[Image Can Not Be Found]
A handout picture released by the St Matthew-in-the-City Anglican church in Auckland shows an apparently naked Virgin Mary and Joseph in bed together. The billboard has sparked the ire of conservative Christians in New Zealand.
John Greenewald, Jr.
The Black Vault Website Owner / Operator
OMG! Funny as! đ đ
Seeing as BV copied just the picture without the context of their own words, here's what they say on their website.......
To make the news at Christmas it seems a priest just needs to question the literalness of a virgin giving birth. Many in society mistakenly think that to challenge literalism is to challenge the norms of Christianity. What progressive interpretations try to do however is remove the supernatural obfuscation and delve into the deeper spiritual truth of this festival.
Christian fundamentalism believes a supernatural male God who lived above sent his sperm into the womb of the virgin Mary. Although there were a series of miraculous events surrounding Jesusâ birth â like wandering stars and angelic choirs â the real miracle was his death and literal resurrection 33 years later. The importance of this literal resurrection is the belief that it was a cosmic transaction whereby the male God embraced humanity only after being satiated by Jesusâ innocent blood.
The Christmas billboard on a local fundamentalist church sums up this thesis. It reads: âJesus born 2 die 4 u!â His birth was just an hâorderve before the main Calvary course.
No doubt on Christmas Eve when papers print the messages of Church leaders a few of them will serve up this fundamentalist thesis wrapped in a nice story.
Progressive Christianity believes the Christmas stories are fictitious accounts designed to introduce the radical nature of the adult Jesus. They contrast the Lord and Saviour Caesar with the anomaly of a new âlordâ and âsaviourâ born illegitimate in a squalid barn. At Bethlehem low-life shepherds and heathen travelers are welcome while the powerful and the priests arenât. The stories introduce the topsy-turvy way of God, where the outsiders are invited in and the insiders ushered out.
Progressive Christianity doesnât overlook Jesusâ life and rush to his death. Rather it sees the radical hospitality he offered to the poor, the despised, women, children, and the sick, and says: âthis is the essence of Godâ. His death was a consequence of the offensive nature of that hospitality and his resurrection a symbolic vindication.
The Christmas billboard outside St Matthew-in-the-City lampoons literalism and invites people to think again about what a miracle is. Is the miracle a male God sending forth his divine sperm, or is the miracle that God is and always has been among the poor? The billboard has a sombre Joseph and a consoling Mary, with the caption âPoor Joseph. God is a hard act to follow.â
On Christmas Eve when papers print the messages of Church leaders one or two of them will offer up this progressive thesis, encouraging laughter, generosity, and maybe even controversy.
Fundamentalism believes that Christianity is essentially about individual salvation and admission to an after-life off the planet. What one believes rather than how one behaves is paramount. This planet is merely a testing ground.
Progressive Christianity however emphasizes behaviour above belief. How one treats ones neighbours, enemies, and planet is the essence of faith. The celebration of the birth of Jesus is a celebration of God in every birth and every person.
For fundamentalist Christians the incarnation is about the miraculous arrival of a baby soon to die and by his blood save us. For progressive Christians the incarnation is about the miracle of this planet earth and all life that exists here.
Although fundamentalist and progressive Christianity stand in marked contrast to one another there are many other distinct and interesting theologies on Christmas. Yet the culture of the Church is such that differences are downplayed and commonality extolled. Variety is synthesized into a supposed unity creating a mushy middle way. Most church leaders follow this middle mush approach, trying to say something pertinent without offending anybody.
Progressive Christianity is distinctive in that not only does it articulate a clear view it is also interested in engaging with those who differ. Its vision is one of robust engagement. If every Christian thought the same not only would life be deadly boring but also the fullness of God would be diminished. This is the consequence of its incarnational theology: God is among us; even among those we disagree with or dislike.
One billboard that expresses middle mush reads, âI miss hearing you say âMerry Christmasâ, and its signed âJesusâ. No one can take offense because no one is being asked to do or think anything particularly different, except say âMerry Christmasâ.
No doubt on Christmas Eve when papers print the messages of Church leaders most of them will serve up this middle mush. Jesus will be born in a palatial sanitized barn and every king and crook, religious and irreligious, will be surrounding him saying âMerry Christmas my friends!â No reader will be asked to do or think anything risky, no reader will be offended, and no reader will write a critical response. Theyâll just yawn and turn the page.
April 9, 2009
April 9, 2009
Christian fundamentalism believes a supernatural male God who lived above sent his sperm into the womb of the virgin Mary.
hunh???...did I miss something in school? I was never taught that the creator God was male or that he even had sperm, and especially where he sent his sperm down to Mary. More like an incarnation of life that happened through some mysterious power the creator had. Nothing about the creator even having a penis ,with actual sperm he sent down?? đ
I think the picture and the caption is kinda cute, but its a crack at implications that aren't really what a lot of fundementalists believe. For one the catholics (I'm assuming they are in the fundamentalist category) wouldn't even have Joseph lying in bed naked beside mary. (they should both be dressed and Joseph complaining that God was the only one to get any action from Mary)
I think poking fun and making an innocent joke (with no malicious intent) can be cute and is one thing. To continue to "bash" beliefs and vulgarize the concepts behind them, shows the ignorance and lack of understanding of these concepts by those who think they are "enlightening " the public .
An example of what I'm talking about is a cartoon that was posted on the front page of the student newspaper at our local university. Lots of legal issues came up with that one, and the editor claimed he knew nothing about it the picture being released. It was Jesus screwing the back end of a pig ,with the pig representing corporate finance and jesus representing the church. It was totally distasteful, and way over the top to make a point that could have been made in another way(with a joke) that wouldn't have been so visually repulsive. Using "sacred deities"that are innocent of blame as visual representations for political agenda
is contemptuous ,and then to use it in such a vulgar perverse way does absulutely nothing to aid the point you are trying to make to "enlighten"the masses.
Definately not the newspaper edition you want your student throwing on the kitchen table , that his 6 year old sister is going to be sitting down at , and picks it up to look at the "cartoon".
April 9, 2009
Well I know the cartoon in the university paper sent a lot of folks into an uproar,as it well should...it was meant for shock tactics,and very distasteful,and a "sacred" deity was chosen as represenation in a political aganda about money. It made them look tactless,and vulgar.
I believe they got a couple of lawsuits over it. President of the university made a huge public apology over it. I think If they would have used the Jesus figure in a different context,and not in a perverse and sic act with a pig, it would have never been brought to court. Didn't reflect well at all on our university, or its newspaper. The fact that they lied and said it was a mix up,made them look even worse, cause nothing gets in without someone giving their approval on final print.
The thing is there are different extremes of blaspemy,and I have never understood why anyone who is truly trying to discredit religious beliefs because they think they are wrong ,use such low ball and vulgar tactics to try and get their point across. It ends up discrediting them, because it does not come across as informative, just very hateful,and looking to provoke.
April 22, 2009