Mary's Positive Pregnancy Test Billboard, Posted By St. Matthew-In-The-City Church, Debuts (PHOTO)

A billboard featuring an image of Virgin Mary's reaction to a positive home pregnancy test is raising eyebrows in New Zealand, with some critics deeming the sign inappropriate. The billboard was erected in Auckland, New Zealand on Tuesday by St. Matthew-in-the-City, a progressive Anglican church well-known for its provocative advertisements.

Reactions to the sign gathered by local television station 3 News included comments from locals that the sign was "really weird" and that it was "inappropriate to have outside a church."

But Church Vicar Glynn Cardy and priest Clay Nelson defended the advertisement, saying it depicts a very real reaction.

"Regardless of any premonition, that discovery would have been shocking. Mary was unmarried, young, and poor. This pregnancy would shape her future," the two men said in a joint statement.

It's that type of real world reality that the church says it hopes to highlight during the holidays, according to the media release.

Although the make-believe of Christmas is enjoyable - with tinsel, Santa, reindeer, and carols - there are also some realities. Many in our society are suffering: some through the lack of money, some through poor health, some through violence, and some through other hardships. The joy of Christmas is muted by anxiety.

Perhaps not surprisingly, Cardy said the billboard's shock value is intentional.

"I think anything that provokes discussion about what the meaning of the Christian faith is, I mean that's our goal, is to provoke people to think about meaning," Cardy told Auckland Now.

In an effort to engage people beyond their initial reaction to the sign, the church's website invites readers to write their own captions for the image.

Some suggestions include:

• "God give me strength to accept the things i cannot change."
• "HOLY MOTHER of GOD........oh...that's right...it's me..."
• "Yay, I hope it's a girl"

The sign will remain posted until Christmas Day, according to 3 News.

This year's billboard isn't the church's first attempt at sparking conversation with the use of controversial imagery.

In 2009, the church placed a billboard featuring Mary and Joseph in bed with the caption: "Poor Joseph, God was a hard act to follow,"according to the New Zealand Herald.

That sign sparked outrage among many in the religious community and was vandalized several times.

Comments

[Epimenides]

07:28 PM on 12/20/2011

That sign may be the most honest expression in the history of "Christian" churches.

I would much prefer to have St. Matthew-In-The-City Church next door than most of the homes of hypocrites desecrating America.

[sweetlilthing]

08:14 AM on 12/20/2011

This Euro looking Mary certainly has caused a lot of debate but I liked the Benetton's poster showing Pope Benedict XVI kissing Ahmed el Tayyeb. Now that was a emotional mocked up photo. I still can't get it out of my head!

[Stephanie T]

07:53 PM on 12/19/2011

Didn't an Angel came down and tell her before hand what would happen. No need to spend any $$ on a pregnancy test, she already knew!

[Mrsbean54]

10:58 AM on 12/19/2011

I like it. This billboard displays a feeling of shock and worry about the future that many women can relate to.

[Randybostonterrier]

12:54 AM on 12/19/2011

This is good humor, lighten up.

[Frank-Landfield]

09:42 PM on 12/17/2011

Bravo

[Madtgod]

05:45 PM on 12/17/2011

I feel for Joseph, My ex got preggers when I was out of town,also.

[signgrrl]

01:25 PM on 12/18/2011

ouch. sorry to hear that.

[kloua]

09:45 AM on 12/17/2011

The drawing of this picture, is disobedience to the First Commandment:

"Thou shalt not make unto thee any graven image, or any likeness of any thing that is in heaven above, or that is in the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth"

and i think that we are all, aware, that pictures like this one, when they are put in church, people start to worship the pictures! which is furthur breaking of the First Commandment:

"Thou shalt not bow down thyself to them, nor serve them: for I the Lord thy God am a jealous God"

The huffingtonpost, should take it down, and so should the church that hung it up.

"And shewing mercy unto thousands of them that love me, and keep my commandments."
KEEP GOD's Commandments people!

[zsja]

12:16 AM on 12/20/2011

take a chill pill, please...

[Epimenides]

07:31 PM on 12/20/2011

I sincerely hope you are mocking religious fundamentalists.

If not, you need to see a psychiatrist and find a less ridiculous theology.

[richdibo]

02:22 AM on 12/17/2011

As a Madonna bucaiola, she looks very confused.

[richdibo]

02:11 AM on 12/17/2011

She has that "But I am a virgin!!!" confused look on her face.

It must be a false positive.

[richdibo]

02:07 AM on 12/17/2011

Abstinence only doesn't always work to prevent pregnancies.

Just ask Mary.

[kloua]

09:56 AM on 12/17/2011

Mary, may peace be on her, is dead. we can't ask her, she can't hear.

as far as i know, Mary is the first and last woman, that would conceive without a male.
and God, the Creator, made it happen, so that people know jesus was a sign from God, proof, sot that people like the "atheists" worship God -- those guys are always looking for proofs.

so for the rest of humanity, abstinence does work.

[signgrrl]

01:27 PM on 12/18/2011

tell that to a r@pist . . .

[tiamo]

07:24 PM on 12/16/2011

Hope you have a sense of humor, because:

"That's a pretty good story Mary but I don't think Joesph is going to believe it."

This is not meant, in any way, to disparage Christmas nor Christianity.

MERRY CHRISTMAS

PACEM IN TERRIS = PEACE ON EARTH

[kloua]

08:06 AM on 12/18/2011

what connection does Mary, have with Joseph?

Don't tell me you think she was married to Joseph.
i have not read anywhere in God's book that Mary was married, and
Other than Joseph the prophet, there is no mention in God's words of another Joseph.
and,
God does not mention "Mary" in the story of "Joseph" and He does not mention "Joseph" in the story of "Mary".

I have read God's words about Mary:
God mentions that the mother of Mary, when she was pregnant, dedicated the child in her womb to God.
then, she gave birth to a girl, and called her Mary -- this is the English name.
the mother of Mary, asked God to protect Mary and her children, from saitan.
God made Mary have a good upbringing.
there was a dispute between the people who wanted to take care of Mary.
then, God made zachariah to take care of Mary.
whenever zachariah would come in, where Mary was, he would find she had sustenance.
he asked her, where she got it from, and she said that God provides.
that's when zachariah asked God for an heir, to inherit from the people of Jacob.
so God told him that he will have a child called "John" -- of course this is the english name. John, grew up righteous, obedient to his parents.

[John Caulk]

02:22 PM on 12/19/2011

Satan is spelled without an 'i' in that book you read so many other words out of.

[kloua]

08:07 AM on 12/18/2011

as for Mary,
God mentions that Mary isolated herself, from her family, in an eastern place.
She put a veil between herself and them, then God sent her the spirit (which appeared to her as a human being) and then she carried jesus - on him is peace.
and after she delivered him, and took him home, the people said to her:

and nowhere in God's book, does jesus say he is God.
nowhere does God says that jesus is God.
nowhere does God say "trinity".
nowhere does jesus say "trinity".
the "jesus is God" concept is something the chruch says, and it is in clear contradiction of the first commandment: [not to make any partners to God.]
as for the Spirit [who came to Mary], he is mentioned in many other places, with the other angels, and in fact, and after reading God's words i am more inclined to believe that the Spirit is actually [Angel Gabriel] sent by God. and God knows best. and I ask God to guide us both to the Truth.

as for mention of Joseph, it is when God mentions Joseph the son of Jacob.
Jacob was the son of Isac, who was the son of Abraham.

[kloua]

03:20 PM on 12/19/2011

i have to correct this post.
i forgot to include what the people said to Mary,when she brought jesus, peace be on him, home:

the people said to her:
"oh mary, you have done something evil!".
"O sister of Aaron [sister in faith],
your father was not a man of evil,
nor was your mother unchaste."

she pointed to him [she did not answer]
and they said:
"how can we speak with the one in a crade, a baby!"

he [jesus] responded:
"i am a worshiper of God, He taught me the Book,
and and He made me a prophet"
and He made me blessed, wherever i am, and He ordered me to pray,
and to give money to the poor, as long as i am alive.
and righteous to my mom, and He did not make me a wretched tyrant."

[Dude999]

03:03 PM on 12/16/2011

There are several problems with the virgin birth logically. If Jesus was immaculately conceived then he was not of the lineage of David as Luke 1:32 suggests. Further, Matthew has 28 generations from David to Jesus and Luke has 42 generations and they are completely different people. Matthew starts with Solomon and Luke starts with Davids other son Nathan. But, they both appear to be the lineage of Joseph and not Mary. So the bible has a huge problem. Since Luke uses the word Tov (caused by) instead of eugenesis (fathered by) as in Matt then an appologist could argue that Luke is of Mary but Luke clearly uses tov to refer to Jesus tov Joseph which is Jesus caused by Joseph or fathered by.

Since, Jesus had 4 brothers and 'sisters' then Mary had 5 boys and at least 2 girls and Mary wasn't a virgin for long. And, since their is no record of Mary's lineage unless Jesus was conceived the normal way via copulation he was not a descendant of David as Luke 1:32 says.

[Donna Wasson]

04:33 PM on 12/16/2011

Maybe this will help. God promised Abraham, thousands of years before Christ, that though his lineage, all the families of the earth would be blessed (because the Messiah would come from his bloodline). King David was of Abraham's lineage and referred to as Abe's 'son' in Matthew 1:1. That was simply talking about lineage, not that David was Abe's literal next generation son. Anyway, King David was promised by God in Psalm 89, that He (God) would build David's throne to all generations (Jesus, his decendant will eventually be King--just hasn't happened yet..)

Luke traces Jesus' genealolgy through Mary; Matthew traces it through Joseph, his legal, 'father'. Jesus was of the line of King David on both Mary and his LEGAL father/guardian, Joseph's bloodline. Luke carefully noted in Luke 3:23 that Jesus wasn't Joseph's son after the flesh. Because Luke was Greek, to trace Mary's genealogy was appropriate--Matthew traces the genealogy back to Abraham and Luke goes back to Adam.

Jesus did have physical half-brothers and sisters. The books of James and Jude were written by two of them. You will NOT find anything in the Bible suggesting she remained a virgin after Jesus' birth. In fact, in Matthew 1:24-25 states,"Then Joseph being raised from sleep did as the angel of the Lord had bidden him, and took unto him his wife: and knew her not UNTIL she had brought forth her firstborn son: and he called his name Jesus."

[Dude999]

09:52 PM on 12/16/2011

Thanks, I knew it was probably Luke which appologist say is the bloodline of Mary because Jechonia is in Matthew. Which would make Jesus ineligable to be the messiah if he was related to Jechonia. And, Jesus huios Joseph tov Heli makes sense as huios seems to be a legal term. And, Luke uses fathered of. However, this does show what a terrible translation the Christian bible is. I had this written in a notebook and coultn't find it.

Babylon was about 597 B.C. This means that each generation in Matthew story would have to have a child at 42.64 years old on average. But in Lukes story each generation would have to have a child at 24.32 years old on average. Indicating the average age difference between the men and women was 18.32 years. Men being 18.32 years older. ;-)

[mbs410]

01:46 PM on 12/16/2011

Perhaps instead of assuming this to be an offense, how about make it as a way for women of faith to come to a level of understanding with a key figure of said faith? Every woman I know who has had a positive pregnancy test no matter if they were happy, sad, shocked, nervous, scared to death, or praying to some divine being somewhere for a good outcome, had that look on their face. What better way to humanize and come to a place of mutuality with an icon of faith than to share those emotions? Its meant to be thought provoking...perhaps you should use it for its intended purpose and stop assuming it a slight?

[tjeastrich]

01:09 PM on 12/16/2011

Wow, they say a piece of art is worth a thousand words. This particular portrait is worth a million. It invokes a wide range of very personal reactions from predictable religious outrage, to mild controversy, to dewilderment and curiosity, to complacency, finally to outright LOL humor. A person's interpretation largely depends on who you are and of course your value and belief system.