An online survey of issues, events and ideas
Gordon Cheng / 31st October 2004
/ The ones they wouldn't publish!
Normally I'm a very ‘up’ personality, as all who know me will testify. But the lack of response from newspapers to my letters is starting to get me down. I am now really only able to motivate myself to write one a day. Sometimes two.
Dear editor,
Perhaps your reporter (‘Bible belt puts squeeze on evolution’, see the report here, SMH Oct 28)
should've asked respondents which version of evolution they didn't believe—Darwin's, Gould's, Dawkins', or some other variant. The schisms between evolutionary theorists make the current woes of Anglicanism look like a polite fracas among the corgis at a Royal Garden party.
Until the theorists sort themselves out it is little wonder that some sensible Australians will choose to remain agnostic and believe that the Bible will turn out to be consistent with whichever account the boffins eventually decide upon.
Yours sincerely (etc)
Gordon Cheng / 28th October 2004
/ The ones they wouldn't publish!
In the last few days, and quite likely in response to the prayers of many, there have been some excellent and balanced religion reports in the Sydney Morning Herald.
They're still not publishing my letters though.
Dear editor,
Linda Morris's excellent report on the doings of Sydney's Anglican synod poses a fundamental and knotty problem for those secularists who believe the God of the Bible is fading away into irrelevancy. Sydney Anglican churches continue to grow at a rate unmatched anywhere in the country and outstripping population growth.
The message that we can be forgiven, and be confident of our relationship with God through Jesus Christ, continues to have enduring appeal. It also speaks volumes for the grace and sovereignty of God.
Yours sincerely, (etc.)
Tony Payne / 27th October 2004
It's hard to escape the impression that Christians in general, and Bible-believing evangelical-type Christians in particular, get a pretty raw deal in the mainstream media.
At one level we're mostly ignored and marginalized. Our viewpoint is not regarded as being relevant, in normal circumstances, to whatever topic of public importance that is being debated—unless of course the Christian leader concerned is running a line that happens to fit with the purposes of the journalist. (This is how bishops who make pronouncements against the Iraq war get coverage in a way that bishops who make pronouncements about God, or sin, or morality, do not.)
About the only time we're not ignored is when some story comes along that allows us to be painted in a bad light—usually with respect to gay-hating, woman-hating, racism, child-abuse, fighting amongst ourselves or some other cheery topic. And typically, these stories are reported in a highly selective, distorted way that makes no attempt to represent the facts fairly, but which simply conveys the impression that the journalist wishes to convey at that point—witness the recent travesty of journalism in the reporting of comments by Phillip Jensen (see Ian's detailing of the distortions below).
When I see how we are consistently treated by The Sydney Morning Herald and the ABC, in particular, I often feel the indignation welling up within. “It's simply not right. It's not fair. There's no accountability.” Grumble, murmur, mutter.
But then, it occurred to me, the antagonism of the Fairfax press and the ABC might not be such a bad thing. After all, they were both fairly solid Labor backers at the recent federal election (Fairfax in particular), and the much-maligned Howard won with an increased majority.
Perhaps being dumped on all the time by the SMH and the ABC is not so bad for our reputation among a large portion of the population. After all, it seemed to work for the Coalition. Perhaps it might work for Bible-based Christians. We could wear it as a badge when we go evangelizing in the marginals: “Despised by the SMH and the ABC”. It just might open doors.
Ian Carmichael / 25th October 2004
I am not a dispassionate observer of the recent events regarding the Dean of Sydney's speech to the Reform Conference in the UK, and the subsequent reporting of it in the media both here in Sydney and in the UK. Phillip Jensen is a friend of mine. As a Christian, I owe him a great debt for his teaching and his leadership. For the last 17 years I have enjoyed working in an organisation that would not exist but for his vision and enterprise.
But David Marr is not a dispassionate observer either, and nor could anyone accuse him of pretending to be. His antagonism towards evangelical Christianity, and particularly its stand in relation to homosexuality, is public, well-known and stretches back many years [1]. Phillip Jensen has been his target before, as a clear and forthright representative of this brand of Christianity.
Perhaps this personal history and viewpoint clouds the judgement of both of us. Readers will, of course, need to judge this for themselves.
When I saw the ABC's Media Watch show last night (25/10/04), and David Marr's commentary on Phillip's remarks, my initial reaction was disappointment. However, when I re-read the explanation and apology that Phillip had given to the Sydney Synod, publicly available on the web, I admit I was angry.
Read more.
Guan Un / 25th October 2004
I'm a bit late on this one, but apparently they've recently discovered one of the birthplaces of the Reformation: Luther's lavatory. Now, I realise that it's almost impossible to now have this post retain any sense of dignity, but here's a choice quote from the BBC article, before I run and hide from the respectable writers:
Luther left a candid catalogue of his battle with constipation but despite this wealth of information, certain key details remain obscure—such as what the great reformer may have used in place of toilet paper.
