162
K. Bangert
The Rainbow Model (Noah’s Message)
In the following section, I wish to first look at how the flood narrative has been
utilized by the Pacific islanders, especially in relation to the climate crisis, before
going on to consider the theological implication and possibly historical background
of the Rainbow Model. From that, I shall draw some conclusions with regard to an
eschatological perspective.
Noah’s Flood as Primordial Archetype
In the Pacific Islands, Noah’s flood narrative has been cited as “a reoccurring feature
of discussions with pastors and parishioners” and thus “held meaning and relevance”
for many islanders who were questioned by Hannah Fair. The biblical story is also
a good example for what Fair calls “epistemological entanglements” as it highlights
“the polysemic potential of scripture”. Hence, Fair used the narrative “as a means to
explore the balance, enmeshment and tensions between different epistemologies”.
There were three discursive manifestations of the flood narrative in the Pacific Islands,
namely: (1) the rainbow covenant as denial, (2) Noah as example for preparation,
and (3) Islanders being unjustly left outside of the ark (Fair 2018, p. 8).
While Fair did not directly encounter the first manifestation with her interlocutors,
her interviewees did complain, however, that Noah’s covenant was often cited by
elderly people as a reason for inaction and for a religious counternarrative to the
threat pictured by science. To them, the rainbow covenant serves as an argument to
profess the ongoing continuity of the world, as was shown also by Rubow and Bird
(2016). But most pastors who were questioned on the subject, explicitly rejected that
interpretation.
The second manifestation of the Noah narrative was encountered in connection
with cyclone disasters that may (have) hit the islanders. Pastors evoked Noah as an
example for timely preparedness—not only in case of a cyclone hitting the islands but
even in terms of climate adaptation. “Thus, here the story of Noah is not a vehicle
for doubt, but is explicitly mobilised as a weapon against it …” (Fair 2018, p. 9)
(Similarly, the biblical story of Joseph being prepared for a famine was invoked by
some participants as an example of preparation.)
The third manifestation was encountered with Ezekiel, a church-based Tuvaluan
climate advocate who emphasized the need for human action. According to this
manifestation Noah is not the hero of the story but is counted among those who have
safely sought refuge in the ark, while many others (including many animals) perished
outside the ark. “Those outside the ark need to be liberated and I think God is with
those who are outside the ark. God is struggling with them, trying to alleviate them
while Noah is enjoying the luxury life, you know”, said Ezekiel. Comments Hannah
Fair: “While this reading is theologically unorthodox, it is highly pertinent to the
question of how climate change is framed” (Fair 2018, p. 11).
K. Bangert
The Rainbow Model (Noah’s Message)
In the following section, I wish to first look at how the flood narrative has been
utilized by the Pacific islanders, especially in relation to the climate crisis, before
going on to consider the theological implication and possibly historical background
of the Rainbow Model. From that, I shall draw some conclusions with regard to an
eschatological perspective.
Noah’s Flood as Primordial Archetype
In the Pacific Islands, Noah’s flood narrative has been cited as “a reoccurring feature
of discussions with pastors and parishioners” and thus “held meaning and relevance”
for many islanders who were questioned by Hannah Fair. The biblical story is also
a good example for what Fair calls “epistemological entanglements” as it highlights
“the polysemic potential of scripture”. Hence, Fair used the narrative “as a means to
explore the balance, enmeshment and tensions between different epistemologies”.
There were three discursive manifestations of the flood narrative in the Pacific Islands,
namely: (1) the rainbow covenant as denial, (2) Noah as example for preparation,
and (3) Islanders being unjustly left outside of the ark (Fair 2018, p. 8).
While Fair did not directly encounter the first manifestation with her interlocutors,
her interviewees did complain, however, that Noah’s covenant was often cited by
elderly people as a reason for inaction and for a religious counternarrative to the
threat pictured by science. To them, the rainbow covenant serves as an argument to
profess the ongoing continuity of the world, as was shown also by Rubow and Bird
(2016). But most pastors who were questioned on the subject, explicitly rejected that
interpretation.
The second manifestation of the Noah narrative was encountered in connection
with cyclone disasters that may (have) hit the islanders. Pastors evoked Noah as an
example for timely preparedness—not only in case of a cyclone hitting the islands but
even in terms of climate adaptation. “Thus, here the story of Noah is not a vehicle
for doubt, but is explicitly mobilised as a weapon against it …” (Fair 2018, p. 9)
(Similarly, the biblical story of Joseph being prepared for a famine was invoked by
some participants as an example of preparation.)
The third manifestation was encountered with Ezekiel, a church-based Tuvaluan
climate advocate who emphasized the need for human action. According to this
manifestation Noah is not the hero of the story but is counted among those who have
safely sought refuge in the ark, while many others (including many animals) perished
outside the ark. “Those outside the ark need to be liberated and I think God is with
those who are outside the ark. God is struggling with them, trying to alleviate them
while Noah is enjoying the luxury life, you know”, said Ezekiel. Comments Hannah
Fair: “While this reading is theologically unorthodox, it is highly pertinent to the
question of how climate change is framed” (Fair 2018, p. 11).