/karen/

Disqus comments

Other comments

Jesus cautioned us about reframing natural disasters to suit our religious bias.

See Luke 13…

1Now there were some present at that time who told Jesus about the Galileans whose blood Pilate had mixed with their sacrifices. 2Jesus answered, “Do you think that these Galileans were worse sinners than all the other Galileans because they suffered this way? 3I tell you, no! But unless you repent, you too will all perish. 4Or those eighteen who died when the tower in Siloam fell on them - do you think they were more guilty than all the others living in Jerusalem? 5I tell you, no! But unless you repent, you too will all perish.”

I would concur with Martin’s thoughts on Hadyn’s comments. The reason that the UK, Argentina and the Philippines weren’t hit is because they’re not on the Indian Ocean.

Rain falls on the godly and ungodly. These disasters are the birth pangs of creation, calling us to prepare for the End.

I too am hoping that the fatalism of Islam will open a door for the gospel.

Haydn in “Tsunami the Judgement of God” is trying to attribute meaning to a mechanically caused event, a earthquake which must occur eventually and has as much to do with God as dropping your pencil. You may as well notice a Muslim stub their toe and you did not and say ah, it was Gods judgement upon them. Eventually Sydney will get a Tsunami, and when some Christians are wiped out you will wonder why God judged us?

Many Christians are suffering.

“The Barnabas Fund, an organization providing assistance to the persecuted church, is reporting that the region of south-east India is an area where many Indian Christians live. One Barnabas Fund partner said that in the city of Nagappattinam alone, in Tamil Nadu State, about 800 Christian families have lost their homes and are living in the streets without food”
http://www.cbn.com/CBNNews/CWN/dailynews.asp

Points noted, but Phillip, don’t forget that God is in control of everything and that his hand was behind the tsunami just as it is behind us stubbing our toes or cursing Sydney traffic or watching fireworks over the harbour. Sydney is as much need of judgement for being godless as the rest of the world.

I quoted Haydn because I thought that his observation was an interesting one, though I understand that it does need theological balancing.

In relation to the comments that I made on my blog about the recent tsunami, I see no reason why Christians cannot make the call as to whether or not the disaster is an act of God’s wrath.  If it were simply a matter of using the tsunami to justify religious bias or bigotry, then we would have to dismiss parts of the Bible like Job 2:10, where Job said “Shall we not accept both good and adversity from God?”.  Yes, God causes the sun and rain to come down on the good and the evil alike (Matt 5:45) but He also brings judgement and calamity. 
The Luke 13 passage actually reinforces the concept that God’s wrath does come in this age and in this world so that the wayward may repent.  (Luke 12:54 indicates that Jesus was talking to a crowd, many of whom would not have been Christian.)  What Jesus seems to be saying in Luke 13 is that God’s wrath in this present age is still very real and is a means for sinners (i.e. people who aren’t in relationship with God) to repent and be reconciled with their creator. 

Psalm 19 also indicates that all of creation declares the nature of its maker.  The tsunami- like any other natural disaster like an earthquake- is a sign of God’s wrath and His anger at all human sin (e.g. Amos 1:1).  It is not just some mechanical incident- to suggest that makes it sound like the tsunami was an accident, that God ‘fell asleep at the wheel’, and just let it happen for no reason.  But our God is sovereign and mighty over creation, and there is a purpose for all things happening in the world, even though we may not know what that reason is.  The tsunami may not have been a direct act of judgement against Muslims, Buddhists, or Hindus (etc) but it certainly is a striking coincidence and one that cannot be entirely ignored or dismissed.  The other thing we need to bear in mind is that every person (Christian or not) will one day give an account to God, for that is the soul purpose of man (Ecclesiastes 12:13-14).  It would be far fetched to say that Sydney will be devoured by a tsunami but it will be judged, Christian and heathen alike. 

Phillip Jensen has suggested this week that the tsunami is a sign of God’s anger with human sin and a sign that God wants this sinful world to repent, turn to Him, and trust in the death and resurrection of His Son Jesus Christ (see today’s Australian and Sydney Morning Herald).  The tsunami has displayed many things: the righteous judgement of God (praise Him!), the mercy of God (in allowing some people to survive the disaster) and the way that it points to the cross and the availability of God’s mercy in seeing everyone come to repentance (2 Peter 3:9).  It’s a great opportunity for Christians in the west to bring people to a knowledge of Christ, particularly in places like Aceh where Christians have been massacred in the past.  I see no reason why this is not the case.

Haydn.

Its not possible to attribute to the Tsunami the nature of being of Gods wraith, or of Gods pleasure. For some people in the near future it will bring benefits, construction companies that will rebuild hotels and roads. If you have shares in these companies that will be rebuilding and will generate profits, you could say that God smiled upon you on the day of the Tsunami and cursed those horrid people around the Indian ocean to suffer.

As evidenced here “Thai shares rebounded, however, led by gains in construction firms such as Siam Cement.”

How would Philip Jensen know if the Tsunami is a sign of God’s anger or not. What is it about the Tsunami that makes it a sign of Gods intention? How does Philip know Gods intention, did God give him a phone call? Is it the magnitude of the event that caused him to say that? If it is the magnitude of the event then the September 11th attack must have been God caused and indicates Gods anger at large twin towers. If any negative event occurred you could say it was Gods intentional anger or disaproval behind the event. Also any positive event you could say it was then demonstrative of Gods approval of the situation. But this doesn’t stand true all the time.

For example, what happens when bad people are rewarded through their selfish greed, such as the man who stole my wallet last year? Can you then say that God was smiling on this sinners actions? He took my money and used it for his own good I suppose, so God must have been displeased with me and pleased with him.

Yes, the Tsunami is a mechanically caused event just as your watch is mechanical or the moon going around the earth or the earth around the sun. The Tsunami was going to occur eventually, it was only a matter of time. To suggest that it is not a mechanical event when it is based upon physical laws of motion which are understood is to suggest something else? We know through science that it was caused by the earthquake that occurred due to the pressure between two plates having increased. The movement of the plates released the pressure and the earthquake occurred. This does not make it an accident, but a necessity event in nature.

I suggest that Philip J. is using the Tsunami to justify his religious bias as I don’t agree with his suggestion that the Tsunami indicates a sign of Gods anger, this can only be artistic licence as I we can’t predicate Gods intentional anger by the goodness or badness of the event that occurred.

You said “It would be far fetched to say that Sydney will be devoured by a tsunami” - Tsumanis do strike Sydney - and one will eventually, its just a matter of when.

“According to Bryant, major tsunamis have struck the NSW coast about every 500 to 1000 years. The last had been a “mega-tsunami” dozens of metres high that smashed into 400 kilometres of coastline about AD1500”

Phillip,

You response seems to be driven more by an emotional dislike of what I said rather than a careful consideration of the points I put forward based on Scripture.  You seem to deny the sovereignty of God in the disaster last month, and I hardly think that the tsunami was more of a benefit to humanity than it was a tragedy. 
You seem to ignore the fact that God is angry at sin and that He is entirely within His rights to judge and destroy us- the fact that He hasn’t done that yet is a sign of His incredible mercy.  God chooses those whom He will have mercy on, just as He said in Exodus: “I will have mercy on whom I will have mercy, and I will have compassion on whom I will have compassion”.

Whether or not a tsunami could or would hit Sydney is a red herring in this discussion and a point not really worthy of consideration.  I’ve considered the Scriptures on this matter and it entirely credible that this tsunami or any other natural disaster or tragedy (e.g. September 11) is a sign of God’s wrath and an open invitation for humanity to repent.

Phillip Jensen may not have ‘chatted to God’ on the phone about this topic but I doubt that you’ve done that either.

Haydn.

I feel moved to chime in with an opinion here myself. 

There is no way that we can be aware of the reason that this disaster occured.  We can speculate all we want.  We can make guesses, wild or otherwise.  We can assume that it is a divine punishment on the wicked.  We can assume that is has something to do with sightings of pink bunnies in sweeden.  That dosen’t make our assumptions right. 

I havent read jensens comments, and I dont know that it was he used to justify calling this judgement (If he did.  The media is great at mis-quoting him and taking him out of context).

Did we sit back after 911 and say obviously god is judging the americans.  No.

Do we have any evidence other than our, perhaps misplaced, belief that god SHOULD be judging them to support this as the judgement of god?

However that is a very different question to this one.  Is the tsunami an act of god. 

Before I answer that Ill warn you that im going to state my belief as if its fact.  Feel free to disagree. But if you do, back it up.

I’ve come to the conclusion that the answer to that question is the same answer it should always get.  Yes.  God is in complete control of this world.  Everything that happens is a part of his plan. 

Yes it may be a natural flow through of the conditions provided by nature. But who created that nature in this way?

(Aside - there’s a good discussion of this in the apendix of C.S. Lewis - Miracles.)

Matt,

I understand that we do not have a direct word from God on why the tsunami happened but it’s hardly the responsible thing for any thinking Christian to simply throw their hands up and say ‘Well, we shouldn’t guess or speculate!’. 

For what are we to make of passages like Matthew 24:4-8?  Are we to dismiss natural disasters and the like as not being signs of God’s wrath, even though Jesus Himself made it explicitly clear that they are a signs of the coming age of judgement? 

The tsunami is a stark reminder of the way that God consumed the Egyptian army in the Red Sea as well as the Noahide flood of Genesis 6.  The two events may not directly be linked with last week’s tsunami but it is an odd coincidence.  What if you are wrong and the tsunami was the judgement of God?  To dismiss the correlation is an easy way out of considering the purpose of why God allowed such a thing to happen.  Since we are to accept both clamity as well as good from the hand of God (Job 2:10) then so must God’s judgement be accepted in this situation.

You’re comments also fail to account for the fact that there is precedent in the Bible of disaster being used to bring about repentence.  For example in the book of Lamentations, the city of Jerusalem was beseiged and destroyed by the Assyrian army.  The Israelites were taken captive and the city was decimated.  The author of the book chronicles that the judgement was so horrid as the temple was destroyed, some of the women ate their own children (2:20).  The place was a desolate, cannibalised wasteland- a direct sign of God’s wrath. 

Yet in the midst of it all, the author saw the wonderful love of God (3:22-27) and understood that although God brings grief to men, He doesn’t so so willingly but will show compassion (3:31-33).  The author’s logical conclusion to it all to the torment is that the people will be spared more wrath and terror if they repent and come back into right relationship with God (3:40-42). 

Why this cannot happen today or why this is not a potential cause or function of last week’s tsunami is something that no one yet on this blog has accounted for.  Perhaps someone cant explain why the events of last week could not be a modern-day equivalent of Lamentations?

Haydn.

I never understand why people get upset when I disagree with them, I seem to have this wonderful skill.

My response was not a emotional dislike of what you said, but just the application of my logic to the words of what you said.

I didn’t deny the sovereignty of God.

The Tsunami was and will be a benefit to some people.

I didn’t ignore the fact that God is angry with Sin.

Your last paragraph Haydn is a good question and a good point, the question being why can’t today’s tragic situation be see as equivalent to the Biblical tragedies that were classified as judgements of God.
The question is - who determines what is an event that is a judgement of God and what criteria determines that?

Just as an aside, I think Matt has raised an important point viz. the way that Christians in the west have viewed the terrorist attacks of Sep 11.  I don’t believe it’s totally implausible to suggest that Sep 11 was an act of judgement by God on the west for its materialistic and immoral decadence.
The fact that many of the Sep 11 terrorists singled out the west’s flagrant sexual immorality and materialism as being reasons for why they attacked the World Trade Centre is telling.  It reminds me of the judgements of the Old Testament prophet Amos, in which he attacked His fellow Israelites for their beautiful houses and denial of justice for the poor.

Perhaps Osama bin-Laden and Al Q’aida, like Assyria or even the tsunami, are instruments of God’s judgement against the west.  Osama, like Assyria, will be judged by God for the evil that he has chosen to commit but can also be acting (in parallel) as an instrument of God’s righteous anger.  I believe that is a plausible consideration, although it is would not be a popular concept in the west or one that is often voiced in public debate.

Haydn.

Phillip,

The reason for my reply to your earlier entry is because you personalised our disagreement by asking redundant questions on whether or not Phillip Jensen had telephoned God.  In your entries on this subject you haven’t evoked any passages of Scripture or considered anything to do with what the Bible says about God’s wrath and judgement- something that makes it hard to continue this discussion.  Martin and myself have been the only people to have invoked Scripture on this issue thus far.

The question, really, is not WHO is responsible for determining what are acts of God are (or aren’t).  (If you had posed that question earlier that would have made this discussion a little easier!)  The question really is, WHAT DOES GOD’S WORD SAY about God’s wrath and judgement (both past and present) and how God works His purpose on Earth in this day and age? 

If you can argue from Scripture that the tsunami or any other natural disaster is not an act of God’s judgement then I’d be happy to think about it and keep discussing this subject, but as yet no one has been able to do so.  I’d love to meet my match on this subject!

Haydn.

There is a difference between god using calamity to bring people to repentance, and god using calamity to work out his wrath on the wicked.  Im slightly confused by your arguments, which of these two are you trying to say is happening here?

I wasnt trying to say we shouldent/couldent speculate on the reasons why.  The tone of your comments to me suggests that you are stating as a fact that this is how it is.  Im quite willing to accept (based on the many precedents in the bible) that god can use natural disasters to punish the wicked, or to bring the evil to repentance, or for many other purposes.

He even uses them (lets the devil use them?) to prove a point to the devil (Job 1)

You say in your first post that you “see no reason why Christians cannot make the call as to whether or not the disaster is an act of God’s wrath”  I see a very good one.  God has used natural disasters for MANY purposes.  Are you claiming to know the mind of god?

Ill heartily accept that god did it, that it was deliberate, and that he knew what he was doing.  The only point I contest is what he was doing.  There you could be right, you could be wrong.  I dont mind discussing it, But I am unhappy with any declaritive statements of gods intent.

Hope this is coherent, its late.

Matt

With regards to Jensens Comments, heres a letter he wrote in response to the australian.  Unfortunatly I cant link it because the australians web site is less the helpfull—it can be found by going to http://www.theaustralian.com.au then clicking on letters.  Its on the second page.

Ill presnt the text below however.

Not the time for theology debate
06 January 2005
MOST TALKED ABOUT
Act of God
WITH deep regret I must protest your recent editorial attack upon my character (4/1).

When approached by a journalist from The Daily Telegraph to join in a debate (started by others in the media) about God’s part in the tsunami, I spent considerable time explaining to him the total impropriety of discussing the issue at this time.

I protested to him that the appropriate response was compassion, prayer, generosity and getting aid to people as quickly as possible.

I told him of the attempts that the St Andrew’s Cathedral staff in Sydney had undertaken in coming back from holidays early and opening the cathedral for prayer and collecting of money for victims.

When pushed by him to respond to what others were falsely saying about God’s role in the disaster I spoke in very guarded terms not of this particular tsunami but of the issue of the problem of evil, the impossibility of explaining it simply in the newspaper and the error of trying to do so at this time.

That his subeditors chose to ignore my point of view, extract one phrase without context from a long discussion and report me as making a “pronouncement” was all beyond my control.

That the rest of the media, such as you, have then quoted this article as representing my view is beyond my control.

That you then editorialise about my lack of “compassion and common sense” and accuse me of adding burden to the mourners is really too much.

I agree with you that this is not the time for the theological debate. Now is the time for mourning, and by prayer and generosity to give practical help to our neighbours.
Phillip D. Jensen
Dean of Sydney

Ok with a little bit of detective work (and my brothers help for the last one)here’s some links.

The origional Editorial (About half way down the page)

Jensens Response - (Hosted at the australian)

Jensens response (hosted by sydeny anglican - just in case)

Matt- At last you bring some revival to this discussion! 

I have not assumed or implied in this at all that my point of view is fact, just that there is Biblical precedent to support the view that the tsunami is highly likely to be an event to see God God’s judgement AS WELL AS His offer of repentence/mercy.  Just as the author of Lamentations saw the two in his own disaster I think the same can be said of the tsunami, Sep 11, and other such events. 

As for claiming to know the mind of God, I cannot speak for God as I have been given no specific word of prophecy or revelation from Him on this issue (although it is possible for God to reveal such things to Christians, viz. Acts 2:17-21, Joel2:28-32).  Nevertheless,  Christians can have some certainty in knowing the mind of Christ- 1 Corinthians 2:16 implies as much!

Now that I think about it, Acts 2:18-21 is worth considering when thinking about God’s judgement and mercy in tragedies of nature:

“I will pour out My Spirit in those days; and they shall prophesy. I will show wonders in heaven above and signs in the earth beneath: Blood and fire and vapor of smoke.
The sun shall be turned into darkness,and the moon into blood, before the coming of the great and awesome day of the LORD.
And it shall come to pass that whoever calls on the name of the LORD shall be saved.’

One of the potentially positive outcomes of the recent disaster is that it has opened up certain parts of the world for westerners (aid providers, Christians, etc) like Aceh where once they westerners were feared and hated.  It’s amazing how God can use such disasters for His glorious purposes- who knows what He can do in a time like this?

Haydn.

Cheers very much for those links, Matt. I was horrified when I read the “quote” via The Australia via The Courier Mail.

I wholeheartedly agree with your and the initial two comments, too.

Ah, to see how fools close ranks!

Would you care to explain what you mean by that comment?  I havent closed ranks with anyone, nor Am I a fool.  In fact I’ve agreed with 80% of what you have said.  (Which technically could make me a fool if were both wrong I guess)

As to your previous post, The only point you have made which I am activly challenging is the following 2 words

“Highly Likely”

You cant judge the likelyhood of something based on it happening a few times in the past.  A coupple of american presidents have been assasinated.  Thus it is “highly likely” that the current one will be? 

Does the bible say anything to back up your view that this is “highly likely” or are you using examples that are talking about one particular natural disaster and extrapolating that thus it must be the same for all of them?

Im yet to find a general rule in the bible, or anything to support a general rule, that all natural disasters are punishment/wrath.  Yes there are a number of old testament examples where it was the case.  Soddom and Gommora, the Flood.  Both are explicitly mentioned as punishment for sins.  I feel there are also quite a few examples where there is nothing explitly linking them to this.  Job.  The Egyptian Plagues, (Anyone got any other examples?).

Also, there are FAR less examples of this kind of thing in the new testament. 

For completness, you conclusion could be valid.  But I do not see the evidence to support it in the bible.

As an aside.  Calling people you are arguing with fools, accusing them of closing ranks against you, and the like is one of the best ways to turn a reasonable argument into a brawl.  Perhaps whatever point you were trying to make could be re-expressed in a less offensive way?

Umm, Matt, I think Haydn was referring to the media in his reference to “fools”.

Oh.  If that was the case I apologise.  Misinterpreted you. 

Matt

Well I totally agree with what Matt says.

Karen, in the context of the discussion, that is immediately after Deb, it appears highly likely that the word “fools” is applied to the current context of people posting and less likely than referencing media. This is since the media is usually viewed as singular, even though it is composed of many, and the people in the discussion that disagree with Haydn are three.
But I think Haydn would have to answer that question.

One of the main problems in Haydns statements is assertions as certain when things are not known to be certain.

Wow.

Thanks for helping clear up what I meant, Karen. 

I have nothing else to add to this discussion.  It’s obvious that no one else here has engaged in consideration of the Scriptures on the matter of God’s judgement and I cannot argue with such as these.  If people such as Matt and Philip wish to dismiss the word of God on this and argue against what I’ve said, based upon sentimental points, then unfortunately this discussion can go no further.

- H.

Well the media clearly didn’t “close ranks” and since when do Christians call the media fools? So Haydn is clearly lying (a sin) about his intent in his comment. If he was talking about the media I’m sure he would have made his point more clearly to prevent any ambiguity.

Hayden~

I feel its a little bit presumptive to say that those who disagree with you have not reasoned their position from the bible.

Duncan.

Sorry for misspelling your name Haydn.

Haydn - As my disagreement is only with the way you are interpreting what the bible says, I find it difficult to find a biblical passage to back myself up.  I guess I could be using something like “Beware of false teachers” - but im not convinced enough that I am right that I would be willing to do so.

I dont need a seperate biblical passage to make a point, when the point is that i refute the conclusions you drew using the same passages.

Your comments have been ambiguious at times.  I can accept that your fools comment was directed at the media, but can you please explain what point you were trying to make with it,  Im still slightly confused.

You have adressed some of my minor points, but as far as I can see, you are yet to provide any compelling argument for why your view of this disaster is highly likely.  All you have given is examples of other situations.  You //CANNOT// make a proof using just examples. 

The tone with which your comments are written is quite condecending, and makes it difficult to listen rationally to what you have to say.  Your last comment came across to me as “Obviously noone elses view here is relevent since they aren’t quoting chapter and verse from the bible to back up their points”  I know thats not what your trying to say, but thats the feeling what you have said gives as to the thoughts behind the words.

Perhaps you could re-consider the way in which you are stating your points, as your current tone is quite likely to get a negative response from people.

If you dont want to continue this discussion I understand, but I remain unconvinced.

Haydn et al,

I only recently jumped on this thread, but it’s definitely very helpful to consider tragedy, and the ways in which God acts in this world. Keep thinking through it. How long O Lord? (Carson) might be very helpful as well.

Now allow me to wade in.  Haydn wrote earlier:

“If you can argue from Scripture that the tsunami or any other natural disaster is not an act of God’s judgement then I’d be happy to think about it and keep discussing this subject, but as yet no one has been able to do so. I’d love to meet my match on this subject!”

Here we go. Statement:

God does stuff in this world.

Some anthropocentric reasons that God does stuff (“good” stuff and “bad” stuff) in this world are (not an exhaustive list):

1. to enact judgement/punishment upon the world (enough examples above)
2. to enact judgement/punishment upon the wicked (notice slight difference from the above)
3. to call his children into repentance (see OT disasters upon Israel)
4. to encourage people to be right with God (see Luke 11)
5. to discipline his children (presumably Christians: see Hebrews 12)
6. to make Christians suffer, in order for us to grow in perserverance, character, godliness (Romans 5)
7. to encourage Christians to be loving and generous (Jewish famine: Acts, 2 Corinthians, and other Pauline letters make reference to this)
8. for our personal good (possibly including some of the above - Romans 8)
9. with the greater good in mind (Genesis 45)

The above may not be mutually exclusive.

Notes to make.

• What we percieve to be a disaster may not be intended as such—many things are blessings in disguise.
• Conversely, things that appear to be blessings may in fact be a curse: such as winning the lottery
• Although we may have perfect hindsight, few (if any!) of us have future-sight, and with a long-view, blessings may actually be curses and vice versa. This varies depending on how far into the future you look: Joseph thrown into a well was a bad thing. But that it allowed the salvation of Jacob and family from the drought was a good thing. But in the long term, it led to the slavery of the Israelites (a bad thing). Which led to their rescue by the hand of God and their adoption as his people (a good thing). Which led to their subsequent betrayal (a baaad thing). Which, jumping ahead several thousand years, leads to our eventual salvation by Jesus Christ (a gooood thing!)
• Referring to the same incident, an event may be both good and bad
• We are unable to determine who the target of a disaster of a disaster might be. Evenmore, a disaster may be terrible for one set of people (say, the Egyptians landowners, who went into debt) but fantastic for another group (Joseph and the Israelites)
• Events in the Bible, for the most part, come with explanations. Especially so with the prophets, but much else of the Bible also explain why things happen: So, it is explained that a disaster that comes Israel is due to their iniquity. Or, their King’s iniquity (David’s census, for instance).
• Other events in the Bible come without direct explanation as to God’s intents and purposes. Was it bad for the spies into Canaan to stay with Rahab, a prostitute? Or was it bad for Elimelech and Naomi to move to Moab (Ruth)?

Point I’m getting at is: although a calamity may be a sign of God’s judgement (or is God’s judgement), because we don’t have an interpretive revelation of God explaining that this is in fact the case, we are not in a position to say that it is. Even if it is God’s judgement, we cannot say that it is only God’s judgement—-it may well be a test of faith to believers in those regions which will push them and help them to trust all the more in the God who giveth and taketh away.

And because we are not in a position to make such a claim, it is perhaps unwise for us to even speculatively do so, because there are millions of factors we are not privy to, such as what will transpire in the next 12 months. Maybe we will see a rise in church attendence over the next 12 months, which is directly attributable to people’s growing sense of unease and instability in this world. It may well be God’s mercy on Australia, calling her to repentance.

Dude u rock!

There’s no point discussing this further because no one is taking anything that I’m saying seriously.  I’ve only been attacked on my comments and no one has given me any credit where it is due. 
Then again if others don’t want to consider the Scriptures on the matter then that’s their perogative.

- H.

Didn’t the last poster Haoran just consider the scriptures?

Yes, it’s true that Haoran did consider the Scriptures.  But since you and everybody else failed to consider the Word of God on this matter then I hardly think that you’re in a position to be criticising me!

- H.