Anyone who has attempted a simple library search on scholarship concerning using terms like “ecology” and “religion” might ask: “What about work such as The Encyclopedia of Religion and Nature, The Oxford Handbook of Religion and Ecology, or the Journal for the Study of Religion, Nature and Culture?”¹ In order to understand the relationship of these and other sources to the matter at hand, consider the following outline of this large and complex topic. Simplified for purposes of this writing, the relationship between human beings, as a species, and everything else on the planet might be characterized as a “two-way street:” humans (and their minds) are affected by, and affect, the world around them. This seemingly obvious statement can help to categorize the work of various scholars over the last fifty years, including Hultkrantz: his approach is aimed at understanding how human beings (and their cultural/religious developments) have been affected by the natural world. In contrast, by concentrating on the effects of religions on environments, scholars like Bron Taylor and Roger S. Gottlieb appear to take the opposite approach.

In “Religion and Ecology: A Review Essay on the Field”, Willis Jenkins describes a growth of interest in “Religion and Environment” as an emerging field in the process of shaping the discussion on this relationship.² He suggests that current disagreements between scholars and (ostensibly) authoritative sources articulate the boundaries within which the nascent sub-field can be understood to be developing.³ Jenkins’ article confirms the fact that this new area of research is focused specifically on how humans affect the natural environment. With the growing rise of environmental activism in the last thirty years, it is easy to see how this one-sided interest, stemming from a broadly constructed relationship between the environment and religion, could have gained attention among scholars of religion and (predominantly Christian) theologians. As academic acceptance and social awareness, of the role that humans have had (and continue to have) in facilitating environmental degradation and climate shifts, grows, it is logical to see an expression of this increasing realization in the field of Religious Studies.

In the Anthropocene era the need for this important work cannot be underestimated. It is, however, important to differentiate between scholarship that seems to be focused specifically on the effects of “Religion” on human perceptions of (and actions affecting) natural environments and scholarship that seeks to understand how those environments affect the development of things religious. Although this work is important in making strides toward the goals of various environmentalist movements, many of the sources that would seem to fall within the boundaries of the nascent sub-field described by Jenkins appear to construct the entire two-sided relationship of humans and environments in one-sided terms. This is problematic for the interests of researchers working on either side of our simplified conception: it obscures the need for work like that proposed by Hultkrantz and it buries a deep concern for how human minds and societies might be affected by climate change and environmental catastrophe. 

Jenkins’ approach is important in demonstrating the power of sources that are accepted as authoritative in marking out the boundaries of this burgeoning sub-field. Consider Ecology and Religion, a volume described by editors John Grim and Mary Evelyn Tucker to be an introductory textbook on the subject.⁴ Grim and Tucker locate the impetus for, and significance of, the book in the 21^stcentury awareness of climate change and mass extinction, as well as their personal experiences studying religious perspectives on “Nature.”⁵ Their introduction makes it clear that this volume is concerned specifically with the impact of religions on the ways in which humans act upon their environments. This approach would not be a problem except that the title presents this as an authoritative text on the topic of Ecology and Religion. This perspective is also presented in the way that Grim and Tucker described the relationship between this and other areas of academic interests: “Religion and ecology as an emerging field is closely connected to three key areas: ecology as a research science largely concerned with the study of ecosystems and species, conservation as an applied science concerned with valuing and preserving ecosystems and species, and ethics as ways of shaping human behavior in light of these disciplines.”⁶ It is important to observe that these fields seem to be connected by a shared interest in environmental conservation and the study of the impact of human beings on the non-human world. Like Grim and Tucker, Roger S. Gottlieb presents The Oxford Handbook of Religion and Ecology as an authoritative text on a field concerned with the influence of “Religion” on “Nature.” Consider the first line of his introduction: “For as long as human beings have practiced them, the complex and multifaceted beliefs, rituals, and moral teachings known as religion have told us how to think about and relate to everything on earth that we did not make ourselves.”⁷ Despite the far-reaching (and fairly modern) way in which he constructs “Religion,” Gottlieb’s assertion makes obvious the perspective of this volume: “Religion” affects “Environment.”

Although it is beyond the scope of the present discussion to identify this trend in each source purporting to address the interaction between religions and environments, the pattern that emerges from a relevant literature is consistent with the examples offered here. It is to the credit of Gottlieb, Grim, and Tucker that, despite the titles of their respective volumes, they do not overtly promise to address more than the one direction of influence with which they are concerned. These editors are clear with regard to focus and deliver work consistent with the goal. It is important, however, to consider the impact that these authoritative texts must have on constructing scholarly and popular understanding of the research being conducted on this complex and multifaceted topic. How do potentially less (or perhaps less obviously) authoritative texts construct the sub-field described by Jenkins?

A book that could be described as an absurd foray into what the publisher’s website calls “the whole frontier between religion and the environment” is Ralph Tanner’s and Colin Mitchell’s Religion and the Environment.⁸ It is a testament to the dearth of scholarship on the subject that this problematic and marginally academic work should garner mention in this dissertation. It is significant, however, that the book is one of the few sources that claims to attempt to consider the entire question of how religions affect, and are affected by, environments. Tanner and Mitchell promise, “The book seeks to fill a notable gap in public understanding and in the literature by bringing together two human activities of wide significance: religion and the environment…And such interactions are two-way: religion on the environment and the environment on religion. They are considered separately.”⁹ The result is rife with unsupported claims and generalizations that, at best, render the entire volume suspect and, at worst, impede future research efforts on the subject. A seasoned researcher might easily laugh-off a volume that reads like the quintessential 19^thcentury “armchair” scholarship, but what impression might this type of work instill in an undergraduate student who is still developing critical evaluation skills?

In contrast to Religion and the Environment, the Journal for the Study of Religion, Nature, and Culture (JSRNC) does not purport to address all issues relating to the topic. Importantly, however, it was introduced in 2007 with the specific aim of representing a greater variety of scholarly interests than its predecessor Ecotheology. Bron Taylor’s introductory article to the journal makes clear the intended message of inclusion and welcome to scholars working on both sides of the question of how humans affect, and are affected by, environments.¹⁰ The open-ended nature of an active scholarly journal makes this sort of promise much more likely to be delivered. Unfortunately, the potential of JSRNC is limited by the range of interested scholars willing to contribute research on a particular topic. At this point it should not be surprising to find that an overwhelming number articles in the JSRNC are concerned with the impact of “Religion” on “Nature.” At a glance, this would suggest that the JSRNC fairly represents the recent distribution of scholarly inquiries into aspects of the relationship between religions and environments and thus emphasizes the need for work concerning the other direction of influence within this relationship.