Discussions about the interaction between science and religion are often framed through a simplified Hegelian triad (thesis–antithesis–synthesis). However, this model is historically inaccurate. Kant described unresolved antinomies, while Fichte outlined a dynamic of thetic position, antithetic opposition and synthetic movement without suggesting final closure (Fichte 1982; Kant 1998; Mueller 1958). Kant’s antinomies demonstrate reason’s tendency to generate mutually conflicting claims, and Fichte’s explanation – often but wrongly attributed to Hegel – clarifies how provisional syntheses can arise from tension (Mueller 1958). This philosophical lineage offers a useful context for understanding diastasis: a methodological stance that maintains creative, accountable tension across disciplinary boundaries.

Antithesis refers to boundary-policing models that assign facts to science and meanings to religion. Such models provide clarity, minimise category errors and protect methodological independence. However, global contexts – such as Islamic readings of nature as āyāt, Latin American liberation-ecological praxis and African eco-theologies – demonstrate that empirical descriptions and moral claims often intertwine in lived discourse (Boff 1997; Nasr 1996; Scatolini 2022).

Synthesis seeks responsible integrative harmony, as in Barbour’s ‘integration’, Haught’s ‘consonance’, or Polkinghorne’s ‘motivated belief’ (Barbour 2000; Haught 1995). While such approaches enable valuable collaboration in ecological and bioethics, they must avoid over-harmonisation – speculative retrofits or metaphysical overreach – that collapse legitimate differences between domains (Harrison 2015; Stenmark 2004:45–60).

Diastasis describes disciplined tension that neither halts disagreement nor forces synthetic resolution (See Table 1 for a comparison of the three options). Van Huyssteen’s postfoundationalist model encourages transversal reasoning rooted in shared warrants such as coherence, scope, integrative depth and ethical adequacy (Van Huyssteen 1999, 2006). Theology and science thus engage as distinct yet mutually accountable partners – not as adversaries but as a duet, each retaining its own methodological integrity. Recognising this guards against teleological assumptions that all tensions must resolve harmoniously. Instead, diastasis serves as a constructive virtue that sustains meaningful dialogue, prevents methodological imperialism and keeps claims open to revision.

Climate change and ecological sustainability reveal the limitations of relying solely on technical or economic problem-solving. Scientific models demonstrate empirical realities; policy frameworks coordinate collective efforts, but questions of meaning, responsibility and relationality demand deeper interpretative engagement. Here, theology acts as an interlocutor: expressing visions of the good, forming virtues, encouraging care and mediating values alongside the sciences.

Ken Wilber’s Integral Theory proposes that reality is understood through at least four fundamental perspectives (Wilber 2000:45–60). Neglecting any of these can result in distorted explanations of complex phenomena, such as ecological degradation. Exterior perspectives include the upper-right (objective: individuals’ behaviours and structures) and the lower-right (interobjective: collective systems and structures). While these are essential, they cannot fully inspire transformational action without integrating the upper-left (subjective: consciousness, emotion, intentionality) and the lower-left (intersubjective: shared cultural meanings and ethics) (Esbjörn-Hargens & Zimmerman 2011; Ferreira 2010; Wilber 2000:112–120).

Integral ecology, therefore, advocates recognising experience (subjective), culture (intersubjective), behaviour (objective) and systems (interobjective), avoiding reductionism and fostering a holistic, motivating ethic. The next section demonstrates how these quadrants inform practical action and covenantal ethics.

Humanity has long been warned about the consequences of crossing planetary boundaries. Malthus warned of population pressures on limited resources, while the Club of Rome’s influential Limits to Growth (Meadows et al. 1972) modelled the complex interactions among population, industrialisation, pollution, food production and non-renewable resources – introducing the familiar idea of ‘overshoot’, where human demand exceeds the biosphere’s regenerative capacity. Later reviews, such as the Meadows et al. (2004) update and Herrington’s (2022) analysis, confirm that current global paths most resemble the ‘business-as-usual’ scenarios, signalling imminent declines in welfare unless there are major shifts in societal values and economic frameworks.

Within this context, the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) remains the leading global governance mechanism. At COP30 in Belém (November 2025), the Belém Political Package – adopted under the Mutirão Decision – marked several significant advances: political commitments to triple adaptation finance by 2035; operationalisation of funding arrangements for loss and damage; establishment of implementation platforms such as the Global Implementation Accelerator and the Belém Mission to 1.5°C; development of voluntary indicators for the Global Goal on Adaptation; strengthening of just-transition mechanisms; and the introduction of forest-finance facilities. Over 120 parties submitted updated 2035 Nationally Determined Contributions (NDC) targets following the first global stocktake.² Independent assessments praised progress in adaptation, equity in finance and implementation architecture, while also criticising the lack of a negotiated fossil fuel phase-out and the overall insufficiency of ambition to keep the 1.5°C target within reach. Although technical and financial mechanisms were consolidated, the failure to secure explicit commitments to transition away from fossil fuels revealed persistent gaps between scientific urgency and political resolve.

This tension – incremental technical progress without corresponding normative transformation – highlights the need for theological reflection. Theology aids by reframing human vocation through a kenotic rather than a hubristic approach and by framing environmental responsibility within an eco-cosmic perspective. Faith communities are well-positioned to encourage the ‘different thinking’ that leads to ‘different acting’, making covenantal ethics not only doctrinal, but also socially credible in a time of planetary overshoot (Buitendag 2025).

Ecological economics clarifies the difference between growth (quantitative expansion) and development (qualitative flourishing). Mature economies should prioritise well-being within ecological limits rather than endless throughput (Von Weizsäcker & Wijkman 2018). Degrowth and post-growth proposals advocate conscious reductions in material and energy use in high-consumption societies, the redistribution of resources, the internalisation of ecological costs and the fostering of civic solidarity (Hickel 2020; Jackson 2021). Ethically, this aligns with covenantal culture – embodying sufficiency, neighbourliness and restraint – and with de-anthropocentric responsibility grounded in intergenerational and interspecies justice (Brueggemann 2014; Cobb 1992). Development involves qualitative changes and does not necessarily imply quantitative expansion.

Rewilding offers a complementary approach, restoring self-regulating ecosystems by reducing human intervention, reintroducing keystone species across trophic levels and allowing natural processes to regain their complexity (Perino et al. 2019). Research indicates that trophic rewilding can enhance biotic resistance (such as against invasive shrubs), increase carbon sequestration and boost ecosystem resilience and biodiversity (Guyton et al. 2020). Global conservation targets – like protecting or restoring 30% of land and sea by 2030 – connect rewilding to climate mitigation efforts, while emerging Rights of Nature frameworks provide normative and legal foundations (Bleeker, Hooft Toomey & Lambooy 2025; Dinerstein et al. 2019). Overall, degrowth and rewilding serve as civic virtues of restraint and renewal, vital for advancing planetary well-being. Consequently, society should prioritise a development path based on a symbiotic relationship with the rest of nature and on conserving and restoring planetary ecosystem health.

A covenantal toolkit should be created to integrate these virtues into faith communities. Such a toolkit might include: weekly Sabbath practices that challenge consumerism; seasonal lamentations for ecological loss, followed by acts of repair like tree planting and invasive species removal; watershed-scale stewardship projects over many years; biodiversity pledges that establish habitat corridors; and liturgical actions aligned with the pillars of the Earth Charter. For example: Advent (fostering a community of life through hospitality to other species); Lent (practising integrity by fasting from excess); Eastertide (advancing justice through solidarity gardens); Ordinary Time (promoting peace through deliberative forums on the Rights of Nature). These practices foster gratitude, restraint and neighbourly solidarity, embodying degrowth and rewilding within the rhythms of everyday life.

Southern African examples further illustrate how such a covenant is practised. The Faith and Ecology Network’s rewilding campaigns in degraded mining areas (e.g. Mpumalanga) incorporate degrowth principles – reducing extractive consumption – alongside communal rituals that honour ubuntu and the Rights of Nature (cf. SAFCEI n.d.). These initiatives activate all AQAL quadrants in localised climate-justice settings. As noted in previous work (Buitendag 2025), similar initiatives in Mozambique demonstrate how ecological repair can link with community formation and moral imagination.

In summary, the idea of Planetary Well-Being encompasses both environmental health and the pursuit of equity, justice and flourishing across natural, human, political and economic systems – a transformative vision for aligning societies and economies with Earth’s limits (Espinosa 2025). Seen through the AQAL framework, degrowth and rewilding activate all four quadrants: subjective (promoting dispositions of restraint and gratitude), intersubjective (fostering cultural narratives of care), objective (enabling measurable behavioural changes) and interobjective (restructuring systems and governance towards planetary boundaries).

The Earth Charter, launched in June 2000 as a global declaration of interdependence, outlines key ethical principles to promote a fairer, more sustainable and peaceful world. It serves as an urgent moral call to action. By the early 21st century, numerous organisations – including United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organisation (UNESCO) and the World Conservation Congress – had endorsed the Charter. Significant progress was made in 2015 towards achieving its vision with the adoption of the 17 Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) and broad international backing for the Paris Agreement on Climate Change (COP21). However, the world has changed considerably over the past 25 years: efforts to uphold the Charter’s principles, achieve the SDGs and tackle climate change now face increased challenges, including backlash against globalisation, rising nationalism and authoritarianism and escalating geopolitical conflicts.

Planetary consciousness, central to the Earth Charter+25 initiative, signifies a deeper, holistic awareness of humanity as an inseparable part of the wider community of life, rather than as detached from or dominant over it. It encourages a shift from narrow national or cultural identities towards a sense of belonging to the planet as a whole – recognising that all people share a common home and destiny with other species, ecosystems and future generations. For an accessible synthesis of these developments, see Vilela et al. (2025).

The United Nations’ efforts to develop a comprehensive framework for monitoring sustainable development started at the 2012 UN Conference on Sustainable Development. The Rio+20 Conference called for the creation of the SDGs to replace the Millennium Development Goals (MDGs), which concluded in 2015. Like their predecessors, the SDGs include specific targets and indicators to track progress.

During Rio+20, the Oxfam Doughnut played a significant role in guiding the SDG agenda. Its outer ring symbolises the environmental ceiling – the planetary boundaries that must not be crossed – as outlined in early work presented at the Tällberg Forum in 2008. Its inner ring represents the social foundations essential to ensure a ‘safe and just space for humanity’. Today, humanity surpasses several planetary boundaries, while millions remain below vital social thresholds. The aim is to bring human activity back within the ‘safe operating space’ between the ecological ceiling and the social foundation (Raworth 2012:4).

This model expands on the Earth Charter’s preamble, which states: ‘We stand at a critical moment in Earth’s history, a time when humanity must choose its future’ (Earth Charter International 2000:1). Planetary consciousness supports this view by encouraging people to see themselves as members of a single Earth community, alongside – not instead of – their local or national identities. It counters fragmentation, disconnection and anthropocentrism by promoting respect for life’s mystery, appreciation for Earth’s gifts and humility about humanity’s role in the web of life (see Boff 1997:67–71).

Within the Earth Charter+25 framework, planetary consciousness is crucial for tackling today’s interconnected crises – biodiversity loss, climate tipping points, rising inequality and escalating conflict (See Figure 1 for these boundaries). It calls for:

Ultimately, planetary consciousness functions as an ethical guide – a form of ‘radical hope’ in uncertain times – inspiring transformation towards an ecological civilisation. It energises educational initiatives (including those linked to UNESCO), youth leadership, Indigenous knowledge movements and global citizenship, fostering a shared planetary identity and moral responsibility.

Integral ecology, a key part of Pope Francis’s magisterial teaching, rejects technocratic reductionism by emphasising that ecological degradation, social exclusion and spiritual alienation are interconnected (Francis 2015, 2023). It advocates holistic care that addresses root causes – such as anthropocentrism, consumerism and inequality – while promoting integral human development. Theo-ecology expands on this idea, examining not only what ecology means for theology but also what God represents in relation to ecology. In this view, creation becomes a space of divine communication, and human participation in Trinitarian life is expressed through kenotic stewardship (Moltmann 1993:86–93; 215–243; 276–296).

Kenotic Christology reinterprets dominion not as domination but as self-giving service, emphasising virtues of restraint, solidarity and ecological restoration (McFague 2021; Moltmann 2003). Within the Earth Charter’s first pillar – ‘Respect and Care for the Community of Life’ – this aligns with humility, understood as the refusal to be arrogant towards the community of life in every context.

Understanding reality in a comprehensive way involves four interconnected dimensions: anthropological (embodied and embedded cognition that defies dualisms); epistemological (constructive-critical realism fostering reciprocity between scientific models and theological interpretation); ethical (ecodomy guiding actions towards justice, dignity, reconciliation and stewardship); and meaningful (theo-ecology integrating care within divine participation). These dimensions suggest curricular pathways such as modules on cosmotheandric vocation, planetary boundaries ethics, restoration practices and ecodomy laboratories – community projects that observe, for example, biodiversity or soil health (Buitendag & Simut 2020; Clugston 2025).

In practical terms, climate action connects external elements (biophysical data, infrastructure) with internal elements (cultural meaning and personal significance) and their interactions across development, practice and policy. Diastasis – disciplined tension – offers the methodological stance needed to preserve these elements without blurring their distinctions (Esbjörn-Hargens & Zimmerman 2009; Wilber 2000).

Deep ecology, articulated by Næss (1973), emphasises this holistic perspective. It advocates a fundamental shift from anthropocentrism to ecocentrism or biocentrism – recognising the intrinsic value of all life regardless of its usefulness to humans (Næss 1973). Unlike shallow ecology, which concentrates on technocratic solutions to environmental problems, deep ecology challenges the fundamental values, lifestyles and structures that lead to ecological damage. It promotes a holistic view in which humans are regarded as part of, not separate from, the web of life.

Næss (1973) identifies five core themes: