Here’s an article from Adele Horin that might be of interest:
[quote author="Jason"]I’m not sure that all reporting is unfair however. And if it is, why aren’t people trying to positively influence change?
Isn’t that exactly what people are doing, by discussing and responding to reporting - here, in conversation with others and through the letters page...?
The one under Sandy’s was rather interesting and nicely illustrated the point I’ve been wanting to make. (I don’t know if I’m allowed to quote it directly here, but if you follow the link it’s the one by Jane Manning.)
Christians have much of value to say on things other than sex. Lets get it out in a public forum.
[quote author="Sophie J. Kunze"]The one under Sandy’s was rather interesting and nicely illustrated the point I’ve been wanting to make.
I must admit my first reaction upon reading that letter was: “when did they have ‘images of war, torture and children behind barbed wire’ on Play School?”
I am going to be contrarian here and undercut my own advice.
There are at least three reasons why serious letter writers ought to consider writing longer letters (note though, I don’t mean bloated or verbose).
1. You get to develop your point. The 25 word zinger is plenty ‘nough for a clever one-liner or a cheap shot. That’s not necessarily bad, but neither will people to treat your point with a lot of seriousness.
2. A short letter is more likely to get the leaf in the forest treatment, and be buried in amongst a whole bunch of other witticisms, or more substantial letters that make the same point better because they have used the extra words to good effect.
3. Because we are writing counter-culturally—in my case trying to get the gospel in whenever I can—it is usually one step or two to move from the issue at hand to a statement about Jesus, his death, his resurrection, and our forgiveness. You just need a few more words to make those steps, without making what you’ve written sound forced.
By doing this, you may be trading off some of your publishability for the opportunity to say something more meaningful when you do get in. I think that’s worth it though.
If the count continues, include the letter from Lesley Hicks in response to the ‘images of war’ comment. Lesley is a long-term member of St Paul’s Chatswood.
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.
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...]
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.
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....
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?
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.
Are you looking for a specific resource but can’t find it? Do you have a resource or an idea that you’d like to share? Connect09 would like to hear from you.
You may be already using a tool, program or outreach event that could be of use to other Christians. Or maybe you have thought of something new and would like to get some feedback.
Use these fields to post your suggestion on our Ideas Page, view current ideas.
