198
C. Pearson
and thus present the opportunity for faithful action (p. 4). There was a tacit acknowledgement then of how the Bible functions in the Christian life—and a Christian
community—not by way of isolated texts which may be invoked out of confusion.
The one time the Noah cycle was cited had to do with the calling to preparedness
(p. 7).
The Public Bible
The emphasis the Carroll report placed on ‘opportunity’ and ‘preparedness’ is a point
of entry into the discipline of a public theology. The term has not been widely used
throughout the Blue Pacific. It does not feature in Carroll’s work on resilience: the
idea of opportunity though conveys an allusion to a moment of kairos and crisis. These
two words come together in the case the Norwegian theologian, Kjetil Fretheim, has
made for a kairotic public theology in response to the global climate crisis (Fretheim
2016, pp. 132–140).
The purpose of a public theology is designed to address issues that impinge upon
the common good and the flourishing of all. It recognizes that the right to be heard
in the diverse spheres of the public domain needs to be earned rather than assumed.
Its tone is persuasive rather than dogmatic as it seeks to address matters of public
affair in an interdisciplinary mode. It must of necessity sift the theological heritage
of Christian beliefs, ideas and symbols in order to fulfil a bilingual vocation. There
is a responsibility here to draw upon that inheritance for the sake of representing a
position in the public sphere; there is also an imperative to talk back into the life
of the professing Christian community with insights and expertise that others in the
public domain have contributed. Being bilingual means being able to address an issue
via an explicit Christian discourse as well as in a universally accessible language of
reason.
In terms of a response to the climate emergency—and, by way of extension, to the
Anthropocene—the role of a public theology is limited. It is not one of the sciences
that feature in the deliberations of the IPCC; it is absent from work of the Forum
and its vision for the Blue Pacific. And yet the way in which the Noah story has
functioned in the region suggests that it may well have a role to play primarily in the
life of those who dwell in the most vulnerable locations. It presumes that Scripture
and belief have a role to play. The Blue Pacific is a regional context in which the Bible
has a public as well as a personal and ecclesiastical role. It possesses a function which
can speak into communal life as well as mediating spiritual and ethical perspectives,
rituals and values into public life.
That is the line of argument pursued by Paul Hanson. The complexity of the
task is not ignored. The Bible is ambiguous: for that reason Hanson realizes the
critical importance of a ‘trustworthy hermeneutics that provides safeguards against
arbitrariness and guidelines for appropriate application’ (Hanson 2017, p. 25). There
is an obvious need to come to terms with what the Bible is and what it is not. Hanson
duly makes a distinction between what he calls the warp and weft of the Bible.
C. Pearson
and thus present the opportunity for faithful action (p. 4). There was a tacit acknowledgement then of how the Bible functions in the Christian life—and a Christian
community—not by way of isolated texts which may be invoked out of confusion.
The one time the Noah cycle was cited had to do with the calling to preparedness
(p. 7).
The Public Bible
The emphasis the Carroll report placed on ‘opportunity’ and ‘preparedness’ is a point
of entry into the discipline of a public theology. The term has not been widely used
throughout the Blue Pacific. It does not feature in Carroll’s work on resilience: the
idea of opportunity though conveys an allusion to a moment of kairos and crisis. These
two words come together in the case the Norwegian theologian, Kjetil Fretheim, has
made for a kairotic public theology in response to the global climate crisis (Fretheim
2016, pp. 132–140).
The purpose of a public theology is designed to address issues that impinge upon
the common good and the flourishing of all. It recognizes that the right to be heard
in the diverse spheres of the public domain needs to be earned rather than assumed.
Its tone is persuasive rather than dogmatic as it seeks to address matters of public
affair in an interdisciplinary mode. It must of necessity sift the theological heritage
of Christian beliefs, ideas and symbols in order to fulfil a bilingual vocation. There
is a responsibility here to draw upon that inheritance for the sake of representing a
position in the public sphere; there is also an imperative to talk back into the life
of the professing Christian community with insights and expertise that others in the
public domain have contributed. Being bilingual means being able to address an issue
via an explicit Christian discourse as well as in a universally accessible language of
reason.
In terms of a response to the climate emergency—and, by way of extension, to the
Anthropocene—the role of a public theology is limited. It is not one of the sciences
that feature in the deliberations of the IPCC; it is absent from work of the Forum
and its vision for the Blue Pacific. And yet the way in which the Noah story has
functioned in the region suggests that it may well have a role to play primarily in the
life of those who dwell in the most vulnerable locations. It presumes that Scripture
and belief have a role to play. The Blue Pacific is a regional context in which the Bible
has a public as well as a personal and ecclesiastical role. It possesses a function which
can speak into communal life as well as mediating spiritual and ethical perspectives,
rituals and values into public life.
That is the line of argument pursued by Paul Hanson. The complexity of the
task is not ignored. The Bible is ambiguous: for that reason Hanson realizes the
critical importance of a ‘trustworthy hermeneutics that provides safeguards against
arbitrariness and guidelines for appropriate application’ (Hanson 2017, p. 25). There
is an obvious need to come to terms with what the Bible is and what it is not. Hanson
duly makes a distinction between what he calls the warp and weft of the Bible.