110
R. A. Davis
to be done if the church wishes to convince Christians that God is not responsible
for the disastrous effects of climate change.
As the authors of the article note, there is a narrative of blame and divine punishment in explaining disasters, which may be articulated in the language of justice.
Clearly some Fijians believe that God is just in punishing Fijians for their sins and
using a cyclone to do so. Whereas some people might think that the Fijians are being
harmed by a climate injustice—caused by the industrialized counties, Fijians might
focus on themselves as being justly punished by God for their transgressions, or
those of their leaders.
Another narrative in the Pacific, perhaps related, is that Pacific peoples are innocent and climate change results from the ecological sins of others. Why would God
punish the innocent relatively harmless Pacific peoples, whose greenhouse gas emissions are very low? It makes no sense. For some Christians this view might appear
impudent, as it challenges the wisdom and justice of God. Luther would remind us
saying that all have sinned and deserve God’s punishment (LW 31:347). Some Pacific
leaders may need to consider, as some have, that the Pacific peoples, while they are
victims of a global injustice, are not completely innocent either. One thing is sure,
we can all do better to reduce our ecological footprint. Indeed, some Pacific peoples
have taken this approach, accepting God’s discipline, recognizing that they need to
make ecological amends (Rudiak-Gould 2014, p. 368).
Across the Pacific, God’s wrath has been a popular explanation for events such as
Cyclone Winston and the Samoa Tsunami of 2009. Clearly many Christians in the
Pacific would agree that Luther’s approach is largely correct, both in diagnosis and
in way to combat climate change. Christians who agree with this broad approach
could take up arms against climate change, but they might ask, in agreement with
Luther, of what use is political campaigning and climate change adaptation if we do
not repent of our sins first? Based on Luther’s reasoning, if this is not done before
fighting climate change, then the fight is also against God. Once nations repent of
their sins, they would argue, then God will stop using climate change events to punish
them, and climate change can be battled without also, at the same time, battling God.
Critics of this popular theological view cannot explain why the Cyclone hit where
it did and with such intensity. It is God’s wrath? Clearly some Pacific Islanders,
agreeing with Luther, would say that it is, meaning that the effects of climate change,
such as cyclones, are tools of God’s wrath on the sin-filled lifestyles of Pacific
Islanders. If this is in fact so, then urging repentance to combat climate change
disasters is a sound strategy. Pacific Christians could be encouraged to “reform”
their lives. Many of them would agree that only then can the fight against climate
change be effective and adaptation meaningful. To make a more direct impact on
climate change people would have to convinced to change their environmentally
damaging activities. However, in the hands of conservative church leaders, such an
approach might well cause other social harm, such as against members of sexual
minorities and against individual human rights, such as religious freedom.
All this seems at odds with the modern scientific view. Nowadays it is not magi
who ponder the mysteries of the natural world, it is scientists who have largely
discovered the processes at work in climate change, even if their work is incomplete
R. A. Davis
to be done if the church wishes to convince Christians that God is not responsible
for the disastrous effects of climate change.
As the authors of the article note, there is a narrative of blame and divine punishment in explaining disasters, which may be articulated in the language of justice.
Clearly some Fijians believe that God is just in punishing Fijians for their sins and
using a cyclone to do so. Whereas some people might think that the Fijians are being
harmed by a climate injustice—caused by the industrialized counties, Fijians might
focus on themselves as being justly punished by God for their transgressions, or
those of their leaders.
Another narrative in the Pacific, perhaps related, is that Pacific peoples are innocent and climate change results from the ecological sins of others. Why would God
punish the innocent relatively harmless Pacific peoples, whose greenhouse gas emissions are very low? It makes no sense. For some Christians this view might appear
impudent, as it challenges the wisdom and justice of God. Luther would remind us
saying that all have sinned and deserve God’s punishment (LW 31:347). Some Pacific
leaders may need to consider, as some have, that the Pacific peoples, while they are
victims of a global injustice, are not completely innocent either. One thing is sure,
we can all do better to reduce our ecological footprint. Indeed, some Pacific peoples
have taken this approach, accepting God’s discipline, recognizing that they need to
make ecological amends (Rudiak-Gould 2014, p. 368).
Across the Pacific, God’s wrath has been a popular explanation for events such as
Cyclone Winston and the Samoa Tsunami of 2009. Clearly many Christians in the
Pacific would agree that Luther’s approach is largely correct, both in diagnosis and
in way to combat climate change. Christians who agree with this broad approach
could take up arms against climate change, but they might ask, in agreement with
Luther, of what use is political campaigning and climate change adaptation if we do
not repent of our sins first? Based on Luther’s reasoning, if this is not done before
fighting climate change, then the fight is also against God. Once nations repent of
their sins, they would argue, then God will stop using climate change events to punish
them, and climate change can be battled without also, at the same time, battling God.
Critics of this popular theological view cannot explain why the Cyclone hit where
it did and with such intensity. It is God’s wrath? Clearly some Pacific Islanders,
agreeing with Luther, would say that it is, meaning that the effects of climate change,
such as cyclones, are tools of God’s wrath on the sin-filled lifestyles of Pacific
Islanders. If this is in fact so, then urging repentance to combat climate change
disasters is a sound strategy. Pacific Christians could be encouraged to “reform”
their lives. Many of them would agree that only then can the fight against climate
change be effective and adaptation meaningful. To make a more direct impact on
climate change people would have to convinced to change their environmentally
damaging activities. However, in the hands of conservative church leaders, such an
approach might well cause other social harm, such as against members of sexual
minorities and against individual human rights, such as religious freedom.
All this seems at odds with the modern scientific view. Nowadays it is not magi
who ponder the mysteries of the natural world, it is scientists who have largely
discovered the processes at work in climate change, even if their work is incomplete