Category Archives: Debates

Welcome to the table of the Lord!

Debates, Morality, Theology

DISCLAIMER: It was pointed out to me that Thomas Jolly specifically indicated that the scene was meant to represent a pagan celebration featuring Dionysus. I think it would only be fair to give the artist the benefit of the doubt in this regard, and it would imply that the Christian outrage at the scene is mostly misguided. Having said that, I leave this post here as-is, since I still believe that we, as Christians, can and should do better in how we engage with controversial contemporary topics.
See: Did Paris mock Last Supper at Olympics? Why some Christians are angry (usatoday.com)
Opening ceremony choreographer denies ‘Last Supper’ parody at launch of Paris Games (france24.com)

Wow, the French surely know how to create controversy! During the opening ceremony of the 2024 Olympic games, the camera cuts to the french “love activist” and DJ, Barbara Butch. She is seated at a long table, wearing a blue dress with silver headdress, and as the camera pans out, the scene unfolds to show the rest of the motley crew of drag queens and blue people. 

A scene from the Paris 2024 Olympics Opening Ceremony

Of course, the theme of inclusivity was to be expected, but what shocked the world was not those present, but how they were arranged along the long table. This was interpreted as an artistic commentary on the painting called “The Last Supper” by Leonardo da Vinci.

The Last Supper (Leonardo) - Wikipedia

As expected, this scene was met with great outrage by many Christian politicians, churches and laypeople from all over the world. “Satanic!” “Outrageous!” “Disgusting!” and on and on it went. And yet, maybe we were missing the whole point as Christians, because we keep on underestimating God’s absolute brilliance and sense of humor, along with His love for people, and the lengths to which God will go to save us from ourselves. Allow me the opportunity to offer an alternative exposition of the art, created by the Artist Himself.

But is it art?

Firstly, we should understand that art is always meant to have a deeper message, and this artistic expression by the ceremony’s art director, Thomas Jolly, is certainly no exception. Our job, as the beholder of the piece of art, is to discern the meaning behind the art.

In this case, I think it is clear that the intention was to create a scene that clearly contrasts the Biblical comments on moral purity, as personified by Jesus, to that of the modern LGBTQ+ movement that sees itself as a liberation movement, throwing off the chains of oppression brought by the narrow moral prescriptions of the Bible. It says that now, in 2024, it is no longer Jesus sitting at the center of this important table, having been replaced by the enlightenment brought by moral relativism. 

And if this was the end of the artistic story, then of course we as Christians should be upset and offended, but it is not, because the artist of this scene overlooked a very important point, that being the underlying meaning of the original art upon which this latest artistic expression is based on. Welcome, my friends, to the Table of the Lord!

The Table of the Lord

The painting by Leonardo da Vinci, which served as inspiration for this scene at the opening ceremony, is in turn Da Vinci’s imagination of the Lord’s Supper. The Last Supper refers to the very last time when Jesus ate with His disciples, but it was no ordinary meal. This meal would have been the highlight of the Feast of Passover, an intensely symbolic event with various traditions with rich meaning dating all the way back to the Exodus from Egypt. The primary purpose of the event was to remind the Israelites of the fact that they were slaves in Egypt, and how God freed them from this slavery by a mighty hand! Central to the message of the Passover meal, was the remembrance of the lamb that was slaughtered, and the blood that was smeared on the doorposts as a sign that the life first-born from that house has been redeemed by the blood of the lamb which was killed in the stead of the first-born.

At this last supper event, Jesus and His disciples are observing this feast, and when Jesus comes to the part where the third piece of the afikomen (a specific piece of bread in the ceremony) is broken and shared with all around the table, He makes this statement : “Take this and eat it. This is my body”. He then continues, taking the cup of wine after the meal, which is called Cup of Redemption, and He says : “Take this and drink it. This is my blood, and with it God makes his agreement with you. It will be poured out, so that many people will have their sins forgiven.”

In many ways, these events here at the Last Supper are the culmination of the story that starts all the way back in Genesis, and reaches its highlight in Jesus’ death on the cross the very next day. Here, at this very table of the Last Supper, God extends His offer of salvation and redemption to those sitting around the table, offering to be the Lamb of God that will take the punishment of death for the sins of those around the table, mostly unaware of the significance of what was happening right there on that evening.

For you see, this we tend to forget, that apart from Jesus, every single person around that table on that fateful evening, were sinners, and under the judgment of the law, deserving death. And herein we find the art created by the greatest Artist of them all, those sitting at the table were no more deserving of God’s forgiveness than those sitting around the very same table at the 2024 Olympics opening ceremony. James, John, Peter, DJ Barbara Butch and the naked Smurfie man, none of us can sit at that Last Supper table and claim that we can achieve God’s righteousness by being “good enough” (Isaiah 64:6). 

In a very real sense, the Last Supper table is an invitation for people exactly like those whom art director Thomas Jolly has positioned around that table. The true irony of the scene we saw at the opening ceremony is therein, that this very table is the place where sinners are welcomed, because at this very table the King explains His perfect love to those around the table by taking the judgment that each of us deserve in our stead.

A word to Christians

To conclude this essay, I would like to extend this reminder to Christians. Let us never forget that we, too, were once far removed from Christ, and were once upon a time invited to this table as sinners. Let’s remember how God extended His grace to us when we deserved God’s judgment. Think of the time when you were sitting at this table, and you were first offered salvation instead of death, when Jesus extended the Cup of Redemption also to you. 

If we are to be Jesus’ representatives here on earth, maybe we should show the same grace and love to those who are still lost, because here at the table of the Lord, they can be introduced to Jesus. Let’s leave the judgment to God, and let’s simply point them to Jesus who is the hope of salvation to every sinner. Let’s pray that each person at that table has the opportunity to meet with Jesus, and that He would convict them of their sin and call them to repentance, because that He has promised to do and we just need to go find the lost in the streets and dark alleys, and bring them here to the table of the Lord.

And finally, to DJ Barbara Butch and every other sinner here at the table, welcome to the Table of the Lord, let me tell you about my Jesus…

Leave a comment

God is dead, now let’s go shopping!

Debates, Philosophy

The Demoralized Minshoppingd

“Our descent into the Age of Depression seems unstoppable. Three decades ago, the average age for the first onset of depression was 30. Today it is 14.”

So starts a recent thought provoking article by John Schumaker titled “The Demoralized Mind” (https://newint.org/columns/essays/2016/04/01/psycho-spiritual-crisis/)

He further explains that up to 62% of diagnosed depression cases are in fact misdiagnosed cases of demoralization.

Rather than a depressive disorder, demoralization is a type of existential disorder associated with the breakdown of a person’s ‘cognitive map’. It is an overarching psycho-spiritual crisis in which victims feel generally disoriented and unable to locate meaning, purpose or sources of need fulfilment. The world loses its credibility, and former beliefs and convictions dissolve into doubt, uncertainty and loss of direction. Frustration, anger and bitterness are usual accompaniments, as well as an underlying sense of being part of a lost cause or losing battle. The label ‘existential depression’ is not appropriate since, unlike most forms of depression, demoralization is a realistic response to the circumstances impinging on the person’s life.

It turns out that people are getting all the more disillusioned by the failings of our consumer-driven lives, realising that a life-style of “take-me-to-the-store” is empty of true meaning and significance.

Research shows that, in contrast to earlier times, most people today are unable to identify any sort of philosophy of life or set of guiding principles. Without an existential compass, the commercialized mind gravitates toward a ‘philosophy of futility’, as Noam Chomsky calls it, in which people feel naked of power and significance beyond their conditioned role as pliant consumers. Lacking substance and depth, and adrift from others and themselves, the thin and fragile consumer self is easily fragmented and dispirited.

How on earth did we manage to get ourselves into this existential mess, where “most people today are unable to identify any sort of philosophy of life or set of guiding principles”?  In my personal opinion (and here my view diverges from that of Dr Schumaker) the problem started many years ago, as Friedrich Nietzsche prophetically proclaimed:

“God is dead.  God remains dead.  And we have killed him…
…There has never been a greater deed; and whosoever shall be born after us – for the sake of this deed he shall be part of a higher history than all history hitherto.”
– Parable of the Madman

For the past 2000 years people have been living under the moral laws as taught by the Bible.  For 2000 years now it has been considered wrong to sleep with another man’s wife, pay for the service of a prostitute or open the centre-fold all the way.

But now we’ve killed Him.  No longer will we need the morals as taught by the Bible and churches, we shall be making our own morals laws now.  We shall decide for ourselves what is good and right, thank you very much.  So, with the blood of God on our hands, let’s take stock of what our “higher history” of the last 100 years have brought us.

A search for significance

Nietzsche’s words were prophetic in the sense that Atheism and Agnosticism have seen astronomical growth figures over the past 100 years.  In Europe alone, Atheism has grown from about 0 in 1900 to more than 100 000 000 people in 2000.  Many other western cultures have been slow to catch on, but in the Age of the Internet, Atheism is slowly building momentum in all corners of the world.

From what I can see, God’s death has left an emptiness in man’s soul that is truly hard to fill.  Previously man could find significance in having a relationship with the Living God, he could extract meaning from knowing that God has a purpose for having him around.  Consumerism has proven to be a poor substitute for God in bringing significance and meaning to our lives, but all is not yet lost, says Dr Schumaker.

According to anthropologist Raoul Naroll, a ‘moral net’ in the form of a cultural infrastructure is required to ensure the mental well-being of a community.  Schumaker explains.

To avoid this (a community’s mental illness), a society’s moral net must be able to meet the key psycho-social-spiritual needs of its members, including a sense of identity and belonging, co-operative activities that weave people into a community, and shared rituals and beliefs that offer a convincing existential orientation.

Co-operative activities, communities, shared rituals and beliefs that offer a convincing existential orientation…wait, what? Does that not sound very much like those pesky churches that we are trying so hard to get rid of?  Apparently we should build more churches, organise co-operative activities that weave people into communities with shared rituals and beliefs.  Churches, that is, but without God.

The Church, but without God

Sounds silly, doesn’t it?  Not so, says the people of Sunday Assembly (https://www.sundayassembly.com), a church for atheists that meet on Sundays to sing songs, listen to inspirational talks, and create community together.  These people are taking Naroll’s moral net very seriously.

Unfortunately, here too, there is a major problem brewing.  We should ask ourselves WHY consumerism failed to bring significance to our lives in the first place.  In my opinion, Consumerism failed because it is meaningless at its core, an attempt at generating significance from nothingness.  The Demoralised Mind, as Dr Schumaker calls it, is precisely that because people become disillusioned with the empty promises that are being dished up by the consumer culture.  It can give nothing, because it has nothing to give.

Will the Church-without-God not suffer from the same malady?  Is it not also an attempt to generate inherent meaning and significance from a world-view that is intrinsically empty and without inherent significance?  In a universe that created itself by random processes, void of plan or purpose, life is purely accidental and is by definition without meaning or significance.  In fact, Sunday Assembly openly acknowledges this fact in their charter.  The very first item on the list:

Sunday Assembly is 100% celebration of life. We are born from nothing and go to nothing. Let’s enjoy it together.

How then, does one extract meaning and significance from a world view that definitively states that life is meaningless, by definition?  While Sunday Assemblies may make you feel warm and fuzzy inside, eventually the novelty will wear off and the sceptic person will be forced to consider the roots for what they are, utter meaninglessness and void of any significance, bringing us full circle to the very same Demoralised Mind created by the Consumer Culture.

A God, it seems, is necessary after all

Unfortunately this problem is not unique to Atheism, and it would be grossly unfair to blame all the world’s problems on Atheists and Agnostics.  The problem of finding significance in this life will forever remain elusive as long as we try to find it from within ourselves.  At best we can only temporarily fool ourselves into believing that we can create our own meaning.  Without an external agent supplying the reason-for-being, any philosophical system or worldview must inevitably conclude that life is inherently meaningless, and that “All is to no purpose”, as the Preacher said in Ecclesiastes.  It is that hole of emptiness that we find in ourselves that no amount of gadgets or shoes or drugs or feel-happy songs can fill.

If we as a human race are to be cured of our demoralization, a God, it seems, is necessary after all.

The end of the matter; all has been heard. Fear God and keep his commandments, for this is the whole duty of man.
(Ecclesiastes 12:13 ESV)

Epilogue: Please note that I am vividly aware that that God is not automatically real, just because we WANT or even NEED a God, nor is it my intention in this essay to make a case for God’s existence.  The point that I hope to convey to the reader is that there is probably no question more important for each of us to answer than this: “Is God REAL”?  Without a very real answer to this question, we will forever be groping in the dark, and a life of significance will be beyond our reach.  Is this not a question worth investigating to its final conclusion?  The answer, either way, will be life changing.  We owe it to ourselves to look past all the emotional dust being kicked up by both sides of the debate and find the truth.

Leave a comment

‘n God wat werd is om te aanbid – My antwoord op Rian van Heerden (11 Mei 2016)

Afrikaans, Debates, Theology

Die tonge klap hierdie week oor Rian van Heerden se uitlating op die The Complimentary Breakfast Show.  Vir ingeval jy onder ‘n klip weggekruip het, hier is wat hy te sê gehad het.

“Any God, I do not care if he has eight arms or is a tree, I do not care who you worship, any God who judges people for how they were born or for who they were born, is not worth serving,”

Wat egter vir my meer interessant was, is hoe die Christene hierop gereageer het, en dit blyk vir my of ‘n video deur Johan Frederik Lee op Facebook min of meer die gevoel van meeste saamgevat het.  In antwoord daarop is daar weer Bybeltekste soos Luk 6:37 gekwoteer wat lui dat ons nie moet oordeel nie.

In al hierdie gesprekke is daar egter een ding wat nooit aangespreek word nie, en dit is die inhoud en meriete, of te kort daaraan, van Rian se stelling.  As ons as Jesus se dissipels regtig ernstig opgeneem wil word, sal ons moet ophou om persoonlik te raak in ons aanvalle op ander en LUISTER wat mense soos Rian te sê het.  Die realiteit is dat Rian se opmerking ‘n geldige uitdaging stel, en of jy nou daarmee saamstem of nie, kan ons die man ten minste genoeg respekteer om sy opmerking eerlik te bespreek sonder om hom as persoon te kruisig.

Dit is dus met hierdie in gedagte dat ek Rian se kommentaar as volg wou antwoord sou ek die kans gegun word.

 

 

Geagte Rian,

Ek hoop jy sal my briefie sien in die gesindheid waarin ek dit geskryf het.  Ek sou beslis nie die eerste klip kon gooi nie, want ek is ook maar net ‘n sondaar. My hoop sou wees dat ek en jy eendag kan saam sit en ‘n koffie drink en gesels oor ‘n God wat die moeite werd is om te aanbid.

‘n Vinnige Internet-search wys vir my daarop dat jy uit die NG-Kerk se geledere kom, en terwyl ek nie voorgee om jou te ken nie, wys dit vir my daarop dat jou uitspraak op ‘n meer spesifieke God gemik is as een met agt arms of wat dalk ‘n boom mag wees.  Ek wil dis van uit die standpunt uitgaan dat ek en jy oor dieselfde God praat, die een van wie ons lees in die Bybel.

Sou ons geheel en al niks anders weet van enige gegewe God nie, sou ek dalk moes saamstem met jou stelling, maar die realiteit is dat ons heelwat meer weet as net dat Hy nie homoseksualiteit goedkeur nie.  Ek dink ook egter dat ons regtig oneerlik met onsself sou wees as ons probeer voorgee dat tekste soos Lev 20:13 anders vertaal of weggeredeneer kon word.

Die realiteit, Rian, is dat ek en jy met ‘n baie soortgelyke probleem sit.  Soos jy gebore is as iemand wat ‘n natuurlike begeerte het na mans, het ek ‘n natuurlike begeerte na vroue.  Jesus het op ‘n geleentheid genoem dat God se standaard van so aard is, dat as ek selfs na ‘n ander vrou sou kyk om haar te begeer, ek reeds in my hart met haar egbreek gepleeg het.  Egbrekers, net ter interessantheid, verdien dieselfde straf as die man wat by ‘n ander man slaap volgens Lev 20.  Ek was nog nooit ontrou teenoor my vrou nie, maar enige man wat voorgee dat hy nog nooit in sy lewe ‘n ander vrou raakgesien het nie, sou ‘n blatante leuenaar wees.

So, hier staan ek en jy ewe skuldig voor dieselfde God en verdien dieselfde straf volgens Lev 20, dit is, ‘n doodstraf.  Jy skuldig aan vers 13, ek skuldig aan vers 10.

Sou dit regverdig wees vir God om ons twee te verdoem vir hoe ons gebore is?  Miskien, miskien nie.  Die vraag wat ons egter vir onsself vra gaan nie oor regverdigheid nie, maar of hierdie God wat hierdie wette laat neerskryf het, werd is om aanbid te word?

Wel, die storie stop nie hier in Levitikus nie.  Hierdie selfde God, wetende dat beide ek en jy geheel en al skuldig is aan die standaard wat Hy gestel het, los ons nie net aan ons eie lot oor om eendag voor Sy regterstoel te staan en veroordeel te word nie.  Hy kom self aarde toe, maak in duidelike terme seker dat ons verstaan wat Sy standaard is (sien Matt 5), en betaal dan die doodstraf wat ek en jy verdien.

Dit, my vriend, is ‘n God wat werd is om te aanbid.  ‘n God wat sonde sterk veroordeel en dan self die vonnis daarvoor betaal, hoe kan jy vir meer vra as dit?

Jy sien, ek en jy hóéf nie onder die God se oordeel te staan nie.  Die oordeel oor ons twee is reeds gevel, ons is skuldig bevind, en hierdie God bied vir ons twee die geleentheid aan om die vonnis vir ons sonde vry te spring juis omdat Hy reeds daarvoor betaal het.  Maar dit bly ons keuse op die ou end.  Hy sê dat, as ons ons sonde bely (soos om skuldig te pleit in die hof), Hy getrou sal wees om ons die sonde te vergewe en ons van alle ongeregtigheid te reinig soos Hy sê in 1 Joh 1:9.

Hier is egter nou ons twee se potensiële probleem.  Ek kan mos nie voorgee om my egbreek te bely het as ek aanhou om al die mooi tienermeisies te bekyk wanneer my vrou anderkant toe kyk nie?  Solank as wat ek gaan aanhou om my sonde voor God te probeer regverdig deur vol te hou dat Hy my so gemaak het, sou my belydenis mos vals wees.  Geen hof in ons land sal dit duld dat ek skuldig pleit en dan verder probeer voorhou dat ek niks verkeerd gedoen het nie.  Ons sou ons verwaand wees om dieselfde te probeer doen teenoor God en dan verwag dat Hy my moet vryspreek van iets waaraan ek voorgee om nie skuldig aan te wees nie.

Óf jy is skuldig aan Sy wette, pleit skuldig en aanvaar die vryspraak waarvoor Hy Sy lewe gegee het, óf jy hou vol dat jy niks verkeerd gedoen het nie en kyk wat gebeur.  Ek glo egter jy het al genoeg flieks gekyk het om te weet hoe dit vir die bad guys uitwerk wanneer hulle ‘n goeie ondersoekspan in die hof aanvat…

Om af te sluit, toe God voor die grondlegging van die aarde na jou gekyk het, kyk Hy nie vas in jou sonde nie.  Hy kyk na jou, dink aan wat dit Hom sou kos om dit reg te kry dat Hy jou nie HOEF te oordeel nie, en sê dan: “You’re worth it“.  Mag jy na Hom kyk en sien dat Hy geen begeerte het om jou te oordeel nie en dat jy bereid sal wees om skuldig te pleit en eendag te besef dat: “He’s worth it“.  Want Hy is…

Groete,

Johan Fuhri.

2 comments

A slightly scientific look at Calvinism vs. Arminianism

Debates, Philosophy, Theology

If you are looking for a theological debate that stretches across many generations, look no further than the Calvinism vs. Arminianism debate.  Ever since the 1600s, and probably even before that, theologians have been grappling with this problem of predestination vs. free will and the debate still rages on today.

For those who would like to catch up on the debate, just do a Google Search.  Here is a link to a quick comparison between the two points-of-view for those who are lazy or don’t know how to use Google.

http://www.graceonlinelibrary.org/reformed-theology/arminianism/calvinism-vs-arminianism-comparison-chart/

Now it is important to realise that many people may subscribe to one of these two points of view with minor squabbles on some of the details.  For example, many Calvinists would point out that they do in fact believe that Jesus died for everyone, and not only the elect.

Whatever the case may be, this article will not attempt to prove or disprove either of these points of view from a Biblical perspective, there are hundreds of other websites where you can go find strong biblical evidence for both views.  This one is about science!

Well ok, maybe we will mix in a little philosophy as well.

» Read more

Leave a comment

Morality and God: Is there a connection

Debates, Morality, Philosophy

About a week ago I attended the debate between Eusebius McKaiser and Prof. John Lennox on the topic of Morality and God.  I must say that I was a little perplexed with the discussion and I suspect this might have something to do with the fact that I have no training whatsoever in philosophy.  So with that disclaimer, here is my opinion on the matter.

Firstly, it might be useful to read Mr. McKaiser’s comment on the topic here:
http://www.iol.co.za/capetimes/on-that-point-eusebius-mckaiser-1.1754668#.VCaHi_mSzGJ

The one thing I found a interesting was the fact that both debaters stated that they believe in the concept of absolute, or maybe rather universal morality.  From what I understand, the idea is that all people (or most people at least) follow the same basic set of moral standards.  Everybody pretty much agrees that murder and rape is wrong, even though some would still choose to do so in-spite of this knowledge.  The big question then becomes, why would this be the case?  Why would humanity in general follow the same set of basic moral principles, and whether God has anything to do with this?

So for me the big question then revolves around the origin of moral principles.

» Read more

Leave a comment