The Olympics Controversy

KEVIN HARRIS: It’s the podcast of Reasonable Faith with Dr. William Lane Craig. We’ve been doing a series on five of Dr. Craig’s books, but we are going to delay the last one for about a week because we wanted to address some of the things that happened at the 2024 Paris Olympics. Many of you are aware of this. Dr. Craig would like to weigh in. You've asked what his opinion is on some of the things that happened at the Olympics, so today we want to bring you his thoughts. Then we will continue the final in the book series next time. And stay close! Because we have a Reasonable Faith podcast “first” coming up in a couple of weeks. A special guest joins us on the podcast. Details on that coming up. As always, you can donate to Reasonable Faith. We appreciate your prayers and your financial support. Go to ReasonableFaith.org. Now let’s go to the studio with Dr. Craig.

With the recent closing of the Paris Olympics, we want to reflect back on some of the controversies that are very pertinent to the Christian faith and society in general. I know the people have wanted to get your view on a lot that went on. You were struck by the opening ceremony that seemed to depict the Last Supper featuring drag queens, and you immediately expressed your disdain for it on social media. Not surprisingly, it got a lot of reaction. Over 900 comments at this recording. Where are you on the whole debacle today? Do you still think it should be denounced?

DR. CRAIG: A number of people who commented on my post insisted that this was not, in fact, a mockery of the Last Supper; that instead what it was intended to depict was a feast of pagan gods – a sort of Dionysian orgy or festival and that therefore it was misguided to think that it was sacrilegious or blasphemous for parodying the Lord's Supper. That prompted me to look into this a little bit more deeply. To look at the painting that was allegedly depicted by the tableau in the opening ceremonies that showed the pagan feast. And as a result of looking at this, I am convinced that this is not an either-or situation. Rather, I think it's a both-and. What the Olympic tableau was meant to portray was the Last Supper as a pagan orgiastic feast such as is depicted in that painting. So it seems to me that it simply compounds the blasphemy as well as the tastelessness of doing this. It's interesting that in French the word for the Last Supper is la cène. It's spelled c-e-n, but it's pronounced the same way as the river that winds through Paris, la Seine. So this was a depiction of la cène – the Last Supper – on the Seine, and it portrays it as a sort of pagan feast of gods engaging in sexually promiscuous behavior represented by these drag queens. So, yes, I do think it should still be denounced. I think it's tasteless. It's vulgar. And, more seriously, it really is blasphemous.

KEVIN HARRIS: Here's one comment you received. In fact, let's look at a couple of comments. “Jesus deeply loves every one of those Olympic ceremony performers. As bearers of his name, that is required of us, too. No anger. No indignation. Just love to them all.” Here's a similar comment: “Why are you upset about non-Christians acting like non-Christians?” Sounds like both these commenters are opposed to calling out public displays of sinfulness or error and just offering love. It's like saying “boys will be boys” and “pagans will be pagans.” What's your reply?

DR. CRAIG: I think the idea that we should show no anger and no indignation is contradicted by the behavior of Jesus himself. When you read Jesus’ denunciations of the Pharisee, the Gospels say he was angry. It says that explicitly. And he reacts with tremendous indignation at the hypocrisy of the Pharisees and the religious leaders of his time. Now, that doesn't mean that Jesus didn't love them. Of course he loved them. But he was angry and indignant about what they were doing and saying. What bothers me so deeply about this first comment (“no anger, no indignation, just love to them all”) is that this person has already bought into the relativistic postmodern narrative that is threatening Christianity and Western culture today; namely, that you cannot love someone that you disagree with. And that is so contrary to the Christian ethos and ethic. On the Christian view, we can love people with whom we disagree deeply, and we should not think that indications of disagreement means a lack of love or is hateful speech or anything of that sort. Of course there is love to everyone, but once you buy into this relativistic postmodern narrative that love is inconsistent with disagreement of a person's views, you've lost the battle for Western culture right there. So this person is already accommodated to the postmodern relativistic worldview. He's already lost the battle in saying this. Now, when the other person comments, “Why are you upset about non-Christians acting like non-Christians“, I think I've kind of hinted at that. The reason I'm upset about this is because I believe that these people represent a profound threat to Western society and to Christianity in particular. The aim here is to bring about a cultural revolution or upheaval in which the traditional values of Christianity are replaced by this sort of relativistic set of different values all together that would replace Christianity in the West. So I see this as a serious, serious threat to Western culture and Christianity in particular. And that's why we should be concerned about non-Christians acting like non-Christians.

KEVIN HARRIS: The Olympics are one of the biggest platforms, if not the biggest platform, in the world. Millions upon millions of people all over the globe tune into the Olympics. It's like the Super Bowl – even greater because all the countries are represented. So it's a huge platform pulpit from which to teach something like this. And the producers of the Olympic opening claim that they were not trying to be subversive – “subversion” is the secret or subtle attempt to ruin, revolutionize, or radically change an established institution or society. But I think that denial rings hollow. I think the imagery coupled with concluding the whole event with the song “Imagine” shouts subversion. “Imagine” is one of the most anti-Christian popular songs ever written.

DR. CRAIG: Right. It's a lovely tune, but that song by John Lennon invites us to imagine a world with no religion, where it's been replaced. It is the theme song of secularism. Also in that ceremony following the tableau of the Last Supper as a pagan feast, you have darkness and then you have depicted the French Revolution with the beheading of Marie Antoinette sending her to the guillotine, and then red blood being splattered all over the place. What followed the Revolution in France was the Reign of Terror. The French Revolution represented and embodied the throwing off of the old order – the church and the monarchy – in favor of human autonomy. So you are absolutely right in saying this is an attempted cultural subversion. It's the same message here – that in the name of human autonomy we're going to throw off the old order of Christianity and Western culture and replace it with this new order in which sexual libertinism and relativism rules the day.

DR. CRAIG: Our Reasonable Faith chapter director Tyson James has been following the story. He sent us five or six reasons why he thinks that that particular scene was in fact a parody of the Last Supper as if it were a Greek bacchanalia. Some of the things he said, I think you mentioned it earlier, that the name of the scene was the Last Supper (“on the Seine”). The creator, Thomas Jolly, said that he was referencing the Last Supper. But that's according to Jonathan Pageau which we will see here in just a moment. He doesn't provide a source for that so we don't know if the main guy Thomas Jolly said that or not. But it looks like he may have. The female performer, Tyson says, at the center, Barbara Butch, reposted a picture of the scene being compared to the Last Supper by Da Vinci and her caption was “Oh Yes. Oh Yes. The Gay New Testament.” Now, that post has since been deleted but a lot of people took screenshots of it, and have circulated it. One of the drag performers, Piche, was interviewed in the Parisian and, while rejecting the idea that anyone parodied Jesus, he noted that the Last Supper had been parodied many times, and he says, “As luck would have it, in our case when it's LGBT and drag, it's disturbing.” So that's just some of the things that Tyson arrived at. Also Bishop Robert Baron, who's interviewed you a few times, thinks it was a mockery of the Christian faith. He wrote,

Here’s what really bugs me. You know, if we just keep mocking Christianity, what will happen when in our culture, people no longer hear the story of the Prodigal Son? They no longer hear the story of the Good Samaritan? They no longer see the depiction of the Last Supper for what it is? They no longer see the crucified Christ? What will happen to our culture when those things are mocked out of existence? I think the culture will suffer enormously from it.

That's one of the big battlegrounds – defending against, as you said earlier, influential forces who would really like to see Western civilization and Christianity in particular disappear.

DR. CRAIG: In fact, it struck me that our purpose statement for Reasonable Faith is to provide an intelligent, articulate, uncompromising, and yet gracious voice in defense of Christianity in the public square. So this is exactly in line with the mission that this ministry has to try in the public square to counteract these sorts of subversive attacks upon Christianity and to provide a solid evidential and gracious defense of the Christian faith. So I think that to remain passive, to be silent, in the face of this sort of attempted subversive activity is to simply acquiesce to what the forces of secularism and evil would do.

KEVIN HARRIS: I found that when people protest that they're not being subversive, that most of the time that means they're being subversive. As we're wrapping it up today, we want to look at a couple of video clips. I think you're going to find this interesting. Several people have pointed me to this commentary from Jonathan Pageau. He's a renowned liturgical artist, writer, expert on art and symbology. He thinks the Olympic opening was a deliberate parody and mockery of the Last Supper. Listen to how he introduces a recent video blog.

This is actually one of the funniest things about this event. All these people, and a lot of Christians, going online saying, “It's actually not the Last Supper; it's the Feast of Dionysus. Why are all the Christians getting so annoyed? Why are the Christians getting so mad? I am educated. I understand that this is the Feast of Dionysus.” The capacity of people to easily accept gaslighting is hilarious. Are we back in COVID once again? Is that what's going on? I guess so. I guess it doesn't take much. People don't learn their lesson.

That's how he started the whole preview of what he was going to say. Let's look at this second clip here from his podcast when he talks about the symbolism at the Olympics.

There's nothing wrong with diversity. And there's nothing wrong with inclusion. We mentioned this several times. It's necessary for a society to exist to have diversity and inclusion. But societies do not celebrate diversity. The only way to celebrate diversity is by carnival. The only way to celebrate diversity is by turning unity upside down – by emphasizing the fringe, the margin, and the imagery of the carnival. We have carnivals in the West, of course. We have Halloween and Feast of Fools. We have Mardi Gras. We have all these traditions of carnival in the West which are moments of inversion and scandal and chaos which is usually then followed by some kind of return to normalcy. There's a pastor in the United States, a Methodist pastor, who does his sermons in drag, and he says it clearly in his speeches, in his sermons. He says, “the best ways to enact systemic change is through joy and carnival. Drag is carnival. It is over the top. It is loud. It is joyous. It is laugh-filled. And it is in moments where people on the margins are handed just a little bit of power. And when they hold on to that power for longer than it was intended, things happen.” Drag is carnival, and carnival is a manner to bring about change. We want to destroy identity in order to reconstitute them into a new identity. What is this new identity? It's a transhuman identity. It's a posthuman identity. It is a universalist image where all the distinctions kind of disappear into a kind of chaotic amorphous being. And this is what was happening in the event.

That clip makes me want to read more in this area on symbology and society and things like that. As I'm getting him here, we're supposed to return to normal after the carnival, but if we don't then the producers of the carnival have successfully changed society. And it rings true that the Olympic opener called for casting off of the bondage of Christianity in the West and having one big orgy. But what were your thoughts on that clip?

DR. CRAIG: I think that Jonathan Pageau is really on to something here. I found it very interesting. His point is so intellectually elevated that I think it may go past some of our listeners. When I hear the word “carnival” what I think of is the street fair that came to my boyhood town, Keokuk, Iowa. The Ferris wheel, the Tilt-A-Whirl, the bumper cars, the cotton candy. That's not what Pageau is talking about. He is talking about “carnival” in the sense of Mardi Gras. That pre-Lenten orgy of libertinism and inversion that is represented by carnival. In countries like Brazil and in other Catholic countries, this element of carnival is much more significant than here in the United States. It really does represent the throwing off of any sort of restraints of society and embracing libertinism – anything goes. Dissipation, drinking, sexual promiscuity. And, as he says, after the carnival is over then you have Lent and prepare for Easter. But if you don't have that return to normalcy afterwards then what has happened is you've subverted Western culture and particularly Christianity and the values that it embodies. So I think his analysis of this is really intriguing and important. You can see why he was laughing at the beginning of that clip, at these naive Christians who fancy themselves so educated, so sophisticated, and say this isn't about anything serious at all about an attack on Christianity. And you can see that they've already been duped and taken in by this secular inversion.

KEVIN HARRIS: As we’re wrapping it up, it would be easy to just either lose our cool or just be complacent about stuff like this. Say it's par for the course. Give me some thoughts on our proper responses as followers of Christ.

DR. CRAIG: Our responses always have to be done in a loving manner which, as I say, does not mean that you cannot disagree sharply with something. I think that what will be more effective in the long run (as opposed to simply condemnation and denunciation, however well deserved) will be providing a positive apologetic for the truth of the Christian faith and the values that it embodies. When we can give good reasons for thinking that God exists and has revealed himself decisively in Jesus Christ then we can counteract the attack of secularism that would subvert Christianity and the West that's been shaped by it. So, for me, this is a call for renewed commitment to providing that positive apologetic for the truth of the Christian faith to provide a bulwark against these sorts of attacks.^[1]