Hey all!

Another Melbourne friend, Matt thomas got in on the euthanasia issue. (His letter is just above mine! :-)

I wrote an almost identical letter to Matt’s to the SMH yesterday. At least 3 or 4 times now I’ve had the experience of sending identical letters with a xn viewpoint to both Age and SMH, only to find that smh rejects and age publishes. It has never happened the other way ‘round. I have a sense that the Age, oddly given the size of the xn population down there, is far more receptive to letters from a xn viewpoint. That is another little reason for sending your letters to them as well as smh, if they happen to be relevant to issues/news reported in both cities.

The Religious Affairs editor of the Age is a strongly committed Christian who also once edited APL (that’s Australian Presbyterian Living), and lectures part-time at the Pressy theo college down in Melbourne. The quality of his reporting is always high and despite his Christian convictions is not generally slanted to favour a ‘side’.

By the way, this article is a few years old now, but includes some enlightening comments from Barney while he was letters editor of the Age. In it he makes the point that he (at least, and I’m sure other letters editors) don’t like co-ordinated letter-writing campaigns. It’s a good heads-up on how this forum is or isn’t to be used if you want to see good xn letters published.

Gordon, personal question:

Why do you sign yourself off as “Reverend”? I mean, I know you are, but I assume when you introduce yourself to someone you wouldn’t say it. Do you “use” it to get attention on the letters page?

[If this sounds aggressive, I don’t mean it to be....I was just wondering...]

-A-

Hey Adam,

no problem at all, and a perfectly fair question. It sometimes switches to “The Reverend” depending on who’s subediting and how pedantic they are. Whichever, it’s a ridiculous title; my only meagre justification for sometimes using it is a hopeful guess on my part that it will aid publishability, or advance the point of the letter in some way.

The title is in fact completely anti-biblical (Mt 23:5-10) and the only way I can defend its use is by saying that all Christians have been given a position of reverence because of the sanctifying work of Christ—priesthood of all believers, 1 Cor 6:3, and all that. Maybe all Christians should sign their letters “The Rev” and see what happens :-). FWIW, I am ordained as an Anglican minister.

Interesting…

I have been musing over it for couple of months now, and my thoughts were re-sparked after Sandy’s letter re: Play School. His was also signed off as a Rev and the next day someone replied and deliberately called him a Rev.

Anyway, I was wondering if it has two opposite effects:
a) it helps in terms of publishing (therefore it might be A Good Thing), but

b) I think it might raise people’s hackles / bias when they see it, and automatically “disagree” because its from “The Church”, rather than thinking about the argument.

Anyway, I’ll go away and think about it a bit more.

-A-

ps Gordon, I knew you were ordained (and therefore have a “right” to use it), but knowing your theology/churchmanship etc I knew you must’ve been doing it for a reason, hence my question....

[quote author="Adam Gregory"]Yeah, I hate it when websites demand that you register…

Here’s one to bookmark: http://www.bugmenot.com/

Just type in the url and away you go. Or even better use the bookmarklet.

[via holovaty ]

Just a clarification of something that’s come up a couple of times since I wrote it: Don’t let the 3pm deadline discourage you from writing at 4!  If you get a flash of inspiration at 3:10, send it in anyway.  If it’s a big issue it’ll run for a couple of days and the first letters will generate responses themselves.  Also remember that if you’re using email or fax, you’ve automatically got 24 hours on anyone who’s stuck using snail mail <g>.  I’ve sent letters at very odd times of the day and/or night.  My only reason for including the times was that if you have a choice between sending a letter at 2pm (before you start lunch) and 4pm (after the guests have gone), do it at 2. 

Happy writing!

SJK <-- recovering from a particularly horrid Doctrine exam with Doughnuts, Spinal Tap and a Drop Spindle.  Did I mention the horrid?

a particularly horrid Doctrine

So Sophie, which particular part of God’s graciously revealed word do you consider to be horrid? Hmmm? Enquiring minds want to know;-)

Gordon is in again today (And so is your brother, Rowen)

Congrats

-A-

And it’s the irreverent Gordon. (Or is that non-Reverend?)

Hopefully not irrelevant. possibly self-de-frocked?

On the letter itself, it is a bit of a question as to how far we go in talking about a public figure as a Christian. It may turn out that they’re not after all, or they may do something that embarrasses themselves and the name of Christianity. On the whole, though, I believe that Christians will shine like stars in a crooked and twisted generation (Phil 2:15) and so adorn the gospel we preach. Pragmatically too, it is obvious that one of the strategies the gay lobby has used over the years is to use high profile gays to advance their cause.

[quote author="Gordon Cheng"]

a particularly horrid Doctrine

So Sophie, which particular part of God’s graciously revealed word do you consider to be horrid? Hmmm? Enquiring minds want to know;-)

Enquiring minds have obviously been spending waaaay too much time around the SMH and have become adept at taking evangelicals out of context and twisting their words <g>. 

Great subject, doctrines that are wonderful to know and understand better than I did 8 weeks ago...tough exam. 

Nice one getting in today, as well. 

SJK.

[quote author="Gordon Cheng regarding ‘Reverend’"]The title is in fact completely anti-biblical (Mt 23:5-10)

And yet Matthew 23 only rejects the titles Rabbi; Master; and Teacher. ???

Certainly the passage speaks against self-exaltation by Jesus’ disciples, and yet that did not prevent them adopting and giving roles (’apostle’ and ‘overseer’ and even ‘teacher’, for example) in order to effectively provide a leadership of service. It’s not the title that is the problem, it’s the self-serving attitude with which it is bandied about.

The title ‘Reverend’ merely indicates ‘worthy of reverence or respect’, which is something I think we evangelicals have tended to lose sight of - starting with the baby boomer generation. As our ministers have rightly encouraged us to critique their use of scripture (which I guess I am currently doing to you, Gordon!) somehow congregations seem to have got the subtext “stand under the word, stand over the minister”. Not at all the attitude to ministers encouraged by the apostles.

Matt

It’s not the title that is the problem, it’s the self-serving attitude with which it is bandied about.

I’m pretty OK with that. However the titles may well be a symptom of the problem, or (in the current context) be wilfully misinterpreted by smh readers; as may indeed have happened with the Rev. Sandy Grant, an anti-rev rev if ever I met one.

Appalling Adele Horin article is worth responding to today folks.

If you want a better gospel opportunity,

Frank Devine in The Australian

or Tom Frame in the Age.

hahaha

This was my fav quote:

[quote author="Adele Horin"]Peter Kell, a lawyer with no welfare background, will take over the top job in October. Known as an “apparatchik” in Sydney’s conservative Anglican diocese, he is a member of influential church taskforces, including those responsible for spreading the faith.

Jodie McNeill of Anglican Youthworks fame… he shoots… he scores !

And a v good one from Greg Clarke , previously Matthias media and now CASE at New College

(Bit obscure though Jodes...does that count? Can we have a set of rules Luke?:-)

[edited to fix links]

Sorry, I can’t do the fancy links, but Adam Gregory’s response to Adele Horin’s article got in today:

Incidentally, Gordon, I read the article you linked to previously, which mentioned letter-writing “campaigns”. I don’t think that encouraging each other to write if and when we believe we are led to, nor encouraging each other to present a Biblical perspective, could be seen as campaigning. My impression was that this referred more to groups of people sending similar or identical letters on the same topic en masse.

Although we share some beliefs as Christians, it’s clear from our diversity that we hold many different views on topics across the spectrum. Not all of us are interested in the same things, so we write at different times for different reasons. We generally differ on our perspectives also, so even when a number of us wish to respond to the same issue, each one will do so from their own viewpoint, with their individual manner, language and style, rather than by simply bombarding the SMH/Age/Telegraph with duplicate letters lacking individual thought.

[quote author="Luke"]Here’s one to bookmark:

Check out (linked from the Bug Me Not site) - what a good idea!

Han

P.S. Rowen, David’s in… again! :)

[quote author="Hannah Gordon"]Sorry, I can’t do the fancy links, but Adam Gregory’s response to Adele Horin’s article got in today:

oops, missed all those (Andrew Mitchell as well—we’re well on our way to that 10%!). that’s what happens when you log on at 2 am and accidentally get the leftover letters from the Friday edition!

Hurrah. 3 cheers for the SMH for finally printing one of my letters that refers to Jesus! (I’ve been rejected on all of them and had resorted to pithy one-liners...although unfortunately I’m usually not witty enough to get in...to try and raise my “profile” before attempting gospel letters)

Anyway, just a quick note re: linking to the letters page. If you link to this page:

http://www.smh.com.au/letters/index.html?from=lhsnav

You will only get the *current* letters page (that resets each day and therefore contains no history). The link needs to be like this one:

http://www.smh.com.au/articles/2004/06/18/1087245110348.html?from=storylhs

Which contains the date stamp for the letters of that day...ie this is Saturday’s, which contains my letter and also Andrew Mitchell’s - which I think we should claim by association ;)

-A-

thanks Adam that tip is particularly helpful and I will try to apply it in future.

BTW (and this is not at all a reflection on Adam, I hasten to add!!) I reckon that when we get a geeky computer-like tip submitted anywhere on these forums, particularly relating to current events, we could label it a nerdification, like as in

“I just wanted to nerdify you all that Peter Jensen is on 702 right now”

(he’s not—that was just an example :-)

PS it was a great letter Adam; excellent to get the mention of Jesus in