It was a typical chilly Dunedin morning. I was standing in line at the Otago University Post Shop, about to send an important document overseas, when the student in front of me, oblivious to his audience, announced to the girl beside him “I’ve got a doll of Jesus in my car, I have tied a noose around its neck and hanged it. It’s hilarious. It really pisses those Christians off.” Laughter ensued. Now I was outwardly restrained but in my mind I contemplated a come back; it went like this, as soon as the guy had spoken I would call him an “asshole” in front of everyone in the line. When he looked bewildered and offended that a complete stranger had insulted him for no reason at all, I would respond, “What’s your problem, you just said that it was funny to insult people for no reason at all other than the fact that you find it funny to piss them off.”
Now I did not do this, and for good reason. It is generally not a good look for a doctoral student to go around insulting other students simply because they said things about my religion that I disagreed with – people would justifiably be outraged at me and denounce me as bigoted. But, isn’t this the point?
I recalled this event this morning as I heard that the controversial Christmas billboard, put up by St Matthews in the City, has been taken down. For those outside of Auckland, St Matthews in the City is an Anglican congregation that propounds, what they like to call, “progressive Christianity.” They recently put up a billboard showing Mary and Joseph in bed, not looking too happy, with the line “poor Joseph, God was a tough act to follow.” The billboard implies quite clearly that God not only literally had sex with Mary, was a fantastic orgasmic lover but it also, by implication, entails that God committed adultery, and so did Mary.
I am glad the billboard is down (though I will not endorse the reported method) for the obvious reason that it is insulting to other people and, prima facie, it is wrong to insult other people. Of course, there can be situations, such as where a person does something wrong, that the appropriate response is to insult them but absent such situations, charity dictates that we refrain from doing so. Millions of people world-wide worship God and millions of Roman Catholic venerate Mary, this billboard affirmed that persons they love and adore are adulterers.
Of course some are saying that this is just a joke and we Christians should get a sense of humour. I always find this response disingenuous. Suppose I, for a joke, put a picture of the vicar of St Matthews, Glyn Cardy and his wife, outside my Church, made both of them look not so happy, and added the phrase “Glyn Cardy is as soft and floppy as his theology,” right there, in public – outside my church let’s not forget – for all to see. Would the response, ‘oh come on it’s only a joke, get a sense of humour,’ wash with anyone? I doubt it. If I were a gambler I would bet we would hear another of Cardy’s little sermons about how this is proof of the narrow-minded intolerance that non-progressive Christians like me expound. But then wouldn’t it be evident that neither Cardy nor anyone else believes that humor justifies making insulting personal comments of this nature?
Of course in many ways this whole event shows up the intellectual shallowness that so called “progressive Christians” show towards others. Take Cardy’s justification for the billboard according to Stuff, Cardy states,
St Matthew’s church says the aim is to provoke conversation about spiritual matters by lampooning the literal Christian conception story and inviting people to think again about what a miracle is … He said the idea behind the billboard was to move a debate that was inside the church to outside it ”and certainly people in all sorts of places are talking about it”. He didn’t doubt that some people had been offended by the billboard, but ”the literalness of a male God impregnating Mary needs to be laughed at”.
Note two things here, first Cardy clearly caricatures the “literal conception story” yet mainstream Christendom, who believes this story, do not hold that God is literally a man and that he had sex with Mary. God in traditional theology is immaterial, he has no sex organs and the story of a virginal conception is just that, a virginal conception. Cardy, of course, being theologically trained, knows this. Second, Cardy on calling for “debate” means that people who hold orthodox Christian views “needs to be laughed at.” So Cardy’s understanding of theological debate apparently involves deliberately distorting and caricaturing the views of other people and then responding, not with reasoned argument, but ridicule.
I might be a bit too conservative and old fashioned but in my book theological argument involves trying to understand another’s position by trying to grasp the best representative examples of it so one can articulate it accurately and then offer sound arguments or reasons for rejecting it or for showing where and why it is flawed. It also involves treating ones interlocutors with respect. Of course I do not always live up to this ideal but it is one that I think Theologians should aspire to.
The fact that Cardy and St Matthews thinks otherwise tells us a bit about them and their “progressive Christianity.” People who think it is ok to ridicule and insult people simply because they hold a different religious perspective to them, who will dishonestly distort other’s views and responds to being challenged on this, not by reason, but by self-confident ridicule is not “progressive” and no amount of relabeling it will change this fact.
Tags: Bad Reasoning · Glyn Cardy · Joseph · Mary · St Matthews in the City · Theology33 Comments
A common objection to belief in the God of the Bible is that a good, kind, and loving deity would never command the wholesale slaughter of nations. In the tradition of his popular Is God a Moral Monster?, Paul Copan teams up with Matthew Flannagan to tackle some of the most confusing and uncomfortable passages of Scripture. Together they help the Christian and nonbeliever alike understand the biblical, theological, philosophical, and ethical implications of Old Testament warfare passages.
Good post.
I’ve spent a bit of time thinking about this whole issue of offence and when it’s warranted and when it’s not, and how to protest etc ever since the whole Danish cartoon fiasco. Which I was probably the first blogger in NZ to comment on.
I’ll have to think more about this, as it probably warrants a post.
.-= My last blog-post ..KiwiBlog on Christian Intolerance =-.
Its worse than that if you read his sermon you will see that it is a barely disguised attack on conservative Christians. and using the Christmas season to do it.
I assume that this is part of the civil war raging within Anglicanism but of course the Catholics, Orthodox, Baptists and other conservative Christians are caught in the cross fire.
And those who loath the Church are taking real joy from it all – which to my mind show the real origin of this
Oh my goodness, Andrei, that “sermon” is disgusting!
I think I need to go wash my eyes…
.-= My last blog-post ..KiwiBlog on Christian Intolerance =-.
Well said.
It was a tasteless and disrespectful billboard, and I suspect Richard Dawkins himself could not have thought up a more offensive effort. Strange then to come from a Priest.
And as Andrei said – those who regularly attack the church are sitting on the sidelines adding as much fuel to the fire they can muster.
That wouldn’t be my criteria for success in terms of generating a productive debate.
.-= My last blog-post ..KiwiBlog on Christian Intolerance =-.
PS: Great joke by the way!
.-= My last blog-post ..KiwiBlog on Christian Intolerance =-.
Joke?
.-= My last blog-post ..St Matthews on the Terrace: Progressive Irrationality =-.
Excellent post Matt. You would not find the NZ Skeptics deliberately going out of their way to offend Christians. It seems strange that a Christian preacher do so particularly at this time of year.
I know there are a minority of Christians who believe that that the world began 4004 BC. I see no positive benefit in mocking them.
KiwiBlog on Christian Intolerance…
[Background Reading to the issue: St Matthews on the Terrace]
I think David Farrar is just a little off the deep end with his latest post, having a dig at the people who have reacted aggressively to the billboard mocking Joseph and Mary. …
That “sermon” has a comment at the bottom where someone lined to *another* sermon.
Heh, it seems that the good archdeacon has a hard time keeping his story consistent.
.-= My last blog-post ..Glynn Cardy: One rule for me…. =-.
Of course a good joke:
“Glyn Cardy is as soft and floppy as his theology,”
Except, obviously I couldn’t possibly say this, because that would be like condoning an unnecessarily offensive joke at the expense of Cardy, and I’m no hypocrite.
On the other hand, sometimes pouring custard over some-one is the only way for them to get their just desserts, or at least get a taste of their own medicine if I can mix metaphors for a moment. So, good joke!
.-= My last blog-post ..KiwiBlog on Christian Intolerance =-.
You have swept their floor with this one, Matt… Enjoyed it!
Cardy has made comments that the billboard was positive in that it encouraged debate.
If such was their motivation, your suggestion involving Cardy’s “fitness” would surely take it to new heights… why wouldn’t they be interested?!
“I might be a bit too conservative and old fashioned”
Not on my planet!
My last blog-post .. The ‘Heresy in the City’: When All That is Left is Gimmicks and Jiggery-Pokkery!
Not to mention biblically speaking, we’re called to avoid the profane, the suggestive, and anything that promotes or condones such things as adultery, etc..
nice article.
.-= My last blog-post ..St Matthews on the Terrace: Progressive Irrationality =-.
An observation I made on this affair was basically this: Cardy & Co. make much noise about celebrating the “radical” nature of Jesus – accepting the unpopular and rejecting the powerful and acceptable, and yet it seems that the only reason they think they can get away with their crass methods of insulting “fundamentalists” as in this example is that they are banking on the fact that conservatives are unpopular enough that nobody will care.
The reality is, they are aware of the fact that liberal Christianity has nothing to offer that cannot be had elsewhere, so they are desperate for attention, even if it means resorting to orgasm jokes.
.-= My last blog-post ..Desperate for relevance at Christmas =-.
Geoff,
You mean like when Paul encouraged those individuals in Gal. 5:12 to go the whole way and take the chop… emasculating!
My last blog-post .. Do You Pray?… Then Read This!… C. H. Spurgeon ~ Order and Argument in Prayer
St Matthews on the Terrace: Progressive Irrationality…
More at Big News where Dave talks about the Archdeacon’s inability to keep his story straight.
MandM have a good article.
“People who think it is ok to ridicule and insult people simply because they hold a different religious perspective…”…
I’ve had enough of the hypocrites who call themselves progressives and use the term fundamentalist as an emotional painting word like Homophobe is used against us and others.
They claim to be Christ’s but then lampoon Him, the basics of the faith and the Trinity.
I’ve come to the conclusion that they aren’t Jesus’s and should be treated as such Matt 18:16
MikeNZ
There seems to be some concern about the (reported) manner Christians took down this church billboard.
What is the difference between this and Jesus turning over of the tables in the temple?
Matt, could you bring yourself to endorse Jesus’ turning over the tables in the temple.
Thanks to the billboard, now Christmas is no longer G rated.
[…] philosopher Matt Flannagan has these brilliant observations to make about Cardy and the billboard to illustrate the […]
Matt said: “I am glad the billboard is down… for the obvious reason that it is insulting to other people and, prima facie, it is wrong to insult other people. Of course, there can be situations, such as where a person does something wrong, that the appropriate response is to insult them but absent such situations, charity dictates that we refrain from doing so.”
Your reasoning is flawed. St Matthews in the City’s witty billboard did not contain any insult to any person in the world. It was not aimed at any such person, did not comment on any such person, and logically could not “insult” any such person. What it did was make satirical comment on the religious claim that a god impregnated a virgin.
Your complaint fails to distinguish the criticism of certain (false) beliefs held by some people from the criticism of those people themselves. While the latter is an “insult” directed ad hominem, the former is not. It is taking issue with ideas, not with the people who hold them.
Your point of view would open the floodgates to all manner of moral restrictions of speech. What else would you censure as immoral? Discussion of family violence? Surely it is insulting to a violent man to discuss domestic abuse? You see, this is the slippery slope you go down when you confuse the discussion of issues with the discussion of people.
“Your complaint fails to distinguish the criticism of certain (false) beliefs held by some people from the criticism of those people themselves. While the latter is an “insult” directed ad hominem, the former is not. It is taking issue with ideas, not with the people who hold them.”
I’m sorry The Dunedin School, but it is you who hasn’t really thought through the rationale you are trying to employ here.
Firstly, you seem to view freedom of speech as being the same thing as freedom to profane or freedom to insult others.
Quite clearly the two are not the same thing, and if you want to live in an egalitarian and pluralistic society then there have to be some basic rules in place when it comes to public self-expression.
In fact we already acknowledge such realities in law with the various legislation we have which places limits on what one can do or say in public, on TV, etc.
As Matt has already clearly explained, this billboard did not foster or promote genuine dialog or discussion, it simply publicly ridiculed, in an obscene way, an article of faith that is held sacred by many people in this country.
And in a egalitarian and pluralistic society there need to be some basic ground rules in place to ensure that persons are free from public ridicule and insult for the religious beliefs they hold to be sacred.
Without these ground rules there can be no rational debate and discussion of ideas, heck, you don’t even really have much of a society to speak of, instead all we end up with is a return to the law of the jungle where the person with the loudest roar and the biggest club gets to be right all the time.
The other problem here, which is closely related to the first point, is that you seem to have a rather strange idea about the relationship between the person and the beliefs they hold to be true and sacred.
Your comment here implies that you think that a person’s sacred beliefs can be completely disconnected from the person who has these deeply held religious views – therefore an insult against the belief is distinct from an insult aimed at a person.
But such a view fails to take into account the fact that we are talking here about religious beliefs, not just regular old vanilla ideas and opinions, and as such, to the people who hold these things as sacred, these beliefs are highly prized and treasured, and they are usually consider part of an extension of the person themselves because of the fact that they invest such totality of their being into their sacred beliefs.
The other thing that you seemed to have missed here is the fact that a belief in a divine virginal conception, while it may not be something you believe to be true, is actually a belief that does not cause any harm to society.
In fact it can be argued that a belief in the divine Christ actually aides society because people who hold him in such esteem are more likely to feel an obligation to obey the teachings he left us, such as the teaching about loving our neighbors, living moral lives, caring for the poor and being people of peace – all things which make for a better society for everybody, no matter their creed, colour or race.
So why then the need to publicly ridicule a belief that causes no harm to individuals or society, which is held to be sacred by many and which can be shown to have beneficial effects for our societies and cultures?
The act of erecting this billboard speaks more of intolerance, and unjust and aggressive bullying than it does of anything truly loving and rational.
.-= My last blog-post ..Yes, Virginia, it’s a Christmas tree =-.
“Your point of view would open the floodgates to all manner of moral restrictions of speech.”
We certainly don’t want that kind of restriction … we need more swearing on the streets, more profanity talks, more insults to one another … after all, isn’t that what freedom of *speech* is?
Dunedin School: “St Matthews in the City’s witty billboard did not contain any insult to any person in the world.”
Have another read of what Matt said. He said it was insulting to people, not that it singled out an individual and insulted them.
Ridiculing a belief system is likely to insult those who hold it. You surely know this. You might think such insult is acceptable, fine. But to say it doesn’t even exist is wrong.
.-= My last blog-post ..Theological Liberalism: Relevant or Pathetic? =-.
I wonder what the response would be if some church had a sign that linked homosexuality to pedophilia and/or HIV. Would that be an acceptable way of creating debate?
The Dunedin School,
I have been mulling this over some more, and it seems to me that the thing you are missing here is a realistic understanding of authentic Christianity.
You see authentic Christianity isn’t just about a commitment to, or adoption of a certain set of propositions about life, morality and the cosmos, etc, instead it is very much grounded in a relationship with a person – the person of Christ – in a total act of self giving to that person, and in another sense, also to the wider body of people known as the Church.
In this regard, Christians view themselves as part of a family, not just an ideological movement or group, and the person of Christ is central to that familial bond.
Now for Catholic Christians Mary has a special maternal role as the Mother of God (mother of the second person of the Trinity), and also as mother of the Church (Mary is given to John, who is symbolic of the Church, at the foot of the Cross with the words “behold your mother”).
So when sacred beliefs about Christ and His mother are insulted in this sort of vulgar and uncharitable fashion, Christians view this in a similar way as they would an attack, of this kind, against a member of their immediate human family.
Imagine the scenario of someone living down the road from you who believed that his mother was a saint, and someone else in the neighborhood thought this was stupid so he erected a public billboard which profanely ridiculed your other neighbor’s statements about his mother’s sanctity.
Are you really going to try and tell me that you would consider such an act merely an act of freedom of speech, that the first neighbor has no right to be extremely hurt and offended by?
Glynn Cardy clearly stated in his initial press release that his motivation for erecting this billboard was to ridicule the belief in a virgin birth.
Yes, some acts of self expression may offend some people, but there is a huge difference between an act that is intended to offend, and an act which unintentionally offends.
The key difference between the two relates to truth – if you haven’t grasped the reality that there is such a thing as objective truth then you will have no yardstick with which to measure the validity of various acts claiming to be acts of freedom of expression – and thus you are forced to live in a world where all acts of self expression. no matter how pointless, vulgar, hurtful, or uncharitable they may be, have to be accepted without any qualification or restriction.
.-= My last blog-post ..Yes, Virginia, it’s a Christmas tree =-.
“I wonder what the response would be if some church had a sign that linked homosexuality to pedophilia and/or HIV. Would that be an acceptable way of creating debate?”
Oh heck, the mainstream media’s wrath will be upon that church. I bet there won’t even be any debate what so ever. Not even if the sign show any fact publicly available from trusted source (e.g.: statistical data).
“Your reasoning is flawed. St Matthews in the City’s witty billboard did not contain any insult to any person in the world. It was not aimed at any such person, did not comment on any such person, and logically could not “insult” any such person.” Here you fail to distinguish between doing something that is “insulting to other people” and making an insulting claim about that person. I said the Bill board did the former not the latter.
Suppose for example I falsely made the claim that your deceased father was a pedophile. This claim would not be made about any person in the world, nor is it aimed at any such person. Yet this would still be insulting to your fathers family and loved ones, and it would be the kind of comment it is prima facie immoral to make.
“What it did was make satirical comment on the religious claim that a god impregnated a virgin.
Your complaint fails to distinguish the criticism of certain (false) beliefs held by some people from the criticism of those people themselves. While the latter is an “insult” directed ad hominem, the former is not. It is taking issue with ideas, not with the people who hold them.”
I agree there is a distinction between criticizing false ideas and ad hominem attacks on the character of the believer. I don’t think the Billboard did either. It did not attack the character of those who believe in the virginal conception, and it did not offer any arguments against this doctrine. Iit by implication ridiculed the claim that God had sex with Mary, however ridicule is not argument and the claim that God had sex with Mary is not what the doctrine of the virginal conception affirms. All the Bill board did was make comments which were insulting to others.
Your point of view would open the floodgates to all manner of moral restrictions of speech. What else would you censure as immoral? Discussion of family violence? Surely it is insulting to a violent man to discuss domestic abuse?
I addressed this point in my post, what I said was ” prima facie, it is wrong to insult other people.” I went on to add “ Of course, there can be situations, such as where a person does something wrong, that the appropriate response is to insult them but absent such situations, charity dictates that we refrain from doing so.”
Domestic violence is a situation where a person is engaging in a seriously immoral activity, believing in the virginal conception is not.
I also think one can make a distinctions between, a person who gets offended because someone expresses an idea they disagree with and a person who makes insulting comments in the vein of “your fathers a pedophile”. Suggesting that people should prima facie refrain from comments like the latter hardly entails that one should condemn the former.
.-= My last blog-post ..Merry Christmas: Mary’s Magnificat =-.
Lol!
Oh yes, you are conservative 🙂
Here’s the truth: a great number of people in the world value Jesus Christ as a human who was spiritually evolved, one who had lots to offer to the world and who had a completely different viewpoint to the one set forth by the likes of Paul in Corinthians.
There are a great many people in NZ and around the world who really, really want to go to a place (church) for sanctuary, for peace, for spiritual guidance without asserting the belief that Mary was impregnated by a spirit.
While you may call it insulting to you, there are a great many others who embrace the idea that such assumptions of Christs virginal birth (based on Greek mythology) is up for discussion while NOT discrediting the amazing gift he has given to the world.
Maybe, just maybe, it’s not all about fundamental Christianity.
Maybe, just maybe, a great number of people will benefit from the words of the bible and Christ if they did not have their basic rights taken away from them (eg. If you have faith you have eternal life, if you do not , you won’t – oh but if you do not you burn in eternal hell – but oh yeah, you have free will – I mean what?? this is free will supposedly afforded human? What kind of CHOICE is that??)
But I digress!
From Glenn: The reality is, they are aware of the fact that liberal Christianity has nothing to offer that cannot be had elsewhere, so they are desperate for attention, even if it means resorting to orgasm jokes.
Oh yes, it does! The Christian church has pushed away far too many people because it cannot deal with historical fact – the dead sea scrolls, the gospel of Mary, the gospel of Thomas etc. A church that manages to allow you to follow the teachings of Christ, while also acknowledging FACT is offering far more than any New Age or fundamental church can. It offers intelligence.
This whole argument is flawed – based on the idea that something isn’t allowed to be shown if it is offensive to another group. What? Then let’s stop celebrating Christmas ( a rip off of the pagan celebration anyway), let’s NOT celebrate Good Friday or Easter Monday – because they are a rub in the face to the non-Christians (again, pagan festivals).
It’s about allowing other members of NZ society to realize that a church is not synonymous with hypocritical assertions. It’s about a Jesus that people can relate to, and whom reflects the Jesus reflected in some of the oldest texts available – PRIOR to churches getting hold of them!
As for the holy Trinity? Historically, it was going to be a four…and a group of men sat around a table and decided upon it. A holy ideal? I think not.
Ok several issues here.
First, I never said that it was insulting for people to deny the virginal conception. I said it was insulting to caricature others beliefs in a manner that insinuates that God and Mary were adulterers. If I addressed a secular liberal belief by setting up an insulting caricature different from the real thing and ridiculing it (maybe I suggested for example that people who support homosexual conduct really support pedophilia or that people who support abortion really like killing six year olds) there would really be no argument from liberal churches about the appropriateness of what was said. Remember that next time a liberal harps on about the so called hypocrisy of conservative churches.
Second, there are numerous dubious assertions of fact in this comment. (a)example that prior to the council of Nicea there were going to be four members of the trinity. Actually the debate was between Arians and the followers of Athanasius, it was over wether the son was of the same substance as the father or of like substance of the father, no one held to a quadrinity. (b) that the virgin birth is derived from Greek mythology, a long discredited claim, in fact the so called parallels evaporate when examined (c) that the dead sea scrolls some how tell us about Jesus (they don’t they are the writings of a certain Jewish community with little or no connection to Jesus a hundred years or so before his birth) (d) that there are a series of documents such as the gospel of Thomas that were written prior to the synoptic gospels, this is extremely dubious most would date these works considerably latter than the gospels.
Third, you repeatedly talk of what people want to believe or what they relate to or what fits a certain political understanding of human rights etc. That is I think the fundamental problem with much theological liberalism. In other words what matters is not truth it’s what we want to be true and what’s politically expedient, this is all then sold not on the basis of an argument but on stereotyping and insulting conservatives (suggesting they are all hypocrites).
For these and other reasons some find the kind of progressive Christianity you mention, shallow, substance-less and reflecting little more than a pathetic attempt to look make Christian theological motifs look trendy.
I’ve just noticed that you called the Church St Matthew’s on the terrace. Actually this was St Matthew’s in the City.
I think you’re thinking of St Andrew’s on the Terrace, a liberal congregation in Wellington.
.-= My last blog-post ..Doctor Living Stone, I Presume! =-.
It would appear you’re having the same problem in NZ as we are in the US. If someone wants to make fun of Christians, it’s okay, but if we speak negatively about other religions or beliefs, we’re labeled as intolerant. That picture disgusts me.
Good grief…I actually must have missed this post last year in my RSS reader because I totally hadn’t heard of it. I came across it via one of Ken’s comments on the atheist billboard thread, and unfortunately visited the website of this church to see more about them.
They claim to be a church that “doesn’t require you to leave your brain at the door,” yet promote irrationality of the highest order. Their comments on philosophical issues are out of touch with current scholarship, their comments on the historical Jesus are out of touch with current scholarship.
They have no core beliefs (except for the unified denial of orthodoxy), and seem to rally primarily around LGBT issues. From a quick scan, this seems to come up in just about every sermon I found, and features prominently across their site.
Honestly, their “progressive” Christianity seems more of a regression to 1950s mainline liberalism when Paul Tillich reigned supreme in the mainline seminaries. As mainline (and progressive) Christianity has declined rapidly over the last fifty years internationally (whereas evangelicalism, Pentecostalism and even Catholicism have grown worldwide) it seems like their remaining holdouts must shout louder in order to be heard…this billboard is an example.
hi