What a dramatic spectacle it was, as it unfolded! I am not referring to the Olympic opening ceremony, which was spectacular in parts, but also rather long and drawn out, full of slightly obscure allusions to French cultural ideas (was ours better in 2012? Yes, I think it was less obscure), and at times seemed rather sexualised and not good family viewing, which it was supposed to be.
Nor am I referring to those who were outraged at the short Bacchanalian scene which appeared to mock da Vinci’s painting of the Last Supper. No, the spectacular drama was those who were outraged at the idea that Christians should be outraged at anything in the media. As Fergus Butler-Gallie commented on Twitter:
Whenever there’s a Christian controversy of some sort I always run a little book in my head in how long it takes the people who are performatively not bothered by it to become more annoying than the people who are performatively bothered by it. I make it about 36 hours.
Michael Jensen offered a more robust critique on Facebook of those taking offence at those taking offence:
I also note the gaslighting that has gone on towards those who’ve taken offence. How ignorant and unenlightened they must be. How touchy! How backwards! Don’t they know art history? If the shoe were on some other foot, we would immediately cave in and say ‘Yes, it wasn’t intended to be offensive but your offence is justified anyway’. We live in an era where subjectivity is everything. If you feel it, it must be true. Except in this one instance, apparently.
The most fascinating aspect of this in the Church of England was that (to my knowledge) the only bishop who objected to it in public was John Inge, bishop of Worcester, who quoted Gavin Calver of the Evangelical Alliance. Since John is a leading campaigner for the Church to change its doctrine of marriage, this was about the only thing they might agree on. But John then had to make a quick retraction—which probably needed another retraction!
All this goes to illustrate the complexity of addressing such things, as my social media feed was swamped with offence and counter-offence, a sign of the corrosive effect of living in a social media world on our thinking and conversation.
Where do we start to untangle all this? We need to start with the image of the Bacchanalian feast, with a blue figure of Bacchus and an array of people in drag. The apparent parallel with da Vinci’s Last Supper caused an immediate outcry from some. Others then went on to deride the ignorance of art history on their part, pointing out that this was actually a recreation of ‘The Feast of the Gods‘ painted in 1635 by the Dutch artist Jan van Bijlert, which is the property of the French Republic and hangs in a gallery in Dijon.
But when you look at ‘The Feast of the Gods’ it bears a striking resemblance to da Vinci’s work. (You can find a great exposition of the theological meaning of his painting here.) There has been a long tradition of displacing Christian images and ideas with pagan classical ones, with a Bacchanalian feast being the obvious substitute for the Last Supper and the Christian celebration of Communion (the Eucharist).
The debate then shifted to the intention and the awareness of those responsible for organising the ceremony. The phone app explaining the ceremony included this comment:
Also on the Passerelle Debilly is a familiar scene re-enacted by drag queens, including the famous Nicki Doll surrounding Barbara Butch at her turntables: a recreation of the Last Supper, another famous painting by Leonardo da Vinci, set against the backdrop of the Seine. As you may have guessed, this is a multiple pun in French. A fashion show follows, paying homage to the capital of fashion.
The apology for offence caused from the organisers was less clear—and it wasn’t really an apology, but a regret that people had taken offence.
“Clearly there was never an intention to show disrespect to any religious group. [The opening ceremony] tried to celebrate community tolerance,” the Paris 2024 spokesperson Anne Descamps told a press conference. “We believe this ambition was achieved. If people have taken any offence we are really sorry.”
The Guardian article offered a helpful comment on the context in French culture:
France has a rich Catholic heritage but also has a long tradition of secularism and anti-clericalism. Blasphemy is legal and considered by many to be an essential pillar of freedom of speech. Supporters of the tableau praised its message of inclusivity and tolerance.
The second paradox is the fact that an event designed to have popular appeal actually depends on elitist understanding of the complexity of the images. Not only are the organisers expecting the viewers to know something about contemporary drag queens (‘the famous Nicki Doll’) but also 17th-century French and Dutch art history—as well, perhaps, as of Greek mythology. Zachary Arden asks the question:
Incidentally, why pick this theme? In part perhaps for the somewhat pedestrian opportunity to have “la Cène” (the last supper) on “la scène” (the stage) on la Seine.
Very clever, but also very elite. It is quite hard to accuse Paddington Bear having tea with the Queen as guilty of this kind of social or intellectual elitism! This kind of approach revels in the ‘in jokes’ and woe betide the commentator or critic who is ignorant of these things. It is almost as if the organisers set a trap for anyone offended, who by their offence is simply displaying their ignorance.
But the third paradox is around the notion of intention or awareness. Michael Jensen again:
I think it is fascinating that one defence of the Olympics Opening Ceremony performance was the resort to ‘author’s intentions’. That is: the designer says he didn’t intend it as a reference to the Last Supper, so therefore, people shouldn’t be upset if they see an echo of the Last Supper there. How primitive and unlike every French literary critic I read at university! Surely we could at least acknowledge that cultural references can be subconscious. The Last Supper lurks deep in the consciousness of Western culture—it is no surprise that it bursts out even when the composer of the scene isn’t aware of it. For those saying ‘don’t you know art history?’ the question really ought to be put to the designer/director: don’t you know art history, that the tableaux you presented immediately would be taken as a reference to the Last Supper?
Literary criticism in the post-modern era has long argued that it is not the intention of the author that creates meaning, but the perception of the reader—first proposed in a 1967 article ‘The Death of the Author‘ by Roland Barthes. This idea has had a major impact on biblical studies, leading to a shift from attention to the context of the biblical texts and the possible meaning intended by the author, and even away from the text itself, to the ‘reader response’ of readers in different contexts. The difficulty here, as with the Olympics ceremony, is that different ‘readers’ will see different things—but of course responsibility for any of this conveniently shifts away from the author! Hence the apology was ‘that people took offence’ and not ‘that I caused offence’.
If you think this is all rather remote to contemporary life, just consider the definition of ‘hate crime’ now in the UK, which centres on whether an action ‘is perceived to be’ arising because of hatred of a particular group.
These paradoxes together are the product of the ideas of deconstruction and of ‘queering’ all of life, whether it be ideas or values or cultural icons. The real problem here is that to deconstruct something, you need something which others have previously built, and you need somewhere to stand from which to deconstruct it. If you build something in its place, then you must expect that the next person to come along will deconstruct that. It simply leads to more and more instability and self-contradiction.
Two fascinating responses highlight some of the issues here. The first is from an evangelical Christian living in France.
Yet, even within a France that wanted something to be proud of, the event has been widely criticised. I’ll mention the ‘anti-Christian’ element shortly but the whole venture was the epitome of postmodernism or possibly post-postmodernism. History and culture were ransacked to give episodes that were flashed up, given a sharp twist of deconstruction, only to be replaced by something else. Any overall theme was unclear and forcing viewers to make their own response to the mysteries before them. There was a consistent jokey, cynical and provocative tone and anything that could, within the law, be lampooned was.
The second is from David Watson, who is Academic Dean and Professor of New Testament at United Theological Seminary in Dayton.
As the Western world chokes on its own decadence, the drag-queen spectacle at the Paris Olympics was its fitting representation. The surprising thing would have been if nothing like this had happened, if we could have had some public spectacle without a celebration of the libertine sexual ethic that has come into full bloom in the early twenty-first century. Drag queens are, as the French say, au courant. The manner of their appearance made many particularly angry since it resembled a mockery of the Last Supper…
Forgive me, then, if I’m not reassured by the claim that what we saw at the Paris Olympics was only a representation of a pagan orgy.
That said, it really doesn’t have to be one or the other. In many ways, a bacchanal is the antithesis of the Eucharist. Both are celebrations at the table, though their meanings could not be more different. One is a celebration of pleasure, the other a representation of Christ’s suffering. One is about hedonism, the other about self-sacrifice. One is an adventure in lust and gluttony, the other the embodiment of self-giving love. One glorifies the flesh, one crucifies the flesh. One binds us to the enemy of our souls, the other to their creator and redeemer. Whether we witnessed an intentional mockery of the Last Supper or a bacchanal really doesn’t make much difference. The meaning is largely the same.
Given all this, should Christians have taken offence at this? Should we have vented outrage on social media and elsewhere? As others have done, Watson puts this nicely in historical context:
Contempt for Christianity, however, is nothing new. Early Christians were accused of all kinds of things, from atheism to incest to cannibalism. One especially sophomoric rebuke of Christians is a cartoon (technically a graffito) that was inscribed into plaster sometime around the early third century on the Palatine Hill in Rome. It depicts a man named Alexamenos worshiping a crucified figure with the head of an ass.
People have always found Christianity distasteful. Do we expect that they will no longer do so? Just as in the early days of the faith, Christianity now finds little favor among the upper echelons of society, who prefer the bacchanal to the communion table. The foolishness of the crucified God, the odious renunciation of self, the repellent call not to be served but to serve, the submission of the flesh in union with Christ as a holy and living sacrifice—these are repugnant to those who consider themselves self-made and revel in the will to power.
But how should we respond to these kinds of offensive expressions of contempt?
Jimmy Carr has a wonderful short vignette in one of his stage sets, where he explains why he mocks Christians but does not mock Islam.
I’m not going to be telling the same jokes about Muhammad as I tell about Jesus Christ—I’m not an idiot!So if you’re a Christian, and you’re sitting there thinking ‘That’s not fair! He makes jokes about Christians all day long, but he won’t make the same sorts of jokes about Muslims!’ then maybe, as a Christian, you should think about blowing something up! No-one’s scared of you! What are the Christians gonna do? Forgive me?!
I confess when I watched that I felt rather proud. That is precisely what Christians should be known for, following the example of Jesus. Kenneth Cragg, the expert on Islam of a previous generation and Assistant Bishop of Jerusalem, in his The Call of the Minaret, highlighted the essential difference between Islam and Christianity: where Muhammad journeyed to Mecca with an army to conquer, Jesus journeyed to the cross to be conquered, to give his life for others.
And so we stand in the long tradition that goes back to the Letter of Mathetes to Diognetius, written around 130:
They have their meals in common, but not their wives. They find themselves in the flesh, and yet they live not after the flesh. Their existence is on earth, but their citizenship is in heaven. They obey the established laws, and they surpass the laws in their own lives. They love all men, and they are persecuted by all. They are ignored, and yet they are condemned. They are put to death, and yet they are endued with life. They are in beggary, and yet they make many rich. They are in want of all things, and yet they abound in all things. They are dishonoured, and yet they are glorified in their dishonour. They are evil spoken of, and yet they are vindicated. They are reviled, and they bless; they are insulted, and they respect. Doing good they are punished as evil-doers; being punished they rejoice, as if they were thereby quickened by life.
We appear to suffer from two equal and opposite ills of the social media age—outrage and indifference. Neither of these are options for the Christian. We should not shake our social media fists in range—but neither should we shrug our shoulders are ask everyone to move on, or get a life.
Yes, we should be offended. Yes, we should be grieved—not just at the mockery of Jesus and his offer of himself to us, but also at the destruction and hedonism of our era. That grief need not be diminished by our concern at other issues as well; after all, it is the culture of consumption which is doing so much harm to the natural world as we exploit it for our gain.
But our response should be greater commitment to sharing the good news of Jesus—that a meal in his presence is worth more than all the consumption in the world, and it is in his service that we find perfect freedom.
Buy me a Coffee
This topic is to be discussed on BBC’s Radio 4, this evening, on the Moral Maze, 9:00 pm, if I heard correctly.
I wonder who the panelists will be.
This is excellent Ian, thank you. One minor spelling issue, I assume it should read “Gavin Calver”
DYAC
Very well reasoned and put. Thank you. I wasn’t aware of the ancient graffiti reference.
It’s a choice to refer to mockery when subversion or, more generously, reference or allusion could be used.
It seems to me quite plausible that the intention was to express that such as these should be able to have their own table without any negative intentions towards Christ, at which point the response could be that they can indeed either have their own table along with the consequences of the rejection of Christ’s table or be welcomed to Christ’s table (where Christ shall not be replaced as the host).
I was just as grieved by the re-embracing of previously rejected false gods, by the continued failure to recognise the folly of John Lennon’s vision in light of the horrors of the 20th century, by the flippant references to the murderous realities of the French Revolution and by the portrayal of hopelessness in the face of threats to the future of humanity.
Not sure I agree about the inferiority of a ceremony that is less easily interpreted. Feels to me typically French to provoke deeper thought / engagement and it wasn’t all profound.
I don’t think it will help the chances of those intent on keeping RN at bay. I expect these images to re-emerge in the 2027 presidential campaign.
Celine Dion’s performance was stunning and made me reflect on the lyrics, despite their not portraying an entirely Christian worldview. Does God reunite those who love each other? There’s a sense in which Piaf was right.
I would put it more strongly – offence is the currency of Satan, it’s a sin to take offence. I go into why (drawing on NT ‘stumbling block’ language and Girardian mimesis) here: https://samcharlesnorton.substack.com/p/the-sin-of-being-offended “If God does not take offence at the murder of his Son, how can we take offence at anything milder?” It’s possibly the most significant difference between Christianity and Islam, as you indicate.
Thanks Sam. I found that comment – and the link to your 2022 article – really helpful in this context.
I’m only just dipping into koine Greek so forgive my ignorance but how did you / Girard come to settle on scandalised as the meaning of σκανδαλίζω in Matt 5:29 when in the very next verse the same word is used for the action of a right hand?
The link you included to Girard’s analysis seems to be broken.
Well yes, but God *does* take offence at the murder of his son.
The biggest difference between Christianity and Islam is whether Jesus is divine and died on the cross (both denied in the Quean). The second biggest difference is the character of the Creator as revealed in the Old Testament and the Quran.
Maybe what we should say is that everyone will appear before the Judgement Seat of Christ to account for their actions.
Except that is not believed in secularism nor liberalism.
Overall it is idolatry, let alone specific pagan worship of Dionysus, of Bacchus.
How did Christians respond?
Ah yes, the mocking laughter, should we be offended or count it all joy that we suffer calumny for the sake of Christ?
The NT is replete with the latter teaching.
YES grief, because we have learnt the ‘exceeding sinfulness of sin’;
grief, because, looking out upon the world, we see, as other men do not see, hell-fire burning at the back of the mirth and the laughter, and know what it is that men are hurrying to!
What of God? well He will laugh! He will have them in derision! Even the saints will laugh. I think that at the last these people will hear that laugh and it will be that which will torment them day and night.
Ps 37:13 The Lord shall laugh at him: for he seeth that his day is coming.
Ps 52:6 The righteous also shall see, and fear, and shall laugh at him:
Ps 59:8 But thou, O LORD, shalt laugh at them; thou shalt have all the heathen in derision.
Ps 80:6 Thou makest us a strife unto our neighbours: and our enemies laugh among themselves.
They have their temporary mirth we have abundance of eternal joy.
Our God is a God of awesome Joy He is the happy God,
the blessed and to be envied One.
His people are anointed with the Oil of Gladness.
I heartily recommend The Theology of Joy it will bless your socks off!
https://tvaerkulturelt-center.dk/index.php/docman-dokumenter/information/298-the-theology-of-joy-george-thomas/file
Great article.
The organisers of the ceremony, the International Olympic Committee and ultimately the French government, rather than Christians, have been humiliated by a show which was a combination of extremely boring, artistically poor, and ‘rebellious’ in the somewhat pathetic sense of an officially sanctioned mockery of a soft target in an attempt to appear ‘edgy’. Millions of people who weren’t bothered by the pagan and anti-Christian elements, just thought the expensive ceremony was rubbish. That’s punishment in itself?
Second, as Christians we see offensive material on our screens and in the public square all the time. Why are people getting particularly angry about the Olympics? The ongoing slaughter of Christians in northern Nigeria, and similar forms of oppression of Christians throughout the world; the ongoing indoctrination of children with LGBT and pagan themes, and near total elimination of Christian teaching in schools; government promotion of abortion and euthanasia – are these not more serious than a weird dance in the pouring rain on our screens which we are free to switch off?
Third, we shouldn’t be surprised when people who don’t know Christ, and have given themselves over to sensuality and the demonic, put on these sorts of shows. I think it’s good that thousands of commentators have pointed out what’s wrong, but if I don’t sign another petition on this, does that mean I’m complicit?. What is much more concerning, in my view, is when church leaders have accepted the underlying worldview of this secular-paganism, eg a number of C of E bishops.
Andrew,
Well said.
It was reported, “The idea was to do a big pagan party linked to the gods of Olympus,” Jolly (the ceremony’s artistic director) told the BFM channel on Sunday.
The last time Paris hosted the Olympics was 100 years ago, 1924. During those games God was both honoured and glorified through Eric Liddell. The enemy has been fuming over that ever since. So, by his infernal design and inspiration God has to be mocked at these games. Job done!
The devil knows how to hold a grudge.
At least one other C of E bishop objected to the opening ceremony – The Bishop of Oswestry shared on social media his robust letter to the French Ambassador on the matter. And I’m not aware that he has felt any need to make a retraction!
Thank you for this well argued piece. I thought the point about elitism was very well made. I feel sad because I always want to feel sad when people make fun of a good friend.
Good point! And much more than a good friend, my heavenly father and sovereign… King!
Blasphemy legal in France? Ask the bereaved of Charlie Hebdo……
Well, isn’t that what cowards do? They only know how to make fun of those they are not afraid of.
I watched it on and off but overall it was a pretty boring affair. It seems many spectators left for home considerably early, not just because of the rain (perhaps God was showing his displeasure?!) but because they couldnt see much. London was so much better.
But Im not surprised at the French attitude. I get the impression from French people who have become Christians that mockery is common-place, perhaps especially amongst the young (<35). Though I experienced similar from 'friends' when I became a Christian at university in Scotland. So no surprise. And there is clearly an intellectual 'elite' . Or rather a wannabe elite. You only have to watch French cinema to see that. Jordan Peterson would probably fit in well with his waffle.
Slightly off topic, I once visited Chittagong in Bangladesh for work. The French cultural offering was a regular showing of French cinema. I think the audience got more (or perhaps less) than they bargained for. The British Council was lending out Mr Bean videos. Vive la différence!!!!
Well, it won’t be long before someone writes a rejoinder that the tableau was a brilliant example of queering theology.
Somebody (whose name I don’t recall) already said something along these lines on a different thread.
and this is what he said —
“I really find the confected outrage about the parody of a Da Vinci painting at what was a classically French and jovial Opening Ceremony a bit…weird.
“It’s a *parody of a painting*.
“Perhaps the real problem is that queers were seen at Christ’s table.”
Saying or writing ‘… weird’ is the meme being used on Democrat news circles in the US to attack J D Vance.
Which is strange because I thought the pro-gay crowd had ‘reclaimed’ the word ‘weird’ as they did with ‘queer’ and they were proud to be ‘weird’.
BTW, I wonder if the word ‘queer’ as a self-descriptor for ‘homosexual’ (instead of ‘gay’) became more popular because the kids started saying ‘That is so gay!” I have seen lots of Stonewall posters in secondary schools telling kids not to say ‘That is so gay!’
Or maybe, just maybe, you’re not as in tune with the “pro-gay crowd” as you like to imagine.
AJB – I am certainly not “in tune with the pro-gay crowd” and have never claimed to be. But I am pretty sure ‘queer’ is just another word for ‘homosexual’ but adopted to give homosexuality a bigger cultural or academic profile – and maybe to include transgenderism as well because a significant part of homosexuality consists of identifying in some way with the opposite sex (men being penetrated by men, lesbians acting like men toward women etc).
If you know think ‘queer’ has a different meaning in sexual contexts, please enlighten me. I am sometimes told I don’t know what it means but nobody explains it without writing rebarbative gibberish.
Several people have explained queer theory to you. That you either misunderstand or disapprove of their definitions is hardly surprising when you so wildly misconstrue homosexuality – identifying with the ‘opposite’ sex! What glorious straightsplaining.
The bishops’ own percieved sartorial elegance will take a knock. They will want a French couturier to design new vestments, and French set designers to remodel cathedrals.
Thanks, Sam. Your linked article is very helpful, especially in your use of Girard’s work and your call, elsewhere, for us to press the pause button on LLF. I sometimes wonder what Girard would make of the agonies of the LLF process and what it says about ourselves and the groups we like to belong to over against those we don’t want to belong to.
Well, I don’t know about ‘should’, but ‘offence’ played no part at all in what ran through my own head when my attention was drawn to this. It’s quite clear that it is aggressively anti-Christian (using a *Christian* image as a source of mockery to communicate contempt for the traditional Christian doctrines). My gut feeling about those who put forward this sort of thing is a self-preservation instinct, to treat them with the gentle respect that is due to the criminally insane, in much the same way that Jimmy Carr approaches the Muslim religion (following the quote in the piece).
I’d therefore say that I’m actually too much of a coward to actually take offence – and I didn’t quite get onto thinking about the question of whether or not I should.
I guess it’s God’s own irony that this article should appear in the same week as your analysis of Jesus as the bread of life in John : 6. Oh how God is NOT mocked. What a puerile, footling, and desperate ceremony this was; singing just one verse of ‘Thine be the glory’ knocks it all out of the mind. What sympathy and charity these people need, but have no idea where to find it. I hope some French evangelists are seeking them out, cheeks already turned !
This was done to give offence to Christians while hasving plausible deniability. I like the category of reply given by Gavin Ashenden, along the lines: “You must be very frightened of Christianity to do that.”
In debate, always think of the view from the eyes of the other.
Many of us remember the outrage surrounding The Life of Brian on its release in 1979, but I have noticed that some Christians now say they admire the film amd enjoy its satire. I think the key point is that mockery is nothing new, and surely most the authentically Christian response to its offence is a prayerfully quiet one.
Yes—or perhaps a courageous sharing of the good news?
The BCP has a Service of Commination.
Those who participated in this blasphemy have endangered their souls.
I agree with you ian, and guess that good discernment of the context is required here. Jesus’ own silence at moments of acute effrontery and his words about not attempting to give pearls to swine are foremost in my mind, however.
Who do you think is being mocked in The Life of Brian?
At the time, various church leaders thought Jesus was being mocked. I personally found the closing scene extremely distasteful.
The Monty Python team claimed, I believe, that they were mocking the absurdities of certain religious behaviours rather than Christianity oer se. But I personally find the film is painfully sacrilegious.
There are some very funny parts in it. The scene I want to be a woman is apt today. The stoning scene is funny, and of course Biggus Dickus.
But overall I agree it was rather mocking of Christianity (and the perceived absurdity of some religions practices) – the fact that Monty Python apparently drunkenly suggested the title Jesus Christ – Lust for Glory speaks volumes.
But it would be interesting to know if the remaining Pythons have any religious beliefs now, or are more open to the possibility.
It’s a film about missing the point. This is hammered home repeatedly. The idea that Jesus is being mocked is ridiculous. He is portrayed in the film in the Sermon on the Mount, and played completely straight. He isn’t portrayed at all in the ending. Brian himself is a pathetic figure and the straight man of the humour rather than a clown. The clowns in the film are Brian’s would-be followers who refuse to think critically, and those who would seek to use him.
Sure, but as with this example, the implication was that that failure to think critically marks the followers of Jesus too.
I thought the line describing Brian, “ He’s not the Messiah, he’s a very naughty boy.” Very funny. It so describes some political personages we have today.
Now we’ve moved from whether it’s ok to mock Jesus, to questioning whether it’s ok to mock professed Christians, or religious people more generally. That’s very different.
Of course it is mocking Jesus and Christianity – but it could not do so in a totally direct way in the 1970s when blasphemy laws still existed and there more Christians in public life. So it chose the clever way of using the character of ‘Brian’ (an impossible name in first century Judea) as a foil for the message that Christianity is a false religion based on credulous people and historical fiction.
Something very similar is done in Charlie Chaplin’s film ‘The Great Dictator’. Is it not obvious that this is a satire on Hitler?
Moliere did a similar thing in the 17th century in his play ‘Tartuffe’. This is an obvious satire on the French Catholic Church and its influence on the court, but to escape censorship, Moliere had to insert a few lines at the end with an actress saying ‘I’m not condemning true religion, of course, only bad hypocrites!’ I don’t think she was able to say those lines without winking at the audience.
AJB, you have fallen into the same trap. Maybe, just maybe, you need to read a bit more literature. Ian got the point in his comment at 10.19.
I’m beginning to think you’ve never actually watched The Life of Brian, James.
Ian Paul – I missed ‘Life of Brian’ first time round and I saw it for the first (and only) time in 1992. I understood (of course) that the Pythons more-or-less hated Christianity, but at the forefront of my mind when I saw it was the though that I, from a Christian perspective, agreed very strongly with the ‘authoritarian follower’ characteristics of Christians that the movie was making fun of. This worried me deeply at the time – and it still does. While I’m not a C. of E. man (and haven’t been following their safeguarding problems), I feel that the ‘authoritarian follower’ mentality of many who consider themselves Christians leads to easy pickings for the vultures who are euphemistically known as ‘safeguarding risks’.
Jesus was being mocked in the film. It’s pretty obvious. There was no market in the 1970s for mocking forgotten first century messianic movements in Judea.
Oh dear. No one from the first century is being mocked. The characters are all modern, and then imposed into a first century setting. Hence, for example, the jokes about the Judean People’s Front / People’s Front of Judea.
Foul film, with some very funny scenes aside from the obviously blasphemous last scene. I regularly watch “What have the Romans ever done for us” on YouTube, but never again the ending after seeing it (as an atheist) in the cinema.
The Pythons ran rings round Mervyn Stockwood and Malcolm Muggeridge in the ensuing TV debate. I suspect those two were deliberately picked for their supercilious manner.
And Stockwood appeared on TV in his purple cassock!
Stockwood and Muggeridge were dishonest debaters, who thought they could simply bulldoze their way through by hurling around insults, and slowly got more and more frustrated that they’d lost the argument.
I’m not sure what argument you mean. But they were not a good pair of opening batsmen.
Stockwood was a high profile diocesan Bishop with 20 years under his belt who had made his name building a large student church whilst a vicar in Cambridge. Muggeridge was a top flight journalist, satirist, and author who’d converted to Christianity relatively late in life. They should have been far better than they were.
WIERD. Western, Industrialised, Educated, Rich, Democratic.
Litttle wonder it is Christ exclusionary and in a phrase coined by Malcolm Muggeridge, ‘educated to imbecility ‘
As masters of our own destiny, in a closed- matrial- world- system, little wonder morality is mocked by dedidicated followers of Foucault.
And if we think we are any better, think again.
This is not merely tangential, but core. It is at one with Ian’s motive in responsding – to share the good news of Jesus.
To ponder, from yesterday, 7 minutes or so.
“The Big-Headed Soul” from Ligonier Ministries https://www.ligonier.org/podcasts/things-unseen-with-sinclair-ferguson/the-big-headed-soul
I honestly think the “outrage” has more to do with the American election than anything else.
Blue “smurf” aside, even if this were parodying Da Vinci’s Last Supper – so what? Every TV show needing a fourth series DVD cover has done the same! And Da Vinci was gay so if the people complaining that problem is gay people being involved in religious art then they are being hypocritical by accepting the image as Christian in the first place
Good point. The affront is more to do with an icon of culture. Thinking… Eric Gill is loved for his pious art.
Not at all. He is an affront to decency. So his art “graces” the BBC. Maybe he inspired Hue Edwards when he came to work each day.
How wonderful that you have settled after 500 years the uncertainties over Leonardo’s sexuality!
Discerning readers may care to glance at this summary:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Personal_life_of_Leonardo_da_Vinci#Sexuality
Plenty of outrage about it here in Europe where the American election is not a dominant news story.
But it seems to be mainly by GB News viewers, who are essentially the British wing of MAGA
Have you checked what Christians are saying about it in Germany and France?
Peter Jermey seems to have Trump living rent-free in his head.
It’s not all about America you know.
PC1
Exactly – but Id say many American voters aren’t aware that the Paris Olympics Opening Ceremony wasn’t devised by Joe Biden and a team of immigrant lesbians. They certainly dont know that the original games were held in honor of Zeus and would be campaigning to have the entire competition banned if they did.
The outrage is fake. It’s about causing white conservatives to feel afraid of other people in their communities so they will vote, support and donate to cultural saviors like Donald Trump
Jill Biden absolutely adored the opening ceremony and thought it couldn’t be bettered.
Did you see her exulting about it? It’s there on youtube.
I don’t know if any lesbians devised the show, but we do know the whole thing was the brainchild of a leading gay artiste in France, so the queer Last Supper parody was not an accident but his own idea.
The artistic director of the Opening Ceremony was Thomas Jolly whom Pink News describes as a “queer artistic director”. I guess they would know. It ws no accident: he was acting out his fantasies and desires before the world.
Like the robot horse riding down the Seine? The olympic cauldron lifted into the sky with a balloon? Celine Dion belting out Hymne a L’Amour from the Eiffel Tower?
Josh Hinton from LICC has also commented on this issue:
https://licc.org.uk/resources/getting-cross-really-isnt-the-christlike-response-to-that-olympics-scene/
It seems clear to me that much of the Christian (should that be in quotes) response has been very inappropriate. Some of it has been near hysterical, and the woman at the (literal) centre of the scene has received death threats. It seems that the same people complain about wokery and about being ‘cancelled’.
I have only recently seen the image which has provoked the most outrage. I saw early on the very odd picture of a blue man lying on some food. It was clear that this was a reference to a baccanalian occasion. The excuse for this is that it is a link to the ancient Greek Olympics, which were an occasion for a celebration of Zeus. It is likely that this involved depravity of various forms.
One must remember that this was organized by the French. The Frence Republic is officially secular. This is the principle of laïcité. There is a long tradition of tension between the secular and the religious. One little, and humorous, example of this is ‘Clochemerle’. This is a wonderful story of tension between the Mayor and Priest in a town over the erection of a public urinal in the town. Some may remember the 1972 BBC film of the book.
However, The Scene illustrates how secularism actually becomes paganism. There are, apparently, more spritualist mediums in France than Catholic Priests. So, one could see this as paganism asserting itself against Christianity.
However, I do not see this as an attack on doctrine, as some above seem to think. This is not a reasoned attempt to show some element of the Nicene creed is untenable, for instance. At most it is a crude mockery or provocation.
How should one react to that? One can be upset when a precious icon representing an important facet of our belief is treated in this way. To be offended, however, is to assert that this should not be done. To be angry is worse. If the motive was to be a provocation, then it succeeded. Then folk can point to Christians and say “see how easily they get all hot under the collar!”
It is not as if there has not been traffic in the other direction. When Boniface chopped down the sacred tree somewhere in Germany, that was a direct attack on paganism. In the first century there was a more subtle subversion of paganism. A well known Myth (a story which shapes a culture’s self-understanding) was taken and subverted and changed to fit this new upstart “atheistic religion”, as it was called.
How should one react to this. Perhaps this way.
– “What did you think”.
– “Well, it upset me. Da Vinci’s picture of the Last Supper is precious to me. Can I tell you why?”
David Wilson – why should a picture where Jesus is portrayed as an Italian used car salesman be precious to you?
Never forget though – some people really enjoy being offended. They get a kick out of opening a new front in the culture war they’re so starry-eyed about. It reminds me (though it’s obviously far less extreme) of the storm whipped up about those Danish cartoons of Muhammad.
An unworthy comment there, AJB. I don’t know anyone who enjoys seeing their Lord mocked and vilified before the world.
Instead of scorning believers, try to understand us.
And I don’t imagine anyone is going to be killed because of it, as happened to the staff of Charlie Hebdo, or the Christians persecuted in Pakistan by Muslims.
“Instead of scorning believers, try to understand us.”
Physician – heal thyself!
I think you missed the subtlety.
Icicles of indifference, demonstrated in the chasm between Christ and mockers, (and the reality behind images and symbolism) and those who condone, in silence and superior sophistry, as opposed to those who proclaim Him, as God incarnate, who suffered and died for us, to bring us to His banqueting table, the Feast of all feasts, the wedding feast, the marriage supper of the Lamb of God.
Revelation 19:6-9
Why is there not similar outrage from Christians about the violence being perpetrated in the name of the Cross by the English Defence League ? Their logo is a round badge with the Cross in the middle and the Latin motto “In hoc signo vinces” – In this sign you shall conquer.
To my mind that is far more offensive than a louche sketch that may or may not have been a deliberate attempt to parody the last supper.
Come to that, why aren’t Christians objecting to the use of John Lennon’s song “Imagine” in the same ceremony – a clear statement that the world would be better and more peaceful place if there were no religion. It seems hypocritical to complain about one and not about the other.
Another thing that is very offensive is the fact that Monty Python’s “Always look on the bright side of life” (sung by three people on crosses in the film) is the number one choice at English funeral services. I was somewhat taken aback (but chose not to take offence) when it was chosen at my wife’s cousin’s funeral.
The point is, there are many things Christians could take offence to, and many are far worse than the Olympics Last Supper/Dionysus skit. But we should choose not to. Matthew 5:11 tells us to count ourselves blessed with others insult us falsely on His account.
To my knowledge, Christians are offended by both these things.
But they are not mocked for doing so, not does identitarian politics seek to silence them.
I used to find John Lennon’s “Imagine” deeply irritating. Over the years as you hear it more and more I find it funny. Right after singing about imagining there’s no heaven, Lennon embarks on a description that has strong vibes of new earth and new heaven – no countries, no death, no possessions, greed or hunger, and everyone in a common brotherhood (as you might think if we’re all children of God). Ironically it always puts me in mind of Galatians 3, and that tickles me.
As for “Always Look on the Bright Side of Life” at funerals – well, it doesn’t seem as bad as “My Way” by Frank Sinatra. The regrettable part is wanting to have a joke song. It’s a missed opportunity to say something genuine and personal about the deceased. An exercise in avoiding the reality of what’s happened by covering it up with a joke? Maybe. I’d always advise to for something that has some emotional resonance as their favourite music or ‘their song’.
It’s almost his worst song, after the blasphemous ‘Ballad of John and Yoko’. Paul McCartney, with his antenna for pleasing the public, wasn’t happy about the lyrics, but was so scared of John Lennon by this point. he went along with it anyway.
One of John Lennon’s aides says he was deeply affected by a TV evangelist in the late 70s, but sadly John’s final pronouncements in late 1980 show now evidence of regeneration whatsoever.
Final fact, John Lennon suspected he might not live a long life.
Isa.42 v2 has this prophesy
“He will not cry, nor lift up, nor cause to be heard in the street, His voice.”
Although he is certain of His divine call His manner of appearing is nevertheless quiet, gentle, and humble; the very opposite of those lying teachers, who endeavoured to exalt themselves by noisy demonstrations. He does not seek His own, and therefore denies Himself; He brings what commends itself, and therefore requires no forced trumpeting.
“He shall instruct those that oppose themselves, with all meekness and gentleness; he shall patiently endure the contradictions of sinners against himself, and not vindicate himself against their calumnies in an angry or clamorous manner.” — Lowth.
The whole of ISA.Ch. 42 is very instructive of the mind of Christ [which all are supposedly seeking in the C of E, and yet, quite sadly, is largely lacking]
Over my life time worshiping in many churches[denominations], I see that although many believe in a God very few have any faith in Him.
Shall He indeed find Faith in the Earth when He returns?
John 18:36 Jesus answered, My kingdom is not of this world: if my kingdom were of this world, then would my servants fight, that I should not be delivered to the Jews: but now is my kingdom not from hence.
H e sits, rests, waiting for His enemies to be made His footstool.
I saw some blokes in dresses, a hint of polyamorous ‘marriage’ and that was offensive enough for me.
I believe the Lord made His feelings known about the whole affair with the torrential rain!
And then of course there was the time I went to a gathering of thousands of Christians in tents for a long wknd where it rained all the time but the word spoken was of God for sure. We all felt blessed for being resilient.
Upon further reflection, this part of the Olympic opening ceremony is like an immature teenager who has learnt that saying ‘f–k’ offends his parents, so he proceeds to do it. Nothing much; but what a shame for the Games!
And now the closing ceremony…
Paris closed its record-breakingly successful Olympic Games on Sunday night with a stunt-filled final ceremony that began with a mysterious, golden intergalactic traveller wandering through a gloomy, barren futuristic landscape, tasked with resurrecting the Olympic spirit. Ghostly dancers and acrobats – some of whom were fire-service gymnasts – descended from the Stade de France stadium roof and leaped on to giant Olympic rings while the Swiss musician Alain Roche performed Hymn to Apollo floating in the air playing a vertically suspended piano. The French singer Yseult gave a breathtaking performance of My Way…
https://www.theguardian.com/sport/article/2024/aug/12/paris-says-goodbye-to-the-olympics-with-a-golden-closing-ceremony
‘My Way’ is perhaps the ultimate secular humanist song. People actually paid large sums of money to get into the Stade de France in order to watch this shallow morass? The joke’s on them.
Jonathan Pageau did a short podcast on how the deliberate use of ambiguity, followed by protestations of innocence, is a repeated pattern used to break down moral categories but also polarise society.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KR0Wf6ukgHY
That is very interesting—thanks. The polarisation occurs through the different ways people interpret the ambiguity…?