Yes, Archbishop Jensen, and of course the law of England followed biblical teaching in sentencing gay people to death between the reigns of Henry VIII and Victoria. So I suppose this will return to the statute books in the future golden age of Gafconianity?

Absolutely disgusting.

Very peculiar.
If there's one thing that the Episcopal Church is clear and unequivocal upon, and that unites liberals and conservatives, and unites us with anti-abortion Roman Catholics, it's opposition to the death penalty.

How did a lovely friendly city like Sydney get stuck with such a ferocious Calvinist dinosaur? I should think +Jensen would be happier in harsh Calvinist Texas.

Cough, and the parallel of hate theology leading escalating acceptance of violence and aggression such as played out in the lead up to Austwitzch has fallen over where?

Play on, God is still winning the points.

Be quiet and there will be peace.

Make your stand and prove you are for tyranny, destruction and vilification.

Either way, God wins.

Having read this today (and sprayed a lovely coffee some six feet towards an unsuspecting fellow cafe customer), I think it's worth pointing out that there is a broader context for this. As a by-the-by, I'd highly recommend the pieces in the opinion section in today's edition (Fri 4 Jan).

The whole debate comes out of an episode during the election campaign in October-November last year where Kevin Rudd tried to avoid getting 'wedged' by John Howard on how 'terrorists' should be punished. The (then Opposition) foreign affairs spokesman gave a speech outlining the commitment in Labour's platform to work for the widespread abolition of capital punishment. This happened to coincide with the anniversary of the Bali bombing, the perpetrators of which are currently in the latter stages of the process leading to execution by firing squad under the Indonesian legal system. Lots of emotive "how can I refuse to avenge the murder of my fellow countrymen" rhetoric from Howard came out of this - truly shameful and grimy stuff being aired in public by the Prime Minister.

The bishops of the Catholic Hierarchy have called on the federal government to be true to its own platform, and to unequivocally oppose the application of capital punishment under all and any circumstances, anywhere. Australia IS party to a number of UN protocols for the abolition of the death penalty, and the current shenanigans are a demonstration that there's still some growing up to be endured before we get the government we thought we were electing here. The government is continuing an equivocation they adopted out of pragmatism in the election campaign: in short, it is a hangover of the sort of vicious and divisive politics they campaigned against, and were elected to bring an end to. Voting is compulsory on all Australians aged 18 and above, by the way.

Jensen's contribution is simply irritating and lacking in (much-needed) historical context, given that the primary quote given in this article is from the Articles, with a bit of nebulous "the Bible says so" added on. The view Jensen puts most certainly lacks in any meaningful theological content, and perhaps demonstrates why his 10-year plan for the evangelizing of Sydney is behind target. The rest - outlined in another thread - is playing at pretending-to-be-primate.

Oh, and an afterthought:

Now that the UK has abolished the death penalty, does this invalidate the apparent endorsement of the same in Article XXXVII? I had the impression that the Church acquiescing in the rule of law under a constitutional monarchy was a more important element in the way this Article is written. The deference to Parliament is pretty clear, and the Article concerns the role of the civil magistrates acting under the authority of the Crown. To suggest that this somehow creates a strong "Biblical" case for capital punishment seems a bit of a stretch. I'd be most interested to know what the good Archbishop's view on the whole Article might be. I wonder if he reads this blog....

“But I cannot absolutely rule out capital punishment in all circumstances, since the Bible itself allows it.”

Yipeee! Isn't stoning to death the preferred OT method? If it's good enough for the Bible, it's good enough for me! And isn't it fairly clear from the context in the Bible that such executions were public and witnessed by the community?

I wonder if +Jensen has ever actually witnessed an execution.

My state of Virginia executes fairly frequently. One of my Lutheran colleagues here in town spent some years as a death row chaplain. He could perhaps enlighten +Jensen about the reality of executions, even ones done by the supposedly humane lethal injection.

Excuse my ignorance (yes, I hear you all snickering), but is ++Jensen the Primate of the Church in Australia? Good grief.

Erika: Have been trying to send things back, but VP Cheney must be intercepting.

And, apparently, he can not rule out slavery altogether since the Bible allows it.

How sad when hateful old men speak their mind. And what's with the suit and tie? Is his clerical shirt in the wash?

The article affirms that secular authorities may establish capital punishment. That is simply a fact.

Whether they ought to do so - and whether Christians should endorse it - is another question entirely.

There is no Anglican or even Christian consensus on this issue, but for me, the matter is straigytforward enough.

Capital punishment is based on a a priori assumption that some people are beyond redemption.

I suggest that their God is too small.

Note that Jensen's comments, like many in the separatist movement, are an example of scriptural selectivity. I wonder if capital punishment is included in the "faith once delivered to the saints" accolades he signed onto in the San Joaquin letter.

No, the primate of Australia is the Archbishop of Brisbane, Archbishop Phillip Aspinall. Each Australian state, more or less, is a separate ecclesiastical province within the Anglican Church of Australia.

In defence of Archbishop Jensen, he has spoken out for Aboriginal rights and refugees. He was never a lackey of the Howard Government. So it would be totally wrong to portray him simply as a rightwing bigot. His theological views are sincerely held, and he and his brother are often misunderstood. They love Our Blessed Lord and seek to serve him.

Listen to his talk on the internet..Why he is a Protestant. He states how he would not go to the inaugral Mass of Cardinal Pell, because " No Archbishop of Sydney goes to a Mass." ( he did go to a prayer service though) he is a man of conviction and integrity and you know where you stand with him.

Keiran

He was the primate when I was trying to get the churches ready for the tsunami (started in early 2004 with my local minister) and he was the ensconced one when the debacle of how not to handle a disaster was played out.

You should have heard Sydneysiders screaming about Jensen's lack of sympathy for the tsunami victims in his 16 January 2005 sermon. People fumed for a long time (some, like me) still are fuming that they can purport to be the "godliest" priesthood that exists or has ever existed. God, if their Jesus really loves them, then I want nothing to do with him and he doesn't look or behave like the Jesus from the bible.

Hosea 6:5-7 "Therefore I cut you in pieces with my prophets, I killed you with the words of my mouth; my judgments flashed like lightning upon you. For I desire mercy, not sacrifice, and acknowledgment of God rather than burnt offerings. Like Adam, they have broken the covenant — they were unfaithful..." They really don't "get" how much God desires peace.

Remember Jesus' denouncement of the cities (and thus their priesthoods) where most of his miracles had been manifested (Matthew 11:20-24). He told them, if the miracles that had been manifested in other cities (even Sodom); they would have repented with sackcloth and ashes long ago, just like they did in Nineveh (Jonah 3:5-6). Praise be to God, Sydneysiders have shown more fear and reverence for God that its Anglican leadership e.g. they closed the ferry service in fear of tsunami in the wake of the Solomon Island one last year.

Jonah did not go to only the priests of Nineveh; he went from the least to the greatest. The angels did not pull out the priests before they destroyed Sodom and Gomorrah. The Gestapo were still being married, baptized, and buried by priests, who week in and week out provided pastoral care to their flocks and condoned their aggression. Better to have been a Catholic priest in Auswitzch than one of those.

Esau was selfish and negligent of his responsibilities, Jacob was compassionate and diligent. That is why God loves souls such as Jacob and despises those such as Esau.

Just as well the Archbishops of the C of E take a "minimalist" view of the 39 articles.

"And what's with the suit and tie? Is his clerical shirt in the wash?"

Asked tongue squarely in cheek, or? (Hint: clerical shirt is another thing that "Archbishops of Sydney" don't do)

***

"I cannot absolutely rule out capital punishment in all circumstances, since the Bible itself allows it."

Silly me, I thought that Christ's subjection to capital punishment COMPLETED that command of the OT once and for all!

Cheryl - I do recall that both Jensen brothers managed to put their foot in their mouths around the time of the tsunami on Boxing Day 2004. It was a rather splendid performance, if memory serves, but not one that they should be encouraged to repeat. They're very talented boys, after all.

However, Jensen is a metropolitan and not primate. The two are distinct offices, and Peter Jensen failed to get the numbers the last time General Synod had to elect one. The fact that his rather quaint view on capital punishment has been given prominence reflects the condition of the news cycle here. It is summer, everyone is on holiday, but the major newspapers are still running. It is remarkable that Jensen sees nothing wrong with the way Labor was forced to take the position it's now trying to pursue - against its own platform, and where they're trying to be seen to redeem some of the squandered opportunities of the last decade. The issue is not about capital punishment in Australia (it's been off the statute books for a long time), but whether the government should work for the abolition of the death penalty under all circumstances in other countries, in accordance with its platform. Labor took a pragmatic line during the election campaign: that they would only intercede for any Australian citizen sentenced to death by a foreign jurisdiction. This line deflected accusations of being 'soft' on terrorists, but conditions have now changed (Labor is in government), and the Catholic Hierarchy are right to ask the new government to clarify their position. Continuing this line is simply a nonsensical hangover of John Howard's politics. That Jensen is trying to give it a sort of uncritical ecclesiastical imprimatur is silly, given that his is a minority view, even among the religious leaders quoted in the article. More than anything else, it stands out for lack of nuance and consistency – he unequivocally opposes abortion, after all. It's worth recalling that one Australian was executed by a foreign government under Howard's watch, and his government's efforts to plead for clemency only became meaningful once it affected their opinion polling. There are nine further Australians who might be executed this year – another legacy of the Howard years. The idea that this might constitute some sort of justice is outrageous, more so if Jensen publicly supports it.

“Just as well the Archbishops of the C of E take a "minimalist" view of the 39 articles.”—Hugh of Lincoln

The Articles of Religion have never been very popular in the American Church. In the Proposed Prayer Book of 1785, the Thirty-nine Articles of the Church of England were dissected and cut down to twenty. In the first Authorized Prayer Book of 1789 they were left out altogether. The question of their reinstatement proved to be a subject of considerable debate within the American Church.

An informal discussion at the General Convention of 1792 revealed the fact that the bishops themselves were divided in opinion. Eventually, a modified set of 38 Articles were included in the Prayer Book of 1801.Yet the Articles have never had the popularity here that they have had in some other Churches of the Communion which were established so much later than the American Church. Today, they have been removed to the “historical documents” section at the end of the 1979 Prayer Book.

Yes Kieran, and their defense was to justify why their aggressive teachings were okay.

It doesn't hurt to remind people how "sensitive" they are to local conditions in light of the attempted GAFCON in Jerusalem and in the lead up to Lambeth 2008.

Their sermon on the tsunami and their tauntings purporting God's rejection of the Jews (and Catholics, and Buddhists, and other religions, and even most forms of Protestantism) reminds me of Obadiah 1:8-14

“…will I not destroy the wise men of Edom... Because of the violence against your brother Jacob, you will be covered with shame; you will be destroyed forever. On the day you stood aloof while strangers carried off his wealth and foreigners entered his gates and cast lots for Jerusalem, you were like one of them. You should not look down on your brother in the day of his misfortune, nor rejoice over the people of Judah in the day of their destruction, nor boast so much in the day of their trouble. You should not march through the gates of my people in the day of their disaster, nor look down on them in their calamity in the day of their disaster, nor seize their wealth in the day of their disaster. You should not wait at the crossroads to cut down their fugitives, nor hand over their survivors in the day of their trouble."

They should have remembered Amos 3:5 "Does a bird fall into a trap on the ground where no snare has been set? Does a trap spring up from the earth when there is nothing to catch?"

They really shouldn't have denied the covenant of peace Ezekiel 16:59-63 “ …I will deal with you as you deserve, because you have despised my oath by breaking the covenant. Yet I will remember the covenant I made with you in the days of your youth, and I will establish an everlasting covenant with you. Then you will remember your ways and be ashamed when you receive your sisters, both those who are older than you and those who are younger… when I make atonement for you for all you have done, you will remember and be ashamed…”

There will be a covenant of peace with both older Judaism and younger Islam, as well as all the peoples of all the nations. It is required by scripture.

"he unequivocally opposes abortion, after all"

Ah, but there's the rub. You see, a child is innocent, so to kill said child is murder. A criminal is guilty, so to kill said criminal is execution. It's based on the approach to life as containing crimes which must be punished. When you conceive of God as the Punisher, when your understanding of your relationship with Him is of a judge who lets you away with your crimes, and when judgement is continually before your eyes like some kind of a beacon, then you can't help seeing the rest of the world in that light. Thus, crime and punishment are defining facts of life. So, of course it's perfectly right for us to punish the guilty. God says so. It gets mixed up with the fact that governments have to maintain order. The Church long ago allied Herself with the State, so She needed to justify the State's need to punish. Those whose relationship with God is based on punishment or the avoidance of it have no trouble giving that power to the State. Of course, the State is just a proxy for themselves in that instance, and it is all about their right to judge and punish, and they're far harsher than the God they claim to obey. The criminal ceases to be someone suffering badly from the effects of the Fall, in need of our compassion, and instead becomes someone who, as I have heard many times, has made "bad decisions" and "bad decisions have consequences". I think there's also some bizarre idea that severe punishment induces one to repentance.

Ford

Thank you for that outstanding comment