Relational Consciousness as Eco-Spiritual Formation: Interreligious Construction with Rosemary R. Ruether and Neo-Confucianism
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThis is a very well-informed and well-written piece that will hopefully spark some potentially valuable thinking among Korean Christians, as is, seemingly, the target audience for the piece--as well as others interested especially in various applications of ecofeminism and the lovely and so needed idea of "relational consciousness." I have a few comments that I would like to share which may help to strengthen or clarify the piece here and there, or just add more fuel for thought.
First, I find the title a bit awkward with "Interreligious Constructive with." And could you use "Neo-Confucianism"? The way I read the neo-Confucian portion is that it is most significantly about an influential developed line of thinking more than it is the individual Confucian and neo-Confucian thinkers.
In your abstract, I find the "it" in the second sentence vague and unclear.
In your first sentence of the essay, and indeed in other spots in the piece, too, I wonder how in the world the Earth and human existence are separable at all. Perhaps this is my own continuing frustration and dismay at what I consider such ridiculous, destructive thinking that could separate what is obviously inseparable. So commonsensical to me that all life is interdependent. Really, that's your biggest point in the essay, and will be new to some people--your major intended audience.
In the beginning of the essay, you discuss "once-stable weather patterns." The Earth has experienced many climate changes over the existence of life on this planet, so what do you mean by "once-stable"? That idea could rest on the idea of an original realistic static Paradise, which doesn't seem in keeping with the overall argument you're trying to make in the essay. Maybe that is as far as human imagination can go, though, collectively or religiously speaking? But you appreciate a scientific perspective, too, as we go along in the essay, so I'd reexamine the "once-stable" statement. Also the words "original" and "pristine" (see my comment about "perfection" below, as well) in lines 555-556.
On line 27, "pandemics" is referred to as an "erratic weather pattern," but it's not a weather pattern, so those couple of sentences there get confusing.
You have a couple of split infinitives in the essay--for example "to not only" on line 36.
After the bit of confusion in the title, abstract, and beginning paragraph, the essay really gets going and the language and syntax become muscular and compellingly logical.
I keep wondering as I read the essay why there is no consideration of traditional Korean shamanism in this piece at all. Perhaps you feel those cultural ideas have been completely removed if one has a Korean Christian perspective. I feel really curious to know, though, if you feel any of that way of thinking and being lingers and affects or makes church members more or less open, then, to relational ideas of earth/body and spirit as interdependent.
Western thinking's dualistic, binary adherence is not total if one considers Catholicism's saints (like pagan divinities) and the father, son, and holy ghost tripartite powers. The previous Great Goddess traditions' triple goddess and three main phases of the moon (sliver/maiden, full/pregnant woman, new/crone) are associated with the calendrically far more accurate 28-day moon cycle that also more accurately coincides with women's reproductive cycles.
I kept thinking of ecofeminist scholar Charlene Spretnak's idea of "radical nonduality" (in Warren's collection Ecofeminism: Women, Culture, Nature) as I read your piece. I think you'd enjoy it. And her revisionist Lost Goddesses of Early Greece.
Line 109--"future"? Do you mean past?
For me, I wouldn't ital the divinities' names and some concepts. With your italicized terms, you occasionally forget to ital every single one, which would be another reason for not using the ital at all.
Are you sure there was "no male domination or class domination in the original creation of God"? I cannot go along with that. Wasn't that all a big huge given? You do seem to go on to say that. Maybe I'm missing something in the paragraph.
Re lines 211-212 and "interreligious dialogue" and "global community," I think you'd enjoy Leslie Marmon Silko's novel Gardens in the Dunes for her use of the Native American Ghost Dance (prayer and dance for renewal of land, animals, and deceased kin) along with her connecting this 19th-c. cultural phenomenon to Mormons--while obviously writing for a turn of the 21st-c. audience.
Feminist quantum thinking is evident in your essay, though unnamed. The fundamental common sense idea that all of life is interdependent, which indigenous peoples have always known and Western thinkers have obviously completely forgotten for far too long.
Why is the idea of "perfection" (as in the Great Ultimate, which could be thought of as the Christian "God," according to your definitions) still so seductive for Christians, capitalists, and consumers? Along with dualistic thinking, the ideal of "perfection" has horrific consequences for food production and sale as well as "fashion" and global slavery, and on and on.
Humanity as "anthropocosmic"--yes!
Subtitle #4--cut the comma. You forgot the capitals. And I would revise it to this more familiar feminist linguistic hyphenated term from religious studies (a la Mary Daly, now less respected because of her issue with MTF transness, but still linguistically influential nonetheless):
Ecofeminist Re-vision of the Film Noah
Ruether is important, and I know she's your ecofeminist focus, but there are surely other influential feminist and ecofeminist theorists whose ideas you must be interested in as they relate to the discussion in this essay. Not all ecofeminist ideas are from her, in other words, as you possibly seem to suggest in line 429.
Her name is misspelled in subtitle #5.
I'd like to see what you think is at stake if Korean Christians, as your specific audience and concern, do NOT make this epistemological and ontological shift in their thinking toward a stewardship perspective. Aren't you arguing for a better-informed manner of critical thinking? Is critical thinking ultimately compatible with a mythically oriented religious thinking?
You mention several times that all "beings" (seemingly all animate "life forms") are interdependent. But rocks, soil, water, air, fire also are life and certainly exist interdependently with (and in) humans. We are something like 70% water, as one example.
Some misspellings, I believe, in your references.
Overall, very intriguing essay that made me think and obviously made me want to talk with you and learn and mull over more.
Author Response
This is a very well-informed and well-written piece that will hopefully spark some potentially valuable thinking among Korean Christians, as is, seemingly, the target audience for the piece--as well as others interested especially in various applications of ecofeminism and the lovely and so needed idea of "relational consciousness." I have a few comments that I would like to share which may help to strengthen or clarify the piece here and there, or just add more fuel for thought.
First, I find the title a bit awkward with "Interreligious Constructive with." And could you use "Neo-Confucianism"? The way I read the neo-Confucian portion is that it is most significantly about an influential developed line of thinking more than it is the individual Confucian and neo-Confucian thinkers.
that sounds good to me! neo-confucianism
In your abstract, I find the "it" in the second sentence vague and unclear.
I changed it to ‘the studies’
In your first sentence of the essay, and indeed in other spots in the piece, too, I wonder how in the world the Earth and human existence are separable at all. Perhaps this is my own continuing frustration and dismay at what I consider such ridiculous, destructive thinking that could separate what is obviously inseparable. So commonsensical to me that all life is interdependent. Really, that's your biggest point in the essay, and will be new to some people--your major intended audience.
I am both pleased and appreciative of your insightful and affirming comments regarding this concept.
In the beginning of the essay, you discuss "once-stable weather patterns." The Earth has experienced many climate changes over the existence of life on this planet, so what do you mean by "once-stable"? That idea could rest on the idea of an original realistic static Paradise, which doesn't seem in keeping with the overall argument you're trying to make in the essay. Maybe that is as far as human imagination can go, though, collectively or religiously speaking? But you appreciate a scientific perspective, too, as we go along in the essay, so I'd reexamine the "once-stable" statement. Also the words "original" and "pristine" (see my comment about "perfection" below, as well) in lines 555-556.
My intention in the sentence is to convey that weather patterns remained stable over the past ten thousand years until the advent of the modern era, during which human activity began to significantly impact nature and ecosystems. This assertion, I believe, is further substantiated by the following sentence, which references human activities and their associated waste. Scientific analyses indicate that, prior to recent centuries, weather patterns experienced minimal dramatic changes over millennia. However, your feedback has made me more aware of the potential for a narrower conceptual framework, especially as it pertains to collective and religious contexts. Consequently, I revised the term to ‘reciprocal’ in line 556.
On line 27, "pandemics" is referred to as an "erratic weather pattern," but it's not a weather pattern, so those couple of sentences there get confusing.
that’s right! I took ‘pandemics’ out of the sentence!
You have a couple of split infinitives in the essay--for example "to not only" on line 36.
thanks a lot. I corrected it!
After the bit of confusion in the title, abstract, and beginning paragraph, the essay really gets going and the language and syntax become muscular and compellingly logical.
I keep wondering as I read the essay why there is no consideration of traditional Korean shamanism in this piece at all. Perhaps you feel those cultural ideas have been completely removed if one has a Korean Christian perspective. I feel really curious to know, though, if you feel any of that way of thinking and being lingers and affects or makes church members more or less open, then, to relational ideas of earth/body and spirit as interdependent.
I am truly impressed by the breadth and depth of your understanding of the Korean and East Asian religious landscape and history. Indeed, shamanism constitutes a foundational component of Korean religious history. However, it exists as a distinct element within the broader spectrum of Korea's spiritual demography, which extends beyond the scope of this specific study. This topic warrants further exploration, which I plan to incorporate into my future research agenda. Thank you for your insightful feedback.
Western thinking's dualistic, binary adherence is not total if one considers Catholicism's saints (like pagan divinities) and the father, son, and holy ghost tripartite powers. The previous Great Goddess traditions' triple goddess and three main phases of the moon (sliver/maiden, full/pregnant woman, new/crone) are associated with the calendrically far more accurate 28-day moon cycle that also more accurately coincides with women's reproductive cycles.
I kept thinking of ecofeminist scholar Charlene Spretnak's idea of "radical nonduality" (in Warren's collection Ecofeminism: Women, Culture, Nature) as I read your piece. I think you'd enjoy it. And her revisionist Lost Goddesses of Early Greece.
That sounds highly intriguing and certainly warrants a deeper exploration within the realm of intercultural and interreligious studies, particularly examining the intersections between Western and Eastern worldviews. Thank you very much for recommending these critical resources on the topic—I look forward to reviewing them soon!
Line 109--"future"? Do you mean past?
simple but critical typo! thanks a lot!
For me, I wouldn't ital the divinities' names and some concepts. With your italicized terms, you occasionally forget to ital every single one, which would be another reason for not using the ital at all.
valid suggestion so that it is adopted in! thanks a lot!
Are you sure there was "no male domination or class domination in the original creation of God"? I cannot go along with that. Wasn't that all a big huge given? You do seem to go on to say that. Maybe I'm missing something in the paragraph.
In this analysis, I aimed to highlight the historical progression of an overemphasis on hierarchical structures within church history. I suggest that the biblical creation narrative has been interpreted through a predominantly dogmatic lens, which has, at times, overshadowed its original theological intent.
Re lines 211-212 and "interreligious dialogue" and "global community," I think you'd enjoy Leslie Marmon Silko's novel Gardens in the Dunes for her use of the Native American Ghost Dance (prayer and dance for renewal of land, animals, and deceased kin) along with her connecting this 19th-c. cultural phenomenon to Mormons--while obviously writing for a turn of the 21st-c. audience.
thank you so much for the novel which seems to extend my perspective on the subject.
Feminist quantum thinking is evident in your essay, though unnamed. The fundamental common sense idea that all of life is interdependent, which indigenous peoples have always known and Western thinkers have obviously completely forgotten for far too long.
yes, your point is absolutely valid. The concept of feminist quantum theory is indeed highly applicable to this topic; however, it has yet to gain traction within the Korean Protestant context. Unfortunately, advancing to this level of discourse within the religious domain remains a significant challenge—an unfortunate reality.
Why is the idea of "perfection" (as in the Great Ultimate, which could be thought of as the Christian "God," according to your definitions) still so seductive for Christians, capitalists, and consumers? Along with dualistic thinking, the ideal of "perfection" has horrific consequences for food production and sale as well as "fashion" and global slavery, and on and on.
That is an excellent point to explore further. Based on my pastoral and ministerial experience, I observe that human unconscious or subconscious desires often manifest at profound levels, influencing individual and collective spiritual states. I am increasingly convinced that all forms of religion may, in essence, be reflective expressions of fundamental human desires.
Humanity as "anthropocosmic"--yes!
Subtitle #4--cut the comma. You forgot the capitals. And I would revise it to this more familiar feminist linguistic hyphenated term from religious studies (a la Mary Daly, now less respected because of her issue with MTF transness, but still linguistically influential nonetheless):
Ecofeminist Re-vision of the Film Noah
thanks to your appropriate suggestion, I put the book, Daly, Mary. 1985. Beyond God the Father: toward a philosophy of women’s liberation. Boston: Beacon Press.
in the bibliography and changed the title. thanks a lot!
Ruether is important, and I know she's your ecofeminist focus, but there are surely other influential feminist and ecofeminist theorists whose ideas you must be interested in as they relate to the discussion in this essay. Not all ecofeminist ideas are from her, in other words, as you possibly seem to suggest in line 429.
Thank you sincerely for your thoughtful suggestion. Indeed, ecofeminist theories are not derived solely from Ruether; significant contributions from scholars such as Sallie McFague, Charlene Spretnak, and Carolyn Merchant should also be acknowledged. I regret that my argument initially focused exclusively on Ruether as the primary framework.
Her name is misspelled in subtitle #5.
corrected it! thanks
I'd like to see what you think is at stake if Korean Christians, as your specific audience and concern, do NOT make this epistemological and ontological shift in their thinking toward a stewardship perspective. Aren't you arguing for a better-informed manner of critical thinking? Is critical thinking ultimately compatible with a mythically oriented religious thinking?
I welcome this critical question and appreciate its role in clarifying and strengthening my comprehensive argument. I am increasingly convinced that the Korean Protestant tradition, with its dogma-centered teaching, has placed the Korean church in a challenging position, especially among younger generations who seek to engage with nature and ecology as vital partners for flourishing and survival. Thus, critical thinking within a historical context should serve to enlighten both the Korean congregation and its ministers. At a superficial level, mythologically oriented thinking may not align with the critical thinking needed in the Korean context. An initial demystification process is essential within the Korean religious sphere. However, as we delve deeper into the spiritual dimension, there is potential to integrate critical thinking with contemplative imagination, fostering a balanced and creative approach to interdependent consciousness among Koreans.
You mention several times that all "beings" (seemingly all animate "life forms") are interdependent. But rocks, soil, water, air, fire also are life and certainly exist interdependently with (and in) humans. We are something like 70% water, as one example.
I do agree with it! thank you for that!
Some misspellings, I believe, in your references.
I found out 5 misspelling and correct them all. thank. you so much for your considerate and intriguing comments, suggestion, questions and so on. it helps the studies improve significantly.
Overall, very intriguing essay that made me think and obviously made me want to talk with you and learn and mull over more.
I sincerely appreciate the opportunity to engage with all of your insightful comments. This process has been invaluable, as it allows me to review the project with the guidance of an academically experienced professional. Thank you very much for your support and expertise!
Reviewer 2 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsLine 3 is there a word missing from the title? Constructive what?
Abstract - using the word 'distorted' is a little bit judgemental right from the start
Line 74 or at least some interpretation of the creation story
Line 78 again ‘proper’ is taken to mean from the author’s perspective
Line 81 seen by whom?
Line 85 I look forward to hearing more about what the author means by authentic.
Line 87-88 Examines the story specifically through Ruether’s lens. The summary makes it seem as if Ruether only appears in the fourth part of the paper whereas she is actually used throughout.
134 ‘Is not’, not ‘was not’
134 allegedly is an odd word here. Sounds like an accusation
136 I feel like this should be prefaced by ‘according to Ruether, [this explicitly…]’ especially because it’s quite a leap
146 is this Ruether’s inference or yours?
161-2 again is this Ruether’s argument or yours?
170 and elsewhere, I think only single quote mark should be used for scare quotes and double quote marks for actual quotations – check the style guide
180-1 Same question
185-191 this paragraph is confusing. Contradiction is not the same as ambiguity to begin with, and also I just don’t see how the argumentation follows. This could be explained further (see my notes at end)
205 presumably because they don’t believe there is an issue?
208 again, viewing the theology as having limitations and distortions is the argument of the author, not an objective fact.
322 ‘argues that’ rather than ‘reminds us that’ would be less presumptive.
355-356 ‘dialogue partner’ implies a two-way mutually informative conversation whereas this is more of a one-way learning situation it seems where ‘limited’ Korean Christians can improve their theology. (I sound like I’m a Calvinist being defensive. I’m not.) There’s not a real dialogue as such here, more a presentation of Neo-Confucian ideas followed by a statement that it could help. We’re not shown exactly how that might work, in terms of an integrated philosophy or theology, or practice.
367 and 370 Specifically, a particular Christian theological framework, not just in general nor just ‘contemporary’ – some theologies do address this issue more effectively so it’s important not to generalise.
Section 4 is interesting but it sits uneasily with the rest of the essay, particularly the jump from a description of Neo-Confucianism. The descriptive summary of the movie doesn’t seem to address the constructive questions the author is asking. So (427) asking how the voices of two female characters in a Hollywood movie should be Incorporated into theological discourse seems like a strange thing to do, particularly since this aspect of the film is so different from the biblical narrative. It doesn’t seem to belong.
438-9 ‘God is praised not only through acts’ – through? Or because of?
444 Again, a ‘Ruether proposes that’ to introduce this would be make it clear these are R’s points, not the author’s (assuming they are).
446 Example verses would be helpful here.
493 ‘It is affirmed’ by whom? Name this first ecological theology.
546 One could argue that this might work better the other way around – that addressing the problems with humanity’s relationship with the Earth needs to come before, and motivate, addressing environmental concerns.
550-2 The argumentation in this paragraph and the previous one, is unclear. Lines 530-8 are clearer in explaining how the change can be made in other words by raising consciousness and awareness of history, and the development of ideas. 539-556 is less clear, and connections between the issues are not teased out. One way the author suggests is by integrating Neo-Confucianism, I see later in the paper.
My broad recommendation would be a degree of restructuring and precision – take out (or drastically limit) the discussion of the movie, and instead develop more carefully, step-by-step, your argumentation using and integrating Neo-Confucianism and Ruether’s theological thinking as a pathway to enriching Korean Christian theology with a more relational attitude to the earth. It would need to address how open Korean Christians would be to an inter-religious approach, learning from another religion.
This development is also needed because argumentation that just tells people ‘hey you should believe this not that’ is insufficient and I doubt would work, academically and practically, because I’m struggling to see what their own motivation for change would be. In other words, stating ‘Korean Christians must start to believe X’ is not very persuasive (for us or them), nor does it tell us how. It would be a good idea to critically and reflexively assess whether this integration would actually work.
This topic, once developed, seems like it could be an interesting integration of ideas so I’d encourage the author to continue to work on the argumentation and motivation here.
References not found used in the text – delete from references or include in text:
De Bary 1975
De Bary 2003
Ruether 2014
Author Response
Line 3 is there a word missing from the title? Constructive what?
Changed the title! Thank you so much for your appropriate comment!
Abstract - using the word 'distorted' is a little bit judgemental right from the start
Changed Into ‘intolerant’
Line 74 or at least some interpretation of the creation story
Insert, some interpretation
Line 78 again ‘proper’ is taken to mean from the author’s perspective
Changed into balanced
Line 81 seen by whom?
By ecofeminist theologians
Line 85 I look forward to hearing more about what the author means by authentic.
Today, spirituality inherently seeks an integrated and holistic approach to human existence, rooted in the postmodern understanding that human nature and life have become fragmented and isolated. Contemplation, as a central pathway to deeper levels of life, calls for perceiving reality as it truly is, with what has been described as a 'long, loving gaze.' Authenticity in spiritual formation is a core virtue and goal for Christians, who, through contemplation, are equipped to transcend prejudice, bias, and restrictive cultural norms. This contemplative practice supports the soul in living an authentic and genuine life, embodying the teachings and example of Jesus as depicted in biblical narratives.
Line 87-88 Examines the story specifically through Ruether’s lens. The summary makes it seem as if Ruether only appears in the fourth part of the paper whereas she is actually used throughout.
Insert, “it equips Ruether’s analyses to examine”
134 ‘Is not’, not ‘was not’
Thanks a lot.
134 allegedly is an odd word here. Sounds like an accusation
Yes. It disappears.
136 I feel like this should be prefaced by ‘according to Ruether, [this explicitly…]’ especially because it’s quite a leap
Yes, I added it! Thanks a lot!
146 is this Ruether’s inference or yours?
Reference added.
161-2 again is this Ruether’s argument or yours?
Ruether argues,
170 and elsewhere, I think only single quote mark should be used for scare quotes and double quote marks for actual quotations – check the style guide
Thanks a lot. It is changed.
180-1 Same question
Thanks a lot. It is changed.
185-191 this paragraph is confusing. Contradiction is not the same as ambiguity to begin with, and also I just don’t see how the argumentation follows. This could be explained further (see my notes at end)
I revised the whole paragraph following.
“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.”
205 presumably because they don’t believe there is an issue?
Their theological framework and spiritual formation have not adequately prepared them to address environmental issues seriously, not because these issues lack importance, but because humanity is often viewed as the sole recipient of divine grace and salvation.
208 again, viewing the theology as having limitations and distortions is the argument of the author, not an objective fact.
I am very grateful for your insightful feedback. My intention is not to suggest that theology itself is inherently limited or distorted, but rather to highlight that my ministerial analysis seeks to address the cultural and religious factors contributing to a lack of environmental awareness among Korean Christians.
322 ‘argues that’ rather than ‘reminds us that’ would be less presumptive.
Correct it into argues. Thanks a lot.
355-356 ‘dialogue partner’ implies a two-way mutually informative conversation whereas this is more of a one-way learning situation it seems where ‘limited’ Korean Christians can improve their theology. (I sound like I’m a Calvinist being defensive. I’m not.) There’s not a real dialogue as such here, more a presentation of Neo-Confucian ideas followed by a statement that it could help. We’re not shown exactly how that might work, in terms of an integrated philosophy or theology, or practice.
Thank you for your insightful point. My hope is that Korean Christians will embrace Confucianism and other religious traditions not in an exclusive manner but as valuable partners for constructive spiritual formation in this new era. In this regard, I aspire for Korean Christians to continue viewing Confucianism as a meaningful dialogue partner.
367 and 370 Specifically, a particular Christian theological framework, not just in general nor just ‘contemporary’ – some theologies do address this issue more effectively so it’s important not to generalise.
Regrettably, many Korean Calvinist theologians remain deeply doctrinally conservative, maintaining the belief that only humans are deserving of God’s grace and salvation.
Section 4 is interesting but it sits uneasily with the rest of the essay, particularly the jump from a description of Neo-Confucianism. The descriptive summary of the movie doesn’t seem to address the constructive questions the author is asking. So (427) asking how the voices of two female characters in a Hollywood movie should be Incorporated into theological discourse seems like a strange thing to do, particularly since this aspect of the film is so different from the biblical narrative. It doesn’t seem to belong.
We appreciate and respect your perspective. If you find that this section detracts from, rather than enhances, the discourse and development of this study, I am willing to modify or remove it entirely. In that case, I would need to consider whether the paper requires substantial revisions. However, I believe that the artistic imagination presented in the film Noah can offer a meaningful reinterpretation of the biblical narrative, providing creative avenues for discourse and alternative perspectives.
444 Again, a ‘Ruether proposes that’ to introduce this would be make it clear these are R’s points, not the author’s (assuming they are).
Yes, you’re right! It is added.
493 ‘It is affirmed’ by whom? Name this first ecological theology.
Thanks lot. It is Matthew Fox added.
546 One could argue that this might work better the other way around – that addressing the problems with humanity’s relationship with the Earth needs to come before, and motivate, addressing environmental concerns.
Yes, I do agree with that opinion!
550-2 The argumentation in this paragraph and the previous one, is unclear. Lines 530-8 are clearer in explaining how the change can be made in other words by raising consciousness and awareness of history, and the development of ideas.
I changed into the below!
“In theological terms, overcoming the corrupt or flawed aspects of human nature requires actively rejecting the belief that humans have the right to dominate and control nature.”
539-556 is less clear, and connections between the issues are not teased out. One way the author suggests is by integrating Neo-Confucianism, I see later in the paper.
I changed them following!
“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. The 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 broad recommendation would be a degree of restructuring and precision – take out (or drastically limit) the discussion of the movie, and instead develop more carefully, step-by-step, your argumentation using and integrating Neo-Confucianism and Ruether’s theological thinking as a pathway to enriching Korean Christian theology with a more relational attitude to the earth. It would need to address how open Korean Christians would be to an inter-religious approach, learning from another religion.
This development is also needed because argumentation that just tells people ‘hey you should believe this not that’ is insufficient and I doubt would work, academically and practically, because I’m struggling to see what their own motivation for change would be. In other words, stating ‘Korean Christians must start to believe X’ is not very persuasive (for us or them), nor does it tell us how. It would be a good idea to critically and reflexively assess whether this integration would actually work.
This topic, once developed, seems like it could be an interesting integration of ideas so I’d encourage the author to continue to work on the argumentation and motivation here.
I am deeply grateful for your precise reading, insightful comments, and constructive suggestions, which serve as invaluable contributions to strengthening the argument and discourse of this paper. Originally, this paper was submitted as a final project for a PhD seminar with Professor Ruether, in one of her last classes. I am honored that she awarded it the highest grade, as it reflects my respect for her profound legacy in Christian theological history. However, I fully acknowledge the importance of this review process and am committed to ensuring that the paper meets the highest academic standards and excellence through your guidance. I will carefully consider and incorporate your suggestions to the best of my ability. Once again, I cannot express enough my sincere appreciation for your invaluable feedback.
References not found used in the text – delete from references or include in text:
De Bary 1975
Is unlisted!
De Bary 2003
It is quoted in line 327.
Ruether 2014
Revised it “Ruether 2006, Dialogue: A Journal of Theology 45, no. 2, 176-183.”
And quoted in line number 30.
Round 2
Reviewer 2 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsLine 164 misspelling of Ruether.
Many congratulations on receiving a high mark for this from Dr Ruether.
You were indeed fortunate to take a class from her directly.
I have indicated that the argumentation is clearer now even with the limited revision achieved, so I'm recommending acceptance.
Kind regards as you develop your academic career.
