6 Climate Justice and God’s Justice …
103
judgement, and in future he thinks fire will consume the earth (LW 2:145, 149). To
those Pacific Islanders confident that the Rainbow Covenant means that God will not
allow rising seas to flood their land, Luther would caution that we should not be so
confident in simplistic readings of God’s promises. In his commentary on Genesis
chapter seven, Luther entertained the idea that throughout scripture people have
maintained false confidence in the true promises of God. This warning should make
Pacific Christians wary of any hope placed in the Rainbow Covenant (LW 2:98–102).
To illustrate Luther’s point, imagine that you are living between the times of Adam
and Noah. At that time, could you believe that a flood would destroy the earth? In
light of God’s words given to Adam and Eve to rule the earth (Genesis 1:26–28),
one would take for granted that the world must survive for it to be ruled by humans.
For Adam’s other descendants, Noah’s actions in building the ark in preparation for
the flood must have seemed strange if not heretical (LW 2:98). People would have
been confident that the earth could never be completely flooded. And yet according
to Genesis it was.
In the light of this, Luther asked how the idea of God’s creation and man’s
dominion over the earth and commandment to fill and subdue the earth (Genesis
1:26–30) can be reconciled with the fact that God destroys humanity and its work
except for the eight souls in the Ark (LW 2:98). Can we harmonize the flood with
God’s intention for humanity’s domination over creation? (LW 2:99). Luther’s answer
was that God preserves things in ways “that the world neither sees nor understands”
(LW 2:99). In the flood, God removes humanity’s dominion, “not forever but for a
time and then not even fully” (LW 2:100). According to Luther, therefore, God’s
promise was not a lie, but was kept in God’s way. Similarly, those relying on the
promise of the Rainbow Covenant could be in for a surprise when they realize that
God may flood their part of the earth and still preserve peoples in other places as
exiles or refugees.
Part of the punishment of the flood, according to Luther, was the human losing
dominion over the creatures given in creation (LW 2:58–59). This has direct relevance to our environmental crisis and climate change. Scientists have described how
climate change is increasing extinction rates and the loss of biodiversity (Taylor and
Kumar 2016). Accordingly, with climate change the sphere and scope of humanity’s
dominion over creation (Genesis 1:28) is reducing. Ironically, as humanity gains
further technological, military, and economic domination over the biosphere and
atmosphere, and as we enter the Anthropocene, we are, from Luther’s perspective,
losing power, in so far humanity’s God-given dominion is over an ever-shrinking
pool of species (LW 2:100).
Together with contemporary Pacific theologians frustrated by unhelpful readings
of the Noah narrative (Davis 2015; Rubow and Bird 2016, p. 159), Luther would
have little time for Pacific Islanders who do not appreciate the need to adapt to
climate change based on simplistic readings of the Rainbow Covenant. Even if Pacific
misreadings of the Noah narrative are an obstacle to climate change adaptation, it is
not possible to suppress the Noah narrative. Instead it might be an exegetical strategy
for to try to shift the focus of the lesson here away from the protection that the
103
judgement, and in future he thinks fire will consume the earth (LW 2:145, 149). To
those Pacific Islanders confident that the Rainbow Covenant means that God will not
allow rising seas to flood their land, Luther would caution that we should not be so
confident in simplistic readings of God’s promises. In his commentary on Genesis
chapter seven, Luther entertained the idea that throughout scripture people have
maintained false confidence in the true promises of God. This warning should make
Pacific Christians wary of any hope placed in the Rainbow Covenant (LW 2:98–102).
To illustrate Luther’s point, imagine that you are living between the times of Adam
and Noah. At that time, could you believe that a flood would destroy the earth? In
light of God’s words given to Adam and Eve to rule the earth (Genesis 1:26–28),
one would take for granted that the world must survive for it to be ruled by humans.
For Adam’s other descendants, Noah’s actions in building the ark in preparation for
the flood must have seemed strange if not heretical (LW 2:98). People would have
been confident that the earth could never be completely flooded. And yet according
to Genesis it was.
In the light of this, Luther asked how the idea of God’s creation and man’s
dominion over the earth and commandment to fill and subdue the earth (Genesis
1:26–30) can be reconciled with the fact that God destroys humanity and its work
except for the eight souls in the Ark (LW 2:98). Can we harmonize the flood with
God’s intention for humanity’s domination over creation? (LW 2:99). Luther’s answer
was that God preserves things in ways “that the world neither sees nor understands”
(LW 2:99). In the flood, God removes humanity’s dominion, “not forever but for a
time and then not even fully” (LW 2:100). According to Luther, therefore, God’s
promise was not a lie, but was kept in God’s way. Similarly, those relying on the
promise of the Rainbow Covenant could be in for a surprise when they realize that
God may flood their part of the earth and still preserve peoples in other places as
exiles or refugees.
Part of the punishment of the flood, according to Luther, was the human losing
dominion over the creatures given in creation (LW 2:58–59). This has direct relevance to our environmental crisis and climate change. Scientists have described how
climate change is increasing extinction rates and the loss of biodiversity (Taylor and
Kumar 2016). Accordingly, with climate change the sphere and scope of humanity’s
dominion over creation (Genesis 1:28) is reducing. Ironically, as humanity gains
further technological, military, and economic domination over the biosphere and
atmosphere, and as we enter the Anthropocene, we are, from Luther’s perspective,
losing power, in so far humanity’s God-given dominion is over an ever-shrinking
pool of species (LW 2:100).
Together with contemporary Pacific theologians frustrated by unhelpful readings
of the Noah narrative (Davis 2015; Rubow and Bird 2016, p. 159), Luther would
have little time for Pacific Islanders who do not appreciate the need to adapt to
climate change based on simplistic readings of the Rainbow Covenant. Even if Pacific
misreadings of the Noah narrative are an obstacle to climate change adaptation, it is
not possible to suppress the Noah narrative. Instead it might be an exegetical strategy
for to try to shift the focus of the lesson here away from the protection that the