196
C. Pearson
ark itself becomes a vehicle for the rich and the powerful. This becomes a metaphor
for the geopolitics of climate change: the animals on the outside are the poor and the
vulnerable (p. 11).
The benefit of the analysis made by Fair and Kempf is that it placed the reading
of the Noah narrative within the ‘lived religion’—and thus the experience and selfunderstanding of a Bible-conscious people. It recognized that there are multiple
ways in which this text can function in the response to sea-level rise and the climate
emergency. The presenting issue is not a simple form of climate denial or a pitching
of religious claims over and against those of a western science. Kempf was also able
to set the way in which the Noah cycle is put to use within the performative practice
of song and thus indigenous patterns of customary knowledge. The peoples of Tuvalu
and Kiribati are finding voice, laying claim to identity and offering an alternative
way of knowing and agency.
The Bible and Disasters
The merits of this type of discourse should not be ignored. It is arguably the case,
that this re-reading of the intersection of the Noah story and climate change does not
go far enough, however. Writing in their report on resilience a working group led by
the Pasifika theologian Seforosa Carroll argued strongly for the need for concerted
theological attention to be given to diverse forms of disaster. The purpose of this focus
was not to construct a counternarrative as per Kempf, at least not in the form that he
mapped. It was rather driven by the role the Bible plays in a lived way in the life of
the community. It was anticipated that ‘changes to the environment will inevitably
have an impact on the spiritual and cultural lives of communities’ (Carroll 2019,
p. 4). It was recognized that the church which is the institution through which the
Bible becomes an actant is ‘uniquely situated in their communities’ to help prepare
for what is to come.
The ‘current ecological crisis’ is seen to be a ‘reflection of our broken relationship with God each other and the creation’. There had been a ‘failure to be “good
custodians of the earth”; there had been a loss of sight as to how creation is “God’s
abundant gift”. Through anthropogenic climate change the ‘earth system is at risk’.
There was an open acknowledgement of the findings of ‘scientists and climatologists’
(p. 4).
Not surprisingly that framing of the task at hand led to a series of questions that
would normally be found within a systematics treatment of the problem of theodicy
and the plausibility of divine providence. Lying behind the particular questions identified was an overarching fundamental concern having to do with the ‘nature and
character of God’. Writing for a religious audience the focus of attention fell upon
‘what then can disasters teach us about God, our relationship with God within creation
and our relationships with our fellow human beings?’ (p. 3). The range of implicit
theological themes covered the doctrinal territory of creation, ‘brokenness’ or sin.
C. Pearson
ark itself becomes a vehicle for the rich and the powerful. This becomes a metaphor
for the geopolitics of climate change: the animals on the outside are the poor and the
vulnerable (p. 11).
The benefit of the analysis made by Fair and Kempf is that it placed the reading
of the Noah narrative within the ‘lived religion’—and thus the experience and selfunderstanding of a Bible-conscious people. It recognized that there are multiple
ways in which this text can function in the response to sea-level rise and the climate
emergency. The presenting issue is not a simple form of climate denial or a pitching
of religious claims over and against those of a western science. Kempf was also able
to set the way in which the Noah cycle is put to use within the performative practice
of song and thus indigenous patterns of customary knowledge. The peoples of Tuvalu
and Kiribati are finding voice, laying claim to identity and offering an alternative
way of knowing and agency.
The Bible and Disasters
The merits of this type of discourse should not be ignored. It is arguably the case,
that this re-reading of the intersection of the Noah story and climate change does not
go far enough, however. Writing in their report on resilience a working group led by
the Pasifika theologian Seforosa Carroll argued strongly for the need for concerted
theological attention to be given to diverse forms of disaster. The purpose of this focus
was not to construct a counternarrative as per Kempf, at least not in the form that he
mapped. It was rather driven by the role the Bible plays in a lived way in the life of
the community. It was anticipated that ‘changes to the environment will inevitably
have an impact on the spiritual and cultural lives of communities’ (Carroll 2019,
p. 4). It was recognized that the church which is the institution through which the
Bible becomes an actant is ‘uniquely situated in their communities’ to help prepare
for what is to come.
The ‘current ecological crisis’ is seen to be a ‘reflection of our broken relationship with God each other and the creation’. There had been a ‘failure to be “good
custodians of the earth”; there had been a loss of sight as to how creation is “God’s
abundant gift”. Through anthropogenic climate change the ‘earth system is at risk’.
There was an open acknowledgement of the findings of ‘scientists and climatologists’
(p. 4).
Not surprisingly that framing of the task at hand led to a series of questions that
would normally be found within a systematics treatment of the problem of theodicy
and the plausibility of divine providence. Lying behind the particular questions identified was an overarching fundamental concern having to do with the ‘nature and
character of God’. Writing for a religious audience the focus of attention fell upon
‘what then can disasters teach us about God, our relationship with God within creation
and our relationships with our fellow human beings?’ (p. 3). The range of implicit
theological themes covered the doctrinal territory of creation, ‘brokenness’ or sin.