160
K. Bangert
no immediate need to take action on climate change and creation care because the earth, all
living creatures and the climate are essentially predestined to endure unharmed in perpetuity.
(Luetz et al. 2018, p. 63)
Another scenario was the Nineveh Model which is based on the prophet Jonah who,
according to the narrative in the Book of Jonah, was sent by God to the city of Nineveh
to preach doomsday judgment: “Go to the great city of Nineveh and preach against it,
because its wickedness has come up before me.” (Jon 1:2 NIV) Because Jonah had
little inclination to be a doomsday preacher, “it took some dramatic detours before
he eventually gave in and went to Nineveh to preach the message God had instructed
him to deliver: ‘Yet forty days, and Nineveh will be overthrown.’ (Jon 3:4 KJV).”
(Luetz et al., p. 65) But then came the surprising turnabout: “The Ninevites believed
God. A fast was proclaimed, and all of them, from the greatest to the least, put on
sackcloth.” (Verse 5 NIV). Even the king “took off his royal robes, covered himself
with sackcloth and sat down in the dust” (Verse 6 NIV). And when God saw how they
turned away from their evil ways and repented, he decided not to destroy Nineveh
(Verse 10). Luetz et al. commented this narrative:
The lesson of the Nineveh Model is that apocalyptic announcements do not of necessity come
to pass in every case but constitute first and foremost a call to repentance and behavioral
transformation. According to the Nineveh Model, God could be giving humans – as the
appointed stewards of His creation – another chance to repent and amend their ways. (Luetz
et al. p. 65)
The third scenario was called the Apocalypse Model. It worked from the opposite
assumption of the Rainbow model (Noah’s flood) in “that there actually will be such
a worldwide apocalyptic doomsday one day – regardless and in spite of the Rainbow
motif.” (Luetz et al., p. 64) This scenario was based on the end-time sermons of
Jesus as reported in the New Testament. Jesus in fact drew a parallel to Noah’s flood:
“For in the days before the flood, people were eating and drinking, marrying and
giving in marriage, up to the day Noah entered the ark; and they knew nothing about
what would happen until the flood came and took them all away. That is how it will
be at the coming of the Son of Man.” (Mt 24:38–39 NIV) At the time of the final
judgment which Jesus was here imagining, some would be saved, many others would
be destroyed, leaving the rainbow promise aside. Luetz et al. commented:
According to this model, there is no need to take action on climate change because the earth
is destined to be doomed anyway, and all living creatures will ultimately be terminated by
inescapable end time disaster. This model is alive and well, whenever politicians either deny
or make light of the enormous damage unmitigated anthropogenic greenhouse gas emissions
are inflicting on God’s creation. (Luetz et al., p. 64)
For many who cling to the Apocalypse Model, “it is also too late to save the Planet, too
hard and too futile to decarbonize the global economy, and perhaps even too ‘unspiritual’ to take action on climate change, because the Apocalypse is the preordained
‘Divine design’ in respect of the prophesied coming end” (Luetz et al., p. 64).
In synthesizing the three end-time models, Luetz et al. came to the conclusion—in
light of the global warming and the general threat that humanity poses to the equilibrium of creation – that while they could not categorically exclude the possibility of an
K. Bangert
no immediate need to take action on climate change and creation care because the earth, all
living creatures and the climate are essentially predestined to endure unharmed in perpetuity.
(Luetz et al. 2018, p. 63)
Another scenario was the Nineveh Model which is based on the prophet Jonah who,
according to the narrative in the Book of Jonah, was sent by God to the city of Nineveh
to preach doomsday judgment: “Go to the great city of Nineveh and preach against it,
because its wickedness has come up before me.” (Jon 1:2 NIV) Because Jonah had
little inclination to be a doomsday preacher, “it took some dramatic detours before
he eventually gave in and went to Nineveh to preach the message God had instructed
him to deliver: ‘Yet forty days, and Nineveh will be overthrown.’ (Jon 3:4 KJV).”
(Luetz et al., p. 65) But then came the surprising turnabout: “The Ninevites believed
God. A fast was proclaimed, and all of them, from the greatest to the least, put on
sackcloth.” (Verse 5 NIV). Even the king “took off his royal robes, covered himself
with sackcloth and sat down in the dust” (Verse 6 NIV). And when God saw how they
turned away from their evil ways and repented, he decided not to destroy Nineveh
(Verse 10). Luetz et al. commented this narrative:
The lesson of the Nineveh Model is that apocalyptic announcements do not of necessity come
to pass in every case but constitute first and foremost a call to repentance and behavioral
transformation. According to the Nineveh Model, God could be giving humans – as the
appointed stewards of His creation – another chance to repent and amend their ways. (Luetz
et al. p. 65)
The third scenario was called the Apocalypse Model. It worked from the opposite
assumption of the Rainbow model (Noah’s flood) in “that there actually will be such
a worldwide apocalyptic doomsday one day – regardless and in spite of the Rainbow
motif.” (Luetz et al., p. 64) This scenario was based on the end-time sermons of
Jesus as reported in the New Testament. Jesus in fact drew a parallel to Noah’s flood:
“For in the days before the flood, people were eating and drinking, marrying and
giving in marriage, up to the day Noah entered the ark; and they knew nothing about
what would happen until the flood came and took them all away. That is how it will
be at the coming of the Son of Man.” (Mt 24:38–39 NIV) At the time of the final
judgment which Jesus was here imagining, some would be saved, many others would
be destroyed, leaving the rainbow promise aside. Luetz et al. commented:
According to this model, there is no need to take action on climate change because the earth
is destined to be doomed anyway, and all living creatures will ultimately be terminated by
inescapable end time disaster. This model is alive and well, whenever politicians either deny
or make light of the enormous damage unmitigated anthropogenic greenhouse gas emissions
are inflicting on God’s creation. (Luetz et al., p. 64)
For many who cling to the Apocalypse Model, “it is also too late to save the Planet, too
hard and too futile to decarbonize the global economy, and perhaps even too ‘unspiritual’ to take action on climate change, because the Apocalypse is the preordained
‘Divine design’ in respect of the prophesied coming end” (Luetz et al., p. 64).
In synthesizing the three end-time models, Luetz et al. came to the conclusion—in
light of the global warming and the general threat that humanity poses to the equilibrium of creation – that while they could not categorically exclude the possibility of an