To Build a Contextual Christian Ecological Ethics in China: A Response to the Encyclical Laudato Si’

Abstract

Drawing on the encyclical Laudato Si’ issued by Pope Francis in 2015, this paper sketches a Christian ecological spirituality for Chinese cultural contexts. The paper first examines the meaning of ecological spirituality, analyzing its deep biblical roots and subsequent theological implications. It then develops a contextual Christian ecological ethics by exploring the significance of Laudato Si’ for ecological spirituality in China in conversation with the cultural and philosophical resources of China. The paper argues that ecological spirituality is neither external to Christian ethics nor an ad hoc Christian response to ecological accusations and crises. Rather, ecological spirituality lies at the core of Christian faith and scripture, embodying a deep understanding of the organic and interconnected relationship between God, the natural world, and human beings. With deep Christian roots, ecological spirituality possesses abundant resources in the Bible, the Church Fathers, and the Eastern Orthodox and Roman Catholic traditions. The Christian doctrines of creation, trinity, incarnation, and eschatology, as well as Christian sacramental theology all demonstrate ecological dimensions. Thus, the Christian faith, as evidenced by the encyclical Laudato Si’, can respond decisively to the ethical challenges posed by contemporary ecological crises, especially in deep dialogue with local traditions such as the wisdom resources of China.

1. Introduction

This paper lays the groundwork for a Christian ecological spirituality in China, especially in conversation with the encyclical Laudato Si’ issued by Pope Francis in 2015. It first looks at how ecological spirituality is inherently embedded in the Bible and was continuously interpreted, enacted, and enculturated by Christian theologians in different eras and places. It then discusses the positioning and meaning of ecological spirituality (and ecological theology in a broader sense) within the framework of Christian ethics, finally looking at how Christian thought can draw upon Chinese cultural resources to respond to ecological problems in modern times. In general, this paper takes up three questions: Firstly, why should we look to ecological spirituality rather than ecological theology when faced with contemporary ecological crises? Secondly, how can we infer the ecological implications of central Christian doctrines such as creation, incarnation, and work? Thirdly, how can Christian ecological spirituality take root in Chinese philosophical and cultural traditions and thereby foster an intercultural Christian ecological ethics in China?

International academic research on Laudato Si’ has focused on its definition of “the human,” exploring the tension between traditional Catholic anthropology and modern ecological ethics (Edwards 2016; Grey 2019).1 For some scholars, this extends to deeper challenges regarding the Church’s self-understanding and the concept of revelation (Gruber 2017).2 For other scholars, theoretical explorations converge on spirituality and practice, as they have examined how the encyclical guides an ecological lifestyle connected to faith, practice and spiritual transformation (Messias 2024).3

Within contemporary Chinese academic discussions of environmental ethics, some scholars have looked to universal ethics for the general principles and norms governing the relationship between humans and nature (Bian 2024; Tang 2025; L. Zhang 2025).4 However, significant research gaps remain in analyzing “cultural traditional consciousness” and responding to specific ethical needs within the Chinese cultural context (Li 2023; Yang and Li 2025).5 Since environmental problems are deeply rooted in human understanding of nature, life, and transcendent existence, an ethics that incorporates both religious consciousness and cross-cultural (contextualized) awareness is necessary, one that respects the profound wisdom of nature embedded in different cultural traditions and therefore provides a more inclusive and practical response to global ecological crises.

Dialogue between Christianity and Chinese culture in the field of environmental ethics holds special promise. On one hand, concepts within the Christian tradition such as the universal communion of all creatures resonate deeply with the cosmological vision of the unity of heaven and humanity (天人合一 tian ren he yi) in Chinese philosophy, transcending the narrow perspective of anthropocentrism and offering cross-cultural ethical resources and support for building a “community of human and natural life.” On the other hand, such dialogue helps to activate traditional ecological wisdom, enabling its contemporary interpretation and transformation through mutual learning with Christian ecological theology.

2. The Transition from Ecological Theology to Ecological Spirituality

Ever since the mid-twentieth century, as ecological issues have become a common crisis for humankind, scholars have investigated their ideological and cultural roots. Some have accused the ethical tradition of Christianity (White 1967; Sayem 2021; Wojcik 2023; Kaell 2025),6 maintaining that certain key concepts in the Christian tradition, when combined with modern rationalism and scientism, constitute the ethical and cultural roots of the current ecological crisis. According to these critics, Christianity is to blame in at least four ways. First, the Almighty God of Christianity is absolutely transcendent, the world his free and accidental creation, with humans at center and apex, representatives of God to keep and manage the things of creation; as a result, Christianity fosters a master-slave relationship between humans and nature, with the latter as a mere means of management and use.7 Secondly, in opposing pantheism as idolatry, Christianity removed sacredness from creation, making nature a secular and secondary thing to be used by humans. Thirdly, because of the Christian view of history centered on the incarnation of Jesus and his second coming, Christians tend to conceive an ideal world to come in the “last time,” rendering natural things and social orders of mere instrumental value. Finally, the modern rationalist Christian tradition interprets the “Imago Dei” of the Bible as human rationality, largely ignoring the affective and subconscious dimensions of humans, thereby engendering scientism and anthropocentrism, which, when combined with recent technological achievement, has triggered the contemporary ecological crisis.

Due to these critiques and growing ecological issues, Christian theologians began to articulate ecological theologies in the latter twentieth century (White 1967; Moltmann 1985; T. Berry 1988). In contrast to ecology more generally, ecological theology does not focus on specific ecological issues, scientific and technological interventions, or public policies and regulations. Rather, originating in the basic doctrines of Christian faith, ecological theology grounds ecological awareness and responsiveness in the structure of Christian theology, also developing a social-theological movement (through the social entity of the Church) to support sustainable development goals.

By and large, Christian ecological theology has been “problem-oriented,” guided by the ecological problems faced by humankind; in doing so, it has drawn ecological wisdom from the ancient resources of Christianity to discover cures for humanity, society, and nature, while also revising and renewing Christian theology. Ecological theology has also been “ecumenical-oriented,” refusing to confine itself to specific denominations or to concern itself with denominational disputes, rather encompassing a wide range of theological traditions and reinterpreting the ancient resources of Christianity from an ecological perspective (Bartholomew 2012; Li 2023).8 Finally, Christian ecological theology has been “dialogue-oriented,” fostering deep dialogue among the cultural traditions of the world, as ecological care is central to all cultural traditions (Kaoma 2013; Ho 2016).

Due in part to its “problem-oriented,” “ecumenical-oriented,” and “dialogue-oriented” nature, Christian ecological theology has become one of the most dynamic fields of Christian theology. Moreover, since ecological issues relate to core Christian doctrines, these issues have offered opportunities for the renewal and transformation of Christian theology.9 Nevertheless, we argue that ecological theology needs to advance into ecological spirituality for four main reasons.

Firstly, to deal with ecological problems in a comprehensive manner, Christianity should not only answer the question of “how to see” ecological crises but also address the problem of “how to do.” Broadly speaking, ecological spirituality is a branch of ecological theology; however, whereas ecological theology promotes “knowing,” ecological spirituality urges “doing,” emphasizing the dimension of life practice, which is the “life philosophy” of Christianity. In exploring the ancient wisdom of the Christian tradition, ecological spirituality underscores how Christian faith can be enacted in the daily lives of believers. Upholding the Chinese maxim to “Reach to the highest and brightest limits, and make focusing on the familiar [中庸 zhong yong] their way” (极高明而道中庸),10 ecological spirituality can transform the worship of God, the imitation of Christ, and the union with the Holy Spirit into daily and relational practices. Indeed, just this was stated by Pope Francis in Laudato Si’:

more than in ideas or concepts as such, I am interested in how such a spirituality can motivate us to a more passionate concern for the protection of our world. A commitment this lofty cannot be sustained by doctrine alone, without a spirituality capable of inspiring us, without an interior impulse which encourages, motivates, nourishes and gives meaning to our individual and communal activity.

(Francis 2015, no. 216)

Secondly, although ecological theology responds to ecological dilemmas with rigorous theological argument, ecological spirituality tends to be more constructive in persuading and guiding people to live ecologically sound lives. Put simply, ecological theology is a system of mind-learning, whereas ecological spirituality is a practice of life-cultivation.

Thirdly, in comparison to ecological theology, ecological spirituality is closer to traditional Chinese thinking and spirituality. In general, spirituality has become an area of interreligious dialogue due to its openness and practicality (Jenkins et al. 2017). More specifically, the ecological dimension and practical orientation of Chinese traditional culture commend the transformation of ecological theology into ecological spirituality (Francis 2015, no. 63).

Fourthly, ecological spirituality points more directly to ethical practice and public participation than ecological theology. Ecological theology often stops at conceptual reinterpretation, while ecological spirituality nurtures an inner drive to transform lives and motivate action. A theologically informed public discourse is capable of “naming,” “shaping,” “orienting,” and “negotiating” public issues (Mok 2026). Ecological spirituality, by contrast, motivates a transformative power that reenvisions the relationship between humans and nature, shapes the ecological worldview of believers, and guides ethical decisions consistent with faith. From this perspective, the construction of ecological spirituality is foundational work that cannot be bypassed in building a contextual Christian ecological ethics in China.

In these four ways, the encyclical Laudato Si’ can be regarded as a “classic text” of ecological spirituality (Miller 2017; Pasquale and Perry 2019).11 Named after the hymn of St. Francis, the traditional environmental-protection saint of the Catholic Church, Laudato Si’ reinterprets the Bible from the perspective of ecological spirituality, also engaging the intellectual resources of the Orthodox Church. It offers a comprehensive analysis of economic and social problems, an incisive diagnosis of these problems from the perspective of Christian theology, and practical political and economic action plans to cure these problems. More importantly, it forwards novel interpretations of several Christian doctrines, encouraging Christians to apply them in their daily spiritual lives, to develop eco-friendly ethical practices, and to make real contributions to the sustainable development of the world.

This paper now analyzes Laudato Si’, focusing on its biblically rooted understanding of creation, incarnation, and sabbath, showing how these interact with Chinese ecological philosophy, then sketching a Chinese Christian ecological spirituality.

3. Communion Between God and All Beings: Doctrine of Creation and Its Implication for Ecological Spirituality

In establishing an ecologically oriented and biblically rooted spiritual ethics, Laudato Si’ turns to the creation narratives of Genesis, focusing on the communion between God and all beings, between humans and nature, and between each creature of nature. The following section of this paper is structured accordingly.

3.1. Communion Between God and All Beings

In traditional theological understanding, God creates all things from nothingness (creatio ex nihilo), transcending creation in absolute power and freedom, as is stated in the Ten Commandments: “You shall have no other god before me” (Exodus 20:3). For the critics of the Christian faith, this theological claim allegedly served not only to demystify nature but also to treat it as an object of instrumental value at the disposal of humans. To counteract this criticism, Laudato Si’ emphasizes the communion relationship between creator and creation, reflecting the deep theological tradition of perichoresis.12

For starters, the encyclical points out that the Christian tradition uses the term “creation” rather than “nature” to refer to the world around us, implying a relational significance: “Creation can only be understood as a gift from the outstretched hand of the Father of all, and as a reality illuminated by the love which calls us together into universal communion” (Francis 2015, no. 76). To take the world as “creation” is to take it relationally, as “gift and love” rather than as tool or object.

The communal relationship between all beings and God goes both ways. On the one hand, God is in everything: “The universe unfolds in God, who fills it completely” (Francis 2015, no. 233). Thus, there is a “continuity of being” between God’s creation and God, as captured in St. Augustine’s affirmation of the traces of the Holy Trinity left by the Creator on everything.13 In quoting the teachings of John the Cross, the encyclical goes a step further, declaring: “This is not because the finite things of this world are really divine, but because the mystic experiences the intimate connection between God and all beings, and thus feels that “all things are God” (Francis 2015, no. 234). From the perspective of reality, things are not gods and cannot be the objects of worship; from the perspective of spirituality, however, things cannot be separated from God and therefore offer a pathway for the spiritual experience of God’s divinity. In this sense, every thing is the spiritual companion of human beings.14

On the other hand, all things are in God, though not in a way that causes them to lose their own existence. According to the encyclical, “God is intimately present to each being, without impinging on the autonomy of his creature, and this gives rise to the rightful autonomy of earthly affairs” (Francis 2015, no. 80). Although God is present in all things, this does not drown out or swallow up their beauty; rather, it ensures the existence and growth of each being. In this way, all things in nature are God’s “art,” which is engraved in things.

3.2. Communion Between Humans and Earth

When discussing the relationship between humans and the earth, Laudato Si’ refutes accusations against the Christian tradition that seize on the terms “subdue” and “dominion” in Genesis 1:26–28 to argue that the Bible licenses human domination of creatures and creation. To counter this claim, the encyclical draws inspiration from contemporary Biblical studies, rediscovering the ecological-ethical tradition of Christian theology and developing a communal relationship between humans and the earth from the perspective of ecological spirituality.

The earth is, first of all, a “gift of love” to humans by the creator God. Existing before humankind, the earth was given to humankind (Francis 2015, no. 67). Humans are products of the earth, as our bodies come from and return to dust (Gen. 2:7). Humans are constituted by the elements of the three-tiered cosmos of God’s creation—air, water, and land: “our very bodies are made up of her elements, we breathe her air and we receive life and refreshment from her waters” (Francis 2015, no. 2). The earth itself is the product of water splitting from air, land is formed when the sea recedes, and humans are molded from the dust of the earth.

Secondly, the mission of humans on earth is “to dress it and to keep it” (Gen. 2:15). Although there are two different creation stories in Genesis, with different textual sources and provenances and different theological understandings of humankind’s mission in creation,15 they are mutually interpretative, with the “to dress it and to keep it” of the second narrative (Gen. 2:15) mirroring the divine mission of “governance and management” in the first (Gen. 1:26–28). According to the encyclical, “to till” means to cultivate or work a piece of land, while “to keep” means “to care, protect, oversee and preserve.” Together, they entail a reciprocal relationship of responsibility between humanity and the natural world (Francis 2015, no. 67).

Finally, Christian theological understanding of the biblical “Imago Dei” as rationality suggests that humans should observe the laws of nature and respect the complex balance between all created beings (Francis 2015, no. 68). According to the encyclical, keeping a state of balance in creation means that everything has its own intrinsic value such that “we can speak of the priority of being over that of being useful” (Francis 2015, no. 69). It also shows that everything is interconnected: “that genuine care for our own lives and our relationships with nature is inseparable from fraternity, justice and faithfulness to others” (Francis 2015, no. 70). Moreover, the highest level of respect for the complex balance of creation is to invite all things to join in the worship and praise of the creator (Francis 2015, no. 72).

3.3. The Communion of Each Creature Within All Creatures

Laudato Si’ also clearly points out that everything in nature exists within a universal net with everything else. This interrelationship is due to the fact that everything maintains a connection with God, as a “caress of God” (Francis 2015, no. 84). In quoting the bishops of Japan, the encyclical claims: “to sense each creature singing the hymn of its existence is to live joyfully in God’s love and hope” (Francis 2015, no. 85). This universal relationship is manifested in the mutual complement of all things. Existence is a relationship; the diversity of each thing lies in its relationship with every other thing (Francis 2015, no. 86). The meaning of each creature therefore resides not only in its engagement with the integrity of the world created by God but also with each other, as that which each creature lacks is completed by something else. No creature is self-sufficient; we exist in mutual interdependence, complementing each other and the whole (Francis 2015, no. 86). Thus, there is a deep identity between our search for our inner selves and our understanding of everything outside us. In quoting Paul Ricoeur, the encyclical states: “I express myself in expressing the world; in my effort to decipher the sacredness of the world, I explore my own” (Francis 2015, no. 85). In every creature, we can listen to the “mysterious and quiet voice” of God (Francis 2015, no. 85).

To sum up, the encyclical Laudato Si’ builds a theological and philosophical foundation for ecological spirituality with relationship and communion at its core. According to this understanding, the world is an interconnected whole, continuous, dynamic, and organic. This bears resemblance to the Chinese Buddhist and Confucian understanding that creatures not only exist in a mutual relationship with their creator of “non-obstruction between the creatures and reality” but also contain each other within themselves to form a “non-obstruction between creatures.”16 This integral perspective renews our understanding of the created order, while also proposing an ethical mission for humanity to live out holistic care in communion with all creation.

Based on this understanding and ethics, the goal of “seeking the face of God” through Christian spiritual contemplation cannot exclude the integral relationship between humans and nature. Here, the cultural resources of the Confucian tradition are especially useful for the ecological spirituality of Chinese Christians, as reflected, for example, in the Neo-Confucian Cheng Hao’s (1032–1085) pronouncement: “The person of ren forms one body with all things without any differentiation.”17 In fact, this idea of “one body with all beings” was already present in pre-Qin Dynasty schools of thought. As the late-Zhou Dynasty Confucian Mencius (c. 372–289 BCE) stated, “All the ten thousand things are complete in me. To turn within to examine oneself and find that one is sincere—there is no greater joy than this.”18 The late-Zhou Dynasty Daoist Zhuangzi (c. 369–286 BCE) went further: “Heaven and earth are born together with me, and the ten thousand things and I are one.”19 These ideas later coalesced into a mature philosophy and spiritual system in Song Dynasty Neo-Confucianism, as evidenced by the following argument by the early-Song Dynasty Neo-Confucian Zhang Zai (1020–1077):

By enlarging one’s mind, one can enter into all the things in the world [to examine and understand their principle]. As long as anything is not yet entered into, there is still something outside the mind. The mind of ordinary people is limited to the narrowness of what is seen and what is heard. The sage, however, fully develops his nature and does not allow what is seen or heard to fetter his mind. He regards everything in the world to be his own self.20

Thus, we see how the relationship of inner cultivation and external exploration of the world is not a dichotomy for Chinese philosophers. Whether the human mind can reach the ultimate reality depends on whether it can extend itself to all things. Such a “great person” (大人 da ren), as proposed by Ming Dynasty Neo-Confucian Wang Yangming (c. 1472–1529), offers a model of the ideal personality for Chinese Christians engaging in ecological spirituality:

Great people regard Heaven, earth, and the myriad creatures as their own bodies. They look upon the world as one family and China as one person within it. Those who, because of the space between their own bodies and other physical forms, regard themselves as separate [from Heaven, earth, and the myriad creatures] are petty persons. The ability great people have to form one body with Heaven, earth, and the myriad creatures is not something they intentionally strive to do; the benevolence of their heart-minds is originally like this.21

The “great person” extends benevolence (ren) to reach not just one’s own relatives, but all people, even animals, plants, mountains, and rocks, all of which constitute one body with the great person. Proceeding from the fountain of “the virtue of life and growth” (生生之德 sheng sheng zhi de), the “great person” cultivates the virtue of benevolence (ren) to express care and concern for all things, rooting human virtue in the cosmic fecundity of Heaven and Earth (H. Zhang 2023). These ideals of communion between and care for all beings in Confucian ethical and spiritual traditions offer a deep resource for the development of an intercultural ecological spirituality for Christianity in China today.

Of course, the theological grammars of Confucian unity and Christian communion are different. In the Confucian framework, the extension of ren implies an ontological continuity wherein individual boundaries are ultimately transcended. Christian theology, by contrast, affirms interconnectedness while preserving relational distinctiveness, with the divine perichoresis serving as archetype: the persons of the Trinity are perfectly one yet remain distinct, their unity never erasing unique identity. Applied ecologically, this means that the communion of all beings in Christianity is not fused into an undifferentiated whole, but remains a covenantal relationship of love between distinct subjects. The human person, as Imago Dei, retains inviolable integrity, even in profound solidarity with all creatures. Chinese Christian ecological spirituality can therefore embrace the Confucian ethos of compassion for all things without dissolving Christian covenantal responsibility towards God and other beings.

In short, this cosmic communion has ethical implications that prevent it from dissolving into abstract mysticism. As Laudato Si’ states, “The divine Persons are subsistent relations, and the world, created according to the divine model, is a web of relationships” (Francis 2015, no. 240). The true Logos is not outside nature, but immanent in it (Lam 2025). This is not a nebulous unity that ignores differences, but a moral expectation and responsibility that all things fulfill their own nature and find their proper place. The ethical mandate is therefore clear: the human vocation is to become a conscientious custodian of these relationships, actively nurturing the integrity and balance of the entire created community.

4. “The Incarnated Word” Connecting the Heaven and the Earth: A Christology for Ecological Spirituality

If Christian ecological spirituality remains at the level of “God dwells in all things, and all things interpenetrate with each other,” then it is no different from other religious philosophies, such as those found in Jewish and Islamic mysticism and South Asian and East Asian philosophy. Fortunately, however, the encyclical Laudato Si’ possesses distinctive Christian characteristics, especially in making its ecological interpretation of Jesus Christ the core of the Christian faith.

Traditionally, the life, death, and resurrection of Jesus Christ have been understood with respect to human salvation, with different Christian traditions emphasizing different aspects of this saving work, including the forensic and effective dimensions of justification, sanctification, and deification (theosis). Recently, however, Christian theologians have begun forwarding a cosmological Christology with ecological explanations of the incarnation, crucifixion, and resurrection (Sahinidou 2014). Indeed, Laudato Si’ clearly provides such ecological-ethical explanations of these three fundamental Christological elements.

What is the ecological significance of Christ’s incarnation? According to the encyclical, “For Christians, all the creatures of the material universe find their true meaning in the incarnate Word, for the Son of God has incorporated in his person part of the material world, planting in it a seed of definitive transformation” (Francis 2015, no. 235). Here, the doctrine of the incarnation emphasizes that Jesus is not merely a human person but also a tangible, visible, and bodily substance that is part of the created world. In “the Word becoming flesh,” all created worlds are transformed into a dwelling place for God. In this way, the “Christ of the universe” (宇宙的基督 yuzhou de jidu) is an ecological Christ. Because of the incarnation of Christ, all things are no longer presented in a purely natural way. Christ will lead all things as the Son when he hands over creation to the Father to reach the final summit of redemption—God becoming “all in all” (1 Cor. 15:28).

The cross and resurrection of Jesus are also of ecological-ethical significance. Christ entered the world as a creature, assuming the fate of all creatures. When beings in nature suffer, Christ suffers with them. In the crucifixion of Christ, God takes on the suffering of all beings, with Jesus becoming the weakest of all. The air, earth, and water that are “hurt” by people today are the humble, speechless Jesus on the cross who cries out with “sighs too deep for words.”22

But the cross is not the end, for resurrection is the peak of salvation. The encyclical therefore emphasizes, “It also shows him risen and glorious, present throughout creation by his universal Lordship” (Francis 2015, no. 100). Christ personally shoulders this material world, living intimately among all things, surrounding all things with his love, penetrating into all beings with His light (Francis 2015, no. 221). The resurrected Christ embraces all things in a mysterious way, guiding them towards the fulfillment of salvation. As the encyclical states, “The very flowers of the field and the birds which his human eyes contemplated and admired are now imbued with his radiant presence” (Francis 2015, no. 100). Not only resurrected Christians but everything in nature shines under the glorious light of Christ’s resurrection, spiritualized in Christ.

The incarnation, crucifixion, and resurrection of Jesus are not just historical events; they are also continuously realized in every moment of life through the liturgical actions of the sacraments. By calling on the Holy Spirit during the Eucharistic celebration (epiclesis), the resurrected life of Christ reenters the world of creation. Through material fragments—bread and wine—the power of the Son reaches not only the inner depths of Christians but also the entire created world where Christians live. Worship centered on the sacrament therefore carries cosmological significance as a celebration drama in which all under heaven and on earth receive grace in praising the Lord together. As the encyclical states,

The Eucharist joins heaven and earth; it embraces and penetrates all creation. The world which came forth from God’s hands returns to him in blessed and undivided adoration: in the bread of the Eucharist, “creation is projected towards divinization, towards the holy wedding feast, towards unification with the Creator himself.”

(Francis 2015, no. 236)

Through the celebration of worship, Christians lead all things to the true light, praising the grace of God. This insight deepens the ethical dimension of worshipping Christians, as ecological leaders who are concerned about the environment and care for all beings.

5. An Ethics of Work Based on the Idea of Sabbath

The ecological disasters and social dilemmas in today’s world are inseparable from a basic modality of human existence in nature—work. Thus, Laudato Si’ also proposes an ecotheology of work, making it a central component of Christian ecological spirituality.

In the Christian ethical tradition, work has profound theological significance, with divine creation referred to as the “work” of God, who created the world through the “work” of his Word. According to the creation story in Genesis 1, the structure of the world is divided into sky, water, and land. In terms of elements, it includes space, time, matter, and energy. In terms of partners, it includes plants and animals (birds, fish, and beasts). As the image and likeness of God, human beings can only realize this nature in relationship with these creatures. Work is a way for people to do this, manifesting themselves as “the image and likeness of God” by participating in God’s providential creation of this world.

God orders humans “to dress and to keep” everything on the earth (Gen. 2:15). The full meaning of “to dress and to keep” is protection, care, preservation, and guarding. This shows the basic essence of work—to use human intellect to maintain all the creatures of this world by respecting the laws of nature and sustaining the complex balance between all creatures (Francis 2015, nos. 67–68). As a gift given to humans by God, the earth implies two meanings for work. On the one hand, people can use the earth and their surrounding environment for their own well-being through intellectual and manual work; on the other hand, people can use work to ensure that the earth’s sustainable and abundant fruits extend to future generations.

Work, however, suffers alienation on three levels after sin enters the world, reaching its peak under the impetus of modern science and technology, consumerism, and capitalism. At the first level, personal motivation, humans no longer see themselves as a “co-worker of God”23 but rather begin to satisfy personal desires and to realize personal will against the plan of God’s creation. Here, the primary purpose of work becomes the satisfaction of one’s desires, not being a “co-worker of God.” At the second level, human–nature relationship, work has become a means of arbitrarily exploiting nature, regarding oneself as “master” of all creatures. Here, people come to measure the value of all things according to their own needs, especially what is “useful” for themselves. At the third level, human–human relationship, work has become a tool for people to oppress others. Here, although people use “reason” to design a set of production methods, economic relations, and trade systems in which everyone plays the role of a worker, the final result is the production of a system in which one group of people become “lord” over and oppress other groups of people.

This distorted ideology of work (on all three levels) results in the ecological deterioration described in the first chapter of Laudato Si’ (paragraphs 17 to 61). The encyclical therefore returns to the ancient Jewish and Christian tradition of “sabbath,” using it to counter this alienated understanding of work, especially as distorted by industrial civilization and consumer society. Sabbath is not just non-working. It has a broader theological significance. The Sabbath, which in the Christian tradition became the “Lord’s Day,” is a day when we “heal our relationships with God, with ourselves, with others and with the world” (Francis 2015, no. 237). It is, first and foremost, a day of liberation: “You will toil and do all your work for six days, but the seventh day is a Sabbath to the Lord your God…. The Lord blessed the Sabbath and made it a holy day” (Ex. 20:9–11). According to the encyclical, rest is not the opposite of creation; rather, it is inscribed in the entire plan of God’s creation, in fact constituting the peak of creation. During the six-day work week, people participate in God’s creation with work, after which they directly meet the Lord on the Sabbath. In the Jewish tradition, the human soul is like a bride, the Sabbath, a bridegroom, with whom the soul enters into union, like a divine marriage, resting in a state of unity. During the six-day work week, people make a living by toiling the earth and themselves; on the seventh day, the human soul is freed from the created world and meets God in a state of freedom.24

Sabbath is also an occasion for caring for others, especially marginalized people and livestock, allowing these others their freedom. Thus, the fourth of the Ten Commandments declares, “You and your children, servants, servants, livestock, and foreigners living in your city must not do any work” (Ex. 20:10). This means that rest from work is a universal right that should be universally granted to all servants, maidservants, and sojourners, even those working animals who are disadvantaged in modern society.

Rest should also extend into the arrangements of social and cultural systems, becoming a spiritual concept that permeates all of life. Although the Sabbath day is a seven-day cycle, the Sabbatical year, by extension, is a seven-year cycle, according to which the Bible states:

but the seventh year you shall let it rest and lie still; that the poor of your people may eat: and what they leave the beasts of the field shall eat. In like manner you shall deal with your vineyard, and with your olive yard. Six days you shall do your work, and on the seventh day you shall rest: that your ox and your ass may rest, and the son of your handmaid, and the stranger, may be refreshed.

(Ex. 23:10–11)

This Sabbatical year extends the spirit of liberation to the earth and the beasts, allowing rest to become a universal principle and practice. This idea of “Sabbath” extends even further to a “Jubilee” every 50 years (i.e., after 7 × 7 years), a year in which debts are relieved, land is returned to original owners, and slaves are liberated, thereby recreating an originally just and equal society. This idea of Jubilee is later spiritualized into the full liberation and freedom of human beings, as declared by Isaiah: “to bind up the brokenhearted, to proclaim liberty to the captives, and the opening of the prison to them that are bound” (Is. 61:1–2). In the Christian theological tradition, the spirit of the Jubilee was extended to the concept of the “Millennium,” a kingdom during which creation would attain “peace” between humans, between humans and their natural companions, and between humans and God.

Sabbath/rest is therefore the core of ecological spirituality. Work is how we draw from the earth the necessities of life, while Sabbath enables us to dwell joyfully upon the earth. Sabbath is both a temporal arrangement and a festival institution, yet it is even more a spirit of freedom, peace, and justice. As stated in Laudato Si’, the system of rest ensures the balance and fairness of our relationships with others and the land on which they live and work, “an acknowledgment that the gift of the earth with its fruits belongs to everyone” (Francis 2015, no. 71). Rest allows Christians to recognize the rights of others, to care about the poor, and to care about nature. In this sense, contemplative rest “is another way of working, which forms part of our very essence” (Francis 2015, no. 237).

With rest as its essence and goal, a theology of work must become an integral part of Christian ecological spirituality. In the context of Chinese culture, the Daoist understanding of nothingness (无 wu), tranquility (静 jing), and emptiness (虚 xu), especially as later absorbed by Neo-Confucians, provides an important cultural resource for this kind of Christian ecological spirituality. For example, the Daoist wisdom of “Governance through Non-interference” (无为而治 wu wei er zhi)25 and “Attain Utmost Emptiness, Purest Calm” (致虚极，守静笃),26 both as found in the Dao De Jing, offer an indigenous philosophical and spiritual resource to elaborate the creative significance of Sabbath. With the later convergence of Confucianism and Daoism into Neo-Confucianism, “activity” and “stillness” were understood as the mutual origins of one another: “activity and stillness alternate; each is the basis of the other.”27

This Chinese philosophy can be reinterpreted and integrated into the Christian ethical and spiritual idea of Sabbath/rest. In turn, these traditional Chinese cultural resources, in entering into the Christian tradition of Sabbath, will acquire new meanings and be imbued with new vitality, creatively transformed by Chinese Christian ecological spirituality.

6. Conclusions

Although ecological concerns have only recently become a central focus of Christian ethics, ecological spirituality is neither foreign to Christianity nor an ad hoc response of Christian theologians to recent accusations and crises. Rather, Christian ecological spirituality lies at the heart of Christianity. Christian ecological spirituality does shed new light upon our understanding of the relationship between God, nature, and humans in an ecological, organic, and interconnected way. Nevertheless, it is not a recent invention but is inherent in the Christian Bible, the Old and New Testaments of which have a profound ecological–spiritual orientation (not to mention the rich theological resources of the ancient Church Fathers and the later denominational traditions). Ecological spirituality is embedded in Christian ethical life and its core doctrines concerning creation, Christology, the Trinity, and the sacraments. Laudato Si’ shows that all these resources can help Christians respond to contemporary ecological crises, fostering new vitality in their ethical and spiritual lives in communion with the Triune God. This ecological spirituality can be further vitalized through the inspiration of Chinese cultures and philosophies, developed into an intercultural Chinese–Christian ecological ethics and spirituality that contributes to the sustainable development of the world.