[quote author="Dani Treweek"]I missed it last night- was too busy watching .... *looks around cautiously* Australian Idol *runs for cover* which I taped earlier in the evening (Yes. I’m out of the closet. I actually like Australian Idol… well apart from the name of the show [which incidentally makes a good talking point with Scripture Kids] and all the rubbish between the actual performances… which really only leaves me liking the performances themselves...).
Repent! Repent!
{ says the man who watched it until Paulini got voted out: bah! She was the best! :( }
I too missed the interview [I was coming home from the city after watching Raising Victor Vargas - not A.I.!], but early this morning I offered a small offering of my 7 cents to the ABC over a candle to give thanks and read the transcript.
I agree with all here that it was a good interview, and I am glad that Tony does such a good job in all his interviews: in giving his interviewees time and the means to respond. I am unsure if he was trying to “catch ++Jensen out” or simply gain a response from him.
Back to the original issue and its offspring, I too have oftened wondered why as soon as Jeffrey John [who is quite a good author BTW: I have a book of his on the Miracles] declined the position, all went quiet: perhaps as I generally do not have much time to read “Christian” magazines and I rely on the general news - for them: no big controversy, no more story.
In relation to flying bishops [why do I have pictures of Sally Field in my mind??? ;-)] and alternate oversight, like Chris B I’d hate to lose the tension [wonderfully put!] we have. Matt, you asked what reasons could one give for not wanting an “evangelical” Bishop [for want of a better word]: Chris B summed up my thoughts. I guess the crux of the matter would come down to what he allowed.
At our parish, we have permission from the Archbishop to use
A Prayer Book for Australia 1995 [does this mean other Anglican parishes use AAPB?], as well as incense on “major” festivals. We accept this and do not seek to rock the boat. If we had a Bishop who refused us permission, and alternate oversight was a possibility, who knows!?!? I’d hope we could work it through. [Though with a lax standard of Prayer Book usage in my experience, I wonder why [if] someone would truly outlaw APBA in a diocese; if other parishes can “make it up” as they go along, surely there is no problem in using an authorised prayer book.]
Repent! Repent!
{ says the man who watched it until Paulini got voted out: bah! She was the best! :( }
That was rort. Just like last night’s dramatic little exit. Alas we can but pin our hopes on the unlikely possibility that the Australian public might actually vote for the musician (who I actually think is the best of the bunch) rather than the good looking, country guy with the Jimmy Barnes voice and working class background (who to his credit has a lot of talent).
Ahhh. But I digress into areas that have already been much discussed in our office today. So back onto the topic at hand…
Actually… I have nothing to say. Excuse me whilst I go and watch my taped episode of Alias ;) (No. I’m not joking).
[quote author="Dani Treweek"]I missed it last night- was too busy watching .... *looks around cautiously* Australian Idol *runs for cover* which I taped earlier in the evening (Yes. I’m out of the closet. I actually like Australian Idol… well apart from the name of the show [which incidentally makes a good talking point with Scripture Kids] and all the rubbish between the actual performances… which really only leaves me liking the performances themselves...).
Actually, even Angela Catterns on 702 ABC radio was talking about Australian Idol yesterday morning. And it also now seems to occupy a regular spot in the leading headlines on the SMH website. Perhaps you don’t need to be so embarrassed Dani - it appears the show has entered the realm of high culture! (I must confess, I’ve seen the last few episodes too!!)
On a more serious note, there was another thing I meant to point out about Lateline on Monday night .... What I thought was particularly disturbing was the report that preceded the Peter Jensen interview. It was a report on the consecration of Gene Robinson earlier that day in New Hampshire and it showed people outside the venue holding placards saying, amonst other things, “God Hates Fags” (it appears this site is automatically censoring the last word of that quote, but you can probably have a guess at the derogatory word that was used!). It is that kind of outrageous behaviour that only serves to strengthen the stereotype that people hold of evangelicals and their views on this issue. There are appropriate ways to voice dissent at the decision in New Hampshire, and that it is not one of them!
[quote author="Andrew Miers"]
.. showed people outside the venue holding placards saying, amonst other things, “God Hates ****” ... It is that kind of outrageous behaviour that only serves to strengthen the stereotype that people hold of evangelicals and their views on this issue. There are appropriate ways to voice dissent at the decision in New Hampshire, and that it is not one of them!
In the MTV generation, which is more likely to stick in people’s minds: Peter Jensen’s informed, sensible critique of the actions and the possible consequences; or the redneck with the placard? The take home message is 3 words, and it’s not talking about cigarettes :(
I suspect that many, many Christians think that God hates this, that and the other type of person. It is all too easy to take a legal-system version of the gospel (enshrined in the idea of justification and the atonement as being legal transactions by which God’s hatred of sinners is poured out on the innocent Lamb) and turn it into that sort of distorted moral outrage. There is so much of Christendom (of all varieties - not just roman catholics, but evangelicals and others as well) where the theology that comes across is not based entirely in the love and grace of God. So many people who profess Christ nonetheless still think that we have to be good to be accepted by God. They think of “justification” as being merely a legal transaction in which a God who hates the world pours out His wrath on Jesus so that anyone who believes in Him is let off the hook for a while, and is given a chance to shape up. But they also seem to think that many people (including ******) blow that chance and go to hell anyway.
This issue actually seems to me to bring together a whole range of threads that have come along on these forums recently, from the Hebrews 6 discussion, through to the Spong controversy. On the latter, while I disagree with almost all of what Spong teaches, I think I understand why he teaches the things he does. He thinks that THIS is what evangelicals are teaching about salvation. This is why he objects to the idea of the atonement, as he understands it to be taught by “conservatives”. If that is a correct understanding of his perspective, then I have some sympathy with him. I hope he has misunderstood evangelicals, but I suspect that a lot of people who go by that name do actually present the gospel in this fashion. They might think that they are saying God loves mankind, but they come across as saying that Jesus died because of God’s wrath, rather than Jesus dying because “God so loved the world ... “ (John 3:16 of course).
In this connection, I note that when Paul wrote to the Romans about God’s wrath being revealed against unrighteousness, he speaks of God giving people over to the consequences of their lifestyle choices. Ultimately this results in them choosing to be left out of eternal life in fellowshio with the Triune God. However, Jesus’ death is not the revelation of God’s wrath - rather, His death is the revelation of God’s love and mercy.
We need to be sure that this is what we speak and how we live. By all means, we must uphold high moral standards (in all areas of course), but in doing so let’s make sure that we aren’t conveying to the world the idea that all they have to do is change their morality and God will accept them. Or worse still, that if they don’t change God hates them. God hates sin, but absolutely loves sinners.
[quote author="Warren Bird"]We need to be sure that this is what we speak and how we live. By all means, we must uphold high moral standards (in all areas of course), but in doing so let’s make sure that we aren’t conveying to the world the idea that all they have to do is change their morality and God will accept them. Or worse still, that if they don’t change God hates them. God hates sin, but absolutely loves sinners.
Now that the Archbishop has tried for months to suggest that there will be a split in the Anglican communion, I wonder how he feels that the Largest conservitative Anglican communion in the world is still in communion and hasnt split?
Where does that place Syndey?
Hi Mainstream, I’m afraid I need you to clarify your question some more.
1. Actually, the media has suggested there will be a split, Archbishop Jensen has persistently rejected this saying he thinks there will be a loosening of ties. Of course, it’s all crystal ball gazing anyway.
2. I have no idea what you mean by the ‘largest conservative Anglican communion in the world’ - there is only one Anglican communion in the world, (so far, unless you count ACiNW!)
3. Why would it leave Sydney anywhere in particular?
In this connection, I note that when Paul wrote to the Romans about God’s wrath being revealed against unrighteousness, he speaks of God giving people over to the consequences of their lifestyle choices. Ultimately this results in them choosing to be left out of eternal life in fellowshio with the Triune God. However, Jesus’ death is not the revelation of God’s wrath - rather, His death is the revelation of God’s love and mercy.
We need to be sure that this is what we speak and how we live. By all means, we must uphold high moral standards (in all areas of course), but in doing so let’s make sure that we aren’t conveying to the world the idea that all they have to do is change their morality and God will accept them. Or worse still, that if they don’t change God hates them. God hates sin, but absolutely loves sinners.
[quote author="Warren"]Or worse still, that if they don’t change God hates them. God hates sin, but absolutely loves sinners
Theologically speaking is this correct?
I’m not saying that I don’t think it is… I’m just not sure. I have lots of questions about it.
Such as
- Do we make a differentiation between ‘sin’ and ‘sinner’ that the Bible doesn’t?
- On what basis did God hate Esau? Wasn’t it because he was a sinner (and Jacob was loved, though also a sinner, because he was a receipient of God’s mercy)?
- If acceptance by God (through Christ) is being brought back into a loving relationship with him them does that mean that being outside that relationship mean we are devoid of his love?
- Is there a difference between our value and worth to God (because we are made in His image and created by Him) and being ‘loved’ by God?
Also
[quote author="Warren"]However, Jesus’ death is not the revelation of God’s wrath - rather, His death is the revelation of God’s love and mercy
True that Jesus is God’s revelation of love and mercy- but the revelation of His wrath is the counter side of the coin (revealed as far back as Genesis 3). When Jesus died on the cross God’s mercy was brought to fruition. But at the same time Jesus died because we stood condemned by God, objects of His wrath. If we weren’t then there was no reason for Jesus to come and to die and to rise again. But because, as you said Warren, God ‘loved the world’ in His mercy Christ did come, and die and rise again.
And so whilst the cross is a picture of immense love and mercy it is also a stark reminder of the consequences of not repenting and being in a relationship with God through Christ. God’s righteous anger and wrath are as much a part of Him as his love and mercy.
I’m all for making sure we tell people (through our words and our actions) that Christianity is not simply a code of morality, or that by becoming more moral people can be accepted by God. Don’t get me wrong on that one! But the flip side is that the consequences of our sinfulness are massive and people need to be aware of it. In Is 59 for example God hides his face from sinners and does not even hear them because of their inquities! I think we need to walk the fine line between conveying God’s amazing love and mercy in Christ (with humility, joy, patience and respect) without compromising the fact that the sin in people’s lives (as a result of their turning their back on God) is a reality with consequences bigger than they may possibly imagine.
What are everyone elses thoughts?
[quote author="Isaiah 59:12-14"]
For our transgressions are multiplied before you,
and our sins testify against us;
for our transgressions are with us,
and we know our iniquities:
transgressing, and denying the LORD,
and turning back from following our God,
speaking oppression and revolt,
conceiving and uttering from the heart lying words.
Hey, Luke. How about making this issue (about God’s love) a separate thread, rather than it getting lost on the end of this one which is really about a specific issue?
Just a couple of quick thoughts, on Dani’s questions.
First, the one about Esau.
Yes, it is true that the Bible says that God “hated” Esau. There is, however, a specific context, a particular set of circumstances surrounding the reference in Malachi to God hating “Esau”, but loving “Jacob”. I don’t believe you can generalise from that specific context to a broader statement such as “God hates sinners”.
I can find no other references in the Bible to God hating sinners. I can find lots of reference to Him hating evil deeds and calling on us also to hate evil deeds. I take it that what this means is that God hates evil so much that He sent His Son to conquer it for us.
Let me put it another way. The fact that the gospel of Jesus goes out to all the world, not being confined to one race of covenant people, means that God no longer “hates” Esau and loves Jacob, but that He so loves the whole world that He sent His Son to save it from the evil in which it is ensnared. We live in the era of the new covenant, but Malachi was writing to an old covenant situation.
On one of Dani’s other questions about the distinction between “sin” and “sinners”, I do believe this is Biblical. Note that while we are called on to hate evil and cling to good, we are also called upon to pray for blessing on those who are our enemies and to forgive as we have been forgiven. In other words, we are commanded to make a distinction between the sin and the person who commits it. These behaviours are commanded in order that Christians are people who reflect the character of Christ. Such attitudes are, of course, attitudes of love. We are, in short, called on to love sinners (like God does), but hate the sins that they commit (like God does). Let’s also insert “we” into that last sentence and maybe we can start to understand the profundity of this idea. God loves a sinner like me, even while hating the sins that I commit.
Because “the world” chooses to live under sin, it stands condemned. All who end this life still rejecting God’s love and salvation in Christ will spend eternity with the consequences of that choice - they will suffer the righteous judgment of God (or His “wrath"). As Jesus said, He didn’t come to condemn the world, because it already is condemned. Rather, He came because God’s love drives Him to ‘seek and save the lost’. Therefore, as many as believe in Him will not perish, but have eternal life. I can honestly say to all non-believers that God loves them and desires not their death, but that they turn from their current situation and find life (Ezekiel 33:11).
[quote author="Warren Bird"]Yes, it is true that the Bible says that God “hated” Esau. There is, however, a specific context, a particular set of circumstances surrounding the reference in Malachi to God hating “Esau”, but loving “Jacob”. I don’t believe you can generalise from that specific context to a broader statement such as “God hates sinners”.
I’ve been looking at Malachi recently, and Warren is right in saying that it exists in a specific context. Everything that happens in Malachi happens in the context of covenant. And the first chapter is also in the context of covenant.
Judah is accusing God of not loving them. At this point, you expect God to answer like he does every other time. Like say, Joshua 24:16-18. How does God love us? By bringing us out of Egypt. Why did God bring them out of egypt? Becuase of the covenant with Abraham.
This time, God dosen’t point them to the Egypt, but to Edom. Edom has also had a covenant with God, but it hasn’t been a covenant of Blessing. Edom has also been close to God, but they have been close to his curses. This was not because they were bad, indeed the whole point is that there was nothing Israel did to earn their place in the covenant. Similarly there was nothing Edom did to earn God’s hatred.
there’s also some conjecture as to whether God “hated” edom or just didn’t love them. I really don’t think it matters, just ask edom. Except you can’t because they were completely wiped out. If that’s God just not loving someone, woe betide anyone who really annoys him :) No matter what Edom does God is against it. “They may build, but I will demolish. They will be called the Wicked Land, a people always under the wrath of the LORD.”
How does this relate to the NT? You have to map over the ideas of covenant. the NT Israel becomes God’s Children (the Church). God saves the church from slavery, brings it out from the nations to be a people holy to himself.
But Malachi is written to a Judah that has flagrantly broken the covenant, and in Chapter 1 he is subtly reminding them that covenants have 2 sides. If you are inside the bounds of the covenant, then you can be assured of the promised blessings. Live outside the covenant, however, and you will find that God is as faithful in judgement as he is in blessing.
Given that, the NT equivalent of Edom are those who are outside God’s new covenant in Jesus. These are the people who enter into the wide entrance (Matt 7:13).
The message from Malachi is therefore that God loves those who are in covenant relationship with him, but hates those who are not. This dosen’t mean that God loves/hates sinners. Rather it means that God hates sin, and loves sinners who trust in Jesus for their salvation but hates sinners who trust in their own strength. Everyone is a sinner, it just depends on which camp you are in.
I would also argue that the same qualification about God’s"hatred" being a mere absence of love when applied to the new covenant is equally pointless. Whether you call it hate or the “absense of love”, it amounts to the same thing:
[quote author="1 Timothy 1:9"] They will be punished with everlasting destruction and shut out from the presence of the Lord and from the majesty of his power 10 on the day he comes to be glorified in his holy people and to be marveled at among all those who have believed.
On one of Dani’s other questions about the distinction between “sin” and “sinners”, I do believe this is Biblical. Note that while we are called on to hate evil and cling to good, we are also called upon to pray for blessing on those who are our enemies and to forgive as we have been forgiven. In other words, we are commanded to make a distinction between the sin and the person who commits it.
I don’t see how that makes your point, Warren. In fact, the opposite. We are told to forgive sinners, not sins in the abstract. It’s the sinner who hurts you - who should fittingly receive your anger - that we engage in love. Sin & sinner brought together.
As also, I believe, in Jude 25.
One reason I think we have this discussion is because our world considers justice impartial. Judges, juries etc are not to be part of any dispute to be able to participate in the judicial process. Sin is not like this, nor is God. Rebellion is a personal attack upon and affront to God. Justice - even justice of judgement - is also personal.
Perhaps also ‘hate’ is too loaded a word for us, carrying connotations of irrational animosity. The Bible uses it for its power, I think. Insofar as it is the word we are using I think the saying should be as follows: God hates the sinner and God loves the sinner.
The opinions expressed in this forum belong to the individual posting the message and may not represent the view of the Sydney Diocese of the Anglican Church. Click here to read the Posting Policy.
Everyone is welcome on our forums, but please keep comments on-topic and civil. Any flaming or general nastiness will be deleted. No unsolicited advertising is allowed. All comments, suggestions, bug reports, etc. related to the forums should be directed to Robert Moller. Click here to read our complete Posting Policy.
Get the latest Sydney stories, Culture and Indepth on your mobile device. Visit sydang.mobi
