Responding to disasters within the Christian tradition, with reference to volcanic eruptions and earthquakes

Abstract

Particularly within Christianity and Judaism, theodicy is defined as any attempt to reconcile notions of a loving and just God with the reality of human suffering. The paper begins with a review of the ways in which the Hebrew and Christian scriptures (i.e. the Old and New Testaments) have interpreted disasters, particularly those caused by earthquakes and volcanic eruptions. Theological analysis of disasters did not end at the close of the biblical era, but has continued throughout Christian history and a number of so called Leibnizian philosophical models of theodicy have been developed. These are critically introduced. In the past few decades there has been a sea‐change in both Christian attitudes towards disasters and in the ways in which losses are viewed by hazard researchers. From the perspective of the latter, an approach that envisions disasters as being primarily caused by extreme physical events has been largely replaced by one in which disasters are studied as social constructs, with a greater emphasis being placed on human vulnerability. Academic scholarship on the Leibnizian philosophical models continues, but greater prominence is now given to viewing disasters as events that represent human sinfulness which is manifested in national and international disparities in wealth, poverty, hazard preparedness and disaster losses. Finally, it is proposed that these new hazard analytical and theological perspectives are synergetic: allowing on the one hand churches, their members as well as their leaders, more fully to engage in disaster relief; whilst, on the other, enabling civil defence planners more effectively to use the often considerable human and financial resources of Christian communities and their charitable agencies

Cite this work

No public copy is stored for this record, so only the metadata is cited.

Stored only when both papers are in the corpus — 64 citations exist upstream.

Papers that cite the same references — the relational fallback while embeddings are still backfilling.