Those who think the “Last Supper scene” in the Olympic Games opening ceremony only outraged a specific group of Christians are mistaken. I’ve seen reactions from almost every Christian writer or speaker I know, as well as from many unknown individuals, even those who don’t usually discuss their faith, and from Islamic perspectives.
The stream of reactions shows no sign of slowing. On 2 August, I came across a blog by one Philipp Greifenstein referring to a “shit storm”. I’ll set this aside for now, or I won’t write a word. Clearly, I’m not the only one responding relatively late. I prefer not to unleash my initial emotions on readers. It’s helped me to calmly consider others’ opinions and sometimes engage in discussions first.
Indeed, all reactions showed some indignation. Some focused on the opening ceremony itself, others on its criticism. It’s safe to say this was a polarising factor. Whether this was intentional is hard to determine. Polarisation tends to lead to omitting or distorting facts. Below is my attempt to address the facts and analyse the reactions.
Although some claim there’s little to fuss about after the organiser’s (not the IOC’s) apology on 28 July 2024, the Last Supper remains a significant symbol for Christians and non-Christians alike. This made it useful for the organisers to emphasise or assert tolerance and freedom of expression, as was their stated goal.
I fully support tolerance and freedom of expression, even when I dislike the message. I wouldn’t want my own views censored either. The performance had similarities to Islam-critical cartoons, which were also claimed to be necessary to test free speech. However, I don’t endorse this method.
The trigger
Let’s examine what actually happened. I’ve rarely seen a complete account, which makes drawing correct conclusions difficult. Only by using various sources can we get a full picture.
First, it’s worth noting the performance’s name. Though it may not have been the official title, media quickly circulated “La Cène Sur Un Scène Sur La Seine” – literally “The Last Supper in a scene on the Seine”. In French, the Last Supper is often simply called “La Cène”.
This punny name also references Ferdinand Desnos’s 1954 painting “La Cène sur la Seine” in the Centre Pompidou. It shows a long table behind a colourful crowd, with a central white-clad figure breaking bread. Who might that represent? A row of clergy sits at the table’s front.
The performance had three parts with intervals. The controversial scene, linked to Da Vinci’s Last Supper painting, starts 1 hour 55 minutes into the full ceremony broadcast. A corpulent woman with a halo stands at a long table’s centre, flanked by drag queens. This is often confused with a second scene 45 minutes later, where a blue-painted man joins them and starts to sing. Arguments that “the” scene represents Dionysus (Greek god of revelry) refer to this episode. However, he wasn’t present in the first episode, so whatever he symbolizes cannot be connected to this episode. The third episode was a catwalk.
- A video by Le Parisien, meant to explain “hidden historical references”, first showed the second scene, referencing Dionysus, then the first, referencing Da Vinci’s Last Supper. The order was a bit contrived, but the references were clear.
French national television, France TV, called it a “LEGENDARY use of the Last Supper” in a tweet since secretly deleted. This deletion sparked another wave of outrage. The anti-woke “Observatoire du journalisme” account on X had saved the tweet. Of course, the state broadcaster’s deletion didn’t mean they no longer saw the scene as a legendary parody of the Holy Supper. It still was. They just had an issue with the many protests, which they apparently hadn’t expected.- The media outlet 75secondes.fr still refers to “a modern parody of Leonardo da Vinci’s ‘The Last Supper'”. They also note: “This scene replaced the apostles with drag queens and a transgender model”.
- One of the ceremony’s writers, when asked during a France Inter interview about the purpose of “The Last Supper scene on a bridge with queers“, didn’t deny that the Last Supper played a role.
- Two days after the ceremony, the producers of Paris 2024 issued a statement to the press asserting that the artist, Thomas Jolly, “was inspired by the famous painting by Leonardo da Vinci for the ‘Festivities’ segment when creating the setting.” The statement also noted that others (from Andy Warhol to The Simpsons) had made parodies in the past, suggesting that the current protests were neither expected nor proportionate. At the same time, Thomas Jolly himself and (on Friday evening 26-07-2024) the official X account of the Olympic Games stated that “the” scene was an “interpretation of the Greek God Dionysus.” He said he had not been inspired by The Last Supper. On BFMTV, he said: “I believe it was sufficiently clear that it was Dionysus arriving at that table.” It was not new that this was his focus. His act consisted of a table that ‘coincidentally’ resembled The Last Supper, where after a while Dionysus arrives, literally stealing the show by taking centre stage. He even displaces the one seated in Jesus’s position, as if to say: don’t linger too long at that dull supper, but move straight on to me, Dionysus (Bacchus for the Romans). Historically, he is a competitor to Christ. Both have the supreme god as their father, and both have an association with grapes and wine. Jesus says in John 15: “I am the true vine, and my father is the husbandman”. Both were also born twice (or born and resurrected), and there are other similarities. Both are said to have overcome death. But there are also significant differences. He is, of course, the god of wild, noisy, and unrestrained festivities (later the Bacchanalia would become a cover for such licentiousness that local authorities had to intervene forcefully) and also cast his enemies into ruin. He is even said to have fought the Amazons. Source: Wikipedia. Jolly’s claim that Dionysus primarily represents an awareness “of the absurdity of violence between human beings” is thus more applicable to Jesus than to Dionysus. Dionysus mainly embodies ecstasy and the blurring of norms. He encompasses both creative and destructive forces – cycles of life, death, and rebirth.
Participants in the performance also publicly made the connection with Da Vinci, including the designer of the halo, on X “blanka_flavin”, who shared a photo of the halo-headset along with an image of Da Vinci’s painting. The latter was then shared by Barbara Butch, the wearer of the halo, with the text “Oh yes! Oh yes! The New Gay Testament.” This Instagram post has since been deleted, but Thomas Stevenson saved a screenshot, which I include here. Key figures in the performance thus wanted to add a new gospel to the existing books of the Bible or to herald a new era. It is even possible that they see it not just as an addition but as a replacement of the gospel and of Christianity. Barbara proudly shared a post on Saturday, 27 July, around 11 a.m., in which she was called the “Olympic Jesus.” This post, which has also been deleted, was screenshotted at 8:34 a.m. on Sunday, 28 July. I also include it here. Finally, she reposted a defence of the parody, pointing out that previous parodies had not led to such outrage. There is something to be said for taking all this bravado with a pinch of salt, but that does not change the fact that there have been clear and frequent verbal references to Jesus and The Last Supper. It is not appropriate to dismiss everyone who looks beyond Dionysus as stupid, fantastical, or a persistent denier. It is those who admire the nearly naked blue man who refuse to see a number of obvious things.- The designer, Thomas Jolly, stated in a press conference that he did not intend to be impertinent or subversive. However, when he got the job, a press release stated that the “queer” director was hired precisely because he would break norms. The media also regularly describe him as “daring.” In this context, Jolly has repeatedly emphasised his right to creative expression. I do not begrudge him that. The question, however, is whether the Olympic Games are the right platform to challenge established norms and values in a daring way.
- The later apologies (see nu.nl in image 1) also clearly refer to Da Vinci’s painting and The Last Supper itself.
- Finally, the real deniers of the connection to The Last Supper point to another painting, “The Feast of the Gods” by the Dutch painter Jan van Bijlert (1603-1671). Everything would only be inspired by this painting (which also includes Dionysus) and thus by a feast of the gods on Olympus, entirely fitting for the Olympic Games. Now the interesting thing is that Van Bijlert might have wanted to paint The Last Supper, but due to the Protestant Reformation, orders for religious paintings were scarce. He then painted a mythological scene that closely resembled The Last Supper and is also considered mocking by many. Apollo was given a halo to make him resemble Christ. Vulcan (with his hammer) occupied the place usually for John, Mars armoured and helmeted, that of Judas, alone opposite everyone. Even if Da Vinci played no role at all, the performance still indirectly references (mockingly) The Last Supper.
Why have I delved so deeply into this? Because even many Christians felt compelled to defend the scene by denying that it was a spoof or parody of The Last Supper. They “had” to do this, as otherwise, they might come into conflict with their own faith. Even in the Reformatorisch Dagblad on 2 August 2024, there was an article, by Hans de Vries, a lecturer in humanity and technology, which still allowed for the possibility that it was merely a depiction from Greek mythology. Moreover, he expressed significant difficulty with Christians for whom the matter was not settled after the “unanimous” interpretation of the act as a representation from Greek mythology without further malicious intent. This interpretation was supposed to immediately all possibility of malicious intent.
De Vries subsequently makes no distinction between Christians who feel offended and those who feel deliberately offended. Finally, he argued that people assuming deliberate offence should have asked themselves more questions. What were the creators and/or organisers trying to achieve with it? Was the rest of the ceremony in line with this supposed malicious intent? And why would this malevolence or devilish intent be expressed specifically at the opening of the Games? These are good questions in themselves. But I disagree with the conclusion: “If the creators have explicitly stated they had no malicious intent, then one should not persist in accusing them of all sorts of wrongdoing.” Besides being quite naïve and credulous, it cannot be the case that if I mean well, I am beyond reproach. A Reformed Christian should more than anyone realise that humans are inclined to all evil, even when they believe they have only good intentions.
De Vries, as we often see, particularly struggles with prominent Christians who hold different views. Several Christian “critics of the critics” seemed even more vehement than the LGBTQ+ community itself. They attacked their fellow Christians head-on or left no room for other opinions. To be clear, there was also a much more critical article in the Reformatorisch Dagblad. I am now focusing on the arguments of the proponents of the parody.
Sacrilege as an Outdated Concept
We shouldn’t take ourselves too seriously. There is some truth in this because we have become a minority that is no longer well understood. It is possible that not everyone means harm. We might also be overly sensitive. Additionally, some have good reasons to challenge sacred cows. The church has not always been a paragon of tolerance and humanity, to put it euphemistically. A pastor friend of mine wrote that sacrilege can also be in the interest of the church. It forces the church to reflect on what is truly sacred and what has merely acquired a symbolic function over time to signify something sacred. This could encompass many things, and if we get offended every time there is a lack of respect, we will always be aggrieved.
Philipp Greiffenstein from the magazine “Die Eule” for church, politics, and culture reports that especially Catholic theologians (cited in a publication “Can God Be Insulted” (Herder 2013)) have discussed the role of blasphemy. There is also one contribution from the Protestant professor of theology Harald Schroeter-Wittke. While there is some truth in his view, he tends toward masochism when he writes: “Blasphemies are necessary to release our fixations (our experiences) on and of God. Therefore, the church joyfully welcomes all forms of blasphemy, especially those that hurt it! For the experiences of blasphemy are a reason for us to learn, to even conceive the idea that things might be different from how we think!”
Da Vinci’s painting is not sacred in itself. So, it can be mocked (whether it really was mocked, I will return to later), except that some symbols clearly refer to the core of faith more than others. When Christ is depicted in this manner, it is indeed about Christ proclaiming his death, which is of ultimate importance to both Catholics and Protestants, even if the role of his suffering and death is interpreted differently. It still doesn’t make sense to act harshly against those who handle it recklessly, but the argument that we might be too sensitive no longer applies. It is always a bad idea to claim someone is too sensitive without understanding their perspective. Even when it is suggested that “we” might be too sensitive, it still refers to a specific group who had the audacity to speak out.
The pastor in question recalled that the theologian Erik Borgman also spoke about the utility of sacrilege. He reportedly once, half-jokingly, called for the establishment of an association of theologians for blasphemy. We haven’t been able to find the exact quote. However, I did find that Borgman advocates for a broader definition of sacrilege. On 2 May 1997, Trouw published an article where he literally states: “One form of sacrilege is the way asylum seekers are treated in our country.” I fully agree with Borgman that faith means much more than acknowledging certain truths about Jesus Christ. “It means paying attention to histories that are like his [Christ’s].” To harm victims of injustice is to harm God himself, in a manner of speaking.
For Borgman, it was crucial that the concept of sacrilege was not abolished; otherwise, this reasoning would no longer hold. He was even against the abolition of the blasphemy law, as proposed by D66 and enacted in the Netherlands in 2014. The defunct law, which was rarely applied (last in 1968), had symbolic value for him as a way to recognise the importance of religion in society. He therefore advocated for reformulating the law. The focus should be on protecting the dignity of believers, regardless of their specific beliefs.
This also shows that the concept of sacrilege has not radically changed in meaning for Borgman, but has broadened. You cannot say that God is no longer involved and that it is only about human rights. I think this is also the only correct interpretation of sanctity, considering the two great commandments about loving God and loving your neighbour, which Jesus says in Matthew 22 are equal. Borgman called for a dialogue on this subject, which we sorely lack now because everyone feels compelled to independently determine what is sacred and what is not.
Christ Does Not Need to Be Defended
Benjamin Cremer of “Christianity without the Insanity” wrote: “Dear Christian, God does not need your defense. Jesus does not need your defense. Christianity does not need your defense. The Bible does not need your defense. The Ten Commandments do not need your defense. The poor, the powerless, the marginalized, the vulnerable, and the oppressed need your defense.” This essentially reiterates the point made by Borgman above. While it is true that you cannot serve God apart from serving fellow human beings, this perspective can be taken too far. Sometimes you also need to defend principles, precisely in the interest of the poor and vulnerable. It is also worth remembering, which is often overlooked, that Christians themselves can be vulnerable or marginalized.
Among themselves, Christians are expected to be considerate of each other regarding different views on precepts. In Paul’s time, what one could or could not eat was a sensitive issue for some Christians. In Romans 14 and 1 Corinthians 8, he urges his readers not to cause their “brother to stumble or be offended.” He emphasizes love and consideration, especially for those whose conscience or faith is more sensitive to certain practices, and calls for responsible use of our freedom. While we cannot expect this from non-believers, there should be more understanding among Christians for those who genuinely feel offended and/or go on the defensive.
In this case, it is also a question of who is the “weaker in faith” and at risk of stumbling. Christ also said: “Everyone who acknowledges me before others, I will also acknowledge before my Father in heaven. But whoever denies me before others, I will also deny before my Father in heaven.” (Mt. 10:32-33). How are we to acknowledge Christ before others if we are not allowed to respond without being accused of unnecessarily defending Christ? What if I genuinely feel that it is not just my faith being mocked (which would not be as serious), but Christ himself? Should we then remain in a corner out of a sense of self-censorship? How many times must the rooster crow before we dare to say something?
Finally, it is notable that many staunchly defend the opening ceremony itself. If it is unnecessary to defend Christ, then it should also not be necessary to defend the ceremony or what it stands for. It should be able to speak for itself, especially if, as some argue, the ceremony was even more meaningful and sacred than a traditional celebration of the Last Supper.
Jesus is Not Our Property
Jesus does not belong to us, nor does he belong exclusively to the religious world. Our perspective on Jesus is not the only one, and we cannot expect it to receive special protection. Liberal Christian or Unitarian views can also be seen as offensive by an orthodox Christian. Yet, almost everyone will defend the right to speak about Jesus in a manner that aligns with their own beliefs and conscience, even if it greatly disturbs someone and is seen as blasphemy. This means we must extend the same right to the organisers of the Games.
That is absolutely true, but people do not need to do everything they have the right to do. Or, as Paul puts it: “All things are lawful, but not all things are beneficial. All things are lawful, but not all things build up.” For a non-Christian, this is not a standard, but it remains a good rule. Especially when one wishes to be respected and accepted, one should also respect and accept others. This is only consistent. I fear that the emancipation of the LGBTQ+ community will not succeed otherwise. The approach in the opening ceremony was far too “in your face.” It was like: here’s a whole stage full of queer people. If that’s not inclusive! But in fact, it wasn’t.
Speaking of property. We have established above that there was indeed the use of Christian symbolism. And do you know what is considered a cardinal sin in the world of woke culture? Cultural appropriation. It refers to the inappropriate use of elements from one culture by members of another culture. The term emerged from studies on colonialism. For example, it is strongly disapproved of when a white man wears dreadlocks, which originate from African or Rasta culture, or when a white man dons a Native American headdress.
The reason is that cultural elements can be lost or distorted when removed from their original cultural context, and such displays are seen as disrespectful or even a form of desecration! Similarly, there is religious appropriation. Using a Buddha statue as a garden ornament is not really acceptable. Christmas has become so secularised that Christians can hardly celebrate the holiday in contemplation and reflection anymore, as Santa Claus, expensive gifts, luxurious food, and holidays have hijacked the festival. More examples can easily be found on Wikipedia. To speak of cultural or religious appropriation, a dominant culture must use elements of a minority culture for its own purposes. This is exactly what is happening here.
Had the organisers of the opening ceremony been honest and admitted that they “borrowed” Christian symbolism, they could have been called out for this inappropriate appropriation. They would have clearly acted contrary to an important principle of their own. They could no longer condemn Christians who, in the past, incorporated elements from other cultures and religions into Christianity. Could it be that this is why they started denying the link to the Last Supper? I think so. We also see that “Jesus,” according to these principles, does in a sense belong to those who genuinely believe in him. They are best suited to declare how Christ should or should not be represented.
My wife made a comparison to “The Passion,” a performance that depicts the final scenes of Christ’s life in a respectful manner and also allows for inclusivity. This shows that it can be done differently
Deconstruction is necessary
Deconstruction is a term often used nowadays by groups who feel marginalised in the church, to reduce their faith to its essence. This trend has spread from the US and Canada. Unnecessary human rules are peeled away, resulting in more freedom and equality. Although I am also against unnecessary rules and barriers, I fear that this movement may lead to a situation similar to the demythologisation of the Bible. Theologian Jürgen Moltmann, for example, tried to remove everything that could not be scientifically proven, and many followed him. But in the end, not much was left. What is once dismantled is usually not rebuilt. These approaches often stand in tension with Christian traditions. For those who want to know more about deconstruction, I recommend the following article by Roelof Ham: Deconstruction – something good or not?
Nowadays, the Bible is often interpreted in a more personal, relational, and contextual way, leading to truths that are not exactly the same for everyone. This is where it goes wrong. Progressive theologians and church leaders often present their discoveries as the new norm. In a short time, extensive theological frameworks seem to have emerged that align with modern culture, but are often not well attuned to ordinary believers and do not tolerate dissent. Perhaps there is a fear of falling back into an empty, demythologised faith, or an orthodox/traditional faith is no longer an option. But who decides that? I want to address this through further controversial-positive reactions to the ceremony.
Hurt feelings as known tactic of the far right
Indeed, even this argument was used. Don Ceder, hardly to be called far-right, was cited as evidence in a letter to the editor in Trouw on 3 August. He had dared to suggest that Christians were hurt by the “alleged” parody of the Last Supper. The author was also certain that only a bacchanal was depicted. But then she went a step further. The appeal to hurt feelings would be a well-known tactic of the far right “to sow confusion and undermine the rights of minorities.” In doing so, she does not take those Christians very seriously, which surprises me, because members of the LGBT community must always be taken seriously (often rightly so) when they indicate they are hurt. This is truly a double standard.
It is also simply assumed that this would be intended to sow confusion. “Of course” the contradictory statements of the performance’s creators were only meant to dispel confusion. Finally, the writer longs for the gentle church with which she used to march in demonstrations. I believe that is still possible. The claim that the “progressive church” is now absent and silent, except occasionally on climate issues, is simply not true. What she, as a non-Christian, perhaps does not know, is that the protests of moderate and conservative Christians, perceived as aggressive, are now amply matched by the aggressive replies of some progressive Christians. In her own reaction, she is not exactly gentle either by immediately branding it as “far-right.”
Higher priorities
When critical remarks were made about the ceremony, people invariably said Christians should have other priorities. Meanwhile, this wasn’t noted for positive reviews. I even saw a response calling the ceremony “balm for the soul in these harsh times”. Apparently, the level of personal happiness experienced at this spectacle was quite significant. People also took ample time to compliment each other on their “unifying” language, while firmly condemning any other voice. Besides not setting higher priorities themselves at that moment, I note that it’s quite important to observe and interpret carefully.
The stupidity of some reactions was truly cringe-worthy, which doesn’t bode well for matters that normally do get priority. Someone wrote: “When I saw the opening, I was grateful to see the diversity. I wasn’t thinking about blasphemy or that this was the devil’s work“. Many people have a curious definition of diversity. Apparently, it already exists when you put a group of queers together. Seems rather homogeneous to me, but oh well. And, dear madam, how do you know if there’s blasphemy if you’re not concerned with it?
Actually, a response from Rupert Moreton, emeritus pastor of the Anglican church in Helsinki, was of the same order. “All this faux outrage based on deliberate and cynical obfuscation is so wearying. Christ’s engagement with the religious authorities was that of one who placed himself outside the temple. He celebrated the Passover with his disciples as one whose involvement with his religion culminated in his death at its authorities’ hands the next day. Where do all the outraged ones think he places himself now? Outside the temple. Yes. Outside the temple. With the drag queens.”
Moreton doesn’t indicate what exactly we should do when we get to them, or whether we should also distance ourselves from our church, which apparently corresponds to the temple in the time of Christ, i.e. the religious authorities. He also ignores that Jesus didn’t want to place himself outside the temple at all, but rather wanted to cleanse it. And that the prostitutes and Pharisees he associated with sometimes also received firm criticism from Jesus or had to repent. Meanwhile, Moreton does speak of “faux” (not sincerely felt) outrage from critics of the ceremony and of deliberate and cynical obfuscation. Another person who can read minds. And despite finding all this very tiring, he manages to increase the obfuscation.
The category of setting priorities also includes many suggestions of what would be more important to protest against. For example, I saw an image of Donald Trump with a golden head, with someone kneeling reverently before it and seemingly praying. That indeed seems a form of idolatry worth protesting against. Yet these are diversionary tactics. They don’t address the subject at hand. And you can protest against different things simultaneously. A similar photo with the actually existing statue turned out to be fake, by the way. But even if there was a real gesture of worship, I still see no fundamental difference from the glorification of a Greek demigod. Two “saviours”. Both not the real one.
Drag performance reveals “core of the Last Supper”
Peter-Ben Smit, a prolific priest and professor with an important voice in Old Catholic circles and beyond, writes in Trouw that it’s a pity the performance might not have been about Da Vinci’s Last Supper. Rather than a threat, it would have been a unique opportunity to better understand the Last Supper itself. That does not prevent him from taking full advantage of this “missed” opportunity. He even dares to claim “Christianity itself is God’s own drag show”. This despite the term “drag” only being introduced in the late 19th century for men wearing women’s clothing in theatre, and underground drag shows only becoming somewhat mainstream in the 1960s.
Some further refer to men dressing as women (so-called travesty roles) in Greek or Roman theatre, but this had a specific context. Women weren’t expected to hold public functions then. Theatre had religious origins, and many religious roles were limited to men. Public performances by women were often associated with immorality. Men’s cross-dressing therefore wasn’t an expression of freedom, but of inequality. It involved men appropriating elements of femininity, which could never lead to authenticity and still can’t. It will always appear forced and unnatural.
Equating Christianity with a drag show requires creatively redefining both. However, Smit redefines not Christianity, but the Last Supper. He implicitly equates the two, or at least assumes the Last Supper forms Christianity’s core. Ritually, this is true for most Catholic churches. However, when speaking of Christianity, one can’t ignore that for most Protestants, while the Last Supper is important, it’s not necessarily as central as for Catholics.
A Protestant would emphasise Christ’s centrality, the Bible’s importance, personal faith, and baptism. Without belief in transubstantiation, the Last Supper loses some more centrality. I find Smit’s assumption of speaking also on behalf of Protestants too bold, especially given the good relations between Old Catholic and Anglican churches. The Anglican Church was significantly influenced by the Reformation. His radical ideas won’t always be appreciated there, though some will fully agree. Others might not dare or want to comment, possibly to maintain good relations. I’ll address the relationship with the Roman Catholic Church shortly.
A liberating project
According to Smit, drag’s essence is identity play, exploring who you could be. This view doesn’t explain why the exploration always manifests the same way in the same individuals. It doesn’t explain why they keep exploring without ever concluding who they really want to be (should they decide they want to be two different personalities, it can no longer be called exploration). Lastly, it doesn’t explain why this exploration requires such extreme emphasis on certain “aspects of people that otherwise remain invisible” like physicality and sexuality. But a solution seems to have been found for the latter. The play has another “core”: showing that the boundaries being crossed aren’t so natural or self-evident.
This “showing” almost sounds like an educational task, as we may assume the liberating effect on the person themself would have done its work after a few times. One must have convinced themself of the rules’ arbitrariness. Then one tries to convince others, even if they’re not always receptive. But for the good cause, one takes that risk. We too must be shown the arbitrariness of our rules. It somewhat reminds me of Jehovah’s Witnesses who used to put their foot in the door. They meant well too. But they’ve since realised that approach didn’t work. Moreover, they’ve learned that the agreement we’ve made that you can retreat into your own home wasn’t so arbitrary, but a right and a matter of decency.
In drag’s case too, the “in your face” approach will ultimately prove ineffective, but drag queens and kings will have to experience this themselves. They can’t call every form of resistance “persecution”. Of course, we can go too far in our condemnation, which some do. That’s not Christian. I don’t deny any drag the right to be who they are. They can express themselves as such, as far as I’m concerned. But (playfully or not) crossing boundaries, even if it’s “only” about physical and sexual expressions, can’t be called only positive and liberating from the outset. The blank cheque given here is morally and spiritually simply irresponsible. Also, the remark that we should become one with the body of “someone” who died half-naked on the cross is too suggestive for me. That nakedness was after all a disgrace and not meant to be idealised. The gospel calls us to become one with him despite, not because of, that nakedness and disgrace.
Furthermore, it’s not entirely clear to me whether Smit already equates indignation among Christians with persecution of drags. It would mean that Christians aren’t allowed to be indignant, but drags are. When certain Christians’ boundaries are deliberately crossed, that supposedly wouldn’t be persecution. Are Christians’ boundaries being crossed? Do they suffer when drags express themselves as such? Under certain circumstances, yes. I’m talking about conservative Christians who like watching sports but are unexpectedly confronted with a lesson in playing with norms and values. If their faith is also provocatively handled, then the matter shouldn’t be reversed by speaking of persecution of drags. Which is not to say we should retaliate with insults!
In the mean time, on 3-8-2024, unusually in a weekend, the Pope has also issued a press release about the controversial ceremony. He regrets the offence given to many Christians and other believers. So it’s not just about how believers interpreted it. “In a prestigious event where the whole world comes together around common values, no allusions should be made that ridicule the religious convictions of many. Freedom of expression, which is clearly not disputed, finds its limit in respect for others“. The relationship between Old Catholics and Roman Catholics, which has always been somewhat difficult, will probably not improve due to the different stances on the parody of the Last Supper.
Faith as a game for early Christians
If Smit means the original Last Supper was a real meal, he’s right that it was more “physical”. His claim of a “mix of various bodies” involving Jesus’ body seems too clever. The “body” of Christ discussed at these communities’ supper was no longer the physical body Christ had before his death. As Catholics, we continue to speak of Christ’s “real” body, but we mean something different from his pre-resurrection body.
It’s true that the Last Supper was initially disruptive, as it included people who wouldn’t normally be invited in that culture. But this different approach wasn’t caused by the supper itself; it was just most clearly expressed there. It was more of a command than an experiment. I’m not sure where the idea of the Last Supper as a game comes from. Possibly game theory, sometimes used in academic circles to illuminate certain dynamics, has something to do with it. But a research method can’t be directly translated into people’s motivations.
If you asked Christians if the church is a game to them, you’d often get blank stares. If you asked if they’re still searching, there might be more recognition, but certainly not from everyone. Many people have simply chosen a particular faith or community, which is their right. Yet there’s now pressure to approach faith more playfully. The first Christians supposedly did this too. We can’t ask them anymore, but it seems unlikely to me. Smit may have forgotten that he’s not only writing as an academic, but (see title and signature) also as a priest. This gives him a pastoral responsibility as well.
Playing with food and clothing gives dignity
Let’s examine the logic. Play would be the core, “because in this, the early Christians discovered who they really were: people with value and dignity.” This is a statement that tries to prove itself. But the assumption that play is the core remains an assumption. If you put the word “Last Supper” here, it would fit better. It’s indeed a privilege to partake in Christ’s body, which gives us dignity.
Claiming a baptismal robe is a play with clothing misses the point. The white robe symbolised purity and made everyone equal, as it were (!). The real equaliser was, of course, not the robe but the gospel in which everyone is equal. So you can’t say the “radical play” made every person a fellow human. We should also realise that the robe was permanently removed after a week. This was just as important as putting it on. The removal symbolised the transition to “ordinary” Christian life, where the baptised was expected to maintain the purity symbolised by the robe in daily life. If they didn’t remove it, they would permanently distinguish themselves from previously baptised Christians who no longer wore it, creating inequality again! So this ritual wasn’t needed repeatedly, at least not for the same person. This also fits with initiation: it’s a one-time transformation. After literal birth and spiritual rebirth, it’s essentially complete. One will still need to grow and persevere in faith and good works, but according to Paul in 2 Cor. 5:17, the convert is a new creation in Christ. So they don’t need to constantly reinvent themselves.
Smit is free to consider the confrontation with the drag Last Supper enriching. But it’s surprising that he needs this to *rediscover* what the Last Supper or Eucharist *actually* entails. Especially regarding the Eucharist, eminent theologians of all times have written and thought extensively, including about the equality of all participants. A rich tradition has been built, partly by the Old Catholic Church itself. And then a drag show would be necessary to really clarify it now. Even if intentionally offensive, the Olympic performance would supposedly help put people with too much conceit in their place. In other words: if you’re bothered by it, that’s the best proof you need it, because you had apparently elevated yourself to be the norm. The new norm, which we are now all expected to embrace, states: “On to the church as God’s own drag performance”. I find this even more shocking than the performance itself. It’s adding fuel to the fire.
A beautiful form of inclusion
The Old Catholic Church is unique, combining rather solemn liturgical celebrations with fairly modern ideas. Because the rich liturgy and hierarchy must be preserved, there’s only one way to change: in theology. This is happening at a rapid pace. There’s a risk of having new ways of thinking imposed from above before we have had time for our own reflection and prayer. While there’s great emphasis on synodality, as long as many people see the creators of such provocative theology as shining examples and eagerly help spread their newest ideas, I’m pessimistic. More moderate Christians risk becoming isolated. I’ve had no problem with homosexual orientation or relationships for years, but that required adjustment. I understand we must keep adapting. But it’s only fair if my right to be who I am is also recognised. This doesn’t fit with the ideal of one-way constant disruption. There seems to be no end to what we should accept and how we must constantly embrace new challenges in order to remain included.
Coinciding with the Pope’s statement, someone wrote a nice piece in Trouw, titled “As a nation, don’t mock the sacred”. The online version later added the subtitle: “Not all Christians reacted offended to the Last Supper satire at the Games’ opening. Quite strange, thinks essayist and philosopher Sjoerd van Hoorn”. He refers to Joost Röselaers and Peter-Ben Smit as examples of Christian thinkers who view the “transvestites'” artistic expression as a beautiful form of inclusion. “Christianity connects, so everyone belongs.” And he notes: “Connection and inclusion are magic words of the progressive community, but hardly anyone who uses them seems to realise that inclusion always brings exclusion. Just draw a circle on a sheet of paper. No matter how big you make the circle, something always falls outside. In this case, the Christians who don’t appreciate what’s sacred to them being used as material for a parody… People attach to symbols, things that are more than themselves. It’s this, not cultural barbarism or intolerance, that explains and justifies the anger”.
I fully agree with this. Finally, I’d like to refer to Mattias Desmet’s brilliant analysis, which places the event in an even broader context. According to him, we’re seeing an extreme expression of rationalism. But you should read it yourself, if you have any energy left after reading this article. It’s well worth it. It was even largely confirmed by an LGBT community member and not contradicted for the remaining part.
The commitment of the IOC
On 4-8-2024, I received the following (2 days after publication): Joao Chianca wanted to participate in the Olympic Games in Paris with a surfboard featuring an image of the Brazilian flag and the world-famous Jesus statue in Rio de Janeiro, essentially the Eiffel Tower of Brazil. The Brazilian surfer was informed just beforehand that he would be disqualified if he appeared at the start with that board. “Christ is a religious figure and the Games have a strict rule to remain neutral,” I was told by the IOC, said Chianca. Note that the IOC states on its site that it is committed to making society more inclusive.
According to rule 50 of the IOC Olympic Charter, “no kind of demonstration or political, religious, or racial propaganda” is allowed at Olympic venues. But what did we see during the opening ceremony? Wasn’t that a demonstration and propaganda for LGBTQ (sometimes hardly distinguishable from a new religion) and the political Agenda 2030? But more importantly, why was a parody of Jesus allowed while an image of a now culturally significant statue of Jesus in Rio de Janeiro was not? Undoubtedly, this inconsistency was an additional reason to quickly deny that there was a scene with a Holy Supper at all. But that scene was there, and for that reason, the IOC inclusion story has ironically become a story of exclusion.
This post is also available in: Dutch
Leave A Comment