"Making plans is often the occupation of an opulent and boastful mind, which thus obtains the reputation of a creative genius by demanding what it cannot itself supply, by censuring what it cannot improve, and by proposing what it knows not where to find."
Kant, Prolegomena to Any Future Metaphysics (p. 10 in the Bobbs-Merrill edition of 1950)
Somehow reminds me of Connect09....and 'Do it Again in 2000 and Ten"
Showing posts with label Archbishop Jensen. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Archbishop Jensen. Show all posts
Wednesday, June 2, 2010
Wednesday, February 24, 2010
Chaser chases Peter
I saw an old Chaser (Chaser's war on everything, an ABC TV show) where one of the chasers was doing just that: chasing...Peter Jensen.
The object of the chase was asking Peter to explain his response to Leviticus 20:13.
Peter grinned and walked on.
What a great way (NOT) to deal with an evangelical opportunity on national TV...so is Peter really evangelical...is he ready to represent the faith?
So, what could he have said that would have had evangelical intent.
Here's a thought:
"If you were an ancient Jew, it would be worth talking about that quote, but you're not are you?"
"I'd be more concerned that you find the God who wants to put our selfishness to one side so we can be with him forever in real love, not the hot panting of males missing the point."
The object of the chase was asking Peter to explain his response to Leviticus 20:13.
Peter grinned and walked on.
What a great way (NOT) to deal with an evangelical opportunity on national TV...so is Peter really evangelical...is he ready to represent the faith?
So, what could he have said that would have had evangelical intent.
Here's a thought:
"If you were an ancient Jew, it would be worth talking about that quote, but you're not are you?"
"I'd be more concerned that you find the God who wants to put our selfishness to one side so we can be with him forever in real love, not the hot panting of males missing the point."
Tuesday, February 16, 2010
"God is Not Your Dog"
Episcopalian Archbishop of Sydney, Peter Jensen, in the Feb 2010 edition of Southern Cross, wrote an article entitled "God is not your Dog."
The thrust of his article was a tendency for people to domesticate God as they would a pet dog.
His motivation for this article seems to have been summer vacation reading, with one author doubting the trustworthiness of the Bible because he, the author, found it difficult to accept that God would direct ancient Israel to destroy the Canaanites. To quote the Archbishop "The God this author believes in could not possibly order the destruction of a civiliation with all its people. Naturally I agree that this is a particularly confronting part of the biblical record."
In dealing with how people wrestle with the charge God gave Israel with respect to the Canaanites, Archbishop Jensen offers some helpful comments. He then writes "What we can say is that God has his own good and righteous reasons for what happens and what he brings to pass. The destruction of the Canaanites is a revelation to us of the reality and awesomeness of the day of judgement which lies before us all. It also throws light on the cross and the suffering the Son of God underwent as he bore the penalty of our sins. When we flinch from the story of the Canaanites and refuse to accept it, we are declaring that God will not judge the world and that there is no hell. We prefer to back our own sentimental notions about God and the world rather than the truth. We domesticate God."
Archbishop Jensen then declares the wonder of God drawing near to sinners through his Son and Spirit and establishing a relationship that we may call him Father. He concludes with, "We will always presume on this as part of our attempt to bring God to heel, unless we listen carefully to all he tells us about himself in the Scriptures. When we realise how great he is and how demanding is his righteousness, we will appreciate his grace and mercy. But the way forward is not to deny Scripture and make it conform to the idolatrous dog/god which we would prefer to construct."
Regular readers of this blogspot will know where I am going to take this. It is only right that I do so.
How can it be that the Episcopalian Archbishop of Sydney makes such an astute assessment and criticism of the author of the Archbishop's summer reading on one direct utterance of God i.e. concerning the Canaanites, and yet, when it comes to the direct utterance of God on Creation, the Archbishop commits the very same offence of his targeted author?
It is astounding how hypocritical all this looks and how much ammunition it gives enemies of the Gospel. Archbishop, please, consider what you are saying and what you are doing. There must be consistency.
God is consistent. In Genesis 1, Exodus 20:11 and Exodus 31:17, God gives a seamless instruction as to the creation process. In no credible way do these utterances of God allow for the imposition of "Theistic Evolution," "Day Age," Gap Theory" or "Progressive Creation" views of Creation.
Archbishop Jensen believes his author 'friend' domesticates God through sentimental notions about God yet, in holding to a Theistic Evolution view of origins, the Archbishop domesticates God in the same way a suburban resident domesticates the family dog to fit in, to give less offence to community expectations.
Our great, awesome and loving God is not to be reduced to the notions of "this age" concerning the origin of life. Creation was an event God alone instigated and he alone is to be trusted on its particulars.
Archbishop Jensen and others, God is not your dog!
Sam Drucker
The thrust of his article was a tendency for people to domesticate God as they would a pet dog.
His motivation for this article seems to have been summer vacation reading, with one author doubting the trustworthiness of the Bible because he, the author, found it difficult to accept that God would direct ancient Israel to destroy the Canaanites. To quote the Archbishop "The God this author believes in could not possibly order the destruction of a civiliation with all its people. Naturally I agree that this is a particularly confronting part of the biblical record."
In dealing with how people wrestle with the charge God gave Israel with respect to the Canaanites, Archbishop Jensen offers some helpful comments. He then writes "What we can say is that God has his own good and righteous reasons for what happens and what he brings to pass. The destruction of the Canaanites is a revelation to us of the reality and awesomeness of the day of judgement which lies before us all. It also throws light on the cross and the suffering the Son of God underwent as he bore the penalty of our sins. When we flinch from the story of the Canaanites and refuse to accept it, we are declaring that God will not judge the world and that there is no hell. We prefer to back our own sentimental notions about God and the world rather than the truth. We domesticate God."
Archbishop Jensen then declares the wonder of God drawing near to sinners through his Son and Spirit and establishing a relationship that we may call him Father. He concludes with, "We will always presume on this as part of our attempt to bring God to heel, unless we listen carefully to all he tells us about himself in the Scriptures. When we realise how great he is and how demanding is his righteousness, we will appreciate his grace and mercy. But the way forward is not to deny Scripture and make it conform to the idolatrous dog/god which we would prefer to construct."
Regular readers of this blogspot will know where I am going to take this. It is only right that I do so.
How can it be that the Episcopalian Archbishop of Sydney makes such an astute assessment and criticism of the author of the Archbishop's summer reading on one direct utterance of God i.e. concerning the Canaanites, and yet, when it comes to the direct utterance of God on Creation, the Archbishop commits the very same offence of his targeted author?
It is astounding how hypocritical all this looks and how much ammunition it gives enemies of the Gospel. Archbishop, please, consider what you are saying and what you are doing. There must be consistency.
God is consistent. In Genesis 1, Exodus 20:11 and Exodus 31:17, God gives a seamless instruction as to the creation process. In no credible way do these utterances of God allow for the imposition of "Theistic Evolution," "Day Age," Gap Theory" or "Progressive Creation" views of Creation.
Archbishop Jensen believes his author 'friend' domesticates God through sentimental notions about God yet, in holding to a Theistic Evolution view of origins, the Archbishop domesticates God in the same way a suburban resident domesticates the family dog to fit in, to give less offence to community expectations.
Our great, awesome and loving God is not to be reduced to the notions of "this age" concerning the origin of life. Creation was an event God alone instigated and he alone is to be trusted on its particulars.
Archbishop Jensen and others, God is not your dog!
Sam Drucker
Thursday, January 7, 2010
Does Episcopalian Diocese of Sydney Know Jesus Christ?
The Episcopalian Diocese of Sydney is proud of its evangelical tradition. It talks much of trusting Scripture and regarding it as authority for understanding the mind of God. More than that it trusts Scripture for understanding life. Its theological seminary, Moore Theological College, is held as the bastion of truth on theological matters and the hope for training men an women to go, principally, into the Diocese but generally into the world in the name of Jesus Christ. Where the Church globally is succumbing to the world the Diocese looks to itself and its evangelical tradition to draw courage to continue the fight.
But how goes it beneath the surface, beyond all the bluster?
Recently I read a few words from the late Bishop J.C. Ryle on "Reality." Both Neil Moore and I have previously quoted Bishop Ryle. He still has relevance and I sense he has something to say to all of us who regard ourselves as a) evangelical and, b) having it altogether concerning our faith.
Bishop Ryle said "How much evangelical religion is completely unreal? You will sometimes see men professing great affection for the pure 'gospel,' while they are practically inflicting on it the greatest injury. The will talk loudly of soundness in the faith, and have a keen nose for heresy. They will run eagerly after popular preachers, applaud Protestant speakers at public meetings to the very echo. They are familiar with all the phrases of evangelical religion, and converse fluently about its leading doctrines. To see their faces at public meetings, or in church, you would think them eminently godly. And yet these people in private will sometimes do things of which even some heathen would be ashamed. They are neither truthful, nor straightforward, nor honest, nor manly, nor just, nor good-tempered, nor unselfish, nor merciful, nor humble, nor kind. And is such Christianity as this real? It is not. It is a miserable imposture, a base cheat and caricature."
Such words as these ought to make us all stop and consider our ways. Are our ways consistent with the faith we profess?
Mindful of the purpose of this sydneyanglicanheretics site to expose the descent of the Episcopalian Diocese of Sydney into heresy via heterodoxical belief on the creation of the world, I was struck by Bishop Ryle's early statements: "... You will sometimes see men professing great affection for the pure 'gospel,' while they are practically inflicting on it the greatest injury. They will talk loudly of soundness in the faith ..." Is this not a fair synopsis of the Episcopalian Diocese of Sydney?
A fair criticism of the Diocese would be to say the overwhelming rhetoric both orally and in print coming from the Diocese is that the gospel is Jesus Christ, the Son of God, dying for our sins and being resurrected that we might live. Nothing wrong with that as far as it goes but then cause for criticism kicks in. The Diocese is unfit to explain the nature of who it was who was crucified and resurrected. More precisely, the Diocese will be inconsistent in explaining his nature and thus unable to explain his nature.
Commencing with Archbishop Peter Jensen and the tergiversating doctrine of Moore Theological College on Creation, an influence exists within the Diocese which inhibits an inquirer's capacity to identify Jesus Christ with the Creator. That which is espoused by those sources leads the inquirer to formulate a nature of a Creator who scratched out a creation red with tooth and claw while formulating a nature of Jesus Christ who was meek and caring, healing the sufferings of the helpless and dying for our sins. The two characters are miles apart in nature. The latter is attested in the Bible and is real but the former is alien to the Bible and untrue. But errant influences within the Diocese urge an inquirer to marry the two natures. As such, a great injury has been inflicted on the gospel, on Jesus Christ himself.
Several New Testament passages make it clear that Creation occurred through and by Jesus Christ (eg John 1 and Colossians 1) but I draw attention to Hebrews 1:1-3b:
"God, who at various times and in various ways spoke in time past to the fathers by the prophets, has in these last days spoken to us by His Son, whom He has appointed heir of all things, through whom also He made the worlds; who being the brightness of His glory and the express image of His person ..." (NKJV)
Jesus Christ is the express image of God's person (some translations have nature). If you want an idea of the manner in which God created, you only need look to Jesus Christ. Did the Creator use a slow, death, disease, suffering and dead end riddled process? Look to Jesus Christ and you will see one who wept over suffering; healed suffering and disease with quickness; where there was non-life he made life and did it expediently; he altered the chemical structure of water to turn it into high quality wine - all this and much more with just a thought or a word.
More than that he who has all authority in heaven and on earth demonstrated himself to be the antithesis of "survival of the fittest" by suffering death on the cross so that those who could not, by their own efforts, see and enjoy God.
Further, a day has been appointed, at the coming of the Lord Jesus Christ, when all those who left this world in right relationship with God, will be raised up instantly, though their body long before having been obliterated, and on that day they shall be given a body which never decays. Again, I say, instantly.
All these expressions of will display a nature of Jesus Christ completely in contrast to a nature which is cruel, incompetent and likely to engender a death, disease, suffering and dead-end riddled process of creation. Remember who it was who said:
³ “Blessed are the poor in spirit,
For theirs is the kingdom of heaven.
4 Blessed are those who mourn,
For they shall be comforted.
5 Blessed are the meek,
For they shall inherit the earth.
6 Blessed are those who hunger and thirst for righteousness,
For they shall be filled.
7 Blessed are the merciful,
For they shall obtain mercy.
8 Blessed are the pure in heart,
For they shall see God.
9 Blessed are the peacemakers,
For they shall be called sons of God.
10 Blessed are those who are persecuted for righteousness’ sake,
For theirs is the kingdom of heaven." (Matt. 5:3-10, NKJV)
Is the one who delivers on those promises one who kills and maims to make a world? Is he who is light also darkness? Is he who is life also death?
It is time for those within the Episcopalian Diocese of Sydney who hold to Theistic Evolution and those within its theological seminary who allow Theistic Evolution to be believed within the Diocese, it is time for them to recognize the damage they do to the nature of Jesus Christ and the damage they do to his church.
These of whom I speak declare loudly a faith in Jesus Christ but they corrupt his nature. They defile his office as Creator. They present, in nature, two contrary Sons of God to the world.
I call on these people to forsake their pride and repent of their sin. I appeal to them - is your pride worth more than the souls of those who will be lost to Christ in future years because they are presented with two Sons of God and will end up throwing off both? Come back to the Bible in your belief and trust the one who was there at the creation of the world. Know Jesus Christ as he is revealed there from the beginning, as he appeared Incarnate and as he is upon return.
The deception is exposed. You can no longer thow this issue off as not being a gospel issue. It is a gospel issue because the nature of Jesus Christ is assaulted. Repent!
I ask again, is your pride worth more than the souls of those who will be lost because of the low view of Christ you present to the world?
Sam Drucker
But how goes it beneath the surface, beyond all the bluster?
Recently I read a few words from the late Bishop J.C. Ryle on "Reality." Both Neil Moore and I have previously quoted Bishop Ryle. He still has relevance and I sense he has something to say to all of us who regard ourselves as a) evangelical and, b) having it altogether concerning our faith.
Bishop Ryle said "How much evangelical religion is completely unreal? You will sometimes see men professing great affection for the pure 'gospel,' while they are practically inflicting on it the greatest injury. The will talk loudly of soundness in the faith, and have a keen nose for heresy. They will run eagerly after popular preachers, applaud Protestant speakers at public meetings to the very echo. They are familiar with all the phrases of evangelical religion, and converse fluently about its leading doctrines. To see their faces at public meetings, or in church, you would think them eminently godly. And yet these people in private will sometimes do things of which even some heathen would be ashamed. They are neither truthful, nor straightforward, nor honest, nor manly, nor just, nor good-tempered, nor unselfish, nor merciful, nor humble, nor kind. And is such Christianity as this real? It is not. It is a miserable imposture, a base cheat and caricature."
Such words as these ought to make us all stop and consider our ways. Are our ways consistent with the faith we profess?
Mindful of the purpose of this sydneyanglicanheretics site to expose the descent of the Episcopalian Diocese of Sydney into heresy via heterodoxical belief on the creation of the world, I was struck by Bishop Ryle's early statements: "... You will sometimes see men professing great affection for the pure 'gospel,' while they are practically inflicting on it the greatest injury. They will talk loudly of soundness in the faith ..." Is this not a fair synopsis of the Episcopalian Diocese of Sydney?
A fair criticism of the Diocese would be to say the overwhelming rhetoric both orally and in print coming from the Diocese is that the gospel is Jesus Christ, the Son of God, dying for our sins and being resurrected that we might live. Nothing wrong with that as far as it goes but then cause for criticism kicks in. The Diocese is unfit to explain the nature of who it was who was crucified and resurrected. More precisely, the Diocese will be inconsistent in explaining his nature and thus unable to explain his nature.
Commencing with Archbishop Peter Jensen and the tergiversating doctrine of Moore Theological College on Creation, an influence exists within the Diocese which inhibits an inquirer's capacity to identify Jesus Christ with the Creator. That which is espoused by those sources leads the inquirer to formulate a nature of a Creator who scratched out a creation red with tooth and claw while formulating a nature of Jesus Christ who was meek and caring, healing the sufferings of the helpless and dying for our sins. The two characters are miles apart in nature. The latter is attested in the Bible and is real but the former is alien to the Bible and untrue. But errant influences within the Diocese urge an inquirer to marry the two natures. As such, a great injury has been inflicted on the gospel, on Jesus Christ himself.
Several New Testament passages make it clear that Creation occurred through and by Jesus Christ (eg John 1 and Colossians 1) but I draw attention to Hebrews 1:1-3b:
"God, who at various times and in various ways spoke in time past to the fathers by the prophets, has in these last days spoken to us by His Son, whom He has appointed heir of all things, through whom also He made the worlds; who being the brightness of His glory and the express image of His person ..." (NKJV)
Jesus Christ is the express image of God's person (some translations have nature). If you want an idea of the manner in which God created, you only need look to Jesus Christ. Did the Creator use a slow, death, disease, suffering and dead end riddled process? Look to Jesus Christ and you will see one who wept over suffering; healed suffering and disease with quickness; where there was non-life he made life and did it expediently; he altered the chemical structure of water to turn it into high quality wine - all this and much more with just a thought or a word.
More than that he who has all authority in heaven and on earth demonstrated himself to be the antithesis of "survival of the fittest" by suffering death on the cross so that those who could not, by their own efforts, see and enjoy God.
Further, a day has been appointed, at the coming of the Lord Jesus Christ, when all those who left this world in right relationship with God, will be raised up instantly, though their body long before having been obliterated, and on that day they shall be given a body which never decays. Again, I say, instantly.
All these expressions of will display a nature of Jesus Christ completely in contrast to a nature which is cruel, incompetent and likely to engender a death, disease, suffering and dead-end riddled process of creation. Remember who it was who said:
³ “Blessed are the poor in spirit,
For theirs is the kingdom of heaven.
4 Blessed are those who mourn,
For they shall be comforted.
5 Blessed are the meek,
For they shall inherit the earth.
6 Blessed are those who hunger and thirst for righteousness,
For they shall be filled.
7 Blessed are the merciful,
For they shall obtain mercy.
8 Blessed are the pure in heart,
For they shall see God.
9 Blessed are the peacemakers,
For they shall be called sons of God.
10 Blessed are those who are persecuted for righteousness’ sake,
For theirs is the kingdom of heaven." (Matt. 5:3-10, NKJV)
Is the one who delivers on those promises one who kills and maims to make a world? Is he who is light also darkness? Is he who is life also death?
It is time for those within the Episcopalian Diocese of Sydney who hold to Theistic Evolution and those within its theological seminary who allow Theistic Evolution to be believed within the Diocese, it is time for them to recognize the damage they do to the nature of Jesus Christ and the damage they do to his church.
These of whom I speak declare loudly a faith in Jesus Christ but they corrupt his nature. They defile his office as Creator. They present, in nature, two contrary Sons of God to the world.
I call on these people to forsake their pride and repent of their sin. I appeal to them - is your pride worth more than the souls of those who will be lost to Christ in future years because they are presented with two Sons of God and will end up throwing off both? Come back to the Bible in your belief and trust the one who was there at the creation of the world. Know Jesus Christ as he is revealed there from the beginning, as he appeared Incarnate and as he is upon return.
The deception is exposed. You can no longer thow this issue off as not being a gospel issue. It is a gospel issue because the nature of Jesus Christ is assaulted. Repent!
I ask again, is your pride worth more than the souls of those who will be lost because of the low view of Christ you present to the world?
Sam Drucker
Thursday, December 31, 2009
Looking back on Connect '09
So 09, and its 'connect' draws to a close.
Let's see: what has been achieved?
It is time for the 'told you sos' from all and sundry.
Now, I hope that people have repented at a greater rate than without Connecting '09, but I haven't seen much evidence.
I hope that churches are now connecting to their communities more than they did. But where I live, I don't see it...same old same old. But I hope that I'm wrong, and not seeing much that is happening.
I guess the test is; what are the headlines now saying about the Anglican church...let me check recent papers.
Here we are; in the Herald's business section a few days ago; the Anglican Diocese of Sydney memorialised as the crowd that gambled over a hundred million...and lost! That's the connection: the SAD connected with debt; foolishness; arguably greed; and connected with trust in mammon over God! Great record Peter. In politics even the NSW ALP would resign government under such a performance, what do archbishops do?
I guess its a case of 'do it again in two thousand and ten!'
Let's see: what has been achieved?
It is time for the 'told you sos' from all and sundry.
Now, I hope that people have repented at a greater rate than without Connecting '09, but I haven't seen much evidence.
I hope that churches are now connecting to their communities more than they did. But where I live, I don't see it...same old same old. But I hope that I'm wrong, and not seeing much that is happening.
I guess the test is; what are the headlines now saying about the Anglican church...let me check recent papers.
Here we are; in the Herald's business section a few days ago; the Anglican Diocese of Sydney memorialised as the crowd that gambled over a hundred million...and lost! That's the connection: the SAD connected with debt; foolishness; arguably greed; and connected with trust in mammon over God! Great record Peter. In politics even the NSW ALP would resign government under such a performance, what do archbishops do?
I guess its a case of 'do it again in two thousand and ten!'
Thursday, December 24, 2009
Sydney Anglicans Airing Ignorance to the World
As we approach Christmas 2009 it seemed reasonable for The Sydney Daily Telegraph to seek a statement from religious leaders in which they were to testify to the existence of God.
In a preview of this exercise The Daily Telegraph journalist said both the Roman Catholic Cardinal Pell and Sydney Archbishop Peter Jensen believed in Theistic Evolution.
However, when it came time for Archbishop Jensen's statement to appear on 23 December 2009 there was no mention of Theistic Evolution. Perhaps it is something he prefers to conceal from general understanding or maybe it was edited out by newspaper.
One thing published that I found quite disturbing was "Furthermore, he [God] delights in his creation. He calls it very good."
How could the former Principal of Moore Theological College and now Archbishop of Sydney make such a faulty statement. Yes, God did say His creation was very good but that was the creation that is no more. That utterance of God was before His creation rebelled against Him, thus introducing death, suffering and continued acts of rebellion against Him. It was also before sin had become so great that God destroyed that world with a global flood.
Nowhere in Scripture does God call post Fall and Flood creation "very good". Even after the Flood, sin and death has continued unabated. You just can't call that creation "very good". Indeed when someone spoke to the Lord Jesus with the opening "Good teacher" our Lord corrected the man with the words "No man is good but God alone". Now, you just cannot deduce from that reply that a creation populated by men who are not "good", is a "very good" creation.
Archbishop Jensen went on to say "He [God] can be relied upon to speak the truth, to always do what is right, to be consistent."
Well now Archbishop, why don't you believe that God was speaking the truth when he said "for in six days I created the heavens, the earth, the sea and all that is in them" (Exodus 20:11). There is no possible way in which such a statement of God accommodates a Theistic Evolution view of creation. At this point then, being a Theistic Evolutionist, the Archbishop must believe that God is not speaking the truth or, for that matter, nor is God being consistent. But, God is being consistent here with his record of creation in Genesis 1 and in Exodus 31:17.
One can only stand back and wonder what a tangled web compromisers spin for themselves when they start pushing their ideas onto the clear Word of God.
Surely Archbishop Jensen stands on shifting sand and is vulnerable to Atheist argument when he mishandles Scripture as he does in his statement to The Daily Telegraph.
Neil
In a preview of this exercise The Daily Telegraph journalist said both the Roman Catholic Cardinal Pell and Sydney Archbishop Peter Jensen believed in Theistic Evolution.
However, when it came time for Archbishop Jensen's statement to appear on 23 December 2009 there was no mention of Theistic Evolution. Perhaps it is something he prefers to conceal from general understanding or maybe it was edited out by newspaper.
One thing published that I found quite disturbing was "Furthermore, he [God] delights in his creation. He calls it very good."
How could the former Principal of Moore Theological College and now Archbishop of Sydney make such a faulty statement. Yes, God did say His creation was very good but that was the creation that is no more. That utterance of God was before His creation rebelled against Him, thus introducing death, suffering and continued acts of rebellion against Him. It was also before sin had become so great that God destroyed that world with a global flood.
Nowhere in Scripture does God call post Fall and Flood creation "very good". Even after the Flood, sin and death has continued unabated. You just can't call that creation "very good". Indeed when someone spoke to the Lord Jesus with the opening "Good teacher" our Lord corrected the man with the words "No man is good but God alone". Now, you just cannot deduce from that reply that a creation populated by men who are not "good", is a "very good" creation.
Archbishop Jensen went on to say "He [God] can be relied upon to speak the truth, to always do what is right, to be consistent."
Well now Archbishop, why don't you believe that God was speaking the truth when he said "for in six days I created the heavens, the earth, the sea and all that is in them" (Exodus 20:11). There is no possible way in which such a statement of God accommodates a Theistic Evolution view of creation. At this point then, being a Theistic Evolutionist, the Archbishop must believe that God is not speaking the truth or, for that matter, nor is God being consistent. But, God is being consistent here with his record of creation in Genesis 1 and in Exodus 31:17.
One can only stand back and wonder what a tangled web compromisers spin for themselves when they start pushing their ideas onto the clear Word of God.
Surely Archbishop Jensen stands on shifting sand and is vulnerable to Atheist argument when he mishandles Scripture as he does in his statement to The Daily Telegraph.
Neil
Monday, October 26, 2009
Sydney Archbishop Jensen Avoids Conviction
The Sydney Episcopalian Diocese is holding its Annual Synod and I was interested in some comments from Archbishop Peter Jensen in his Presidential Address. An audio version of it can be downloaded from the Diocesan website.
It is common knowledge that the Diocese has shed about $100M of the value of its investments. The Archbishop referred to this in his Presidential Address and indicated he has reflected for a while on why it happened. Was it a judgment from God or a testing from God?
The Archbishop seems to have come down on the side of the latter because nowhere in his address does he call for repentance from a known sin. He is obviously ignorant of the singular and loud charge against the Diocese emanating from the Sydney Anglican Heretics blogspot or he rejects our charge. Instead, Archbishop Jensen defers to the experience of a Bible study involving leaders of the Diocese and their wives some months back where Deut. 11 was considered with Moses offer to Israel at the verge of the Promised Land of "blessing or curse" according to the nation's obedience or rejection of the commands of God. Apparently conversation at the Bible study quickly turned to innocent Joseph being punished with imprisonment for rejecting an adulterous relationship with Potiphar's wife and then mention was made of innocent Jesus Christ being punished for sins he did not commit.
Notice what happened in that Bible study to encourage the Archbishop that the Diocese under his leadership was not under judgment from God? Participants immediately shook off any question of guilt and looked to the suffering of innocents for explanation of the plight of the Diocese. It is, in effect, a repeat of "This is the temple of the LORD, the temple of the LORD, the temple of the LORD " cries of Judah when rejecting any notion they were out of step with the word of God - all the while doing that very thing (Jer. 7:4).
Archbishop Jensen gives the game away as to his readiness to reject the word of God when he makes the following statement about climate change:
"Every time the weather behaves erratically, we are reminded of climate change and its likely consequences. The authoritative scientific consensus to the fact of change is so strong that it would be folly to ignore it."
The opinion of a noisy and, seemingly, surrounding scientific view is enough to influence the Archbishop as to what he and the Diocese should think about climate change. In other places and in other times Archbishop Jensen has made it clear the same is true for the question of origins even though that opinion runs up against the express word of God. However, in his address to Synod Archbishop Jensen somewhat schizophrenically says: "It would not be right, for example simply to express our own prejudices and guesses and to confuse them with the word of God" and "Our access to the mind of the Lord is through his word and we must look there for our answers, not to speculation." While the Archbishop is not discussing the question of origins here he is, nevertheless, pointing to the word of God for direction in understanding the difficulties facing the Diocese. He goes on to say "Their [Israel's] enjoyment of the fruit of the land depended on their continual obedience to the word of God."
That latter statement we can agree with. If only the Archbishop would back up the rhetoric with obedience.
Further comment warranting mention is "Our reading of God’s word, our preaching, prayers, singing, and fellowship, including our sacramental fellowship, must be honoring to God and edifying to his people." How is it honoring to God to massage, twist, smother or reject God's word when it clearly indicates a creative process and duration in stark contrast to the current world view synthesized by Archbishop Jensen to allow some involvement of God? How is such a 'dog's breakfast' edifying to the people of God?
Archbishop Jensen goes on to ask a question and proffer an answer as follows:
"Where will we be fifty years from now? We are up against a large challenge and there is no guarantee whatever that we will survive except as a small but wealthy cult. The cultural mood is not flowing with us, and immigrant numbers are also not in our favor. I realize that for many, Pentecostal Christianity is the answer and they will extol its attractions and its capacity to attract some of the very people who are missing from our churches. My problem with that suggestion is in the nature of Pentecostalism. I judge that its love-affair with modern culture will leave it insufficiently tied to historic Christianity, and that there is a chance that it will not be recognizably Christian in fifty years. That is a harsh judgment and I hope that I am wrong; but there are already signs of diversion from the fundamentals.
I do not doubt, therefore, that our commitment to conservative theology and to a high view of scripture is entirely correct. Only this will carry Christianity forward in a culture such as Australia in the next fifty years."
The stone thown at Pentecostal Christianity is thrown from within a glass house. While Pentecostal Christianity does have aspects of a "love-affair with modern culture" it is not as complete as Archbishop Jensen would have us believe. It is my observation that, on the subject of origins there is, in Pentecostalism, a broad and healthy adherence to the word of God. In contrast, the Sydney Episcopalian Diocese is far more inclined to have its own "love-affair with modern culture" which "will leave it insufficiently tied to historic Christianity, and that there is a chance that it will not be recognizably Christian in fifty years."
Finally, Archbishop Jensen urges "a commitment both to biblical theology and purity of doctrine, also to our neighbours." He cites four things to be done to achieve this. It is the first of these four things that catches in our throat like rancid meat.
He says: "First we must continue to cherish and support our College. But this is as long as, and only as long as, it embraces the heart of the theology of the Bible as expressed in the English Reformation. I wish you could all see the powerful effect which Moore College is having all around Australia and the world. Its teaching is the guardian of our theology and hence our life as a network of churches. More than that, the College has recognized as never before its duty to contend in the world of ideas, to speak for Christ and his word in the sphere of academic theology, of secular humanism and of world religion."
Whew! What can you say in dealing with those points one by one? I have to be brief.
1) The Diocese must immediately spurn or reform Moore College because the College has rejected Reformation principle of "Sola Scriptura" on origins and has departed from Luther and Calvin on origins.
2) The asserted "powerful effect" Moore College is having around all around the world on origins will only be destructive.
3) In its present doctrinal position on origins Moore College is as much a guardian of Diocesan theology as King Zedekiah was guardian of the future of Judah (Jer. 52)
4) Moore College does not contend with but absorbs academic theology, secular humanism and world religion on the subject of origins.
Throughout the history of pre-exile Israel and Judah there was a recurring theme of practicing ritual of belief in the word of God while often synchretising with the beliefs of the nations around them. Moses had warned against this before they entered the Promised Land. God sent prophets in warning once synchretism had commenced. Israel and Judah scorned the prophets because they believed they were right with God. As such, the word of God was treated with disdain.
The Archbishop of Sydney and the Episcopalian Diocese of Sydney must learn from the error of Israel and Judah. Cast off the notion that you are innocent. Examine your behaviour. See where you have departed from the way. Repent and believe in the word of God otherwise doom awaits.
It is not just that the word of God is cast down in this sin. It is the unmistakable corrupting of the attributes of God revealed in the Person of Jesus Christ that offends most. One only need look upon Jesus Christ in all he said and all he did to see that Theistic Evolution removes one so remotely from our Lord.
Surely our Lord will, in no wise, endure indefinitely an offence like the threefold corrupted representation of his Person by his people as occurred with the golden calf at the base of Sinai, at Bethel and at Dan.
Sam Drucker
It is common knowledge that the Diocese has shed about $100M of the value of its investments. The Archbishop referred to this in his Presidential Address and indicated he has reflected for a while on why it happened. Was it a judgment from God or a testing from God?
The Archbishop seems to have come down on the side of the latter because nowhere in his address does he call for repentance from a known sin. He is obviously ignorant of the singular and loud charge against the Diocese emanating from the Sydney Anglican Heretics blogspot or he rejects our charge. Instead, Archbishop Jensen defers to the experience of a Bible study involving leaders of the Diocese and their wives some months back where Deut. 11 was considered with Moses offer to Israel at the verge of the Promised Land of "blessing or curse" according to the nation's obedience or rejection of the commands of God. Apparently conversation at the Bible study quickly turned to innocent Joseph being punished with imprisonment for rejecting an adulterous relationship with Potiphar's wife and then mention was made of innocent Jesus Christ being punished for sins he did not commit.
Notice what happened in that Bible study to encourage the Archbishop that the Diocese under his leadership was not under judgment from God? Participants immediately shook off any question of guilt and looked to the suffering of innocents for explanation of the plight of the Diocese. It is, in effect, a repeat of "This is the temple of the LORD, the temple of the LORD, the temple of the LORD " cries of Judah when rejecting any notion they were out of step with the word of God - all the while doing that very thing (Jer. 7:4).
Archbishop Jensen gives the game away as to his readiness to reject the word of God when he makes the following statement about climate change:
"Every time the weather behaves erratically, we are reminded of climate change and its likely consequences. The authoritative scientific consensus to the fact of change is so strong that it would be folly to ignore it."
The opinion of a noisy and, seemingly, surrounding scientific view is enough to influence the Archbishop as to what he and the Diocese should think about climate change. In other places and in other times Archbishop Jensen has made it clear the same is true for the question of origins even though that opinion runs up against the express word of God. However, in his address to Synod Archbishop Jensen somewhat schizophrenically says: "It would not be right, for example simply to express our own prejudices and guesses and to confuse them with the word of God" and "Our access to the mind of the Lord is through his word and we must look there for our answers, not to speculation." While the Archbishop is not discussing the question of origins here he is, nevertheless, pointing to the word of God for direction in understanding the difficulties facing the Diocese. He goes on to say "Their [Israel's] enjoyment of the fruit of the land depended on their continual obedience to the word of God."
That latter statement we can agree with. If only the Archbishop would back up the rhetoric with obedience.
Further comment warranting mention is "Our reading of God’s word, our preaching, prayers, singing, and fellowship, including our sacramental fellowship, must be honoring to God and edifying to his people." How is it honoring to God to massage, twist, smother or reject God's word when it clearly indicates a creative process and duration in stark contrast to the current world view synthesized by Archbishop Jensen to allow some involvement of God? How is such a 'dog's breakfast' edifying to the people of God?
Archbishop Jensen goes on to ask a question and proffer an answer as follows:
"Where will we be fifty years from now? We are up against a large challenge and there is no guarantee whatever that we will survive except as a small but wealthy cult. The cultural mood is not flowing with us, and immigrant numbers are also not in our favor. I realize that for many, Pentecostal Christianity is the answer and they will extol its attractions and its capacity to attract some of the very people who are missing from our churches. My problem with that suggestion is in the nature of Pentecostalism. I judge that its love-affair with modern culture will leave it insufficiently tied to historic Christianity, and that there is a chance that it will not be recognizably Christian in fifty years. That is a harsh judgment and I hope that I am wrong; but there are already signs of diversion from the fundamentals.
I do not doubt, therefore, that our commitment to conservative theology and to a high view of scripture is entirely correct. Only this will carry Christianity forward in a culture such as Australia in the next fifty years."
The stone thown at Pentecostal Christianity is thrown from within a glass house. While Pentecostal Christianity does have aspects of a "love-affair with modern culture" it is not as complete as Archbishop Jensen would have us believe. It is my observation that, on the subject of origins there is, in Pentecostalism, a broad and healthy adherence to the word of God. In contrast, the Sydney Episcopalian Diocese is far more inclined to have its own "love-affair with modern culture" which "will leave it insufficiently tied to historic Christianity, and that there is a chance that it will not be recognizably Christian in fifty years."
Finally, Archbishop Jensen urges "a commitment both to biblical theology and purity of doctrine, also to our neighbours." He cites four things to be done to achieve this. It is the first of these four things that catches in our throat like rancid meat.
He says: "First we must continue to cherish and support our College. But this is as long as, and only as long as, it embraces the heart of the theology of the Bible as expressed in the English Reformation. I wish you could all see the powerful effect which Moore College is having all around Australia and the world. Its teaching is the guardian of our theology and hence our life as a network of churches. More than that, the College has recognized as never before its duty to contend in the world of ideas, to speak for Christ and his word in the sphere of academic theology, of secular humanism and of world religion."
Whew! What can you say in dealing with those points one by one? I have to be brief.
1) The Diocese must immediately spurn or reform Moore College because the College has rejected Reformation principle of "Sola Scriptura" on origins and has departed from Luther and Calvin on origins.
2) The asserted "powerful effect" Moore College is having around all around the world on origins will only be destructive.
3) In its present doctrinal position on origins Moore College is as much a guardian of Diocesan theology as King Zedekiah was guardian of the future of Judah (Jer. 52)
4) Moore College does not contend with but absorbs academic theology, secular humanism and world religion on the subject of origins.
Throughout the history of pre-exile Israel and Judah there was a recurring theme of practicing ritual of belief in the word of God while often synchretising with the beliefs of the nations around them. Moses had warned against this before they entered the Promised Land. God sent prophets in warning once synchretism had commenced. Israel and Judah scorned the prophets because they believed they were right with God. As such, the word of God was treated with disdain.
The Archbishop of Sydney and the Episcopalian Diocese of Sydney must learn from the error of Israel and Judah. Cast off the notion that you are innocent. Examine your behaviour. See where you have departed from the way. Repent and believe in the word of God otherwise doom awaits.
It is not just that the word of God is cast down in this sin. It is the unmistakable corrupting of the attributes of God revealed in the Person of Jesus Christ that offends most. One only need look upon Jesus Christ in all he said and all he did to see that Theistic Evolution removes one so remotely from our Lord.
Surely our Lord will, in no wise, endure indefinitely an offence like the threefold corrupted representation of his Person by his people as occurred with the golden calf at the base of Sinai, at Bethel and at Dan.
Sam Drucker
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
