The following is a response I wrote, critiquing/applauding/examining billboard advertisements used by St. Matthews in the City, a progressive Christian church in Auckland, New Zealand that was looking to promote biblical knowledge other than the traditional stories we hear around religious holidays (e.g., Easter, Christmas, etc.) The billboards received harsh backlash and criticism from people around the world who live in predominantly Christian societies. I don’t personally care about religious politics or find it necessary to debate religious belief or sentiment. My examination of the billboard and whether or not it’s ethical is extremely for educational and professional reasons. I am in no way an expert in religious studies. Although some of my writing may appear witty or critical, I promise it’s all in the good nature. I definitely take a stance on religion and may mock it, but a good blog post gives an opinion. I must reiterate that I fully respect the Christian religion for what it is and in no way wish to offend another. It’s simply the way I perceived this billboard and the reactions it received.
I don’t personally feel as though the content of this billboard is offensive as I am not a religious person and I don’t think it’s my duty to defend the religious beliefs or actions of another. I do however think this add would be considered extremely offensive to Christians, which is ironic, because it is simply trying to tell the other side of the Mary and Jesus story. I think that many Christians would find this offensive because it defames and criticizes Christianity in a sense, showing the Virgin Mary in bed with her husband, although she had the baby Jesus with God. Very literally, this billboard suggests that Mary was unfaithful to Joseph. Adultery is an incredibly despised sin in the Christian religion. The billboard, although funded by a Christian church, mocks and criticizes the beliefs of the church and its followers that the Virgin Mary was actually a virgin, yet somehow was able to conceive a child with a man other than her husband.
Photo from: http://www.nzherald.co.nz
The billboard tells the other side of the story; it shows Joseph, Mary’s husband, who is not the father of baby Jesus, who is the odd man out in this reference to biblical history. This reference is completely offensive to Christians, who believe Mary had “divine” conception to bare the child of God. They believe she was a virgin and believe in her sanctity and purity based on the teachings of the Bible and what they learn in what I consider an extremely hypocritical church and belief system. Many must choose to ignore the “facts” and disregard this part of the story because it would cast negative spin on their commercialized religion.
I believe everyone has the right to believe in his or her own chosen religion, but people also have the right to freedom of speech. This church may receive backlash for the billboards, but in the end the church is simply stating another side to the story, albeit through what many would consider a tasteless advertisement; however, those are simply the people that don’t understand satire and humor and/or are just caught up or brainwashed by religion to become upset over something that might dare challenge their belief system.
The First Amendment in the U.S. Constitution protects the right to free speech, for the most part, and would protect this church in its decision to have this billboard posted. It does not hurt or sacrifice another person’s religious beliefs or other personal freedoms. It simply offers an alternative perspective of the Bible and this particular part of the Christian faith. It may be deemed “tasteless,” but it certainly does a good job challenging the beliefs that are out there and tries to make a statement. This church wants people to understand that there is more to this story/history than what is presented in church and the Bible. It attempts to promote the questioning of reality and perception. The U.S. is so amazing because we have that opportunity without having to worry about negative consequences. Unfortunately I’m not so sure about the rights of those in New Zealand regarding free speech, advertising, etc.
Another extremely interesting note to make about this ad is its direct sexual reference. This is an extremely “in-your-face” advertisement in sexual terms. I wouldn’t be surprised if this billboard was targeted at a younger demographic to get younger people questioning the falsities or truths associated with religion in general. Sexual advertisements are appealing to teenagers and young adults. This billboard doesn’t do it in the “titillating” way that an Axe commercial might, but it would still definitely draw the attention of a younger audience with sexual imagery and a witty phrase. In that sense, this billboard acts as a highly commercialized form of religious education targeted at a younger demographic, which conjures up all sorts of other ethical questions.
Ultimately, I don’t find this billboard offensive. I think it’s clever, witty and humorous, However, that humor does come at the price of criticizing Christianity and the beliefs instilled in its followers. Fortunately I’m okay with that.
