Environmental degradation as a consequence of development, particularly Western industrialisation, has generated widespread criticism, for instance, regarding the negative role of Christian theology and even Christian scriptures in contributing to ecological destruction. The first and most influential critique came from Lynn White Jr, a U.S. cultural historian. In his seminal article ‘The Historical Roots of Our Ecologic Crisis’, White argued that Christianity bears a significant burden of responsibility as a root cause of the contemporary ecological crisis (White 1967). Similarly, landscape architect McHarg (1964), criticised that while Christianity and Judaism have long been concerned with issues of justice and compassion, such concerns have largely been restricted to human-to-human relations. Nature, in this view, was regarded merely as the backdrop for human existence (Borrong 2019; Pangihutan & Jura 2022). However, ecological issues transcend specific regions or local contexts, posing a global crisis. As such, the ecological issues being raised today have awakened a broader awareness of humanity’s responsibility to care for the environment (Katu 2020).

Ecotheology is a scientific discipline that examines the relationship between nature and theology, producing discourses aimed at promoting the well-being of both the environment and human life. Etymologically, the term ecotheology is composed of two words: ecology and theology. The word ecology, derived from the Greek language, originates from two terms: oikos [dwelling or household] and logos [thought or discourse] (Aditama, Muthohirin & Rafliyanto 2023). According to Conradie (2023), the abbreviation ecotheology, rather than ‘ecological theology’, is rooted in the recognition that the English words ecology, economy and ecumenical share the same Greek etymological root in oikos. Similarly, Ibe and Anthony (2023) explain that ecotheology, as a combination of ecology and theology, may be defined as ‘theological exploration of the relationship between religion and the environment, particularly with regard to environmental issues’. In this sense, ecotheology represents a form of constructive theology that focuses on the reciprocal relationship between religion and nature, especially in light of contemporary ecological problems.

Ecotheology is the study of the relationship between religion and the environment, with the aim of exploring religious values that support ecological sustainability. In this regard, sacred texts play a fundamental role in shaping human understanding of nature, the environment and ecological responsibility (Rusmiati et al. 2023). According to Yopo and Mbelanggedo (2025), ecotheology is a branch of theology that reflects upon the relationship between faith and ecological responsibility. Within Christian doctrine, ecotheology occupies an important place in the witness of Scripture, for the earth and all that is in it serve as a sign of the covenant between God and humanity (Telaumbanua 2020). From a Christian perspective, ecotheology can be understood as a theological discipline that addresses human attitudes and moral responsibility towards other creatures in the environment, reflecting truth, goodness, love and justice in accordance with the attributes of God revealed in Scripture (Tomusu 2021). God’s love is expressed through creation, which has been entrusted to humanity. In Genesis 1, God’s initial creative work culminates in humanity as the final creature, placed in the world to care for and preserve the earth (Aditama et al. 2023). Thus, in the Christian context, ecotheology is rooted in the conviction that the earth and all that it contains are God’s divine creation and must be safeguarded with full responsibility (Yopo & Mbelanggedo 2025). Ecotheology, therefore, calls believers in Christ to cultivate care and responsibility towards the environment by offering a faithful response and concrete actions to address the ecological crisis (Borrong 2019; Sihotang et al. 2023). This theological orientation invites the church not only to articulate ecological ethics but also to ground them biblically. In this regard, one of the foundational scriptural affirmations concerning land, ownership and human responsibility is found in Leviticus 25:23, providing a significant basis for developing a Christian ecological ethic.

The concept of environmental stewardship originates in the creation narratives, in which God grants humanity dominion over the fish of the sea, the birds of the air and the animals of the land (cf. Gn 1:28), as well as the mandate in Genesis 2:15 to ‘till and keep’ the ground. These biblical texts present God as the Creator and ultimate owner of the universe, who in His goodness has granted human beings the privilege of utilising what he has created for their well-being. Nevertheless, these texts also affirm that every individual holds a vital role as a steward within the dominion of God (Ibe & Anthony 2023). Scripture clearly emphasises humanity’s task and responsibility to preserve and care for the land. Leviticus 25:2–4 speaks of the principle of the Sabbath for the land:

Maggang (2019) and Pangihutan and Jura (2022) emphasise that the command in Leviticus 25:2–4 reflects Israel’s acknowledgement of God’s ownership of the land and humanity’s responsibility to safeguard creation. This principle is not merely an agricultural ethic but also an ecological theology, strongly emphasising the mandate to care for and steward the environment. Christian tradition, therefore, does not neglect creation; rather, it situates ecological responsibility within the framework of humanity’s covenantal relationship with God (Borrong 2019).

Leviticus 25:23 underscores a theology of ownership, ‘The land shall not be sold in perpetuity, for the land is mine; for you are strangers and live as foreigners with me’. From a hermeneutical perspective, this text introduces two essential ethical dimensions: the ethos of stewardship and the ethos of limitation. The ethos of stewardship reminds humanity that its mandate is always situated within a relational framework with God, while the ethos of limitation restrains the human tendency towards unlimited exploitation of the land. A lexical analysis of the phrase ‘sold in perpetuity’ [Hebrew: limker latsmitut] reveals a prohibition against permanent transfer that would sever the land from the family line to whom it had been allotted by God. The term mine [Hebrew: li] further emphasises that the ultimate authority over the land rests with God alone. Israel’s designation as strangers [gerim] and foreigners [toshavim] reflects a theological relationship in which the people are merely stewards of the land entrusted to them, not absolute owners. The sale of land was to remain temporary, for in the Year of Jubilee, the land was to be restored to its original owner. This mechanism prevented monopoly, protected the poor and ensured ecological sustainability. Moreover, the Jubilee principle carried ecological and sustainability values: the command for the land to rest during the Sabbath year signified an awareness of ecological limits and humanity’s dependence upon the rhythms of creation (Purwanto 2025; Watts 2022). This verse demonstrates that ownership from a biblical perspective is not absolute but rather an expression of divine stewardship, whereby humanity is granted authority to manage resources with moral responsibility towards others and society (Purwanto 2025). Leviticus 25 emphasises that the land ultimately belongs to God and therefore cannot be sold in perpetuity (Lv 25:23). This injunction establishes a theological foundation in which Israel is positioned not as the absolute owner of the land but as a tenant who holds the land in trust under God’s sovereignty. Budiman and Objantoro (2021) note that this prohibition serves as a continual reminder that the land is a divine possession, entrusted to Israel for responsible use rather than unrestricted exploitation. In this perspective, the central concern is not primarily agricultural regulation but the affirmation of God’s ownership, which shapes Israel’s ethical relationship with the land. This theological principle remains relevant today, offering a basis for ecological responsibility rooted in the recognition that the earth is a sacred trust rather than human property (Purwanto 2025).

Theology and ecology share a profound relationship. To neglect creation is to damage God’s work, which amounts to disobedience against His command to preserve the earth. God has entrusted humanity with the responsibility to care for creation, which means that human beings are God’s co-workers in managing, protecting and cultivating the universe (Tomusu 2021). Within Christianity, God is positioned as the ethical centre of creation’s protection, so that divine values provide the ethical foundation for humanity’s attitude towards the environment (Aditama et al. 2023; Katu 2020). In the present context, theology in relation to ecology must encompass all authentic theological approaches – from biblical theology to practical theology – that can genuinely contribute to the transformation of human life, particularly from a Christian perspective (Borrong 2019). The contextualisation of theology in the ecological domain represents a way of responding to contemporary issues and the empirical realities of environmental degradation. Ecotheological studies also provide theological reflections on diverse ecological crises and the way they may be addressed, as ecotheology is rooted in exploring the relationship between God, humanity and nature (Maggang 2019). Thus, theology in the context of environmental destruction must be understood as an effort to reflect theologically on the factual condition of ecological crisis (Aditama et al. 2023). The hermeneutics of Leviticus 25:23 demonstrates that an environmental crisis arises when humanity forgets the fundamental principle that the land does not belong to them absolutely but to God, who entrusts the land to humanity for stewardship. This divine mandate to ‘work and keep’ the earth provides a twofold responsibility: first, to cooperate with creation in producing sustenance; and second, to preserve the world by maintaining ecological balance. This balance is not merely for protecting creation but also for ensuring its ongoing sustainability (Ibe & Anthony 2023). Historically, theology has often become trapped in abstract discourse about God and truth, which has led to unproductive debates (Aditama et al. 2023). Leviticus 25:23, however, calls for a practical theology that is grounded in reality, in which humanity, God and the land exist in an inseparable relationship. Ecotheology thus emerges as a response to the increasingly urgent environmental problems of our time (Halawa & Situmorang 2024), insisting that theological reflection must be embodied in ecological praxis. In this way, Christian theology in the context of ecological crisis is no longer merely apologetic but is expressed in concrete praxis that engages creation with a solution-orientated orientation (Borrong 2019).

Doing theology in the context of ecological crisis requires engaging not only biblical texts but also the cultural and spiritual resources that shape a community’s relationship with the land. In Papua, local wisdom expressed through architectural forms, carving, weaving, ritual practices and communal narratives embodies a worldview in which land is regarded as a sacred trust rather than a commodity (Cetera & Utama 2022; Ma’ruf et al. 2024). Within this cosmology, land belongs to the ancestors and ultimately to God, while human beings function as custodians who safeguard the land for future generations. This understanding resonates strongly with the theological principle in Leviticus 25:23, which affirms that land cannot be possessed absolutely because it belongs to God. In the Papuan context, the customary system of Hak Ulayat reflects this theological insight, positioning clans and tribes as communal stewards responsible for preserving the land’s fertility, integrity and continuity. Such parallels demonstrate that Papuan local wisdom offers a rich cultural foundation for developing a contextual ecotheology that affirms God’s ownership of the land while promoting sustainable and communal land management (Cetera & Utama 2022). Therefore, any ecotheological reflection in the Papuan context must take seriously the cultural knowledge, customary norms and ancestral practices through which communities understand, regulate and sustain their relationship with the land. These local wisdom traditions not only preserve ecological balance but also embody a theological consciousness that recognises land as a sacred inheritance entrusted across generations. Local wisdom functions not only as a guideline for daily interaction with nature but also as a social mechanism to ensure environmental sustainability for future generations (Zalukhu 2025). A study by Risamasu (2025), for instance, shows how the Akit culture in the Riau Archipelago preserves ecological balance through practices such as ambek secukupnye [taking only what is sufficient], Betabek [rituals of respect for nature] and Bele [village protection rituals]. These practices illustrate a harmonious relationship between humanity, nature and the Creator (Risamasu 2025).

In Papua, one of the enduring forms of local wisdom is the institution of the Ondofolo – the traditional chief or highest customary leader among the Sentani people. The Ondofolo plays a vital role in nurturing the religious life of the community by embodying fundamental qualities of leadership, peace, love and brotherhood found in Scripture. Living with integrity, wisdom and discernment, while guiding and caring for the community with daily attention grounded in devotion to the Creator, characterises the values of Ondofolo leadership (Warwer 2024; Warwer & Pontoan 2023). These values resonate with the Christian understanding of humanity as God’s partners in caring for the earth and all creation. In Christian thought, human beings are called to be guardians of the earth, recognising creation as God’s gift to be honoured and protected (Siwy & Hutagalung 2024; Utomo 2020).

Another significant expression of Papuan ecological wisdom is the practice of Hak Ulayat, in which land is understood as mother, the source of life and the basis of social relations. Within this system, customary law grants priority rights to family members or clan members before land can be transferred or sold. This reflects a traditional ecological awareness that land must not be dominated without limits by external powers. Hak Ulayat is regarded as ancestral heritage that must be preserved; to exploit it without respect for customary values is to desecrate a sacred trust. From an ecotheological perspective, Hak Ulayat can be interpreted as a form of stewardship rooted in spiritual values (Cetera & Utama 2022). The Ondofolo, as a customary leader, also exercises authority in regulating and supervising the use of land, water, forests and natural resources, ensuring that any use of the land by outsiders or institutions occurs within the framework of customary law. This authority is binding both socially and religiously, as the community believes that the land ultimately belongs to God, and human beings are mandated only to guard and manage the land (Warwer 2024). In this sense, the Ondofolo is not merely a political leader but also a guardian of the sacredness of Hak Ulayat, understood as both ancestral inheritance and divine gift. Land is not treated merely as an economic commodity but as a communal living space that must be preserved for future generations. The Ondofolo’s role as mediator in land disputes, regulator of resource use and bridge between indigenous communities and external stakeholders exemplifies a model of ecological leadership rooted in spiritual values. This perspective resonates with the ecotheological conviction that creation belongs to God and humanity is entrusted only with stewardship, as expressed in Leviticus 25:23. Thus, the leadership of the Ondofolo may be considered a reflection of the divine mandate to care for the earth, in which the preservation of customary land represents not only a socio-cultural obligation but also an act of spiritual obedience.

Beyond the institution of Ondofolo, Papuan local wisdom is also reflected in cultural symbols that hold profound religious and spiritual meaning. One such symbol is the noken, a traditional handwoven bag recognised as embodying divine love and local identity. The ecological significance of the noken is evident in both its materials and its moral values. It is crafted from natural fibres such as orchid bark, tree roots and forest leaves that are harvested through sustainable practices that do not damage the environment. The process of making a noken teaches principles of patience, moderation and respect for the forest. These principles guide communities to take only what nature is able to regenerate. In this sense, the noken functions not only as a vessel of life and communal identity but also as a cultural reminder of sustainable living and responsible interaction with the natural world (Kayame 2023; Pikei & Sihombing 2023). Both the Ondofolo as a customary leader and the noken as a cultural symbol offer a local ecotheological paradigm that emphasises harmony between humanity, nature and God. This paradigm demonstrates that Papuan local wisdom is not merely a set of inherited traditions but also a theological–ecological foundation relevant for cultivating contemporary ecological awareness and enriching the broader discourse of Christian ecotheology.

The role of the church in preserving the environment must be understood in light of the theological principle in Leviticus 25:23, which teaches that land ultimately belongs to God and is entrusted to human beings as tenants responsible for its care. This theological vision aligns closely with Papuan ecological wisdom, particularly the customary system of Hak Ulayat, in which land is recognised as a sacred gift from God passed down through the ancestors and preserved for future generations. Therefore, any ecological engagement of the church must draw from both Scripture and local wisdom, enabling the church to articulate a contextual ecological theology rooted in divine ownership of the land and grounded in Papua’s communal stewardship ethos. In the Papuan context, the church’s ecological role cannot be separated from the cultural structures that have long governed the relationship between people, land and the sacred. As (Warwer 2024) demonstrates, the institution of the Ondofolo in Sentani society provides a model of moral authority that safeguards communal harmony, regulates access to land and ensures the continuity of customary norms. This indigenous leadership structure embodies a worldview in which land is understood as a sacred trust received from God and transmitted through the ancestors – an understanding that resonates with the theological affirmation in Leviticus 25:23 that the land ultimately belongs to God. The church, therefore, has an important opportunity to work collaboratively with customary leaders in promoting ecological stewardship rooted in both Scripture and Papuan local wisdom. By affirming the theological principle of divine land ownership and recognising the legitimacy of Hak Ulayat as a communal stewardship system, the church can help translate biblical insights into culturally grounded ecological practices. Such cooperation strengthens the church’s prophetic role in advocating for the protection of forests, rivers and customary territories, while also reinforcing the values of harmony, responsibility and intergenerational care that are central to Papuan ecological wisdom.

The current ecological crisis is not only the responsibility of governments but also the responsibility of the church as an agent of God’s mission of salvation. The ecological crisis is a matter of ethics that the church must proclaim from its pulpits in the pursuit of justice (Katu 2020). Christianity is often regarded as a source of positive values for the environment, and many voices within the Christian tradition envision the flourishing of the earth and all living creatures (Ibe & Anthony 2023). In order to cultivate a more environmentally conscious lifestyle, collaboration between the church and its congregations is crucial in instilling ecological spirituality and encouraging environmentally responsible ways of life (Pardede 2024). As a mediator of ecotheological education, the church plays an important role in educating its members on issues of ecology and the environment (Siwy & Hutagalung 2024). As a centre for spirituality, the church disseminates religious teaching, provides moral guidance and supports humanitarian service. The church takes diverse forms and denominational expressions, reflecting the plurality of faith and religious practices worldwide (Fajar 2023; Siwy & Hutagalung 2024). In this context, the church is positioned as educator, role model, prophet and partner in preserving the environment. While church theology provides the moral and spiritual foundation, the church’s concrete actions contribute practically to ecological sustainability. Thus, the mission of the church extends not only to the salvation of souls but also to the salvation of creation as an integral dimension of God’s mission in the world (Stevanus 2019). The church’s role in environmental preservation provides a framework for understanding how the church, as a religious community, translates its theological insights into tangible actions and concrete policies that support sustainable practices (Siwy & Hutagalung 2024). As part of the body of Christ in the world, the church bears the responsibility to serve as a prophetic voice on behalf of creation that suffers under oppression. The church cannot remain silent in the face of environmental exploitation carried out in the name of development or progress. Instead, it must act as an agent of reconciliation, advocating for ecological justice. This activity involves educational initiatives, influence on public policy and active participation in environmental preservation as an essential aspect of the church’s mission (Yopo & Mbelanggedo 2025).

Various Christian communities have embraced the ‘Green Church’ movement, implementing conservation initiatives such as energy-efficient buildings and waste management programmes. The Communion of Churches in Indonesia, for instance, has launched sustainability programmes promoting climate justice, tree-planting campaigns and environmentally friendly liturgical practices. Similarly, the Javanese Christian Church in Yogyakarta has integrated ecological themes into its preaching and encouraged its members to adopt green lifestyles. The Laudato Si’ [praise be to you] movement in Indonesia, inspired by Pope Francis’s encyclical on ecological justice, advocates for renewable energy transitions and ecological education in Catholic schools (Rusmiati et al. 2023). Christian doctrine underscores the importance of harmony between humanity and nature, affirming that the earth and all it contains serve as a covenantal sign between God and humanity (Telaumbanua 2020). This concept establishes God as the Creator and humanity as caretakers of His work. The freedom granted by God carries with it the responsibility to become God’s co-workers in managing, protecting, preserving and developing creation (Tomusu 2021). Humanity, as the image-bearer of God, deeply influences the church’s ecological stance. Theologically, human beings are regarded as God’s unique creation, reflecting his image and perfection (Siwy & Hutagalung 2024; Widiatna 2020). The doctrine that humanity is the crown of creation has often been misused to justify the exploitation of nature. Yet the biblical testimony affirms that humanity is made in God’s image (imago Dei) (Pardede 2024). The task of managing creation must not be reduced to meeting human needs and the well-being of other creatures alone but should also be understood as an expression of devotion, gratitude and love towards God (Tomusu 2021). The congregation itself must be viewed as an agent of change in fostering sustainable practices and contributing to ecological preservation (Giawa 2021; Siwy & Hutagalung 2024). Christian education plays a key role in addressing environmental issues by teaching that ecological destruction results from irresponsible human activity (Pangihutan & Jura 2022). Within Christian education, cultivating the understanding that humanity bears responsibility for protecting creation is essential. This role is crucial because of the interconnectedness of humanity, the universe, and the Creator, requiring humanity to continuously care for and preserve creation for the creation’s integrity and survival (Bonde 2020; Pangihutan & Jura 2022). Any form of environmental exploitation that damages creation is inconsistent with Christian doctrine (Aditama et al. 2023).

Christian education within the church should emphasise several key responsibilities in ecological stewardship. These include cultivating a natural, clean and healthy environment; cooperating with government and other stakeholders in environmental protection; and building networks that safeguard creation. The church is also called to collaborate across sectors to implement environmental initiatives, while engaging in practical actions such as managing waste responsibly, conserving water, planting trees, preventing illegal logging, promoting simple living and encouraging the responsible use of resources. In addition, churches are encouraged to develop environmentally oriented programmes, including clean-up campaigns, green-environment initiatives and recycling movements (Pangihutan & Jura 2022; Stevanus 2019). Ultimately, ecotheology urges believers to embody spiritual values in managing natural resources so as to maintain balance between human needs and ecological sustainability (Delahoya 2025; Halawa & Situmorang 2024). Cultivating ecological consciousness in both schools and churches fosters respect for nature as an expression of faith, for the destruction of creation undermines the very essence of humanity (Pangihutan & Jura 2022). Thus, ecotheology demands not only reflection but also concrete solutions that integrate faith, ethics and sustainable practices – especially as education and science alone are insufficient to bring about transformation amidst today’s global ecological crisis (Ibe & Anthony 2023).