When I began reading about the connection between religion and environmental issues, I felt curiosity

and doubt. Religion, in my experience, has always been about guiding people’s behavior toward kindness,

morality, and community. But the idea that religion might influence how we treat the planet, both

positively and negatively, was something I hadn’t considered before. These readings, particularly Lynn

White Jr.’s essay and Pope Franciss Laudato si, challenged me to think differently. They opened my eyes

to the profound role that beliefs and values play in shaping how we interact with the earth, for better or

worse.

The Historical Roots of Our Ecologic Crisis, was interesting to me. White argues that the ecological crisis

we face today is rooted in the Christian tradition, particularly its emphasis on human dominion over

nature. He points to the biblical narrative of Genesis, where humans are told to subdue the earth and rule

over its creatures. While this might have been interpreted as a call for stewardship, White says that it has

often been misunderstood as a license for exploitation.

Reading this, I felt a some sense of discomfort. It’s hard to accept that a tradition meant to guide people

toward higher morals could unintentionally contribute to the destruction of our environment. White’s

critique of Christianity’s anthropocentrism that it places humans at the center of creation, with nature

existing solely to serve them was eye opening. It made me think about how this mindset has shaped not

only religious communities but also broader societal attitudes toward the environment.

At the same time, White offers hope by pointing to Saint Francis of Assisi. He presents Saint Francis as a

model for an alternative perspective, one that emphasizes humility and kinship with all living beings. This

idea deeply resonated with me. It reminded me of moments in my own life when I’ve felt a connection to

nature, whether it’s standing under a beautiful sky or listening to the rustle of leaves in a quiet forest.

These moments have always felt spiritual, even if they weren’t tied to any specific religious belief.
In contrast to White’s critique, Pope Francis’s encyclical Laudato si felt like an invitation to action. While

White focuses on the historical roots of the problem, Pope Francis looks forward, calling for what he

terms an ecological conversion. This concept struck a deeply emotional chord with me. The idea that we

need to change not just our actions, but our entire way of thinking about the world felt challenging and

inspiring.

What moved me the most about Laudato si was its universal approach. Pope Francis doesn’t just talk

about saving the environment; he ties it to issues of social justice, emphasizing that the poorest and most

vulnerable are often the ones who suffer the most from environmental degradation. This connection

between caring for the earth and caring for each other felt incredibly important to me. It reminded me that

environmental issues are not just scientific or political they’re deeply human.

Pope Franciss acknowledgment of Christianity anthropocentric was also significant. Rather than denying

or dismissing White’s critique, he reframes it arguing that being made in God’s image gives humans a

special responsibility to care for creation, not exploit it. This shift in perspective felt hopeful to me. It

showed that religious teachings, even those that have been misinterpreted in the past, can evolve and

adapt to address the challenges of our time.

As I understand from these papers, I found myself thinking about my own relationship with nature and

faith. Growing up, I often saw religion as something personal looking, focused on guiding how we treat

other people. Nature, on the other hand, was something I appreciated for its beauty and tranquility, but I

never thought of it as connected to morality or spirituality. These readings challenged that separation.

They made me realize that how we treat the earth is, at its core, a reflection of our values and beliefs.

I also couldn’t help but think about the resistance Pope Francis’s message has faced. The readings

mention that some religious conservatives see environmentalism as a distraction from salvation or even as

a threat to traditional beliefs. This resistance saddened me because it feels like such a missed opportunity.
If faith communities could come together around the shared goal of protecting our common home, the

impact could be enormous.

At the same time, I understand that change is hard, especially when it challenges deeply held beliefs.

These readings made me wonder, How can religious leaders and communities bridge these divides? How

can they inspire not just their followers, but also the broader public to embrace a more sustainable and

compassionate way of living?

One of the things that struck me most about these readings was their emotional message. Whites essay felt

like a recognition of the harm we’ve done and the attitudes that have led us here. Pope Francis’s

encyclical, on the other hand, felt like a prayer a hopeful, urgent plea for change. Together, they created a

sense of both urgency and possibility.

Reading these texts also made me reflect on my own actions. Am I doing enough to live sustainably? Am

I treating the earth with the respect it deserves? These questions felt deeply personal, and they reminded

me that while large scale change is necessary, it starts with individuals. Whether it’s reducing waste,

supporting environmentally friendly policies, or simply being more mindful of my own consumption,

there’s always more I can do.

In the end, both papers left me with emotions of sadness for the harm that’s been done, hope for the

potential for change, and a sense of responsibility for my own role in this journey. They reminded me that

the environmental crisis is not just a scientific or political issue it’s a moral one. It’s about how we see

ourselves in relation to the world around us and how we choose to act on that understanding.

I understood that the idea of the Greening of Religion means religions can change to help protect the

environment. And in the second paper I understander that some religious groups care about nature and

take action to protect it, but others are hesitant or don’t see it as important. It also shows that religions like

Buddhism or indigenous beliefs often have stronger connections to nature.

on caring for nature, they could help solve environmental problems. But for this to happen, people need to

rethink how they see their role in the world.