Joseph and Mary in Bed Poster Causes Stir
Yeah, you read that right. It is a poster depicting Mary and Joseph in bed.
Yeah, you read that right. It is a poster depicting Mary and Joseph in bed.
On the billboard - painted to mimic the fresco style commonly used in church murals - Mary and Joseph are in bed side-by-side. Joseph is looking down. Mary, looking heavenward, appears sad. The caption reads: "Poor Joseph. God is a hard act to follow."
Now who do you think put something like this up for everyone to see? Atheists? Pagans? Satanists? No. It was put up by a church in New Zealand. A CHURCH.
Church vicar Archdeacon Glynn Cardy said the billboard was intended to challenge stereotypes about the way Jesus was conceived and get people talking about the Christmas story.
"This billboard is trying to lampoon and ridicule the very literal idea that God is a male and somehow this male God impregnated Mary," said Cardy, who described his church as having very liberal ideas about Christianity.
Liberal? I think this is more than your garden variety liberalism. It is far worse than that, I think. In my opinion, this church is more than likely full of false converts and has no business calling themselves Christians at all. They are definitely not being fed the Gospel of Jesus Christ or they wouldn't dare commit this blasphemy. This is pure unadulterated sacrilege.
No, instead they might as well just say they are a group of people who gather in what appears to be a church, but they do not in any way, shape or form follow Jesus Christ or believe that the Bible is the inspired Word of God. Oh wait, there is already a word for that ... HEATHEN.
"Us vs. them," eh?
Yeah, if the "us" is actual born again followers of Christ and the "them" is false converts pretending to be Christians.
No true follower of Christ would actually ridicule the conception and birth of Christ like that.
Okay. Fair enough. You can declare yourself the arbiter of who is and isn't a "true Christian" if you want. It's your blog. :)
I don't have to. The Bible already does. :)
Ah well, I'm not going to argue with you. I just think you're being a bit self-righteous and judgmental here is all. But I'm sure you'll have an explanation how that's not true either.
Ummm ... Jarred? Did you look at the sign and its stated purpose? To make fun of believers?
Anyway ... I don't think I know anyone who believes that a male God had sex with Mary in some way that would prompt this perverse image of "a hard act to follow." That's simply absurd, and that this is what the church wants to do with its time demonstrates their absurdity.
Not a social message, not an inclusive one, a lampoon of faith.
Unbelievable.
So that makes it okay to respond in anger and condemnation? It makes it okay to call them heathens, as if that makes them somehow less than? What happened to "love your enemies"?
The Bible actually calls Christians to judge with righteous judgment. We are to call a spade a spade and not pretend it is anything but.
And, honestly, I am not responding in anger ... though I do believe what they have done is outrageous and deserves condemnation. They are nothing more than heathens. They do not recognize the God of the Bible and have created for themselves a different god, one that they are ridiculing with their poster. If they honestly believed that god was God, they wouldn't be so quick to commit blasphemy and pervert the conception of Christ in such a manner.
They are nothing more than heathens.
They are nothing less than people, precious parts of God's creation.
But it still doesn't change the fact that they are heathens.
Just remember that when someday you become "the other" and looked at differently because of that.
Okay, Jarred ... would you rather I call them unregenerate or unsaved? Either way they are still heathens. They do not believe in the God of the Bible or that the Bible is the inerrant Word of God. That makes them heathens. But, I can call them a more politically correct word if it will make you happy. :)
It's not about being politically correct, Angel. It's about being gracious. It's about being compassionate. It's about loving your enemies and praying for them. It's about demonstrating the fruit of the spirit towards people, even people you have an issue with. It's about acting like the Christ who, when asked why he was eating with sinners, pointed out that it is those who are sick who need a physician rather than those who are healthy.
Ask yourself this: If any of the people who had a part in this billboard were to read what you've said about them here, what possible reason would they have to ever listen to you talk about God, grace, or salvation ever again?
Jarred, I am not sure where you are spiritually, but I don't consider those people my enemy even if they have made it clear that they are enemies of God by their very actions.
Now, if one of them approached me sincerely wanting to know how I felt about what they had done, I would still tell them that ridiculing the God they claim to worship (since they are claiming they are Christians) is blasphemy and that they need to repent. I would discuss with them various scripture including where it states that all scripture is God-breathed and meant to teach, rebuke, correct and train in righteousness (2 Timothy 3:16). Then I would discuss with them the first and second commandments, which they are violating with their billboard and their very stated purpose.
Now, that has not happened and I doubt it will. They didn't put that poster up for that purpose. They have stated plainly why they have done what they have done and it is to ridicule the Bible and the God they claim they worship. And, as such, my words stand. They are false converts who need to repent. I just pray that no one will be foolish enough to fall for the lies they are spouting and become false converts like them.
Oh and as an aside: Jesus did eat with sinners but Jesus never side-stepped a sin issue either. He was quite blunt when addressing sin and not only confronting the sinner with their sin, but telling them to sin no more.
He was quite blunt when addressing sin and not only confronting the sinner with their sin, but telling them to sin no more.
I'm not sure I buy the bluntness part. Yes, he told people to go and sin no more. But he never called them sinners or SINNERS. When he pointed out to the woman at the well that she had been married several times and was currently living with a man who was not her husband, he didn't call her a slut. When he spoke with the woman caught in adultery, he told her to go and sin no more, but only after telling those who wished to stone her that only the one without sin could cast the first stone. When the crippled man was lowered from the roof by his friends, Jesus' first words were "your sins are forgiven." Then he healed the man. "Go and sin no more" came only after both of those events.
Jarred, I know you said you didn't want to argue since it was my blog after all, but that is pretty much all you have done.
Now, I am sorry you do not like me addressing what this church did, but I am not. What they did was wrong and it is hurtful to the Body of Christ in that it promotes a lie that when believed can lead to false conversion ... which leads to hell. Now, I don't want anyone to go to hell and I addressed what they did as such so that others would hopefully not give any credence to their blasphemy.
I have addressed your concerns the only way I know how and nothing you have said changes my position. It actually just solidifies it since I know you are not a Christian and have no idea how this kind of things affects the Kingdom. And, the very same arguments you have used is the very kind of thing the enemy uses to try and get us to just let this kind of thing go.
As for your comments regarding Jesus, no he never called the adulteress a slut and neither did I call that church a slut either. I also did not call for anyone to kill the members of that church either. I did exhibit righteous indignation, which is permissible biblically. I did judge righteously, which is also permissible biblically. I did call sin, sin and that is also biblically permissible.
As for your comments regarding Jesus, no he never called the adulteress a slut and neither did I call that church a slut either.
No, but you did call them HEATHENS, and in a way that made it pretty clear that it's the worst thing they could be, in your opinion.
I just find it unfortunate that you can justify saying the things you have and showing the kind of contempt that I consider blaring in your original post. Whatever happened to looking at your own heart and actions? In this entire discussion, have you even once taken an honest look at 1 Corinthians 13 or Galatians 5 to consider (1) how well your actions lined up with what Paul wrote about love and the fruit of the spirit or (2)what you could have done differently to make them line up even more? Because all I've seen seems to amount to "I've done no wrong and I couldn't possibly have done anything any better." Have you looked back through the gospels as a whole to really look again at the Christ you claim to be emulating? Or are you relying on stock justifications of man's church traditions?
I'll try my best to let this go after this comment (I fully admit that letting things go is not one of my strengths), but I just find it unfortunate that you're ready to judge these people, yet don't seem to be willing to honestly look at whether your own actions and words might need improvement.
And as an aside, I may be a non-Christian, but I'm not sure I'd discount my opinion so carefully. After all, the one thing I can tell you better than any Christian is how you're coming across to those you claim to want to save. I should think that's rather valuable feedback.
Erm, that should read, "...discount my opinion so carelessly."
No, but you did call them HEATHENS, and in a way that made it pretty clear that it's the worst thing they could be, in your opinion.
Well now I know why you have stayed on this for so long. Jarred, to me calling them a heathen is no different than me calling them unregenerate, unsaved, Buddhist, Hindu, or even Muslim. The point is they are false converts and they don't worship the God of the Bible nor believe the Bible is the inspired Word of God. But, you are hung up on the word I used because of what you have attached to it. I have never stated that being a heathen is the worst thing they can be, though in all honesty from an eternal perspective, it isn't a good thing to be.
And, I have shown them about the same level of interest (rather than contempt) that I would someone that ridiculed my mother and disrespected her. Am I not to do the same when someone so callously directs lies and blasphemy at my God? But, once again, I think you are assuming way more than I have actually stated.
It is also obvious that you have equated Christian love with never rebuking, correcting or addressing sin when the Bible says that is the same as hating our brother. I love my God first and foremost and I definitely do not hate my fellow man. To love God is to love man. But, loving someone does not mean you never say anything about anything they have done. I don't sugar coat it. To do so would not be loving either.
And, I never said I discounted your opinion. I am saying I do not agree with you and since you are not a Christian and do not have the same understanding of scripture or the faith as a Christian would, you don't get it.
Also, I have stated how I would directly work with someone of that church had I the opportunity, but you seem to be dismissing that the church has made their cause plain as day and I doubt they are seeking anyone to help them see the error of their ways. They are seeking to deceive, ridicule and disrespect God and scripture.
It is also obvious that you have equated Christian love with never rebuking, correcting or addressing sin when the Bible says that is the same as hating our brother.
That's not what I'm saying at all. I simply think there are good ways to correct and address sin and there are bad ways to do it. And I think the way you've chosen to address this issue is not one of the good ways.
It seems you are assuming more than I stated as well.
I know it has been a bit since I have commented but I have been watching this exchange with much interest. I think you have done all you can in this conversation, Angel. While Jarred now states that you are assuming he takes issue with the thought of love also including correction, it is that very issue he has argued from the beginning. That and your choice of words.
You can't please everyone and I don't see any pleasing him unless you rewrite the post and hold that group's hand while you lovingly tell them they have have made a mistake. Not a big one, mind you but just a little one and then kiss their boo boo and make it better.