Comments on: Losing Your Message but Gaining Publicity

By: tom rath

tom rath — Sun, 07 Mar 2010 16:56:21 +0000

And everyone did what was right in their own eyes…

By: Sheila

Sheila — Thu, 11 Feb 2010 14:28:12 +0000

I went to look at the billboard and laughed my head off. However, that being said, I haven’t a clue why anyone would think that this billboard depicts anything regarding Christianity. Now looking at the pastor’s words etc, I would have serious concerns about his theology. But as for the billboard, sorry, it’s just plain funny, and who knows it might attract some people who are looking for a church with a sense of humour (and sadly get a church with bad theology and that’s the real tragedy here…)

By: Brad W.

Brad W. — Mon, 18 Jan 2010 19:52:27 +0000

You have to be either delusional or severely indoctrinated since childhood to actually believe a man (Jesus of Nazareth) was conceived of a virgin by supernatural powers, and then rose from the dead after he died.

By: Steve Fogg

Steve Fogg — Fri, 15 Jan 2010 04:31:23 +0000

Thanks James, that is an excellent link.
I actually think the original concept is stronger. And clearer in what they are trying to convey.
Steve

By: James

James — Wed, 13 Jan 2010 13:03:42 +0000

You’d need to ask St Matt’s for the agency brief.
They have published this:
http://stmatthews.org.nz/nav.php?sid=538&id=1014

By: Steve

Steve — Tue, 12 Jan 2010 17:20:50 +0000

Hey James,
Didn’t know an agency was involved. Would love to see the M&C saatchi brief. If we can connect on Twitter you I’ll give you my email address
I disagree regarding the timing of the billboard. Of course they used the Christmas season to it’s maximum effect. If they launched the billboard in Febuary they wouldn’t of had no where near the media interest.
Sorry James, the vicar clearly says purposes and lists 5 points here http://www.stmatthews.org.nz/news.php?nid=214&sid=88 I only report what I read.
Read the points – the church is clearly trying to get people to believe that Jesus was conceived by Mary and Joseph. Of course May and Joseph were Jesus’ parents, but they are clearly trying to say that God wasn’t involved in the conception of Jesus.
Did it position St. Matthews? I don’t have any data besides the news reports which suggest that the media storm was predominately about the edgyness of the ad which I believe many would of misinterpreted anyway. But’s thats just my subjective opinion.
Grace and Peace to you bro.

By: James

James — Mon, 11 Jan 2010 18:05:33 +0000

You’ve got your facts wrong from the outset Steve.
St Matt’s wasn’t “aiming to leverage the Christmas season to promote theological conversations”.
The aim – as stated in the M&C Saatchi brief – was “To get people thinking about the meaning of Christmas and position St Matthew’s as different to other churches”.
The five points you’ve lifted from the vicar’s comments weren’t “five purposes” they were answers to the question “What possessed you to approve this billboard?”.
Point three talks about Jesus having two human parents. He did. Mary and Joseph. It doesn’t say “Jesus was conceived by Mary and Joseph”. My wife has two parents but she wasn’t conceived by them. The billboard never intended to communicate this. It did intend to get people thinking about the humanity of Mary and Joseph. Which it achieved.
And it did “get people thinking about the meaning of Christmas and position St Matthew’s as different to other Churches”. On a global scale.

By: Steve

Steve — Sun, 10 Jan 2010 15:07:14 +0000

Hey Greg,
Interesting comments. I agree, that from my theological perspective they didn’t help people see Christ more clearly.
I would say that they were definately attempting to engage people into seeing Christ more clearly from their theological lens.
Did it work? We can only speculate about it’s success or failure – I would be asking the Vicar of the church, did your church attendence rise since? That would be one indicator as to whether it was successful or not.

By: Beat Attitude

Beat Attitude — Sat, 09 Jan 2010 05:52:21 +0000

I can’t see how the poster results in people seeing Christ any clearer. From that perspective, its a FAIL. I don’t care what their aims were, if its purpose was not to exalt Christ, then it was irrelevant. Making fun of other church doctrines is unbiblical and therefore another FAIL. It’s also a FAIL because it doesn’t even accomplish that, so it just makes this church seem incapable of even making a poignant observation.
Modern culture is full of people shouting for attention. You can do it by taking your clothes off (and many do), but that is wrong. So compromising biblical values just to gain attention is to idolise publicity.
All this will do is make people see the church as something which is the same as everybody else: vying for your attention at all costs. People will respect the church less as a result of this poster. Noone says “hey, I’ll definitely listen to what that guy teaches, because he doesn’t seem to take himself too seriously!”. If your aim is to be *liked*, then be an inane joker at all costs, but if your aim is to make Christ’s glory visible, then you have to get your priorities in place.

By: steve

steve — Fri, 08 Jan 2010 19:30:57 +0000

Paul,
There was no polling done. But the majority of churched ppls orthodox theology is that God came upon Mary through the Holy Spirit.
So they (like me) would think at 1st read that is what the headline is referring too.
I would also suggest that the headline leads you to that response too even if you don’t have biblical knowledge on 1st read.
But then that’s just my considered opinion.
I don’t think from the majority of the reporting that I read, that the churches theology came through. You really had to dig deep to find it – and the average Joe just isn’t that interested.
Would 50,000 be considered a success? He doesn’t qualify numbers as a goal, but if 50,000 changed from the opinion that Jesus was the Son of God to the son of Joseph from the one read, and achieve the other 4 goals that he wanted then it would be a raging success.
But in his own review he scores himself down.
In my opinion, the publicity side of it is a success. I don’t think the message really got through. The publicity was all about the outrage of Christians, and the crude statement that was the headline.
Thanks for your response! It’s good to talk about!