God has the last laugh, though, because even when people blaspheme, they reinforce what God says. It’s another clear indicator that Christianity is true and Jesus is God. He has created the frame that we all live inside, and even those who hate it cannot escape.

Friday’s drag-queen parody of Christ at the Paris Olympics opening shows yet again that people who hate Jesus just can’t escape His art, archetypes, created realities, or authority.
The exhibition replaced Christ in the iconic Leonardo Da Vinci painting with a queer activist who describes herself as “a fat, Jewish, queer lesbian” and his disciples with cross-dressing sex performers. It immediately prompted an international backlash that can’t benefit queer acceptance. Neither can the performance, which portrayed queer people as creepy sex maniacs.
The show also backfired symbolically. In their attempts to slime what they see as their enemies, queer activists reinforced things they’re trying to destroy.
The Last Supper on Display
The most obvious demonstration of this is the derivative nature of the “art.” The best the queer Paris Olympics “artistic director” and sex performers could come up with is badly deforming others’ artistic triumphs. They didn’t think up their own world, symbols, and referents, they just sabotaged others’ then pretended what any three-year-old can do is brilliant. This doesn’t compete with or replace Christianity and its symbols, it reinforces them.
If one wanted an entire civilization to forget about Christ’s Last Supper, one would adopt the left’s usual strategy: the memoryhole. Indeed, that seems to be already happening for the Paris blasphemy show, with clips of this massive event oddly difficult to find online.
Today, few Westerners know almost anything about their artistic, religious, and cultural heritage. In earlier generations, varying-quality reproductions of the famous Last Supper painting graced numerous homes by the dinner table. This was a culturally well-understood archetypal invitation for Christ to join and bless every meal, a symbol of the eternal feast Christians enjoy in the Sacrament.
In the Last Supper, and all administrations of what Christians call the Sacrament (or Communion) thereafter, Christ Himself gives “us Christians to eat and to drink” the “true body and blood of our Lord Jesus Christ under the bread and wine,” as clearly explained by “the holy Evangelists Matthew, Mark, Luke, and St. Paul.” This act of obedience to God produces forgiveness of sins, faith, and eternal salvation. It is the high point of every Christian church service around which all other elements are arranged.
Even though Christianity is the world’s largest religion and the one that created Western civilization, most Westerners today know almost nothing about Christianity, including this central doctrine. The savvy thing for Christ-haters would have been to keep the Last Supper imagery in the cultural attic, with the dust bunnies, catechisms, and two-parent nuclear families. Instead following the sadistic urge to hate on their self-chosen enemies has millions searching “Last Supper” and learning about this keystone of faith.
A Dance for Enemies
The Last Supper blasphemy display was thematically and metaphorically interesting in many other ways. A Renaissance art expert noted to The New York Times that the sex performers made vogueing poses. Voguing is a dance that originated among queer people. It also, Vox says in a 2017 explainer, has a violent undertone: It’s “an extension of throwing shade. Instead of fighting, two people would settle their beef on the dance floor.”
Read More
Related Posts:

Overtures 20, 21, 25, and 26 all call for changes to disciplinary procedures. Tennessee Valley also sent Overture 26, which proposes an amendment to BCO 32-19. Currently, when a person is charged with an offense and tried by his session or, in the case of a minister, by his presbytery, he may be represented before the court by anyone who is a member of the church or (in the case of a minister) another member of his presbytery. This overture proposes that the person charged would be allowed representation by any member in good standing in a PCA church. Tennessee Valley argues that small congregations or presbyteries may not include members who are well versed in PCA disciplinary procedures and so under the current provision might be underrepresented in a trial. The proposal does not alter the prohibition against employment of professional counsel. 

In the PCA, an overture is ordinarily a proposal from a lower church body to a higher body requesting the higher body to take some particular action. We’ve reviewed the first 19 overtures sent to the 51st General Assembly here and here. Since that time, 16 additional overtures have been sent to the GA.
Two of these new overtures address the subject of previously submitted overtures. Overtures 23 and 24 would amend BCO 13-6, 21-4, and 24-1 to require background checks as part of examinations for ordination to office and transfer of ministers into a presbytery, an issue already addressed in Overtures 6, 16, and 17. 
The proposed changes in Overture 24, from South Texas Presbytery, are identical to those proposed in Overtures 16 and 17, outlined in the previous update. This proposal calls for each presbytery to order and review background checks for minsters seeking transfer from other presbyteries and denominations, and for candidates for ordination under “specific rules and policies” for such background checks. Each session would be required to do the same for candidates for ruling elder and deacon. While the proposal does not specify details of the “specific rules and policies,” the overture does include suggested policies that presbyteries or sessions could adopt. The background checks would serve as part of the candidate’s/transferring minister’s examination in Christian experience (in the case of a candidate transferring from one presbytery to another or of a candidate for ruling elder or deacon) or acquaintance of experiential religion (in the case of a candidate for ordination as a teaching elder or a man transferring from another denomination). 
Overture 23 from Missouri Presbytery differs in that it includes items covered in the suggested policy of Overture 24 (who received the background check and who pays for it) in the proposed BCO amendment itself, as well as specifying that the background check be state and federal and fingerprint based.
Overtures 20, 21, 25, and 26 all call for changes to disciplinary procedures. 
Overture 20 proposes the most extensive changes, virtually reframing BCO 31, 32, and 35. The details of the proposed changes are too extensive to report in detail here, but the rationale for the overture summarizes them as retaining most of the current text with some additions throughout, relocating various items, and adding several new paragraphs concerning matters such as impartiality, reporting allegations, reporting the results of investigations, imposing non-censure suspension, and adopting closed session. 
Overture 20 was proposed by the session of Fountain Square Presbyterian Church in Indianapolis to Central Indiana Presbytery which rejected it. The Fountain Square Session then forwarded it to the GA under the provisions of the Rules of Assembly Operation (RAO) 11-10 which allows a session or individual to send an overture rejected by their presbytery to the GA provided it is accompanied by an extract from the minutes of the presbytery showing its rejection. 
Central Indiana Presbytery did approve and send Overture 21 to the GA, which would amend BCO 43-1 to extend the prohibition against complaints filed during a judicial case. The current BCO provision prohibits a complaint in a judicial case in which an appeal is pending. Overture 21 proposes this be extended to any point after the case has commenced (i.e., after the court has found a strong presumption of guilt), arguing that under the current provision complaints could delay a trial for a significant period of time. 
Overture 25 from Tennessee Valley Presbytery would amend BCO 31-2 which concerns the investigation of reports concerning a member’s character. This proposal would allow presbyteries and sessions to utilize “experienced or specially qualified outside parties or consultants” in such investigations as the circumstances warrant. Tennessee Valley argues this would clarify the paragraph, as some have argued that it restricts involvement in investigations to the presbytery or session conducting it. 
Tennessee Valley also sent Overture 26, which proposes an amendment to BCO 32-19. Currently, when a person is charged with an offense and tried by his session or, in the case of a minister, by his presbytery, he may be represented before the court by anyone who is a member of the church or (in the case of a minister) another member of his presbytery. This overture proposes that the person charged would be allowed representation by any member in good standing in a PCA church. Tennessee Valley argues that small congregations or presbyteries may not include members who are well versed in PCA disciplinary procedures and so under the current provision might be underrepresented in a trial. The proposal does not alter the prohibition against employment of professional counsel. 
Overture 22 from South Florida Presbytery seeks to remedy a potential inconsistency between BCO 8-7 and 13-2. BCO 8-7 locates a minister’s membership in the presbytery where he labors; BCO 13-2 says he is a member of the presbytery in which he resides.
Read More
Related Posts:

How is it that so few take care to make sure that the God they are worshiping is in fact the true God? How many people glaze over and become bored or disinterested when they hear teaching aimed at making sure that the God they are worshiping is in fact the God of the Bible—the triune God who is Father, Son, and Holy Spirit? Does it not matter whether we are worshiping the true God versus a false god? You better believe it matters. It matters eternally.

Last Saturday, I watched an old video of the moments right after my son’s birth. Right after the delivery, the nurses took him to a table near the bed, cleaned him off, and put medical tags around his wrist and around his ankle. Do you know why they did that? So that no one at any time would get confused about who this baby is.
I recently read about two men who were born on the same day in the same hospital in Canada 67 years ago (source, source). A few years ago, the men discovered that the hospital sent them home with the wrong families. At this point, all of the parents have passed away never having learned that their real child was taken from them. And now, these two elderly men and their families are dealing with the emotional aftermath of this shocking revelation about who they are and who they aren’t. Why? Because someone 67 years ago in a hospital in Canada got confused about who these children were.
Mothers, after you gave birth, did it matter to you that the baby you delivered be the same one that you took home with you? What if hospital personnel told you as you were leaving for home, “Things got a little hectic back in the nursery this week. We think this is your baby, but we can’t be sure. But we know that we owe you a baby, so you go ahead and take this one.” Would that be acceptable to you? Would anyone in their right mind find that acceptable?
Husbands, think back to your wedding day. You run out to the car after the reception, everyone is throwing rice and cheering, a lot of confusion. But you get into your side of the car and she gets into hers. And as you are driving away, you look over and discover a woman in a wedding dress in the passenger seat, but it’s not the woman you just married.
Read More
Related Posts: