One of our reviewers on this morning's programme spotted in the Sunday papers. Some senior Anglican bishops are apparently claiming that the "floods that have devastated swathes of the country are God's judgment on the immorality and greed of modern society". The Sunday Telegraph reports that the Bishop of Carlisle, the (pictured), believes "laws that have undermined marriage, including the introduction of pro-gay legislation, have provoked God to act by sending the storms that have left thousands of people homeless".
This isn't the first time a religious figure has connected a natural disaster with gay people. Last year, Rabbi David Basri shocked some commentators by arguing that the deadly bird flu in Israel was sent by God in response to calls in election campaigns to legalise gay marriages. Hurricane Katrina attracted a host of competing religious explanations, including Fred Phelps, who saw the hurricane as God's judgment on American sexual immorality, Mayor Ray Nagin, who argued in his famous "Chocolate City speech" that God was "mad at" black America, and Muhammad Yousef Al-Mlaifi, a Kuwaiti government official, who claimed that God sent the hurricane as retribution for US foreign policy under George Bush.
Jerry Falwell and Pat Roberston famously alleged that the September 11 attacks were a sign that God was no longer protecting America in response to feminism, abortion rights and the sexual revolution. Attempts to link natural tragedies with divine retribution are as old as religion itself in human history.
But, in this case, those labelling the natural disaster as divine punishment are (oddly enough) Church of England bishops. I note that because these kinds of moral explanations for natural events are more usually the terrain of American televangists. Bishop Graham Dow may soon tell us why he thinks God has decided to send a flood as a judgment -- particularly since the Noahic flood narrative contains an apparent commitment never to do so again (). His defenders will point out that the Genesis 9 commitment refers to a flood that would destroy the world, not to localised floods.
A more significant theological question is this: What kind of divine being would punish innocent people because of the perceived sinfulness of others? Or, to put it another way, doesn't the Bishop of Carlisle's wrathful God look strangely vindictive? Many theologians specialising in will caution against any attempt to read supernatural punishment into floods, earthquakes, hurricanes, viruses or other naturally occuring phenomena. Are all floods examples of divine punishment? All diseases? Is every tragedy in human history an expression of God's wrath? Or only tragedies that befall people we don't like? And who gets to decide which sin God is punishing in any particular flood or earthquake?
These kinds of questions have often encouraged critics to simply dismiss moralistic readings of natural disasters as ethical humbug. But perhaps some commenters here are prepared to offer the Bishop of Carlisle some theological arguments that deal with these kinds of problems. Any takers? In the meantime, we must all hope that the bishop's palace in Carlisle does not fall victim to freak weather in the next week or so; otherwise some of his supporters (though clearly not his critics) may discern the hand of divine displeasure at work.