From the NZ Herald re the billboard depicted in the previous post:
'The vicar of St Matthew's, Archdeacon Glynn Cardy, said: "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," he said.
But the Auckland Catholic Diocese has called the image inappropriate, disrespectful and offensive to Christians.
Spokeswoman Lyndsay Freer said that for a church to put up a poster which implied the Virgin Mary and Joseph had just had sex was disrespectful to the church.
"Our Christian tradition of 2000 years is that Mary remains a virgin and that Jesus is the son of God, not Joseph," she said. "Such a poster is inappropriate and disrespectful."
Mrs Freer said the idea that the poster was made to provoke conversation amongst non-Christians was not a defence, but completely offensive.'
Read the whole report here.
As I have thought about the billboard during the past few hours since first noticing the beginnings of the news and comment trail about it, I am against the billboard. Not, of course, because it implies Mary was not a perpetual virgin (for which there is no case in the Bible, and indeed the plain sense of the Bible, that Mary had other children, is against the idea). Rather, I do not think the billboard honours and glorifies God because it diminishes God to a kind of superman.
Christopher Johnson aka MidWest Conservative Journal thinks Glynn Cardy "may have written and spoken the single most offensive Christmas message that I’ve ever read."
For his genteel criticism of Cardy, the sermon, and the billboard, tighten your stomach muscles and read on.
(Later) But does the billboard exist anymore?