An unholy row has broken out in New Zealand over a church billboard aimed at “challenging stereotypes” about the birth of Jesus Christ.
A dejected-looking Joseph lies in bed next to Mary under the caption, “Poor Joseph. God was a hard act to follow”.
St Matthew-in-the-City Church in Auckland, which erected the billboard, said it had intended to provoke debate.
But the Catholic Church, among others, has condemned it as “inappropriate” and “disrespectful”.
Same old, same old. Anglicans have thought these kinds of things since the 1700s when Jefferson cut up the Bible; ministers have been more in-your-face about it since the late 1960s.
This is the same preacher (deacon?) who declared that “Christian fundamentalism believes a male God who lived above sent his sperm into the virgin Mary.” This church is heretical beyond belief. We should really ignore it and proclaim the truth just as the Catholics there are doing.
I always thought that the Church was supposed to preach the Gospel, as in “the Divine Commission:”
“Go ye therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost: Teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you”
Is my copy of the Bible missing the paragraph with “Go, and provoke debate”? Or, have I simply misunderstood what Jesus said?
It’s appalling to see how debate and discussion are becoming more important to some churches than teaching Christian doctrine. And the billboard (extremely tasteless and tacky, IMHO) smells of sensationalism. It seems that the vicar’s comment about how the “billboard had been to lampoon the literal interpretation of the Christmas conception story” supports this notion; they’re treating the Incarnation as something that lends itself to ridicule. I would hope other churches voice their disapproval, as did the Roman Church; standing by and quietly allowing a church which claims to be “Christian” to question and parody one of the foundations of Christianity merely encourages this type of behavior.
1) I lament that the desire for debate is really a desire to pour scorn on the holy doctrine of the incarnation
2) I lament the portrayal of sex as personal fulfilment as opposed to sacred bond within marriage
3) I lament the lack of honour, dignity and devotion shown to Ss Mary and Joseph
4) I lament the rude way in which the beliefs of Catholic and orthodox Christians were seen as fair game for ridicule
5) I lament that this man is deemed worthy enough to be an archdeacon
6) And once again I lament what has happened/is happening to the Anglican church. liberal pirates have boarded and are running amok whilst I and many other faithful Christians am to be forced onto the plank by the failed ability a revision committee, simply for believing what the church always taught and for failing to believe what they recently invented and now deem to be infallible
What a joke this church is becoming. This is the fruit of that….
My first reaction was shock and anger. My second reaction was bewilderment. Realistically, what possible gain can there be from this? Will even one sceptic be challenged into coming to church or thinking more seriously about the gospel? So why this in-your-face lampoon? If there is no gain there is no reason for it, except, perhaps, to mock those who still believe in the doctrines contained in the creed.
I’ve said more than once on this forum that I’m agnostic about the Virgin Birth — I do believe that Jesus was the Son of God, but I have my doubts that his birth happened the way that Matthew and Luke describe.
But.
There are ways and there are ways to “challenge stereotypes” and “provoke debate,” and this billboard is a very bad way. It is guaranteed to offend — indeed it’s entire purpose is to offend — precisely those people with whom they purportedly wish to engage, and if they genuinely wanted to have a discussion that would get it off to a very rocky start.
But it seems clear enough that the people who put up this billboard are not actually interested in debating the historical veracity of the nativity accounts, nor yet in examining what effect different conclusions might have on Christian belief. They want to shock and provoke for the sake of notoriety, and that is un-Christian from any point of view.
I was shocked when I first read about this a couple of days ago. But, after digesting it, I’m rather glad this loony archdeacon/vicar/whatever-he-is made a spectacle on behalf of “progressive Christianity.” Too often, folks of this ilk engage in double-speak with an opaqueness that allows people to give them the benefit of the doubt when it comes to their stance on basic Christian principles.
However, THIS guy has laid it all out on the table VERY clearly so there is no mistaking what he thinks of traditional believers, doctrine, and the progressive mission in the Church. I’m rather glad and hope the blinders fall off.
I confess that I disagree with all of the above and found the billboard thought-provoking. I can see it leading to a good discussion–just as I had remarkably good discussions in my Modern Christian Thought course when I used Borg and Crossan’s The First Christmas (among a range of other books). The First Christmas led to good discussions of possible approaches to the story of the Virgin Birth.
I guess heresy and sacrilege can be thought provoking. I am sure Nadab and Abihu did.
No. 9: You mean the two lads, sons of Aaron, who were torched by a divine flame-thrower for using the wrong incense? Yes, I think I’d prefer “thought-provoking.”
But debate about what? The whole thing just seems vulgar, juvenile and silly. I don’t see any great theological significance one way or the other. It’s simply bad taste and a waste of time (and, I presume, money).
No. 11: “But debate about what?”
For example, whether the Virgin Birth claim is primarily theological or physiological.
NoVa Scout #11 – I couldn’t agree more. In an attempt to look “progressive” and “modern” this particular congregation and its leaders have ended up looking like they have spent all of their lives sniggering behind the bike-shed. Bad taste definitely — waste of time also.
#12 — Please. Can you point to ANY legitimate Christian denomination, tradition or writing that claims that Holy Genitalia or Sacred Semen was involved? This nutter created the “debate potential” foolishness.
Victor Paul Wierwille and the Way – mid-1970’s. Re-packaged Arianism just like this chappie.
#12 Mr. Hein – I’m not sure whether it is worthy of time, but I’ll respond anyway as we’re snowed in in my part of the South. Your problem is that you present a false dichotomy. There is no choice to be made between whether the Virgin Birth is “primarily theological or physiological”. The whole point of the Incarnation is that it is both. Christianity, being a form of Judaism, is entirely an incarnational religion. In creating the world [i]ex nihilo[/i] vice out His own Divine substance, God has established a fundamental divide between Himself and His creation. Recognition of this radical distinction, this dividing wall between God and His creation, is one of the few things Christianity shares in common, for instance, with Islam. Whereas Islam posits God tossing the Koran over the wall, as it were, by means of divine dictation, we proclaim a God who smashes through this wall by means of divine incarnation.
Throughout the Old Testament, God reveals Himself in tangible, indeed incarnational ways: a burning bush, the life and words of the prophets, as manna in the desert and water from the rock. All of which points to the incarnation of God the Son, Who is the ultimate revelation of God. Like Him, holy scripture is incarnational, human authors dwelling within particular cultural and historical circumstances, yet at the same time divine, inspired by the Holy Spirit such that what they say is at least theologically infallible, incapable of misrepresenting who God is. Likewise the Church is incarnational, human in ways that need no explication yet divine such that Christ directly identifies with His nascent Church: “Saul, Saul, why do you persecute me?” Both scripture and the Church are sacraments, physical and theological signs through which God effects that which is signified. A distinction between spirit and matter in either case is theologically erroneous.
The Incarnation is indeed worthy of debate, discussion and contemplation. Would, for instance, have God come to us as one of us had there been no sin? Is the Incarnation not only distinguishable but distinct from the death and resurrection of our Lord? Contemplation of the Incarnation has indeed usualy involved deep consideration of the place of Mary as the unique vessel through whom it was effected. And surely there is much to be discussed with regard to her.
In an incarnational Church, there is surely room for humor, including sexual humor. We worry a lot about those sorts of things and humor is often found in those things we most fear and are most anxious about. The problem with this particular joke is precisely its juvenile smuttiness. Had the presentation been somewhat different, it might have indeed been thought-provoking. After all, men are exhorted by the Apostle to “love their wives as Christ loved the Church and gave Himself for her”. His is indeed the example we husbands are to follow and nobody, least of all St. Paul, said it would be easy. The icon of the Christian husband is Christ on the cross. His is indeed a tough act to follow.