Christmas Theologies and Billboards

Glynn Cardy
13 Dec 2009 00:00:00

Advent 3
Download Liturgy
iGod Audio

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.

 

Comments:

Tom Anderson [Canada]	15 Dec 2009 18:08:32
Dear Glynn. The image of of the virgin Mary in the throws of an orgasmic ecstasy of divine inspiration has never, before, occurred to me. Earthquakes would pale in comparison. Perhaps the impossible birth of a travelling star might be a more adequate metaphor? Joseph never stood a chance and I'm glad Mary's not here to brag in the locker room.

Sande Ramage [Havelock North]	16 Dec 2009 13:23:40
Keep it happening - with buses and billboards we have the godstuff back in the marketplace where it should be - great!

Luis Gutierrez [USA]

16 Dec 2009 18:43:20

Literalist interpretations of the bible are often nothing more than projections of our own prejudices. The Christmas narratives are a case in point. The mystery of the incarnation has been impoverished to the point of irrelevance by the dust of 2000 years of churchianity. No wonder Christmas has degenerated for many of us into a consumerist extravaganza. And yet, it is second only to Easter as a celebration of God made flesh -- like us in all things but sin. Congratulations and merry Christmas! Luis

Justine Aston [Auckland]	16 Dec 2009 21:19:53
I couldn't be happier with the billboard! It's about time people got "thinking" again. Well done. Provocative and relevant.

tk [USA/UK]

17 Dec 2009 07:23:01

A few points you seem to have missed: (a) God (being infinite and therefore beyond gender, at least as we understand it, not to mention being non-physical and therefore obviously not having a biological sex) is not 'male.' (b) God (being 'spirit' according to the NT) does not have sperm (c) The Incarnation is not just a prelude to the Crucifixion, but is the first act in restoring fallen humanity (d) The crucifixion, insofar as it 'satisfied' God's wrath, was not some unjust punishment visited upon an innocent victim, but was God's own self-offering for us in love to restore us to himself (minor, often overlooked doctrine known as the 'Trinity' in play there). (e) granted that some churches have switched to the 'going to heaven' thing, the point of Christianity is not escapism, but the Resurrection, a New Heaven and a New Earth--which very much points us back to the right stewardship of the one we're on; and even those who would maintain that it *is* about going to heaven would say that you don't really have faith if your treatment of others doesn't reflect this. You're not being provocative, you're just demonstrating that you don't know what you're talking about. Yours truly, A knuckle-dragging, drool-slobbering Neanderthal traditionalist. PS--it's 'hors d'oevre' not 'h’orderve.'

Bev [Auckland]	17 Dec 2009 07:32:07
I am deeply saddened, dismayed and horrified by your billboard. Instead of trying to convey the true meaning of Christmas and promote Christianity you have only succeeded in being controversial. I will never again attend an Anglican service.

Kirsty Walker [Hamilton]

17 Dec 2009 07:33:12

While you may have courted controversy though your proposed billboard campaign, you have not spread truth or understanding. You have misrepresented "fundamentalist" and Roman Catholic Christian theology in your billboard and your homily. Where does "sperm" come into the Christmas story? This is utter nonsense, and it is not Scriptural. The God who spoke the world into being does not need human reproductive mechanics to exist in an incarnate form. The Gospel of Luke goes into the greatest detail about the "mechanics" of Christ's conception and there is no mention of sex anywhere. Just because Michaelangelo portrayed God the Creator in human form in the Sistine Chapel, it does not mean that "fundamentalist" or Roman Catholic Christians believe that to be true. I hope you enjoy your moment in the media spotlight. You have denigrated the Bible, and maligned "fellow" Christian believers who love God and His Word, and know it to be true. Merry Christmas.

Wayne Ridgway [Auckland]	17 Dec 2009 07:46:55
Such a poster is inappropriate, disrespectful and completely offensive.

Glynn [St Matthew's]

17 Dec 2009 07:55:22

Dear Bev, Kirsty, and Wayne, thank you for your letters. In short the billboard lampoons the literal idea of God being a male and that God impregnating Mary. This is how the Christian message about the incarnation is widely understood in our secular society. I believe that God is much bigger than such a simplistic notion. Indeed I find the idea of God being reduced to a male and one who mates with a young teenager extremely disrespectful of the Jewish and Christian tradition of the sovereignty and vastness of the God who is best known as love.

Charlie [Massacusetts, USA]

17 Dec 2009 07:57:45

John Stott, CS Lewis, JI Packer, and a host of others refuted this man's twaddle decades ago. He seems to be completely ignorant of both the content of orthodox Christian faith and of the sound reasons and reasoning behind it. Few (if any) conservative Christians are so ignorant of what they believe and why they believe it as to hear this man's blather and then say, "How could I have been so wrong? At last I understand!" If I believed what this man is saying, I would sleep in on Sunday, or go fishing, or change the oil in my car. If all that worship is is symbol manipulation and exhortations to political activism, it is not worth the bother of going to church.

David [USA]	17 Dec 2009 08:10:19
Wow, way to flaunt your ignorance of Christianity. This is not a critique of fundamentalism by "progressive Christianity." This is lost and confused pagan propaganda that has been around for a long time. About as "thought-provoking" as the Da Vinci Code. In other words its a pathetic joke. It will blow over soon enough but the truth will stand.

Bishop Ed [Eastern Seaboard USA]	17 Dec 2009 08:27:33
Your billboard is blasphemy, your theology is trash, and you can't spell hors d'oeuvres. Typical deacon.

seraph [Florida]	17 Dec 2009 09:04:55
The tastless billboard and pathetic stereotypes in this poorly thought out sermon are an embarrassment to Christians of all stripes. Ignorance and of the faith does not a "progressive" Christian make.

Steve [CT]	17 Dec 2009 09:14:36
I'm trying to think of a better way to make a fool of oneself, but I can't. I honestly don't want to be around when you try to explain to our Lord this picture of His Mother. Good luck.

Father Bill [California]	17 Dec 2009 09:33:01
Hey, you're a blasphemous, ignorant asshole. Of course, I mean that metaphorically. Hope you snap out of your apostasy pretty soon. Millstones and all that.

Petra [Somewhere in the known universe]

17 Dec 2009 10:07:17

Goodness, gracious me! You surely must realise (those of you whose sensibilities have been offended) that the central message of the Gospel is absolute, downright and dirty scandal? Jesus stood against everything that was religiosity, oppressive power and that promoted exclusive access of a privileged few into the Reign of God. He was controversial, spoke about 'kavaneh' or heart-intentions, and even sat at table drinking with gamblers, tax collectors, the contaminated and many other marginalised people that the 'decent' folk of the time considered highly offensive. It's also pertinent to remember that the Christmas story differs in each of the synoptic gospels..that these times were times of oral history, and that our Gospels were penned much later than his death in 30-ish AD...have any of you studied any theology? Actually read anything on the socio-political and cultural issues of 1st century Palestine??? Bishop Ed, blasphemy has always been a convenient catch-cry throughout our Church's tradition; used to exclude those whose thoughts collide with those who hold the power - listen, if Glynn et al get struck down with lightning by your particular God Trio of boys, I hope I go with them. This 'blasphemy' has at its heart the message of community, spiritual action and blatant opposition to any regime that seeks to oppress and render silent. I think, after my last 4 years of university theological education (and I haven't even come close to pinning God down!) that I'm only just at the beginning, scraping the surface and plan, in prayer, to continue. If it wasn't for indecent, queer, dirty and scandalous blasphemy (didn't that get pinned on Jesus?) then I would have no hope and probably, like Charlie says, sleep in on Sunday. Like the myth of the doctrine of purgatory and indulgences, divine birth embodies a spiritual message, not an historical fact..but then, I guess that you believe Darwin was a blaspheme as well. Read Jane Schaberg, Marcella Althaus-Reid, or even take a step back in time to those pioneering Catholic religious in South America of the 1960's. Your decent, exclusive, patriarchal theology is the indecency and it's hegemonic insistence of being right and powerful is the blasphemy that detracts from the God of love.

Michael [Texas]

17 Dec 2009 10:20:27

"Dear Bev, Kirsty, and Wayne, thank you for your letters. In short the billboard lampoons the literal idea of God being a male and that God impregnating Mary. This is how the Christian message about the incarnation is widely understood in our secular society." Perhaps, by people who are badly catechized (or in churches with bad catechisms, or not even Christian). However, the "fundamentalist" or "literalist" interpretation, which is what you call it in your sermon, is not and has never been that God is male and sent his sperm into Mary, as far as I know. Even Jesus, who had a male body on earth, is usually considered to be without gender when considered in his godly aspect. However, how does your billboard help in any way to clear up this supposed misunderstanding? The billboard instead looks to me like something that Richard Dawkins or PZ Myers* would put up in order to mock Christianity, rather than something meant to engender any real thought on the matter. I can only see it encouraging nonbelievers to say, hur hur, stoopid Christians, they really think God ****ed Mary - and yet I've never known a Christian of any denomination who thought so. You're making a straw man of your fundamentalist 'opponents.' Nor does your own progressive belief do anything but reduce the idea of God. You say that your God is vast, and yet you find it impossible that he would be in any physical way a part of our lives or of our history. You reduce the Gospels to mere metaphor, as if God could not bring both a message and a physical savior. You even say, "For progressive Christians the incarnation is about the miracle of this planet earth and all life that exists here." Do I guess rightly that you would say the same about the Crucifixion and Resurrection, as like the incarnation it is about life that exists elsewhere? That means St. Paul is a fundamentalist, for he said unambiguously in 1 Cor 15 that "But if it is preached that Christ has been raised from the dead, how can some of you say that there is no resurrection of the dead? If there is no resurrection of the dead, then not even Christ has been raised. And if Christ has not been raised, our preaching is useless and so is your faith." In fact, I would guess that Jesus Himself and all the Saints would be closer even to your caricature of fundamentalist Christianity than to your own progressive religion. And I'm absolutely sure that Christianity would not exist at all if the Fathers of the Church and believers throughout the centuries thought it was only a fiction with a nice message. * But not Christopher Hitchens, because he thinks the incarnation story is about "fear of the womb," which is apparently an unironic belief by someone in support of contraception, abortion and in vitro fertilization.

Chris [Auckland, New Zealand]

17 Dec 2009 10:20:57

This smacks of a publicity stunt whose only purpose is self-promotion at the expense of truth. It is plain that your 'church' has an agenda, and it is not a Christian one. "Differences downplayed and community extolled" - the words of a radical who seeks not to set people free with the truth, but rather divide and conquer. You may have the building, and the parishioners, but I would suggest that the holy spirit has long since departed from your 'church.'

Matthew [Earth]

17 Dec 2009 10:31:37

TK, If Jesus is the product of divine insemination (in whatever format) and not the seed of Joseph, then he is not human, his crucifixion means nothing because he has no connections to humanity, it's just God killing himself to prove he can. If however (as must be true) Jesus is an enlightened being birthed from the union of a man and a woman, then his life and his death can be seen as a statement of the possibilities of humanity, not some freak show that simply excites Mel Gibson fans.

Petra [Somewhere in the known universe]

17 Dec 2009 10:31:50

Chris, I think that they probably said that about Jesus too, 'self-promotion at the expense of truth'... Good one! How arrogant for you to determine where the spirit leads and what 'christianity' is...don't you realise that the Petrine theology and Pauline theologies in the first century were significantly different? Which one would you say was 'truth'? And divide and conquer, LOL, didn't Jesus say something about leaving our mothers and fathers, brothers and sisters in the recognition that his radical viewpoint would be laughed at..?

Jerry [NZ]	17 Dec 2009 10:35:12
Pathetic excuse for blasphemy and totally illogical argument. You want to accuse the "fundamental Christians" overlooked Jesus' life and then you can't even admit Jesus was born. Jesus said "Do not put the Lord your God to the test", was Jesus bullshitting? or he's not progressive enough like you?

Craig S. [Auckland]	17 Dec 2009 10:51:56
Well done, now you have attracted the kinds like Petra who is too happy to criticise Christianity. If you don't want to follow Chrisitanity, don't open a church and call yourself an Archdeacon. "Woe unto them! for they have gone in the way of Cain, and ran greedily after the error of Balaam for reward, and perished in the gainsaying of Core."

matthew [earth]

17 Dec 2009 10:58:59

congrats, craig, that's right there is such a thing as too happy, at least in your church. Tell me what is Christianity? Did you know that Jesus is widely regarded as having Essenic routes, an experential church? That is to say the Essenes did not believe in a divine game of chinese whispers through a priest, but rather understanding of the divine through experience. So I am guessing that Christ was not a Christian?

Anthony [Australia]

17 Dec 2009 11:08:06

What you describe as "fundamentalist" Christianity has some vague references to some Christian ideas but is certainly not Christian. Christianity does not believe God is male or that he sent his sperm from somewhere for example. Then what you descibe as "progressive" Christianity does not appear as Christian either, although there are some vauge references to christian themes. Christianity os about right beliefe and right behaviour and the incarnation is not a planetary event as such but God among us in flesh for example. Hospitality is highly valued in Judaism and the Prophets continually exhorted Jews to be radical in their practice of hospitality. Christians too need to listen to the Prophets on this. There is no law in Judaism nor in Roman law against hosptality, radical of otherwise, for which a person could be condemned to death. Nor is there any suggestion in the Gospel accounts of Jesus trial and death that the charge was hositality. You pit two unrecognisable versions of straw man "christianity's" in opposition to each other and create a false argument. It is the radical adventure of orthodox Christianity, which you do not describe, which seems most convincing and challenging.

Craig S. [Auckland]	17 Dec 2009 11:46:06
Matthew, unlike you, I don't need to make fun of the bible to make myself happy. You wrote "If Jesus is the product of divine insemination (in whatever format) and not the seed of Joseph, then he is not human, his crucifixion means nothing because he has no connections to humanity" I suggest you read the bible first before talking about who is Christ and who can be qualified as a Christian.

matthew [earth]

17 Dec 2009 11:56:36

Craig, the happiness I referred to was your contention that one can be 'too happy', not the source of the happiness. I am saying that it is truly a bleak outlook when you think someone can be too happy. Please do point out where I made fun of the Bible? As for the divine insemination claim, if Jesus is the product of a virgin birth, it has no connection with humanity, his death is the same as the death of an alien (literally), if however he is the product of good old fashioned dirty sex and then becomes an enlightened being, his life and death become a beacon to us all. I suggest you take some lessons in basic logic before you present your arguments. Oh wait you didn't present any arguments, you just put me down, and you are a bible loving Christian setting a perfect example for us heathens.

karen [USA]	17 Dec 2009 13:03:10
You have lost your faith. No wonder your church is dying on the vine.This bill board and your "sermon" is a sacrilege.

Rev Andrew Hoggan [Christchurch NZ]

17 Dec 2009 13:12:09

One could challenge this on many levels. However let me simply respond to your closing comment and say it is the simple gospel message of sinners needing a savour that is deeply offensive and risky and it may well be the so called "progressive church" that offers a safe sanitised faith cleansed of the stigma of sin and the need to acknowledge our culpability and need of God’s redeeming and yes loving work in our lives.....

Matthew [earth]	17 Dec 2009 13:13:46
Why is it that all the people railing against this, don't present any arguments to sway our thoughts, just come out with: "you are wrong, you are going to hell" Come on, liven up, fight for what you believe, prove what you claim, or at least argue for it as opposed to spit out rhetoric. I would like to think that at least some of you have thought about where you stand.

Boris [Auckland]

17 Dec 2009 13:31:36

I am an orthodox Christian and I would like to say to everyone with a little bit of FAITH left in his/her heart, that this is pure blasphemy. It is more then clear that a "church", which directly opposes the Holy Scriptures and the teachings of the Virginity of the most Holy Godmother Marie, is a tool in the hand of the devil and is an evidence that it was taken over by his demons. It is a sad day for all Anglicans and Godloving people of New Zealand to see this billboard being shown in front of a building which purpose it is to worship God. With this action, the responsible persons are directly worshipping satan. The time was chosen to be right before Christmas, to destroy the meaning and faith in the hearts of many Christians. Anatema to all of the so called priests, who allowed this to happen. God be merciful on all of us sinners and may the true Godlovers standup against this outrageous act.

geno@stmatthews.org.nz [Auckland]

17 Dec 2009 14:05:25

If this billboard has the power to destroy some Christian’s faith, than their faith wasn’t very strong to begin with. Many of us in the church are so tired of this male God who requires the venomous and hateful discourse of “his” followers to oppress others and defend him as if he were not big enough to defend himself. Fanatical Christians have historically struggled to stifle and gag the brains and mouths of those who would disagree with them so it is no surprise that this billboard is bringing out the hate-mongers and full force..

Andrei [Wellington]	17 Dec 2009 14:47:29
Gee Geno - Hate mongers? Don't you understand the place the Theotokos and ever Virgin Mary has in Christianity. Imagine, if you will, that it was you mother portrayed as you have portrayed the Theotokos in that billboard. How might you feel? Hmmm

Andrew M [Waikato]

17 Dec 2009 14:53:33

Hm! I seem to remember reading in John that they will know we are Christians by our love. There doesn't seem much evidence of that in some postings. I for one think this is an excellent billboard. Challenging and thought-provoking. Just what it was intended to be. The "miracle" for me is that God is among us, within us. I still find the open table challenging. I like the idea, but find it difficult to welcome some. Perhaps if they sat at the other end of the table? Thankyou Glynn for reminding us of God's invitation to a "robust engagement" - sounds rather Christ-like! P.s. it's good to know the table is open even to those obsessive compulsives who might want to challenge someone's spelling. The French term "hors d'œuvre" (you can use alt 0156 to generate the ligature of the o+e) means "outside the main work" which somehow points to the red herring nature of some of the objections previously posted.

NickRita [Australia]	17 Dec 2009 15:19:42
You want to bear the name of Christ but denegrate and even blaspheme that which we should hold sacred. Shame on you.

Boris [Auckland]

17 Dec 2009 15:24:57

People like geno are portraying Christians, who defend the Truth, witnessed by the Holy Apostles and Scriptures, as hateful people, blasphemic action as dialog. They turn lies into truths, because their father is the father of all lies. It is the struggle between Good and evil, which we know is faught in our hearts and evreyday life. Through the actions of the "anglican church" we can witness the fall of Men and the direct attack on everything considered Holy for Christians. The birth of Christ, his Holy Mother and the Holy Scriptures. There is no Christianity left in their "priesthood" and "church" if you deny the Truth from the Bible: "Now all this was done that it might be fulfilled which the Lord spoke by the prophet, saying: Behold a virgin shall be with child, and bring forth a son, and they shall call his name Emmanuel, which being interpreted is, God with us. " Most Holy Virgin and Godmother, pray for us sinners to your Son and our God Jesus Christ, so that we all stand strong, even though we are tempted by the evil tempter and that we forever witness the Truth. Glory to the Father, and the Son and the Holy Spirit, both now and forever and to the ages of ages. Amen

Timothy [A Land Before Time]	17 Dec 2009 15:55:00
I think this whole campaign would have been much more effective if you had put a giant condom over the whole billboard and then filled it with the sperm of the male parishioners. You really have quite some way to go in realizing your media whore potential.

Geno [Auckland]

17 Dec 2009 16:06:00

I'm all for people speaking with conviction about their faith. I do it. It's when that conviction starts becoming the source of oppression that I have problems with. Restricting freedom of speech and thought is a tool of oppression and calls by a small number of people for the billboard to be removed, in my opinion, is oppressive. Restricting the ability in people to question our most sacred symbols is not a Christian value. Quite the opposite in fact. Jesus often challenged the Temple authorities and the monopoly they claimed to have on truth. This billboard does the same. The billboard may be offensive to some people but to Others, it may be liberating. I think the whole point of this billboard is to let people decide for themselves what truth is. Christianity has historically dictated these "truths" and as Christians, we are not famous for allowing people to think for themselves which has turned a great number of people away from the Church. Re: hatemongering Andrei, please see the posts above and below your comment. I don't know, but calling someone who doesn't agree with you a "blasphemous, ignorant asshole" or a "media whore" sounds pretty hateful to me.

Lexie [Auckland]

17 Dec 2009 16:10:15

Thank you for you're thought provoking and challenging billboard. I see nothing blasphemous in it at all but rather an interesting, adult reflection on what has become the secular myth of the conception of Jesus. I say secular because I can't find much of Jesus' teaching in the pronouncements of political activist groups like Family First and, while being Roman Catholic myself, I think Lindsay Freer's comments are simply nonsensical. As Prince Charles said today, in a different context, our children will remember us for what we did not what we said and in this you are being true to the values of Christ in that you are, as he did, asking us to think and not just to accept. We should 'do' our Christianity and not just talk about it ... which is what you have done. Good for you!

sean  [Canada]

17 Dec 2009 16:28:18

quick note from canada, an ad copywriter, who previously did an mdiv and some advanced theology, and i think even a brief stint as an anglican chaplain at a research university up here. anyhow, i know the difficulty of trying to get a message across, of trying to get a message right, of trying to do something different and true. it was an interesting, kind of daring choice of creative you guys signed off on. god's cuckold isn't necessarily profound, but hey, it's getting noticed by people who won't really notice church stuff. there are plenty enough 'service times' notices and 'come home for christmas' kinds of messages, so i respect the 'risk'. but, in some ways, looking at the poster, it seems like the risk was all yours, and not theirs. the guys who did it, it\'s kind of an early thought, pushing the blasphemy and turning over the 'virgin', and what i don't get is a sense that the creative team really dug. or maybe that all happened, and you guys opted for the frat feel. but if there is a next campaign, something that doesn't just twist, but offers some kind of insight. but trust me, i've slaved for ages on stuff and come up with naught. and my best ever campaign is pretty much a dick joke. i'm sure you guys have seen the long running campaign that has been in the UK, usually christmases, by church ad project, or christians in the media, they did a Che Jesus in 99, some other stuff. if you follow the link, here\'s a poster i did for easter some years back-- http://seangallaghers.blogspot.com/2007/11/st-pauls-church-easter.html anyhow, your poster got noticed, which is tough enough for an ad, or a church, to manage.

Nathan [Sydney]

17 Dec 2009 16:53:58

I am deeply offended by this billboard. Come on fellow Christians, you can do much better than use sex to advertise religion! You're putting down almost everything you believe in one small image. "Christian fundamentalism believes a supernatural male God who lived above sent his sperm into the womb of the virgin Mary. " To quote someone elses' post: "Where does "sperm" come into the Christmas story? This is utter nonsense, and it is not Scriptural. The God who spoke the world into being does not need human reproductive mechanics to exist in an incarnate form. The Gospel of Luke goes into the greatest detail about the "mechanics" of Christ's conception and there is no mention of sex anywhere." Please don't make the mistake of leaving this billboard up longer than it has been or will be. You think you will be spreading a Christian message, but as you can see from the many posts, I dont think it will be a very Christian message at all. Please pray about this, and listen to what Jesus would have to say about this image of his parents. Thanks Nathan

Scribe [Auckland]	17 Dec 2009 17:14:29
Glynn, Just a quick question I hope you have time to answer in between your media engagements. How does this new Christmas message align — or not — with your column from a couple of years back on how Mary fell pregnant when she was raped?

Sam [Auckland]	17 Dec 2009 17:54:24
Congratulations on creating a fantastic billboard. I am an atheist and having read your column I love your view point. Keep up the fantastic work, I would love to have a chat one day soon.

Orthodox [Europe]

17 Dec 2009 17:57:28

This describes the mental status of the propagators of the billboard and their followers: "I think the whole point of this billboard is to let people decide for themselves what truth is. "(Geno) It is not possible to decide about what truth is. If the majority of the planet decides that the sun will not rise in the morning, it will not change the fact that the sun will rise the next morning. Truth is and cannot be decided. There is no poll where truth is. There is no decision to be made, where truth is. It is simply the TRUTH. Christ said: “I am the way and the truth and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me”. Do you really think that you are going His way, by insulting his Holy Mother and Saint Joseph? I hope you will understand your foolishness. What you are trying isn’t worshipping God, it is worship of a manmade NEW-AGE religion, with no connection to the Truth. Everything is allowed, everything is true. No boundaries, Everyone loves everyone. Man-woman, man-man, woman-woman. You would today put God into jail for destroying Sodom and Gomorra. Your faith is reduced to a big-brother style marketing campaign and cheap insults to our faith. Don't call yourself Christians please. You can call yourself whatever you like, but please spear us from explaining what Christmas is all about. You have left Christ a long time ago.

Tom Anderson [Canada]

17 Dec 2009 18:03:16

How I regret my flippant statement at the top of this post. My apologies Glynn. Really. Reading through this line of posts I am again, and sadly, reminded of the sad, sad state of the Christians who have posted mean, hurtful and angry posts. It is repeated history of how people, Christian or otherwise, behave when we encounter opposition to our beliefs. Do you, who call yourselves Christians, need to be reminded that Jesus was murdered for this very thing? Why offer compassion, grace and love for our neighbour when insults, defamation and abuse will do? Yes - its the Crusades again. When will we learn from the master we claim to follow? Perhaps when we separate the fantasy junk from the reality of the teachings. THE TRUE MEASURE OF A CHRISTIAN IS NOT A BELIEF IN THE FANTASTICALLY IMPOSSIBLE FABLES, BUT IN THE WAY ONE TREATS ONE'S NEIGHBOUR, ESPECIALLY WHEN ONE DOES NOT AGREE. If the world is watching this, they're every negative belief of Christians is blazingly confirmed - and they're right. You who disagree and resort to name calling and insults are less qualified to be called Christian than anyone who questions the fables. Bravo Glynn - KEEP UP THE FANTASTIC WORK. Continue to love your enemies as I will for you and I.

Geno [Auckland]	17 Dec 2009 18:06:19
and yes Orthodox, because you understand that a male God literally impregnated a woman through supernatural means, it must be true. It is your understanding of that truth. Stop trying to force your truth onto everyone else and let people decide for themselves how they choose to understand the Christmas story.

Megan [Portland]	17 Dec 2009 18:11:27
I love your billboard! I wish there were more Progressive Chistians like you in the US! I feel sadly outnumbered by conservative fundamentalists who take everything literally. Keep up the good work.

Reece [Auckland]

17 Dec 2009 18:41:55

I feel blessed to belong to such a liberated, thought provoking, welcoming and open minded church, The billboard is only a small part of St Matthew in the city (and a good part at that I like this billboard better then the old billboard of the pope outside St Patricks), narrow minded people forget what good is done throughout the year and this church really does a heck of a lot for this community with very little expectaions in return. The spirit of the lord and christ truly reside within, outside, around this church, from the staff to the parishioners, to the homeless from the mission and also to the animals which converge for the pet blessing ceremony. Open your minds and your hearts and dont be so easily constrained by beliefs that hinder progress. Practice what Jesus would do! Peace be with you.

Orthodox [Auckland]

17 Dec 2009 18:46:40

Please, I say it again to Geno and Tom and all of the New-Age apostles. >>Don't tell us what Christianity is. Don't tell us what Christ died for. He certainly did not die because he blasphemed. He was crucified for telling the TRUTH and He died to free us from the sins. One of the biggest sins is blasphemy. Tell me what the two men on the Crosses next to him said. Who was promised to be in the Heavenly Kingdom with Christ?? The one who blasphemed or the one who repented? I feel sorry for you. but most of all I feel sorry for the priest, who is instructing these lies. You are DIRECTLY opposing his teachings and the Holy Scriptures! That is simply a fact. You are not sacrificing yourself for the TRUTH or for your neighbour. You are sacrificing the TRUTH for a lie and for a hypocritical dialog. You can write about freedom of speech and about love as long as you wish. You can join a local Hippie group and put a peace sign on your car. that is fine. But that is not love. If you teach lies and if you lead people into eternal condemnation, I wouldn't call it love. You have left the Christian belief. You have taken on the religion of NEW-AGE. You are in deep apostasy and you cannot hide your inventions by using modern humanistic ideological theories. You need to understand that God is not someone you can fabricate and transform, as you wish. You are not God. You cannot decide what the truth is. As a Christian, we are followers of Jesus Christ and not followers of a manmade mix of half-truths, which suit us today and which can be changed tomorrow. What was true 2000 years ago, is now true as well. Who thinks different can do so, but should not call himself Christian or priest. I would like to thank the person who has painted over the blasphemic billboard. God bless you! Like Saint Nicholas has defended the Holy Godmother against Arius: Unable to stop Arius through reason from espousing the irrational blasphemy against the Son of God and His Most-holy Mother, St. Nicholas struck Arius on the face with his hand. The Holy Fathers at the Council, protesting such an action, banned Nicholas from the Council and deprived him of all emblems of the Episcopal rank. That same night, several of the Holy Fathers saw an identical vision: how the Lord Savior and the Most-holy Theotokos were standing around St. Nicholas—on one side the Lord Savior with the Gospel, and on the other side the Most-holy Theotokos with a pallium, presenting the saint with the Episcopal emblems that had been removed from him. Seeing this, the fathers were awe struck and quickly returned to Nicholas that which had been removed. They began to respect him as a great chosen one of God, and they interpreted his actions against Arius not as an act of unreasonable anger, but rather an expression of great zeal for God's truth.

Rev Dr Craig de Vos [Australia]	17 Dec 2009 18:53:12
Hey guys, keep up the good work. This is fabulous!!

john the baptist [Auckland]

17 Dec 2009 19:01:54

Orthodox...are you serious??? "You are sacrificing the TRUTH for a lie and for a hypocritical dialog." "What was true 2000 years ago, is now true as well. Who thinks different can do so, but should not call himself Christian or priest" you are claiming that the Bible is the exact truth of everything that occurred 2000 years ago??? I laugh at you whole heartedly because you are so deluded.....by your statement the pope is a heretical whore for telling half truths, if he tells any truths at all...if anything he is condemned to your so called hell because he of all people has done little if anything whith what Jesus would have done, he is simply a billboard I guess you could say similar to the bilboard erected by St Matthews for the Catholic Church. As for the guy who painted over the billboard, can I hire him to deface the pope when he is on town next? that wanker needs a makeover and what better way to do it! gawd bless with much love

Andrei [Wellington]

17 Dec 2009 19:15:34

Do you not realize that when you denigrate the Most holy Theotokos you denigrate her son, Our Lord Jesus Christ born by her? And do you not understand the distress this causes to those that follow him? And your only response to those who display their hurt is to call them haters. It is truly right to bless thee, O Theotokos, ever blessed, and most pure, and the Mother of our God. More honorable than the cherubim, and beyond compare more glorious than the seraphim. Without corruption thou gavest birth to God the Word. True Theotokos, we magnify thee.

Sheryl [Melbourne, Australia]

17 Dec 2009 19:17:37

Firstly, who are these "progressive Christians"? I've been a Christian for about 10 years, and am yet to meet any Christian who doesn't believe in the Immaculate conception, the salvation of faith in Christ, the inerrancy of the Bible or the Death and Resurrection of Jesus. These "progressive" Christians must be fringe dwellers, ashamed to show their faces in church and hiding amongst the general population in fear of discovery of their beliefs. This bloke is just an egotist, trying to increase himself by shrinking his god to a size that doesn't make him look so puny, and irrelevant. Secondly, the idea of the conception of Jesus was that it did not involve any sexual intercourse. That was why He was the perfect Son of God, because God the Holy Spirit caused the fertilization of Mary's ovum by His POWER. To remove the Holy Spirit from the equation also reduces God. I don't think Mary's first experience of sex was any more a disappointment to her than most other women experience. It certainly wouldn't have occurred to her to compare Joseph's performance with God's, because the entire act would have been brand new. It would not have in any way resembled the moment of her conception of Jesus, which occurred while she was sleeping. You're ignorance embarasses you buddy.

John the baptist [Auckland]	17 Dec 2009 19:23:54
Andrei, firstly, use NZ English, realize is spelt realise, you may want to change your spell check (that is if you are actually from Wellington? i'm from the holy land by reside in Auckland now) great housekeeping done distress? and what distress does your beliefs have on others???? ponder that before you preach onto others peace.

Rev. Matt Williams [Melbourne, Australia]

17 Dec 2009 19:30:10

Dear Glynn, No version of Christianity you portray, the 'fundamentalist' or the 'progressive' or the 'middle mush', are remotely close to orthodox, historic, creedal, catholic, Anglican, Christianity. Why do you not contemplate the beauty of that and encourage others to do the same? Can it be that you are unfamiliar with it? The bilboard reflects immature, schoolyard humour that prefers to giggle at orgasms as a distraction from mystery and wonder of the incarnation of God in Christ, who was born, lived, died, and rose again, and is coming to call all to account. All of those things are co-important, and if you eliminate any one of them all of the others lose their significance. They are not a list from which to choose our favourite, whether the 'living' or the 'dying' or any other. Without them all, we have nothing at all. Blessings Matt

John the baptist [Auckland]	17 Dec 2009 19:34:25
Sheryl Sheryl Sheryl the christian of 10 years, congratulations and celebrations :) yes we know you are not "perfect" no doubt the conception of a gay man from commerical road sleeping with a Mary from Chapel Street as a result of his "father" forcing his gay son to sleep with a female. look at he result bless

Geno [Auckland]

17 Dec 2009 19:39:43

Sheryl for being a Christian for about 10 years you should know that the doctrine of the Immaculate Conception has nothing to do with Jesus. It is a Roman Catholic doctrine that states that Mary was also conceived and born without bearing the mark of original sin, which by the way the Bible says nothing about. Furthermore, you would know about the doctrine of Mary's perpetual virginity which says that Mary was, is and always will be a virgin. So your comment about Mary's first time is mysterious to me. And this too is another one of those doctrines the Bible says nothing about. And I guess you can measure the shame & hiding we progressives do by the blatant billboard that's caught your attention which illustrates how truly in the closet we progressives are about our beliefs.

Patricia Pattison [Dipton, NZ]	17 Dec 2009 19:45:31
So much venom as Christians really know how to exude. How come people who call themselves Christian are so judgemental? Surely it is behaviour that counts and not simply right belief? There has been a lot of "belief" here but where oh where is the loving action? Well done Glynn, Clay and the Team.

Orthodox [Auckland]

17 Dec 2009 19:59:42

You call yourself: John the Baptist!!! If you don't believe what the Bible says, why do you call yourself a Christian and use the name of a SAINT? The Bible is true for every Christian. Of course. Your questions don't make any sense. We are not discussing a small matter, but the very basic of our Faith. If the teachings of the Bible are not true, why would I go to Church, take the Holy Communion, etc??? Why? Your comments reveal your lack of faith and your ignorance to the teachings of our Lord Jesus Christ. Do you believe that Christ healed people, that he resurrected the dead?? What is more difficult to believe, that a child was born from a Virgin, or that someone rose from the dead?? Why don't you believe that the Holy Godmother was a Virgin if you believe in Christ’s miracles and RESURRECTION? If you don't, then there is no need to discuss this matter with you, as you are a non-believer. I can only recommend you to read the Gospels and to attend a Holy Liturgy instead and to pray. God will save you and open your heart. It is your choice which path you would like to follow, but it is dishonest to call yourself Christian, as you do not share the belief that Christ did the above and that He is the Son of God. So there would be no point in discussing this topic with you. My comments were not directed towards atheists. They were directed at the so-called "priests" and their "followers" of the "anglican church", as they claim that they believe in Jesus Christ, but they directly oppose the Holy Scriptures and they are putting up blasphemic billboards. Why do they do that? My opinion is that they are insulting every Christian and that they should leave the church and join a new-age religious cult instead. They are clearly not representing Christianity by offending every Christian a few days before Christmas. No wonder every non-believer reacts positively on the billboard. Of course. They don’t see the problem in blasphemy, because they don’t think it is blasphemous, because they do not believe in God, as taught in the Bible. The “priests” of St. Matthews are wrong if they think that they will gain new faithful and help anyone in believing in Christ, by telling lies. Dear priests: Who is the father of all lies? You should cry from now on, as you put up this billboard just days before many Christians were preparing themselves to celebrate Christ’s birth. Many children will see this and many young souls and weak in faith will be turned away from the Truth, because of your decision to challenge God and the teaching of the Holy Scriptures. How foolish. Psalm of King David: 9 How long, eternal God, how long Shall men of pride blaspheme? Shall saints be made their endless song, And bear immortal shame? 10 Canst thou for ever sit and hear Thine holy Name profan'd? And still thy jealousy forbear, And still withhold thine hand? 11 What strange deliverance hast thou shown In ages long before! And now no other God we own, No other God adore. God bless the man who had the courage to paint over the lie.

Geno [Auckland]

17 Dec 2009 20:22:33

Orthodox, why does it scare you so much that there are Others who don't/won't believe like you? As long as your salvation and faith are secure, what matter is there in a heretical billboard? Does this billboard have the power to shake your faith? Is God not greater? I can't recall any text in any of the Gospels where Jesus tried to force anyone to believe anything. Jesus brought faith about through works and love. There is nothing lovely about the Jesus or the God you describe. Jesus challenged people through parables and discourse not through threats of violence and eternal torment. I can quote Scripture too till I'm blue in the face as a matter of fact to defend any point of view. You'll find that this method is lost on those of us who don't believe that being Christian means a surrender of one's intellect.

Patricia Pattison [Dipton NZ]

17 Dec 2009 20:37:12

The literal interpretation of the Bible is ndeed dangerous. Because of that men have fought wars and killed and torured. Have used it to discriminate between themselves the righteous, and those who are marginalized by race, creed, gender, staus or sexual orientation. Literally reading the Bible is the direct cause of so much evil that on that ground alone we need to rethink how we see the stories contained within it. Truth is there to be found, but not necessarily as it is written. To believe the Bible literally is an assault to the intelligence and negates my God given gift of questioning. Your God is far too small if he cannot take a bit of honest searching and doubting, if he cannot take a bit of fun being poked at stereotypical ideas of him, if I am not allowed to question his power and if I cannot queerie what is written about him in a different age and culture. Jesus was human with a very human father. The story about virgin births is only put there to show us just how special a man he really was. To those of us who don't need the false security of rigid, unbending faith that defies intelligence Jesus comes alive as the radical, political lover he was. There is no disregarding him when you see him through eyes that reach further than the literal written word.

Rob+ [California]	17 Dec 2009 20:41:14
In our conflicts between liberal vs conservative or "progressive" vs "literalist" I have often remarked that whatever our disagreements at least the discrimination against one another is never violent as it was in centuries past in Europe. After hearing this prattle I now wonder if we haven't lost something valuable after all. Kyrie Eleison.

Christopher Fleming [Sydney]	17 Dec 2009 21:14:49
There is nothing progressive about going against the teachings of Jesus, the apostles and the early church fathers. They all taught the same truth and it is very different from what your are teaching which is nothing short of blasphamy against the Holy Spirit. Jesus himself said there will be no forgiveness for that in this world or the world to come.

Orthodox [Auckland]

17 Dec 2009 21:18:40

Geno, Patricia, you are both not Christians. Don't make yourself believe that. It would be just another lie. As one of the writers before me pointed out. There is no Christian, who does not believe in the teachings of the Holy Scriptures and that the Holy Bible is true. What you both want to be is humanists, communists, who follow the UN-Conventions and maybe also leave a bit of space for a customised god, which can be turned on and off, before Easter or Christmas. I am not at all scared and I am not afraid of a few so called priests and new-age sect members like you both. There were always people, who tried to change the teachings and the truth of Christianity. There are over 2000 sects on this planet. But unfortunately for you, there will always be at least one person on this planet to speak out against blasphemy and the spread of lies. i don't think God wants us to sit back and watch you both explain to us what Christianity means. Your "priests" tried and will be judged by God for this, I have no doubt. The Second Council of Constantinople, 553, Capitula II: If anyone shall not confess that the Word of God has two nativities, the one from all eternity of the Father, without time and without body; the other in these last days, coming down from heaven and being made flesh of the holy and glorious Mary, Mother of God and always a virgin, and born of her: let him be anathema I am just using my right to point out the fact that the Holy Bible clearly tells us that the Holy Godmother was a Virgin.

Jacinta [Taupo]

17 Dec 2009 22:00:23

You say you are doing this to challenge people, to make people think. However, in reality you are offending and rubbishing other people's faith and beliefs. If this is what progressive christianity is, then I feel very sorry for the people in your church who believe they are giving glory and praise to God by their words and actions. You say you want people to reflect on Jesus' life, "how one treats its neighbours, enemies and planet" - how have you just treated your neighbours? All I can think, is how arrogant and misguided YOU are that your actions are of a disciple of Christ.

Leios [Waikato]

17 Dec 2009 22:39:42

Two comments, Glyn. In order for for your christianity to "progressive" there needs to be some way of measuring its forward movement otherwise one cannot know whether or not one has progressed. If we can talk of a progress of time and information then this is a mere quantitative progress. If it is of a qualitative nature such as a progress of morality or truth, then either you need to say in some way that you have progressed to such from evil and falsehood. To say that you have left "fundamentalism" behind for "progressivism" cannot thereby be progress but mere change. I think you ought to consider yourself a secular christian if christian at all, for that would be more accurate and honest. Second, what you describe as fundamentalist belief (which I take to mean orthodox christianity) hardly does you justice as a theological scholar. You should take care to accurately describe your opponents' position if you want to be taken seriously. You merely come across as a mocker of orthodoxy. I think Dawkins is better at it and more honest.

Megan [Hamilton]

17 Dec 2009 22:42:21

I'm really impressed by this billboard. Christmas is a time when it would be easy for churches to do the same comforting thing as always without stepping back to think how wonderfully weird the brief, contradictory birth stories from the Gospels are. This billboard is playful - and need not be taken literally! I am saddened by the extreme anger and condemnation expressed many of those who dislike the billboard. You may well feel offended - but do you think that hatred is the right response?

Dan [The USA]

17 Dec 2009 22:42:49

We don't have to abandon thoughts about how we should live our lives to avoid trashing historical Christianity. And if the Incarnation/Resurrection aren't essential parts of Christianity, what are? It might seem like an 'impossible fable' to some of you, but Paul considered it not only possible, but a foundation of hope. "If Christ has not been raised, we are to be pitied more than all men." I believe very much in the pursuit of virtue and Truth; I believe they are indirectly pursuit of God. But Christianity's hope is founded on the fact of Resurrection. Erase that from your heart, you erase Christian hope from your heart, and you lose your claim, in my mind, to calling yourself a Christian. The billboard? It's pretty offensive, yeah. You've got your right to it, but I sure don't approve, especially since your poking fun at literalists really winds up meaning poking fun at anyone who takes the Scripture seriously. As someone who has done a fair amount of thinking and come out with a remarkable amount of Christianity intact, I find the brush you paint us 'fundamentalists' with to be an insult to our intelligence. I would of course ask in view of charity to others, if you can't muster up the respect for the Mother of God, that you take the billboard down. It is not necessary, not charitable, and not theologically Christian. Of course, it was slightly productive--it's brought an awesomely stimulating discussion of historical orthodoxy, a result I thoroughly approve of.

Glenn Peoples [Dunedin]	17 Dec 2009 22:51:32
When "progressive" Christians develop the honesty to truthfully depect their orthodox contemporaries, maybe there will be some dialogue to be had. Unfortunately Glynn, that is not what happened here.

Glenn Peoples [Dunedin]	17 Dec 2009 22:52:02
Sorry... "depict."

Stephanie [AUckland]

17 Dec 2009 23:01:28

I find the billboard seriously offensive and objectionable. I have children, and I would not want to explain the poster to them. The billboard is not thought-provoking, clever or avant-garde, it's just blasphemous and insulting. It has hurt and offended many people. Was that your intention? I know that someone has attacked your poster. I am sorry to hear that and I don't agree with their vandalism. However, I ask you to remove the offensive poster and think more carefully before erecting this sort of poster again. Thank you. Stephanie

Garth [Manukau]

17 Dec 2009 23:03:38

Who shall we believe ? God's version of events, given in His word ? Or Glynn Cardy's ? There is no such valid thing as "progressive Christianity". God, including Jesus the Christ, is the same today, yesterday and always. Truth does not change, and is not subject to revision by weak and fallible men who have the astonishing gall to think they can redefine God. The Bible tells us that the conception of Jesus in Mary was by the Holy Spirit. The Bible also tells us that to blaspheme against the Holy Spirit is the one unique sin which can never be forgiven for all eternity. Be afraid, Glynn Cardy, be very afraid.

Geno [Auckland]

17 Dec 2009 23:25:23

Dan, you are in essence asking St Matthew's to remove this billboard on thebasis that it makes you uncomfortable. I suspect some of our Christian "traditions" make people of other faiths uncomfortable but there isn't exactly a lobby for us to take Christmas or Easter off of the calendar is there? Glenn (Dunedin), I think our "orthodox contemporaries" are depicting themselves quite accurately without any help from progressives if you read through the messages on this board. Stephanie (Auckland), I find a doctrine of a virgin birth and perpetual virginity equally "offensive" and "objectionable" but I respect your right to preach it, sing it and put it on a billboard if that's how you choose to express it. Calling someone we don't agree with a "blasphemer" is a convenient way of hijacking divine favour for whatever truth claim we want to make. Its weak and once again, its lost on those of us who don't believe in the surrender of intellect to be a follower of Chirst. Garth, I'm sure the good Reverend Cardy would be wise to heed your words because if it is in the Bible, it must be indisputable and right. Right in the same way that slavery was not only regulated but condoned by God in the Hebrew Bible. If God is the same yesterday, today and tomorrow, than so too should slavery be a valid profession today.

Glenn Peoples [Dunedin]

17 Dec 2009 23:34:42

Geno, I am talking about Glynn's false depcition of the actual beliefs and theological method of your orthodox contemporaries, at the top of this page. As a qualified person, he surely knows better, but honesty has become the victim of the chance to put in the boot, it seems. Nothing in the comments vindicates this misrepresentation, and as a public figure, he has a duty to maintain higher standards than this.

Child of Love [- God.]

18 Dec 2009 00:22:25

hug* Glynn, well done! Lots of Love is being sent your way. If ever you need someone else to talk to? You have my e-mail address. Stand tall, and know that your mesage:- "God IS Love" is heard by many. It is very sad indeed that too many children are conceived without the Magnificence of the Love of two parents who adore each other as Mary and Joseph did. What awesome parents they were! Jesus himself told us that Truth and Love are the way. Genesis does state that The Creator is both female and male combined. After the first human was created in Gods image, it was later divided into two for 'companionship' - two equal halves. My best friend was wrongly accused of blasphemy too, for stating that we are all children of God, and that we are all brothers and sisters. He also said that everything he could do, we could do and more... but in order to do that we have to each be willing to be honest with our own Truth. This news is scary to most people because, if we can all be like Jesus was, then we are really a very selfish bunch! It is our own fear of being persecuted that stops us from being the most loving and honest we can be, willing to stand out with our own individual gifts. Far easier to give up before we even begin, with the justification that Jesus was not human, and to oppress anyone who has a differing view! Thank you for being a way-shower. The world needs more people like you. And as for the discussion you wished to provoke? From experience I can attest to the fact that when a couple are very much In-Love, sperm drips seem to magically appear. With a bit of help from God, who knows where just one of those drips may end up? Thank you, for the Christ mas billboard, I look forward to meeting you some day. It's so refreshing to feel that although we may have many disagreements, we can agree on one thing. Whether we believe that God is love, or god IS Love, the most common ground we have is the fact that GOD IS LOVE... and we all have the ability to be more loving if we are willing to face that Truth within our own Souls. Although I’ve never met you, I know I could look you in the eyes, and see a soul-sibling who had a strong enough faith in the fact that God is Love, to take a deep breath and to do what you knew in your heart to be Right. I do hope my journey will be easier! - but if I get stuck... I will be calling on you. Thanks for being there. I'm proud to have you as a soul-sibling. *hug*

Alan [USA]

18 Dec 2009 00:32:59

Dear Glynn, Challenging accepted norms can be both provocative and unpopular, but one wonders where the line is where offense is taken because what is presented is truly unftting and offensive. What If I were to change your picture and put your face on the male and a young teenage boy in place of Mary, and the caption read, "Your poor future wife. The priest was a hard act to follow." Further, what if I were to revise a few words in your response above to some of those who left comments: "Dear Bev, Kirsty, and Wayne, thank you for your letters. In short the billboard lampoons the literal idea of priests being pedophiles and that they rape children. This is how the Christian message about the priesthood is widely understood in our secular society. I believe that priesthood is much bigger than such a simplistic notion. Indeed I find the idea of a priest being reduced to a male and one who mates with a young teenager extremely disrespectful of the Jewish and Christian tradition of the dignity and holiness of the priesthood which is best known as love." Your attempt to lampoon & be provocative is what I would expect from the world, and seems unfitting for a priest of Almighty God.

Eddie Francis [Raleigh, USA]

18 Dec 2009 00:35:44

I'll quote just one person from this thread: "Christianity does not believe God..." Yes it does. "is male or that he sent his sperm from somewhere for example." Yes it does. So many of you have misunderstood the point that it is breath-taking - I'm not a Christian, and these two statements are exactly what message I receive from Christianity. But you don't want to hear the truth of how your religion is perceived, so carry on.

Eddie Francis [Raleigh, USA]	18 Dec 2009 00:37:06
Sorry, cut and paste error. Should read: "Christianity does not believe God is male ..." Yes it does. "or that he sent his sperm from somewhere for example." Yes it does.

Bishop Ed [Eastern Seaboard USA]

18 Dec 2009 01:19:20

Let me address the concern over my "typical deacon" remark. I apologize if I sounded flippant when I should have been deadly serious. Deacons are not normally afforded a comprehensive theological education, but Mr. Cardy's remarks fall far outside the pale of good-hearted naivete. His words are, in fact, evangelical poison. As an independent Catholic bishop in the apostolic succession, I abjure and abominate the entire sermon as a cunning act of apostasy. I retract my slighting comment towards the Diaconate, and replace it, to whatever extent God enables me, with a formal and complete anathema. God bless our good Deacons this Christmastide, when our blessed Lord was truly born of a virgin in a manger.

Tony [UK]

18 Dec 2009 01:50:23

Ed Francis quote: "So many of you have misunderstood the point that it is breath-taking - I'm not a Christian, and these two statements are exactly what message I receive from Christianity. But you don't want to hear the truth of how your religion is perceived, so carry on." In that case Ed rather than persist with an inaccurate perception perhaps you should take some time out to discover what Christains really believe. Perhaps you could take the idiot that wrote this piece with you too as he obviously needs some education on the basics of Christian doctrine.

Mark [Leicester, UK]	18 Dec 2009 01:56:59
"The world is not waiting for a new definition of Christiantity, but a new demonstration of it!" Leonard Ravenill This nonsense does not really match up.

Matt [UK]

18 Dec 2009 02:02:24

New to all this posting and a non Christian. (Was a believer (Christian?) many years ago)! Tony (UK), rather than 'Ed Francis' taking time out to 'discover what Christians really believe' isn't that what Christians are supposed to do as 'Evangelists'? I haven't a clue what a Christian is and reading this web page is both confusing me and (more importantly for you) putting me right off. Not much of what I read here seems to me to be very Christian. But then I'm just a lowly confused non believer / non Christian so what would I know!

Matt Kennedy [Binghamton New York]

18 Dec 2009 02:05:10

Ah...the comic irony. So called "progressives" condescending to mock the ignorant masses they purport to love. All the while revealing an astounding and embarrasing level of ignorance not only with regard to the positions they try to parody but also with regard to the mainstream NT scholarship in which they feign to be so well versed. The most humorous effect is the perfect charicature the preening sneering college sophomore who has recently finished his first course in 19th century Philosophy with a B- and comes home to lord it over his parents...too funny. This made my Christmas

Matt [UK]	18 Dec 2009 02:30:41
My namesake in Binghamton New York, has summed it up wonderfully. It's made my Christmas too (I assume I'm allowed to call it Christmas? or is that reserved only for the Christians?)

Caroline Fresnais [Paris]	18 Dec 2009 02:32:43
Your billboard is a disgrace. You are wrong to call yourself christian as you do believe the Credo - please leave the Church if you do not believe even the basic tenets of the Faith rather than bringing scandal on the Church. Your sermon is no more than intellectual masturbation.

Vaughan Dow [UK]	18 Dec 2009 02:33:10
The few New Zealanders I know are thoughtful, considerate and show impeccable manners and good taste. On the other hand, there's you....

Kate [the UK]	18 Dec 2009 02:47:12
Does no one have a sense of humour these days....? I love the idea of the billboard, the message and the tone. I am not offended in any way, shape or form, but then thats me and I am just a mere individal. For those who dont like the billboard, dont look at it!

Sianle [Wales (UK)]

18 Dec 2009 02:52:25

I consider myself a Christian and have just completed the Alpha Course with my Vicar, but have to say this billboard made me laugh. Maybe it's time that the Church laughed at itself, rather than proving yet again that it is full of old-fashioned, stuffy, cheerless individuals, who wouldn't know humour if it came up and bit them. Clearly, this was meant to provoke discussion, which it would appear to have done, as comments are coming in from all over the world, and I'd bet we are all telling people about it. Perhaps it wasn't the best way to start a discussion about our faith, especially at this time of the year, but no harm was done to anyone! I'll be sure to tell my Vicar about it when I see her! Peace be with you all!

Robert B [USA Colorado]	18 Dec 2009 03:10:48
Thank you for posting this billboard. And your thoughts on what it means to be progressive sounds a lot like what it means to be a thinking human being instead of a zombie-like robotic unthinking religious sleepwalker. Thank you again, very much for having the courage to put this billboard out there ... it is wonderful.

Francis Louis mercuri [New York USA]

18 Dec 2009 03:49:32

Seems these days there is always somewone trying to make a different point of view regarding the birth of Christ. Scripture has deliniated the story for centuries.Most christian faiths have accepted it for that is the very essence of being christian. A Christian is a Christ follower. If the word of scripture is questioned to such an extreme then the extrem can follow to question the words of Christ where they are contrary to the teaching of Christ. The christmas story is centuries old. Live with it.

Sean Edwards [North Shields (UK)]

18 Dec 2009 03:56:40

Great, Good. If it makes people think about the real reason for Christmas it can only be good. You will however be challenged by foul mothed bigots who have totally forgotten the true message of Christ. To those who don't like it, do you really think that God is so small that he would be offended. My God is big powerful, loving and kind with a sense of humour which many of the knuckle draggers should learn to understand and take on (bill)board.

Bryan Hunter [Allen, Texas]

18 Dec 2009 04:06:59

The billboard is funny, but is not based in truth. I fear it may lead some astray. Just because I believe the Bible is the Holy Word of God does not make me "unthinking" as many have said on this post. If you look at the physical evidence - history and archeology both support the Bible. The Bible is 98.7% accurate from the earliest writings, and none of the errors change the meaning of any passages. I am just wondering - those of you who classify those of us who believe the Bible - have you actually read it? Have you studied it? Do you have a daily quiet time where you read scripture, pray and listen to God? Merry Christmas to you and your family. Bryan Hunter

Duncan [UK]	18 Dec 2009 04:09:01
Excellent! All too often the real meaning of Christmas is overlooked and if this promotes debate about it then that's fine by me!

john watmore [UK]	18 Dec 2009 04:33:42
It doesn't really matter if anyone is offended by the poster. It does matter if the Almighty is offended though - but I don't know the answer to that. I do know, however, that I wouldn't take the risk...

john watmore [UK]	18 Dec 2009 04:33:43
It doesn't really matter if anyone is offended by the poster. It does matter if the Almighty is offended though - but I don't know the answer to that. I do know, however, that I wouldn't take the risk...

Paul [UK]

18 Dec 2009 04:46:15

Ha yes very funny billboard but I'm sure abuse and insults are also funny to the people who do them. As a respectable institution, never mind what religion you're from, doing something so openly which you know is going to offend others, is wrong. If you want to provoke discussion then do that by speaking to people and spreading what you believe honestly but please don't do it by stunts to get publicity - this is similar to the atheist bus campaigns here. All you have succeeded to do is to give the religion-mockers fuel and to get your website covered in swear words and insults. Impressive! You say that the wrong xmas message is out there but now I think you're just propagating the image of christianity and religion as a whole - that they just exist to fight with each other - when instead their main aim should be peace and love, regardless of theology.

Phil snyder [Texas]

18 Dec 2009 05:08:33

Bishop Ed, I am a deacon in Christ's One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Church and I find this "sermon" to be offensive. I have lived in Texas (the "Buckle of the Bible Belt") for over 30 years and I have never heard that God the Father used Sperm to impregnate Mary. I have never heard that God the Father is "male" (as opposed to masculine). "Deacon" - if you are going to attack a point, then be sure to fairly represent the ideas that you are attacking. The whole point of the Incarnation was the Crucifixion and Resurrection (the Atonement). Without the literal and physical resurrection of Jesus, there is no victory over death. If Jesus did not defeat sin and death on the cross (Christus Victor rather than Penal Substitution), then it doesn't matter how or when or where he was conceived or born. If, however, you can accept that God can bring a dead person back to life and to a new mode of life (the soma pneumaticom), then why is it so hard to believe that God can cause that person to be conceived in an extraordinary way? "Progressive Christianity" (sic) is not so much a problem of the mind - that they find this stuff hard to believe. It is a problem of the will - they refuse to believe that God actually acts in history to restore all of creation to Himself. As Anselm of Canterbury said: "I do not believe because I understand. I believe in order that I might understand." You have no faith or belief and, thus, you have no understanding. Deacon Phil Snyder

H. E. Baber [USA]

18 Dec 2009 05:10:15

I like the billboard but if all Christianity is about is being a good person I don't want any part of it. If it isn't about the supernatural it's simply a bore. Why should I bother being good, helping the poor and oppressed and such, if I get nothing out of it either in this world or the next? Why should I buy into a religious institution if it's all demands, all costs, all moralism and no fun--no mysticism, no wonders and marvels, nothing interesting?

Joe Clark [Florida]

18 Dec 2009 05:18:01

Just a note to say thanks for thinking, for challenging orthodoxy--especially the brainless literalist orthodoxy of conservative Christianity. Many quotes from Twain and Gandhi come to mind. Sympathize with the hopeless, lost people whose anger and self-righteousness calls them to say such horrible things to you. They are not of God, not of Christ, and deep inside, they know this and are afraid. That's why they can't tolerate something like this. Good on you!

Raj [Auckland]

18 Dec 2009 05:35:31

Was browsing to find out what the other Abrahamic religions say about the event and came upon this. http://islam.about.com/cs/jesus/f/jesus_birth.htm Adam, the first human being, was born with neither a human mother nor a human father. Therefore, Jesus' miraculous birth affords him no higher standing or presumed partnership with God. When God ordains a matter, He merely says, "Be" and it is so. "The similitude of Jesus before God is as that of Adam. He created him from dust, then said to him: "Be!" And he was" (3:59).

Schley Cox [Owensboro, KY USA]	18 Dec 2009 05:40:36
This will be my second favorite tongue-in-cheek Christmas cartoon. The first is still a stable on the outskirts of a village. The star is shining down. Shepherds are gathering. A cartoon balloon voice rises from the stable, "It's a girl!"

Steve [UK]

18 Dec 2009 05:41:37

I think many of the comments here about 'fundamentalist' christians are mis-guided at best. There are millions of christians throughout the world (including myself) who literally believe the Bible. We believe that Christ was conceived by the Holy Spirit. We believe that his life was a demonstration of how we should live. We believe that he was crucified to pay for our sins. We believe that he rose from the dead. We believe that he ascended into heaven and lives forevermore. We believe that whoever believes in him will not perish but have eternal life. These beliefs are based on the scriptures. It seems to me that those who would call themselves "progressive christians" are simply choosing to not believe the scriptures, playing a game of 'pick whatever bible verse appeals to you.' If you don't believe in an Almighty Supernatural God then you have no business calling yourselves christians. All you have left is the empty shell of lifeless religion.

J C Johnson [San Diego]

18 Dec 2009 05:42:04

Thank you for loving the Church and the message of the Gospel enough to risk being blasted with criticism by those who live in fear and would prefer a fantasy, non-threatening Christianity. Once upon a time, I counted myself first among that constituency, but by the grace of God, truth has set me free. Paradigm shifts are scary, but ultimately not as scary as living a fictitous religion. I am now free to love even those who don't understand love and am free to love myself. Thank you for the message of progressive Christianity. Be encouraged.

Kate S. [USA]

18 Dec 2009 05:50:37

What a clever tactic. It most certainly is encouraging diatribe. But not dialogue. I encourage anyone to read "Bloodline of the Holy Grail" by Laurence Gardner. It is one of the sanest presentations of the story of Christ, plus an intelligent discussion of what the bible really is. There is nothing wrong with wanting to believe in a God, but there is something rather perverted in wanting to be ignorant and base your belief in faith. Religions are mostly archaic and barbaric, used to control ignorant people. If God created you in his image, why would you reject your own intelligence?

P Takessian [Michigan goblue]	18 Dec 2009 05:54:58
Outstanding. Thinking is good. And while I am not a believer in any one particular faith, I agree that it's the here and now where our moral actions need constant review.

Rebecca C. [Texas, U.S.A.]

18 Dec 2009 06:05:47

Excellent billboard. I'm saddened to see that so many hateful postings are from fellow Americans. Unfortunately, our country has been poisoned by fundamentalists who can't accept anything other than the fairytales espoused in a 2,000+ year old book written by patriarchs and political opportunists. Anyone with a simple knowledge of biology would know that a virgin birth is both impossible and improbable. More importantly, it's not necessary. Did Jesus really have to be born of a virgin for his message of peace, love, and acceptance to be relevant?

Aroon  [India]	18 Dec 2009 06:12:52
Interesting experiment, it was unfortunate that the banner was defaced .. which kinda reflects on HOW much people need to reflect on the questions raised !

Tom [Ohio]

18 Dec 2009 06:18:19

It seems to me that all a pastor needs to do is call into question the basic orthodox doctrines of Christianity, and he will get the attention that his bloated ego needs. He doesn’t need to do any new research or scour the scriptures for a good exegetical Christmas day homily. He need only to make up a new doctrine, call it ‘progressive’ and dub the historical, scriptural doctrine as ‘fundamentalist’. This is not the season for name-calling. As Christians seeking the truth in a world saturated with competing creeds shouldn’t we just call a spade a spade? So, in the spirit of fairness let’s call the virgin birth the ‘orthodox’ position, and we’ll call this new idea, Jesus’ natural human conception, the ‘heretical’ position. Now, there is no reason to feel uncomfortable with these terms. Yes, one of them has usually been used in a negative light. But, if Christianity is the search for the Truth, then we must start by using the proper terms. Orthodoxy is defined by Merriam-Webster as “conforming to established doctrine especially in religion.” This describes the virgin birth. Heretical doctrine is defined as “of, relating to, or characterized by departure from accepted beliefs or standards.” This accurately describes the notion that Jesus was not born of a virgin. There’s no need to be ashamed of this term if this is the position that you have embraced. Calling this position ‘progressive’ does not serve the argument. Where is the progress gained by denying established, biblical doctrine? If there has been some newly discovered historical document or other scholarly work done, it may qualify the new idea as progress. But name-calling cannot honestly be called progress. Progressive Christianity would be better defined by a look at the lives of St. Therese of Avila, St. Francis of Assisi, or Blessed Mother Teresa of Calcutta. These people redefined what it meant to live a Christian life not by denying orthodoxy, but by radical service to the People of God. These were not fundamentalists. Fundamentalists deny all but the basic tenets of God (and even they believe in the virgin birth). Orthodox Christians do not believe “a supernatural male God who lived above sent his sperm into the womb of the virgin Mary.” God is a spirit. Not having a body, God does not have a gender. So, there’s no male God in Christianity. Not having a body, God cannot send his sperm, because he doesn’t have any sperm. There is no doctrine defining how the Holy Spirit caused Mary to conceive. Nobody knows how it was done. It was a miracle – something heretical ‘Christians’ seem unable to believe in. If these heretics believe the Christmas story is fiction, why do they call themselves Christians? And where did they get this idea? The heretics boast that they don’t “overlook Jesus’ 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: ‘this is the essence of God’”. Well congratulations! For more on how to live that life, see the saints mentioned above; especially Mother Teresa. True, the fundamentalist is more concerned with individual salvation and belief rather than conduct. This is a result of their Calvinist doctrines. But, the orthodox stress communion. Where would we be without the Communion of Saints, that cloud of witnesses? I dare say that heaven would be a very lonely place if we sinful masses did not have those great saints and the angels petitioning God on our behalf at every moment. And belief is really secondary to conduct in orthodox Christian spirituality. Though it is important to assent to the authority of the Church, one need not be a theologian to get into heaven. Rather, service to God and neighbor is the measuring rod of a man’s life. The theology of these heretics is anything but a clear view. They are sickeningly indistinct in how they remove every holy thing from Christianity and replace it with the current doctrine du jour, political correctness. There is only one church which is distinct in its refusal to water-down its doctrine even against the ever raising chorus of relativism – the Catholic Church. The universal church is the one which truly engages all peoples in all places at all times, and the gates of hell will not prevail against it. Contrary to the charge of these heretics, the Catholic Church demands something very difficult from its adherents – love your enemy. Because of this belief, I can agree with one thing these heretics say, “God is among us; even among those we disagree with or dislike.” That is why I will be praying for the conversion of these lost children of God this Christmas.

Robin Edgell [United States]

18 Dec 2009 06:36:47

The billboard is terrific. I'm with a lot of these folks when they say that if a little billboard can shake someone's faith, then their faith wasn't very strong to begin with. I've been a Protestant (Presbyterian), converted to Catholicism (Roman), and then left the Church for my own personal reasons. I have never, ever believed that the Bible is to be taken literally. I fully believe it was never meant to be taken literally. This billboard makes people question why it would be taken literally. Thank you for making people think. Thank you for the laugh. It's a great billboard! Keep on keepin' on. Bring your message and don't get discouraged. May the love of God and the blessing of His Son, be with you and yours this Christmas season!

Nick [Christchurch]	18 Dec 2009 07:17:45
The only praises you get here are people who don't believe in Jesus. Pathetic. When these atheists praises you they also forget about an obvious fact that you are collecting money from your parish under the name of Christ, and you are enjoying your title given by the Christian Church. You, Glynn Cardy, is more disgusting than the most vocal atheist.

Michele [Tauranga]

18 Dec 2009 08:01:57

I just read about your billboard and wanted to send my support. I\'ve only visited your church once but I was struck then but what a nice feeling of community it had, surprisingly so for the inner city. And I thought the billboard was very amusing. I\'m sorry it was defaced. I\'m very tired of people not being prepared to think behind the image with religion, even while I value the richness of the iconographic tradition of the faith I was raised in. It's an old idea, not in the least controversial, that after the virgin birth of Jesus, Joseph and Mary enjoyed a full marital relationship, indeed giving Jesus siblings who may or may not have included the apostle James. So I saw the billboard as a bit of fun playing on this. I'm perplexed that here I see people are abusing each other about how to spell finger food. But I suppose it did get people talking.

John [Medicine Hat]

18 Dec 2009 08:05:05

Amazing how many people take such profound offense, and even consider it outside the Anglican tradition. Back in 1962 when I lived in England, while I was attending an Anglican Church retreat for sixth form students, the Dean of Coventry Cathedral responding to a question from me admitted that he doubted the "Virgin Birth." Anglicans have a long tradition in questioning the literal truth of the Bible and instead search for spiritual truth.

Dan Lower [The USA]

18 Dec 2009 08:06:25

No. I asked nicely because I noticed that most people seem to be asking more meanly. And I asked not 'in essence' because it makes me uncomfortable--I asked 'in essence' because I see it as a public attack on historically Christian belief, put up by something that calls itself an Anglican church. "My dear brothers [and sisters], this should not be!" That is what I take issue with, is a church, and deacon, that ought to know better, promoting a theological travesty like that poster. Anyway, I'm out of this discussion now. Sorry if I gave the wrong impression, but if you're going to reduce my motivation to one singular thing, I'd at least like it to be the one I'm most concerned about. This is the internet, so I'm not terribly upset about it; I'm just hopelessly neurotic. In all seriousness (and I do mean all seriousness) God bless you, Geno, and all the others on this thread. Have a blessed advent wherever you are!

Charles [Canada]	18 Dec 2009 08:25:59
I can only assume that you want attention very badly How is God glorified by this? This only advanced your agenda

Macky [Waterford]	18 Dec 2009 08:31:13
Photoshopped. I can tell by the pixels and stuff, I've seen enough shopps in my time.

Robert Engler [Free America]

18 Dec 2009 08:37:28

You think you are so clever, do you? C.S. Lewis was writing about the sheep in wolf's clothing of "Progressive" Christianity in The Screwtape Letters in 1942. Moreover, Jesus warned us 2000 years ago that false teachers would try to lead us astray. I'm aftraid He was talking about you, vicar. I feel sorry for you. Moreover, I feel sorry for your parishioners whom you are leading astray. I will pray for you.

John [St. John's, NL]

18 Dec 2009 08:44:39

Personally, I was dismayed by this poster. It does not really matter whether you are a progressive or fundamentalist Christian (which by the way, use of those terms implies an inherent bias) or whether you want to provoke thought. I think kindness and charity to those around is more important. That is why I avoid saying or doing things that my friends of different beliefs might find offensive, even if I think it is not. Perhaps this Church should have thought about the 1 billion Catholics, and 1 billion Muslims (who also revere Mary) it was probably offending when it thought this was a good idea.

John Sullivan [Minnesota]

18 Dec 2009 08:45:07

iDon’t like the bill board. It’s poor taste... and cynical, or is cynicism still cool? I’m tired of it personally. The gospel is provocative enough... and polarizing enough... hell, in the Episcopal Church, of which I'm a member, all one has to do is ask around whether Jesus really is the only way... and you've practically caused a schism. I don't like how you draw lines and make labels either... in fact I’m sick of labels. But maybe you got some people to think

Shana [Sunny California]

18 Dec 2009 09:08:36

“Matthew from Earth" wrote on 17 Dec 2009 at 13:13:46, "Why is it that all the people railing against this, don't present any arguments to sway our thoughts...Come on, liven up, fight for what you believe, prove what you claim, or at least argue for it as opposed to spit out rhetoric... I would like to think that at least some of you have thought about where you stand." Shame on all of us for not responding to this challenge more quickly. Where are your scriptures? "Dusty bibles lead to dirty lives, you know." ;-) Alright, "Matthew from Earth". You want to know why what Glynn is doing is ignorant and absurd? It's because he does not represent Christianity or the Bible in an accurate way. We are all entitled to our own opinions. But if you claim to represent Christianity (which is solely established by the information found in the Bible) then it is your job to uphold the integrity of that information. You cannot teach something contrary to it and expect to still maintain your status as a "Christian"... This is what the Bible really teaches... 1)(Luke 1:34-35) "But Mary said to the angel: “How is this to be, since I am having no intercourse with a man?” In answer the angel said to her: “Holy spirit will come upon you, and power of the Most High will overshadow you. For that reason also what is born will be called holy, God’s Son." --- Notice there is no discussion of physical intercourse between an incarnated God or anyone else for that matter. It states that the 'holy spirit would overshadow her.' A popular bible journal called the Watchtower addresses this issue when it says that "For Mary’s child to be a true descendant of her ancestors Abraham, Judah, and David, as God had promised, her ovum had to contribute toward her pregnancy. (Gen. 22:15, 18; 49:10; 2 Sam. 7:8, 16) However, Jehovah's holy spirit was used in transferring the perfect life of God’s Son and causing the conception. (Matt. 1:18) It would appear that this canceled out any imperfection existing in Mary’s ovum and from the very start protected the developing embryo from anything hurtful." 2)No doubt you will consider this “alien” as you mentioned but if you define “alien” not as some green-faced wide-eyed space creature but instead as an extra-terrestrial (def: originating, existing, or occurring outside the earth or its atmosphere) then you might be onto something and I would be willing to humor you. 3)Next you might state that conception without literal sperm involved is not humanly possible. I would not fault you there either. However, we do not claim that it was possible according to established scientific explanation. A miracle is defined as “an extraordinary event manifesting divine intervention in human affairs.” Without divine intervention I likewise would view it as impossible. Now of course we are starting from an assumption that God had the power to create the entire universe including our earth and all life on it. If you will humor me in assuming this to be true for a moment, then such a being would certainly have the ability to create inside of the woman Mary a perfect human baby embryo without even breaking a sweat, right? 4)Now Pastor Glynn is correct in that Mary did have a normal marriage to Joseph following the birth of Jesus and did not remain a virgin as the Catholic church would have you believe. This can be proved at... (Mark 6:3) This is the carpenter the son of Mary and the brother of James and Joseph and Judas and Simon, is it not? And his sisters are here with us, are they not?” --- he was not an only child and his brothers and sisters were biological children of Joseph. Also... (Matthew 1:18-23) "During the time his mother Mary was promised in marriage to Joseph, she was found to be pregnant by holy spirit before they were united. However, Joseph her husband, because he was righteous and did not want to make her a public spectacle, intended to divorce her secretly. But after he had thought these things over, look! Jehovah’s angel appeared to him in a dream, saying: “Joseph, son of David, do not be afraid to take Mary your wife home, for that which has been begotten in her is by holy spirit. She will give birth to a son, and you must call his name Jesus, for he will save his people from their sins.”... Then Joseph... did as the angel of Jehovah had directed him, and he took his wife home. But he had no intercourse with her UNTIL she gave birth to a son; and he called his name Jesus." --- you can see that sex was implied following Jesus' birth (capital letters are mine - also note that an engagement in Israel was binding like a marriage and hence is why there is reference to a divorce and she is referred to her as his wife even though they had yet to consummate that relationship.) 5)As for the nature of the sacrifice of Jesus' life you mentioned that “If Jesus is... not the seed of Joseph, then he is not human, his crucifixion means nothing because he has no connections to humanity, it's just God killing himself to prove he can.” Jesus was the son of God and not God himself. It would be impossible for an eternal God to die and resurrect himself. Your claim is based on an outdated notion of the nature of God. The trinity is widely known to have been a doctrine added into the faith in the 4th century. Here is some secular evidence... a) The Encyclopedia of Religion admits: “Theologians today are in agreement that the Hebrew Bible does not contain a doctrine of the Trinity.” b) The New Catholic Encyclopedia also says: “The doctrine of the Holy Trinity is not taught in the O[ld] T[estament].” c) The Encyclopedia of Religion says: “Theologians agree that the New Testament also does not contain an explicit doctrine of the Trinity.” d) Jesuit Fortman states: “The New Testament writers . . . give us no formal or formulated doctrine of the Trinity, no explicit teaching that in one God there are three co-equal divine persons. . . . Nowhere do we find any trinitarian doctrine of three distinct subjects of divine life and activity in the same Godhead.” Thus Jesus was the firstborn of all creation (Col 1:15) and John 1:14 states, “So the Word became flesh and resided among us, and we had a view of his glory, a glory such as belongs to an only-begotten son from a father; and he was full of undeserved kindness and truth.” Sorry for the many quotes on this subject but the Trinity at times is very strongly defended by Christians who accept it more out of emotionality than out of evidence. So I thought I would include some outside sources ;-) 6)So since it was not as you mentioned “God killing himself” I should state the real purpose. It was because... (Matthew 20:28) Just as the Son of man came, not to be ministered to, but to minister and to give his soul a ransom in exchange for many.” --- Why was a ransom necessary you ask? Because... (Romans 5:12) That is why, just as through one man sin entered into the world and death through sin, and thus death spread to all men because they had all sinned”. (Romans 5:18-19) 18 So, then, as through one trespass the result to men of all sorts was condemnation, likewise also through one act of justification the result to men of all sorts is a declaring of them righteous for life. 19 For just as through the disobedience of the one man many were constituted sinners, likewise also through the obedience of the one [person] many will be constituted righteous. Jesus' ransom was thus God's plan to satisfy his divine justice and buy us back from the sinful state that we find ourselves in. But of course it has not been fully applied to us as of yet and will not be until after Armageddon, but that is a whole other discussion ;-) I truly hope that this has answered some of your questions and has at least proved that some of us have really 'thought about where we stand'.

James  [UK]	18 Dec 2009 09:09:44
Having been asked what I think .......I think a member of St Matthew's defaced the billboard.

Rowan [Northern Ireland]

18 Dec 2009 09:19:42

Just saw the billboard outside your church and I have to say it was a fairly nasty piece of blasphemy. Spoke to a pastor mate in Melbourne who said one of his favourite movies was The Life of brian. He said it wasnt blasphemous - my opinion was anyone hanging of a cross whistling and jauntily singing was taking the p*ss out of Christ's suffering. This is the same thing. You are trying too hard to get in with modern culture. Why? Christ was a revolutionary in every sense of the word. How can your church ever prosper or win souls for Christ if you seriously think He would be pleased with this? If this,and the tenets of your church as outlined on your website, is typical of mainstream anglican thinking then it is no wonder people are leaving in droves and why the evangelical movement is growing at such a rate. Was the agency who came up with image christian?

Jonathan  [Otago ]

18 Dec 2009 09:24:09

I am heartened to see the debate about the literal interpretation of the bible and its stories. People should not fear this as they are awakening themseleves to the debates of early Jesus movements before orthodoxy enforced one interpretation onto the Roman Empire, often by the sword. One does not loose their faith by not believing in a literal interpretation of the bible or any of the other gospels written after Jesus death.

RIchard Brown [Italy]

18 Dec 2009 09:29:02

I am glad I'm not a christian. I wouldn't like to have you lot for company. The sheer hate and intolerance that has been displayed about a *billboard* has amazed, confounded and disturbed me; though on reflection I suppose I shouldn't have been so surprised (given the 2,000 year history of christian rage and anger at independent thought). I just kind of hoped maybe you'd got past that burn-em-at-the-stake stuff. Come on guys- it's a billboard! It just says some stuff. Lighten up. It's a billboard. What you do with it, is think, if you want to and ar able to. Not rage, or insult, or pout. Think. Just that. Oh, I forgot. You have a holy book that tells you what to think, so you don't have to. Silly me.

Shana [ ]

18 Dec 2009 09:37:57

Actually, Richard Brown in Italy, a true Christian is required to 'present their body a sacrifice living, holy, acceptable to God, a sacred service with their power of reason'. But as the concept of critical thinking from psychology would remind us... not all opinions are equal nor is one just as valid as another. However, I would agree that the majority of Christians on this post have not been 'letting their light shine.' (Matthew 5:16) So to all of you Christians out there who are about to post... remember that we must, "...sanctify the Christ as Lord in YOUR hearts, always ready to make a defense before everyone that demands of YOU a reason for the hope in YOU, but doing so together with a mild temper and deep respect." (1 Peter 3:15)

Malachi 4 [New Jersey]

18 Dec 2009 09:45:23

I pity you and those you've led astray. Here these words and tremble. God the Father, God the Son and God the Holy Spirit will not be mocked. You have been judged and found wanting. Your roll as a shepherd will be taken from you and pagues will come upon your house and the people who applaud you to kame an example of those who blaspheme. Since you are fearless of God, this note will be seen as the ramblings of a psyco. That will not stop your sentence meted out by the One True God whom you have spat upon for gain.

Andrew M [Wellington]

18 Dec 2009 09:52:12

"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. " That sums it up nicely. You don't believe that the main reason Jesus came was to seek and save the lost, it was to make the world a nice place. You don't seem to be calling people to repent from their sins, but instead let them carry on thinking that their sins wont keep them from heaven. Making the earth nice counts for nothing as there will be a new heaven and a new earth coming when Jesus returns. I really wish you'd find another name to call yourself other than a church, as your "theology" is deeply offensive to people who radically believe that God truthfully expressed Himself in the bible in a way that we can understand what he did.

brittni [America]	18 Dec 2009 09:54:24
People need to chill. Billboard's funny as heck! get a sense of humor and learn to appreciate controversy. That's all christianity is anyways: controversy.

Michael [USA]	18 Dec 2009 10:05:48
It seems to me that the Catholic Church should spend its time making sure its clergy isn't raping children rather than whining about billboards. But obviously the virginity of a woman who died 2000 years ago is more important to them than present day children.

Jim Anderson [California]

18 Dec 2009 10:13:53

I find it interesting that the billboard has been defaced. In actuality, it is the billboard itself that has done the defacing -- of the miracle of the Incarnation. While some may minimize the importance of the Incarnation, God becomes flesh, Immanuel, God with us. Without the Incarnation there is no Easter event. Our righteous God did and does still require a sacrifice for sin. Sinners cannot provide the sacrifice. God become flesh has done this for us. Theologize and philosophize all you want, Jesus himself has made it very clear there is no other way into God's eternal heaven. it appears to me the creativity of the billboard comes from the mind of one who has not yet stepped into the glory of the presence of God. Someday...

Debbie Baldwin [N.z]	18 Dec 2009 10:14:36
Can anyone tell me how much the billboard cost and who the ad agency was please.

Jenny Metcalfe [Matakohe]	18 Dec 2009 10:14:48
I am stunned that a "Christian" would even contemplate putting this Billboard up. Don't mock God!! Are you trying to please Man or God? Definitely the former it seems. If you doubt the Virgin Birth please leave the Church, you shouldn't be there!! Galatians 6.7

Eric Cartman [Colorado USA]

18 Dec 2009 10:37:34

Stan: Right as Jesus was dying he raised his hand and said, "The needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few." Randy: You're right, Stanley. You're absolutely right. Hey, that Bible sounds like kind of a good book. Stan: It ain't bad. You should try reading it some time. Kyle: Dude, that was "Star Trek" again! "The needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few"—that was Wrath of Khan! Stan: Oh... Bible, Wrath of Khan, what's the difference?

SteveP [My mother]	18 Dec 2009 10:49:38
Maybe you can create a second advert, one with a picture of you with the text "Christ is a hard act to follow."

SteveP [My Mother]	18 Dec 2009 10:54:34
You say: “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. “ I think, however, that you have it wrong: Progressive Christians know that God forgives anything so everything is acceptable.

Jonathan  [Otago ]	18 Dec 2009 10:56:23
I am stunned by the totalitarianism and aggression shown in some correspondence. Your faith must be shaky to be so offended by the billboard content. This debate about the literal interpretation of the bible is not new, for theologians it goes back centuries.

Meg [St. Louis]

18 Dec 2009 11:04:28

Gosh that made me laugh! Praise God - He is so near the brokenhearted, and American Christianity has broken my heart. Not the billboard so much, but your written accompaniment to it is what I am so incredibly grateful for... I don't agree with you on all that you wrote, but you certainly wrote it with a touch of grace and truth that I see sorely lacking in many responses to it. And isn't that what identified the Son of God to the world... "full of grace and truth"? (John ch 1 if I remember correctly) This was linked to me by someone who - I'm not sure read the article. But if they did, it meant little to them, I think because of their own agnostic mindset. It seems to me that your billboard is actually more effective with "Christians" than it is with non-Christians - I tend to agree with several of the comments above: the billboard itself, without your explanation, most likely will not provoke much thought in the minds of non-Christians. This has certainly lit the fires of many so-called Christians. In my humble opinion, that is entirely fine. I'm very convinced that the widest path to hell is the American "church" or its version of Christianity. As to non-believers, people do not decide to believe something based on a billboard anyways. I don't think something like this is going to "turn them away from the Truth" at all - what might, however, is the ungracious and angry attitude of that neighbor of theirs who says he "believes." I did say "so-called Christians" because while you are being accused of that very title, I seriously doubt the Almighty would fight with you on the same grounds and in the same manner that these followers of His seem to be doing - but they would claim they are fighting for Him? Assuredly He can take care of Himself. When He finally comes to dish out the judgement, I believe it will be with a sword - and one swipe fells all. None of this sarcastic, word-biting, utterly annoying hissy fits. Without love, we are merely clanging symbols.... and love is, among other things, not easily provoked. I believe Jesus, Joseph, and even Mary probably got a good laugh from your billboard. : ) I think on their side of perfection, they understand things in ways that we only pretend to grasp. (And even if you're/we're wrong in this... I bow, take a step back & will let Him judge that.) Take heart. : )

Brenna [USA]	18 Dec 2009 11:32:29
@Glynn Cardy - keep up the good work! I admire your passion for thought. You have hit on the truth of salvation: inclusiveness, love and humor! Thank you! Heaven is what we make it, here on earth. I celebrate Christmas for the love it symbolizes. It is my favorite time of year, a time when forgiveness and inclusiveness reign supreme. And I am an Atheist.

Jesus Nazarenus [heaven]	18 Dec 2009 11:44:49
Glynn Cardy, ye belong to the synagogue of satan and the descendants of the hook nosed pharisees!

Geno [Auckland]

18 Dec 2009 11:51:24

I love the word 'Orthodox' it literally means 'right way'. It's a term some Christians apply to their beliefs to legitimate their claim to have a monopoly on the "only" truth. The opposite of Orthodox is 'heretic' which is applied to everyone else who doesn't believe as they do. My situation is that I have been around these types of Christians my whole life. Some want to bombard you and shove their beliefs down your throat. They can wear their faith on their sleeve but I can't. They can proclaim their understanding of the Christmas story on billboards but I can't. We've received alot of calls at the church this week. Some very supportive, some downright hateful. Some people have said the billboard made them sad, some have said it felt liberating for them. One woman this morning told me she was a Christian and will be happily watching me from heaven as I burn in hell for being a part of such "heresy". One woman didn't know how to explain the billboard to her children. One man said that for the sake of peace and harmony, we should take the billboard down. Another man said, we should not be forced to remove a billboard just because some people find it offensive. A woman said that she is a lifelong atheist but is interested in attending one of our services. And a teenage girl thanked us for sending the message that it is ok to challenge our beliefs because in her church, she has been taught that asking questions is a sin. I could really identify with the teenage girl. I was so traumatised by the hell fire and damnation preaching as a child that I spent a great deal of time in anxiety. As an adult, I've had to ask myself, does this kind of Christianity have any place in my life. I have obviously answered this question with a resounding No. I believe we are all children of the living God. But just because I understand God differently than some of you doesn't mean I should have to remain silent. Indeed, the problem is people like me have remained silent for too long. What gives anybody the right to tell me I'm not a Christian just because I don't believe like they do?

Sean [Auckland] [Auckland]

18 Dec 2009 12:19:44

To be quite frank, I really don't like your billboard. Actually it made me feel quite ill seeing it up. But, I will put that aside for a moment to ask a couple of things. Firstly, whatever you wished to achieve by this billboard, it seems that it has become a dividing element between believers of our Lord throughout the World. Agree with it or disagree with it, I would ask that you would take it down for the simple desire for unity. Granted, we can't agree on everything and I don't think we ever will but to draw out such anger and hostility from professing believers is not right. I want the world to see Christmas through eyes that focus on the birth or the Lord but not at the expence of us, the body, the Church attacking each other. We are about to head into the most fantastic time of Christian rememberance and we have lowered ourselves to name calling. Enough!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! I would appreciate the board coming and down and although I am simply a small voice in a big argument. Consider doing it for unity. It is hard enough as it is without fighting amongst ourselves. Yours in Christ

Nathalie [France]	18 Dec 2009 12:20:08
bonjour, de quelle religion ?s-vous ? Pourquoi ce dessin blasph?toire et pourquoi d?stez-vous le christianisme ?

Chris [Australia]	18 Dec 2009 12:23:07
Glynn Cardy, As one atheist to another, take my advice: get yourself out of the Church and try working for a living.

Anonymous [USA]

18 Dec 2009 12:26:53

Someone up on the comment chain said the only people who support this are atheists and non-believers. Their error: I am neither an atheist, agnostic, or non-believer. When I die, I will have 7 words on my lips, "Jesus, have mercy upon me, a sinner." His name and nothing else. There is NO HOPE for any of us without it! We like to think He's more disturbed and defamed by other people's 'blatant heresies' - when He's actually more disturbed that you yelled at that truck driver on the interstate yesterday. Shakes His head, thinking, "Why don't they realize that their bursts of anger need My blood just as much as these so-called sinners they write out against?? Why don't they realize that I am just as disturbed by their neglect of the poor as I am by the abortion clinic down the street??" -- He hopes the realization would compel us to compassion towards our fellow man, but instead we become blind ourselves and think that His blood actually makes US holy - instead of merely presenting us holy to His Father as a PLEA to wash away our filth? Oh GOD why do we kill others, when we were so undeservedly saved from death ourselves?!

spinetingler [Charleston, SC USA]	18 Dec 2009 12:31:32
>Sheryl [Melbourne, Australia] I've been a Christian for about 10 years, and am yet to meet any Christian who doesn't believe in ... the inerrancy of the Bible Then I humbly suggest that you need to get out more and perhaps meet more Christians than the ones that you see in church regularly. Biblical literalism and inerrancy are minority beliefs in worldwide Christidom.

spinetingler [Charleston, SC USA]	18 Dec 2009 12:37:35
>John [St. John's, NL] Perhaps this Church should have thought about the 1 billion Catholics, and 1 billion Muslims (who also revere Mary) it was probably offending when it thought this was a good idea. Why? Do the Catholics consider us when they make statements contrary to our beliefs? (I'm looking right at you, Bill Donahue)? (answer: no, they don't)

Ken Higgs [Hobart, Tasmania]

18 Dec 2009 12:49:36

The gospel says: "And the Word became flesh and dwelt among us". Why do you blaspheme the Lord of life and mock the miracle of incarnation, as though it were a cheap, tawdry joke? Is God a man, that He should lust after woman? Or an adulterer who fornicates with another man's wife? Repent of your irreverent and low view of the Most High God. Love Him and keep His commandments! And tear down that humanistic sign that so offends believers all over the world.

Rascal [Sydney]

18 Dec 2009 12:58:28

From tk [USA/UK] 17 Dec 2009 07:23:01 >A few points you seem to have missed: >(a) God (being infinite and therefore beyond gender, at least as we understand it, not to mention being non-physical and therefore obviously not having a biological sex) is not 'male.' How do you know this? >(b) God (being 'spirit' according to the NT) does not have sperm How do you know this? >(c) The Incarnation is not just a prelude to the Crucifixion, but is the first act in restoring fallen humanity Huh? How do you know this? >(d) The crucifixion, insofar as it 'satisfied' God's wrath, was not some unjust punishment visited upon an innocent victim, but was God's own self-offering for us in love to restore us to himself (minor, often overlooked doctrine known as the 'Trinity' in play there). Oh come on, that just makes no sense at all ... and, well, how do you know this? >(e) granted that some churches have switched to the 'going to heaven' thing, the point of Christianity is not escapism, but the Resurrection, a New Heaven and a New Earth--which very much points us back to the right stewardship of the one we're on; and even those who would maintain that it *is* about going to heaven would say that you don't really have faith if your treatment of others doesn't reflect this. Complete gobbledygook, and again, how do you know this? >You're not being provocative, you're just demonstrating that you don't know what you're talking about. ... and you do? How come you know all this stuff that no-one else does?

Andrew [Brisbane]

18 Dec 2009 13:12:01

Christianity isn't progressive. We have a fixed canon. This isn't progressive. It is out and out heresy, and needs to be decried as such. Jesus quoted the old testament as if he believed it to be literally true. The New Testament was written when there were still witnesses, and agressive witnesses alive. And somehow you suppose that you could better understand what is meant than the eyewitnesses? get real!

Eddie Francis [Raleigh, USA]	18 Dec 2009 13:16:59
Wow. Just wow. All the posters - including men of the cloth - claiming to not believe that God is portrayed in the masculine. And yet a fellow poster on this thread says *I* need to go away and learn something about Christianity... LOL!

AJ Henderson [New York, USA]

18 Dec 2009 13:21:02

I have to say my first reaction was to think that this billboard was mocking Christianity as a whole. My second when finding out it was sponsored by a church was sadness as I feel it did not do a good job of challenging people's views, but rather appears as a mockery. Third, I saw the comments on this site with two obvious sides and both fighting amongst themselves in the way I've come to expect from the most frivilous of internet forums. While I consider myself fairly progressive as a Christian, I did find this billboard offensive and the stereotypical presentation of another portion of the church to be rather hypocritical. I will not make a judgement call on anyone's beliefs. Outside the key foundational issues of the faith, much is not specifically outlined. I personally feel that calling the birth of Jesus as portrayed in the Bible a myth is going a bit far as I see no reason to consider it an unlikely event, however I can relate to wanting non-Christians to see beyond the percieved mysticism of the faith and see what the core of Christianity is really about. This billboard was simply not an appropriate way to do that. How many comments on this board are from non-Christians vs the number from Christians who are fighting amongst themselves. I think that in and of itself is evidence of the failure of this billboard, especially after it was published on Digg.com which is frequented by a very large athiest population. To those who sponsored the billboard, I would challenge you to be sure to check your hearts closely to ensure you do not go to far in trying to make the Christian message accessible to our society as to obscure the intended word of God. To those who are attacking on this forum, I would encourage you to use restraint in the way you address those who sponsored and support this billboard. If you feel strongly that what they did is wrong, express it, but express it in a loving way that is reflective of God's desire that all should be reconciled to him, not as angry people fighting amongst themselves with anger and malintent.

Mike [Melbourne]	18 Dec 2009 13:21:23
From Revd Glynn's BLOG: "...I don’t believe in a god who is a super being..." "Part of what I call god is a creative energy, a spiritual energy, which is within and around living creatures on our planet." For goodness' sake, this is not Christianity; this is the New Age in a cassock. Sure, let's have the debate, but let's not pretend it is a debate between Christians.

Paul (aka Saul of Tarsus) [Heaven]	18 Dec 2009 13:23:31
Mr Cardy. 'But even if we, or an angel from heaven should preach a gospel contrary to that which we preached to you, let him be accursed.' Gal 1, 8 Don't kid yourself Mr Cardy, youre not Christian, time to take the collar off and stop fraudulently dipping your hand into the collection basket. Get your mind out of your underpants, say a prayer or two, and you might find that there is a God.

Steve [Wellington]	18 Dec 2009 13:24:21
Sometimes I wonder why people who clearly don't want to believe in the fundermentals of Christianity insist on being representatives of the faith? You're free to believe what you like but trying to doctor and change the message to suit your own purposes isn't being entirely honest with yourself or with those who listen to your message.

Michael [USA]	18 Dec 2009 13:27:41
If Mary never consummated the marriage to Joseph, according to Catholic canon law their marriage should be invalid. It seems odd to promote her virginity over being a good wife. Also that would make Jesus a bastard, rather than the son of a cuckolded father.

Al  [BC, Canada]

18 Dec 2009 13:38:47

Thanks for trying. When I was 8 I noticed how sour and mean all the grown ups that said they loved God were. 36 years later it still makes no sense to me. Many of you people PRETEND to honor God by harassing this man. How ironic?. I did not read every page of the bible, but I am pretty sure Jesus did NOT throw stones at anyone! Love... Don't you get it folks? Jesus was tolerant and loving. Just loosen your shorts and be nice to people no matter their color, creed or religion. Great poster by the way! I hope Hell is not like Texas on a hot summer day?

AJ Henderson [New York, USA]

18 Dec 2009 13:47:27

@Shana [Sunny California] As I was reading back through more of the thread I saw your post. Thank you for putting together a thourough response and presenting it in a well reasoned and non-inflamatory way. I would have to say I agree with most of what you said. As another point, how is the resurrection of Christ any more miraculous than the conception of life without sperm? In both cases, life comes from what is otherwise dead and if God is creator (by whatever means you may believe) then it is certainly not without reason that it isn't a large jump of the imagination for the virgin birth to be a litteral possibility.

Mike [Melbourne]	18 Dec 2009 13:54:12
@Al [BC, Canada]: "Don't you get it folks? Jesus was tolerant and loving." "I did not read every page of the bible..." Perhaps you should have read a few more pages. Sure, Jesus had love, but no tolerance for those who were perverting the word and leading the people astray (as the "Revd" Glynn clearly is). "You snakes! You brood of vipers! " were, I believe, some of the words He used.

Andrew  [Levin]

18 Dec 2009 13:56:57

So much error in so few words from Glynn. Alas not enough space here to give a detailed correction of it all. Others have pointed out the errors: Sex never occurred, God has no sperm or physical nature, this was a virgin birth and Jesus was not a bastard. His incarnation was as important to his reason for being here, as His death and resurrection were. Had Jesus been no more than a mere, (natural) man, he could never have borne the weight and punishment of our sins, God would never have chosen Him for the task and all His claims to deity and connection to the Father would have seen Him stoned many times over. It's only because He is/was who He is that He lived as long as He did and achieved what He did. It's sad when people who obviously put the ideas of people above God's word. They not only show their ignorance but manage to lead simple folk astray with themselves. If, for Glynn and others Jesus was just a man, (a bastard at that) then I doubt his faith. No Bible believing Christian could accept anyone other than the "Son of the living God" as Saviour

Si [UK]	18 Dec 2009 14:05:38
Hi, how dare you suggest that Joseph and Mary were ... er ... human? What a brilliant poster - but I can see that the RCs could be upset as it challenges the doctrine of Mary's perpetual virginity. I don't see that it has anything to say against the virgin birth however.

Robbie F [Bristol UK]

18 Dec 2009 14:07:27

Though there were many points in the article which deserve a thorough rebuttal; I'll pick only three and respond to them in brief. “Christian fundamentalism believes a supernatural male God who lived above sent his sperm into the womb of the virgin Mary” -On the matter of whether the God of the Bible is a male god or not- human language is somewhat limited in that it cannot describe personality without associating it with sex. God is therefore described as "He", not to suggest that he has facial hair problems and/or cannot multi-task! but rather to distinguish him from an "It": That is to say God is not an impersonal life-force (deism), remote and unknowable to mankind, rather he is personal and immanent; engaging in personal relationships with his creation. Interestingly; both male and female imagery is used to describe God in the Bible; e.g. see Mat 6v9, Luke 13v34. -The Bible affirms the incarnation. It doesn’t comment on the physical means. Why do you? “Progressive Christianity believes the Christmas stories are fictitious accounts” -A balanced historical analysis reveals that it is actually remarkably difficult to consign the New Testament accounts of the birth of Jesus (Matthew and Luke) to the shelf of myth. Matthew was a close disciple of Jesus and most likely wrote his account around 80AD. Luke was an ancient historian and probably wrote his account no later than 65AD. Modern historians have identified Luke in particular as a very trustworthy source. They had eye-witness or first-hand accounts of the events they record in their books. Their style of writing is, well frankly boring and uncreative, rather than mythological, and does not really exhibit the characteristics of the fictional literature of the day. In addition to this, archaeology has corroborated many of the details of the biblical narrative; (e.g. the existence and character of Herod the Great, the census carried out by the roman governor Quinirius as mentioned in Luke’s account.) “Progressive Christianity is distinctive in that not only does it articulate a clear view it is also interested in engaging with those who differ.” -I think it would be a crass and sweeping generalisation to suggest that only ‘progressives’ are willing to engage with those who differ from them. “Always be ready to give a defence for the hope that you have, and do so with gentleness and respect..” (1 Peter 3v15) Conservative Christians across the centuries have striven to heed this command with those who differ, e.g. Augustine, C.S Lewis, Schaeffer, Zacharias, Plantinga etc. Modern movements such as the L’Abri fellowship, the alpha course and the Vertias Forum also manifest this eager desire to engage with the culture in the market place of ideas. I think many of the comments posted on this board show that many non-progressives who disagree with you are engaging with you and doing so ‘with gentleness and respect.’ P.S. While I am sympathetic to many fellow conservatives/evangelicals who are disgusted by the billboard and associated article; I am very disappointed that many have responded by posting comments infused with rage and obscene language. Stop it!!! If you’re going to defend the biblical Christ, then do so with biblical integrity!!!

Dave [NZ]	18 Dec 2009 14:08:26
Best poster ever!! That is hilarious, I am glad to see the church has a sense of humour, it's just sad that so many others don't. Stick to your guns, we love your poster and I look forward to seeing it back up! :D

spinetingler [Charleston, SC USA]	18 Dec 2009 14:11:13
Some posters need to work on their reading comprehension skills. The billboard does not in any way contradict the doctrine of the Virgin Birth. It does contradict the "eternal virgin" doctrine of the Roman Catholic Church, but that is a minority doctrine even within Christianity.

AJ Henderson [New York, USA]

18 Dec 2009 14:15:20

Ok, after reviewing a little more about this group, I would have to agree that they are not Christian. According to the page at http://www.stmatthews.org.nz/nav.php?sid=498&id=999: " Recognize the faithfulness of other people who have other names for the way to God's realm, and acknowledge that their ways are true for them, as our ways are true for us." This is relativism and is not a Christian concept, but rather a Unitarian one. The level of metaphore in the the Bible aside, it is extremely clear that Christ is the only way to salvation as his death is responsible for the forgiveness of sins. This is a foundational issue and can not be ignored without losing the essence of the religion. " Understand the sharing of bread and wine in Jesus’ name to be a representation of an ancient vision of God's feast for all peoples" I simply must ask ???. I have never heard any grounds for this ever. It is not even a take off of the original use, it is just made up as near as I can tell. That said, it is not a theological breaking point for me, but one I must question the validity of. That said, I would still ask those who wish to speak out against this group do so respectfully. I feel it is important to comment on what I see as critically important theological issues, but that doesn't give open season to attack them personally. That's God's job to judge their hearts, not ours. It is just our job to voice when we feel Christianity is being misrepresented.

Forrest [United States]	18 Dec 2009 14:20:27
Wonderful! I would like to thank you for making Christians think, which is something that they are not accustomed (and are completely terrified) to doing, particularly in the United States. Christians love to have someone tell them what to think, so your billboard serves to help change this. I'd love to attend one of your sermons one day. Again, thank you for making people THINK.

Peter [Christchurch]

18 Dec 2009 14:23:09

Dear everyone, I am a Christian. I have been called a fundamentalist, and evangelical, or lately, a mainliner (although I thought that was the word for cocaine addicts...). I believe I am a Christian because I follow the risen (and not in a metaphorical sense) Christ Jesus. I believe that Jesus is one with God the father and the Holy Spirit. I believe that Jesus gave us an example to live our life by through what He said and did while he briefly occupied a human body. We are told that Jesus said that the greatest commandment was this: to love the Lord our God with all our heart, mind and soul, and the second is to love our neighbour. We are also told that God so loved the world, that He gave His only Son (Jesus) so that whosoever believes on Him (Jesus), shall not perish, but have eternal life. The Christmas celebration is about the miracle of the creation of the physical presence on this earth of God Almighty in the form of the man Jesus (without sperm) through the Virgin Mary. This is the only reason for the season. Jesus then of course went on to live a life of ministry and sacrifice so that humanity would not be trapped in sin if we would only accept God's perfect gift. On the 25th of December, I will be celebrating the actual birth of my dear Lord Jesus (although I know He was born sometime in late Summer - the date being a bit like the Queen's birthday weekend really), and will remember the love shown by God to a fallen world (of our own doing). That love was completed and perfected by Christ's death and resurrection so that I would not stand condemned by my wrong-doing and sin. Thank you Lord Jesus!

L R Watson [Canterbury]	18 Dec 2009 14:35:17
I think it is very encouraging when Christians point out the fallacies in their own silly, irrational and unsubstantiated beliefs. It adds a little humour to the increasing distaste that many free thinking people have for the lies and deceit fostered by religious people.

Dave (NZ) [Auckland]

18 Dec 2009 14:50:09

No one should be surprised by the scandalous billboard. St Matthew in the City is well-known for expounding Godless Christianity. Its latest scandalous behavior in trying to ridicule God and discredit the Christian faith is another vivid example of the church (& the priest) in aligning and demonstarting it allegiance to contemporary culture. Reason? Its survival depends on catching up with the rest of the secular world!

Lucy [Dunedin, NZ]

18 Dec 2009 15:02:08

Fabulous. Thank you for starting a debate and for educating me about Progressive Christianity. I am heartened to see that not all Christians believe the bible stories are factual. I'm an atheist & humanist myself and whole-heartedly believe in following Jesus' #1 message - Treat others as you would like to be treated yourself. Can you imagine what a fabulous world this would be if everyone followed that one simple teaching?

Mikayla [Singapore]

18 Dec 2009 15:14:45

South-East Asia, where I come from, has been called the New Corinth for the huge growth in a church full of ex-idolaters. This has been achieved by sticking to doctrine. I liked the billboard though. It made me laugh, and think a bit more about what I believe. I'm absolutely fine with it. As a fourteen-year-old with younger siblings, I'm not concerned about kids being influenced by it because my little sister Vanya (who's nine) would understand and appreciate the billboard (granted, not to the extent that I do.) People worried for their kids simply don't know how much kids these days know. But that's offtopic. My issue with the billboard isn't it. It's the fact that some other people stole and vandalised it. How very Christian. The other issue has been spoken for so many times on this thread-- this page. This argument- by a deacon, no less- that so contradicts Christianity. I daresay that none of my atheistic/Buddhist/Muslim/Hindu/Taoist friends think Jesus was conceived through God f#$king Mary, to put it bluntly. I have no problem with the billboard because its message is left to interpretation, and has a sane interpretation. This explicit blasphemy I have an issue with. Just what the church needs- bad press. Both by the "Christians" who painted over the billboard, and by the "Christians" who believe this stuff. Fundamentalism, is called such because it gets down to the fundamentals, the foundation beliefs. It has acquired a negative tone because of fundamental Islam. I would say that fundamental is true . Sappy "tolerance and good deeds" Islam is not true Islam. Sappy "all roads lead to heaven and God may as well be the FSM" Christianity bears no resemblance to Christianity at all.

eduardo delanderos-tierre [portland, oregon, usa]

18 Dec 2009 15:15:52

All of my life i have been uncomfortable with basic Christian concepts of a Hell and a Heaven. I also have been contemplative about having a fear of hell, so that I can enter Heaven; and a Fear of God, so that I can in infinite comfort. If I see Love as pure and all encompassing, then how can God have a hell, and how can God want to be "satiated", and why would God want me to be fearful? Wouldn't a pure understanding of love be preferable to unthinking fear? I congratulate your Church to have the courage to spark a dialog. There's nothing offensive about your billboard, it's not pornographic. It is a humorous and gentle smile for all of us, something to think about--our real humanity. I would love to visit your Church...

Terri [Colorado, USA]

18 Dec 2009 15:31:25

Thanks for starting a great discussion for those who tend to do the research and think for themselves. The entire bible was written by humans, and like everything else man-made, a good piece of advice is don't believe everything you read. Consider the possibility that their writing was influenced by their times, and perhaps interpret it using some of the things that mankind has learned in the last two thousand years!

Anonymous [Apia,Samoa]

18 Dec 2009 15:31:29

In Defense of the Virginal Purity of the Blessed Virgin Mary and her Chaste Spouse St. Joseph. JESUS SPEAKING: “Blessed be the pure of heart!” have I once said when living on the earth. But the world, my enemy, will not listen to anything about it; they roll themselves into the mire and they rush against everything that can be termed purity. Nowadays more than in any other time, unsound minds have aimed their shafts at the virginal purity of My Mother placing Her on exactly the same level as the other women. How insulting to the Queen of Heaven, and how grieving to Me! My putative Father – most chaste Joseph – is also being dragged through that flood of diabolical mud. My Mother was most pure before giving birth: several centuries in advance, Isaiah the prophet had foretold My virgin birth. And My Mother was most pure after giving birth. This is evident from the authentic tradition of the Church, as attested by sound Christianity, by the Councils and the authoritative pronouncements of the Popes. And still more of a proof than anything else, is the answer She gave Gabriel announcing She would become a Mother: “How will this happen since I know no man?” Which meant that She did not intend to live the ordinary life that other women live, instead of the answer above She would have said merely this: I accept to become a mother. She was always immaculate, My Mother, elected and prepared Land to nourish Me in her womb- the Lily of the valleys- . She gave the milk to Me, the Man of God: She lived in the intimacy of the King of Glory, and all of her thoughts were turned upon Heaven, not upon the earth. The Angels kept soaring above the House of Nazareth, adoring Me and blessing the Mother of God made man, whom the sacrosanct Trinity had chosen to be the Queen of Virgins, the Virgin above all others. If I have in the world so many virgin souls who have bound themselves by a vow, souls subjected to the consequences of the original sin and who nevertheless are Angels in the Flesh, why should one doubt the perpetual virginity of My Mother, who was exempted from the original fault, and is the masterpiece of God, filled with an ocean of graces, such an excellent Creature that She eclipses the virtue of the most privileged souls, luminous Beacon of mankind, more resplendent than the sun high in the sky? The Most Blessed Virgin has always been a very white Lily, whose fragrance elates Me and the whole Heavenly Court. Speak to the world, you Joseph, her beloved Spouse! ST JOSEPH SPEAKS: “I begin to talk to defend the virginal purity of my dear Spouse Mary, given me by God. “I was chosen to be like the head of Jesus and of Mary; but though occupying such a position, because God had decided so for me, on my part I could not but feel humbled within myself by the fact I was staying with Jesus, the Son of God made man, and with Mary, most limpid mirror of purity and innocence whom I could not look on without casting my eyes down, as I felt unworthy of staying close to her. I watched over Her jealously, as one will watch over a precious, most delicate and extremely valuable pearl. “God had chosen me, since from my childhood I had been inspired to keep the lily of my virginal purity completely chaste up to my last breath. This was a secret that I revealed when I met the One chosed to be my spouse, Mary. “Having been chosen as her spouse caused no fear in me, for merely getting near Her flooded my soul with a chaste joy, from the spiritual fragrance emanating from her purity. “We understood one another perfectly without exchanging any word. Because the sublime mystery that united us in a heavenly manner, needed not to be expressed, but to be hushed up. “Mendacious and infernal are the tongues that dare to slander my sweet and chaste Spouse, Mary, the Mother of God, living tabernacle of the Divine Nazarene! “A very delicate plant, you will protect it against anything that can be harmful to it, and you will cultivate it with special care. Imagine to what extent I lavished attentions on most chaste Mary, in order that she may not be inconvenienced (molestata), not even by the mere company of anyone (consorzio umano). Her abode, the House at Nazareth, was in all its details the fruit of divine love in action: in the eyes of me, it was such an admirable and such a deep secret that nobody has ever been able to conceive it. “Such was the House of Nazareth, wrapped in secrecy, in the deepest humility and the most utter poverty, But while detached from everything, that house possessed everything….It possessed God! “You of the bustling world, instead of shooting shafts against the Virgin my Spouse, should better imitate her virtue and innocence! Love her , venerate her, and do not grieve her again! Give thanks to Eternal God for such a great Mother He gave you for your salvation!” JESUS SPEAKING: The world, at the service of Satan, and spiritually blind, cannot see the light of My Mother’s angelic purity. How are the wretched worldlings able to reach such a degree of blindness…? And I, the loving Son of such a noble creature, should not have the duty and right to vindicate her virginal innocence! Those unfortunate, if they are deaf to My voice and that of My Vicar, let them at least heed the voice of Satan, at whose service they work! Do they know who Satan is, and what he is doing in this very serious hour. . .? Mankind is flowing adrift. My Mother can save it, for this is the hour of Mary. The collective chastisement punishment would have fallen on the earth a long time ago, if this most merciful Mother has not held up my hand. It is Satan personally who had now directly assumed action against the Mother of Christ, hoping to catch many preys. Although the prince of darkness very well knows who the Virgin Mother is, and how powerful she is in Heaven. Servants of Satan, listen! During the Immaculate Conception Novena of 1968, I, Master of the universe, permitted an extraordinary victim soul, chosen by Myself in person, to suffer a furious assault from Hell. At a moment, the victim was in front of a pack of devils; Satan was in the pack, and he spoke as follows: ‘satan speaking: The feast of that Woman is drawing near (the Immaculate), She that holds us all in overthrow. . .We must suffer eternal woe, Hell; whereas in the world so many persons succeed in getting saved in spite of such a great revolt against God. . . ! She was not born, then, the Lady called Mary! Otherwise, such misfortune would not have befallen us! Most of the souls get saved through the medium of Her whom we hate and curse so much ! We, the Angels for a single sin have been hurled down into the bottomless pit, and this is what exacerbates every day more our rage against the injustice of God! If that Woman had been chosen from the start of the creation of the world, we should not have been so badly condemned! JESUS SPEAKING: Meanwhile, the victim soul was writing down Satan’s words, because I wanted her to write them. Then Satan angrily shouted: ‘satan speaking: Why do you write my words down on the paper . . .? Enough! Enough. . .! Stop writing, you cursed one! JESUS SPEAKING: Let everybody ponder on Satan’s last statement: If My Mother, Mary, had been chosen before the Angels rebelled against their Creator, they would have obtained mercy, thanks to her most powerful intercession. Who is that woman who makes all Hell tremble? She is that Virgin most pure whom the world would now cover with mud. What relation is it between Myself and that Woman? Through Her I have come into the world. She has suckled Me with her virginal milk. For all my life up to my thirtieth year, She has taken care of Me. Mary was the precious instrument for redeeming mankind. It is in Mary and with Mary, that I live in the consecrated Host, with her virginal blood flowing in my veins and her virginal flesh forming my body ; and when souls receive Me, they do not receive Me alone, for my life is blended with my Mother’s life. Such is the great, extraordinary mystical poem living within my Church! Without my Mother, I could not be Jesus on earth. Hence it follows that everything is owed to this Immaculate Virgin, whom I have appointed Queen. If an affectionate son lavished his very loving gratitude on his earthly mother, although his heart is merely a finite one, how much more sedulously should I look to it that my Mother be honored, loved, glorified and made amends. She is the Ark of Salvation, Channel of all graces, Co-redemptrix of mankind! The Most Holy Trinity lavished on her every preference. The mystery of my life in souls is always effected through the medium of my Mother most pure. How admirable and luminous is the character of that Virgin, Throne and Tabernacle of the Living God! No tongue, either of man or angel is able to worthily sing her praise! Who loves Me loves my Mother. Who loves my Mother loves Me and his life will be secure. Mary has carried Me to the world, and it is through Her that I go to souls. It is Virgin Mary who conducts me to hearts and prepares them for me to settle in them my abode. The Most Blessed Virgin is very great! Woe to those mortals daring to cast a shade on the virginal purity of that Woman, who holds in her hands the scepter of Queen of Angels. All of you, repair and make others repair the honor of my Mother, who is also yours! Let not this Message be trifled with, but let everybody go deeply into it, especially my priests and the persons professing to be apostles of the devotion of the Immaculate Heart. Let it be diffused throughout the world, by multiplying copies and translating it into foreign languages. Let people have Masses celebrated in honor of the Virgin , in order to atone for the outrages against her virginal purity. Let crusades of Communions of reparation be arranged, with Communions to be done especially on Saturdays. Let the following invocation become widespread: By your virginal innocence, O Mary, save all the souls that tear to shreds both your perpetual purity and your Heart!

Mike [Melbourne]

18 Dec 2009 15:37:12

Can someone please explain to me why if, having closely studied, pondered, questioned and explored questions of faith, I then choose the path of "traditional" Christianity, I am branded as weak-minded, brainwashed or just un-thinking; but, if I choose to reject that faith or choose "progressive Christianity" (read "New Age"), I would be seen as a "free-thinker". Apparently the right to think and choose does not extend to choosing to believe Jesus' message.

Ben [USA]	18 Dec 2009 15:43:09
Thank you for taking the camp fire stories from the bible and questioning them. I am hoping you keep it up with more billboards!!

stephen [Texas]

18 Dec 2009 16:06:34

Glynn wrote: "In short the billboard lampoons the literal idea of God being a male and that God impregnating Mary. This is how the Christian message about the incarnation is widely understood in our secular society." Really? Is NZ really that much different than the US? The secular people in NZ believe in God, that He is real, and that He impregnated Mary (who remained a virgin none the less), and she gave birth to a son in a stable? That's just weird. In the US, it is the Christians who believe that God is real, though generally do not think that God had intercourse with Mary, hence the virgin thing.

Anonymous [USA]

18 Dec 2009 16:08:57

Blessed be God. Blessed be His Holy Name. Blessed be Jesus Christ, true God and true man. Blessed be the name of Jesus. Blessed be His Most Sacred Heart. Blessed be Jesus in the Most Holy Sacrament of the Altar. Blessed be the Holy Spirit, the paraclete. Blessed be the great Mother of God, Mary most holy. Blessed be her holy and Immaculate Conception. Blessed be her glorious Assumption. Blessed be the name of Mary, Virgin and Mother. Blessed be Saint Joseph, her most chaste spouse. Blessed be God in His angels and in His Saints. Amen.

Geno [Auckland]

18 Dec 2009 16:10:41

Mike (Melbourne), no one is calling you weak-minded or brainwashed. The progressive objection to what you have called "traditional Christianity" is the intolerance to other beliefs or points of view that can clearly be seen from some of the posters on this message board. Some of these Orthodox, Fundamentalists & Evangelicals who have posted on this board have expressed a firm objection to any other kind of Christianity that differs from their own. As usual, many of them are calling progressives "blasphemers" and "heretics". Now I fully support their right to label or call us whatever they want. What I don't support are their attempts to gag people who differ with them in matters of faith and that should be a concern for all New Zealander's. Every year around this time, we are inundated with billboards in front of churches displaying the "traditional" understanding of the Christmas message. Why are those allowed to stand proudly but progressive Christians are supposed to hide their faith? Aren't I entitled to the same rights as you, to express my faith using the same mediums you do?

Fr. Frank [Louisiana, USA]

18 Dec 2009 16:15:40

All this "How can you say you know the truth," "Your truth is not my truth," Progressive Christian blather sounds soooo familiar. Ah, yes! Here it is! "What is truth?" -- Pontius Pilate Were he still alive, he'd have made an excellent rector for your parish. Obviously, though he has long been absorbed into the "World Spirit" or achieved 'moksha' or whatever it is you believe, his spirit still lives on.

Mike [USA]

18 Dec 2009 16:16:33

Wow, I'd expect some billboard based around sex and mocking one of the central tenets of the Christian Faith to come out of some radical athiest website....But in front of an Anglican Church in New Zealand?? How many people attend your "church", 12 or 13?? The "Progressive Christianity" title you're bantering around has nothing to do with Christianity. Pick any New Age/Wiccan/Mother Earth...etc. etc. "religion". You all fit right in. If you can't handle Christ's divinity, then find something else to call yourselves besides "Anglican" and "Christian", because you are neither. Christ isn't just some "feel good" set of stories to go along with every other feel good stories on the planet. Christ was both God and man, and his tomb, alone, sits empty. Even the demons know who Jesus is, but it appears you don't.

Anonymous  [Apia, Samoa]

18 Dec 2009 16:36:28

The thing is, I don't understand how a member of God's own could conjure in its flock images so degrading, impure and disrespectful to the Mother of God and her most Holy Spouse. The Blessed Virgin made a vow of perpetual chastity to her God and St Joseph made a similar vow to God. I can't comprehend who would set in motion the resulting spread of this image world wide! I fear for you souls (those responsible) as it is obvious if you do not repent you will suffer on judgement day as many times as human eyes have set their sights on this image. Furthermore, How can you sexualise the members of the Holy Family like that? How can you put the Virgin Mother on the same level as an ordinary woman? If you want to know the truth about the Blessed Virgin and St. Joseph and their life together - I suggest you read the ' Mystical City of God' (Volumes 1 - 4) - by the Venerable Mary Jesus of Agreda...it is free to download at : archive.org It will probably be the most important thing you do in your entire life.

Ermine [All over the U.S.]

18 Dec 2009 16:51:43

Mikayla: "Fundamentalism, is called such because it gets down to the fundamentals, the foundation beliefs. It has acquired a negative tone because of fundamental Islam." That is incorrect. It is fundamentalist CHRISTIANITY that has given the term its negative connotations, at least in the USA. it is fundamentalist CHRISTIANITY that pervades so much of the U.S. and its discourse, witnessed in this very thread. It is fundamentalist 'Christianity' that murders abortion doctors, attacks women at family planning clinics, tries to get discrimination of same-sex couples *written into law*, et cetera, et cetera, et cetera. Christianity, NOT Islam. I'm far more worried about the Christians affecting my rights in the US than I am of the Muslims doing the same. We've got people right here claiming that we aren't Christians if we don't believe that Mary was and will always be a virgin, that she was Immaculately Conceived, without the taint of 'original sin' that all of the rest of us carry. There are over 30,000 'Christian' sects, and you people don't get to claim that they aren't christian just because they don't believe every single point of doctrine you do. Trying to claim that they aren't christian at all just shows us how quick you are to attack anyone who doesn't follow in lockstep with exactly the same secondary doctrine that you do, or who interpret what some part of the Bible says differently than you do. Oh, you'll count everyone in every single sect when you want to say something like 'America is a Christian Nation!', but as soon as you're alone in your own congregations, all of a sudden all those other sects are hellish impostors. 'Oh, Catholics aren't really Christians'. 'Oh, Mormons aren't really Christians', etc. Do you have any idea how many times and in how many permutations I've heard that claim from a supposed follower of Christ, or even the very highest leaders of one or another sect? They all have Faith in Jesus Christ, they all attempt to follow his teachings of repentance and baptism for the remission of sins, they believe in following the promptings of the Holy Spirit - They're Christians, whether YOU like it or not. Educated people understand where the error crept into the Bible that brought about the 'Virgin Birth' myth, and -rational- people realize that, if God could so easily allow one of his human children to be born free of the taint of Original Sin, 'He' could could just as easily have allowed ALL of us to be born without it. (Sorry, I was taught for several decades that God was male, 'Our Father', etc. SO many dishonest 'Christians' here, I could weep for the hypocrisy shown.)

Mike [Melbourne]	18 Dec 2009 17:00:47
@Geno [Auckland]: Please, go ahead and express your faith, using whatever medium you choose. Of course you should have that freedom, and I, for one, would like to understand that faith better (i've had a little trouble discerning it from the website). I don't see an expression of your faith in the billboard; however. What I see is an outright mocking of others' faith.

Nigel [NZ]

18 Dec 2009 17:03:32

Having talked with a few people about the billboard, I am glad for the discussion it has provoked, whilst remaining in disagreement with what it implies. What I find most interesting is that in the media people who don't consider themselves Christians were coming to the defense of the virgin birth, but still oblivious to the implications of the incarnation – that God would put on flesh in Jesus, become one of us. The baby Jesus of Christmastime is no threat to our way of living. Put him in the manger with the angels & Joseph & Mary, 3 wise men & shepherds. This Hallmark Card Christmas is cute, but tame. But the Jesus of the Gospels calls us to live a radically different life. The Emmanuel – God with us - challenges us to our very core. So if they believe in the virgin birth, then why doesn't that impact their lives? And we who say we are believers, not only of the virgin birth, but of Jesus, indeed followers of Jesus, why are we also keen to keep Jesus in a manger or at least in a manageable form by cutting & pasting from his teaching, ignoring the stuff that we find too difficult?.

Doug [USA]

18 Dec 2009 18:18:19

Glynn, Would you and your church sponsor a similar billboard depicting Mohammad? Of course not. It would be highly blasphemous and you know it. Why then, is it okay to mock "Traditional Christians" in your community? You say that the "essence of faith" for Progressive Christians is how you treat your neighbors. If so, I am not impressed. Your deeds do not match your words and your representation of traditional theology is greatly lacking either by intent or ignorance. If Progressive Christianity had any credibility, you just destroyed it. As for me, I will seek truth and understanding where serious thought and contemplation preceed antagonistic publicity stunts.

Glennis Moriarty [Hawke's Bay]	18 Dec 2009 18:24:32
Shame on you. Shame. Appalling irreverence and blasphemy - and for those who don't agree with that conclusion - still plain bad taste.

Geno  [Auckland]

18 Dec 2009 18:37:04

Thanks for engaging on this board Mike(Melbourne). The most fascinating part of this whole experience for me has been that some Christians are very vocal when it comes to something that offends their faith. I do wonder how many of them are measuring their own offensiveness to other faiths. It's because there is this mentality that Christianity is the one "true" faith and the only path to God must be the Christian path and everyone has an opinion on how to properly walk that path and I doubt you will ever find 2 Christians who will agree exactly on how salvation is achieved. Tell Hindus, Muslims, Jews, Buddhists etc. that Christianity is the only truth. Are they all wrong and Christians right? Or can't we accept that the way that works for us may not be the way that works for others? The billboard is clearly an expression of a belief. It is saying that for some Christians, a literal interpretation of the Bible does not work. In fact, some of us know that a literal interpretation of the Bible (and taking the words of the Bible out of their historical context) has been responsible for some pretty horrific events in history. Slavery, the oppression of gays and lesbians and transgendered people, wars, and the degradation of women as inferior to men just to name a few. Where is the love of Christ in any of these interpretations and why should I be required to understand the Bible is literal in every aspect to call myself a Christian? How come if it was so important for Christians to believe in a virgin birth that St Paul never says a word about it? Paul wrote his letters before any of the Gospels were written and this seems like a pretty big event to never mention. Especially since so many Christians on this board have called this event the foundation of Christianity. Of the Gospels, Mark wrote first and he never mentions it either. Are Paul and Mark heretics too? There's no doubt in my mind that the birth of Jesus has been the single most important event in history, at least from my perspective but just because I believe that doesn't mean anyone else has to.

Wayne Sheppard [Christchurch [NZ]]	18 Dec 2009 18:38:59
This poster is highly offensive to Christians. I urge you to remove it. YOU GAVE THE OFFENCE BEFORE OTHERS TOOK IT!

Cy [Auckland, NZ ]	18 Dec 2009 18:56:40
Read the Mystical City of God - by Sister Mary of Agreda...Vol I to Vol IV.... It will answer a lot of questions... For example...the relationship between Mary and Joseph, a vision of the birth of Jesus, a vision of the creation of the world....and a whole lot more... Free to download ....archive.org

Chris [Nelson]	18 Dec 2009 18:59:20
Clay Nelson said "The emails are continuing to pour in and 90% of them at this point are positive". Really? So progressive Christians are allowed to lie also?

Ermine [All over the U.S.]

18 Dec 2009 19:15:41

Your fatwa envy is charming, Doug. It's not Muslims who vandalized the billboard, it was good ol' American 'Christians'. It's not Muslims in America who destroy property, make death threats, push discriminatory and religiously-motivated laws onto us all, and apparently take quite a bit of pleasure in envisioning the offending persons being tortured hellishly for eternity, all for the terrible crime of making an image that offended them. Not their God, THEM. Their God ought to be able to defend Himself, don't you think? At least, if what they keep saying about his knowledge and power is anything close to the truth, right? This seems to be the new favorite quip anytime someone says anything about Christianity that they doesn't like: "You wouldn't say that about the Muslims!" Is this some sort of a dare, an attempt to get people to offend some subset of Muslims as well, in a not-very-camouflaged hope that they'll do something violent to the offender? Or is it just a wish that YOU could riot and burn and kill just because someone's art offended you? Do you still miss the power that religion had during the Inquisition, the Crusades, and the witch hunts of the early Americas? I for one am *VERY* glad that they no longer have that much power over the lives of the people around them, members and non-members alike. I've also noticed just how many Christians totally ignore and immediately forget whenever someone -does- include Islam in their discussion or denigration of religion in general, switching right back to 'You wouldn't DARE say that about the evil Mooslims!' the moment some new issue is raised. I also notice how very few ever admit to being wrong when their error is pointed out. None of it looks much like forgiveness, understanding, love, or any of those so-called 'christian' ideals. Remember that line in the Bible, 'By their fruits ye shall know them.'? Well, the fruits of American Fundamentalist Christianity were one of the first and most visible things that got me started in questioning the stories I'd been raised to believe. I for one am glad to see the percentage of angry, judging, holier-than-though posts from so many lay Christians and even several men of the cloth themselves. They provide examples that reveal more than I ever could by myself. - And the truth shall make us free.

Bill [Auckland]	18 Dec 2009 19:26:11
Ermine, all of your believes are crap. Now show some forgiveness, understanding, love.

AJ Henderson [New York, USA]

18 Dec 2009 19:57:39

@Geno [Auckland] I notice you say that the point of progressive Christians is to try to fix the issue that fundamental Christians are viewed as being "intollerant" of other faiths. While I would agree that much harm has been done in the name of "fundamental Christianity" and shy away from any fundamental labels as a result, the belief that one's views are exclusivly correct is not the same as intollerance. I believe that belief in Jesus Christ is the only way to salvation. If Bob over there believe that doing good things will get him in to heaven, then one of us is wrong. I can not prove either point of view, that is the point of faith. The fact is both can not be right at the same time. I may be wrong, he may be wrong, that is each persons' individual call. Intollerance only enters the picture when someone is looked down upon for their beliefs. I have many friends who do not share my beliefs and I respect their beliefs. I may feel that they are wrong in their beliefs, but that doesn't impact that their lives are of equal value to mine and that my beliefs are centered around the example of Christ and the love that he showed. True "fundamental" Christianity should be incompatible with intollerance, but that has nothing to do with having to say that whatever anyone believes is right for them.

Anthony Gallonty [New york ]

18 Dec 2009 19:59:17

To place St. Joseph and St. Mary in a bed seen is warped and twisted. This is just another sign of complete ignorance. Glynn Cardy should be cast out of the church. The audacity is totally unbelievable to say the least. Then to sign the bottom with a slogan St Matthew-in-the-City sounding like Sex in the city you should be brought to court for slandering the good name of the church. ANOTHER CASE OF TRYING TO DISTROIY CHRISIANITY!!! Thank God I don’t go to your church

Lynette [Auckland]

18 Dec 2009 20:43:07

Speaking of a contemplative 'The Cloud of Unknowing' says thus: His face and his words are full of spiritual wisdom, assured and free from falsehood, far from feigned and affected hypocrites. For there are those who concentrate all their energies on learning how to speak weightily and to avoid making fools of themselves with many humble bleats an displays of devotion. They are more anxious to seem holy in the sight of men than in the sight of God and his angels

Lynette [Auckland]	18 Dec 2009 21:12:57
In case the above is not clear, I am in total agreement with the billboard and the prerequisite for us to contemplate on the message of love.

pavlova [Auckland]

18 Dec 2009 21:20:48

Why do we have to call each other names like "assholes" or "scumbag" just because the other person doesn't agree with our theological views? If you take offense towards it, that's your choice. If you choose to believe in the Holy Conception, that's your choice as well. But that doesn't give you a right to name call others just because their views are different from yours. I don't believe that's a very Christian virtue. If you find this offensive, how about this: does God really even exist?? How do you know? Has the dead come back to tell you that, oh, there is a divine being up there? Keep quoting that the Bible says so is not a good enough answer. So until we know something more definite about it, I think everyone is entitled to interpret the Bible their own way.

Karen Barnacle [UK]

18 Dec 2009 21:27:02

Thank you for your email. I have to give up against my wishes.. While normally I would seek to answer your email personally, we are being overwhelmed by both the positive and negative responses to what we felt was a bit of fun that would get people to think beyond Christmas card theology. I would invite you to go to http://www.stmatthews.org.nz/nav.php?sid=498&id=999 and make your comment as part of the conversation. Over 4000 people went to this page yesterday. Glynn and I will try to respond as we can. On 18/12/2009, at 5:41 AM, Karen Barnacle wrote: The billboard outside your church is a disgrace. That your team cannot see how offensive it is, is surprising given your professed Christianity. The only stereotype it challenges is that Christians are centred on Christ and not on their own egos. I pray that you realise the errors in your judgement and behaviour.

Karen Barnacle [UK]	18 Dec 2009 21:31:11
'THE TRUE MEASURE OF A CHRISTIAN IS NOT A BELIEF IN THE FANTASTICALLY IMPOSSIBLE FABLES, BUT IN THE WAY ONE TREATS ONE'S NEIGHBOUR, ESPECIALLY WHEN ONE DOES NOT AGREE. ' Quote from another poster. I completely agree - you need to think about the way that you (St Micheal's team) are treating other Christians.

Glenn Peoples [Dunedin]	18 Dec 2009 21:44:39
"The billboard does not in any way contradict the doctrine of the Virgin Birth. " How exactly does the innuendo that Mary had sex with God not contradict the doctrine of the virgin birth?

Reverend Dr Lindsay Stoddart [Sydney Australia]

18 Dec 2009 22:57:39

What rot is dished up to us here. I for one prefer the message from the god of Kindness who reveals himself in his Word. This is what classic Christianity teaches. I would rather listen to God any day. Start with Matthew. Mark, Luke and John - even faltering doubt may give way to a growing faith as God reveals himself. "God" or "man" - hope comes from a conviction in this God faithful in his history and strong in humankind. Not in the twisted cartoonisation that has no centre in fact or theology.

Catholic (progressive?) [Belgium]	18 Dec 2009 23:37:33
Thank you for this. I'm happy to see such a great debate starter. I believe the parables Jesus was telling must have looked/sounded like this billboard to people hearing them. And the reactions are so revealing about each person's faith. I'd come over to shake your hand if I wasn't on the other side of the world. Keep it up!!!

Geno [Auckland]

19 Dec 2009 00:03:40

I'm sad that the billboard has finally gone for good due to the actions of a few fanatics. I respect our vicar's decision and support him 100% in his announcement not to resurrect the billboard again in the interest of public safety. I take heart in the fact that this billboard cannot be erased from the internet nor can its message. They can remove it physically from St Matthew's but they cannot remove it from the mind of the people. In this debate I have heard and seen some pretty vile things from so-called Christians. It only reminds me and people like me of the importance of places like St Matthew-in-the-City for our world. I don't like to think that safe spaces where people can go to question are becoming fewer and fewer but if that is true, I hope that it changes. My Christmas wish is that some of you might ask yourselves whether or not your church is a safe space, whether or not your faith allows you to respect the diversity of beliefs that are present in this world, whether or not your God requires you to surrender your intellect or your compassion in order to defend your faith and whether or not you are a living testimony to the Gospel message as you claim to be. The word Gospel is literally translated as "good news." What good news is there for the rest of the world when all it sees of Christianity is oppression and fear? Was oppression and fear what Jesus had in mind? Jesus challenged the religious authorities and symbols of his day. Jesus took the power away from those who were abusing it and those who claimed to hold the truth and gave it to the powerless. If we believe the life of Jesus is our example, than who are we not to do the same?

Mark Windsor [Uk]

19 Dec 2009 00:06:50

Saw the piece in The Guardian (UK): Semi-nude Mary and Joseph spark outrage in New Zealand (Dec 17). The problem I have with your poster is that it isn't questioning in any respect. It doesn't get anyone 'to challenge a fundamentalist interpretation of Christ's birth.' (Glynn Cardy). Instead it just encourages people to laugh at, not with christians and as a Catholic I'd quite like to know what there is to 'challenge'? It looks to me like a half-cock method to attempt to ingratiate yourselves with your ever-decreasing congregations. It's ridiculous to think that you can put up a poster ridiculing one of the basic platforms of our faith. It's an odd world, the muslims wouldn't make a joke out of their beliefs, quite the reverse in fact. Yet christians take an awful lot of flack from both non-believers and believers it seems. Well, it doesn't do a lot for ecumenism and neither does my next statement: your approach is oh so Anglican. Tell me, do you get a lot of splinters up your arse sitting on your particular fence? Fence sitting is your approach in spite of your attempt to be outrageous and controversial.

Cynthia [Asia]

19 Dec 2009 00:07:09

Different people, different thought, different strokes. But, this has gone too far. Have we got no respect at all or have we lost our respect for Christianity? Yes, it will tickle the brain or mind, but, what is in it for the author? Short of saying out loud that Christianity is a fake? an error? or a wrong religion? If yes, what is right or the right one? Who can say which religion is right or which religion is perfect? Only God can tell. Nobody can. And if the notion behind this billboard is true, the author does not have to depict in this way in public. Children are out in the streets every single second and what kind of message would this billboard put across a young child's mind? I agree about the freedom of speech and expression but we should know our boundaries and limitations. It is so sad.

Cynthia [Asia]	19 Dec 2009 00:10:11
P.S. I am not a religious person but I do have a great faith in God and regardless of whatever sect this billboard is from, it is downright pathetic.

Garth [Manukau]

19 Dec 2009 01:10:55

Among the "progressive" credo from the St. Matthews' supporters are the notions that all other religions may also be valid and we have no right as Christians to exclusivity, and also that the Bible is not to be taken literally and heaven and hell are not to be mentioned because they are scary (hint: hell is meant to be scary ! It's what Jesus became incarnated to save us from, don't you know ?). To be a "Christian" is to intentionally become a disciple of Christ - that is what the word means, right ? Well take note: Jesus Christ mentioned heaven, hell and judgement more than anyone else in the New Testament. Who said that humanity will be divided (by Him, on Judgement day) into the sheep and the goats, and the goats will go into the lake of fire ? it was Jesus, not American Fundamentalists. Jesus also said "nobody comes to the Father, except through the Son". So Christianity is the one true faith (include Jews here, as the Bible makes it clear that they yet have a part to play) - remember, Jesus said it, not "fundamentalists". Jesus also said "those who follow My teachings, are My disciples, and they will know the truth, and the truth will set them free". All this stuff is in the Bible for all to see. The Bible is God's word to His followers, and to those seeking the truth, and it is the only way for a true Christian. No amount of sneer or smear by supposedly tolerant "progressive" or "emergent" apostates can change the truth. "spirituality" is a meaningless and shapeless alternative, and can mean whatever New Age, or pagan, or satanist thing you wish it to be. God Himself has said that you can be firmly for Him, or firmly against Him, but He will spit the wafflers out of His mouth - take His word for it, not mine.

David [Costa Rica]

19 Dec 2009 01:33:39

Dear St Mattew in City, I write to you from San Jose, Costa Rica. I just read about your billboard with Mary and Joseph in bed. I find your attempt to spark debate successful but in a bad way. The only thing you have and will achieve is people debating whether or not the sign was inappropriate. (Which by the way I find HIGHLY disrespectful and totally LACKING in taste). Your Archdeacon Glynn Cardy said that the point you were trying to make was \"Is it about a spiritual male God sending down sperm so a child would be born, or is it about the power of love in our midst as seen in Jesus?\"... So you create an obviously untactful ad and then say the purpose is to question literal explanation of Jesus’ arrival to earth. And what is exactly your churches’ opinion, that Jesus arrived thanks to \"power of love in our midst \"? It is very easy to throw about the words \"power of love\" about and then think that it is justification for any idea you want to put there. Understandably every time the masses hear the word love, no matter what the context, they think accompanying idea is correct or at least good. Now mind you I agree that God is a God of love, but we would fool only ourselves if we believe that He is a God of only love, He is also a good of righteousness, justice and glory. However we like to take hold of this love as it requires little from our part other than to receive it and show it, if we get that down then we are free to do, think and say as we please and seemingly are able to enjoy the favour of this world and of God. (An unlikely achievement) My brothers please remember that what God is, He is completely, totally and eternally- He is a Justice, He is Love, He is Glory and He also is to be respected. Yes, you got people talking but was it worth the price of what other ideas you put in their minds? Remember that we who believe in Him should be extra careful when referring to Him and how we do it. While I am sure that you had the best of intentions in mind I would recommend you rethink your methods. I hope have not come across myself as being disrespectful to you but this seemed to just go too far, especially considering that the idea came from a church. Sincerely wishing the best for you and your congregation

Ady Miles [England, UK]	19 Dec 2009 02:07:57
Inappropriate, offensive, ill-thought out and counter-productive The church needs publicity, but not public ridicule

BillyD [Providence, RI, USA]

19 Dec 2009 02:21:18

The billboard is needlessly offensive, and based on a straw-man argument. As other people have already noted, sperm and maleness on God's part do not enter into the story of the Incarnation. You're arguing against a position that no one takes - even the most "literalist" Christian. As a gay man some of my stands on Church discipline and teaching (ordination of women and LGBT people, for example) might be called "progressive." But now that you've associated "progressive" with "poorly thought-out, mean spirited, and vulgar" I'll have to make sure never, ever to use that adjective to describe my religious leanings. With friends like you...

Matt G [Canada]	19 Dec 2009 02:29:03
Wonderful! I think it is great, and applaud your efforts. My only regret is that my church didn't think of it first :) (Rev.) Matt G United Church of Canada

David Stern [Nowhere]	19 Dec 2009 03:02:53
Once again Progressive Christians affirm that everything is about sex and they are just concerned with who is doing it (or not). You need at least two other billboards: Anglicanism: ensuring every orgasm is a licit orgasm since 1577. Progressive Christians: ensuring every woman can scrape the result of last night’s “love” from her womb. I think the pair would be quite humorous.

BillyD [Providence, RI, USA]

19 Dec 2009 03:16:50

By the way, your announcement today about someone attacking your billboard is off base. Besides repeating the lie that "literalists" teach a male God and patting yourself on the back for being so cosmopolitan as to reject that position, you do a fair job of demonizing your opponents. Maybe they weren't "fanatics." Maybe they were people who were provoked into taking action by a public attack on their religion. If you really cannot understand why Christians might find the whole thing intolerable, perhaps you ought to be rethinking your vocation as a priest.

Peter Bridgman [London, UK]

19 Dec 2009 03:22:48

Dear Glynn Cardy, Mark's Gospel, the first gospel to be written, talks of Jesus's 'brothers' and 'sisters' ... "Leaving that district, Jesus went to his home town, and his disciples accompanied him. With the coming of the Sabbath he began teaching in the synagogue, and most of them were astonished when they heard him. They said, 'Where did the man get all this? What is this wisdom that has been granted him, and these miracles that are worked through him? This is the carpenter, surely, the son of Mary, the brother of James and Joset and Jude and Simon? His sisters, too, are they not here with us?' And they would not accept him. (Mark 6:1-3) On the face of it, this looks clear. Mary and Joseph went on to have four boys, and two or more girls, after the birth of Jesus. But the situation is more complicated than that. For a start, two of these four boys are mentioned again later in the same gospel, when Mark describes the scene at Calvary ... "There were some women watching from a distance. Among them were Mary of Magdala, Mary who was the mother of James the younger and Joset, and Salome." (Mark 15:40) Who was this Mary, the mother of James and Joset? Was she the mother of Jesus? If she was, why didn’t Mark write 'Among them were Mary of Magdala, Mary the mother of Jesus, and Salome'? And why are the third and fourth 'brothers', Jude and Simon, no longer mentioned? There are no further clues in Mark's Gospel, but John's Gospel provides an explanation. Again describing the Calvary scene, John writes ... "Near the cross of Jesus stood his mother and his mother's sister, Mary the wife of Clopas, and Mary of Magdala." (John 19:25) There were therefore three Marys, not two, watching Jesus die. And Jesus's mother Mary had a 'sister' called Mary. Could this 'sister' be the Mary who was the 'mother of James the younger and Joset' in Mark's Gospel? Could James, Joset, Jude, Simon, and the unnamed girls, all be Jesus's cousins rather than brothers and sisters? Almost definitely. Before the gospels were written down there was an oral tradition. The gospels were written in Greek but the oral tradition was in Aramaic. And in the Aramaic language there was no word for 'cousin'. All Jesus's first and second cousins would have been known - to Jesus, to his mother, and to his disciples - as his 'brothers' and 'sisters'. As Mark's Gospel was the first gospel to be written, it was the closest to the oral tradition, and it is in Mark that we first find mention of Jesus's 'brothers'. Actually, not only was there no word for cousin in Aramaic, there was no word for cousin in Hebrew either. The word 'cousin' is missing from the entire Old Testament. Whenever you see it in an English translation (e.g. in Jeremiah 32), if you check the Hebrew, it always says 'uncle's son'. (Despite the fact that Abraham and Lot were uncle and nephew, they are referred to as 'brothers' a number of times in Genesis (e.g. 13:8). English Bible versions usually translate this as 'brethren' or 'kinsmen', but the Hebrew word ('ach) means 'brothers'.) Jesus seems to be an only-child at the age of 12 when Mary and Joseph find him with the doctors of the Law in the Temple. And he is almost certainly an only-child on the cross when he says to his mother, 'Woman, this is your son', and to John, 'This is your mother' (John 19:26-27). If Jesus had at least six younger brothers and sisters, he would not be leaving his mother in the care of a disciple. 'And from that hour the disciple took her into his home.' We also read that Joseph of Arimathaea went to Pilate to ask for Jesus's body for burial (Matthew 27:57-60). Again, the family would have done this if Jesus had brothers or sisters. Protestants like yourself who believe that Mary had children after Jesus might be surprised to learn that -- from the evidence of scripture alone -- both Calvin and Luther believed in Mary's perpetual virginity.

Geoff W [UK]	19 Dec 2009 03:53:12
I’ve see on the BBC that you have a poster outside your church, I am totally staggered and saddened to think you think this will encourage thought and discussion. It will only be passed around as a joke and another stick to hit Christians with. Thanks for your help

Boyo85 [US]

19 Dec 2009 04:25:10

So, you are in complete heresy? Congratulations! The article does everything except come out and say that the whole Gospels are contrived, made up and are not historical. That people who believe in the bible are archaic, moronic, and complete suckers. You are taking every pain to teach that Jesus was only a man, and only divine in how sublime his social teaching was. You mock people for believing the bible and the Creed when it says," He was born of a VIRGIN." when it says," She was over-shadowed by the Spirit of God and conceived a child." You should feel ashamed, because you are shamed.

Allan Wafkowski [USA]	19 Dec 2009 04:37:31
Not to worry people, the Catholic Church has had it problems (as was predicted), but it has never lost the true faith given to us by Jesus Christ. This Christmas is a good time to consider leaving St. Matthew in the City and returning to the one and only true church, the Catholic Church. Many other's have done it by the light of the Holy Spirit. Peace.

Michelle [Scotland]	19 Dec 2009 04:39:08
I think it's great - if nothing else, you have people all over the world stopping for a few precious moments during the Christmas rush, to think about Christianity and the birth of Jesus. Good for you.

Boyo85 [US]

19 Dec 2009 04:43:59

And another thing... God IS male. You see, you might have forgotten this, but Catholicism teaches that Jesus Christ LITERALLY resurrected and LITERALLY ascended into heaven and is seated at the right hand of the FATHER. It also teaches that Jesus is God. The Incorporeal of God is masculine and He has chosen to reveal Himself to mankind in Judaism and Christianity through a chiefly masculine identity and persona... without deviating EVER from that masculinity. Read a bible, check it out! I know it sounds strange, but the truth is stranger than fiction! The physical body of Christ is resurrected and ascended according to the tenets of Christianity, and is incorruptible, imperishable. Therefore, God has a PENIS on HIS human MALE body... because you may not have learned this in seminary but God and Jesus are the same GUY... its called consubstantiality, a phrase coined by Tertullian. Jesus Christ, fully God and fully man, you know that Church teaching too right? And you've heard of St. Gregory saying," That which is not assumed is not redeemed." which means that HE assumed humanity, specifically MALE form, and laid aside the power of divinity.

T Polyphilus [Chicago]

19 Dec 2009 05:04:19

Actually, the "I miss hearing you say" billboard is far from a "mushy middle" relative to secular society. The message is for Christians to refrain from accommodating non-Christian sentiment during the Christmas season, and to resent those who do make such accommodations. It is the "War on Christmas" that has been declared by its defenders, a passive-aggressive effort to suppress minorities by having the majority play the victim.

Nonny [US]

19 Dec 2009 05:08:45

I think your billboard is a wonderfully irreverent reminder that the bible is not some squeaky clean childrens novel to be cherry picked in favor of the bigotry of the day. It\'s a necessary statement that got a good chuckle out of me all the way across the pond over here in the states (where unfortunately we are drowned out by the inane verbosity of humorless evangelicals). Happy Holidays and don't let the naysayers put a waver in your stride!

Christine [Canada]

19 Dec 2009 05:13:57

It is a shame that a church would choose to ignore scripture in favor of being contraversial. This billboard is in poor taste to say the least as we celebrate the arrival of our Lord. Isaiah foretold the virgin birth, to ignore this illustrates this church's desire to not abode in the truth. BTW Matthew, Jesus mother was a human being..When He died on the cross, He died a human's death as we all do...The sacrifice in it is that He didn't have to..He died so you won't perish in your sins AFTER this life...Accept it or reject it, but you really should learn the point before making assumptions about what a Christian believes.

Ray Menzies [Canada]

19 Dec 2009 05:16:32

Strangely enough, the argument put forward by this lunatic preacher is exactly the same that is advanced by the Islamic community - that to believe that God impregnated Mary (literally) is an abomination and therefore Christianity is invalid. Maybe Glynn Cardy would be better employed in the Islamic community.. or maybe not.. His brand of controversial theology would find short shrift there, and he would probably find himself facing a violent mob. We have a similar lunatic here in Canada. Greta Vosper has founded the 'Church of Progressive Christianity' who's mission statement is to remove "Christ from Christianity" - Apparently to make Christianity more inclusive. Obviously stupidity is a hallmark of all 'progressive' Christians. Cardy is a fool.

Ray Menzies [Canada]

19 Dec 2009 05:48:10

I notice a recurring meme here - ie - those of us who are offended by this disgusting poster and who express their displeasure on this forum are somehow 'hateful' and 'spiteful'. Nice strawman argument you've setup here. Either we agree with this disgraceful poster of you're a knuckle dragging right wing zealot. As far as I can see no one has threatened any violence against this fool, so, your argument fails logic 101.

Ninian [Burslem Stoke on Trent UK]

19 Dec 2009 06:08:34

Poinrt 1 I am a fundamentalist christian - my fundamental is this quote from Jesus as I believe it says it all." Jesus said to him, “‘you shall love the Lord your God with all your heart, with all your soul, and with all your mind.’ This is the first and great commandment. And the second is like it: ‘You shall love your neighbor as yourself.’ On these two commandments hang all the Law and the Prophets.” (Matthew 22:37 – 40) " Point 2 I believe in an almighty God that does not need man to defend him - he is bigger than that! Point 3-i find the poster a bit tacky but I defend to the death your right to your bad taste. Point 4(see point 1) both sides in this need to consider what they have written and if they feel they have fallen short - to repent to an all forgiving God whose Son( however you believe him conceived) died for those whose lack of generosity of spirit is shown in the above comments. Remeber we are ambassadors for Christ. is this what jesus would have done? God Bless you all and have a really happy Christmas- Love to you all Ninian

Todd McQuillan [Florida]

19 Dec 2009 06:47:04

"I believe in one God the Father Almighty, Maker of heaven and earth and of allthings visible and invisible; and in one Lord Jesus Christ, the Son of God, the Only-Begotten, begotten of the Father before all worlds, Light of Light, Very God of Very God, begotten, not made; of one with the Father, by Whom all things were made: who for us men and our salvation came down from heaven and was incarnate of the HOLY SPIRIT and the VIRGIN MARY and made man; and was crucified for us under Pontius Pilate, and suffered and was buried. The third day he rose again, in fulfillment of Scriptures; and ascended into heaven, and sits at the Right Hand of God the Father; and he shall come again in Glory to judge the living and the dead; whose Kingdom shall have no end. And I believe in the Holy Spirit, the Giver of Life, who proceeds from the Father, who with the Father and the Son together is worshiped and glorified, who spoke by the prophets. And I believe in One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church. I acknowledge one Baptism for the remission of sins. I look for the resurrection of the dead and the life of the world to come. AMEN The FAITH of the UNDIVIDED Christian Church... You wrap Arianism in "progressivness".

Bro. John-Anthony, SSJW [Victoria, British Columbia]	19 Dec 2009 07:00:21
Kudos Archdeacon! Keep up the good work. Bro. John

Kevin [Auckland]	19 Dec 2009 08:32:56
You called this kind of crap stimulating discussions and thoughts? You know what, Clayton Weatherston also stimulated a lot of discussions and thoughts, why don't you go follow him? What a clown.

Suzanne [NZ]	19 Dec 2009 08:34:05
Thank you for removing this poster board , on behalf of all the parents who are suddenly having to explain it's meaning to their young children.

Erik [Norway]	19 Dec 2009 08:38:23
A summary of the debate going on in these comments: Traditional Christians: "You are wrong!" Progressive Christians: "You don't love us!"

Justin [Michigan, USA]	19 Dec 2009 10:30:01
I found your site (and will be leaving shortly, never to return as I'm an atheist living in the US) via a story done about your billboard from Reuters. It's hilarious! I've been seeing more and more religious humor from religionists lately that have been along the same lines. I'm glad that you superstitious folks are finally starting to get a sense of humor about yourselves.

William [Canada]	19 Dec 2009 10:32:07
Ditto on the kudos to St. Matthew's. It sure wasn't Jesus' plan to give birth to the spitful, hateful clubs that continue to insist they are somehow connected to what he preached.

George [US]

19 Dec 2009 10:44:07

How refreshing to see a church taking an intellectual view of religion. After 12 years of Catholic school and 5 years as an altar boy, I came to my own conclusion in grad school that I'm an atheist. Probably the single greatest motivator for me to move away from Catholicism was the mindless viewpoint of those who translate the Bible literally. I don't mind discussing religion with someone but if they are allowed to quote the Bible as proof of something then I should be allowed to quote "Lord of the Rings" or "Star Wars" as a counterpoint. I tip my hat to Archdeacon Glynn Cardy for demonstrating that the real message (and the most redeeming quality of religion) is love. I don't need the threat of an Old Testament God or the reward of a New Testament God to make me love my fellow man. I do it because it's what makes the planet a better place to live for all of us right now. And telling me that my stance will put me in hell has no more effect on me than telling me that I'll end up burning in the Cracks of Doom in Mordor.

Legion [United States]	19 Dec 2009 11:10:15
It is called respect, and you are lacking. As I am sure you are lacking in faith. Liberal's trying to play church, quite infantile.

Geno [Auckland]	19 Dec 2009 11:14:46
Those of you who are defending these fanatical vandals might do well to ask yourselves how you would feel if I went to your church and destroyed, painted over, cut up and tore down your billboard. All this because I think that my way of Christianity is the right way. Gimme a break.

John [Los Angeles USA]	19 Dec 2009 11:22:00
I find the billboard to be GREAT. It caused me to think and also gave me a chuckle, especially all the gnashing of teeth that it brought about.

Mike [Melbourne]

19 Dec 2009 11:33:40

@Geno [Auckland]: Sorry, I thought we were talking about faith (ref your comment of 18 Dec 16:10:41 "Aren't I entitled to the same rights as you, to express my faith using the same mediums you do?"). I reiterate that I don't see anything about faith in the billboard. It seems now that it's actually not about your faith but about your "belief" (18 Dec 2009 18:37:04) that others have it wrong, which you have expressed by mocking the faith of others. I'm now better informed, but still just as troubled. The billboard, and the furore it was bound to cause (which surely was understood at the outset) has done nothing to advance, and much to damage, the central message of Christ (which is Love - do progressive Christians agree on that one at least?).

Geno [Auckland]

19 Dec 2009 11:48:29

Mike[Melbourne] Ok than Mike, aren't I entitled to express my faith & BELIEFS in the same mediums you do? I'd like to think the central message of Christ is stronger than anything you or I could ever say. I highly doubt a questioning billboard is going to send people to atheism in droves. But if it did, of course you would have another complaint because then there are more people to disagree with you and God forbid none of us dare differ in any matter of Christianity. I don't think you are wrong in the way you understand the Christmas story. I just choose to understand it differently. And yes, progressive Christians can agree with all other Christians that the central message of Christ is Love. But I gotta tell ya Mike, I'm not feeling the love here. I too could say that billboards depicting literal understandings of the Christmas story are "mocking" my faith so why is my faith any less important than yours and open to criticism but yours isn't

JoyfulPapist [Wellington]

19 Dec 2009 12:47:16

Fascinating thread. The beliefs of orthodox Christians about the virginal conception have been clearly stated, I think. So thanks, St Matthews, for the opportunity to let secular Christians know that Christmas isn't about a male god and his sperm donation. Looking through the comments, I haven't seen anyone post on why the Church has believed in the virginal conception since the first century, and how the virginal conception is not the same as the Incarnation. Several of your correspondents have expressed interest in what Christianity teaches about these points. I've looked at the reasons why God might choose to do something so radical in my own blog: joyfulpapist.wordpress.com Enjoy!

Ken [Seattle, USA]	19 Dec 2009 12:48:24
Love it! Mission accomplished! Your only mistake was in not realizing that 98% of religious people have NO sense of humor...which accounts for most of the past and present wars and other assorted problems on this good Earth.

Amaka [UK]

19 Dec 2009 13:15:53

The poster of Mary and Jospeh is a negative portrayal of Jesus birth and is inaccurate. Matthew 12:30 states that he that is not with Me is against Me and he that gathereth not with Me scattereth abroad. Hence for you to want to challenge the so called “stereotype” of Jesus’ birth indeed challenges the infallibility of God’s spoken word and the Scripture here clearly decribes this as an agenda not from God. Hence the way Jesus was conceived need not be challenged but explained to those who do not or cannot understand it. Secondly, God is a Spirit (John 4:24) so by ridiculing His being by stating divine sperm is blasphemy and a deepest insult to Him and His people. Your church mission is contra to the Kindgom of God. It states that it is committed to being inclusive for example there is Buddhist meditation group every Sunday at 9am. Secularism and The Kingdom of God can not co-exist, especially in a place to worskip God. Jesus was furious when the house of God was turned into something worldy and secular i.e. a market place (Mark 11:15) becasue the Church of God is a house of prayer (Mark11:17). Jesus mission was not to send peace or create an inclusive community in Matthew 10: 34 Jesus actually states that He came to send a sword which is His Word and hence is the spreading of God’s message of salvation to the people of the world so people will repent of their sins, acknowlege that Jesus died for their sins and for them to know Almighty God.

Geno [Auckland]

19 Dec 2009 13:18:51

JoyfulPapist (Wellington) we appreciate your contribution to this board but I must admit I am mystified after reading your blog. You said: "From looking at the St Matthews’ website, I’d have to question whether Archdeacon Cardy meets the basic definition of a Christian" I would just like to ask you that anyone can ask this question of anyone who claims to be a Christian but we're always going to measure their Christianity through our own definition. The only reason I say this is because that is what this whole debate has finally culminated to. What is a Christian? You went on to say that" "he [Glynn Cardy} doesn’t appear to believe in the Trinity, the bodily resurrection of Christ, the judgement or the second coming." These are obviously your criteria of what constitutes a Christian but there are many Christian denominations in existence today that would not agree with some or all of your criteria. Our point is, what's wrong with that? I'm not representing Glynn Cardy's personal point of view nor can I comment on what he believes or doesn't believe but what does it matter to you what he does or doesn't believe? How does that affect your life?

Sergio Monteiro [Brasil]	19 Dec 2009 13:32:34
First let me state that the reason I request my e-mail to be hidden is because there have been people killed for opposing the superstitious. Giordano Bruno was set on fire, Dr. Tiller and others are shot today. The post is wonderful, fantastic! Would you people publish a larger version of it for distribution, putting on the wall, etc.?

JoyfulPapist [Wellington]

19 Dec 2009 13:39:48

Geno, thank you for your question. I'm a writer and editor. Words are my business and my passion. When people use them outside of the standard definition, it makes conversation and debate difficult if not impossible. The term 'Christian' was defined by the 1st Council of Nicea in 325 to mean people who accept the Nicene Creed. This has been a majority definition ever since. Yes, I know there are individuals and whole denominations that define themselves as Christian yet deny some or all aspects of the Creed. I defend their right to do so. If Archdeacon Cardy wants to call himself a tree, I defend his right to do so. But I also defend my own right to proclaim the standard definition. Hope this clarifies.

Dave [Auckland]

19 Dec 2009 13:45:06

Do not take progressive christianity seriously. the followers of this type of religious beliefs take no position on anything. They are shifting all the time to catch up with the contemporary popular culture. As the priests involved in the bill board controversy said, the bill board is meant to inject a bit of fun into the biblical account of the birth of Jesus. To the faithful believers of the Holy Bible, the story of the birth of Jesus as recorded in the Gospels remain undisturbed and unchanged despite the efforts of many to discredit it. What would Jesus say at this moment?

Geno [Auckland]

19 Dec 2009 13:59:47

Thanks for your response JoyfulPapist (Wellington). I suppose I thought the "standard" definition of the term "Christian" was used by those who trace the roots of their own faith back to earlier than 325 CE, maybe about 33 CE. As I'm quite sure you know the creeds were created in responce to Other so-called sects of Christianity whose views the the Council found offensive and heretical. Because this group of people went on to become the majority in Christianity didn't mean they were right, it just meant they won. So it is my hope that most Christians would trace their faith back to Christ himself but different strokes for different folks I guess. I too defend your right to define Christianity in any way you choose. I just wanted to clarify that you realised that though you work within a "standard" or dare I say majority definition of Christianity that you acknowledge that Others who call themselves Christian may be coming from a different perspective. And you have clarified your position. Thanks

JoyfulPapist [Wellington]	19 Dec 2009 14:19:02
No worries, Geno. I'd love for you to follow 'the State of the Church' discussion I'm starting on my blog. Though it is largely Catholic-focused, I will be discussing the modernist and post-modernist thinking implicit in your comments about the Council and 'winning' and it would be great to have some robust debate with people who don't share my point of view. Maybe between

JoyfulPapist [Wellington]	19 Dec 2009 14:34:24
Last post got truncated. The final paragraph should say: Maybe between us we can discover something new that we agree on.

Mike Entner [Beaumont, TX]

19 Dec 2009 14:34:36

I am Catholic, a student of theology, a believer in Universal Salvation, and very progressive in terms of Biblical interpretation. The birth narrative can certainly be viewed through the eyes of historical-critical analysis. However, your interpretation begs the question: If you dismiss the metaphysics of Incarnation as irrelevant will you soon dismiss the very nature of the Resurrection as well? It's a short hop; so why not slide over to the thought that, "Jesus was just a good man" -- no?

Satan [Hell]

19 Dec 2009 14:41:06

WELL DONE my dearest friend Glynn Keep on saying what I tell you. Keep on attacking those bible believing Christians. Attack the bible and stop people believing the bible. I approve of the bill board. St Mathews Is my home ‘church’. My Christmas carol for the bill board next year – Come all ye immoral, let us be immoral still, Joy to all filthy mindedness, Let us be vile and laugh at God, Let us insult all who regard the bible true .... Then from Mathews some one go public and say, “this is only another way at looking at Christmas…. to get people taking about it”. The Devil. Oh yes St Mathews is my kind of church, they don’t even believe what the bible says, or that I exist.

Geno [Auckland]	19 Dec 2009 14:42:41
Thank you JoyfulPapist(Wellington). That is my hope as well. I have bookmarked your blog and I look forward to engaging in some productive dialogue. Finding something new that we agree is a wonderful way to move forward.

Emma [England]

19 Dec 2009 14:53:04

Hi I think what he has done is GREAT, its so important to challenge our beliefs and look at why and how we believe them. Taking everything that is written down as truth without reflection and thought is ignorant and irresponsible. My belief is that this ignorance has cause many religions to have an unfair bad press (Muslims - Jihad). We should be discussing the topics around the bible and religion openly, this is not 'disrespectful and offensive'. The bible talks about sex and therefore why should it be offensive to also discuss it. I feel that everything that is written in this world needs to be discussed, criticised and questioned from scientific paper to newspaper article to the bible as all were written by humans. I think what he has done is very insightful, thought provoking and brilliant. Look at all the posts, its got people discussing the bible. Keep it up!

JoyfulPapist [Wellington]

19 Dec 2009 15:23:46

Merry Christmas, everybody. "It was a night unlike any other since the beginning of the world. A new born baby cried out in hunger – And the voice that pierced the darkness was the voice of the One who had spoken light itself into being. The tiny hand His mother stroked was the hand of the One who had filled up the seas and shaped the first man from the dust. That night, time gave birth to eternity; space gave a home to infinity. The potter climbed inside His clay. God Himself had come to earth." By Paul Thigpen joyfulpapist.wordpress.com

Jack [Michigan, USA]

19 Dec 2009 15:37:37

What a shame that any group calling itself a "church" would feel they advance their point by, in their own words, "lampooning" those who believe differently. Your message speaks less of progressiveness and more of arrogance, and does a serious disservice to those who are advancing the cause of biblical non-literalism. Congratulations on getting a lot of press coverage. But to me you're no different than the fundamentalist diehards you seek to "lampoon." A little humility goes a long way, and the lack of humility shown here is astounding.

Helen Thomas [Brooklyn, NY]

19 Dec 2009 16:15:12

Once again, human ignorance has tried to strip GOD of HIS Majesty. Whatever happened to the Fear of the LORD (Reverent respect), which is the beginning of wisdom? GOD gave us a sense of humor, however, there is such a thing as crossing the line. The 'world' is already skeptical and irreverant enough without those who claim to be born again fo the SPIRIT of GOD helping with their skepticism. But then again, some demonizations, er, denominations think they can re-write the Loving Boundaries on human behavior that GOD set forth....like supporting homosexual activity, aka blunt force trauma. Well, at least I know that what HE has placed in my spirit is right....HE is definately on HIS Way back to allow those who did this the opportunity to stand in HIS Presence and explain themselves. Wouldn't want to be in their shoes.

Chris [Auckland]	19 Dec 2009 16:25:42
Geno, your choice on stop reading doesn't mean all of your non-innovative doubts were not answered by the church already. If you want to talk about history, what kind of Christianity do you follow anyway? By supporting this kind of billboard that shows even Muslims respect Jesus and Mary more than you do.

Geno [Auckland]

19 Dec 2009 17:06:26

Hi Chris (Auckland). I'm sorry if I'm being thick but I don't understand the first part of your comment. If you are saying that the Church has already answered any questions or doubts I may have about the Bible than I think that whether or not the church has answered my enquires is decidedly up to me, I mean, they are MY enquiries. And no, I don't think my enquiries are innovative. I'm not exactly sure either what the Muslims respecting Jesus and Mary has to do with anything but you say it as if it’s a real stretch of the imagination that Muslims could possibly respect anything Christians hold dear. I don't follow Christianity. I follow Christ. If you want to discuss history please start the discussion.

Mike [Melbourne]

19 Dec 2009 17:54:16

@Geno [Auckland]: I think the problem we have here is one of a basic difference in outlook. I see "faith" as a positive thing; a belief IN something. In my case, that faith is in the God of the Bible and His Son Christ, who died so that I could be saved. I see nothing of your faith in the billboard. I see no belief IN something. I see just a mockery of the faith of others. So I see what you don't believe, but not what you do believe; how is that meant to engage or uplift me? How is that likely to want me to know more about your message? I believe you are quite wrong when you say "I too could say that billboards depicting literal understandings of the Christmas story are 'mocking' my faith..." When I look at Church billboards around Christmas, I see positive messages (with one obvious exception); I don't see mockeries of others. We should all have the right to express our beliefs and faith and "Jesus is the reason for the Season", "Joy to the World" and other harmless platitudes can only be offensive if you choose to allow them to be. On the other hand, if my church were to put up a billboard showing a Christian saying to their Hindu neighbour "Come over for Christmas dinner, I don't think we have any of your relatives on the menu", I guess we'd be showing that we don't ascribe to Hindu beliefs, but it would be deeply offensive, it would tell no-one what we DO believe (and we would never dream of doing it). I believe your billboard is in this category. So, by all means, put up signs that tell us what Christmas means to you, tell us what you DO believe, tell us what your FAITH is. Tell us what gives you hope and what gets you out of bed in the morning. Don't bring us all down with a cheap joke. I would be happy with "God is partly the creative, spiritual energy, which is within and around all living creatures on our planet" (paraphrase from Revd Glynn's blog). I wouldn't find this in the least offensive, it would tell me something about what you believe, and I could choose to agree, disagree or look further into it. Your choice to believe something different to me causes no offense, your decision to be directly offensive does.

Jenni [Columbia, SC]	19 Dec 2009 19:13:34
2 Timothy 4:3-4 "3For the time will come when they will not endure sound doctrine; but after their own lusts shall they heap to themselves teachers, having itching ears; 4And they shall turn away their ears from the truth, and shall be turned unto fables. " I think that time has come.

Aquarius [Auckland]

19 Dec 2009 19:19:13

I'm a lifelong atheist who linked to this forum through following the billboard controversy online. I must say, I've found the vitriol emanating from most Christians here an eyeopener. One sentence in Deacon Cardy's message at the top of the page says: "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." This is exactly what I am seeing coming through in the posts from you scripture quoting fanatics. What motivates you people who are followers of Christ? Is it to live a better life, to love your neighbour, to spread J.C's message of peace and understanding? Or is it purely a selfish decision to follow the bible literally in the belief that you'll earn your way into a "happily ever afterlife". I always thought it was the former, but now I'm seeing it's actually the latter. In your eye's Mr Cardy and his church may not meet the strict definition of "Christian", but what he is preaching above (love for everybody, irrespective of their faith, sexual orientation etc - and even a blessing of animals) seems to me to be a heck of a lot more beneficial to our society than what you zealots are teaching. I may be an atheist, but I think I now have a favourite church.

JoyfulPapist [Wellington]

19 Dec 2009 19:21:58

The following paragraph appears in a comment by Archdeacon Glynn Cardy on the Waihope three, who cut through wires and took sickles to damage a dome covering a satellite dish in Waihope. His thoughts on property damage, even disobedience involving potential weapons, appear relevant: "Protest actions of course can easily be misconstrued. It is hard to have the ‘perfect protest’. Someone’s idea of the sacred, whether it be ‘private property’, ‘the law’, or ‘the church’ will always be desecrated. The story of Jesus driving the moneychangers out of the Jerusalem Temple is a case in point. He destroyed other people’s property, disrupted legitimate business, and brought upset into a holy place. Religious protest will always be offensive to many, and especially to those with the biggest investment in the political and religious status quo." Full text may be viewed at: http://www.stmatthews.org.nz/?sid=463&id=839 We assume he will apply the same understanding and logic to the elderly woman who recently protested actively against St Matthews' billboard.

Rodney JOhnson [Sydney]

19 Dec 2009 19:52:12

Geno, you say you do not follow Christianity but you follow Christ. That is quite contradictory and impossible. A Christian is someone who follows Christ. For 2000 years that has meant one thing. You of course argue something different, but the logic of your statements are flawed. I can call an apple an orange and argue this until Im blue in the face that Im correct but at the end of the day it still really is an orange. You can change a word if you want to, but its not really correct is it? If you accept (As even athiest historians do) that Christ did indeed walk this earth and was crucified, then there are only three viable options to you. Jesus Christ either is who he says he is, or he was a liar, or he was a madman. Which is it Geno? Jesus message was very clear, you cant just pick and choose his words that you approve of and then try to deny he ever made other statements because it doesnt seem right to you. Make your choice Geno, dont try to say an orange is an apple. Is He who He says he is, or is he a liar or a madman?

Rodney Johnson [Sydney]

19 Dec 2009 20:04:36

@ Acquarius. Yes you are correct, there are some unkind comments coming from Christians on this forum. But to point this out as somehow meaning orthodox Christianity is wrong is a tired old argument has no merit. A Christian is someone who accepts they are imperfect, will never be perfect, who doesnt always do the right thing and knows that they are in need of God to save them from these flaws. To therefore argue that a Christian who acts improperly is somehow a hypocrite is to totally misunderstand what a Christian believes. We know sometimes we act badly. That does not for a second imply that we believe bad behavious is ok, we do not and we daily repent to God of our flaws and our wrong doings. We also need to apologise to someone we hurt or insult. As a result of what Jesus has done for us, we constantly try to do better, we find it frustrating and painful that we constantly fail, but we rejoice in Gods salvation for our wrong doings. We rejoice that on that day when we stand before the throne to be judged that the punishment we so richly DESERVE has been taken by our saviour. It is not a selfish decision to follow Christ, most Christians will spend their lifetime defending the bible (on forums like this) and by telling people what Jesus has done for them. We also spend a great deal of time and money trying to support aid organisations like World Vision, helping someone we know who is need and so on. We are imperfect at it. People love to notice the things Christians do wrong, but choose to ignore or mock all the good we try to do as well. Not that we do these things to gain merit, but it is an unfair arguement to knock Christians for their flaws as though it somehow shows orthodox Christianity is wrong.

Geno [Auckland]

19 Dec 2009 20:20:28

Thank you Mike(Melbourne) for your thoughtful and heartfelt response. Once again, I appreciate your contribution to this board. Let me give you one example: If you could imagine for a moment just what some Christian doctrine has meant to one of a number of groups it has oppressed, you would be able to see just how deeply offensive the concept of not only a male God but a heterosexual one at that is for some people. This understanding of God has served to promote the supremacy of male heterosexuality as the absolute ideal of what is normal and acceptable in our world. Everyone else is Other. This understanding of God has only served to alienate Others because many believe the Bible to be the inerrant word of God and therefore infallible and it can and has been used as a weapon. Could you imagine for a moment that this billboard was made not in spite of you but because of you? I mean, there must be thousands if not hundreds of thousands of churches around the world that cater to Christians who believe in a male heterosexual God. Could you imagine for a moment that this billboard might be a beacon to an oppressed and disillusioned minority who are having fundamentalism crammed down their throat and may not know there is an alternative? Could you imagine for a moment that saying something is a myth isn’t the same as saying something is a lie? For example, I believe the Genesis creation narratives are true. Mythological but true. The Genesis creation stories do not contradict my understanding of science (big bang, evolution etc.) I believe the virgin birth story of Jesus is true. Though I do not take it literally, it is true. I believe that Jesus was fully divine because he is the fulfilment of our human destiny. He, through word and thought and deed, demonstrated the potential for humanity to return to right relationship with each other and with God. I believe this is all true. Could you imagine for a moment that in order for St Matthew’s message to be effective maybe it needed to be blunt, edgy, irreverent & something beyond “Jesus Saves” which is printed on more than a few billboards around the world. “Jesus Saves” does not send the message that there is an alternative to fundamentalist Christianity in fact it enforces the possibility that there isn’t one. In my opinion, this billboard accomplishes that. Indeed, if you or anyone else are directly offended by that message, that is unfortunate but as I said, there are a number of churches who cater for your kind of theology and indeed you would be welcome (your theology and all) at churches like St Matthew’s I’m certain. In fact the community of St Matthew’s is made up of a number of people from various faith backgrounds and some who come from no faith background. St Matthew’s is made up of people who have various beliefs and traditions and come from diverse socio-economic contexts and yet we worship together. I’m only asking you to imagine all this for a moment.

Geno [Auckland]

19 Dec 2009 20:49:36

Hi Rodney JOhnson [Sydney], Thanks for your comments. I don't agree with you that there is no difference between following Christianity and following Christ. Chrisitanity as the dictionary defines it is "the collective body of Christians throughout the world". I do not profess to follow the "collective body of Christians throughout the world" though I am a member of that body. To me, being a follower of Christ is the practical living of the Gospel message and not necessarily being in agreement with the majority institution. I do believe that Jesus Christ walked this Earth and is who he claimed to be, he was crucified and ressurected on the third day. I do not think Jesus "was a liar" or a "madman". And I do not believe an orange is an apple. I have clearly made a choice.

Glynn Cardy [St Matthew's]

19 Dec 2009 22:21:45

Our purpose in putting up this billboard was five-fold: 1. To invite people to think about the virgin birth and the nature of God. 2. To say that there was more than one Christian way to think about the virgin birth and God. Indeed there are many. 3. To promote the Progressive view of Jesus having 2 human parents and God being the power of love in his life. 4. To ridicule the very literalistic view that God is a male and literally sired Jesus. 5. To invite people outside of the church to see a type of Christianity here at St Matthew’s that they might be able to relate to. Point one has hugely successful. Whether people agreed with our theology or not, conversations broke out all around the world in work places, homes, and schools. Point two was not as successful. Many thought we were ridiculing every Christian view save our own. Yet, partly due to live interviews on radio and TV, this was corrected as we went along. Point three again was only partially successful. Initially most media seemed more interested in those expressing outrage than reporting our reasons for doing it. Again as time progressed and overseas media in the UK and Australia picked up on the story this Progressive view got more coverage. Point four was very successful. People knew we were criticizing the male god and the crude image of being Jesus’ literal parent. Point five was the most pleasing of all. We have had lots of wonderful response from people for whom this billboard gave them reason to hope that maybe there was ‘room in the inn’ of Christianity from them. Or at least with us out the back. Merry Christmas.

Rev John Oliver [Totton, England]

20 Dec 2009 01:17:20

Its sad, even frightening, reading some the comments on your site by people who clearly know all the truth, but maybe not so much grace. Reminded of a teenage lady who once asked me "John, could Mary have said "No" to God? Sort of 'not tonight God, I've got a headache.' " Maybe we need to know afresh the 'becoming flesh' of our God, the ultimate Christmas journey. After all, it is all for our sake.

Paul [SC, USA]	20 Dec 2009 01:56:20
I believe that Jesus was born of virgin and stake my faith on it, however I am appalled with what you have made of this divine wonder. I don't question your intent, just the end result. As believers we focus on the virgin birth, not the virgin orgasm. Unfortunately, your billboard doesn't.

BillyD [Providence, RI, USA]	20 Dec 2009 02:10:40
"4. To ridicule the very literalistic view that God is a male and literally sired Jesus." Again, this is not a view held by any Christian body. You're being very brave in ridiculing a point of view that no one holds, aren't you?

Mark Harris [mah65@cam.ac.uk]	20 Dec 2009 03:34:46
I welcome any effort to get people to think about God and the deeper questions of the divinity of Christ, but I do think there are ways to do it that are provocative without causing such deep offence. It is clear that a poster like this would - and did - hurt and offend many people. It is clear, too, that we want to provoke discussion. I think a little bit more sensitivity could be shown.

Cassandra [Florida]

20 Dec 2009 03:40:18

Surely you can see that it is extrememly irresponsible to put this kind of message out there for non-Christians to misinterperate. Anyone who has not been taught truth will be seriously misled by this depiction. I highly doubt that it would cause the majority of them to flock to your church to hear all about it. We, as followers of Christ, are obligated to spread truth to the world. You are spreading an image that creates doubt and outright hostility! Peace, Love, Generosity of Spirit... those are all messages that could have been used to 'get people thinking'. Instead you've chosen to disrespect our Lord by depicting his parents this way. Anyone who doesn't know the truth will find this funny and it will just reiterate their opinion that the whole thing is bogus. If anything, you've given ammunition to the enemy.

Mike [texas]

20 Dec 2009 03:56:47

I really feel sorry for the Anglican community, especially the people there who hold to the faith. The Anglican 'church' has caved in on itself, it has become almost 100% dissident, allowing abortion, BC, female ministries, homosexuality, re-marriage and divorce, even to the denial of Christ's divinity and his salvation message. We must pray for these poor lost people.We must remember the Anglican Church was simply created because King Henry VIII could not get a divorce. hence he created his own "church" so he himself could divorce his wife. Hence it is a community found on adultery and heresy and not on Christ and his apostles. People are leaving the Anglican community because it does not profess the faith anymore and even mocks the faith the seem the profess. Hopefully people will see this and realize this is not a body of Christ, but rather a community that caves into secular pressure and disregards scripture and the 2000 year tradition handed down by the apostles. We must pray for these poor lost people and speak out against their error. If we remain silent their damnation with be upon our shoulders too.

Graham Johnson [Canada]	20 Dec 2009 04:23:07
Stupidly simplistic, trumping the worst of fundamentalist belief, the very thing this message is trying to counter. I am not sure we can call this blasphemy though, since such a term would presume that the producers of this message have some basic theological understanding and are actually a "church" in some sense, apart from the "props" of stained glass windows and pews.

Doug Maenpaa [Sudbury, Canada]

20 Dec 2009 06:10:16

Dear Glynn: I was amazed that a Church (that call itself Christian) (correct me , maybe you arent)....could playfully blaspheme the diety of Jesus Christ. Clearly, you dont believe in the virgin birth, therefore you progressives must conclude that Jesus Christ is a bastard child. Certainly not the Son of God . Clearly then , you must believe that He did not (could not) heal the sick, turn water into wine, still the stormy seas , raise Lazarus from the dead.........because He is a mere mortal, like the rest of us. But of course you believe that He was a good man , and thats all. Therefore you cannot accept the Gospel message about salvation , if you dont believe that Jesus is the Son of God. If this is the case, why go to Church at all. Is it a type of social club for you ? or perhaps just a way to earn a living ? Someone once said: Know Jesus , know God No Jesus, no God. Amen

Amused [The Land of Do-As-You-Please]	20 Dec 2009 06:10:19
I can't tell which is funnier, the billboard or the various denominations condemning each other. At least St Matthew's doesn't take itself too seriously.

Fr. Tom Tirman [USA]	20 Dec 2009 06:10:22
Shameful....you are in my prayers

Jim diGris [Australia]	20 Dec 2009 09:48:18
Why all the fuss over fictional characters?

Elly [Cambridge UK]	20 Dec 2009 10:46:35
Glory, what a lot of pious little souls you people are. I think it's the funniest thing I have seen on a Church billboard, ever. And, it gets you thinking and talking. Mission accomplished, I'd say. Merry Christmas, all of you.

James [United States]	20 Dec 2009 11:24:59
The purpose of this billboard was to get people to think and talk. Every comment here -- even from detractors -- is its own tiny victory. St. Matthew's has already won.

Sara Ovington [England UK]

20 Dec 2009 11:39:20

I am deeply offended at this image and what it can (even if it wasn't meant to) implies. It cheapens the image of Christianity in the extreme. We are already having a tough job living as Christians in case our celebration of our own faith 'offends' others of other faiths. To mock our own religion in this way does nothing to help show a united front. Whoever designed the poster obviously sees it in a different light and is turning a blind eye to how many faithful Christians are interpreting it. I'm ashamed to admit to being associated with a faith that can do this. You only have to look at the remarks from those here who are leaving their derogarory comments about it to see the damage it has caused. Just one question.....Is the person/persons who created this truly Christian? Shame on them!

Wonderwoman [Terra firma]

20 Dec 2009 11:41:24

Doug, Is a "bastard child" not the Son of God? And didn't Jesus say anyway, that he was the "Son of Man"? So, logically, he was a bastard child AND the son of man. He really was the lowest of the low. Perhaps the Church was ashamed of his bastardy and tried to re-package it as a divine conception and a virgin birth. Perhaps then he would be taken seriously - a god instead of an outcast. Until, that is, science proved beyond doubt that such a thing is impossible, and a lot of Christians lost their faith. Would it not have been better, and be better now, to acknowledge that Jesus was not God, or part of God, but that he was an extraordinary, brave human being, who loved people and integrity so much that he, in common with some other martyrs, was prepared to die for them? That he was prepared to show how the "scapegoat" mentality is not only cruel, but pointless, as it prevents us from facing up to what we really are and to what we are capable of and sometimes do (the extrememes of good and evil, in other words). One final point: Metaphors are extremely useful, and seem to be very human ways of presenting and understanding the world. We seem to need pictures and stories, but we also need to realise that they ARE merely pictures and stories, and are not a literal, provable truth. It seems to me that both Christian fundamentalists and professional atheists (such as, for example, Richard Dawkins) miss the point of the "supernatural" stories in the Bible. They are metaphor, myth and allegory. Viewing them in this way would give us tools to understand psychology and give us a moral way of living (rather than, in the case of the fundamentalists, having a blinkered, exclusive view of the world, and in the case of the sceptics, not seeing the moral and philosophical "wood" for the supernatural and therefore unscientific "trees"). The only really important thing here is how we treat ourselves, each other and the planet, and both the fundamentalists and the sceptics seem to be more concerned with what we believe or can prove than with behaving in a way that benefits people.

Wonderwoman [Terra firma]

20 Dec 2009 11:58:52

Here's a thought. How dare, even God, make a woman pregnant without her permission? Oh, yes, Mary agreed, but only after she had been told what would happen, and clearly had no choice in the matter, as it was God doing making the decisions. What a loving deity. What kind of message does that send out to men, and to women, for that matter? A heterosexual god, who decides that he is going to make a woman pregnant, possibly against her will? Well, he is no better than any of those Greek gods who happily raped mortal women, a rampaging soldier taking advantage of defenseless enemy women, or else is actually not human, but an unthinking animal. A stoat, maybe. Perhaps the story of the virgin birth actually is offensive, even to Christians, as it portrays a male god who "takes" a woman and impregnates her before establishing consent. Perhaps THAT is how the Christian Church succeeded in sujugating women for so long. How clever.

fumbduck [Australia]	20 Dec 2009 12:01:44
Feel the serenity? Where's the love? Why can't some of these deeply offended 'good' christians just 'turn the other cheek' or 'forgive' ? Or isn't that part of it anymore? Sorry I forget, it's been a while.

Andrew [Brisbane]

20 Dec 2009 12:02:16

"2. To say that there was more than one Christian way to think about the virgin birth and God. Indeed there are many. 3. To promote the Progressive view of Jesus having 2 human parents and God being the power of love in his life." Wow Glynn. How exactly do you say the creed as part of the liturgy believing that Jesus was not born of a virgin? Which other bits of the creed do you arbitrarily believe you can declare fictional, and on what basis? And what gave you this insight when serious theologians have for centuries taken the bible as a far more reliable source of thought than you do. What you've done in constructing a theology to suit the world around you is made a gospel that causes no offense. It doesn't challenge people to repent from their sins, and it doesn't lead to salvation. Frankly, you're doing satan a wonderful favour in getting people to think they're saved while they're on a fast track to hell.

kenatipo [Virginia, USA]	20 Dec 2009 12:05:54
Dear Vicar Glynn, glad to hear that "Christian fanatics" have torn down your blasphemous billboard. You really should brush up on your Scripture and on what the Church has believed for the past 2,000 years. Otherwise you may be "Progressing" straight into Hell. Merry Christmas !

Niels [Netherlands and Washington]	20 Dec 2009 13:38:05
Thank you for your enlightening views and interpretations.

Erp []	20 Dec 2009 14:08:02
Did more people show up than usual for the service today?

Aquarius [Auckland]

20 Dec 2009 14:20:14

@ Rodney Johnson. Thankyou for your honest reply. As someone looking in from the outside, it is hard to understand the rationale for the arguments a lot of Orthodox Christians are making in slating St Matthews for their viewpoint. Calling into question their Christianity seems a low blow. They quite clearly believe in Christ and in God. They just choose not to take what is written in the bible literally. They obviously still teach the messages that Jesus supposedly preached - Love, understanding etc. The condemnation seems to be not that the message being preached is wrong, but that they aren't spending the time telling people it all happened exactly as written in the bible. To me that seems silly. Surely the most important part for a Christian is to preach the message, not get hung up on whether something the bible decribes happened a certain way or not. Surely, whether you interpret a certain passage literally or metaphorically, the message is still the same? "But to point this out as somehow meaning orthodox Christianity is wrong is a tired old argument has no merit." Agreed. But nor is there any way to confirm that Orthodox Christianity is right. It's just your interpretation versus theirs. You believe it to be true, they don't. Yet, judging by many comments above, your way is the only way and anybody believing differently is to be condemned. "It is not a selfish decision to follow Christ." So, if Christ preached love, understanding etc etc but there was no mention of earning entry to the afterlife, Orthodox Christians would still pore over the bible and preach these things because it is the right way to live? I'm not making a statement, I'm just asking. I agree with most of your statements about the good Christians do, and I would not mock you for your flaws. Although I am not even the tiniest bit religious, I certainly do agree that religion drives many good deeds around the world. All I'm saying is that St Matthews appears to be being demonised (bad choice of words?) for their interpretation of the bible, when ultimately their message, as Christians, is similar to yours. They obviously differ in embracing homosexuals, female ministers etc. But that was my point. What they preach is more inclusive, and thus as an athiest I see it as being of more value to our society. @ Sara Ovington: "You only have to look at the remarks from those here who are leaving their derogarory comments about it to see the damage it has caused." Yes Sara, and the derogatory comments are coming mostly from which camp?..... @ Cassandra: "Surely you can see that it is extrememly irresponsible to put this kind of message out there for non-Christians to misinterperate." As a non-Christian, I can assure you I do actually have a brain (and a sense of humour) and this billboard does NOT in any way influence me to have a lesser opinion of religion or Christianity than before. Please, give us credit. Just because we're not Christians doesn't mean we're gullible fools whose opinion can be readily subverted by a simple billboard. If somebody thinks badly of religion after seeing this billboard, then I guarantee that's how they felt about it beforehand as well.

Todd [Texas]	20 Dec 2009 17:26:38
Well, this goes on the same shelf as Larry David's peeing on a portrait of Christ on HBO. I think if HE were to come back today, HE would view you much like he did the religious leaders 2K years ago.

Jos?. S?hez [The Land of Mary, USA]	20 Dec 2009 17:36:42
I think that doing something that could offend many people without giving it enough thought beforehand does not paint the world with love, not even a little dab or speck. I do not consider it progressive, either. I will pray harder for you and your flock, and I will try harder to love you (and, believe me, you do not make this an easy task for me).

Aquarius [Auckland]

20 Dec 2009 19:43:06

@Jos?. S?hez . I'm sure the good people at St Matthews will pray harder for you and your flock also, in the hope you may loosen the shackles and see things in a simpler light. I'm sure you won't make that an easy task for them, but they will try harder to love you. By the way, why do you assume they didn't give the billboard enough thought beforehand? Because it offends you personally? It's clear from reading the posts above that there are indeed some Christians who are not offended by it. In fact some like it. Certainly the minority, I'll agree, but it shows that the billboard is not automatically offensive to all Christians.

Zeke [Toronto]	20 Dec 2009 20:16:27
Bravo! And boo to the cretins who defaced your thought-provoking billboard.

G B [Brisbane]	20 Dec 2009 22:46:04
Sadly, it seems that many so-called Christians have misunderstood what you are saying...which is hardly a surprise, given that these people are mostly morons ; seemingly oblivious to love tolerance and compassion...the true meaning of Christmas, and the faith they profess

David [Greymouth]

20 Dec 2009 23:21:25

The Reverend Cardy certainly stirred up a hornet's nest last week. I agree with many of the objections posted to this site, but counter that the strong language used by some writers was unnecessary, and did not strengthen their arguments. Unlike Archdeacon Robin Kingston in Greymouth, who gave a firm and well-considered response from the pulpit on Sunday morning, I have never met Glynn Cardy. Nor have I visited St Matthew-in-the City, beyond reading the material presented on this web site and listening to some of the sermons. It may be a little unfair then, to say that I am left with a sense that it all seems to be a bit "Coffee Shop Christianity", but I found little evidence of the “robust engagement” and “clear vision” that he claims distinguishes Progressive Christianity from Orthodoxy. Cardy is referring specifically to his disbelief in the Immaculate Conception, when he claims that progressive interpretations try to “…remove the supernatural obfuscation and delve into the deeper spiritual truth of this festival.”. His argument falters however, when he writes further, that “the real miracle [of Jesus] was his death and literal resurrection 33 years later”. If one believes that God did raise Jesus literally from the dead, then why must the circumstances of Jesus’ birth be necessarily a supernatural obfuscation? That God has the power to raise a man from the dead must surely imply that He can create that life in whatsoever manner He chooses? The perspective often chosen by Progressive Christianity, at least in much of its popular writing, judges supernatural obfuscation to include the New Testament accounts of Christ’s death and resurrection. Its adherents may term such a view as progressive, but, in refuting the central event of the Faith, the link to Christian historical theology is broken. Consequently, Reverend Cardy risks being caught in a no-mans land between what he understands to be progressive theology on the one hand and what he dismisses as fundamentalist and literalist theology, on the other. I pray for all, that it will be a Holy and blessed Christmas.

Brett [Adelaide]

21 Dec 2009 02:27:06

Having read quite a few of the posts here, it seems to me there is a basic difference between the two sides of the "discussion". It appears that those who disagree with the billboard and anything it might be trying to say are much more likely to be referring to, and declaiming loudly "truth" as they KNOW it to be and are often only willing to tolerate and accept (or even listen to thoughtfully) those who also know their truth and are equally passionate (to the point of property damage or violence even?) about its defence in the face of any and all research, thinking or opinions to the contrary. In short, they appear to know they have arrived at, or been told, the answer - end of discussion. Anyone attempting to question, discuss or contradict is branded blasphemous and shoved (satisfyingly) down the road to the hell they know exists. Now all they feel they need to do is beat themselves (and everyone else) continually into the shape of the "truth" and all will be well. On the other hand, there are those who support the concept and/or intention of the billboard even if they might feel a uncomfortable about its realisation. On the whole, these people seem far less likely to be propounding absolute "truth". Rather they seem more interested in discovering relevant and useful questions about God and their faith and exploring those questions - no longer expecting one defining answer or even any answer at all but rather seeking God for their time and place and circumstance and reinterpreting the language, practice and scope of the church for this time in the same way Jesus' disciples did, in the way the early church did, in the way Luther or Calvin or the Wesleys did. They know that many of the historical interpretations of scripture and church practices are inapplicable, exclusionist and even cruel and abusive in the light of current knowledge of science, history, theology and psychology. Given the choice, I choose the questioning way - the way of always discovering but never finally knowing - the way of always seeking to listen and understand even if I disagree - the way of following the radical Jesus who included and accepted the marginalised, the rejected, the abused and the invisible - the way of being accepted utterly as I am and being changed deeply by that. I won't ever get to the answers in this life, but by God and with God, the journey is exhilarating, often scary and frequently touches and changes the deep areas of my soul in a way that knowing could never do. If our faith depends utterly and finally on whether the virgin birth is absolute historic truth or whether God or Joseph was the biological father of Jesus or whether Jesus physically rose from the dead or walked on water or ascended bodily into the heaven on the other side of the sky or that the Bible is the inerrant, literal and completely interpreted word of God, then our God is fragile and small and ultimately cannot be defended or maintained by us and will fade into history like so many human constructed gods before him. I do not believe our God is that fragile and small nor do I believe that the great creative and connecting spirit of God will fade into history. I do believe there are new things to know from God and of God and scripture in our time and that we have a right and a duty to critically question our faith and its constructs and its history in the light of our own time and knowledge so we can act now and build on the legacy of faith for those who will follow us.

Stephen [The States]	21 Dec 2009 03:20:05
I have to wonder why you would choose to dialogue on this topic by first offending as many Traditional Christians as possible by using such an idiotic public billboard to convey your topic ? It's juvenile behavior, IMHO, on your part, and unnecessary. Now, you take offense after deliberately being offensive? C'mon....

Paul [Melbourne Australia]

21 Dec 2009 03:35:44

This horrible publicity stunt under the guise of wanting to create discussion and provoke thought does nothing to further the cause of Christ and his Kingdom here on earth. Just as reading all the comments here brings me no closer to revelation and experiencing Christ in my life. Yeah Jesus himself offended many with his life but not purely for the sake of offense or to create 'discussion'. He offended because he lived a life of radical, selfless, and incredible love grace and mercy. I see no good fruit coming out of this except what God in his grace works out in his 'topsy turvy way' of taking Glynn's stupidity and working it for good.

Laura Van Ness [Charlotte, NC]

21 Dec 2009 03:37:58

There was one thing that struck me most after reading everyone's comments. Several of you claim that this billboard and accompanying sermon have not produced though-provoking conversation. I beg to differ. Scroll back up the page and look at the conversation that it has sparked. It is a good thing to question and converse about what we believe and what we have been taught. Is this not what Jesus did?

Brian [Seattle, WA]

21 Dec 2009 03:59:10

"Christian fundamentalism believes a supernatural male God who lived above sent his sperm into the womb of the virgin Mary. " Unfortunately, this crass way of explaining the Doctrine of the Virgin Birth demonstrates this church's own ignorance. It's easy to take theological shots if you set an opposite view up as a straw man. If you're going to decry biblical fundamentalism (of which I do not claim to be a part), at least do it intelligently. Otherwise, this simply looks like a stunt intended to bring attention to a church that has been marginalized and forgotten. Sad, really. If your billboard is supposed to make people think about the death and resurrection of Jesus, then he ought to be on it. There are better ways to make your point that have taste.

Richard [London]

21 Dec 2009 04:36:33

I've been following this discussion with a certain degree of amazement, and a not inconsiderable amount of amusement. Anyway, for what little it's worth, her e is my tuppenny contribution: 1) The purpose, as I understood it, was not sto show respect or disrespect- but to provoke discussion. That has happened, though much of the discussion also got mixed up in aggressive and self-satisfied, self-praising drivel. If the cap fits, wear it. 2) But how you all *do* get het up! Reminds me of the passions once raised about the exact number of angels dancing on a pinhead. 3) Some of you seem to think it's OK to order others to think one thing rather than another, and to condemn those who disagree with you to pains of a style which I am glad to say I can't imagine. None of those who maintain this arrogant stance see any contradiction between their own position as *humble servants* and the violence of their paranoid assertions. I can see how burnings at the stake would have happened in times gone by. I would suggest psychtherapy for these violent individuals if I had half a hope they'd be able to undertand the suggestion. Again, if the cap fits... 4) On balance, though following you was an interesting and I must say revealing exercise, I'm glad that I am of another, and different faith.... yours seems very self-obsessed and rather violent.

Stephan [Connecticut, USA]	21 Dec 2009 05:14:57
excellent billboard. The reaction of the RC church and 'family first' (more like "we-demand-you-act-and-think-like-we-do first') are expected, and intolerable. it's too bad they lost the idea of the message, and walk the path of conservative bigotry.

JoyfulPapist [Wellington]

21 Dec 2009 08:35:04

Wonderwoman The Bible clearly shows us that man was given free will. Eve had free will to say "no" to God and cause the fall. Mary was free to say no to Gabriel. She was given free will. So Catholics believe that Mary's role at the annunciation was special, not shared by any other human in the history of the world. Mary's participation in the birth of Jesus was not passive. She had a role to play. If she said "no," none of us know what would have happened. Perhaps God would have worked out salvation history another way. Perhaps it was God's last chance for us, we just don't know. But when we think about the immensity of Eve's "no" we get a pretty good idea. Mary's "yes" was huge.

Neil Peter [Tauranga]

21 Dec 2009 09:06:39

Besides the miracle of Mary's virgin birth prophesied in the book of the prophet Isaiah ch. 7:14, about 750 yrs BC, Joseph also experienced a miracle when an angel of God informed him of Mary’s miraculous conception by the Holy Spirit, allaying all fears and confusion he may have had shortly after discovering his fianc?ecame pregnant. The billboard with Joseph lying in bed with his with to be, Mary, is certainly not what the Bible informs us of. They had not married yet, and certainly would not have been lying in bed together before then. Joseph and Mary’s moral conduct was far more controlled than the moral conduct the culture of society today conform to.

leigh [wellington]	21 Dec 2009 12:19:17
This probably Glyn's audience and highlights his deceit: "Congratulations on creating a fantastic billboard. I am an atheist and having read your column I love your view point. Keep up the fantastic work, I would love to have a chat one day soon."

Owen Dance [Wellington NZ]

21 Dec 2009 12:31:21

Where does all this talk of conservative Christians being Thought Nazis come from? The scriptures tell us to test everything ( 1 Thessalonians 5:21) and they applaud the Bereans for not believing everything they were told, but for checking it for themselves against scripture before accepting it ( Acts 17:10-12). Having tried my best to do those things for myself ever since becoming a Christian I have found myself inevitably drawn to the conservative end of the scale since that is, for me, where the truth must lead. If on the other hand I had decided to 'test everything' by dreaming up alternative scenarios for everything in scripture I don't know where I might have ended up. Probably I too would be 'sm?sbord Christian,' browsing scripture for the bits that suited my taste and my preference, taking a bit from here and a bit from there, cobbling together some sort of make-it-up-as-you-go-along theology that would enable me to stay in my comfort zone and appear very pious while not actually challenging myself. I might for example be in the rather strange position of being able to claim that I believed in the resurrection of the crucified Christ while dismissing the notion of immaculate conception as being too fantastic. Whatever: your billboard was in poor taste. Shame on you.

owen dance [Wellington (again)]	21 Dec 2009 12:35:25
(That was 'smorgasbord Christian..') So much for fancy spellcheckers with Swedish fonts that then dump what they suggested when the time comes to display results. Another example of progressives being too clever for anyone's good.

Richard [Melbourne]

21 Dec 2009 12:58:15

This is fabulous and we should have more of it :) Much more. Re: 'reaction of the RC church' (Stephan [Connecticut, USA]) - please, it's a broad Church and we struggle to find common ground in making sense of all the myriad faith- & life-stories we share together. It gets messy. That some would take an 'official' view - sometimes perhaps rather narrow - and peddle it as the only valid position casts Catholicism in a bad light. The Church's entire history is one of gutsy & raw & honest grappling with the impossible mystery of God who loves us unconditionally. You can't just knock these things over as #753 of some catechism and think you've 'got it.' You wrestle with it your entire life. Sometimes your hip gets thrown out in the wrestling (Gen32:24,25). It's part of the deal and no one ever said that being loved unconditionally by God was likely to be cozy & undemanding. The Word of God comforts the afflicted and afflicts the comfortable! Re: 'Joseph lying in bed with his wife to be, Mary' (Neil Peter [Tauranga]) - it's not clear to me that this scene *is* pre-wedding (& none of my business even if it were.) I don't feel that's the point. We might look at this image and say: 'Well, *that's* not how it was' but I think the idea is to go on to ask 'Well, if not like that, how *was* it then?' How do *you* feel Joseph's life could possibly have been? Wrestling needs imagination to drive it as well as some orthodoxy to provide a few ground-rules :) Re: 'yours (i.e. faith) seems very self-obsessed and rather violent.' (Richard [London]) - sorry mate, we can get a bit carried away :( Will try and do better - I think all that wrestling sometimes brings out the violent worst in us :) Thank you - we need your different faith (*is* it that different, BTW?) to knock our squabbling heads together occasionally!

Ysor [Wellington]

21 Dec 2009 13:20:24

I sent an email earlier to what I think was an incorrect email address, so will repeat my sentiments here. I am offended by the billboard, not because of the intended message as to whether Mary conceived Jesus as a virgin, but because of its blatant racism. What is progressive about continuing what appears to be a bigoted, Western, Christian tradition of portraying the Holy Family as a ‘nice, white’ family? They weren’t Europeans; they lived in the Near East. Joseph, as depicted on the billboard, could maybe pass muster at a pinch. But Mary couldn’t. She would only have had those blue eyes and fair skin if she had some European ancestry. Perhaps she did; Roman military units had been stationed in the area for some time, but, as far as I’m aware, this possibility is not part of any current debate.

singlemum [UK]	21 Dec 2009 13:39:34
Dear Glynn, I like your God inspired billboard. It contains so much more realism about the predicament of Mary and her orphan son than most contemporary Anglican theology.

Buffy [California (USA)]	21 Dec 2009 20:14:10
Well it's nice to see that for once the Christians are up in arms over a billboard that wasn't erected by atheists. It is sad, however, that the billboard was vandalized. Interesting how some insist on their right to be heard and seen, but they are the first to silence others by whatever means necessary.

Alfredo [New Zealand]

21 Dec 2009 20:59:39

GOD JOB! – OR NOT?? PLEASE HELP ME. I would kindly ask the help of some of the advised bloggers here, how are you guys, could you please help me understand what is going on here? I am agnostic of the roman catholic church. I mean, when I was a young boy, many many years ago, I got scared by the religious histories, I mean Crucifixion, Holy Land, Crusaders all that blood and killing, the Holy Inquisition gave me horrible nightmares. The priest really scared me with stories and the sisters were beating me but one day I founded the way to escape all this, leaving the school. Still today I have horrible nightmares. I have always a kind of religious fear, with nightmares every time something terrible happens. I had nightmares about Holy Oil! And even Holy Pandemic!! Sometime I have nightmares about millions of killings made by a kind of crusaders and monks driving tanks and launching rockets, and even as if there were a kind of modern holy inquisition with monks wearing a tunic with a hood and no face practicing torture!! Today!! Just nightmares, but I always pray God, I am not an atheist, as the church mean to burn at the stake atheists, I mean everybody else, and I want to live as long as I can! So I assure you am NOT atheist I am agnostic, as I don’t go to the church but I pray God every day. I don’t know if I have to pray for the people that are killed in my nightmares they seems poor people or the crusaders as they fight for God, they really scare me like if they want to burn me at the stake if I don’t obey them so I just pray for myself and my friends. Now, at the beginning I thought I had find by chance on internet a church that I can approach again, someone I can pray with, maybe exchange some help as they seems very very cool even with the children, it seems to me they do not beat them, they did this billboard with Joseph and Mary who says that for the Poor Joseph “God was an hard act to follow”. This is right!! I always thought this. I put myself in the shoes of Joseph, just married, and imagine the Holy Spirit (without knowing about the Holy Spirit, I mean at that time it was just a “simple” spirit as he was unknown at that time – I think) that wants get my wife still virgin, pregnant, well, for sure this would be hard for me too, I would even fight, so what is wrong in this poster? I don’t want to get anybody angry but I would ask, to say “God was an hard act to follow”, is THIS the blasphemy the bloggers talk about? As I think the same thing, I mean, it was a hard act, is this blasphemy, I don’t think so. Am I right? I always wondered why the Holy Spirit did choose a married woman, but I don’t know or remember the whole story. Someone says that “they just had sex” but I understood that this is a bad interpretation of the poster. I mean, the Jesus story never says this so you shouldn’t worry about that. I don’t understand if the blasphemy is then to imagine that they “just had sex”. I am unable to see any sex in the poster, there is nothing sexual, as Joseph looks coming out from a fight, not sex, I mean he should have a half smile and closed eyes. So you really need to add something coming from you to see the sex. They are married and sleep in the same bed anyway, is this fine. Or the author said somewhere that they had sex and I did not find out this. Finally some blogger imagined that they just had sex and other bloggers claimed the blasphemy of those bloggers and blamed the poster? Can someone here help me clarify this? And I would ask why the poster is vandalized? I want to use it for the Christmas wishes! It is new and cool, I will send it by email, is this Ok? They should print the poster so we could buy one as it would be a nice way to help the church with some money. Who are the vandals and why they disrespect Joseph and Mary in that way? I mean, am I the only one on earth that cannot see sex in this poster? I fear this vandals, would they vandalize ME??? Other bloggers seems excited and kind of possessive about the history of the Christianity. I mean, is there a kind of copyright or something like this on this story? I don’t think so (in 2000 years every copyright would be expired!!), so what is copyrighted? Is this legal to have a kind of copyright on a story so old? Is this story not yet public domain? Are mass starting with a copyright warning??? (Ok, this is a joke! We have to smile from time to time, right?). I don’t know where is the point as I never went in a church for over 40 years! But I always pray God, I just am agnostic, there are many like me, almost all my friends leaved the church for some reason like me or even worse. Now the problem is that this kind of copyright matter brings me a question: do this means I cannot freely pray the catholic God? This sounds crazy as God is one, I don’t really know what to think. If I am unorthodox, am I kicked out from the right to pray God? I even have my own meaning for this poster: it represents the separation between sex and love, the battle won by the catholic against the primitive natural sex (meaning the hell), a battle won for 2000 years, the chastity. Isn’t this good. So priest and sisters do not have sex, just pure love, and this poster can just mean this, a very hard thing anyway, I tell you, I think one can become crazy or strange. To be completely honest I would not be happy to be Joseph, I think I feel love having sex and I thank God every time, I don’t know if this is against the christianity, I am confused. But I am agnostic, so, no problem! I can “mixmatch” love and sex I think, without blasphemy. Is this right? I really hope in someone's advice, who has been more lucky than me with the catholic church, can let me understand all this as I would love to maybe meet this St Matthews priests they seems so cool. They did a real GOD JOB here no misspelling. Right? I “feel” God. Peace and Love to all.

Alfredo [New Zealand]

21 Dec 2009 21:04:05

GOD JOB! – OR NOT?? PLEASE HELP ME. I would kindly ask the help of some of the advised bloggers here, how are you guys, could you please help me understand what is going on here? I am agnostic of the roman catholic church. I mean, when I was a young boy, many many years ago, I got scared by the religious histories, I mean Crucifixion, Holy Land, Crusaders all that blood and killing, the Holy Inquisition gave me horrible nightmares. The priest really scared me with stories and the sisters were beating me but one day I founded the way to escape all this, leaving the school. Still today I have horrible nightmares. I have always a kind of religious fear, with nightmares every time something terrible happens. I had nightmares about Holy Oil! And even Holy Pandemic!! Sometime I have nightmares about millions of killings made by a kind of crusaders and monks driving tanks and launching rockets, and even as if there were a kind of modern holy inquisition with monks wearing a tunic with a hood and no face practicing torture!! Today!! Just nightmares, but I always pray God, I am not an atheist, as the church mean to burn at the stake atheists, I mean everybody else, and I want to live as long as I can! So I assure you am NOT atheist I am agnostic, as I don’t go to the church but I pray God every day. I don’t know if I have to pray for the people that are killed in my nightmares they seems poor people or the crusaders as they fight for God, they really scare me like if they want to burn me at the stake if I don’t obey them so I just pray for myself and my friends. Now, at the beginning I thought I had find by chance on internet a church that I can approach again, someone I can pray with, maybe exchange some help as they seems very very cool even with the children, it seems to me they do not beat them, they did this billboard with Joseph and Mary who says that for the Poor Joseph “God was an hard act to follow”. This is right!! I always thought this. I put myself in the shoes of Joseph, just married, and imagine the Holy Spirit (without knowing about the Holy Spirit, I mean at that time it was just a “simple” spirit as he was unknown at that time – I think) that wants get my wife still virgin, pregnant, well, for sure this would be hard for me too, I would even fight, so what is wrong in this poster? I don’t want to get anybody angry but I would ask, to say “God was an hard act to follow”, is THIS the blasphemy the bloggers talk about? As I think the same thing, I mean, it was a hard act, is this blasphemy, I don’t think so. Am I right? I always wondered why the Holy Spirit did choose a married woman, but I don’t know or remember the whole story. Someone says that “they just had sex” but I understood that this is a bad interpretation of the poster. I mean, the Jesus story never says this so you shouldn’t worry about that. I don’t understand if the blasphemy is then to imagine that they “just had sex”. I am unable to see any sex in the poster, there is nothing sexual, as Joseph looks coming out from a fight, not sex, I mean he should have a half smile and closed eyes. So you really need to add something coming from you to see the sex. They are married and sleep in the same bed anyway, is this fine. Or the author said somewhere that they had sex and I did not find out this. Finally some blogger imagined that they just had sex and other bloggers claimed the blasphemy of those bloggers and blamed the poster? Can someone here help me clarify this? And I would ask why the poster is vandalized? I want to use it for the Christmas wishes! It is new and cool, I will send it by email, is this Ok? They should print the poster so we could buy one as it would be a nice way to help the church with some money. Who are the vandals and why they disrespect Joseph and Mary in that way? I mean, am I the only one on earth that cannot see sex in this poster? I fear this vandals, would they vandalize ME??? Other bloggers seems excited and kind of possessive about the history of the Christianity. I mean, is there a kind of copyright or something like this on this story? I don’t think so (in 2000 years every copyright would be expired!!), so what is copyrighted? Is this legal to have a kind of copyright on a story so old? Is this story not yet public domain? Are mass starting with a copyright warning??? (Ok, this is a joke! We have to smile from time to time, right?). I don’t know where is the point as I never went in a church for over 40 years! But I always pray God, I just am agnostic, there are many like me, almost all my friends leaved the church for some reason like me or even worse. Now the problem is that this kind of copyright matter brings me a question: do this means I cannot freely pray the catholic God? This sounds crazy as God is one, I don’t really know what to think. If I am unorthodox, am I kicked out from the right to pray God? I even have my own meaning for this poster: it represents the separation between sex and love, the battle won by the catholic against the primitive natural sex (meaning the hell), a battle won for 2000 years, the chastity. Isn’t this good. So priest and sisters do not have sex, just pure love, and this poster can just mean this, a very hard thing anyway, I tell you, I think one can become crazy or strange. To be completely honest I would not be happy to be Joseph, I think I feel love having sex and I thank God every time, I don’t know if this is against the christianity, I am confused. But I am agnostic, so, no problem! I can “mixmatch” love and sex I think, without blasphemy. Is this right? I really hope in someone's advice, who has been more lucky than me with the catholic church, can let me understand all this as I would love to maybe meet this St Matthews priests they seems so cool. They did a real GOD JOB here no misspelling. Right? I “feel” God. Peace and Love to all.

Na Yeo [Australia]

22 Dec 2009 01:22:33

So Glynn, you aren't a Christian (except in the sense of being a 'cultural christian' like Richard Dawkins) but don't yet know that you aren't actually a Christian of the sort that the Bible describes. Oh well, it is not surprising that you are completely ignorant of what the bible says. It's just not important to you, is it? Tell us all, please, these fundamentalist, literalist, straw bogeymen that you describe ... would they include the writers of the Gospels and the book of Acts, and the apostles Peter, Paul and John? I think so ... I'll stick with them rather than you if you don't mind, since they speak of things they actually know. I can see from the comments above, the fruit of your ministry, may God have mercy. Cheers

OhMy [Space]	22 Dec 2009 04:44:31
@ Tom from Canada "The image of of the virgin Mary in the throws of an orgasmic ecstasy of divine inspiration has never, before, occurred to me." if you squint it looks kinda like http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ecstasy_of_Saint_Theresa

John [Nova Scotia]	22 Dec 2009 06:30:37
The Angelus is a most beautiful prayer about God impregnating each one of us with a spirit and lust of goodness and respect for all creatures. It is my prayer about me and you, to take it as a literal interpretation of the impregnating of Mary by God robs me of my faith and steals my relationship with God away from me.

OE [Auckland, New Zealand]

22 Dec 2009 09:27:51

Dear Glynn, Thank you for the billboard and for the article. If it was designed to bring just one person on Chrsitmas eve into St Matthews, you've succeeded. That would be me. I will even try to convince my teenange children to come because we all want to support you and what you stand for. I am Eastern Orthodox by decsent, and it has been years and years since I've been in church (aside from occasional Easter services, I do have a soft spot for the midnight service). The reason I haven't visited there is because of all the things they are trying to convince people to believe, and the message that if you question things, you are "sinful". So thank you for inviting questions and debates. Any theory, as beautiful as it may be, when not allowed to be questioned very quickly becomes oppressive. Best of luck to you and may God watch over you!

Rev. Peter Amsel [Ottawa, Canada]

22 Dec 2009 09:36:17

The range of comments does not surprise me given the subject matter of the sermon, but the tone of many of the comments certainly causes an eyebrow to be raised. One would think, at times, that some individuals were writing with the authority of the Holy Inquisition behind them and that they were passing judgment on Rev. Cardy, consigning him to the fires of an everlasting damnation. Well, the Inquisition - praise the Lord - is over ... and, with the benefit of hindsight we can see that it was NOT something that reflected true Christianity. Just as the Crusades cannot be defended with the New Testament, the killing of innocents is not reconcilable with the Love of our Lord and Saviour, the fulfillment of the Law that comes with the acceptance of Jesus as our Saviour. There is only deliverance; there is no condemnation. Anything less is not Christianity. Judgment is left for God. As for this billboard, I believe the Lord has done a great thing here: He has brought a great amount of attention to something that might otherwise not have been seen, an opportunity for people to read or hear about the Gospel that would not have come without the billboard. The message is not offensive - IF you look at the Scriptures and accept that when it says Jesus had brothers it MEANS that Jesus had brothers ... that means that Mary had children other than Jesus. The word used to describe Mary in the book of Isaiah, where it is prophesied that 'a virgin shall give birth' was bit the Hebrew word 'virgin' but rather '‛ălâmôth' (Strongs H5959) - which translates (roughly) into 'young girl - soprano, or female voice'. Now, if you were a young girl in those times you SHOULD have been (according to the Law of the Lord God Almighty) a virgin - that was also the sociological expectation of the day - but (and this is one of those BIG buts) - while the conception of Jesus may have involved the Holy Spirit and no act of intercourse, there is no reason to expect that this young woman - betrothed to be married - would remain unavailable to her husband (a man of extreme patience and understanding according to the scriptures) who had every reason (and right - according to the traditions of the day) to take her virginity with force, should he so desire (hey, I don't like it, I'm just saying what things were like back then). The idea that 'Joseph was a hard act to follow' is, in my opinion, a way to break the religious seriousness that surrounds the 'Christmas Season'. First of all, it isn't a season. Jesus was NOT born on December 25. This holiday was co-opted by the Roman Church when Saturnalia proved to be more popular than the other Christian festivals. The pagans needed to be 'brought in', so they made the festival of Saturn the highlight of the liturgical year ... after the celebration of Ishtar. Rather than celebrating Pesach (Passover - the time when John the Baptist was born and when Jesus was crucified) the Roman Church decided to take away the 'Jewishness' of the Gospel. Nine months from the time that we celebrate the birth of Jesus - sometime in September - another Jewish festival - Sukhot - or the Feast of Tabernacles - is celebrated. At this time the Jews celebrate 'Immanuel' - or ... "God with Us" - Can you Honestly imagine a more appropriate time for the birth of the saviour of humanity than on the day ordained by the Lord God Almighty as the celebration of His time amongst His People? Really? The celebration of Saturnalia does it for you? That is truly sad. You see, the billboard is not really the problem here - the problem is that Christians, for the most part, have no idea what it is they think they believe in: they have been fed a blended meal of 'feel good' theologies and 'name it - claim it' sorcery for so long that Christianity has become nothing more than a rabbit's foot - a good luck charm that is called upon whenever something doesn't go as we think it ought to. The call of 'blasphemy' is shouted when it seems as though an offense has taken place, but - in all honesty - it is quite difficult to blaspheme these days - particularly since most people don't even understand what it means to commit blasphemy. The true meaning of blasphemy is to ascribe to yourself the powers or attributes of the Lord. It also can mean to speak the Tetragrammaton (YHVH) in the original, now forbidden manner rather than using a substitute pronunciation such as Adonai. The unforgivable form of blasphemy, of course, is that against the Ruach HaKodesh - the Holy Spirit. I dare not describe this nor even consider the prospects; nor should anyone reading this. We are encouraged to seek understanding, to deepen our relationships with God through prayer, fellowship, and meditation in the Word: fighting amongst ourselves accomplishes nothing. May the Lord Bless your Ministry, In His Service, Rev. Amsel

James [Canada]

22 Dec 2009 09:37:43

The comic is funny, thought provoking and while treading in dangerous water in the interest of promoting debate, the intention, I believe, is good. A shift, however, from a "set of supernatural beliefs" towards "Progressive Christianity” is much more disturbing. While we participate in the life of Christ through our actions, words and thoughts we are still called to a deeper spiritual union with and in Christ. We are called to "BE STILL AND KNOW THAT I AM GOD", to wait "IN JOYFUL HOPE" for the coming of our Lord and the "THE DAWN FROM ON HIGH SHALL BREAK UPON US". Christianity is NOT an outward observance of mere principles in which to live our lives by. “God is our Refuge”, He is our hope, “in Him we Trust”, in Him that “Is”. Christianity is a call to a fuller life in love. We are called to be “perfect as our heavenly Father is perfect” and to “pray without ceasing”. The need to reach out to society "en mass" at a level consistent with the images, humor and attitude we are constantly bombarded with is critical. Without speaking the "language of today" we may fail to reach the "poorest" in our society and thereby fail in our Mission to "spread the good news”, but first, let there be love. Let us “love our brothers as ourselves” and “love the Lord our God with all our heart, all our soul and all our might”. This is no small command; with the Holy Spirit, in God the father, “who is love” then let us, centered in Christ, reach out and spread the joy we have been given.

Jessica Aldridge [Bowling Green, KY, U.S.A.]	22 Dec 2009 09:47:47
I love the billboard! It is great to see a sense of humor in religion. Thank you for giving me a good laugh and reminding me that this holiday is about more than just the presents I cannot afford.

Dave LIlley [San Antonio]

22 Dec 2009 10:39:08

Oh my goodness! You can't be serious. Your creation is pure blasphemy. God doesn't want you to think. He wants you to believe. He doesn't want you to rock the boat. He wants people who will blindly and silently sit still and do as they are command from his incredibly clear instruction manual that was passed do to his people. Read the book. There are no gray areas, no contradictions, no broken logic, no areas that require interpretation, no parts that would make you squirm and wonder, who the heck wrote this. It was God, and he commands your obedience and blind obligation to just let him you into your heart. He never said, let me into your head. Why you ask? Because there is no room in your head for God. Thoughts interfere with the connection, and the two cannot coesist. Thoughts cause mental static, which may make you question him or his will. Yes, it is better to keep him in your heart where he is safe from thought. So just stop thinking and make room in your heart for God.

Andrew Moffatt [Christchurch]	22 Dec 2009 10:56:51
Your need to explain your billboard, sounds very much like a child explaining their guilt. It speaks for itself, it is foolishness. Interestingly it is true, God is hard to follow, I think that is why so many who call themselves Christian don't bother.

Boba [Earth]	22 Dec 2009 11:14:26
Andrew, I think your spell checker is broken. Is that supposed to be "God is hard to swallow." Yep, that better.

Diogo [Brasil]

22 Dec 2009 11:53:48

According to the Bible, Book sacred to us Christians, it is clearly said that Jesus was conceived by the Holy Spirit. And the angel Gabriel had to tell Joseph about this, as James was concerned about that mysterious and miraculous pregnancy of Mary, since she was (and still and always will be Virgin). "Theologies and theologies", false theologies, philosophical reflections that exclude the spiritual truth of doctrinal TRUTH. Doctrine is the fruit of Truth, and the Dogmas are truths of Faith gaved by GOD to us. So the only Church that our Lord Jesus Christ founded on earth does not fall into contradiction because it is a terrible mistake "progressive" (neo-modern - condemned by Jesus and Mary! WARNING!) Philosophy the way men and remove the true value of things spiritual and supernatural. Let's see: "In the sixth month the angel Gabriel was sent by God to a town in Galilee called Nazareth, 27 to a virgin betrothed to a man named Joseph, of the House of David, and the virgin's name was Mary. 28 He went in and said to her, 'Rejoice, you who enjoy God's favor! The Lord is with you. " 29 She was deeply disturbed by these words and asked herself what this greeting could mean, 30 but the angel said to her, 'Mary, do not be afraid, you have won God's favor. 31 Look! You are to conceive in your womb and bear a son, and you must name him Jesus. 32 He will be great and will be called Son of the Most High. The Lord God will give him the throne of his ancestor David; 33 he will rule over the House of Jacob for ever and his reign will have no end. " 34 Mary said to the angel, 'But how can this come about, since I have no knowledge of man? " 35 The angel answered, 'The Holy Spirit will come upon you, and the power of the Most High will cover you with its shadow. And so the child will be holy and will be called Son of God 36 And I tell you this too: your cousin Elizabeth also, in her old age, has conceived a son, and she whom people called barren is now in her sixth month, 37 for nothing is impossible to God "

Diogo [Brasil]

22 Dec 2009 11:55:51

”for nothing is impossible to God-It 's the miraculous”! Yes, the miraculous, you do not want to believe, I'm sorry, but do not depends of your desire! It’s wrote, if willl not be a miraculous, it will be wrote: calm MARIA, GOD will show the father of HIM in earth”, something like that, but no, NEVER!, HE SAID: THE HOLY SPIRIT COME UPON YOU, AND THE POWER—THE POWER OH THE MOST HIGH WILL COVER YOU WITH IT’S SHADOW, BECAUSE FOR GOD NOTHING IT’S IMPOSSIBLE! See the truth my brothers! Mary was worried because she not know any man, and the angel says: "The Holy Spirit will come upon you, and the power of the Most High will cover you with its shadow. And so the child will be holy and will be called Son of God " The Word of GOD is veru very clear, do not see this who do not want to see, who do not loves the TRUHT!

Diogo [Brasil]

22 Dec 2009 11:58:17

Desire the Thruth my friends, because GOD reveals! Be simple, clear their minds of these false doctrines, these ideas say! The Bible clearly states the truth in a simple way. There is nothing that God sends sperm, none of this, there is only God's action by the person of the Holy Spirit! THE TRUTH IS HOLY! It was sacred to the early Christians, was not in context or distorted by the "progressive" false theologians today, who make theologies as if they were merely philosophical theories! MARIA condemns it regularly and in His messages! Abrams eyes, ears, minds, but above all, their hearts to the truth which is GOD!

Diogo [Brasil]

22 Dec 2009 12:02:03

Desire the Thruth my friends, because GOD reveals! Be simple, clear their minds of these false doctrines, these ideas say! The Bible clearly states the truth in a simple way. There is nothing that God sends sperm, none of this, there is only God's action by the person of the Holy Spirit! THE TRUTH IS HOLY! It was sacred to the early Christians, was not in context or distorted by the "progressive" false theologians today, who make theologies as if they were merely philosophical theories! MARIA condemns it regularly and in His messages! Abrams eyes, ears, minds, but above all, their hearts to the truth which is GOD!

Diogo [Brasil]

22 Dec 2009 12:03:38

Lord, have mercy on this persons, because sin without knowing it. And bring the lost, not to remain in error for much longer. Our Lady, Mother and Queen, forgive me! You are and will always be our beloved Mother and Queen, where the Immaculate Conception, made me feel like in spirit. Thank you Lord for this grace! I ask the same grace to those who do not know our Mommy! Amen, God be praised! MARIA is repaired! Holy Family pray for us! God save you Virgin, children of God! God save you Virgin, Mother of GOD-SON! God save you Virgin, wife of the Holy Spirit! GOD SAVE VIRGIN VOS, SACRRO TEMPLE AND THE HOLY TRINITY!

Andrew Moffatt [Christchurch]	22 Dec 2009 12:11:26
Thanks Boba for you concern. No the spell checker is fine unlike your comment it too was foolishness.

M Martin [Canada]

22 Dec 2009 12:47:36

Dear Sir/Madam: Re: The billboard Ever hear of humility? It's a rhetorical question. The billboard is a testament to one of the new virtues in your gathering culture (I will not confer the word church onto it as it is a misnomer) - self-absorption. You'll be happy with the attention no doubt. A self-serving agenda-laden "gathering culture" is the obvious source of the irreverance. And to think of the Alice in Wonderland scenario that makes you think you are being prophetic - incredible. Irreverence - yet another of the cardinal virtues in your "gathering culture" no doubt. It's all rather passe at this point. As an adjunct I would like to point out that the two-dimensional analysis of progressive vs. "fundamentalism" is not worthy of comment. Perhaps passable for a high school student, but nothing more. Progressive - yes Christian - Keep up the delusion . . . Happy "holiday." Keep those numbers up! And enjoy the attention.

Dave [Auckland]	22 Dec 2009 13:14:01
"The great Bible teacher Martin Lloyd-Jones once wrote that people who teach that God is love without teaching that He hates sin are presenting another god - essentially Satan with a mask on" (in Greg Laurie, 2004).

Yeshua-follower [SA]	22 Dec 2009 20:30:10
Not to go off topic, but any 'church' that makes itself guilty of the things this place believes and promotes (blessing of same-sex couples) are not worthy to be in His service. I think Glynn and company are in for a rude awakening...

Callie [Canada]

22 Dec 2009 21:16:00

Geno wrote: "Dan, you are in essence asking St Matthew's to remove this billboard on thebasis that it makes you uncomfortable. I suspect some of our Christian "traditions" make people of other faiths uncomfortable but there isn't exactly a lobby for us to take Christmas or Easter off of the calendar is there?" I wonder how you would react if a local "fundamentalist" church put up a billboard that disresepected the prophet Mohammed. For many Christians, mocking the lifegiver of God falls dangerously close. I don't mean to put words in Dan's mouth, but I believe he was trying to point out that you and your church should practice your preaching and love these people and respect their beliefs enough to admit that the content of your billboard can be more than simply "uncomfortable", but in fact offensive. Since you and Glyn have set your own beliefs outside of orthodox Christianity, can't you see how your actions look like hatred and blasphemy to those of us who practice the ancient faith? You certainly have every right to maintain your billboard, but given that it is devolving into attacks from all sides of the issue, you may re-think its effectiveness.

Callie [Canada]	22 Dec 2009 21:20:06
... and by "may" I mean "might".

Aquarius [Auckland]

22 Dec 2009 22:11:01

@ Andrew Moffatt: "Your need to explain your billboard, sounds very much like a child explaining their guilt. It speaks for itself, it is foolishness." Maybe the need to explain the billboard speaks more of righteous indignants who refuse to accept any interpretation of their faith that differs from their own. @ Yeshua-follower: "Not to go off topic, but any 'church' that makes itself guilty of the things this place believes and promotes (blessing of same-sex couples) are not worthy to be in His service." You're so right! I mean, why would god want to accept a person who so audaciously preaches tolerance, love and acceptance of everybody, irrespective of their personal circumstances? Surely St Matthews could find SOME sector of society that they can hate. One they can rain down the fire and brimstone on every Sunday. Only then can they call themselves a real church. @ M Martin: "Ever hear of humility? It's a rhetorical question. The billboard is a testament to one of the new virtues in your gathering culture (I will not confer the word church onto it as it is a misnomer) - self-absorption." M Martin, ever hear of pompous prat? Of course, it's a rhetorical question. Your strict - and quite obviously correct - view of religion involves no self-absorbtion at all right? Who the heck are you to charge St Matthews with 'Irreverence". Irreverence - Lack of reverence or due respect, A disrespectful act or remark. If you want to see real irreverence M Martin, then please re-read your post. It's a shining example.

Gina [France]	23 Dec 2009 03:00:18
Aquarius, as a progressive Christian, please for the benefit of all, give us the definition of what a Christian is and what a real church shoud be. Thanks.

Mikeyjay [Townsville, Queensland]	23 Dec 2009 05:55:31
I don't like this...Ithink it is distastefull and unnessisary...do you really believe this will get people thinking about the REAL meaning of Christmas??? Don't be so immature! There is nothing in this that would remotely turn my thoughts to the birth of our Lord and Saviour and I'm a Christian...If I were you I would take it down and burn it!

rev. jz [Quezon City, Philippines]	23 Dec 2009 06:34:04
Blasphemy! Blessed be the Name of Mary Virgin and Mother! Blessed be St. Joseph, her most Chaste Spouse!

Dave [Auckland]

23 Dec 2009 08:30:57

Read today's (23/12/09) New Zealand Herald's Dialogue Page (page A13) for a rejoinder to the bill board saga: Christians celebrating the birth of God as a human being - The true meaning of Christmas is revealed by the gospels, not by a provocative and ill-considered billboard. this piece is written by the Rev Derek Tovey, a lecturer on the New Testament at St John's College in Meadowbank, Auckland.

Rob [Australia]

23 Dec 2009 09:16:34

Uh... forget about blasphemy for a moment. I'm all for getting the word out there and sparking conversation, I'm also all for being creative (talk about creative, look what our God did with the universe!!!), but we're forgetting that Mary and Joseph are real people. I'm not so sure they'd be too happy about being portrayed this way. Being progressive or traditional is beside the point, I'd think we'd all agree that offending someone is not a good thing, regardless of how good your intentions are. It's easy to make fun of the neighbour when they are good and dead... but would you do it when they are around? That's the real hypocrisy of the billboard ad, I'm sure that if Mary and Joseph were around today, you wouldn't dare put up such an ad! And by the way, I am a progressive Christian, by all means, as testified by my many blog postings and short writings... the billboard is still blasphemous, if for anything, trying to explain in human terms a spiritual act that we really have no idea about. I assume it was not your intention at all to be blasphemous, I just don't think you all have really thought it thru, and now are acting rather defensively. Lets be frank, trivializing the Incarnation to get a discussion, may just be going a little too far.

Andrew Moffatt [Christchuch]	23 Dec 2009 09:48:02
To you Aquarius [Auckland], my self, I'm more than happy to accept others interpretations of faith. With out personally attacking any one and do so on a daily basis. To comment that I find a billboard foolishness is a lot less harsh than to call a person a righteous indignant.

Andrew [Brisbane]

23 Dec 2009 10:05:17

Dave of Auckland: Thanks for that point about the article. For those outside of NZ - the link is: http://www.nzherald.co.nz/opinion/news/article.cfm?c_id=466&objectid=10617057 The pity is that a thoughtful and considered piece based on serious scholarship will never achieve the same readership among the unsaved as this thoughtless, offensive billboard. If only St Matthews had taken measures to increase belief and the credibility of the bible rather than being the source of mockery of the biblical stories. Then again, that wouldn't be self promoting, and might show a bit of humility...

Diogo [Brasil]

23 Dec 2009 10:25:28

Irm?, entendo que a inten? do outdoor de voc?n?era ser provocativo. Por? o mesmo manifesta a n?interpreta? evang?ca correta das Sagradas Escrituras. JESUS CRISTO, nosso Salvador e Amor, n??ruto da rela? carnal humana, mas sim da A? do ESP?ITO SANTO, conforme expus anteriormente pelas Sagradas Escrituras. S?Jose ?ast?imo, e Maria tamb? Mas o progressismo tende a deturpar todo o significado real do Evangelho, e que defende a Verdade ?axado de "fundamentalista". N?somos fundamentalistas, somos defensores da Verdade, o progressismo sim que tende a ser filosofia humana disfar?a de teologia. O que defendemos ? Tradi? dos primeiros crist?, conhecimentos sempre existentes na Igreja de JESUS. Rezo, rezei e rezarei por voc? para que seus cora?s estejam sempre abertos para DEUS, nosso SENHOR, para que, por Suas Gra? e M?tos, voc?possam alcan? a Verdade que dEle procede infalivelmente, e que nenhuma v?ilosofia humana pode alterar. DEUS seja louvado e vos guie para Si. Fiquem na PAZ de CRISTO! Amem.

Diogo [Brasil]

23 Dec 2009 10:26:23

Brothers, I understand that the intent of the billboard of you was not to be provocative. However, it expresses not evangelical correct interpretation of Scripture. Jesus Christ, our Savior and Love, not the result of a carnal man, but of the Holy Spirit, as stated earlier by the Holy Scriptures. San Jose is chaste, and Mary too! But progressivism tends to distort any real significance of the Gospel and defending the truth is branded a "fundamentalist." We are not fundamentalists, we are defenders of Truth, but progressivism that tends to be human philosophy disguised as theology. What we advocate is the tradition of the early Christians, where existing knowledge in the Church of Jesus. I pray, I prayed and will pray for you, that their hearts are always open to God, our Lord, so that by His grace and merit, you can reach the Truth from Him infallibly, and no vain human philosophy can change. God be praised and guide you to Himself Stay in Peace of Christ! Amen.

Veroncia  [Odessa, Texas, USA]	23 Dec 2009 11:55:21
I pray that the Holy Spirit blesses you with the knowledge of God the father and to truly have a loving relationship with Jesus Christ his son. I wept at the sight of your billboard but I trust that this attack against my Beloved will also pass and that He will make you a better person. I will pray for you my brother.

Mount Athos [Germany]

23 Dec 2009 14:02:45

Progressive: Virginity of Holy Godmother and Resurrection, questionable? No correspondence to the Holy Scriptures? Same-Sex marriages? Blasphemous billboards? Sex over spirituality? New-Age one religion movement? Love for sin? Pride? You are truly a poor and desperate soul, with no connection to the Holy Spirit whatsoever. I think you are trying to remodel Christianity to suit your own lifestyle and beliefs. Obviously you have strong homosexual tendencies and support a life which wants to please today’s egocentric society, which supports every movement, which agrees with their self-destructing way of living. The billboard is getting support of people who do not want to change their life. You yourself want to be a priest and at the same time sin openly and lead others into sin. Christ had many friends who were sinners, but these people turned away from sin after accepting His teachings. What are you doing instead? Teaching your own pseudo religion using the Lord’s name to cover your sick philosophy. Declaring blasphemy, homosexuality, etc as progressive, morally ok and therefore you are doing not God's work, but the work of the opposite force. You are definitely not a Christian Church and not a Christian priest. And people who support you as shown in their responses are very illiterate in terms of the Holy Bible and Church History in general. It is no wonder that the Anglican Church is falling apart. Only the blind can’t see this happening. You are not healing people. You are confirming their and your own path into eternal condemnation. Homosexuality and priesthood is on the same level with what you have tried with your billboard. Desecration of the Christian values. Instead of helping people to understand their destructive lifestyle and that even nature is revolting against same sex relations in form of various lethal diseases, you are confirming them and leading them to death. Your eyes are closed. Open them. See were you are heading!

Todd Joseph McQuillan [Florida USA]	23 Dec 2009 18:45:34
You know, there is a fringe group called the Arian Catholic Church, after the heretic that was struck by Saint Nicholas. Perhaps you should seek communion with them. You certainly don't believe in the Scriptures of the creeds. I am wondering why the Archbishop of Canterbury is keeping silent on this.

Aquarius [Auckland]

24 Dec 2009 00:09:11

@Gina: "Aquarius, as a progressive Christian, please for the benefit of all, give us the definition of what a Christian is and what a real church shoud be. Thanks." As a progressive Christian?? Sorry Gina, I'm no such thing. I'm an athiest all the way, and don't believe for one moment there is any god/saviour. Maybe that's why I can see how silly the arguments of the fundamentalist Christians are. Putting to one side the issue of the billboard being offensive or not, the responses of fundamental Christians on here is pretty low. You're all so adament that your interpretation of the bible is the right one that you treat it as the truth and damn anybody who has an alternative view. I would imagine a Christian would be defined as somebody who believes in Jesus Christ and follows and teaches the values that he taught. A church would be the place where fellow Christians gather to spread their message. I can't see that to be a Christian demands that you must interpret the bible literally exactly as it's written, as who can prove that what is written is pure fact and not embellished a bit or at all. In yesterday's newspaper, and in posts above, there have been Reverands writing to say they encourage the idea of the billboard from St Matthews. I'm guessing you'll state with complete conviction that they aren't REAL Christians then. I'm also sure they'd think you're interpreting the bible wrong. How can either of you state as fact that the other is wrong? Yet you do. @ Andrew Moffatt: "To you Aquarius [Auckland], my self, I'm more than happy to accept others interpretations of faith. With out personally attacking any one and do so on a daily basis. To comment that I find a billboard foolishness is a lot less harsh than to call a person a righteous indignant." Accepted Andrew, and I apologise. I'm confusing the issue of finding the billboard offensive with people that then use this to slag off at St Matthews as being 'un-Christian' and somehow being in collusion with Satan!!?? I accept that some people find it offensive. I don't, and some Christians don't either. Maybe the need to explain the billboard does indicate that they could have done it better. However I don't think you can use this to say the whole idea of the bilboard is necessarily wrong. But when people then turn around and make denigrating remarks about St Matthews because their view doesn't match the person's own, then they need to be called out about it. It's not fact, it's personal interpretation, and I can't see that one view is any more valid than the other. The fact that I share neither view maybe makes this easier for me to see. I'm not personally attacking anyone for being a Christian. But I will respond against mean-spirited posts by people who seek to demean St Matthews based on the assertion that their view is the right one, and St Matthews one is wrong.

Mount Athos [Holy Orthodox Church]

24 Dec 2009 00:54:42

Beside the clear denial of the Holy Scriptures in regards to the Holy Godmother, progressive christians as described on this website also deny God's view on the homosexual illness. Homosexuality is an illicit lust forbidden by God. He said to His people Israel, "Thou shalt not lie with mankind, as with womankind: it is abomination" (Leviticus 18:22). "If a man also lie with mankind, as he lieth with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination: they shall surely be put to death; their blood shall be upon them" (Leviticus 20:13). In these passages homosexuality is condemned as a prime example of sin, a sexual perversion. The Christian can neither alter God's viewpoint nor depart from it, otherwise he/she would directly disobey God. Whoever teaches the opposite, violates Christian principles, as well as principles taught by every other monotheistic religion. All of the sins mentioned are condemned by God, but there is hope in Christ for every sinner, if he/she turns away from sin and repents through confession, prayer, fasting and the Holy Communion. Because Christ came to free mankind from sin and he gave us forgiveness instead of death, the laws from the Old Testament, were completed by the teachings of the New Testament. But surely their is no forgiveness for someone, who does not change his/her life and doesn't follow Christ's example. What does St. Matthews in the City teach? Are they "tolerant" to SIN or the SINNER? Are they “intolerant” to SIN or the SINNER. Does a progressive christian ultimately follow the teachings of our Lord Jesus Christ and the commandments of our Father in Heaven, or the commandments of the UN-Charta and Karl Marx? It is not possible to have two masters. If we follow Christ the godless world will hate us. Progressive christians would like to be loved by the world, so they insult the Holy Godmother and question God's commandments every time they preach their manmade philosophy and now through this blasphemous billboard. You have chosen your way. Don't call yourself Christians. You are the New-Age Church, which is the forerunner of the one-world-church described in the Revelation.

Mount Athos [Holy Orthodox Church]

24 Dec 2009 01:04:48

Don't believe these pseudo priests. Whoever suffers from this illness, find help through God and educate yourself. There is always a way to heal your soul and body. Don't ask someone to bless your illness, but ask to be blessed to defeat illness. Jesus Christ did not bless the blindness, but freed the people from blindness. ("Childhood Family Correlates of Heterosexual and Homosexual Marriages: A National Cohort Study of Two Million Danes," by Morten Frisch and Anders Hviid, Archives of Sexual Behavior Oct 13, 2006; [E-publication ahead of print]) The following are findings from this new data: 1. Men who marry homosexually are more likely to have been raised in a family with unstable parental relationships -- particularly, absent or unknown fathers and divorced parents. 2. Findings on women who marry homosexually were less pronounced, but were still associated with a childhood marked by a broken family. The rates of same-sex marriage "were elevated among women who experienced maternal death during adolescence, women with short duration of parental marriage, and women with long duration of mother-absent cohabitation with father." 3. Men and women with "unknown fathers" were significantly less likely to marry a person of the opposite sex than were their peers with known fathers. 4. Men who experienced parental death during childhood or adolescence "had significantly lower heterosexual marriage rates than peers whose parents were both alive on their 18th birthday. The younger the age of the father's death, the lower was the likelihood of heterosexual marriage." 5. "The shorter the duration of parental marriage, the higher was the likelihood of homosexual marriage...homosexual marriage rates were 36% and 26% higher among men and women, respectively, who experienced parental divorce after less than six years of marriage, than among peers whose parents remained married for all 18 years of childhood and adolescence." 6. "Men whose parents divorced before their 6th birthday were 39% more likely to marry homosexually than peers from intact parental marriages." 7. "Men whose cohabitation with both parents ended before age 18 years had significantly (55% -76%) higher rates of homosexual marriage than men who cohabited with both parents until 18 years." 8. The mother's age was directly linked to the likelihood of homosexual marriage among men -- the older the mother, the more likely her son was to marry another man. Also, "only children" were more likely to be homosexual. 9. Persons born in large cities were significantly more likely to marry a same-sex partner -- suggesting that cultural factors might also affect the development of sexual orientation. http://www.narth.com/docs/influencing.html You can heal yourself, with the help of God, prayer and through the help of good doctors. Believe and you will set yourself free from sin. God loves the sinners, but hates the sin. God bless you all, who search for the Truth.

El Cipher [hell]	24 Dec 2009 06:46:54
grow up. It's all bollox.

Kendra [Houston]

24 Dec 2009 08:35:07

Here's a few words from a song we sang at church a few Sundays ago: He came from Calvary to save me from my sin! Conquered death, hell and grave and then he rose again! With all power in His hand, He is the Great I Am! No, He's not a little baby anymore! Jesus is so awesome and I so look forward to meeting Him face to face someday! I do believe He was born in a manger, to a virgin, by the miraculous workings of the Holy Spirit! But that's only part of the story! He grew up, became a man, showed us how to live, gave His life (as a pure and spotless lamb, without blemish or stain), conquered death, hell and the grave and rose again on the third day that we might have forgiveness of sin and the opportunity to spend eternity with Him! Even if you were the only person on earth God wanted to save, Jesus still would have come to earth and died just for you! He loves you more than you'll ever know! I pray that if any one of us have offended our Lord and Saviour by any of our comments, that He would be quick to forgive us. For those of you that don't have a personal relationship with Jesus, that He would open your eyes and ears that you would be able to hear His voice and see Him in all of His glory! I pray that He would help us all yield to the Holy Spirit that we may know the truth, for the truth will set us free indeed! I wish all of you a Merry and Blessed Christmas and last but not least... HAPPY BIRTHDAY JESUS!

Mike [Melbourne]

24 Dec 2009 12:36:04

@Aquarius [Auckland]: "I can't see that to be a Christian demands that you must interpret the bible literally exactly as it's written..." You're right, and of course, there are many churches and Christians with different views over many parts of the scripture. My church, for example, allows women to be in leadership, whereas many would not. Our reading of the scripture leads us to believe this is ok and whilst Christians have varying views in this area, it is, in general, not something that fundamentally divides us. On the other hand, there are some basic Christian beliefs that are so intrinsic, so much a part of being a Christian, that you really can't call yourself a Christian if you reject them. You can call yourself "religious" or "spiritual", but not a Christian. It would be a bit like me turning up to the MCG with a surfboard, expecting to play test cricket. I'm still a sportsman, but I can't play cricket with a fundamentally different set of rules and equipment. Or maybe it would be like me saying I'm an atheist, but I believe in Christ as my personal saviour. I'd definitely have a belief, but would you accept that I'm an atheist? Surely, it's completely at odds with the basic tenets of atheism. In my view (and the view of many others on this board), St Matt's disqualifies themselves from saying they are Christians by rejecting the most basic Christian tenets. One of these is the virgin birth. St Matt's says that Jesus was born of human parents (Joseph and Mary). This means Jesus is not God (nor even the Son of God in a literal sense), which then brings down most of the theology built around His life and death. Can you really call yourself a Christian if you just believe that Jesus was a nice guy, with God in his life (Muslims believe this also, as do many in the New Age movement)? Most of us would say no. The kicker for me though, is Revd Glynn saying that he doesn't believe in God as a superior being. That is the most basic of Judeo-Christian beliefs. If you reject it, you may be "spiritual" but you certainly aren't Christian. To pretend that you are and to allow those you teach to believe this is, in my view, deceptive. Sure, we don't need to literally believe and agree on every word in the Bible, but we do need to at least be in the same game.

Mica [France]

24 Dec 2009 21:24:50

Great billboard! I think Jesus could use a good laugh among all these human complaints... just enjoy the ride...humour is of humans, that's what differs us from animals...we have been blessed with humour, so lets use it! We need humour to get by in our daily, insignificant, painful human existance.... Healing is ofently better served with humour than with narrow-mindness...so DO Laugh my friends! If you always do what you've always done, you'll only get what you've always got

Aquarius [Auckland]

24 Dec 2009 23:06:00

@Mike Thankyou for your well thought out reply. You have certainly made some good points, and have made me think a lot about the justification of St Matthew's position. Firstly a qualifier. As an athiest I have no deep knowledge or understanding of basic Christian principles. What I use in making my case is information I have found on this site, both in the main website text and on this forum, and on other sites. I will be happy for you to correct me if I state something that is incorrect. You state: "In my view (and the view of many others on this board), St Matt's disqualifies themselves from saying they are Christians by rejecting the most basic Christian tenets. One of these is the virgin birth." Geno, from St Matthews church, has addressed this particular point in his post further up the page. I quote :"The doctrine of the Immaculate Conception has nothing to do with Jesus. It is a Roman Catholic doctrine that states that Mary was also conceived and born without bearing the mark of original sin, which by the way the Bible says nothing about." Now, I wouldn't know myself the accuracy of this assertion, but it seems that they believe this particular Christian tenet was added by and is specific to Roman Catholicism. Wikipedia appears to back this up. St Matthews don't claim to be Roman Catholic. Also, you state that rejecting this tenet means that Jesus was born of human parents and so is not God or even the son of God. Can I ask you, if Jesus was indeed concieved originally the normal way, does that in any way exclude intervention by God at any time between conception and birth to then produce into the world "his son"? That's an honest question on my part. As for your other assertion: "The kicker for me though, is Revd Glynn saying that he doesn't believe in God as a superior being." Unfortunately I cannot find where this assertion is made by Revd Glynn. That's not to say I don't believe you, just that I don't really want to have to read through all of his archived sermons to find it. Without knowing the context in which he was stating it, it's hard to agree or disagree with you. I find it hard to reconcile that Revd Glynn could however believe in the existance of a god who presumably created this world and the universe it's in, whilst denying that god is in any way 'superior'. Maybe we're reading the wrong thing into the word superior. Maybe he's meaning superior in terms of morality/attitude rather than devine powers?? Maybe he's saying god's love/morality/teachings are not unattainable by humans (therefore not superior) if we strive hard enough to follow them? That's purely speculation on my part, and if that is indeed what he meant then maybe he could have phrased it better. So, is St Matthews a Christian Church? In my opinion it is. They obviously don't preach from the holy Koran, or other faith's books, and their sermons are based on quotes from the Christian bible. Jesus's quotes and actions are used to illustrate points within these sermons. So on a basic level "Christian" appears to be an apt description of their beliefs. At the same time, they definately appear more 'liberal' in their approach to the religion, so they don't fit your basic qualifiers to be labelled Christian. According to Wikipedia a Christian is "A person who adheres to Christianity, an Abrahamic, monotheistic religion based on the life and teachings of Jesus of Nazareth, who Christians believe is the Messiah prophesied in the Old Testament/Hebrew Bible, and the Son of God." I see nothing in that definition to disqualify St Matthews from being Christian, and so I would have to disagree with you and state that in my opinion they are indeed entitled to be recognised as a Christian Church. Finally, may I wish everybody on this forum a Merry Christmas.

Mike [Melbourne]

25 Dec 2009 01:31:41

@Aquarius: Thanks for your response and for the thought you have put into it. I guess I'm not trying to convince you that St Matthews is not a Christian church, more address your initial thought that this thinking was purely on differing understandings of passages in the Bible, when it fact it gets to far more fundamental principles and beliefs. Just to clear up a couple of issues: Geno is correct in his discussion of "Immaculate Conception"; this is a position unique to the Roman Catholic Church (as far as I know) and is not mentioned in the Bible. This relates to the conception of Mary; however, not to Jesus. It is not related to the belief in the "virgin birth" of Jesus which is definitely biblical. It's a common misconception (pun intended) that the "immaculate conception" relates to Jesus' birth, but that is not the case. With respect to Revd Glynn not believing in God as a superior being, the actual quote is "As I think you know by now I don’t believe in a god who is a super being, who makes things and breaks things, and who determines how and what things happen." You can find the full discussion here: http://www.stmatthews.org.nz/nav.php?sid=372&id=102 One of the issues I have with the St Matthews website is that it tells me a lot about what they don't believe and not much about what they do. What I can find though leads to a view that they are much closer to pantheism (believing in God as an abstract principle, or as the whole universe) rather than the monotheism that would fit your definition. You are welcome to form your own opinion. I will stick with mine, that whilst they are teaching a form of spirituality, it is definitely not Christian. I mainly wanted to make the point that there is plenty here to suggest to other Christians that these people are teaching something fundamentally different, something that is not really Christian. I don't believe that makes us narrow-minded or intolerant, just realists. A Merry Christmas to you also. Mike

Narnian [USA (Virginia)]

25 Dec 2009 09:49:34

The basic tenants of Christianity are summarized in the Nicene Creed - unfortunarely this church has clearly backtracked on much of it so if they are "Christian" they are definitely not orthodox in any sense of the word. They are definitely of another spirit. Nicene Creed I believe in one God, the Father Almighty, Maker of heaven and earth, and of all things visible and invisible. And in one Lord Jesus Christ, the only-begotten Son of God, begotten of the Father before all worlds; God of God, Light of Light, very God of very God; begotten, not made, being of one substance with the Father, by whom all things were made. Who, for us men and for our salvation, came down from heaven, and was incarnate by the Holy Spirit of the virgin Mary, and was made man; and was crucified also for us under Pontius Pilate; He suffered and was buried; and the third day He rose again, according to the Scriptures; and ascended into heaven, and sits on the right hand of the Father; and He shall come again, with glory, to judge the quick and the dead; whose kingdom shall have no end. And I believe in the Holy Ghost, the Lord and Giver of Life; who proceeds from the Father and the Son; who with the Father and the Son together is worshipped and glorified; who spoke by the prophets. And I believe in one holy catholic and apostolic Church. I acknowledge one baptism for the remission of sins; and I look for the resurrection of the dead, and the life of the world to come. Amen.

Orthodox Christian [New Zealand]

26 Dec 2009 03:32:50

In the late 6th century, the Latin-speaking churches of Western Europe added the words "and the Son" (Filioque) to the description of the procession of the Holy Spirit, in what Easterners have argued is a violation of Canon VII of the Third Ecumenical Council, since the words were not included in the text by either the Council of Nicaea or that of Constantinople.[12] Correct is therefore: + +++ + THE NICENE - CONSTANTINOPOLITAN CREED We believe in one God, the Father Almighty, Maker of heaven and earth, and of all things visible and invisible; And in one Lord, Jesus Christ, the Son of God, the Only-begotten, Begotten of the Father before all ages, Light of Light, True God of True God, Begotten, not made, of one essence with the Father, by Whom all things were made: Who for us men and for our salvation came down from heaven, and was incarnate of the Holy Spirit and the Virgin Mary, and was made man; And was crucified also for us under Pontius Pilate, and suffered and was buried; And the third day He rose again, according to the Scriptures; And ascended into heaven, and sitteth at the right hand of the Father; And He shall come again with glory to judge the living and the dead, Whose kingdom shall have no end. And we believe in the Holy Spirit, the Lord, and Giver of Life, Who proceedeth from the Father, Who with the Father and the Son together is worshipped and glorified, Who spoke by the Prophets; And we believe in One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church. We acknowledge one Baptism for the remission of sins. We look for the Resurrection of the dead, And the Life of the age to come. Amen. IC+XC +++++ NI+KA

Orthodox Christian [New Zealand]	26 Dec 2009 03:47:50
Here is an excellent site for everyone who would like to learn more about Orthodox Christianity. http://www.orthodoxinfo.com/ God bless everyone. Merry Christmas to everyone celebrating Christmas today!

Mike the Philosopher [U.S. (Florida)]

26 Dec 2009 03:48:12

Considering the variety of opinion expressed in these comments a scientific mind might question the gestalt of it all. With complex issues we often don't see the forest for the trees and anyone versed in complexity theory can see that imprint in this discussion. Additional posts along the same lines will not clarify issues because of the evolutionary characteristics of our brains. The built in biases are not recognizable to ourselves without a good grounding in the neurosciences and the evidence for these biases has only recently been documented with new medical scanning techniques. Having said this it is interesting to observe the way various methods of marketing ideas can generate controversy. One can see responses in this discussion ranging from faith based conservative authoritarian dogmatism to scientific open minded cognitive thoughtful evidential postings with most posts comprising a normal distribution between these two extremes. Only a half millennium ago Everyman accepted the biblical flat earth. Theories proposed by Copernicus and Galileo were heretical and could have resulted in death. Slowly everyman became aware of these theories and everyman became aware of the heliocentric theory. The early world wide web had a Flat Earth Society intended to organize the few remaining adherents. Religion is now being exposed to scientific scrutiny and advertising methods are bringing new ideas to everyman. It is an interesting time to be alive. Studying the neurosciences (neurology, evolution, brain imaging, embryology, psychology, consciousness, beliefs, etc.) creates a knowledge base that enables a broad understanding of the various opinions expressed in discussions such as this. Considering the amount of discussion in this thread the erection of this controversial billboard was a stroke of marketing genius. Thank you to all those who took the time to comment. I, and others, benefit from all thoughtful posts and I hope this post will similarly inspire. MikethePhilosopher

Aquarius [Auckland]

26 Dec 2009 21:31:55

Hi Mike Thankyou for correcting me about Immaculate Conception vs Virgin Birth. I indeed have the wrong end of the stick on that point. If I read the very first sentence at the top of this page I see "To make the news at Christmas it seems a priest just needs to question the literalness of a virgin giving birth." So your argument does indeed appear to be correct about them not believing Jesus is literally the "son of God". That would seem to put my Wikipedia definition of Christianity at odds with my stated belief that they are Christian, as it said "...Jesus of Nazareth, who Christians believe is....the Son of God." However, upon searching Wikipedia for "Son of God" I did come across the following passage under the heading "'Son of God' according to the Christian bible": "Another view is that, in the Synoptic Gospels, Jesus styled himself the Son of God in the same sense as a righteous person was sometimes referred to as a son or child of God (though not THE son of God), as in Wisdom 2:18. Since New Testament books present Jesus as without sin, those who hold the first view, that of Jesus as divine, can hold this view too, but not as an exclusive interpretation." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Son_of_God I may be interpreting this wrong, but it seems to suggest that to be a Christian doesn't necessitate belief in Jesus being literally the "son of God", but can encompass God spreading his message and doing his work through Jesus. As an aside, I read a letter to the editor in the New Zealand Herald a few days back from a Reverend who contended that back in Jesus's day offspring of prominant or influential people were refered to as being "born of a virgin" and thus the term virgin birth in the bible could indeed have a much less miraculous meaning. I have no evidence to back up this assertion though, so I won't argue for it. Unfortunately, my above argument is somewhat irrelevant to St Matthews based on what I've found out since then. I wanted to see just what role Jesus had in what St Matthews teaches, to give me an idea of whether they believe in an ordinary human who's religious, or a more powerful being. I have read more of their website, and I have now understood more of what they believe. I think the points you've made are valid. In Revd Cardy's sermon on Easter titled "Self-love, Self-belief, and a burning desire for Freedom" he does seem to rail an aweful lot against "the church". Furthermore, in the article you linked to (and as you have stated) he says "As I think you know by now I don’t believe in a god who is a super being, who makes things and breaks things, and who determines how and what things happen" and "What I believe is a little different from all those. Part of what I call god is a creative energy, a spiritual energy, which is within and around living creatures on our planet. That creative energy is a part of the ‘making’ of the world." Thus I am confused. They appear to be Christian yet dismiss most Christian tenets, and Jesus appears to be a metaphore to explain the ideals they preach rather than an actual person. I guess I came at this issue with a very liberal view of what a Christian was. I thought that if they talked about god, preached about Christ, etc, then they must be Christian. For me, looking at them, this is how it seems. However I can see that when we get down to the absolute specifics of what a Christian is and believes, then there are arguments that can be made for them not to be branded as Christian. I started posting on here, Mike, because I was appalled by some of the venom in the responses to a church that was preaching good, beneficial ideals and actions in our community. It seemed to me most people were arguing "because you're not doing it my way, you're wrong". Believe me when I say, as an atheist, I surprised myself going in to bat for a church. I do still contend the tone of a lot of the of the reactions were unwarranted, however I must say you have convinced me that I was wrong to take issue with the views of many that St Matthews is not a Christian church. As you have shown through your arguments, calling it Christian does appear to be a dubious position. I accept that, and I have learnt a fair bit through our discussions. I think my posts have come to their natural end now, so this shall be the last one. Thank you Mike, and all power to you.

Dave [Auckland]

28 Dec 2009 10:11:40

The following is from w.albertmohler.com WHERE DOES THE STORY OF CHRISTMAS BEGIN? As the celebration of Christmas fast approaches, our attention quickly goes to the familiar words of the infancy narratives found in the Gospels of Matthew and Luke. This is a healthy reflex. After all, the Gospel of Jesus Christ rests upon the historicity of the events that took place in Bethlehem as Christ was born. Our understanding of the identity of Jesus Christ is directly rooted in these narratives and our confidence is in the fact that Matthew and Luke give us historically credible and completely truthful accounts of the events surrounding the birth of Christ. A closer look at the narratives in both Matthew and Luke reveals a richness that familiarity may hide from us. Matthew begins with the genealogy of Christ, demonstrating the sequence of generations as Israel anticipated the birth of David's Son -- the Messiah. Luke, intending to set forth "an orderly account" of the events concerning Jesus, begins with the anticipation of the birth of John the Baptist and then moves to tell of the virgin conception of Jesus. A careful reading of Matthew and Luke reveals both the elegance of detail and the grand expanse of the story of Christ's birth. Matthew gives particular attention to the fulfillment of Old Testament prophecy. The virgin birth, the birth of Christ in Bethlehem of Judea, the Herodian massacre of the innocents, the flight to Egypt, and the role of John the Baptist as forerunner are all presented as the fulfillment of specific Old Testament prophecies. Every word of the Old Testament points to Christ. He is not only the fulfillment of all the Old Testament prophecies concerning him, he is the perfect fulfillment of the law and the prophets -- the entirety of the Old Testament Scriptures. The Christmas story does not begin in Bethlehem, for Israel had been promised the Messiah. As Luke reveals, Simeon beheld the baby Jesus in the temple and understood this infant to be "the Lord's Christ" -- the Davidic Messiah. Simeon understood this clearly -- the Christmas story did not begin in Bethlehem, or even in Jerusalem. So, where does the Christmas story begin? In the Gospel of John we read: "In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. He was in the beginning with God. All things were made through him, and without him was not anything made that was made." [John 1:1-3] The prologue to John's Gospel points to creation and to Christ, the divine Logos, as the agent of creation. Yet, with language drawn directly from Genesis, John begins his gospel "in the beginning." In other words, the Christmas story begins before the creation of the world. As we celebrate Christmas and contemplate the Christmas story, we must be very careful not to begin the story in Bethlehem, or even in Nazareth, where Mary was confronted by Gabriel with the message that she would be the mother of the Messiah. We must not even begin with Moses and the prophets, and with the expectation of the coming Son of Man, the promised Suffering Servant, and the heralded Davidic Messiah. We must begin before the world was created and before humanity was formed, much less fallen. Why is this so important? Put simply, if we get the Christmas story wrong, we get the Gospel wrong. Told carelessly, the Christmas story sounds like God's "Plan B." In other words, we can make the Christmas story sound like God turning to a new plan, rather than fulfilling all that he had promised. We must be very careful to tell the Christmas story in such a way that we make the gospel clear. Christmas is not God's second plan. Before he created the world, God determined to save sinners through the blood of his own Son. The grand narrative of the Bible points to this essential truth -- God determined to bring glory to himself through the salvation of a people redeemed and purchased by his own Son, the Christ. Bethlehem and Calvary were essential parts of God's plan from the beginning, before the cosmos was brought into being as the Son obeyed the will of the Father in creation. The Christmas story does not begin in Bethlehem, but we appropriately look to Bethlehem as the scene of the most decisive event in human history -- the incarnation of the Son of God. Even as we turn our attention to Bethlehem, we must remember that the story of our salvation does not begin there. That story begins in the eternal purpose of God. "In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. He was in the beginning with God." That is where the Christmas story begins, and John takes us right to the essence of what happened in Bethlehem: "And the Word became flesh and dwelt among us, and we have seen his glory, glory as of the only Son from the Father, full of grace and truth." [John 1:14] Let's be sure to get the Christmas story right, start to finish.

Andrew [Brisbane]

29 Dec 2009 10:10:20

Dave of Auckland Excellent piece from Mohler on the christmas story, and coming from someone who has actually studied theology and church history has far more weight than the random ramblings of an attention seeking priest. The only downside to offering such information to the "progressives" is that they appear to have progressed beyond what conventional scholarship says about the bible, and rely on whatever the prevailing sins of the society are to conform to the sinfulness rather than to call to repent and depend upon the shed blood of Jesus to save them from their sinful nature. Having written that, and as the core of what jesus himself called people to do was repent and follow him, I have to wonder if the jesus preached at st matthews is the jesus of the bible. Jesus caused considerable cultural offense by what he preached. He called people sinners when they were sinners, and called them to turn from their sins rather than celebrating them (same sex civil union ceremonies for instance). Jesus took the scriptures seriously, and literally. Jesus believed in a literal hell and preached more on it than anyone else in the new testament. I think we have been taking the wrong approach in trying to turn the thinking of this church around. we have supposed that they are worshipping the jesus of the bible, where it is plain that the jesus of st matthews is a jesus of their own creation. In the probably vain hope that someone at st matthews might take the bible record seriously, i've copied an article on the reliability of the new testament canon from the ESV study bible from the dangerous conservatives who take the bible for what it says in its words.... The Reliability of the New Testament Manuscripts Today, any group of Christians gathered together can all read exactly the same words in their Bibles. That luxury is made possible by the invention of the movable-type printing press over five centuries ago. But such a luxury can also breed a false sense of confidence that the precise original wording of the Bible can be known. When it comes to the NT, the original 27 books disappeared long ago, probably within decades of their composition. Handwritten copies, or manuscripts, must be relied on to determine the wording of the original text. Yet no two manuscripts are exactly alike, and even the closest two early manuscripts have at least half a dozen differences per chapter (most of them inconsequential variations, however, as will be seen). The discipline known as NT textual criticism is thus needed because of these two facts: disappearance of the originals, and disagreements among the manuscripts. But even though the original wording of the NT cannot be known, that fact is not necessarily cause for alarm. It is true that the NT manuscripts contain thousands of wording differences. It is also true that a few favorite passages are of dubious authenticity. But this is not the whole picture. Christians can, in fact, have a very high degree of confidence that what they have in their hands today is the Word of God. This article's specific task is to (1) compare the number and antiquity of NT manuscripts with those of other ancient literature, (2) note the number and nature of the wording differences in the NT (including a discussion of a few of the more notable places in which the wording is in doubt), and (3) identify what is, and what is not, at stake in this discussion. The Number and Antiquity of NT Manuscripts Compared with Other Ancient Literature In comparison with the remaining manuscripts of any other ancient Greek or Latin literature, the NT suffers from an embarrassment of riches. It is almost incomprehensible to think about the disparity. When it comes to quantity of copies, the NT has no peer. More than 5,700 Greek NT manuscripts are still in existence, ranging in date from the early second century to the sixteenth century. To be sure, the earliest ones (i.e., through the 3rd century) are all fragmentary, but they cover a substantial amount of the NT. And Greek manuscripts do not tell the whole story. The NT was translated early on into a variety of languages, including Latin, Coptic, Syriac, Armenian, Georgian, Gothic, and Arabic. All told, there are between 20,000 and 25,000 handwritten copies of the NT in various languages. Yet if all of these were destroyed, the NT text could be reproduced almost in its entirety by quotations of it in sermons, tracts, and commentaries written by ancient teachers of the church (known as church fathers or Patristic writers). To date, over a million quotations from the NT by the church fathers have been cataloged. How does this compare with the average classical author? The copies of the average ancient Greek or Latin author's writings number fewer than 20 manuscripts! Thus, the NT has well over 1,000 times as many manuscripts as the works of the average classical author. When it comes to the temporal distance of the earliest copies of the NT from the original, NT textual critics again enjoy an abundance of materials. From 10 to 15 NT manuscripts were written within the first 100 years of the completion of the NT. To be sure, they are all fragmentary, but some of them are fairly sizable fragments, covering large portions of the Gospels or Paul's letters, for example. Within two centuries, the numbers increase to at least four dozen manuscripts. Of manuscripts produced before a.d. 400, an astounding 99 still exist—including the oldest complete NT, Codex Sinaiticus. The gap, then, between the originals and the early manuscripts is relatively slim. By comparison, the average classical author has no copies for more than half a millennium. Comparing the NT text to some better-known ancient authors, it still has no equal. The chart below illustrates this by comparing the copies of five Greco-Roman historians' works with the NT. If one is skeptical about what the original NT text said, that skepticism needs to be multiplied many times over when it comes to the writings of all other ancient Greek and Latin authors. Although it is true that there are some doubts about the precise wording of the original in some places, NT textual criticism has an unparalleled abundance of materials to work with, in terms of both quantity and age of manuscripts. Nothing else comes close. Comparison of Extant Historical Documents Histories Oldest Manuscripts Number Surviving Livy 59 b.c.–a.d. 17 4th century 27 Tacitus a.d. 56–120 9th century 3 Suetonius a.d. 69–140 9th century 200+ Thucydides 460–400 b.c. 1st century a.d. 20 Herodotus 484–425 b.c. 1st century a.d. 75 New Testament c. 100–150 c. 5,700 (counting only Greek manuscripts) (plus more than 10,000 in Latin, more than a million quotations from the church fathers, etc.) The Number and Nature of the Wording Differences The Greek NT, as it is known today, has approximately 138,000 words. The best estimate is that there are as many as 400,000 textual variants among the manuscripts. That means that, on average, for every word in the Greek NT there are almost three variants. If this were the only piece of data available, it might discourage anyone from attempting to recover the wording of the original. But the large number of variants is due to the large number of manuscripts. Hundreds of thousands of differences among the Greek manuscripts, ancient translations, and patristic commentaries exist only because tens of thousands of such documents exist. Further, the vast majority of textual alterations are accidental and trivial, and hence easy for textual critics to spot. These textual differences can be broken down into four categories. The largest group involves spelling and nonsense errors. The single most common textual variant involves what is known as a movable “nu.” This is an “n” that is placed at the end of certain words when the next word begins with a vowel. The same principle is seen in English: a book, an apple. Nonsense errors occur when a scribe wrote a word that makes no sense in its context, usually because of fatigue, inattentiveness, or misunderstanding of the text in front of him. Some of these errors are quite comical, such as “we were horses among you” (Gk. hippoi, “horses,” instead of ēpioi, “gentle,” or nēpioi, “little children”) in 1 Thessalonians 2:7 in one late manuscript. The second-largest group of variant readings consists of minor changes, including synonyms and alterations, that do not affect translation. A common variation is the use of the definite article with proper names. Greek can say, “the Barnabas,” while English translations will drop the article. The manuscripts vary in having the article or not. Word-order differences account for many of the variants. But since Greek is a highly inflected language, word order does not affect meaning nearly as much as it does in English. These two phenomena can be illustrated in a sentence such as “Jesus loves John.” In Greek, that sentence can be expressed in at least 16 different ways without affecting the basic sense. Factoring in spelling variations and other nontranslatable differences, “Jesus loves John” could, in fact, be a translation of hundreds of different Greek constructions. In this light, the fact that there are only three variants for every word in the NT, when the potential is seemingly infinitely greater, seems almost trivial. The third-largest category of textual variants involves meaningful changes that are not “viable.” “Viable” means that a variant has some plausibility of reflecting the wording of the original text. For example, in 1 Thessalonians 2:9, instead of “the gospel of God” (the reading of almost all the manuscripts), a late medieval copy has “the gospel of Christ.” This is meaningful but not viable. There is little chance that one late manuscript could contain the original wording when the textual tradition is uniformly on the side of another reading. The smallest category of textual changes involves those that are both meaningful and viable. These comprise less than one percent of all textual variants. “Meaningful” means that the variant changes the meaning of the text to some degree. It may not be terribly significant, but if the variant affects one's understanding of the passage, then it is meaningful. Most of these meaningful and viable differences involve just a word or a phrase. For example, in Romans 5:1, some manuscripts read “we have peace” (Gk. echomen), while others have “let us have peace” (Gk. echōmen). The difference in Greek is but a single letter, but the meaning is changed. If “we have peace” is authentic, Paul is speaking about believers' status with God; if “let us have peace” is authentic, the apostle is urging Christians to enjoy the experience of this harmony with God in their lives. As important as this textual problem is, neither variant contradicts any of the teachings of Scripture elsewhere, and both readings state something that is theologically sound. There are two large textual variants in the entire NT, each involving 12 verses: Mark 16:9–20 and John 7:53–8:11. The earliest and best manuscripts lack these verses. In addition, these passages do not fit well with the authors' style. Although much emotional baggage is attached to these two texts for many Christians, no essential truths are lost if these verses are not authentic. Should the presence of textual variants, then, undermine the confidence of ordinary laypersons as they read the Bible in their own language? No—actually, the opposite is the case. The abundance of variants is the result of the very large number of remaining NT manuscripts, which itself gives a stronger, not weaker, foundation for knowing what the original manuscripts said. In addition, modern Bible translation teams have not kept the location of major variants a secret but have indicated the ones they think to be most important in the footnotes of all “essentially literal” modern English translations, so that laypersons who read these footnotes can see where these variants are and what they say. (Textual variants are noted in the esv with a footnote that begins, “Some manuscripts . . .”) The absence of any such footnote (which is the case with far more than 99 percent of the words in the English NT) indicates that these translation teams have a high degree of confidence that the words in their English translation accurately represent the words of the NT as they were originally written. What Is at Stake? The most significant textual variants certainly alter the meaning of various verses. And where the meaning of verses is changed, paragraphs and even larger units of thought are also affected to some degree. At times, a particular doctrine may not, after all, be affirmed in a given passage, depending on the textual variant. But this is not the same thing as saying that such a doctrine is denied. Just because a particular verse may not affirm a cherished doctrine does not mean that that doctrine cannot be found in the NT. In the final analysis, no cardinal doctrine, no essential truth, is affected by any viable variant in the surviving NT manuscripts. For example, the deity of Christ, his resurrection, his virginal conception, justification by faith, and the Trinity are not put in jeopardy because of any textual variation. Confidence can therefore be placed in the providence of God in preserving the Scriptures. In sum, although scholars may not be certain of the NT wording in a number of verses, for the vast majority of the words in the NT the modern English translations accurately represent what the original authors wrote, and therefore these translations can be trusted as reproducing the very words of God.

Freda [Auckland]

29 Dec 2009 14:45:12

The Deacon is a bit late calling for a debate on what Christians believe. The debate was settled by the Council of Nicaea in 325. What Christians profess to believe is as per the Nicene Creed set out by Orthodox Christian above. Nobody has to accept the Nicene Creed unless they wish to consider themselves Christian and then they are bound to accept it. These beliefs have been held by Christians for over 2000 years and will continue to be held by Christians long after the Deacon has gone to his judgement where his deeds will decide if he goes up or down. The money wasted on this billboard could have been spent on the needy and would have given a better testament to the Deacon's professed Christianity. He fails on all points.

Andrew [Brisbane]

30 Dec 2009 09:57:21

Freda: St Matthews appears to have "progressed" beyond the bible, all the way through to heresy and denial of pretty basic areas of christian doctrine. That there have been generations of dedicated scholars who have loved God and deeply sought to find out what He wants of them means nothing as apparently we can throw it all out on a whim to redefine sin so that people don't get challenged to repent. I'm not sure what christianity is without the call to repent, but that seems to be what the all-inclusive "progressives" are all about..... Can you smell sulfur in the air too?

Peter [England]

30 Dec 2009 10:54:05

I am reminded, having read most of these posts, of the American biographer of a famous English playwright who was finally allowed to question his subject in person about his work. The questions were long, often complicated, and went into great detail. Most of the answers were variations of the phrase "I wasn't aware of that interpretation". Seems to me it takes a lot of words to explain how things are as they are. The story of a man who arrives at Christmas holding out hope and joy only to those who believe in him and have, through being virtuous, done well in his eyes and receive abundant good things as a result is the story of Santa Claus. The story of Jesus is played out every time one person offers hospitality to another, offers an uplifting thought, tells people they're better than they think they are, shines a light into other's darkness. It is a wholly liberating experience to side with those who are less fortunate than ourselves. It's taken me about five years to deconstruct the grand palaces of what I was taught to believe as a Christian and I was surprised to find out that all I needed was a draughty room out the back somewhere. At least it was shelter; millions of our fellow human beings don't have that luxury - let alone the chance to feel completely safe with the words of a few unelected men, giddy on power, wealth, and influence, written nearly 1700 years ago who would have had you believe that the earth was flat, that women had no part in pregnancy other than carriers of the male seed, and that above the clouds is a physical place inhabited by saints and angels. I'm sorry, but that smacks of being transformed by the removal of the mind, not of its renewal.

Freda [Auckland]

30 Dec 2009 23:46:21

Andrew, definitely the smell of sulphur is in the air ... Peter, loving your neighbour is only one part of the Christian message - you don't have to be Christian to love your neigbour, athiests and pagans do too. As for angels a few biblical references for you - of course, many who like to call themselves "Christian" do not have the faith to believe ... "Or do you think that I cannot appeal to My Father, and He will at once put at My disposal more than twelve legions of angels? Matthew 26:53 Luke 22:43 Now an angel from heaven appeared to Him, strengthening Him. Hebrews 1 >> 1 God, who, at sundry times and in divers manners, spoke in times past to the fathers by the prophets, last of all, 2 In these days hath spoken to us by his Son, whom he hath appointed heir of all things, by whom also he made the world. 3 Who being the brightness of his glory, and the figure of his substance, and upholding all things by the word of his power, making purgation of sins, sitteth on the right hand of the majesty on high. 4 Being made so much better than the angels, as he hath inherited a more excellent name than they. 5 For to which of the angels hath he said at any time, Thou art my Son, to day have I begotten thee? And again, I will be to him a Father, and he shall be to me a Son? 6 And again, when he bringeth in the first begotten into the world, he saith: And let all the angels of God adore him. 7 And to the angels indeed he saith: He that maketh his angels spirits, and his ministers a flame of fire. 8 But to the Son: Thy throne, O God, is for ever and ever: a sceptre of justice is the sceptre of thy kingdom.

Curtis [USA]

02 Jan 2010 17:16:24

Trust me, I am no literalist when it comes to much of the biblical narrative but I find the caricature of the literalist quite problematic. Most of this post is ad hominem at best. They do not believe a "male God who lived above sent his sperm into the womb of the virgin Mary." I am not sure why it is necessary to overstate your point. Certainly there are huge problems with a ridged and literal historical reading of the birth narratives as well as other stories but offer strawperson arguments only causes more problems. I am also unsure of what is "progressive" about your post. What are you progressing towards? Certainly not unity without unanimity. Remember, fundamentalism is not simply a problem on the right. The leftist liberal also needs to be mindful of the trap of fundamentalist, narrow-minded thinking. When one believes that he or she has no need to be critical with his or her own thoughts...that he or she is above erroneous thinking...then you have a fundamentalist. Cheers.

Stego [RI, USA]

03 Jan 2010 11:56:03

Firstly, it isn't just "Fundamentalists" who believe the literal story of the birth and resurrection of Christ -- it's anyone who actually believes the Bible. Reformed, orthtodox, Christians are not Fundamentalists. Get your terms right before writing silliness or opening your mouth to spew it. Fundamentalists are creed and confession rejecting Christians (though each will end up with some form of creed or confession of faith as a "statement of faith" for membership in their churches). I am no Fundamentalist, but a Bible-believing, orthodox, Reformed Christian, who believes in the literal virgin birth of Christ, and of his literal, bloody death on the cross for the salvation of his people, the elect whom the Father gave to the Son before the foundation of the world, and of his literal, physical resurrection, and of his literal return to consummate his kingdom. Also this goofiness about God sending his "sperm" is nowhere taught by any Fundamentalist, nor orthodox Reformed Christian EVER. God no more had to use sperm to create the humanity of Christ in the womb of the virgin Mary than he had to use sperm when he created Adam from the dust of the earth (something which I'm sure you reject as being a literal truth as well). Your idea of "progressive" Christianity is laughable. This is just rehashed liberalism, which is REGRESSIVE, not progressive, and is anything BUT Christian. IF Christ is not raised LITERALLY from the dead, then the faith of the Christian is in vain, and we are to be pitied among all men, especially including our brothers and sisters in Christ, who are brutally persecuted for their faith in lands such as Sri Lanka, China, Pakistan, India, etc. So keep your fake religion, just don't call it Christianity, because it isn't. Anyone denying the virgin birth of Christ, and of his NECESSARY FOR SALVATION, bloody death on a cross, and of his physical resurrection, of his deity -- his part in the Triune Godhead, -- anyone denying these are not welcome at the table of the Lord. So worship whom you will, but don't lie and claim to be worshiping the God of the Bible. I'd say "the Lord haver mercy upon you" if I didn't think you knew what you were doing, but since I believe you DO know what you're doing, I'll reserve my comments for the Last Day, when you'll be given this order from Christ himself, "Depart from me into outer darkness, you worker of iniquity. I never knew you." And I, along with the angels will say "Yes Lord, it is right -- they deserve it!"

Erik [New York, USA]

07 Jan 2010 06:24:15

Just a couple thoughts: First off, I think the most orthodox commentators should reconsider calling Glynn an apostate. Let God judge his heart. I believe he may be missing out on much of the supernatural characteristics intrinsic to Christ and the biblical narrative, but that doesn't mean he's hell-bound and planning on taking others with him. Secondly, and I say this as more "liberal" myself, "fundamentalist" Christian belief should not be seen as a bad thing in and of itself. Not all fundamentalists are hoping to blow up abortion clinics, kill homosexuals or ram tracts down the throats of non-believers. Having grown up in a charismatic fundamentalist church, I can say that many of these Christians are incredibly loving people, fulfilling the mission of Christ as seen from both conservative and liberal angles. Although I think the interpretation of scripture is a matter of question, we will not get anywhere as a Church by implying our brothers and sisters are a bit off because they believe differently. Just my (big) two cents. :-)

Daniel [TX]	08 Jan 2010 08:26:08
Here is a great site for information on TRUE orthodoxy www.crosscrafter.com

Charles William Baldwin [Ontario, Canada]	10 Jan 2010 18:13:48
Yes - yes . . . I can hardly wait for Easter!

Orthodox Christian [Orthodox Church]	12 Jan 2010 23:37:10
http://www.orthodoxinfo.com/

Les [New Zealand]	14 Jan 2010 08:44:10
This billboard has always bothered me. It still does. I feel that it makes a mockery of the Word of God (Jesus). God did not sleep with Mary and to suggest He did is not in good taste. Jesus was born of the VIRGIN Mary. God is Holy and I feel that you have not seen Him, or portrayed Him in this respect.

Charles Kindall [Arizona, USA]

14 Jan 2010 12:09:41

Are you truly that ignorant that you believe any of these things? At first I wasn't certain of these things but after I was finished reading I realized that it seems you do believe everything you have said. Which is sad, because the majority of people with IQ's over say...80 simply find this offensive to the point of puking. You have not even the shred of knowledge of the bible, it hardly sounds like you are one to have even really read it. You try to say the difference in "Progressive" vs. "Fundamentalist" but your making up terms. What you mean to say is simply "Beliving what the Bible says" vs. "What I think happened." It's not that there are group of people who DECIDE these things. Most of the things you try to explain away are a FACT of HISTORY, or HIS STORY. Maybe you should check your medication balance and read the Bible for once. Or maybe you should sit down with someone who is smarter than you and have them explain it. Or rather just go home, don't believe in God or worry about any of this. It is too far above your head and you have no ears to hear it.

이그렇 [korea]

15 Jan 2010 16:49:55

dvd ripepr for mac for converting dvd to video on Mac, convert powerpoint to dvd is fast, web flv player makes web player for you, swf to avi helps you well，with video converter，getting flash video is very easy Get DVD from powerpoint via converting ppt to dvd excellent video converter and swf to flv with online swf converter offer swf to video solution streaming flv player create rtmp player for website

Margot  [Wellington NZ]	05 Feb 2010 16:31:28
I was saddened today to read that the Archdeacon of St Matthews has been stood down. I only need to read the vitriolic comments above to assure me I want nothing to do with religion and that it is people like the above who are the very reason there are horrific wars tearing apart countries in the name of a so called god. May you all learn some tolerance and love from a non believer.

What do you think?

Name
Email
	Make email address public?
I am from...
Comments
Please calculate: