A Vocational Reading of Gen 2:15 to Link Theology of Work and Ecotheology Following Escrivá’s Christian Materialism

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

I found this piece fascinating, and specifically because of my own parallel interests as a Protestant theologian/pastor/professor.  Though the theological construction (via Escriva) is different from Calvin's concept of calling, there are some practical outcomes of both that I think may have more in common than many realize.  Thank you for a GREAT study in this paper!

Author Response

I found this piece fascinating, and specifically because of my own parallel interests as a Protestant theologian/pastor/professor.  Though the theological construction (via Escriva) is different from Calvin's concept of calling, there are some practical outcomes of both that I think may have more in common than many realize.  Thank you for a GREAT study in this paper!

Many thanks for your encouraging paragraph. We are delighted that you like our work.

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The author argues that Saint Josemaría Escrivá’s concept of Christian materialism frames a new interpretation of Gen 2:15 as a verse which links a theology of work with a theology of care for the creation.  Even though Escrivá did not explicitly deal with ecological issues, his focus on the theology and spirituality of work has implications for ecotheology and the care of the earth. Escrivá did not expound on the relevance of custodire (custody/care/keep) in the Vulgate version of Gen 2:15, and ecclesiastical and patristic tradition does not provide many insights into a theology of work.  Within ecotheological works, there is an emphasis upon the custodire theme, but little connection with the ut operatetur (cultivate/till/work) theme in Gen 2:15, but the author finds that exegesis of Gen 2:15 and Escrivá’s frequent use of the verse compels us to draw a connection between the theology of work and ecotheology.  The author labors to overcome the lack of explicit connection between a theology of work and a theology of care in the reflections of Escrivá, patristic exegesis, and ecclesiastical tradition. The author achieves this by drawing out the implications of Escrivá’s message for a new reading of Gen 2:15. The author composes a well-argued case. While acknowledging difficulties, the author shows how these difficulties can be circumvented. In the end, the author constructs a clear, coherent, and cogent argument for the ecotheological relevance of Escrivá’s use of Gen 2:15.   There are some relatively minor problems in the manuscript that should be addressed: 

In Lines 157 and 223.  The word “worth” should probably be changed to “worthwhile.”

In Line 164.  The word “being” should probably be deleted.

In Lines 189-190.  Is the author saying that White interpreted Gen 1:28 as “a biblical endorsement of the human’s unrestrained use/abuse of other creatures” or that White criticized other writers who interpreted Gen 1:28 this way?  This author should clarify what is meant here.

In lines 225-226.  The phrase “much less he advocated” should probably be “much less did he advocate.”

In Lines 226-231.  This long sentence should be broken up into two or three smaller sentences.

In Lines 244-246.  The second part of the sentence is awkwardly worded.  It should probably be reworded to say, “it is worth exploring the theological implications of this verse for the relationship between work and ecotheology.”

In Line 385, the name “Miroslav Both” should be changed to “Miroslav Volf.”

Author Response

The author argues that Saint Josemaría Escrivá’s concept of Christian materialism frames a new interpretation of Gen 2:15 as a verse which links a theology of work with a theology of care for the creation.  Even though Escrivá did not explicitly deal with ecological issues, his focus on the theology and spirituality of work has implications for ecotheology and the care of the earth. Escrivá did not expound on the relevance of custodire (custody/care/keep) in the Vulgate version of Gen 2:15, and ecclesiastical and patristic tradition does not provide many insights into a theology of work.  Within ecotheological works, there is an emphasis upon the custodire theme, but little connection with the ut operatetur (cultivate/till/work) theme in Gen 2:15, but the author finds that exegesis of Gen 2:15 and Escrivá’s frequent use of the verse compels us to draw a connection between the theology of work and ecotheology.  The author labors to overcome the lack of explicit connection between a theology of work and a theology of care in the reflections of Escrivá, patristic exegesis, and ecclesiastical tradition. The author achieves this by drawing out the implications of Escrivá’s message for a new reading of Gen 2:15. The author composes a well-argued case. While acknowledging difficulties, the author shows how these difficulties can be circumvented. In the end, the author constructs a clear, coherent, and cogent argument for the ecotheological relevance of Escrivá’s use of Gen 2:15.   There are some relatively minor problems in the manuscript that should be addressed: 

- Many thanks for your positive evaluation.

In Lines 157 and 223.  The word “worth” should probably be changed to “worthwhile.”.

- We changed the latter in the suggested sense, but did not find where do you refer to the former.

In Line 164.  The word “being” should probably be deleted.

- Not sure what the reviewer refers to, we do not see this verb in the referred line.

In Lines 189-190.  Is the author saying that White interpreted Gen 1:28 as “a biblical endorsement of the human’s unrestrained use/abuse of other creatures” or that White criticized other writers who interpreted Gen 1:28 this way?  This author should clarify what is meant here.

- The correct meaning is the former. To further clarify the sentence, the new writing is: "This was White's main argument to criticize Christianity for providing a religious support for environmental degradation (1967). This argument has also been used by other authors (Jenkins, 2009; Taylor et al., 2016), but it has also been answered by many others from different perspectives: theological and biblical (Bouma-Prediger, 1995; Conradie, 2006; Osborn, 1993; Taylor, 2016), historical (Harrison, 1999) and statistical (Chuvieco et al., 2016)."

In lines 225-226.  The phrase “much less he advocated” should probably be “much less did he advocate.”

- Correction done

In Lines 226-231.  This long sentence should be broken up into two or three smaller sentences.

The new ritting is: His main concern was to show the spiritual value of work as a means of personal sanctification beyond its environmental implications, which he did not develop. However, his positive view of material realities, especially through his comments on the original goodness of creation, implied a pro-environmental rather than an anti-environmental attitude.

In Lines 244-246.  The second part of the sentence is awkwardly worded.  It should probably be reworded to say, “it is worth exploring the theological implications of this verse for the relationship between work and ecotheology.”

- Correction done

In Line 385, the name “Miroslav Both” should be changed to “Miroslav Volf.”

- Indeed, sorry for the error, which it seems an unintended impact of Word's automatic correction mechanisms.