From an Australian netfriend:

Before I begin my email, am I the only person wondering if Fred Nile receives his salary from the guild of atheists? He is doing a superb job for them maligning Christianity and doing untold damage to the reputation of Christians in general. But that matter is not the purpose of this email

Allan Leggett has asked a very provocative question - can the message of the American religious activist John Shelby Spong (hereafter referred to as JSS)

be used as a tool for evangelism. At first glance, this might seem a preposterous suggestion, but I have pondered it at length and a few issues seem to have slotted into place on this vexed question and I am now interested in the comments of you list members on this.

Firstly, I want to make a positive affirmation of JSS. Yes, there seems no doubt that theologically he is disastrous. He is theologically tearing the heart out of Christianity by denying the historical death and resurrection of Jesus, the possibility of Christ-based salvation, the principle of answered prayer, and worse still he is trying to midrash the New Testament into an irrelevance. However, last year when he was here I had many discussions about JSS with various people, people from across the age spectrum and across the conservative-liberal spectrum. I came to the realisation that most people who are attracted to the message of JSS are attracted for only one reason: his message of tolerance. Tolerance of people regardless of race, gender, sexual orientation, and other social distinctions. This view was well summed up by what was said to me by an anonymous nonchristian person:

"Most non-Christians think that Christians are self-righeous, homophobic and hypocritical".

This can not be ignored! The hypocritical and self-righteous issues are more tricky and I will deal with them in a minute, but the more important one here is the homophobia. The criticism about being homophobic must be dealt with. Homosexuality is not a core Christian issue. Biblical references to it are vague and could equally mean irresponsible sexual practices applicable to heterosexuals as much as homosexuals.

Christianity stands and falls on the core issues. The following is an incomplete list but the key ones are here, in no particular order: Jesus' historically true death and resurrection; the humanity and divinity of Jesus; Jesus as the one way to heaven; the physical reality of answered prayer; salvation through Jesus; love God and your neighbour as yourself.

Christianity does not stand or fall on non-core issues: alcohol consumption; should women wear hats in church; is gambling and gaming wrong; sexual orientation; divorce; female ordination; male ordination; tobacco smoking; is the earth 6000 years old; consubstantiation and transubstantiation; infant baptism; etc.

Many of these non core issues fall into the "eating meat offered to idols" category, non-core issues, considered "venal sins" to some, considered not sins at all to others, and therefore to be practised in a responsible adult way so as not to give cultural or social offence.

If somebody is a practising homosexual, and is doing it within the responsible honourable manner of the biblical model of marriage, by which one means loving respectful monogamy but without the marriage certificate as dictated by Australian law, and that person is a Christian, and their conscience is clear before God that their lifestyle is in accord with the core issues of Christianity, then who are we to judge. We might pity them, though not as much as we would pity the non-christian homosexual since the gay lifestyle is most unappealing: furtive, unhygenic, frequently fatal, and it makes one a social outcast. But judge them? I fervently disagree. What one might say to the responsible gay Christian is "around conservative religious people and moralistic people, be sensitive to their sensibilities" and ask that the conservative in turn be "sensitive to the sensibilities of the gay Christian".

This is no different in principle to the way church communities handle the issue of alcohol consumption or smoking. Mutual sensitivity is needed between the Christian who likes their bottle of wine over dinner and beer and rugby on the weekend versus the teatotalling Christian whose conscience prohibits their enjoyment of alcohol. Or the Christian smoker versus the Christian whose conscience prohibits them smoking - not to mention reasons of intelligence and health. Or the Christian who loves the greyhound track or horseracing track versus the Christian whose conscience prohibits their visiting of the racetrack

There is nothing to be gained by hating or fearing them: drinkers, smokers, gamblers, homosexuals. We don't lose any of the core beliefs of Christianity by leaving the decision of whether repentance is necessary, or in fact that all is OK, to be a private decision between them and God. However, we demonstrate tolerance which is far more important than what we might lose by offending conservatives.

Now for the more difficult accusations. Self righteous and hypocritical labels are from the common misunderstanding one finds amongst nonchristians: that Christians are supposed to be "good" people. As we Christians know, Christians are far from perfect, just forgiven. We are merely humble enough to periodically admit our imperfection to God in private and receive forgiveness. Christians aren't any better at being good than nonchristians are, and that means we are sinners (which they like to point out) but so are they (which they don't like to discuss) but we are just humble enough to admit we are sinners and ask for forgiveness.

On this matter, we're damned if we do and damned if we don't - if we are perceived to be "good" then we seem self righteous, if we are perceived to be "imperfect" (which of course we all are) then we seem like hypocrites. To deal with this misperception is very difficult since the nonchristians don't want to hear the truth. Most non-Christians have very limited biblical knowledge. A 12 year old sunday school student would run theological rings around the average nonchristian in the street. And most nonchristians won't read the bible and won't listen to the explanations from a Christian. So this poses an almost intractable dilemma: how on earth can one convey the biblical truths of these issues to them?

Billy Graham had the answer there. Who among you had the privilege of attending a Billy Graham rally? If we could combine the theological soundness and evangelical message of Billy Graham, with the message of tolerance of JSS, I believe we could change the Christian landscape in Australia.