“Pray and act accordingly” alludes to exhortations in the bible for (particularly) the Israelites to repent, turn to God and live godly lives. The many instances of God likening Israel to an unfaithful wife for example, is a call of similar nature ie to turn back to God in repentance and live godly lives. That is the consistent theme running through the bible.

“Pray and act accordingly” is not, never has been and never will be a command by God for us to vote in a particular way in a country’s general election. To use that phrase and disguise one’s own preferences with a biblical call is to mislead and teach wrongly.

Danny Nalliah was wrong in 2007. When I first heard his “prophecy” in late 2007 I was as excited as thousands of Christians in Australia. I wanted John Howard to be returned to office. I have admired John Howard since my student days, when Howard was still trailing in the shadows of Bob Hawke, Paul Keating and even Andrew Peacock. I am also a great admirer of Peter Costello. I often regret and lament his absence from the Liberal and Coalition leadership.

Even though I wondered why Danny Nalliah attached the condition “if the people of God prayed and act wisely” (words to that effect) I sincerely believed his prophecy.

When he turned out to be wrong, I was willing to forget it. I would say Danny Nalliah was not a prophet and he should maybe continue his work as a pastor. He appears to be a good preacher so maybe he would stay within what God appears to have called him to do. I thought he would disappear from providing any leadership in terms of socio-political issues. I had thought well of him during the days when he was prosecuted under the anti vilification laws so I had only good thoughts of him then.

However he began to defend his so called prophecy by blaming Christians and church leaders instead. Apparently it was the fault of Christians and church leaders that the “prophecy” wasn’t fulfilled. Was it truly a prophecy or simply his thoughts which are reflections of his personal preferences for conservative politics? I cannot recall any prophecy in the scriptures where such conditions were attached. Danny Nalliah acted more like a pedestrian lawyer with an exit clause for quick release, than a prophet with a clear message from God. As many have said previously, if we were living in Old Testament days, Danny Nalliah would have been stoned to death for being a false prophet.

Danny Nalliah has continued the work of demonizing left politics. He is more an echo of American styled right wing politics than a servant of God. Danny Nalliah questioned if anyone who votes Labor can truly be considered as having a proper relationship with God. If this is not false teaching I would have to truly question every single evangelistic sermon I have ever heard. “Repent and Vote Conservative and you will be saved”, is what the likes of Billy Graham should have probably preached.

Why anyone would choose to give Danny Nalliah anymore time of day (for socio political matters) is really beyond me.

He would not entertain anyone who questions him in any way at all. His website famously would not post any comments which have anything remotely against him or question him and his website contents, no matter how innocuous and factual those questions may be. I suppose his excuse and guise is he does not want to be discouraged from fighting on for the Lord. My guess is he cannot stomach a true discourse of how to engage the world without compromising his beliefs. He simply does not know how to engage the world. He needs to be praying for wisdom, and forget about all the stuff he writes about anything concerning politics or social commentaries. He needs to appreciate facts and truth based on facts, a lot more.

Danny Nalliah is already a notorious target for saying the bushfires of 7 February 2009 is a result of ungodly laws passed by the Victorian parliament. Danny Nalliah is suffering as a social pariah and clown not because of his faith in Jesus but because of his own folly. Danny Nalliah is often incoherent and mixed up in his views and commentaries. Danny Nalliah cannot be trusted to provide leadership when it comes to representing the church or Christians. He cannot distinguish between pure and honest discourse and outright support. In the world of Danny Nalliah, to accord respect to a person and let him or her speak is to support and agree with that person. That is childish and immature and betrays old seated feudalistic baggage. When he goes on to chastise Christian leaders for doing this and implies that congregations of such leaders should throw such leaders out, he betrays a mindset and attitude that is scheming and manipulative and the mala fide nature that needs to be weeded out.

This is not about supporting Julia Gillard, in case Danny needs anymore spelling out. It is about setting out the facts clearly and fairly. It is about understanding the views of Australians who prefer Labor and engaging them from a Christian perspective. Equally, it is about engaging Australians who vote Conservative to see if they too can start to impart elements of compassion and fairness in their policies. These too are tenets of the Judeo Christian legacy and which are too often given the short stick by Conservative policies.

For a start, Danny Nalliah and his fans can maybe avoid what appears to be vitriol and have a look instead at: http://www.markconner.typepad.com

It has been said many times, that “text without context is pretext”. At the expense of sounding dismissive and/or patronising, I believe recent prolific references (by individuals in my church) to verses in the bible belong in this category.

One has a thought and looks for verses or even passages to give meaning to that thought. Often this sequence of seeking the Lord ends up in a confusing message, especially if the person concerned has the view that somehow he (or she) is a “spiritual person” so the thoughts he (or she) has had and the bible verses he (or she) has managed to find must be given the fullest attention by those around him.

Often this person cannot articulate what the meaning and application of those thoughts are and will be at pains to draw out the relevance of the bible passages quoted. When asked about the contexts of those passages, they revert to the dogmatic position that those thoughts are “from the Holy Spirit” and must therefore (by implication of course – this is never said outright) be given the fullest attention. The clear disconnect with the bible verses or passages are then left aside.[1]

With respect, this is inching closer to cult practices, where a cult leader would insist what he heard is from God and no one is to question that “voice” no matter how remote or irrelevant it is to the situation at hand.

I do not ordinarily dismiss such tendencies. If one thinks he has heard from God so be it. That however is a personal experience and should be kept within the bounds of a personal journey that person has with God. If the personal experience is to be imposed on the congregation it becomes another matter.

Such imposition must only take place if the church has clearly strayed away from clear biblical truths or teachings. In this regard, if the bible is silent on a given decision, then it is a decision the persons entrusted with the responsibility of leading may make by taking into account all relevant circumstances. Individuals’ personal bends aren’t the determinant of these decision especially if the thoughts or preferences arising from these tendencies are remote and do not bear on the decision to be made and run counter to what the rest of the congregation thinks best.

1. It is like those verses or passages have a character of “funtus officio” and no longer need be considered. It is then conveniently forgotten that those verses did not actually support the thoughts (because they are wrongly used) so those thoughts remain the private thoughts of that person.