Ewan McDonald, Victoria.

Kevin Rudd on the other hand was dissapointing, showing that the ALP is still controlled by socialist anti-christian ideology.

The fact that he sidestepped the question on taking away our fredom of speech through religious vilification laws, and his support of gay unions, really lost him any credibility.

Our youth group will be voting and praying for a Howard victory!

Helen Jed

My friend Jim Reiher has chosen to be involved with Green politics as a Christian voice. I completely disagree with his choice of party, but I applaud his desire to get involved. I have handed out cards for Fred Nile and Family First, not because I agree with them on everything but because they are saying things that need to be heard. Other friends are involved in Liberal politics. This too is a compromise but non-involvement is not an option, especially today.

I think the only dangerous thing, which Bernard has touched on, is when Christians are disrespectful of others and refuse to listen to other views before rejecting them. We have the right to be heard, but not in silence! We don’t have the right to impose our views on everyone.

Jon Newton

My comment of 13.08.07, and Bill’s original article I would see as discussing the ‘words’ part of your claim only. The ‘prayer’ part was not at issue. You have introduced the ‘prayer issue’ into the discussion, and for my part I find only a heart full of concord with what you say.

But may I, with respect say that the way you have introduced and intertwined the ‘prayer issue’ has tended to cloud the way evangelical Christians need to use ‘words’ in their apologetic. The simple corrective I would suggest is that your response would be even more powerful if you could have teased out these two aspects into separate sections.

Now, to extend your discussion, I ask: “Where can we find the source of the idea: ‘In a democratic country all we have are words and prayer’?” Don’t we also have the police force and the military forces?

The thrust of my response was about our use of ‘words’. My general point was: I was concerned with the effect of the ‘words’ we choose to convey our Biblically-based ideas in our responses, emails and letters to pollies, secularists and other worldview peoples. Make them strongly expressive of these ideas, seasoned with salt. But, like you say at one highly important part of your response Rebecca, ‘(e)veryone out there is eager and willing to catch us in an unspiritual moment’.

To be specific, my beef was not with Bill. I was calling our brothers who use such terms as “anti-Christian crazies”, “dingbats” or “wingnuts” to find a way of expressing their ideas in a way that will adorn, not muddy their positions. Surely the use of such pejorative terms will only entrench our opponents’ attitudes and words at the worst, or lull readers to sleep, as you observed, at the least.

But by adorning our ‘words’ with the multi-faceted glories of the Person and Character of our Wonderful Lord Jesus Christ, this was what my response was aiming at. And of course this will necessarily lead us to pouring out hearts out for our secular society in urgent prayer to Him. Hopefully taking up arms will not be needed too often!

Bill does this so well. Take for example his simple line from a more recent email of his: “You might want to send an email to Lyn, letting her know your thoughts, in a gracious yet firm manner: senator.allison@aph.gov.au”.

I hope I have ‘clarified the murkiness’ of my position Rebecca!

Bernard Tibbs, Wollongong NSW

Rebecca Field

May I suggest a way forward in the debate of this current article?

Is it to engage in a Christian form of public loathing of ‘More Public Loathing’ by believers from these alternative worldviews?

I would caution care in taking such an approach. Does not Paul’s injunction in Romans 8:9-21, particularly v.20, ‘to heap coals of fire on (your enemy’s) head’ mean, that if he comes to you with his grate of coals cold and burnt out or empty, should you not send him home with his grate full of the burning coals, from your heart filled with the fire of the Holy Spirit, that Other One Like Jesus, and coals from out of His Word?

It can be temptingly easy, by adopting their method of loathing as the Christian’s method of response, to be metaphorically sending them home with ‘dead coals’ or ‘no coals’!

It is right though that we as Christians should reflect to our pollies and their commentators, and to the public, a knowledge of their ideas and the worldview religious belief systems they are based upon, particularly as we approach another Federal Election!

What will be needed here, I know Bill has put elsewhere, is for people of all persuasions to understand the maxim that ‘Ideas have consequences’, whether these are ‘good ideas -> consequences’ or ‘bad ideas -> bad consequences’, and that it is critical that we know where ‘the ideas’ of all the major and minor parties are coming from.

We should be getting to know their Alternative Worldview ‘Bibles’ and ‘Prophets’ and ‘Good News’ and ‘Mission Statements’ better, so that we can show, from these sources and the Judaeo-Christian Bible, the true status of their ideas.

So, with John Howard and Kevin Rudd’s ideas, and those of other pollies and commenatators let us keep carefully and lovingly probing, with questions such as, ‘Where are your ideas coming from?’

None of this is meant to suggest however that such probing should not be with strong words, nor that firm Godly-loving actions not be taken to stand against those ideas where necessary.

So, in this debate, I humbly submit, we need Paul’s injunction, not just John Howard and Kevin Rudd. As Christians, he said, ‘quit you like men, be strong!’ (1 Cor. 16:13)

Bernard Tibbs, Wollongong NSW.

Trust me, I’ve run into these anti-Christian crazies more often than I care to remember. Tell me, how can America become a theocracy after 225 years of religious freedom unless these dingbats manage to convince us to abandon our Constitution? If they want to be militant about something, how about being militant against Muslim Shi’a law which condemns women to virtual slavery? Funny how these wingnuts don’t see that it was the work of Christians that ended slavery in the U.K. or that Social Darwinism is racist to the very core. How very convenient it is to ignore the history of Darwinism while pointing the finger of derision at someone else’s beliefs! After all, it was Darwinists, not Christians, who put an African pygmy in a cage (19th Century London) and treated him like a monkey!

M.E. Huffmaster