I am not going to put St. Matthews name to this, as Matthew has made it clear in his Gospel that he has a very different idea than this ‘church!’

By now, if you are living anywhere in NZ, I am sure you will have heard about the Billboard in question, and may even have some idea as to where the problem that followers of Christ have with what this communicates.  If the facts on the canvas were not so demonstrably clear, one could almost think that the suggestion that is contained therein to be of the laughable variety.  Who needs enemies when you have “supposed” friends like these!

Googling this, it has become apparent that this is the type of noise that makes for news which has been picked up on wires from other shores, therefore, those who may be reading this from another continent, may well be reading this because they are aware of all the fuss… and want to join the funeral, because it ain’t no par-tae!

I think an individual from the Catholic church described it well when they said that this represented something that they would expect from those attacking the faith from the outside, not from those claiming to be insiders!

Yet, here we are, living proof of what life is like in the mainline, liberal church, where the historic faith has been fossilised… seemingly forever!

If you still don’t know what I am Jonny King is talking about… Here ‘it’ is…

They say that those who don’t learn from their history are bound to repeat it, which is another way of saying that those who don’t learn from their history are incapable of repeating it.  If it was merely an ignorance of the content of salvation history, which is never bliss, then one could find a little pity for those who have given up the ghost in this example, of the Holy variety.  However, this is an example of what you get when you have given up what you once believed in.  Instead of standing up for something, you have nothing to affirm, so you are left to promote an irrelevance for those who are looking for something to believe in, even when the Someone has left the building… Ichabod, anyone!

As you read their webpage that has been put up to take on all those ’literalists’, it is clear that this religious organisation finds many things odious about the faith that was Once for all given to the Saints, and feels endowed to play revisionist religion, and to show what it means to live out the Christian faith, what it really means to love… that is, unless you find this billboard to be not only heretical and vile, but also offensive… only affirming that you are a ‘literalist.’

Here are these individuals in their own words…

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 believes the Christmas stories are fictitious accounts designed to introduce the radical nature of the adult Jesus. They contrast the Lord and Saviour Caesar with the anomaly of a new ‘lord’ and ‘saviour’ born illegitimate in a squalid barn. At Bethlehem low-life shepherds and heathen travelers are welcome while the powerful and the priests aren’t. The stories introduce the topsy-turvy way of God, where the outsiders are invited in and the insiders ushered out.

There we have it in a nutshell!

However, while their denial of the doctrine of the virgin birth is certainly a big theological issue.  I don’t think this is the most troubling point of their posting, and in failing to cover this, people can easily miss the point!

In their depiction and the wording of “God being a hard act to follow,” they are affirming that a member of the Godhead was involved in a physical act of intercourse with Mary, and such an inference is simply vile… and unbiblical… but don’t let that mess with the marketing.  This is not a problem when you have jettisoned the words of Scripture, and instead accepted a theology without those pesky doctrines, a theology that is love in spoken word, but a love that will fail the test, as it has been divorced from truth!

The fact that many people on their site making comments, and many commentators in NZ may take a more pragmatic view, does not reflect positively, but affirms their ignorance of the Christian faith and its theology.

Why would they do this?

The Glenn of the Peoples at Beretta Blog has put this issue in a helpful light, as one reflects on their motivation for this decision…

The fact is, so called “progressive” Christianity has few reservations about stunts like this because it has little to offer and is somewhat desparate. Within, for example the Presbyterian and Anglican churches here in New Zealand, they are losing the war and are a shrinking voice, fading intot he oblivion of obscurity. By contrast, evangelical congregations are on the rise and at a national level the decisions being made are more in keeping with traditional Christian belief than ever before in the last 30 years. People are (for what I take to be obvious reasons) taking seriously the fact that it’s frankly a bit facile to expect to be given church resources as well as recognition as a Christian movement while denying more or less all of the truth claims of the Christian faith, from the resurrection of Jesus to the virgin birth, or even in many cases the very existence of God.

People, there are some things that we as Bible-believing Christians in New Zealand can not be silent about, and this is an example of such a reality.  Love for God, and our Love for our fellow man compels us to SPEAK THE TRUTH… in Love.

Love for man compels us to speak out when there is harm on the horizon, be it theological or otherwise, and Love for God’s glory, God’s name, and God’s character, compels us to say that this is wrong, that this is unbiblical, and that such is a travesty on the road to truth!

A recent book titled, Soul Searching:The Spiritual and Religious Lives of American Teenagers, after surveying some 3000 American teenagers about their religious beliefs, affirms that the majority hold to a position that has been described as ‘Moralistic Therapeutic Deism,’ and sadly for this church in the City, it seems even this terminology is stretching the boundaries of definition, as from what they have said, merely ‘Therapeutic Deism’ may be their lot, as they are all about feeling good about a very un-miraculous relating God!

With all due respect to those who want to solely talk about gentle Jesus meek and mild, wake up and smell the Matthew 23… and if Jesus was to pronounce a ‘Woe’ this day on the religious leaders in New Zealand, this church would be near the front of the queue… end of His love for truth!  Also, what about Paul speaking about those who would offer another Gospel to those in Galatia (Gal. 1:6-9)… what did he encourage them to do? (Gal. 5:12)… Jesus as the Chief Shepherd is out to protect the sheep from the wolves, and all Shepherds this day in NZ should be doing likewise… Or, take one more, when Paul confronted Peter after he had stopped eating with the Gentiles, which is also in Galatians… Take particular note of how Paul frames this issue in Gal. 2:14… he frames it in light of the Gospel.  This is a significant point!

In other words, Peter had a Gospel problem?  The finger is writing on the Billboard!

What about their call for love?

The problem with such a call is that without any criteria with which to fill the content of this concept, this definition loses shape, integrity, and a biblically cogent reality, which, therefore, degenerates into a therapeutically motivated and practically insipid phenomenon that confuses sentimentality for our fellow man, with a biblical concept of love, which as a core component of its meaning, focuses on doing what is biblically best for those we come into contact with!

For example, take Prov. 3:11-12, where love is defined in the context of the discipline of the children under our care, following the example of the Father!  There are also many occasions when the most loving thing to do is speak out when evil is being perpetrated.  If such is true, then in this example, love should compel us to speak up!

For the love of a little Modernity!

What can we learn from this?

1) Theology is not a subject for bunker domiciled freaks… or the few in church!  What you believe really will impact what you do and why you do it!

2) Pastors ~ Here is a Plea… FEED YOUR SHEEP!

2) Going to church does not make you a Christian, just like sleeping in a garden does not make you a flower pot-ty.  Wearing funny robes does not do it as well!  This is important for parents whose children have been culturally brought up in church.  Moralism is not the Gospel.  You need to parent at the heart level.  Remember, our mouths speak what our hearts preach!

3) Remember, Love is a verb, and our actions will speak out our understanding of the content of this concept!

In closing, while I am Jonny King does not believe one should resort to actions that damage other’s property, as we can speak the truth in love.  As a point of commentary, such does indicate the level of angst at such a decision.

Maybe the individual/s who completed this act, did not feel loved after all!

What say you?

Until Next Time

I am Jonny King