Review Reports - The Wounding of the Earth: The Presence of the Ontological Rift and Eco-Dissonant Spiritualities

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

I commend the author for bringing together novel ideas. While the general thrust of the argument (the culpability of Christianity for ecological destruction) is not new–harkening, as it does, all the way back to Lynn White, Jr.’s famous essay–the author brings together some excellent sources that do well in conversation, and develops concepts that are certainly worthwhile. For instance, ”eco-dissonance” as a subject for theological reflection is apt and intriguing.

However, the paper does not provide adequate theological justification for its critique of “Abrahamic religions,” and exhibits a concerning lack of familiarity with relevant theological texts.

To provide just a few examples:

The author writes, “First, over the years I have found that theologians interested in the climate crisis are quite adept at identifying its sources and yet overlook how religions birthed in Western civilization have colluded with and contributed to these sources” (lines 69-71). The author provides no justification for this claim, and seems unaware of the fact that there is an established and ever-growing stream of eco-theology that specifically critiques foundational aspects of Christianity for its role in creating the ecological problem. Rosemary Radford Ruether, back in 1983, wrote about it. Since then, Ivone Gebara, Grace Jantzen, Catherine Keller, and many other theologians and philosophers of religion have addressed the tendencies within Christianity that produce ecologically destructive ways of thinking.
The author makes statements like “Abrahamic religion’s collusion with and indifference toward factory farms, industrial slaughterhouses, factory ships, and scientific experimentation on other-than-human species” (lines 161-162), which are huge, sweeping generalizations that are not supported by evidence.
Some of the over-generalizations are followed by mention of “exceptions,” without providing any compelling evidence as to why or how the exception proves the rule. For example, in footnote 16: This is followed by a single report of a man meeting a friendly but dirty dog for the first time. When asked why he allowed this dog to muddy his clothes, the man indicated the fellow-feeling the dog had for him and said that to not accept this would have morally harmed the dog. “We ought both to lighten the condition of animals, whenever we can, and at the same time facilitate in ourselves that union of the world of all spirits, which the sacrifice of Christ has made possible” (p. 223). This is one clear illustration of Christian religious thinking where a person seeks to overcome the rift. Almost every other religious experience in James’s work entailed a desire and experience of resonance with a transcendent God.”

Additionally, it’s unwise to lump Judaism and Islam into “Abrahamic religions” and then make no mention of the Torah, the Qur’an, or Judaism and Islam on their own terms. I recommend that the author do one of two things: either confine the paper to a critique of Christianity, or devote several pages to assessing, with evidence, the specific eco-dissonances of Judaism and Islam, in addition to Christianity, providing a nuanced perspective on how they are different yet similar.

Finally, I want to say that the idea of dissonance and resonance in theological systems is truly fascinating, and I would love to see a paper that introduces these concepts and puts them in conversation with specific texts and their use in religious communities, or engages scholarship in theology and biblical studies to show a thorough familiarity with the reception history of the texts. The paper as it stands now cherry picks a few Bible verses without offering a compelling case for Christianity’s eco-dissonance.

Author Response

Responses to Reviewer 1 regarding the article “Wounding of the Earth.”

However, the paper does not provide adequate theological justification for its critique of “Abrahamic religions,” and exhibits a concerning lack of familiarity with relevant theological texts.

To provide just a few examples:

The author writes, “First, over the years I have found that theologians interested in the climate crisis are quite adept at identifying its sources and yet overlook how religions birthed in Western civilization have colluded with and contributed to these sources” (lines 69-71). The author provides no justification for this claim, and seems unaware of the fact that there is an established and ever-growing stream of eco-theology that specifically critiques foundational aspects of Christianity for its role in creating the ecological problem. Rosemary Radford Ruether, back in 1983, wrote about it. Since then, Ivone Gebara, Grace Jantzen, Catherine Keller, and many other theologians and philosophers of religion have addressed the tendencies within Christianity that produce ecologically destructive ways of thinking.

[First of all this sentence is found in the paragraph that deals with several clarifications. In the main body of the paper I have briefly noted philosophers and others who have advocated for more just and caring relations. Given the reviewer’s criticism, I have included (see above) other theologians and religious leaders who have raised alarm bells—some of whom are critical of theology while revising it (e.g., Keller, 2018). I am making the case in the main body of the article that while there have been and are advocates (religious and otherwise) for care and just relations to other species they are not sufficient in number. More to the point and again pointing to the body of the paper numerous contemporary philosophers and others (e.g., Freud) acknowledge that Western philosophical and theological apparatuses produce an ontological rift between human beings and other species.]
The author makes statements like “Abrahamic religion’s collusion with and indifference toward factory farms, industrial slaughterhouses, factory ships, and scientific experimentation on other-than-human species” (lines 161-162), which are huge, sweeping generalizations that are not supported by evidence.

[I take it that Twine’s and Singer’s research is not sufficient to at least point in this direction. I am not arguing that it is simply Abrahamic traditions, but I am saying the apparatuses of these traditions collude with ecologically destructive relations—eco-dissonant relations. As an aside, most religious people and theologians I know eat meat and buy products that have been developed through laboratory experimentation on other species. I add here that it is very rare to hear any theologian (philosopher) or religious leader condemn industrial slaughter factories and animal experimentation.]
Some of the over-generalizations are followed by mention of “exceptions,” without providing any compelling evidence as to why or how the exception proves the rule. For example, in footnote 16: This is followed by a single report of a man meeting a friendly but dirty dog for the first time. When asked why he allowed this dog to muddy his clothes, the man indicated the fellow-feeling the dog had for him and said that to not accept this would have morally harmed the dog. “We ought both to lighten the condition of animals, whenever we can, and at the same time facilitate in ourselves that union of the world of all spirits, which the sacrifice of Christ has made possible” (p. 223). This is one clear illustration of Christian religious thinking where a person seeks to overcome the rift. Almost every other religious experience in James’s work entailed a desire and experience of resonance with a transcendent God.”

[James provides numerous illustrations of persons’ religious experiences and there is only one that includes a resonant relation to an animal. Of course, he also includes Walt Whitman but not as a religious believer. I used this as an illustration of the focus on persons relationship to God to the exclusion of other species. Also, the footnote is connected to the paragraph that indicates the anthropocentric preoccupation of the Abrahamic traditions.]

Reviewer 1: Additionally, it’s unwise to lump Judaism and Islam into “Abrahamic religions” and then make no mention of the Torah, the Qur’an, or Judaism and Islam on their own terms. I recommend that the author do one of two things: either confine the paper to a critique of Christianity, or devote several pages to assessing, with evidence, the specific eco-dissonances of Judaism and Islam, in addition to Christianity, providing a nuanced perspective on how they are different yet similar.

[I don’t know any scholar or religious leader who does not “cherry pick” in making an argument. We can all find something in scripture to make a point, which is noted in the clarifications section of the paper. Consider Karen Armstrong’s recent book where she identifies verses in the Koran, Torah, and Christian scriptures that point to more just and caring relations to other species and the earth. I find her book interesting, but she cherry picks as well. I am not clear that this is a helpful critique. Moreover, I realize I am making a large claim regarding the Abrahamic traditions vis-à-vis the rift, but it is not one I am making alone as I point out in the article. To confine the argument to Christianity would overlook its roots and to differentiate between these religions would take much more space and time. Indeed, what the reviewer is suggesting I do would take a book.]

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

This is a fine article looking at the climate crisis through the lens of Abrahamic religious traditions. The thesis that these traditions have contributed to the dualism between humans and non-humans implies an "ontological rift". The author pleads for eco-dissonant spiritualities. Both the philosophical and psychological angles augment the argument and offer a compelling vista for the resistance to ecological change.

Nevertheless, I would like to offer a few constructive suggestions. First, the term “Judeo-Christiano-Islamic” should be corrected to “Judeo-Christian-Islamic.” Second, while the critique of Abrahamic traditions is well-developed, the argument would benefit from a more balanced theological engagement, including references to scriptural and historical counter-narratives that promote ecological care and interspecies compassion. For example, Genesis 1:28 refers to dominion over the Earth, but the ontological rift among humans arguably becomes more evident in the post-Edenic narratives, such as those involving Noah. Third, the use of the term “rift” might be reconsidered or clarified, as it suggests a break rather than a difference in substance—a point that could be further nuanced philosophically.

Overall, this article is a valuable contribution to the discourse on religion and ecology. It challenges readers to confront uncomfortable truths and invites a reimagining of spirituality that is inclusive, resonant, and life-affirming.

There are some other comments. Please see the comments in the attached file.

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

Responses to reviewers regarding the article “Wounding of the Earth.”

Reviewer #2

I am going to address the pdf responses first, then move to the text version of the response.

p.1 The reviewer may have overlooked the references on page 12 to the billions of animals that are slaughtered every year. It is not an exaggeration.

p.2 It is common knowledge that Hobbes uses the term “leviathan” in his political philosophy. This said, I did mention Hobbes later and cite the work of philosopher Ryan who discusses Hobbes’ political philosophy.

3 I made the change to include North America.
4 This is a quote from Derrida and I cannot change it to what the reviewer wishes. Derrida (2008) wrote, “I think that Cartesianism belongs, beneath its mechanistic indifference, to the Judeo-Christiano-Islamic tradition of a war against the animal, a sacrificial war that is as old as Genesis” (p. 101).
5 This passage states “fill the earth and subdue it; and have dominion over the fish of the sea and the birds of the air and over every living thing that moves upon the earth.”

p.7 This is a quote from Jane Bennett. I am not sure what the reviewer is trying to do here.

p.9 I did not change it because it is not beyond my scope. Rather, it is beyond the time and space to develop it.

On p. 8 of my text I wrote: I add that other scholars, scientists,[1] activists, and religious leaders in the West have eschewed the attributes of the rift advocating for more caring compassionate relations (e.g., Barad, 2007; Bennett, 2010; Harvey, 2015; Kaur, 2020; Morton, 2017; Nussbaum, 2022; Wallace, 2019). [Footnote #7 mentions 3 theologians who advocate for more ecological approaches. Given the criticism of both reviewers I revised the paragraph on p. 7 (and included the references): Before addressing further the rift’s attributes and dynamics, it is important to note briefly that the rift is neither inevitable nor universal. Numerous Indigenous religions/spiritualities organize society without a rift between humans and other species, nor do they construct abstract binaries such as culture and nature or civilization and the wild (Ingold, 2013, 2022; Kohn, 2013; Lloyd, 2024; Stewart, 2021; Turner, 2006; Viveiros de Castro, 2017). As Latour (2004) notes, “Non-Western cultures have never been interested in nature; they have never adopted it as a category; they have never found a use for it” (p. 41). There are also Western philosophers and religious figures, past and present, who rendered the apparatuses of the rift inoperative.[2] I add that other scholars, scientists,[3] activists, and religious leaders[4] and organizations in the West have eschewed the attributes of the rift advocating for more caring compassionate relations (e.g., Barad, 2007; Bennett, 2010; Harvey, 2015; Kaur, 2020; Morton, 2017; Nussbaum, 2022; Wallace, 2019). In my own discipline, pastoral theologians such as Larry Graham (1992), Howard Clinebell, and Mary Elizabeth Moore (1998) decades ago addressed the issue of climate change. It was not until the late 2010s that pastoral theologians began to engage the challenges of the climate crisis directly.[5] While not inevitable or universal, the apparatuses of the rift are nevertheless powerfully pervasive, as evidenced by Abrahamic religion’s general collusion with and indifference toward factory farms, industrial slaughterhouses, factory ships, and scientific experimentation on other-than-human species.

[While I agree there are and have been voices from Western theological traditions arguing for more ecological ways of living in the world, they are a fraction in history of Western political philosophies and theologies that instrumentalize relations to other species and the Earth. As for evidence, consider Western Christianity’s past and present collusion with colonization, rise of capitalism, nationalism, etc. Let me stress, in the text I have provided evidence to support my claims, the least of which is Twine’s and Singer’s research.]

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf