Posted on 12/16/2009 7:38:57 AM PST by PanzerKardinal
A "Progressive" Anglican church in Auckland New Zealand paid to have this billboard placed near their parish.
Here are some excerpts written by the Vicar, Archdeacon Glynn Cardy on the church's website touting what he did.
________________
To make the news at Christmas it seems a priest just needs to question the literalness of a virgin giving birth. Many in society mistakenly think that to challenge literalism is to challenge the norms of Christianity. What progressive interpretations try to do however is remove the supernatural obfuscation and delve into the deeper spiritual truth of this festival.
Christian fundamentalism believes a supernatural male God who lived above sent his sperm into the womb of the virgin Mary. Although there were a series of miraculous events surrounding Jesus’ birth – like wandering stars and angelic choirs – the real miracle was his death and literal resurrection 33 years later. The importance of this literal resurrection is the belief that it was a cosmic transaction whereby the male God embraced humanity only after being satiated by Jesus’ innocent blood.
Progressive Christianity is distinctive in that not only does it articulate a clear view it is also interested in engaging with those who differ. Its vision is one of robust engagement. If every Christian thought the same not only would life be deadly boring but also the fullness of God would be diminished. This is the consequence of its incarnational theology: God is among us; even among those we disagree with or dislike.
(Excerpt) Read more at stmatthews.org.nz ...
Since when did Mormons, Inc. fall out under the heading of Christian Fundamentalism?
Put another way, church isn't the place for evangelism, but rather the goal.
Please do not mistake this dog’s vomit for milk.
"Now the birth of Jesus Christ took place in this way. When his mother Mary had been betrothed to Joseph, before they came together she was found to be with child of the Holy Spirit; and her husband Joseph, being a just man and unwilling to put her to shame, resolved to send her away. But as he considered this, behold, an angel of the Lord appeared to him in a dream, saying, "Joseph, son of David, do not fear to take Mary your wife, for that which is conceived in her is of the Holy Spirit; she will bear a son, and you shall call his name Jesus, for he will save his people from their sins." ----Matthew 1:18-21
Beat me to it.
I have to question this pastor’s grasp of even the most basic Christian Theology.
I just might have something to do with the fact that we have the earth and, oh the whole rest of the universe, to examine in regard to the facts of its creation. Mary's not around anymore (nor any Jesus DNA) to examine scientifically.
Lighten up, Everyone!
There is no commandment prohibiting humor; even humor involving saints, or the Lord himself (as long as it's not disrespectful).
While those of the Roman Rite will find it offensive because it challenges their “ever-Virgin” doctrine; that's their problem, their doctrine is wrong. The Bible clearly states that Jesus had brothers (NOT stepbrothers, cousins, or whatever other misrepresentations are offered; the Greek word was “brothers”!)
Guys, have you ever wondered what it was like to be Joseph?? How he felt about this? Did he have doubts? (Yes, at first.) Was he insecure as a result? Etc.
That's what this is poking fun at; but it also is acknowledging and affirming that Jesus is the Son of God.
"Never apologize for the
Blessed Virgin Mary!"
~~Mother Angelica
The whole point of the billboard is to mock the idea that Jesus is the son of God. Did you read the article?
these people won’t be happy at the moment of their particular judgment (when they die) because they made a choice to diss the Mother of Jesus Christ, both Man and God.
> Actually, church isn’t for non-believers, it is for believers to worship and hear the Word of God.
What you say here is in direct contradiction to the words of Our Lord, who said in Luke 5:32 “I came not to call the righteous, but sinners to repentance.” I therefore respectfully put to you that your viewpoint is about as wrong as it could get.
It it the job of churches to continue Our Lord’s work. To be outward focused, not inward focused.
> If non-believers attend and are drawn to God, that’s great.
Actually, it’s more than great, it’s required. If your church is not attracting non-believers to believe, repent and be baptized then your church is not doing what Christ requires it to do, and your church is at risk of Judgment.
It is the church’s primary mission, to bring sinners into a covenant relationship with God.
> But churches should not “cater” to seekers, especially by diminishing and mocking God’s Word.
As I’ve said, I don’t like that billboard of theirs, I believe it is in poor taste. It is not a strategy I’d like to see deployed at any church I attend. But churches must certainly cater to seekers insofar as they must get seekers into the door and help them find Christ.
“Progressive” = liberal, emerging church, New-Age, unbiblical muckety-muck. Makes me want to puke
Christ is neither Liberal nor Conservative. Christ is Christ. I prefer to leave politics and religion as separate matters — even though I personally believe Conservatives are more likely to find time for Christ than are Liberals. God may have an entirely different view, however.
Kind of over looks the part that God the Father=Jesus.
This is typical of liberal churches, they look at God as a cosmic child abuser, not someone who came down Himself and bore the penalty for us going through life flipping Him off.
As you were,
God = Jesus.
> Please do not mistake this dog’s vomit for milk.
and
> That is mocking Christianity.
I have already said that I do not approve of their billboard, and that it is in poor taste. What I am not going to do is condemn their efforts to reach out to prostitutes, drug addicts, homeless folks and homosexuals and to try to convert them into Christians.
That church is not to my personal taste. Highly unlikely that I would choose to attend there. Highly unlikely you would, either. But these people do, and in some form or another Christ is taught there.
Better that than almost all of the alternatives, isn’t it?
That is not reaching out and drawing people to Christ. Maybe they can make some pornos and call it an outreach.
Sorry but I fail to see the humour or the salvation message in that 'comedic billboard'. Only a twisted, triangulated liberal mind could derive belief and honor for God from that visual blasphemy.
If I'm not mistaken, it also serves as host to the "Auckland Community Church", aka, the home of the Gay, Lesbian and Transgendered Community, no? It's a "whatever floats your boat" type church.
I've never been convinced that they're actually "Christianizing" anybody. They definitely bring certain people through the doors who would not otherwise come to Church but so do Joel Osteen and Benny Hinn. I think the bar needs to be raised a little higher than simply putting butts on pews, though.
Years ago ('60s, '70s), St. Matthew-in-the-City was a mainstream Anglican Church. Traditional, sober and unremarkable. Then numbers started to dwindle and attendance fell off. It was at this time that they started to experiment and push the envelope to bring in the punters, so to speak.
They may have succeeded but at what price?
> God is not a biological male
That is not my reading of Genesis. God and the Angels are male, and males are made in God’s Image.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.