My Photo
Mobilise this Blog

Google

InvestigateDaily

INVESTIGATEMAGAZINE.TV

Kiwiblog

New Zealand Conservative

InvestigatePodcast

AmCam News Tips

  • Have you got mobile camera pix of breaking news, or a first-hand account you've written?
    email Investigate now on publicity [at] investigatemagazine.com and we'll get you online
Blog powered by Typepad

« From my mailbox | Main | 40 reasons not to spawn »

Comments

Paula

Maybe Jesus should have turned the other cheek instead of cleansing His Fathers house, when they had made it a den of thieves.

Maybe Paul should have turned the other cheek when
he wept night and day for three days warning of the errors and false doctrine would come into the church.

Maybe Jesus should have turned the other cheek when He said,
'Woe to you vipers.....I culd go on and on but you get the picture'.

KevinOB

Pray for them and pray against them.

Servant

Paula,

I don't get the picture. Are you trying to argue that we should ALWAYS speak out?

The point of my post was that there are times to speak out and a time to be quiet and that we seem to have lost the wisdom of beign able to distinguish when either is best.

Andrei,

The Folsom Street Fair does provide an interesting (and very timely) issue to discuss this balance.

Whilst I understand the offence, I personally don't expect anything else from such a group..... a group that I had never heard of until a Christian website I visit wrote an article about it......

Now that they have had a whole lot of publicity from this picture, I'm sure they won't hesitate to employ such tactics again.

The flipside of the argument though is that the negative publicity caused the sponsor to ask for their name to be removed from the picture. But how many other companies would line up to get that sort of exposure? (excuse the pun)

This picture has now been plastered all over the net.... who has won?

It's an interesting balance with no easy answer.

robk

Jesus' anger was mostly directed at religious leaders, religious money changers and those leading children astray.

Christians need not be too worried about this picture, just keep hammering away at the truth about "alternative lifestyles" and the various perversions in society that make it an unsafe place for our children.

Servant

Kevin,

How about praying for them and praying against their ACTIONS.

dad4justice

Speak out against evil , stuff the consequences, as the time has come to fight for what is right .

"People with courage and character always seem sinister to the rest "
Herman Hesse .

Servant

It's ALWAYS been time to fight for what is right d4j... but was it "right" for Jesus to hang on the cross? Was it right for Stephen to be stoned? Was it right for Peter to be crucified upside down? Was it right for countless innocent Christians to be ripped apart by lions? Was it right for others to be covered in tar and set on fire?......

Why is it that when this generation of Christians gets offended it's all of a sudden the right thing to somehow take up arms and protect our sensibilities?

usabikes

I have just listened to a radio interview with Raymond Ibrahim, the translator of "The al-Qaeda Reader" who makes this assessment of how Muslims see us:~

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
(paraphrase)
Muslims look down on Christians when they see we don't respond strongly to
things like a crucifix being immersed in urine – when we don't get angry.
“That's proof to them that Christians are really infidels that don't believe
in their own religion.” Muslims take the fact that people and institutions
in the west often back down when they make a loud noise of complaint to mean
that the west actually accepts the truth that Muhammad really is the Prophet and that Christians, by not complaining, show that Jesus really isn't the Truth.
Muslims take the back downs to their protests as proof that they're being faithful and true to Muhammad.
<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<

I don't want to sidetrack this into a Muslim thread, but we should demonstrate our objection to this kind of ad. Firstly because we owe it to the Lord, the World & the Curch; secondly if we don't, we will only embolden those who participate in it and lastly, we will weaken our witness to people who are followers of other religions.

Not everyone is as "tolerant" as kiwi Christians are about their religion being attacked. We can and should protest these things *in an appropriate manner*, not over-the-top. Let the media make of it what they will. It should be acknowledged that the media will likely demonise us but so what? If we sheepishly capitulate to this kind of thing it will become a habit for us - if it hasn't already - and we will merely earn the contempt of those who hold strong views - religious or not. How can they respect our integrity?

The easy-going attitude of most NZ Christians has got us marginalised (not that I am looking for political power) and virtually made hypocrites out of us. Culturally we don't need to fear we will make out-of-proportion response to offences - we're not like that - we need to be concerned with following our national character of non-engagement with issues.

Surely we can voice our contempt for the offensive ad while still voicing our genuine concern for those trapped in this lifestyle. Again the media will do its bit to distort this for their own reasons, but the onus is still on us.

Imagine if our small Muslim population protested this (and it will upset them as they hold Jesus as a Prophet and homosexuality as an abomination) and the Chruch did not?

Who do I write to to complain about this?

John Boy

God will judge these acts and we shouldn't bite. The acts are harmless physically but pretty offensive in a religious sense given their direct intent. Maybe this is an example of the unforgivable sin?

Where's the Muslim piss taking in all this? No-where. Why is that?

There must be fat and ugly fags out there. Why don't they ever show them in ads? Its like looking at a Macca's ad - the product and picture have a passing resemblence at best.

fugley

You may protest or stay quiet, the choice is yours.

What you should not do is fall in to the trap of demanding something be banned or censored because it upsets your cherished beliefs. Perhaps in this you could be as a shining light to the ragheads and poofs.

Servant

USA Bikes,

You seem to be making the argument that we should act as Muslims would and that if we don't then we come off looking bad.

WE ARE A COMPLETELY DIFFERENT FAITH.

The very foundation of who we are is different from Islam. We teach a God who suffered innocently on a cross, choosing not to react in defiance, in order that we might be brought closer to him.

The very foundation of who we are is an affront to the Muslim faith, so why on earth should we think it right to take cues from how they would react to such things? Simply so we can look better in their eyes? So that we can maintain some sense of pride?

If I were to argue that we should remain silent in the face of such a repulsive and grotesque depiction of an event I hold dear to myself and my very being, it is not because I am an "easy going Kiwi Christian" willing to sit back and let stuff slide.... it woud be easier for me to react in anger and protest this action.... I would hold back because I believe that it is such an approach that would be the truest testament to my faith. I would believe it a truer testament to my faith to take the whip from those who would cast lots over my Lords robes, to take the spit from the soldiers who beat him.

My cues do not come from Muslims and their approach to the world, but from the one I call King, Jesus Christ. If others think I'm some sort of push-over if I choose to take such an approach then so be it.

Rick

I think Andrei outlines best what should be done, if not now then as general policy, when he says this:

But it is worth noting the "community" responsible for this travesty is amongst the first to play the victim card when they feel criticized and yet feel entitled to offend and hurt the sensibilities of others whenever it takes their fancy or suits their purpose.

And that speaks volumes.

The painting of the Last Supper is not a religious artifact (though may come close in a modern sense) employed in Christian Religion. If anything, only painters and perhaps historians should be bothered by this. It is not a religious symbol, nor does it retain any connection to christianity in the context it is used in here. Christ and his disciples are not in that picture. It's just people at a table.

So what if gays hate christianity - they were never welcome while they were sexuality active anyway. Perhaps that community is saying it is on it's last legs, will be betrayed by it's own members and will shortly die? Who knows, art can be interpreted so many ways.


Lastly, I think it is morally wrong and definately not christian to pray against something (though I am not a christian myself). Sounds to me like a modern aberration of the use of prayer. As I recall various characters in the bible prayed for victory, they were told to pray (without revealing what to pray for) and they were asked to perform various acts that could be described as rituals so as to triumph over enemies, but I cannot remember anyone being told to pray against something. Characters are certainly warned not to do certain acts and told not to associate with various types though. In this case then it would seem sensible to utilise ritual and symbol (as Andrei suggests). I could be wrong.


usabikes

An American friend who lived in NZ for a few years surprised me one day by saying that one of the common sayings of kiwis is; "I can't be bothered". He never heard that as much anywhere else as he did here.

If we do nothing because of conviction that in balance, its not worth making a fuss, and the Christ-like response on this occasion is to "turn the other cheek", that's one thing. But if we do nothing because we "can't be bothered" that's hardly a Christ-like response.

I am not saying "imitate the Muslims" I am challenging us to be authentic and criticise the event without attacking the people (note I used the term "appropriate" response). A by-product is we will be viewed with contempt by those we are seeking to bring to Christ - or in the case of Muslims, those who we at the very least wish to integrate into normal life in NZ. Many will continue in their belief that this is a godless country with which they should not integrate.

I do not take my cue from Islam, my complaint is that we may be putting a "Christian" mask on what is simply our cultural response and I think we Christians need to be challenged in our assumptions.

Servant

Fair comments USA.

I think it's an unfair assumption to bring the "I can't be bothered" attitude to this discussion though. The prompt for this discussion was a post on my blog and I can safely say I don't fit in the "I can't be bothered camp". I am a radio announcer, one of my shows is talkback on Sunday evening where I constantly talk about issues.

Your complaint as outlayed in your last paragraph is unwarranted in this situation and almost insulting. I take my faith and all that it implies, very very seriously.

The same could be said in reverse, is the compulsion to react born out of cultural influences that have nothing to do with a faith in Christ?

usabikes

I don't mean to offend, I apologise. But as I said if you have made a decision based upon the "conviction that in balance, its not worth making a fuss, and the Christ-like response on this occasion is to "turn the other cheek", you needn't find offence at what I said.

And I didn't mean to imply 'react' I meant 'respond' - perhaps this is yet another example of extreme religious reactions rendering all religious responses 'suspect'. But a response I believe there must be.

The ad itself is plainly intended to draw upon a culturally known picture, which happens to be religious. If they had used a picture of Muhammad as a basis instead, for example, it would mean nothing to the culture. So they have simply drawn upon a widely recognised icon. Had they entertained the thought, the idea of insulting Islam with all the repercussions that has, would have deterred them too, I suspect.

However, it is fair to assume they have done this in large part because they know & resent the opposition of the Church to their chosen lifestyle and they knew the consternation it would cause. They have contempt for anyone who says "no" to them and that means pretty much just the Church these days. In one sense being in the middle of a group of sexually mixed up people is exactly where Jesus would want to be today, so its quite appropriate, but only in the sense that he would be providing them with an opportunity to have a life-changing encounter with God, as he has done so often with so many others.

But knowing it would upset devout Christians and they did it anyway. I'm not racist or homophobic (although I would expect to be called such if the chance was given them) but this was intended to cause offence. They needn't have used a religious setting, let alone a Christian one so I don't think the right thing to do is to just let it go and overlook it. We don't even get to state our sense of injury in that case and our silence will mean what to them?

Its probable that they will think that it doesn't matter & they can keep up insulting Jesus. That isn't going to be good for them. Someone should tell them.

Andrew Davies

By getting on a high horse we play into their quest for publicity. Situations like this are great opportunities, not to moan (once again) about the behaviour of others, but to positively promote BOTH the gospel and a political agenda.
I suggest a response to this stuff is to:

1) Point out it is not Christians they are mocking but the One who loves them unconditionally to the extent He was prepared to die for them.
2) Defend their right to freedom of speech (unlike some other religions) and ask only they do the same in return.

Adolf Fiinkensein

Andrew Davies

The best comment yet.

Paula

No servant, I wasn't meaning we should ALWAYS speak out.

Actually when I see this type of thing, I remain quiet because I know they walk in darkness and know no better.
Of course satan is going to scoff at Jesus...as an example.

Actually I agree with USAbikes comments on NZ kiwi
have an 'I can't be bothered atitude'

I used to ask my pastor about 6 yrs ago, why they (pastors/elders) didn't ring talkback.
After listening myself for a couple of years, and almost bursting out of my skin....I finally called myself...AND kept going.

I know I was in religion for years, and we all pretty much followed the rules, and then I got real desparate so I called out for help and went to another level.

I think of ALL the children, battered wives, and desperate people who
NEED help, and they look to the churches and they go through the different denominations, and they usually don't become FREE
because they don't find Christ as Paul did, because NO-ONE really preaches Him as Paul did.

And I am frustrated because the voices are not crying out.
THIS IS THE WAY...WALK IN IT.

The people are following religions and rules and traditions, and they are not truly FREE.

This week I have totally struggled with...
'Oh I can;'t be bothered'
People are so entrenched in their denominations, they are NOT willing to follow Christ, so I think TO MYSELF...EXACTLY THOSE WORDS 'why bother'
Go get a farm, with a dog, and by the beach, and travel the world.
WHY BOTHER.

dad4justice

Never give up Paula.

Lucyna

I must admit that I didn't get the symbolism of the picture until I'd read a number of comments on this thread.

In general, I believe it is better to speak out unless there is some pressing need not to do so. However, on the picture above, it's not directly offensive, so personally, I would not do much more than wonder why the people organising whatever event it was chose to parody the Last Supper in that way. Is there going to be some sort of gruesome death after the event in question with the guy in the middle as the sacrifice?

It is the lot of Christianity to be mocked and reviled. As Christ said:

John 15:18. If the world hate you, know ye that it hath hated me before you.
Si mundus vos odit scitote quia me priorem vobis odio habuit

15:19. If you had been of the world, the world would love its own: but because you are not of the world, but I have chosen you out of the world, therefore the world hateth you.
Si de mundo fuissetis mundus quod suum erat diligeret quia vero de mundo non estis sed ego elegi vos de mundo propterea odit vos mundus

The comments to this entry are closed.