Reflections on culture, nature, and spirituality from a Christian perspective
Published by
on
New Zealand church, St Matthew in the City have launched a controversial billboard campaign this Christmas in an attempt to demolish some stereotypes and stimulate conversation.
Well, they seem to have succeeded in the latter if the online Atheist chatter is anything to go by. But so far the conversation mostly consists of Atheists engaging in mutual head scratching, rather than any increase in Christian-Atheist dialogue.
Oh, that is wrong at so many levels . . . .
LikeLike
While not an atheist, I’m inclined to join the head-scratchers on this one.
I give credit to St. Matthew in the City for trying, but for me at least, this billboard falls flat. It doesn’t inspire me to ask any questions. It doesn’t inspire me to comment on any particular aspect of Christmas, Christ’s birth, or even his conception.
Maybe others will respond to it differently. I hope so. I’d hate to think how much money the church spent on this billboard if it turns out to be a flop in terms of accomplishing the intended aim.
Then again, better that money be lost in a failed attempt than there be no attempt at all.
LikeLike
Apparently, the billboard has been defaced:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/12/17/joseph-mary-billboard-god-is-a-hard-act-to-follow_n_395343.html
LikeLike
Personally I think that not only is the sign useless and vague, but it is crude as well. Ephesians 5:4 says to avoid all crude joking which is a scripture this billboard is clearly violating regardless of the intentions.
LikeLike
Even if it only works for one person is it still not worth it?
LikeLike
I’m wondering what “mutual head scratching” looks like in a group of atheists.
LikeLike
Cara, I’m not so sure about that. If that one person is hard to reach and the billboard might be the only way to reach that one person? Yes, it was probably worth it. But if there were other ways that would have been just as effective in reaching that one person and would’ve reached others as well?
Like I said, I give this church full credit for trying, and even willing to invest what I assume is a lot of time and money in it. But at the same time, I’d like them to see them get the best possible outcomes for their efforts. And if that means suggesting that their plan might have needed tweaking or might need to be tweaked in the future…
LikeLike
Cara, I’m inclined to say no, principally because I’ve seen that line of argument used to justify all sorts of horrors.
Example: Zealous but insensitive preachers screaming hellish warnings at people from street corners. “Oh, but it might save someone.” True, but have the dozen or more driven further away from Christianity been factored into that equation? I think the answer is self evident.
So, if I’m to consider it worthwhile I need something more solid.
As for this specific example, I think its well intentioned but misguided. From what I can see it’s just confusing and bemusing the intended audience. I also have to say, I’ve rarely seen ultra liberalism result in conversions.
LikeLike
Kalessin, the visual is them scratching their own heads as the look at one another in puzzlement, not scratching the head of their companions in an ape like bonding ritual. Being evolved, they’re past that of course.
LikeLike
Maybe others will respond to it differently. I hope so. I’d hate to think how much money the church spent on this billboard if it turns out to be a flop in terms of accomplishing the intended aim.
Freedy
http://www.youthforjesus.com
LikeLike
I must say, there’s been a very robust atheist, Christian (and other) dialogue going on here… 62 pages in you’d imagine it’s in its dying days, but I thought Matt might like a bit of a sticky-beak:
http://www.essentialbaby.com.au/forums/index.php?showtopic=740811&st=610#entry10678885
LikeLike
As for the art… I think it’s tasteless, but most advertising seems designed to grab attention rather than inform these days, doesn’t it?
LikeLike
This appears to be humour and not offensive to me as a Christian. Alternative, cheeky, yes, inspiring, mmmm, well leave that for public debate. All religions should be able made fun of.
LikeLike
Personally I found it more banal than offensive. Does anyone truly think God had sex with Mary? Can it even be called a fundamentalist position? Where then is deconstruction required?
I’ve only ever heard the suggestion coming from non-Christians having digs at Christians, by mischieveously equating immaculate conception with the sexual escapades of Zeus in an effort to get a rise out of everyone. And my impression has been that even they weren’t doing so seriously. In truth, it is actually a LESS literal interpretation to suggest sex was involved. As a joke it’s somewhat hackneyed.
LikeLike
Art Atheist Australian Bible Blogging Books Buddhist Celtic Christian Christmas Church Contextualisation Diversity Faith Gatherings God Hindu Humour Jesus Justice Leaders Love Magic Meditation Mission Money Movies Music Muslim Mystery Nature Pagan Peace Poetry Politics Prayer Psychology Revelation Seasons Sexuality Sin Symbols Technology Violence War
Curious Christian 
Leave a comment