The Da Vinci Drag Display in Paris

As the Olympics wind down I felt compelled to offer a comment in relation to the scandal regarding the sodomites in the opening ceremony.

Was it in fact a mockery of the da Vinci painting of the Last Supper or was it some festive depiction related to to Dionysus?

I honestly don't know but I will say this - regardless of what it was, the scandal and outrage coming out (no pun intended) of Evangelical circles is misplaced.

And I'm not alone. On LPR's Issues Etc., John Warwick Montgomery argued that he hates to see Christians become a bunch of thin-skinned sourpusses.

While not agreeing with everything he said, I appreciated his take on a Christian response to culture - at least on this point.*

And yet my reasons for rejecting the basis for Evangelical outrage are a bit different. If it was in fact the intention of the planners to insult Christianity - then it's insulting regardless of how misguided they might have been in their choice of insult. And how so? Well, I guess there are no Fundamentalist voices left because if there were they would argue (and on this point I would agree) that da Vinci's work isn't Christian art to begin with.

Was the Paris display vile and offensive?

Of course, and that's true regardless of whether they intentionally mocked the da Vinci artwork. But here's the thing - the da Vinci piece is also vile and offensive and so in the end I find myself throwing my hands up in the air.

The sodomites don't know that the artwork isn't actually Christian and so they think they score a point (maybe). But as a Christian I am not moved by this particular piece of Renaissance art.

Is it a faithful representation of Christ? Then worship it. How could you not?

If it's not, then it's a lie and a misrepresentation of Christ which is actually more problematic and offensive then some wretched sodomites trying to score a point in the culture wars.

Often the argument is made that rejecting images reveals a kind of Nestorian tendency - separating the Person into Divine and human persons. Christ was human they argue and can be depicted.

On the contrary, the embrace of images of Christ is explicitly Nestorian. It is the iconodules (or iconolaters) who are dividing Christ.

Can Deity be depicted?

If not, then the picture is by definition Nestorian in that it separates the Incarnation into two natures that are independent - a functional sundering of the hypostatic union, which is tantamount to a doctrine of two persons. To depict Christ is to depict his deity - or not, in which case it's not Christ. It's a lie. Any image will by its very nature denigrate and misrepresent the Person of Christ. While His glory was set aside during His earthly ministry, He was still Divine. He cannot be depicted and all such representations are false.

So while the da Vinci work is of great historical value, it is in fact a heretical production and should not be considered Christian. While we decry the mocking of Christianity, to focus on this piece of art is misguided and represents a distraction.

The New Testament does not support such art and while some non-symbolic pictures of Christ began to creep in during the 3rd century, the overwhelming witness to this error is connected to the great shift that took place with Constantine in the 4th century. With images came many other aberrations from New Testament Christianity which would eventually evolve into the counterfeit systems of Roman Catholicism and Eastern Orthodoxy.

----

*As regular readers will already know - generally I am not appreciative of Issues Etc. With a few exceptions I typically only listen to the regular segments with Terry Mattingly and the irregular ones with John Warwick Montgomery. I don't endorse either of these men either but they provide interesting opinions and commentary. Mattingly's journey into Eastern Orthodoxy is troubling and the 92-year old Montgomery (while incredibly sharp for his age) has some highly problematic skeletons in his closet.