confucian understanding of the cosmos and nature, focusing on complementary insights. This examination will reveal the dualistic interplay between yin and yang, which forms the Tao, positioning the human universe as a mirror of the natural universe. Third, it briefly explores the socially and religiously contested film Noah, investigating how the actions of a patriarchal figure disrupt the triadic relationship among men, women, and the Earth, and how a feminine perspective offers a path toward restoration. Lastly, this study delves into Rosemary Ruether’s ecofeminist theology, particularly her theological reconstruction of covenant and sacrament, as the most relevant discourse on Christian ecological spirituality. This study concludes by advancing the concept of “relational consciousness” as a framework for eco-spiritual formation, with a focus on its application in the Korean Protestant Church, while also addressing its wider significance for global communities amid the current environmental crisis.

2. Three Creation Stories: Christian Distortion

Ruether’s examination of the creation myths found within Hebrew, Hellenistic, and Christian histories highlights a fundamental theological concern: the relationship between social dominance and environmental degradation. One of Ruether’s most profound insights is that myths provide a sociological framework through which religious worldviews can be understood. She suggests that creation stories are not literal descriptions of nature or past world events; rather, they serve as projections of underlying social forces and structures. Ruether contends that these myths function as “blueprints” for legitimizing behavior, revealing particular social power structures as they establish and consolidate authority (Ruether 1992, p. 33). Therefore, before analyzing the Christian creation accounts and their theological implications from an ecofeminist perspective, it is crucial to recognize the social power dynamics and structural frameworks embedded in all three myths, which have subtly permeated Christian understandings of creation and the relationship between God and the cosmos.

Ruether begins with the Babylonian creation myth, where the world is taken by force by the male god Marduk from the goddess Tiamat. In this myth, the primal world is depicted as being under the control of nonhuman forces, with Tiamat, the Mother Goddess, representing matriarchal power sustained by the union of male and female deities, Apsu and Kingu. The story symbolizes a transition of power from Tiamat to Marduk, illustrating two key dimensions of the new world. First, the new world order is established under the rule of a military and architectural elite, where the cosmos is believed to have been created from matter—the dead bodies of Tiamat and Kingu. This, Ruether argues, serves as crucial evidence that the myth “mandates the basic class hierarchy of rulers and slaves” (Ruether 1992, p. 18). Implicitly, the new world is portrayed as being built upon the ownership and control of “matter”, with Marduk using Tiamat’s body to create the cosmos. The power dynamics at play in this creation myth are reflected in a social structure that justifies the ruling class’s control over resources and labor, with the leisured aristocracy of the temple and palace wielding authority over the expropriated labor of serfs who served them.

When it comes to the Hebrew creation story, power differentiation and a hierarchical structure are not apparent on the surface, since there was no male domination or class domination in the original creation of God. However, the equality of male and female in the image of God is not clearly defined in the second account, which was composed by priestly authors. It depicts the creation of the male first and the female second, extracted from the male’s rib. According to Ruether, this explicitly reveals the Hebrew social order; the male is the only appropriate representative of God, so that relationships between God and human beings are arranged according to a hierarchy: God, male, female. Further, this story was used to justify the patriarchal relationship of husband and wife, one dominating the other (Ruether 1983, p. 33; 2005a, pp. 121–32).

Regarding Plato’s creation story in Timaeus, Ruether observes that Plato’s dualism is central to his cosmology, wherein reality is divided into mind and body. Plato contended that the mind embodied divine nature, while the body, devoid of the mind, was merely a source of mortality and change (Ruether 1992, p. 24). This dualistic view extended into Plato’s conception of social hierarchy: males were seen as superior to females, and humans as superior to animals. In Plato’s cosmology, it can be inferred that females and animals were considered devoid of divine nature, as they were not associated with rational minds.

After examining the three creation myths, Ruether identifies three recurring themes: patriarchy, slavery, and the emergence of early urban civilization. These myths reflect the historical and cultural realities of civilizations transitioning from pre-city states to city states. During this transition, societies developed power structures based on gender, class, and the human–nature relationship. These new social systems justified the domination of one group over another: men over women, rulers over slaves, and humans over animals.

Ruether contends that these three creation myths were integrated into early Christian theology, leading to the development of a hierarchical worldview and social structures rooted in domination. The Christian synthesis of these myths has resulted in a theological distortion or paradox. The first area of tension lies in the understanding of God’s relationship to creation. Both biblical and Platonic accounts do not suggest creation ex nihilo (creation out of nothing); rather, they imply that God established order from pre-existing primal matter. However, in an effort to assert God’s supremacy in creation, Ruether argues, Christian philosophical theology maintained that God also created the original matter of the cosmos. This theological stance creates an unresolved tension within the concept of the Trinity, particularly between the ideas of a transcendent and immanent God. While Christian theologians emphasize that God is distinct, eternal, and self-sustaining, the notion of divine immanence—God’s presence within created things since the act of creation—complicates this view.

Second, Platonic dualism is evident in the idea of the soul as both immortal and pre-existent. While the human soul is created, it is regarded as immortal and superior to the mortal body. This dualism has been used to justify social hierarchies, particularly through the association of the rational soul with “masculinity” and the body, along with its passions, with “femininity.” As a result, the female is subordinated to the male in the order of creation, reflecting a belief in the inferiority of the female body and personality (Ruether 1983, p. 53). Moreover, this hierarchical relationship between the soul and the body reveals ambiguous aspects of Christian theology. While the soul is capable of existing independently from the body, it is still considered the life principle that animates the body. Ruether notes that this ambiguity is further complicated by Christian theological ideas regarding the division between God and the cosmos (Ruether 1992, p. 29). The soul–body split also reinforces the human–animal divide, extending hierarchical distinctions into the broader relationship between humans and other forms of life, including animals and plants. However, this division creates a theological contradiction when considered alongside the Christian eschatological vision of “the resurrected body and the redeemed Earth.” This eschatology assumes the restoration of original goodness in a paradisiacal state with immortal human beings, yet it fails to explain how animals and plants might participate in this new creation.

As early Christian theologians attempted to reconcile various creation accounts, they encountered two apparently conflicting ideas: first, that nature was initially a paradisiacal, harmonious environment for humanity; and second, that human mortality arose as a direct result of human sin. Ruether suggests that this unresolved tension—between the view of nature as a perfect, pre-fallen state and the belief in human mortality as punitive—has fostered a lack of accountability toward the natural world. This ambivalence within the Christian worldview has implicitly sanctioned the subjugation of nature, casting it as an inferior and exploitable resource in a dominion-centered hierarchy. Consequently, the view of creation as subordinate to humanity has been perpetuated, often at the cost of ethical stewardship.

This unresolved theological issue became a central theme in Calvinism and was subsequently passed down to Korean Protestant Christianity. In Protestant Reformed theology, the role of sacraments was diminished due to overemphasis on the idea that earthly materials could not contain the divine nature of a transcendent God. Nature and the Earth came to be viewed as the remnants of a fallen Eden, and only through divine grace could they be restored to their original, undistorted state. As a result, Christians became further removed from environmental concerns, with solutions to ecological problems seen solely through an eschatological or apocalyptic lens. This perspective envisions that the immoral and flawed worldly life will be judged during Christ’s second coming and transformed into a new heaven and Earth. Korean Protestant Christians, in particular, have justified the exploitation of nature and the Earth, citing the creation story as evidence that God intended humanity to flourish and multiply. However, their theological framework and spiritual formation have not adequately prepared them to address environmental issues in a constructive manner.1

What kind of theological framework, then, could enable Korean Christians to view nature and the Earth as integral components of spiritual formation? How can they move beyond the limitations and distortions of their current context? Neo-Confucian philosophy may offer valuable insights into the Earth and cosmos as a complementary dialogue partner within the Korean Christian context. Given the complexity of the issue, ecological concerns may be more effectively addressed within the framework of interreligious dialogue, as these concerns are not limited to any single religious tradition but are communal responsibilities within Korean society and the global community (Ruether 2005b, pp. 45–47).

3. Neo-Confucian Cosmology and Nature

Zhu Xi has historically been recognized as the principal synthesizer of Neo-Confucianism, with his religious and social contributions profoundly shaping East Asian thought since the 12th century (Yao 2000, pp. 105–6). His interpretations of the Confucian classics and commentaries were adopted as the official texts for civil service examinations in China, Korea, and Japan. His selection of the Four Books—Analects, Mencius, The Book of Means, and The Great Learning—along with his commentaries, became the authoritative version of the Confucian classics (Yao 2000, pp. 115–35). Zhu Xi’s scholarship dominated Confucian studies across East Asia for the subsequent eight hundred years, marking his lasting influence.

Arguably, Zhu Xi’s most significant contribution to global philosophy is his construction of Confucian cosmology (Tucker 1998, pp. 17–18). The concept of the Great Ultimate (太極, Taiji), although not originally his creation, is considered his most critical contribution to Neo-Confucianism. This concept began to permeate Zhu’s work with the composition of his “Commentary on Zhou Dun-Yi’s The Diagram of the Supreme Ultimate Explained” in 1173 (Yao 2000, pp. 105–7). Julia Ching contends that this concept represents the pinnacle of Zhu’s philosophical system, as it prepared him to write The Neo-Confucian Anthology (1175), where he articulated the primary theoretical structure and the relationship between Li (principle) and Qi (material force) in his metaphysics and ontology (Ching 2000, p. 33). The next section examines Zhou Dun-Yi’s Diagram Explained as foundational to this paper’s discussion.

An examination of Zhou’s work requires a brief exploration of the Book of Changes and its cosmological speculations, as this will help us recognize that Zhou’s work was not created ex nihilo. Referring to “the warp and weft of fabric” in Chinese characters (易經, Yijing or I Ching), Zhou explains that the Book of Changes reflects traditional Chinese philosophy’s interpretation of cosmic transformations in the natural universe, as well as psychic changes in the mind, based on the macrocosm–microcosm relationship (Yao 2000, pp. 98–99). Originally used as a divination text, the Book of Changes, with its hexagrams, judgments, images, and commentaries, remains one of the most symbolically rich works of the world’s wisdom literature. Additionally, it laid the foundational principles for yin–yang (陰陽) thought.

In the Book of Changes, it is generally understood that from one primordial qi emerged the two complementary cosmic “energies” or principles—yin and yang—whose alternation and interaction have driven the evolution of all things. This is affirmed in a commentary on the Book of Changes: “The alternation of yin and yang makes up the 道 (Tao), the Way” (Ching 2000, p. 7). The fundamental assumption in yin–yang philosophy is that all beings in the universe are manifestations of this dualistic alternation. Moreover, the human universe not only mirrors the natural universe but is also influenced by, and in turn influences, events occurring in the natural world. Although the origins of this concept are unclear, predating the time of Confucius (6th century BCE), it was systematically organized in the Book of Changes. Zhu Xi and his intellectual predecessors were well-versed in this line of thought, and they revived the study of the Book of Changes to deepen their understanding of the universe, human nature, and the metaphysical world.2

Zhou Dun-Yi is widely recognized as the founder of Neo-Confucianism, and his contributions are indisputable, particularly in his adoption of the classic Confucian term Taiji (the Great Ultimate) as the foundation of his cosmological theory. The characteristics of Taiji as outlined in Zhou Dun-Yi’s Diagram Explained can be summarized in three key points. First, Taiji represents the first necessary cause, more than just a name denoting cosmic origin. Without Taiji, it would be impossible to explain the functioning of the universe. Positioned at the pinnacle of the universe’s structure, Taiji serves as the primordial source from which all things arise, embodying the ultimate principle. Thus, Taiji is not only an ontologically essential source of the universe but is also manifested in myriad things as their natural expression. It therefore represents the true essence of all things, including human (moral) nature. Second, Taiji is an ongoing, continuous process, manifesting through the dynamic interplay of motion and rest, or yin and yang. Third, Taiji is characterized as the highest moral standard for humanity. For Zhou, Taiji is not only the ultimate source of the universe but also embodies supreme goodness. This concept was later developed into the Confucian moral virtues of humaneness (仁, ren) and righteousness (義, yi).

Building on Zhou Dun-Yi’s concept of the Diagram as a foundation, Zhu Xi further elaborated the notion of the Great Ultimate within the realms of both cosmology and ontology. He first developed the key idea of the Ultimate of Nonbeing and the Great Ultimate (無極而太極, Wu-ji er Tai-ji). Zhu identified the Ultimate of Nonbeing (無極, Wu-ji) as the underlying substance of the universe, which is devoid of sound or scent and cannot be apprehended through perceptual cognition. The Great Ultimate (太極, Taiji) is the same substance, yet it is capable of generating the world and all myriad things (Ruether 2005b, pp. 62–63). Zhu noted that “if this substance is said not to be the Ultimate of Nonbeing, then the Great Ultimate would be considered a finite thing and unable to serve as the origin of the myriad things. Conversely, if it is said not to be the Great Ultimate, the Ultimate of Nonbeing would vanish into emptiness and absolute quiet, and thus be unable to generate the myriad things” (Aimin 1986, p. 94). This suggests that the two concepts are inseparable and cannot exist independently of one another. In essence, the Ultimate of Nonbeing represents the transcendent and all-encompassing aspect of the principle, while the Great Ultimate embodies its ground-providing and generative aspect. As the principle is both indefinite and definite, it is able to encompass all beings while providing a stable foundation for their existence.

This assertion led Zhu Xi to articulate the metaphysical characteristics of the Great Ultimate in the following way: First, he emphasizes the paradoxical and dialectical dynamic of the Great Ultimate, which both synthesizes and transcends being and nonbeing (Aimin 1986, pp. 69–70). In the Ultimate of Nonbeing, all things are present. This is revealed in the operation of heaven, which functions without smell or sound; thus, it cannot be categorized as nonbeing. Additionally, the Great Ultimate is fundamentally synonymous with the Ultimate of Nonbeing because, as a substance, it is empty, tranquil, and without any distinguishing features. Zhu’s distinctive contributions, beyond those of Zhou, can be summarized as follows: the Great Ultimate is infinite and eternal; it embodies the highest good and is perfect; it serves as the supreme archetype and the ultimate purpose of all things; and it encompasses both activity and tranquility.

Zhu Xi’s thoughts on this matter are crucial for my argument, as they provide the cosmological foundation for his understanding of human nature (Aimin 1986, pp. 71–72). His insights, derived from the principle of the Great Ultimate, guide our understanding of cosmic and human nature as a dynamic process of growth, rather than as a static or fixed essence. The dialectical interplay between the Ultimate of Nonbeing and the Great Ultimate is particularly significant, as it will inform the following discussion on ontology.

Zhu Xi’s cosmology also offers insights into his articulation of the structure of ontology. The central idea that the Great Ultimate is embedded in all beings within the universe implies that each individual entity is a manifestation of the Great Ultimate. It further suggests that human nature is inherently embedded in the Great Ultimate. But how, then, is human nature related to the cosmic world? Zhu Xi might have found the answer to this question in Zhang Zai’s famous assertion in Western Inscription (西銘):

“Heaven is my father and Earth is my mother, and even such a small being as I finds an intimate place in their midst. Therefore, that which fills the universe I regard as my body, and that which directs the universe I consider as my nature. All people are my brothers and sisters, and all things are my companions”

(Tu 1985, p. 137).3

This statement advocates that human beings are intrinsically intertwined with heaven, earth, and the myriad forms of existence (De Bary 2003, p. 76). As the offspring of heaven and earth, humanity embodies the most refined essence of the universe’s creative process. Drawing on the insights of Zhang Zai, Zhu Xi argues us that, despite our seemingly insignificant place within the vast cosmos, there exists a locus where we can realize that all things are ontologically interconnected and interdependent. This realization affirms that humanity has the inherent potential to actively participate in the creative unfolding of the universe, becoming co-creators once sagehood is attained (Tu 1985, p. 157). Tu Weiming’s articulation of the Neo-Confucian concept of humanity as “anthropocosmic” is particularly noteworthy in this context. According to Tu, human nature is not only endowed with the dynamism of cosmic forces but also capable of contributing to the ongoing creative processes of heaven and earth (Tu 1985, p. 137). This underscores the holistic nature of human existence, wherein humanity, as the progeny of heaven and earth, is the culmination of the universe’s most refined creative energies. Moreover, this ontological interrelation and interdependence is grounded in the cosmology of “great harmony” that unites heaven, earth, humans, and all things (Tu 1985, p. 158). This cosmic harmony encompasses the natural world and its cycles of rising and falling, motion and stillness, and floating and sinking. Furthermore, the profound influence of the Book of Changes (I Ching) is deeply embedded in this conceptual framework.

Zhu Xi’s affirmation of humanity as a co-creator, actively participating in the universe’s creative process, grounded in the principles of interrelatedness and interdependence, poses a profound challenge to the Korean Christian cosmological framework. First, as integral manifestations of nature, humans are to be understood as a part of the cosmos, rather than distinct from it. This core principle directly contests the Korean Christian perspective, which traditionally views nature as an object of human domination, subordinating the natural world to human authority. Furthermore, the Neo-Confucian notion of the “anthropocosmic” underscores the duality of human nature: privilege and responsibility. Human beings, as embodiments of the universe’s creative energy, possess the inherent privilege to engage in and contribute to the ongoing creative processes of both heaven and earth. This framework calls humanity to take an active role as co-creators in the evolution of the earth, fostering a deep engagement with the cosmos. At the same time, humanity is endowed with the responsibility to harmonize and resonate with the cosmic order (Baker 2008, p. 48). The primary vocation of the co-creator, then, is not to exploit the earth but to align human existence with the rhythms of the cosmos. This alignment is where the concept of sagehood, along with the practice of self-cultivation, emerges as the spiritual calling of human nature within Neo-Confucian philosophy.

Neo-Confucian cosmology offers a constructive and complementary dialogue partner for Korean Christians, enabling them to address not only the limitations inherent in the Calvinistic interpretation of the creation narrative but also to reframe their theological understanding of the cosmos and creation. This cosmological framework invites a re-envisioning of the Christian vocation, one that liberates humanity from the role of dominator or controller of nature and the earth and repositions humanity as an integral part of both. Moreover, it calls for the identification of humans as co-creators in the ongoing creative processes of the cosmos. Rather than engaging in destructive interactions with the ecosystem, human nature is summoned to act as a co-partner, nurturing and nourishing the divine work within the earth and the broader ecosystem.

The following section offers a critical analysis of how Neo-Confucian cosmological insights may contribute to the reconstruction or renewal of Christian ecological spirituality. How can the Christian theological framework be freed from its historical indifference to environmental issues? What kind of theological paradigm would provide a robust foundation for a Christian ecological spirituality? To explore these questions, I will begin by reviewing a film that persistently raises provocative questions about contemporary Christian theology’s engagement with creation.

4. Ecofeminist Re-Vision of the Film Noah

Since the release of the Hollywood film Noah, theological debates and discussions have surged among religious leaders and scholarly communities, focusing on how the biblical narrative of Noah has been reinterpreted in contemporary contexts (Aronofsky 2014). The central plot of Noah’s resolute determination to carry out the divine mandate—flooding the world and initiating its rebirth through his family—presents a captivating retelling of the ancient story. I contend that an ecofeminist perspective provides a particularly insightful framework for understanding the film’s critical message, which has been largely overlooked by Christian commentators and biblical interpreters.

A pivotal narrative that the film gradually reveals is the evolving relational tension between the patriarchal enforcer of Noah and the two prominent female characters, Naameh, Noah’s wife, and Ila, Ham’s wife (Daly 1985).4 Noah’s divine vision convinces him that the sole purpose of his family’s survival is to safeguard the animals, after which humanity should disappear, leaving the earth to flourish in a humanless state of eco-harmony and peace. As Noah asserts, “The creatures of the earth, the world itself, shall be safe.” He arrives at the conclusion that no more children should be born in his family, so that once the new world begins, humans will naturally die out, allowing for the animals to inhabit an unspoiled paradise.

However, Ila, Ham’s wife, unexpectedly gives birth to twin daughters, throwing Noah into a state of psychotic alarm at the prospect of a renewed human presence on Earth. Upon discovering that the infants are twin girls, Noah attempts to kill them and even tries to force Ham and Ila’s new family off the ark, effectively condemning them to death. In this dramatic moment, the individuals who oppose Noah’s patriarchal and compulsive mindset are the two female characters: Naameh, his wife, and Ila, his daughter-in-law.

At first, Naameh vehemently opposes Noah’s attempt to determine the gender of the newborn, driven by his belief that no female is destined to exist in God’s new beginning. Noah is convinced that if the child is a boy, he may live, but if it is a girl, she must be killed. In a desperate bid to protect the newborns, Naameh confronts Noah, crying out, “What is your justice”? Her words express alarm at the dominating and oppressive patriarchal distortion she witnesses. Naameh seeks to awaken Noah to the brutal injustice of his actions, arguing that the murder of newborns is neither true justice nor the original intention of God’s plan to recreate the earth. Her maternal instincts stand in sharp opposition to patriarchal justifications of violence, ultimately safeguarding the two infants from Noah’s oppressive aggression. In this pivotal moment, the destiny of the human family shifts in an unforeseen direction, diverging from Noah’s initial vision.

The next crucial event occurs after the ark reaches land. Noah, presumably in a state of drunkenness, is tormented by the reality that Earth will be repopulated by the unexpected members of his family. Ila, his daughter-in-law and the mother of the twin girls, approaches him and gently urges, “Teach them about the world around them and how to live in it”. She continues, “Maybe if you give them your wisdom, they will do better with their world than we did with ours”. In comforting Noah’s anguish, Ila invites him to seek out the divine plan for the future of the new human beings and the emerging community—a plan that remains hidden but promises to be revealed through new relationships and engagements.

Although the filmmaker may not have explicitly intended to incorporate an ecofeminist perspective as a central theme, my reading suggests that the patriarchal leadership and worldview—characterized by dominance over the earth and control of others—prove ineffective in the establishment of a new creation following divine judgment (Ruether 2012, pp. 37–41). One female character declares, “Reconstruct the justice for all!” while the other urges Noah to “seek the divine will through the formation of new relationships”. The fact that these two women safeguard the continuity of the family lineage, despite it diverging from Noah’s original vision, makes the prospect of humanity’s new beginning both plausible and promising.

This prompts the question: what kind of alternative theological framework should be developed for a post-flood Earth? How can the voices of these two women in the film be incorporated into theological discourse? To explore potential insights and a path forward, I will engage with Rosemary Ruether’s ecofeminist theological discourse.

5. Ruether’s Ecofeminist Construction for Relational Consciousness

Ruether’s constructive theology hinges on the identification, critical reconstruction, and synthesis of two key strands within the Christian tradition, which she labels as covenantal and sacramental. The covenantal tradition is grounded in the Hebraic understanding of the God of Israel, who initiates both creation and redemption. The God revealed in historical acts of deliverance is also the Creator, the one who “made heaven and earth” (Ruether 1992, p. 208). In this sense, creation and redemption are inseparable, mutually dependent on one another, as God is praised not only through acts of redemptive intervention—such as the Exodus—but also through the natural phenomena of storms and droughts. Although the Israelites’ conception of their relationship to God is admittedly “androcentric, anthropocentric, and ethnocentric,” Ruether proposes that their testimonies nonetheless depict God as intrinsically connected to nature, irrespective of whether nature serves human purposes (Ruether 1992, p. 208).

The biblical narrative reveals that the presence of God is found not only in those aspects of nature under human cultivation or yielding direct benefit to humankind but in all spheres of the natural world. It asserts that God’s sovereignty extends beyond human experiences of blessing and curse, success and disaster, imparting moral meaning and purpose to all events (Ruether 1992, p. 210). Given this framework, what then is the role of humanity? Ruether contends that the biblical awareness of human relations to nature implies a limited human authority over creation. Stewardship of the earth is granted to humans, yet it remains clear that “neither nature’s blessings nor its destructive forces are placed fully within human control” (Ruether 1992, p. 210).

The sabbatical legislation serves as a profound expression of the covenantal relationship between justice and prosperity in the Hebraic tradition. The biblical account of the Sabbath, rooted in God’s creation, provides the foundation for the social system of the Jubilee. This legislation mandated that every fifty years, the relationships between humans, animals, and the land would be restored, irrespective of current social hierarchies or economic conditions. It was a time for undoing human enslavement, reclaiming lost or confiscated land, and realigning society with divine justice.

Two significant theological concepts are embedded within this practice: First, the relationship between God and Israel is embodied in God’s act of liberating the Israelites from bondage and oppression. Second, this liberation implies that no social or structural disorder is permanent. Rather, these disorders must be corrected periodically, allowing for humanity to restore right eco-social relationships and re-establish justice as intended by the covenant.

Ruether argues that the essence of covenantal theology can be incarnated in the contemporary world through the relationship between humans and other life forms. She asserts that the covenantal vision compels humans to view all life on Earth as part of a single family and a community bound by interdependence. As caretakers, humanity is called to recognize other life forms as “ultimate thou,” thereby dismantling the oppressive framework that positions subjects over objects (Ruether 1992, p. 227). This paradigm shift facilitates encounters between humans and other life forms as mutually constitutive beings, essential co-partners in the ongoing divine creative work on Earth.

Ruether presents the sacramental tradition as a complementary strategy to the covenantal in developing an ecofeminist spirituality. She contends that cosmic Christology in Christian theology represents the historical Christian effort to synthesize two spiritual traditions: Hebrew and Greek (Ruether 1992, pp. 230–33). A notable attempt to unite these spiritual realms was made by Irenaeus, who posited that creation itself is an incarnation of the Word and Spirit of God, serving as the ontological foundation of bodily existence. This perspective allowed for Christians to affirm that body and spirit could be interwoven in Christian sacraments to renew the life force inherent in creation. From this understanding, the redemptive presence of God in Christ extends to the entire cosmos, not just to humanity.

Rooted in the biblical apocalyptic tradition, this theology envisions the eventual millennial blessedness of earthly life, followed by the transformation of the entire cosmos into a new heaven and earth, immortalized and fully united with the divine life of God. While Irenaeus’s model likely influenced the development of Christian sacramental theology, it became ensnared in the dualistic tensions of the Hebrew and Greek traditions. As a result, his approach was largely rejected and eventually disappeared from mainstream Western Christianity, leaving a void in sacramental theology that persisted until more recent times.

Three contemporary ecological theologies, alongside scientific discoveries from the field of physics, provide critical underpinnings for Ruether’s argument (Ruether 1992, pp. 240–47)5. First, it is affirmed by Matthew Fox that Christ, as the immanent wisdom of God present throughout the cosmos, serves as the principle of interconnected and abundant life (Ruether 1992, p. 241). Second, theological engagement with emerging scientific understandings reveals that the human mind is the interior dimension of a complex matrix of matter (Ruether 1992, p. 245). This insight offers a critical key to resolving dualistic worldviews and overcoming dichotomous frameworks. Third, process theology asserts that mentality represents the capacity for interaction, suggesting that the divine nature itself is engaged in a process of mutual relationship with nature and the cosmos (Ruether 1992, p. 246).

Ruether thus argues that the traditional concept of God as wholly other and separate from the cosmos and matter is no longer tenable. Drawing on scientific findings that at the subatomic level, the boundary between matter and energy dissolves, she contends that matter is, in reality, energy. This matrix of energy operates through connectivity and relationality, though often in seemingly random or coincidental ways. Nonetheless, Ruether emphasizes that the human mind has been identified as the “mean” or mediator between matter and energy—the unique locus where the universe becomes self-aware through reflective consciousness (Ruether 1992, p. 249). She maintains that human consciousness is where the dance of energy shapes the matrix of all life forms. Consequently, consciousness must be the medium through which humans recognize their kinship with all other beings in the cosmos.

6. Conclusion: Relational Consciousness as Spiritual Formation for Korean Christians

Within this theoretical framework, Ruether articulates three foundational premises for an ecological spirituality: the transience of individual selves, the interdependency of all living things, and the inherent value of the personal in communion. These concepts collectively underscore the notion that humanity is not the center of the cosmos, fostering a renewed sense of kinship with all living organisms and the recognition that the material substance of human bodies will eventually serve other forms of life within the earth’s cyclical processes.

Ruether’s concluding proposal to awaken and cultivate human consciousness as a driving force for reconstructing Christian theological frameworks and spiritual formation is both profoundly powerful and timely. In my research, however, I propose adding the adjective “relational” to her concept of “consciousness”, as this term more comprehensively captures the way in which the earth and cosmos have existed since their inception, as well as how all life forms have interacted throughout their existence (Lee 2019).6 I argue that relational consciousness should be prioritized for cultivation within the human sphere, as, following Ruether’s vision, it is central to humanity’s capacity to recognize the interconnectedness and interdependence of all life forms within the cosmos.

This theological exploration underscores the central importance of the concept of relational consciousness in the spiritual formation of Korean Christians. Reshaping the theological framework by placing nature and the earth at its center necessitates that Korean Christians engage in three key processes to foster relational consciousness. First, it requires cultivating spiritual awareness of the illusion of human dominance and control over nature. This entails recognizing the historical origins of the current interpretation of the creation story within Christian theology and understanding its impact on theological traditions throughout Christian history. This step is essential for dismantling the illusion of human superiority, which is itself a social and historical construct.

Second, a foundational aspect of ecological consciousness is the recognition of interconnected and interdependent realities as the essential pattern of life on Earth, including an acceptance of humanity’s limitations in relation to nature. Earth’s life-sustaining systems form the matrix within which all beings, humans included, can thrive. Relational consciousness, therefore, emerges from an internal realization that human life depends on a reciprocal relationship with the earth (Lee 2017, p. 323). The environmental crises we face today are largely the outcome of human actions, suggesting that addressing these issues will not only repair our relationship with the earth but also mitigate broader problems in interpersonal, social, national, and spiritual realms.

Theologically, overcoming the flawed aspects of human nature entails a rejection of the assumption that humans are entitled to dominate and control the natural world. Genuine appreciation of divine grace should inspire gratitude for nature’s generous resources, which are shared freely with humanity. Recovering the “image of God” within human beings thus also implies restoring nature to its rightful condition, a state of mutual respect and reciprocity that has been disrupted and degraded by human civilization

My exploration of ecofeminist theology reveals that it provides Korean Christians with a highly relevant framework for reorienting their spiritual formation to focus on nature and the earth. First, Ruether’s historical analysis of the three creation stories demonstrates that the synthetic form of Christian creation theology is inadequate for addressing the unprecedented challenges facing both the earth and humanity. This inadequacy arises from the Christian account of creation, which contains an ambiguous duality between paradisiacal nature and human mortality. Moreover, the theological rigidity and dogmatic strictness of Calvinism have hindered Korean Christians from engaging freely and spiritually with environmental issues within both theological inquiry and spiritual formation. Instead, this version of the creation narrative has played a crucial role in justifying human dominance over nature, exacerbating environmental problems in the process.

The interreligious exploration of Zhu Xi’s Neo-Confucian cosmology provides profound insights that could help reshape the Korean Christian understanding of humanity’s relationship to nature. As the embodiment of Taiji, humanity represents the most refined aspect of the universe’s creative process. This view invites humankind to recognize its role as a co-creator in the interrelated and interdependent realities of the cosmos. Such a perspective could serve as a catalyst for reimagining human beings not as dominators or controllers of nature, but as co-partners, co-workers, and co-creators of the ecosystem and the earth.

This theological discourse offers a fresh approach for Korean Christians to reconceptualize spiritual formation by fostering a deeper connection with nature and the earth (Pope Francis 2015; Cloete 2023). The sabbatical legislation and the Jubilee system from the Hebrew covenant tradition present models for re-establishing the human relationship with nature. These traditions call for relinquishing the illusion of control and embracing other life forms as the “ultimate other”—beings essential to human existence. Ruether also challenges Korean Christians to question whether the concept of God as wholly other remains relevant if they are to embrace nature and the earth as co-creators and co-partners with God.

By recognizing the interdependence of all life forms within Earth’s life matrix, Korean Christians, alongside the broader human community, can better understand the theological imperative of caring for Earth as an expression of their faith. This is a newly discovered Christian vocation for Koreans in this historical moment, where Christians are called to cultivate a relational consciousness with the earth as part of their spiritual formation.