Fresh Hell from New Zealand: “Progressive Christianity” defined

Thanks, Fr. Matt. This information from one whose education is so extraordinarily superior to ours (!) surely comes as a great shock to those (like me) whose lives our Lord has touched, and not in any “as if” fashion!

Gah!

Be sure to check out the edifying…um…“icon” associated with this sermon/article/whatever…

Gee.  Thanks.  It’s images like that one that make me think perhaps the iconoclasts were right after all…

Yup.  I know how Joseph feels - distressed and annoyed over impotence. 

I felt like it about two sentences into this article defining “Progressive” christianity.

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.

So the foundation of progressive Christianity is ... class envy? I guess Job must have been wicked in that case. Just a little conundrum for the progressives to mull over during the holidays.

If that’s what you believe, I don’t see how you rationalize such an expensive building, staff, the cost of weekly worship, and all of the attendant overhead.  Why would you not just give it all to the poor and be done with it, instead of using “progressive” Christianity as an excuse to extract money from people and provide a comfortable living for clergy.

To put it another way, I respect Gandhi and his views, but I would never propose spending hundreds of thousands of dollars a year for me and my friends to hold elaborate weekly Gandhi remembrances in a luxurious Gandhi memorial building and claim that I’m thereby serving the poor and outcast.

Because they truly do not believe the gospel message these progressivists WITHOUT FAIL resort to controversialism to gin up excitement for the mush that squishes out of their tiny little brains and their hard hearts…

As to the “icon”, yecccccchhhh.  I prefer this.  Now I feel a need to visit a Russian Orthodox Church to purge my mind of the other “icon”.

I read this on another blog.  If this poser was honest he would resign and stop taking money from an institution whose official (got that, official) beliefs are in stark contrast to what he is preaching.  Kind of like all those limos at Copenhagen.

“Progressive Christianity believes the Christmas stories are fictitious accounts…”

If this is true of all “progressive Christians”, woe!!!

All the rest of Deacon Cardy’s fluff is boilerplate rubbish about hospitality and the notion that if one is not a progressive Christian (PC, now there’s irony), then one is a mindless fundamentalist.

OK, gotta move on to meaningful engagement with the people and issues of the day…

The text says

What progressive interpretations try to do however is remove the supernatural obfuscation and delve into the deeper spiritual

  But it sure sounds like he said “Supernatural Fluff!” Fluff, really? Immanuel is fluff? This is a superb example of why revisionist churches decline and die.  There is nothing there.

I continue to be amazed and saddened by the convergence between what Muslims believe about Jesus and what “progressive” Christians do.  Muslims reject Jesus’s divinity because they think we believe that God physically impregnated Mary in a sexual act, which is what this “progressive” thinks Christianity teaches.  This is what Mormons think, too.  This sermon and the priest’s position as an ordained leader is an indictment of seminary training and the ordination process in New Zealand.

“Christian fundamentalism believes a supernatural male God who lived above sent his sperm into the womb of the virgin Mary.”

I like to think I’m as fundamentalist as the next person (well, as fundamentalist as a Papist Romish mindless drone enslaved to the Man of Blood and the Scarlet Woman can be), but I’ve never believed this.  Anyone out there ever believed this?  Ever?  You can tell me, I won’t blab!  I may roll around on the floor laughing, but I won’t breathe a word to anyone else, promise!

As for the ridiculous poster, all I want to say on that is quote this line from the Divine Praises:

“Blessed be Saint Joseph, her most chaste spouse.”

Okay, and throw in this bit from the Litany of St. Joseph:

Renowned offspring of David, pray for us.
Light of Patriarchs, pray for us.
Spouse of the Mother of God, pray for us.
Chaste guardian of the Virgin, pray for us.
Foster father of the Son of God, pray for us.
Diligent protector of Christ, pray for us.
Head of the Holy Family, pray for us.

I like to think I’m as fundamentalist as the next person… but I’ve never believed this.

I’d probably be considered a fundamentalist, and I never believe that Jesus was concieved by God’s sperm.  How vulgar!

Progressive Christianity however emphasizes behaviour above belief. How one treats ones neighbours, enemies, and planet is the essence of faith. The celebration of the birth of Jesus is a celebration of God in every birth and every person.

“behavior above belief” = cart before horse.  That cart ain’t gonna get you anywhere! 
“God in every birth and every person.” = man-centered gospel.  Where you goin’?  Nowhere! 

For fundamentalist Christians the incarnation is about the miraculous arrival of a baby soon to die and by his blood save us. For progressive Christians the incarnation is about the miracle of this planet earth and all life that exists here.

More man-centered gospel.  It is amazing that they deny such a great gift as the blood of Jesus on the cross for mere incredulity.  True, it is resurrection that makes the cross a triumph, but that is not to lessen the sacrifice nor the benefit to us to first believe and then—as an overflow of that belief—show it in our behavior.

Oh, and I do not appreciate anyone calling my Lord a bastard and my Father a fornicator.  There is intellectual exploration, and then there is sacriledge.  We are reading Jude right now in Bible study.  How appropriate!

I remember hearing this quote once about so-called ‘Progressive Christianity’: “Indeed, the ‘Progression’ is so great that the ‘Christianity’ is virtually lost sight of.”

What progressive interpretations try to do however is remove the supernatural obfuscation and delve into the deeper spiritual truth of this festival.

The hidden assumption here is that it’s impossible for the “deeper spiritual truth” of a scripture could involve the “supernatural.” Empiricism and rationalism are your gods!

Progressive Christianity doesn’t overlook Jesus’ life and rush to his death. Rather it sees the radical hospitality he offered to the poor, the despised, women, children, and the sick, and says: ‘this is the essence of God’. His death was a consequence of the offensive nature of that hospitality and his resurrection a symbolic vindication.

Yes, there were a few instances where Christ’s hospitality offended the priestly bourgeoisie (cf. John 9) but his death was primarily a consequence of His theological claims. Jesus offered hospitality to the poor, the despised, and the sick, but you’ve missed the point if that’s all you remember about His ministry. He not only showed them hospitality, but He healed them in demonstration of His authority and sovereignty, and did so on the basis of (gasp!) faith in Him (cf. Matthew 9:27-29)! Furthermore, He commanded us to seek the righteous will of that “supernatural male God,” and to keep His commandments. Oh, and pity the poor first century lowlife who got “symbolic vindication” by the nonliteral-pseudo-resurrection. They might still be ruthlessly oppressed by the priestly patriarchy and the Roman empire’s military-industrial complex, but all is well, because the bloody death of their hero has given them “symbolic vindication”!

Progressive Christianity however emphasizes behaviour above belief.

In other words, Progressive Christianity is legalistic and graceless. How hilariously ironic.

The celebration of the birth of Jesus is a celebration of God in every birth and every person.

This is one of those statements that sounds pretty nifty, but one is at a total loss to understand what it actually means.

Yet the culture of the Church is such that differences are downplayed and commonality extolled. Variety is synthesized into a supposed unity creating a mushy middle way. Most church leaders follow this middle mush approach, trying to say something pertinent without offending anybody.

Here, Mr. Cardy unwittingly hits a home run. Even a stopped clock is right twice a day, and here, he’s totally on point. As clergy, you should either affirm the virgin birth for all it means, or openly call it fictitious. Please no “mushy middle” hedging for the sake of preserving a faux-unity.

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.

“Fundamentalist” Christianity is engaging too: “We are therefore Christ’s ambassadors, as though God were making his appeal through us. We implore you on Christ’s behalf: Be reconciled to God.” (2 Corinthians 5:20)

If every Christian thought the same not only would life be deadly boring but also the fullness of God would be diminished.

I’m guessing you’re not a big fan of Revelation 7 then are you? “After this I looked and there before me was a great multitude that no one could count, from every nation, tribe, people and language, standing before the throne and in front of the Lamb. They were wearing white robes and were holding palm branches in their hands. And they cried out in a loud voice: Salvation belongs to our God, who sits on the throne, and to the Lamb!” How horrendous, all these people thinking alike in their worship of God, in spite of their differences in nation, tribe, and tongue! It must be soooo boring for everyone to be in singular awe of God’s sovereignty and mercy!

What an insult to “Progressive Christianity!” He left out the parts about the myth of sin, the lie of the empty tomb, the fable of the ascension, the hoax of the pentecost, the deep truths of other religions, and the true meaning of the labyrinth. Real progressives should stay away from this guy. 

Martha, AndrewA, maybe he was thinking of Mormons.

Fr. Matt,

I read it and watched/listened to it.  I need only one word, the one you used, to fuly and adequately describe it in its entirety: <bold>heresy</bold>.

Liturgical Unitarians!

He seems so pleased with himself….and such “gracious condescension!”  My goodness….
I did think it odd that you heard no reaction or noise of any kind from the crowd, though.  Seemed like a sermon preached to a camera and not a congregation.

IF, BEFORE the first of the year, this so-called ‘reverend’ Glenn Cardy is not removed and defrocked, his sermon repudiated, the billboard removed and replaced with another billboard apologizing for the first one, by his Bishop, his Primate and the Global South Primates, I will not further consider remaining Anglican.

I shall also expect the ABC to repudiate this.
(fat chance)

What a load of !@#$@#^!
I live in Texas and have lived in or near the buckle of the Bible belt and NEVER heard that God was male and had sperm!  And if you don’t believe that the focus of the Incarnation was the Atonement (however the atonement works) and Resurrection, then you have no business being a Christian Minister.  If Jesus did not rise victorious over death and sin, then he was not and is not God Incarnate and, thus, it doesn’t matter what happened in the stable in either Bethlehem or in Nazareth or where ever!

The Resurrection must be literal or death has still wins.

Now, if you can accpept that God can bring new life and a new qualitiy of Life to a person who is dead (and you must to be a Christian), then why is it so hard to accept that God could bring Jesus to normal life in an extraordinary way?

I am convinced that “Liberal Christianity” is not so much a result of the intellect, but of the will.  It is not that people cannot accept God’s extraordinary actions in human history.  It is that they simply will not.

This man should take off his deacon’s stole and turn in his collar.  Barring that, his Bishop should depose him.

YBIC,
Phil Snyder

I am convinced that “Liberal Christianity” is not so much a result of the intellect, but of the will.  It is not that people cannot accept God’s extraordinary actions in human history.  It is that they simply will not.

Amen!

This man should take off his deacon’s stole and turn in his collar.  Barring that, his Bishop should depose him.

Neither of which action, sadly, is likely to occur…

Here’s an antidote for this poison - A REAL Christmas message from a real Christian Anglican:
http://transfigurations.blogspot.com/2009/12/bishp-benas-christmas-message-2009.html

“Progressive Christianity” is neither.

FWIW, this parish also conducts same sex blessings. (http://www.stmatthews.org.nz/nav.php?sid=84&id=7)
Yet another Windsor/Biblically NON-compliant parish.

Being the pagan sick-o that I am, I did chuckle at the Joseph and Mary billboard.

However, a comment at that website (from “Bishop Ed [Eastern Seaboard USA]) reads, “Your billboard is blasphemy, your theology is trash, and you can’t spell hors d’oeuvres. Typical deacon.”

Ouch. Especially the “typical deacon” remark.

To put the whole thing into perspective, visit the rest of the website. For example,
http://www.stmatthews.org.nz/nav.php?sid=200

Their events manager is studying theology, and his “academic and research interests are queer theology…”

And there is la pièce de résistance:
http://www.stmatthews.org.nz/nav.php?sid=436

Fresh Hell, indeed. M*rde alors!

This demonstrates what happens to the Christian faith once the concept of sin is removed.  The reason why liberals skip so quickly past the death and resurrection is because they find such little purpose in the death and resurrection.  They do not consider man to be intrinsically sinful.  They do not see God as being angry against sin.  They do not see the need for atonement.  They have encountered the offense of the Gospel - the fact they they personally deserve eternal judgment and can do nothing of themselves to fix it - and have constructed an entire pseudo-Christian ediface that removes the offense.  It flatters the ego.  It tickles the ear.  But it answers no questions.  It gives no hope.  The only people truly interested in this kind of religion are the people who want to be clergy in these kinds of churches.  Plus a few progressives who want to chew on their epistemological angst in a ‘spiritual’ environment. 

The Christ-child at Christmas is the perfect symbol for liberal Christianity.  An infant makes no demands.  He requires of you no repentence.  Any manner of false doctrine may be imposed upon him at this point.  He does not yet talk back.  He does not yet speak as one with authority.  The infant may be coddled, and carried, and shown off - in a word ‘controlled.’  Only later does He become problematic.  But then - it’s all a bunch of lies anyways.  Just a very elaborate kind of Aesop’s Fable intended to illuminate the real god of liberal Christianity - man himself.  Being essentially good, authentic man has only to quest in pursuit of his authentic self. When he finds it, he will find the good in his authenticity.  This is liberal Christianity.  God does not atone for man, because man has no need for atonement.  Instead, man illuminates himself as he comes to realize his own natural goodness.

Except for those crazy fundamentalists.  They keep saying that man is by nature evil.  And so teeth are bared against them, and gnashed at their words. Liberal Christianity is deeply and bitterly offended by the gospel, and will not receive it.  The response comes back “Man is by nature good, and woe to him who would suggest otherwise.  We don’t want your god of hate!”  It shall be as they say.  But they will still bow down, and they will still say “Jesus is Lord.”  Only they will do it with broken knees.

carl

Ugh, what a sermon. A veritable strawman massacre. His repeated portrayal of the doctrines of the Virgin Birth and the Incarnation as an act of divine fornication is simply absurd. That toothless street preacher on the corner, the one who thinks the world is ending in 2012 and that anyone who does not use an Aramaic form of Jesus’ name is going to hell, he easily outclasses this popinjay on such basic theology. Seriously, does he profitably read anything that does not fit his narrow little view of Christianity? Can his portrayal of orthodox doctrine be the product of anything but malice or willful ignorance?

First, the icon is “sick”.

Second, in the last week I read an article dealing with male/female genes.  Seems that there are two genes that when one is turned on the child is female and when the other is turned on the child is male.  This appearantly can occur even with two X chormosomes.

Study Finds ‘On-Off’ Gene to Control Gender Traits

Seems as though all God had to do was make sure that the ovum had all 46 chromosomes in 23 pairs, had the SOX9 gene turned on and the FOXL2 turned off, and that the ovum was now a zygote.  Seems so simple that a human could do it.  I know God can.

This is from the second link on post 27…It sounds awfully familiar.  Would have sworn it was from an interview with the PB…

Progressive Christians while diverse in themselves would generally agree with the 8-points of beliefs outlined by The Center for Progressive Christianity: 

By calling ourselves progressive, we mean we are Christians who…

•  Have found an approach to God through the life and teachings of Jesus.

•  Recognize the faithfulness of other people who have other names for the way to God’s realm, and acknowledge that their ways are true for them, as our ways are true for us.

•  Understand the sharing of bread and wine in Jesus’ name to be a representation of an ancient vision of God’s feast for all peoples

•  Invite all people to participate in our community and worship life without insisting that they become like us in order to be acceptable (including (including but not limited to):

o   believers and agnostics,
o   conventional Christians and questioning sceptics,
o   women and men,
o   those of all sexual orientations and gender identities,
o   those of all races and cultures,
o   those of all classes and abilities,
o   those who hope for a better world and those who have lost hope

•  Know that the way we behave toward one another and toward other people is the fullest expression of what we believe.

•  Find more grace in the search for understanding than we do in dogmatic certainty - more value in questioning than in absolutes.

•  Form ourselves into communities dedicated to equipping one another for the work we feel called to do: striving for peace and justice among all people, protecting and restoring the integrity of all God’s ...

•  Recognize that being followers of Jesus is costly, and entails selfless love, conscientious resistance to evil, and renunciation of privilege.

While those Christians who hold to the above statements, do so passionately and without compromise, it is not easy being “progressive.”

Again, I am very grateful for videos and websites like these.  They draw back the veil and we see more clearly….

From Ralph, #27 - “However, a comment at that website (from “Bishop Ed [Eastern Seaboard USA]) reads, “Your billboard is blasphemy, your theology is trash, and you can’t spell hors d’oeuvres. Typical deacon.””

The remark, ‘typical deacon’ by Bishop Ed [Eastern Seaboard USA] shows this bishop does not take the matter seriously.  He’s just being witty and sarcastic.  A real bishop is concerned, knows he is a guardian and shepherd and will act to defend Christ’s Church from wolves like Glenn Cardy.

Don’t pick on New Zealand, folks. Some variant of this sermon will be preached in 100’s of TEC churches next Thursday.  Sadly, as many of you have pointed out, this man doesn’t have a concept of the basic tenets of Christianity, but he’s not alone in the Western world.  Sad; sad.

When I saw this post on New Zealand, it reminded me of this that I found some time ago:

The Lord’s Prayer
Eternal Spirit,
Earth-maker, Pain bearer, Life-giver,
Source of all that is and that shall be,
Father and Mother of us all,
Loving God, in whom is heaven:

The hallowing of your name echo through the universe!
The way of your justice be followed by the peoples of the world!
Your heavenly will be done by all created beings!
Your commonwealth of peace and freedom
sustain our hope and come on earth!

With the bread we need for today,
feed us.
In the hurts we absorb from one another,
forgive us.
In times of temptation and test,
strengthen us.
From trial too great to endure,
spare us.
From the grip of all that is evil,
free us.
For you reign in the glory of the power that is love,
now and forever. Amen.

From A New Zealand Prayer Book (Harper Collins, 1997), 181.

http://barefootandlaughing.blogspot.com/2006/06/new-zealand-lords-prayer.html

  Recognize that being followers of Jesus is costly, and entails selfless love, conscientious resistance to evil, and renunciation of privilege.
  While those Christians who hold to the above statements, do so passionately and without compromise, it is not easy being “progressive.”

I’m not so sure about the “costliness” of their Christianity.  Had there been “Progressive Christians” in the first century, I think it unlikely there would have been any persecutions.

I’m aware of St Matthew in the City, Auckland.  No surprises about this, coming from there.  No, wait, one surprise:  I thought they could spell.  ‘h’orderve’, indeed!

While watching this all I could think was…
“They’re kidding, right? This is all some sort of poor taste humor, it has to be. Wait, is that Michael Palin? Some animated foot is about to stomp him into oblivion any moment now. No? Maybe that stupid ‘You’ve Been Punked’ show. Hmmm, The Onion maybe. Please. PLEASE!”
But no, it turns out this is serious. Wow.
I pray for this poor lost soul and for those he leads astray. May they soon realize the path they have chosen and turn around to come back to our Lord.

I can’t watch this without imaging the famous Monty Python 16-ton weight dropping out of the ceiling (the sky? the heavens? Heaven?).

Oh yeah, I am so very committed to doing everything I possibly can from a time, energy, document production, and planning standpoint to make absolutely sure I remain in communion, through formal provincial structures, with this guy…..............

Here’s St Matthew in the City’s billboard:

http://www.stuff.co.nz/national/3168791/Church-courts-controversy-with-Christmas-billboard

Just… ugh.

Well…yawn…not sure what the fuss is about.  Sounds pretty run-of-the-mill(stone) Leftist Anglican to me.

I haven’t seen so much stuff in one place before.

How can you even have ‘symbolic vindication’ without a physical resurrection?

<blockquote>
The celebration of the birth of Jesus is a celebration of God in every birth and every person.

This is one of those statements that sounds pretty nifty, but one is at a total loss to understand what it actually means. </blockquote>

Erm - in my book it means pantheistic clap-trap.

This “sermon” discussion of progressive versus fundamentalist Christianity reminded me of why I recently had a t-shirt made with the words: “Unapologetic Right Wing Fundamentalist.” Because I hear a slightly less extreme version of this nonsense often at my soon-to-be-former liberal Mennonite church, I find I am increasingly honored to be considered a fundamentalist, when being a progressive is the alternative.

The link in post 27 that is spelled out in post 31 sounded familar to me also, but not because it sounded like your PB. I went to the web site of my church and read the following:

We’re glad you’re here! We welcome people of all faiths, including seekers.

In an era of mass marketing, uncontrolled consumerism, loneliness, and growing violence, we are working to create a sense of community for ourselves and our neighbors.

We believe that the best response to cynicism, doubt, and isolation is to invite both friends and strangers to share the burdens and joys of life together-in Christ’s community. We are an open group and you are welcome to join us.

We are a community of Christians who seek to be faithful disciples of Jesus in today’s world. This discipleship is nurtured and expressed in our worship services, in mutual care and discernment, and in our mission to serve others and invite them to follow Christ.
We share in common with all Christians the following beliefs: that God creates and sustains the universe; that Jesus, the son of God, is our Savior and Lord; and that our mission is to spread the good news. Some of our distinctive emphases are as follows:
—The freedom of each person to explore a responsible commitment to Christ.
—A commitment to know Christ and to live a life of discipleship within Christ’s body, the Christian community.
—The belief that discipleship leads to a life of love, peacemaking, and service to all.
—The belief that social justice and stewardship apply to the whole of creation-the earth and all within.
—The accurate interpretation and application of the Bible occurs in the community of believers.
We celebrate together each member’s initiation into the Christian community through adult baptism, and the ongoing presence of Christ, at the center of that community, with the Lord’s Supper (Holy Communion).

WORSHIP
To follow Jesus Christ faithfully, we are called to:
—enrich our private and public worship through prayer and study of scriptures.
—plan our public worship so that both host and visitor will be drawn into the presence of God.
—offer all that we are and have to God.
COMMUNITY
To grow as a community of grace, joy and love we want to:
—teach our children, youth and adults the way of Christ.
—provide the means for fellowship, mutual aid, mutual counsel and sharing of concerns and joys.
—practice hospitality through acceptance, openness and forgiveness that transcends our differences and heals our brokenness.
—call and nurture persons who can lead the congregation in its vision.
MISSION
To live as people of healing and hope we are committed to:
—invite unbelievers to faith in Jesus Christ.
—witness to the nonviolent love of Jesus Christ in our homes, work, neighborhoods, and the world.
—serve the needy in the name of Christ both locally and around the world.
—provide a ministry of hospitality to students at the university.
—join in partnership for mission with a congregation from another country.

BTW KarenR, your presence here has inspired me to do some casual (read Wikipedia) research on Mennonites.  I was suprised at the diversity.  Before I started reading your comments, I thought they were all horse-and-buggy types.

#44, Progressive “Christianity” observes no denominational boundaries. In fact, a Progressive need not profess Christianity. See (more Fresh Hell from the same website):
http://www.stmatthews.org.nz/nav.php?sid=440

Rejected and reviled? Yup.

Here’s more disgusting Christmas news:
http://transfigurations.blogspot.com/2009/12/elderly-couples-are-buying-each-other.html

Why, oh why must these dyed-in-the-wool agnostic Humanists go around calling themselves “Christian?”  They have as much claim to the label as I do to the label of “Zoroastrian” or for that matter “Hottentot.”  Fot them to even suggest that they might be Christian in any ordinary or commonly understood sense of the word is a blatant lie.

(No offence meant to any Zoroastrians or Hottentots who might happen to be reading Stand Firm…)

#48 - Fine Young Calvinist,

Perhaps it’s (way past) time for a Global Christian Categorization Certification, Licensing and Review Committee (GCCCLRC)....to prevent people disrespecting, abusing, mis-using and pandering the Name of Jesus Christ. 

People using and claiming The Name should have to wear ‘BADGES’ with their beliefs and degrees of orthodoxy imprinted on them, so that people know RIGHT AWAY where they are coming from.

Licenses should be removed, impounded, and refused if necessary.  People should be required to renew, attend conferences, earn CEUs, etc. in order to conduct meetings, teach, preach and even sport bumper stickers,  to put up billboards and to wear any sort of vestments and head gear, such as mitres or to carry a crook.

There should also be a Black List.

“Progressive Christianity” changing the church since AD 50.  There is no new heresy, just the old ones dressed in modern garb.  You can dress a corpse, but it still stinks.

This reads to me like a failure of faith codified. Ensrhined.
This man will never be challenged by or uncomfortable in his faith because he has tailored it to suit himself. He has said, not, “I believe, help Thou mine unbelief,” but, “Hey, are you kidding? I’m not going to believe that stuff. Here’s what I’ll believe.” Which makes him so much hipper and smarter than untold generations of Christians. I am so thankful not to be under his “pastoral care.”

[49] Floridian. We need a screening tool to properly classify belief systems. Something like Myers-Briggs.

http://www.humanmetrics.com/cgi-win/JTypes2.asp

Then, each could be assigned a code and directed to the proper church. Resources would also be classified, so that one could naturally select those most appropriate to their code.

This would be better than everyone taking anyone in hope of paying the bills. Sarcasm off.

Oh, wait a minute, this is premarital counseling.

So, I posted on the site (thanks for the link). 

My question was this - to those of you who classify those of us who believe the Bible is the Holy Word of God as “unthinking”:
1. Have you actually read it?
2. Have you studied it?
3. Are you aware that the phyiscal evidence of history and archeology support the Bible? 
4. Are you aware that when taking the very earliest writings and comparing them against what we have today the Bible is 98.7% accurate, and the errors do not change the meaning of any passage?
5. Do you have a daily quiet time where you read and meditate on God’s Holy Word, pray and listen to God?

So, tell me, if the physical evidence SUPPORTS the Bible, how believing it is God’s Holy Word is “unthinking”?

leaders in progressive religion.

From Ralph’s (46) link. That explains it doesn’t it - it’s’ not Christian religion it’s progressive religion. I’m reminded of the chapter of Acts we studied at church last night, about Paul in Athens. He marvelled at their abundant religion —and explained to them Who their Unknown God was.

Among some pretty good and pointed comments on the st matthew-in-the-city website, this is my favorite:

Father Bill [California]      17 Dec 2009       09:33:01

Hey, you’re a blasphemous, ignorant asshole.
Of course, I mean that metaphorically.
Hope you snap out of your apostasy pretty soon. Millstones and all that.

This is one of the most complete and blatant statements of heresy I’ve ever heard.

I see the billboard was defaced with brown paint after a few hours. The church I understand has had a sense of humor failure about creative self expression using brown paint and is looking to take the brown paint artist to court. So very judgmental these progressives…

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/asia-pacific/8417963.stm

oh dear…what a terrible shame.

What a bone-head!  Pray for his soul.

After listening to the “sermon” I noticed that there was a link to the liturgy for the service on the website.

If you want to see how the heresy of this so-called Christian church is further reflected in the liturgy, take a look at the link.  And keep a bucket handy.  It is just astounding how the Gospel has been distorted.  Just as a teaser, here’s the Prayer for the Day:

Together we pray

Christmas is a pageant of hospitality.  Jesus said, Love one another.  Do this and you will know God.  It is as simple and as difficult as that.  May our eyes be opened, our hearts be tender, and our hands outstretched in welcome to the entire motely cast of Christmas.  Amen.

I can assure you, it gets worse.

This is one of the most complete and blatant statements of heresy I’ve ever heard.

Surely you’re referring to the dear deluded deacon and not the witty priest from CA?

If the link above did not work, try this:

http://www.stmatthews.org.nz/images/UserFiles/File/PDFs/Liturgies/2009-10 Year C Liturgies/Advent 3.pdf

Or go to the website linked above by Matt and you will find the link to:  Download Liturgy

Ummmmmm….Did anybody check out the liturgy that goes with this sermon?
http://www.stmatthews.org.nz/images/UserFiles/File/PDFs/Liturgies/2009-10 Year C Liturgies/Advent 3.pdf

I think I’ll just send this along to the nominating committee here in N. Michigan, this guy looks like a perfect fit.  Remember, he is from NZ, that tiny province that had more reps in the last ACC meeting than Uganda and Nigeria put together.

#60 Fidela, yes, it was the deacon I meant.  I thought Father Bill hit the nail on the head.

I see hanks and I had the same thought and the same problem with the link. I can’t get it to work with the a href=” thing either.  But it you cut and paste the whole address - http through .pdf into your browser, you can take a look.  Maybe somebody more skilled with html can figure out how to turn it into a tiny url that works.

My “favorite” part from the liturgy:

With this bread and wine we remember the dream of
God, and the call of God.
Recalling the promise of tomorrow we wait out the
long night of struggle,
Remembering our brother Jesus, our sister Mary, and
all our spiritual forbears,
Rejoicing in the bonds of solidarity and the
unquenchable Divine Energy
We take, eat and drink, knowing that the Spirit of God
is here
Within and among us,
in simple food, in simple grace,
calling us to freedom’s banquet.

Would you like an olive with your drink?

#45 AndrewA,

Yes, it’s true that Mennonites are extremely diverse. My own congregation is near the end of the liberal extreme, and the only other Mennonite church in the area is an extremely conservative one where people dress Plain and the women cover their heads and are not allowed to ever speak in the church. I wish there was something in between.

Rev. Cardy?  There’s a nice Unitarian “Church” down the road I’d like you to check out.  Cardy, meet Unitarianism; Unitarianism, meet Cardy.  I’m sure you two are going to get along just fine.

From driver8’s link: The church’s vicar, Archdeacon Glynn Cardy, said the aim of the billboard had been to lampoon the literal interpretation of the Christmas conception story.

In other words, to make fun of orthodox Christians. And this is OK, since they are “Christians”. I totally agree with the Family First folks who thought the place for this #$#@$ was inside their church and not outside in the world to offend all and make a joke of faith that is holy. I suppose they can get away with this without fear of payback. It’s hard to lampoon something that isn’t there.

St. Anonymous, I think no introduction is necessary, I think it clear that they know each other well.

A few more excerpts from the Liturgy:

The Peace

We commit ourselves to live in peace as we work for it

To kindle peace within, between and beyond us

For the peace of Jesus is an active peace

Building, bridging and always dreaming

And then this horror:

The Great Thanksgiving

From the beginning, life has been shaped by despair,
struggle, and triumph. Oppressive forces have time
and again tried to destroy the hope of the
marginalized and vulnerable. The forces of wealth
and privilege, armies and theology, have beaten
down upon the poor. Yet hope is never extinguished.
When all seems lost the embers stir back into life,
and the light of justice ignites again. For this we give
deep and heartfelt thanks.

Shortly before Jesus died he gathered around him his
closest friends ... women and men who had shared in
his despair, struggles, and triumphs. They met in a
small upstairs room. The forces of power and selfinterest
were closing in. All their excitement,
anticipation, and hopes were about to be put to death
on a cross. In this moment Jesus took bread and wine,
and likened it to his own life, broken and poured out
for others.

In doing so he invited them and us to share in the
brokenness of our world, and to share too in the
healing of our world through self-giving love. In
bread broken and wine poured out he initiated a new
community. An upside-down community which
believes that loving is more important than winning,
doing what is right is more important than doing
what is safe, and setting people free is more
important than trying to control their lives. It is a
community marked by justice and hope.
 

Is there no shame?

That liturgy is sickening. How to trivialize Jesus in a few cheap and easy words. Y’all come.

Speaking of “y’all come”—here’s my last excerpt:

The Invitation


Come, bringing your varied faiths and backgrounds,
for all are welcome to share in this grace.

Baptized?  Not to worry.  We’ve moved past that silly formality!

St. Anonymous, I think no introduction is necessary, I think it clear that they know each other well.

Then they must be having a clandestine affair. His garb gives the distinct impression he’s married to Anglicanism.

Is there no shame?

No, looking at the billboard demonstrates that there is none.  You would think that even a heretic bishop would be furious over one of his churches doing this, if only for the worldwide ridicule it will bring upon his diocese and the Church of New Zealand.  Primate should be up in arms as well.  I mean, just how many people do they expect to flood through the doors of their church by promoting this tripe?  How many do you figure the Church of NZ stands to lose when thousands in their congregations begin to hear from the friends around the world about what laughing stocks they are, not to mention the outright heresy of the whole thing.

Can’t wait to hear this guy speak on Transubstantiation- probably figures Anglo Catholics have blood running down their chins at communion.  This is the sort of illiterate hedge priest that Cramner warned us about.

Hedge priest. Yes. Except it occurs to me that where orthodox Christians seek to share God’s love, this hedge priest’s concern is with attacking the beliefs of orthodox Christians….

The chain of responsibility starts with his Bishop, Archbishop/Primate, the Global South and then our dear ABC, RW, the supposed guardian of ALL Anglicanism.  These should be notified along with each of our shepherds.  If nothing is done, well, that is more helpful ‘clarity.’

As an artist, a lover of metaphor, symbolism, literary conventions, poetic justice,etc., I love that the paint was brown. 

Wonder if it was old traditional Anglican Fudge Brown (TM), or some of the ancient traditional shades, Church of England Latimer Ridley Bloody Burnt Brown (TM), Murder in Lambeth Cathedral Brown (TM), Lambeth Conference Dirty Backroom Deal Brown (TM)? 

Or was it the newer shades, Indaba Brown (TM) and Ubuntu Brown (TM), Same Old TEC C—P Brown (TM), Canadian Moose T—- Brown (TM)or the newest shade of Anglican Brown just developed by a team of innovative New York designers in 2009, Jamaica Shenanigans (TM)??? 

There are sophisticated nuances of difference and the paints also smell slightly different with variances of sheen and texture.

“Do not give dogs what is holy, and do not throw your pearls before pigs, lest they trample them underfoot and turn to attack you.” Indeed.

This is what happens when the most precious truths of the Christian faith are handled by….well, I’ll just let the Scripture speak for itself.

His religion may be progressive, but I think I know the destination to which it progresses.

For some reason, I was unable to find any of his sermons trashing religions other than Christianity…

OOOOOOH!! He should have been where I have been this morning listening to retired Bishop Fitzsimmons Allison talk about his books, The Cruelty of Heresy and Trust in an Age of Arrogance.

Bishop Allison would say that this Deacon is dabbling in a Gnostic heresy which loves to fly/run away from the Incarnation of God in the Christ. One point (among many) that Bishop Allison is that we live in Age where ideas DO NOT have consequences.  Denigration of ideas has lead to the denigration of basic Christian doctrine. Another quite interesting point made by Bishop Allison is many statements in the NIcene Creed are there to refute a particular heresy that was running rampant in the early church.  I always knew that the Nicene Creed was a result of the Council of Nicea but I did not really fully understand that the 4 councils of the early Church happened to pound out/differentiate basic christian doctrine from heresy.  So what happens when we ignore the Nicene Creed?  You can guess. I am truly astonished when I read that some parishes no longer read the Creed. ACK!

There is lots more to what Bishop Allison said this morning.  His talk was recorded. I will be happy to try and get a copy of the text or perhaps a recording ??

Let me add my two cents to say that I have never believed that God slept with Mary, much less that “sperm” was involved at all. Where do people get this stuff??? Has any traditional Christian ever believed that?

The reference to the Muslim misunderstanding of our belief reminded me of the one time that I got to debate a room full of Muslims. They came at me with that and I shot back that God didnt need to sleep with Mary. The Creator of all who made all from nothing, could just will an ovum to split and split it would.

I put em back on their heels a bit with that response for which I remain inordinately and, certainly, sinfully proud

OK, Here is the tinyurl for this deacon’s sermon
http://tinyurl.com/NZdeacon

OOOPS! Sorry, I posted the shortened version of the very long link in an above post- not to the deacon’s sermon but to what looks like the bulletin for that service.

Thanks, Blue Cat Man.  Your tinyurl is the link to the Liturgy for the service.  This is what I was (unsuccessfully) trying to post above.

Well, I do know theological conservatives who do believe that the biblical accounts of Jesus birth are historically problematic.  They can only be read through the eyes of someone who has experienced his resurrection.  But this does not render them factual or historically reliable.  It may make them true, spiritually.

There are a couple different questions:  is there a contemporary meaning to the stories?  Or is all that is demanded that we believe this story happened.

The problem is if we agree, with atheists, that the story’s facticity matters.  And if we are going to render them factually true, how does this harmonize with other facts we know about bodies?  It seems that we would have, at least, an example of God somehow sharing DNA with Mary. 

Personally, I don’t think the question matters all that much.

“With this bread and wine we remember the dream of
God, and the call of God.
Recalling the promise of tomorrow we wait out the
long night of struggle,
Remembering our brother Jesus, our sister Mary, and
all our spiritual forbears,
Rejoicing in the bonds of solidarity and the
unquenchable Divine Energy
We take, eat and drink, knowing that the Spirit of God
is here
Within and among us,
in simple food, in simple grace,
calling us to freedom’s banquet.”

Where the heck are the Unicorns?  Surely this liturgy needs Unicorns?  And a few fairies with sparkly wings pooping out rainbows. And some Grateful Dead lyrics or that Lennon Guy.  Way to get deep and in touch with your inner universe. 

I am disappointed.  Usually adolescent girls never, ever forget Unicorns.  Oh well perhaps they will make up for their oversight by developing a “New Moon”, “Twilight” communion rite.  Cause both involve blood, right. So that would be cool and so awesome.

#85 John Wilkins-
On semantic grounds alone “Factually and historically unreliable [but] spiritually true.” is excluded from ever passing the lips of a theological conservative.  This statement is tantamount to calling the NT narrative a “Untrue Truth” and is nonsense.  Moreover, such a self-contradictory idea cannot be the ground of any sane theology, let alone a conservative one.

Note that John Wilkins allows only that it “may” make the stories true spiritually.

Hmm, good catch.

How can such a faith save anyone?  It seems more like antifaith to me, a shiny new positron of systematic doubt to annihilate the stodgy old electron of simple faith.

John Wilkins,

So God can create the universe from nothing, but in order to create a human baby he must somehow share DNA with it in order to go along with how we know bodies work?

The Bible says that God could make sons of Abraham from stones lying on the ground. If he made everything from nothing, then making people from stones or scaring up some DNA would be no problem. No resort to the usual mechanics or the sharing any physical matter necessary.

Hummph.  #86, Paula, I will thank you to refrain from disparaging the Grateful Dead by associating them with the liturgy in your post.  Jerry Garcia would be spinning in his grave if he were to learn that his band were linked to something so sophomoric.  No, they were not a Christian band, but they also did not claim to be one. 

Compare the inanity of the words above to these simple and earthy lyrics from the song, “Brown-Eyed Women,” by Jerry Garcia and Robert Hunter:

Delilah Jones was the mother of twins
Two times over and the rest were six.
Raised eight boys, only I turned bad.
Didn’t get the lickin’s that the other ones had.

Daddy made whiskey and he made it well,
Cost two dollars and it burned like hell.
I cut hickory just to fire the still,
Drink down a bottle and be ready to kill.

Well, staying Anglican, I suppose John the Baptist didn’t ever exaggerate, use hyperbole or metaphor to get his point across.  Back in those days, everything was literal. 

Perhaps it is only in modern times we are wise enough to understand metaphor, poetry, symbolism, analogy, or any variety of ways one can make a point. 

But more closely, Augustine himself said that all truth must be one: even science and theology cannot contradict each other.  Of course, I wonder if conservatives would consider Augustine much of a Christian. 

I myself don’t subscribe to the idea that stories are, by nature, wrong if they are stories.  the birth narrative would be untrue only if it did not reveal some sort of truth that we could not understand in this age.  Perhaps the story is merely a scientific curiosity, a “miracle” that happened once before God disappeared.  Or perhaps we’re missing the point by assuming the story must have happened exactly the way it did.

#92 I’m not sure if you are being metaphysical or just imprecise, but the story DID happen exactly the way it did. The issue is whether you belive it or not. I decided some time ago to quit being historically critical and to simply trust the text; so I don’t understand it, but I believe it.

Perhaps the story is merely a scientific curiosity, a “miracle” that happened once before God disappeared.

God disappeared?  He’s not here anymore?  Where did he go?

I’ve been taught that God was still here, and took an active interest in our lives, but I must be wrong.

#19:  I did think it odd that you heard no reaction or noise of any kind from the crowd, though.

You’d have to have a very high quality microphone to catch the faint sound of the Holy Spirit departing.

The church’s website links the Center for Progressive Christianity. Here you are:

http://www.tcpc.org/template/index.cfm

And the adventure led me to the Omega Institute and their faculty.

http://www.eomega.org/?utm_source=google&utm_medium=cpc&utm_term=omega+institute&source=SE.07OMBRD&gclid=CIS_sL623p4CFYdd5Qod-gpnJQ

The Pilgrim, I think most revisionists see God as a far off idea with no power over this world. And while they can swallow any number of Pluriform Truths without a trace of indigestion, they choke on miracles.

RickH,
Excellent correction and I apologize.  Perhaps I should have said in the spirit of those who indulge in certain chemical substances leading to an altered state of reality.

Jim Wilkins,

There is so much wrong with your reply to me that I hardly know where to begin.

So if miracles are ruled out by the laws and restrictions of scientific fact, then you have a heck of a problem explaining how God created the universe from nothing. Heck you have a heck of a problem explaining God. St Augustine certainly did not mean his statement quite so literally as you apply it.

He certainly believed in both a God who created from nothing and a God who miraculously intervened in human history not once but many times.

God made the laws of science. They serve him, not the other way around. And I think I made my point very clear that creating DNA for the fleshly body of Jesus or splitting an ovum by his will ie bypassing the normal means would not violate any natural processes. Jesus would still have the requisite numbers of DNA pairs. The ovum would still split. He would still gestate for nine months. The Bible doesn’t claim anything different either. It only asserts that God intervened to begin the process just as he intervened with the nothingness before creation to begin the processes that scientists observe today.

Your assumptions are also out of bounds when you attempt to create an either or proposition. Either believe that everything used to be literal until it somehow wasnt anymore, or else believe that the whole darn thing was a metaphor from the beginning. This creates a false choice between something that doesnt make any sense because it excludes John the Baptist from using exageration and something which seems more rational than that in comparison.

There are sound theological reasons for believing that the Virgin Birth is a necessary and integral component of the Gospel message which are convincing to this formerly skeptical agnostic and many besides. One does not have to be biblical literalist to believe in it. St Augustine had no problem with it.

I had to blog this one.

Associated Press has picked up this story with the headline (on Yahoo News): “Biblical bedroom billboard rouses ire” -
http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20091217/od_nm/us_newzealand_billboard

I thought the billboard was a riot.

The dude makes clear in his first six words what his goal is:
“To make the news at Christmas.”  He says so himself.
It’s the old Spong / Jerry Springer tactic.  Throw up some kind of worthless trash that you know will make people holler.  And you get attention and can talk about “this interesting controversy.”

Here’s some fresh hell on the home front:
http://transfigurations.blogspot.com/2009/12/hancock-ny-chilling-new-video-how-to.html

Our culture tends to teach us that only things that can be scientifically or empirically proven are worthy of belief.  Or it tries to push us toward a dualism where factas asserted from faith are relegated to second class status, as opposed to “scientific” facts, which are always to be preferred.

It is actually a patently ridiculous, utterly unreasonable way to approach life.  For example, I cannot prove scientifically or empirically that my late mother loved me, but I believe that she did with all my heart.  And the fact of her love, which is actually a question of faith, happens to be of enormous importance to me personally.  Is it unreasonable for me to believe she loved me?  Of course not.  The challenge I have for those who insist that something not scientifically verifiable is therefore unworthy of earnest belief is this—who is being the more unreasonable?  The person who believes in his mother’s love without scientific proof of it, or the person who insists that scientific proof must always be the gold standard?  And, by the way, can anyone prove empirically that Julius Caesar was assasinated by Roman senators on the Ides of March? 

The religious claim is this:  I did not make myself.  I was instead created by an infinite, mysterious, powerful Other who is the source of me and the author of my humanity, and who endowed me and all humans (but no other animals) with deep, heartfelt, nearly unquenchable desires for Truth, Beauty, Justice, and Love.  The question is, given your life experiences, is the religious claim asserting something that it would be unreasonable to accept? 

To take it a step further, the Christian claim is that the mysterious Other who made us became incarnate in the flesh as a particular man at a particular, unique, unrepeatable moment in human history.  In doing so he set in motion a new method by which we may all have our desires for Truth, Beauty, Justice and Love fulfilled utterly by creating a single path that will connect any who desire it with the Mysterious Other Who is the Actual Embodiment of Perfect Truth, Perfect Beauty, Perfect Justice, and Perfect Love.  The question is whether this claim is an unreasonable one.  How might we evaluate its reasonableness? 

We might begin by turning to the Gospel accounts and early Church history.  For example, did Jesus have a virgin mother? Was he physically resurrected?  The Gospels claim the answers are yes.  What tools do we have?  How about using our hearts to discern whether the Gospel accounts and accounts from early Church history correspond to our own experience of how humans might behave given the claims presented.  Why did the apostles flee before the crucifixion and yet later, to a person, face excruciating deaths rather than deny Christ, if they believed he was really dead?  What had they seen that changed them?  What do our hearts tell us about this incredible change in behavior and infusion of courage?  What is reasonable to believe?

The descent without a male parent is prefigured in Genesis 3:15 (Eve’s seed, not Adam’s you’ll notice). 

The virgin birth wasn’t an idea that the Apostles created, nor one borrowed by them from the Greeks for their own God.  It was one that Moses wrote of.

The first woman was created from a man, with no DNA exchanged with God when He drew from a man the woman, and the Last Adam was created from a women, with no DNA exchanged with God when He drew from a woman Jesus the Christ.

I’m no theologian, but a man born in the male-line from Adam can not save us, having been dead already in Adam.  Only the One without a male-line ancestor, who was not born dead could ever bring us life.  How God worked it out doesn’t matter, that He did so, and that Christ of no man the son does.

Matt: the title should be “Falling toward Hell, fire and damnation in New Zealand”.

John Wilkins,

You wrote:

Well, staying Anglican, I suppose John the Baptist didn’t ever exaggerate, use hyperbole or metaphor to get his point across.  Back in those days, everything was literal. 

Perhaps it is only in modern times we are wise enough to understand metaphor, poetry, symbolism, analogy, or any variety of ways one can make a point. 

Please. Of course the Biblical writers used different literary genres to make their point. But we call the Birth Narratives ‘narratives’ for a reason.

See Luke’s introduction for example:

Many have undertaken to draw up an account of the things that have been fulfilled among us, just as they were handed down to us by those who from the first were eyewitnesses and servants of the word. Therefore, since I myself have carefully investigated everything from the beginning, it seemed good also to me to write an orderly account for you, most excellent Theophilus, so that you may know the certainty of the things you have been taught. (Luke 1:1-4)

Whenever I hear or read this type of Unitarianism disguised as “Christianity,” I’m reminded of H. Richard Niebuhr’s description of liberal Christianity:

“A God without wrath brought men without sin into a kingdom without judgment through the ministrations of a Christ without a Cross.”

This guy’s nothing more than a modern-day Sadducee.  God have mercy on him and his hoodwinked flock.

Beware the qualifiers:  “Progressive Christianity” likely is not Christianity.  “Social Justice” is not justice.

TEC expects those who are baptized to affirm their individual belief (“I believe…”) in the Virgin Birth. Obviously to declare disbelief in the Virgin Birth is to disagree with a belief required by the Baptismal Covenant.

TEC expects those who are baptized to affirm their individual belief (“I believe…”) in the Virgin Birth.

Clearly this isn’t TEC, but New Zealand, and I don’t know their liturgies, but how does an infant affirm anything?

Seriously, AndrewA?  Well, I guess it is the season for chestnuts…
Confirmation.  Check it out.

Confirmation.  Check it out.

Yep.  Confirmation and, presumably, ordination, are the events I would have picked as being positive affirmations of the faith by the individual.

FWIW I was baptized as an adult. The liturgy seems to assume that those baptized will make an affirmation of faith. An exception is made for those unable to speak. They, as you rightly say, will make such an affirmation when they are able to speak.

RE: “I myself don’t subscribe to the idea that stories are, by nature, wrong if they are stories.  the birth narrative would be untrue only if it did not reveal some sort of truth that we could not understand in this age.  Perhaps the story is merely a scientific curiosity, a “miracle” that happened once before God disappeared.  Or perhaps we’re missing the point by assuming the story must have happened exactly the way it did.”

John Wilkins—an Episcopal priest—continues to demonstrate beautifully the two mutually opposing gospels within the one organization of TEC.

There will be constant strife because of those two antithetical worldviews residing in one institution.

Two gospels, one organization = massive continuing warfare and losses

[110] Cousin Vinnie

“Social Justice” is not justice.

And yet establishing social justice is the Kingdom of God in making - according to liberal Christianity.  Justice properly defined is “good rewarded, and evil punished.”  “Social justice” is an entirely different concept.  It seeks to free the human will from those bonds that restrict the unfettered pursuit of authenticity.  Whether material, or legal, or cultural, or moral, or spiritual.  Justice judges the human will.  Social justice liberates the human will.  That’s why conservatives talk about the former, and liberals talk about the later.  They reflect the different emphasis found in the two competing gospels.

carl

John Wilkins, when you say, “the birth narrative would be untrue only if it did not reveal some sort of truth that we could not understand in this age,” this is not really true: first, because truth isn’t dependent on our ability to understand it, and second, because lots of people do understand it in the way that the church has understood it for upwards of 1500 years. There is no obligation for the church to accept, without questioning, the world’s doubts; there is, even within the world’s own thinking, an obligation to question those doubts.

For example, when you say “God somehow sharing DNA with Mary,” why should I accept this etiology, especially since the church has taught every since, oh, about AD 60 or so that this is inaccurate? There is nothing in the Lukan narrative that requires this interpretation; indeed, the narrative, on the face of it, does not support this interpretation. I don’t think there’s any way to get to God’s DNA without co-mingling modern views about ancient ideas about human reproduction with modern knowledge of the same; but the fault is that the views of the same ancients about the nature of God forbid that interpretation, even within the context of the ancient views alone, so that the interpretation of “God’s DNA” as signifying “the DNA of which God is partly composed” is erroneous and anachronistic.

It takes very little awareness of church tradition to come upon this, even less than it takes to understand what “seed” means in the context of human reproduction, so there is no excuse for making this “mistake”. It’s really a kind of lying about the text, at least if it is done by a cleric or anyone else claiming a knowledge of church teaching. And as far as “God creat[ing] a miraculous spermatozoon in the body of a virgin”: you do recognize the quotation’s source, don’t you? Because any Anglican should!

My issue with the billboard in question isn’t that it defiles Jesus or his parents, but that it defiles the marriage bed. Obviously Joseph was presented with a quandary, if not a less than comfortable situation. Well, duh—you can read it in scripture, in the early chapters of Matthew. And I suppose it stands as some sort of testimony of disbelief in the (IMO doubtful) tradition of Mary’s perpetual virginity. But what it’s really about is a sort prurient view into the holy family as sexual objects—not sexual beings, for we don’t need a picture for that, thank you. What it’s really saying is that there’s nothing wrong with the modern view of sex as a spectator sport. And that, the modern church does deplore, some of the time, when it gets around to thinking about it and isn’t indulging itself into thinking better of itself for being edgy.