St Matthew's in Auckland describes itself as a "progressive Anglican church with a heart for the city and an eye to the world". That's an understatement.
Last Christmas it offended and intrigued in equal parts with a Saatchi-designed billboard that depicted a deflated Joseph in bed with a disappointed Mary and the caption "Poor Joseph. God was a hard act to follow". Its attempt to provoke was more successful than expected and the poster was promptly attacked with a knife.
For Easter, the most important festival in the Christian calendar, the people at St Matthew's have come up with another ruse to get people engaging with their faith. This billboard shows Jesus nailed to a crucifix, thinking to himself: "Well this sucks. I wonder if they'll remember anything I said". The vicar at St Matthew's, Glynn Cardy, says the poster is a reminder that "Easter is about more than a rugged cross, a supernatural miracle, or a chocolate bunny".
He adopted a similar defence for the Christmas poster – which was the subject of a recent Advertising Standards Authority ruling – challenging the literal interpretation that some Christians have of the Bible and encouraging them to reflect on the teachings of Jesus, not just his birth and death.
"There is a great tradition in the Eastern Church of cracking jokes at Easter. Laughing proclaims that despite the realities of suffering and death, the power of life, love and liberty is stronger. The tenacity of the human spirit is God given, and will not be overcome by the forces of oppression."
Shortly after the Joseph and Mary poster hit the headlines Cardy told a congregation that the campaign was intended to make people think differently about the message of Christianity. "Is the miracle a male God sending forth his divine sperm, or is the miracle that God is and always has been among the poor?"
A few weeks ago he also launched a spirited defence of his tactics.
"A God who is able to be mocked or diminished seems to me to be a God who has a sensitive ego. It seems to be a God who like a king is worried whether his subjects are paying due deference. It seems to be a human-sized image of God that while maybe helpful in early spiritual education seems petty outside of the school gates. 'Mocking God' just sounds like a coded way of saying that I'm so offended I'm going to use my big mate to come and give you a hiding. Does God really indulge in threats? What does such language reduce God to?"
It is an interesting approach to religion but one unlikely to be adopted by churches en masse any time soon.
