I was offended. In November the news broke that Emily Mapfuwa had been denied the right to bring a private prosecution against the Baltic Flour Mills Visual Arts Trust, after it displayed a plaster figure of Christ with an erection.

Now, don’t get me wrong. The statue was undoubtedly designed to spark controversy and cause offence. It’s a shame that anyone should set out to offend others. I guess it’s easier to be offensive than produce good art. The case also raised important questions about the extent to which the Crown Prosecution Service followed due process.

Still, despite all that, I was actually more concerned about how some Christians responded to the episode. One group informed the world’s media that the art was a ‘scurrilous, gratuitous and offensive attack’ on Jesus. Stephen Green menacingly warned artist Anita Zabludowicz that her statue wouldn’t survive being put on public display again.

I can only think that the artist and gallery were delighted. The general public, who were previously unaware of either’s existence, soon were. In terms of Christianity’s reputation, we didn’t do ourselves any favours. Instead, we reinforced the impression that we’re defined by what we’re against rather than what we’re for, consumed by feelings of insecurity and victimisation, and that we’ve got a warped sense of what really matters in the overall scheme of things. The civil war was escalating in DR Congo, the financial crisis was crippling the world’s poorest, 80,000 children were in local authority care (and still are) and we were banging on about a statue in an unknown gallery.

One final point: We claim to believe in a doctrine called the incarnation, a belief that Jesus of Nazareth is God in flesh. It might make us deeply uncomfortable, but, if Jesus is who we claim he is, the statue might just confront us with a stark theological truth.

This article first appeared in Christianity Magazine in September 2008.