I enjoyed reading
The Da Vinci Code, although at some points it left me furious. I
believe it has a message the Church needs to hear, and provides an opportunity
the Church needs to seize.
A few assertions in the book with which
I take issue:
1) The early
Christian community did not believe Jesus was divine.
Absolutely false. The evidence both in
scripture and early historical sources affirm that the early Christian
community believed Jesus was more than just a man. Christians were not put to
death because they believed Jesus to be a wonderful human being. They were
martyred for their faith in him as Lord. This represented blasphemy to the
Jews. It represented atheism and subversion to the Romans, who demanded
allegiance to Caesar as Lord. The truth is that in every age, there have been
some who believed in Jesus' humanity, but not his divinity. Granted,
mainstream Christianity did not have a fully developed theology early on, but
the evidence reveals that they worshipped Jesus as Lord from Pentecost
forward.
2) The Council of
Nicea was orchestrated by Constantine to establish a scriptural canon and
creed that declared Jesus as divine.
Contrived. There was no doubt
political activity going on. That should come as no surprise when human
beings gather for deliberation. But one thing we need to remember--God was
present too. Constantine's motives, whatever they may have been, are not
available for review. Ditto with the bishops who attended. This much we
know--the scriptural canon began to take shape in the 2nd century A.D., long
before the Council of Nicea, as a result of challenges by Marcion and others.
The message of the gospels was not gutted and recrafted at the Council of
Nicea to present a new view of Jesus. There are existing gospel fragments
from as early as 80A.D. There are also what are referred to as gnostic
gospels and writings which appeared early on and presented a significantly
different view of the person and ministry of Jesus. At the Council of Nicea,
the issue of Jesus' divinity was overwhelmingly affirmed. A complete
scriptural canon was established at a subsequent Council, based on known
criteria.
3) Mary
Magdalene had a child by Jesus, establishing a bloodline that exists to this
day.
Makes for a great story, but terrible
history! The only support for this theory comes from a body of evidence
supposedly safe-guarded by a group known as the Priory of Sion. It is
allegedly the Holy Grail. Can we examine the documents? No, the right time
has not come. Can we attend meetings of the Priory of Sion and ask
questions? No, it is a secret organization. Can we have an accounting of
their activities? No. (Does any of this raise a red flag to you?) What we
know--There was historically a group known as the Priory of Sion, established
during the Crusader period to care for the Temple Mount in Jerusalem. They
were closely associated with another group, also historically confirmed,
called the Knights Templar. At some point, under persecution, these groups
dropped off the map. Were they abolished, obliterated, forced underground?
Take your pick. There is no independent confirmation that they have had an
uninterrupted existence to this day. As for their claim of a bloodline
through Jesus and Mary, unless you want to take it on faith, the evidence just
isn't there. Period.
4) Da Vinci
painted Mary Magdalene into The Last Supper
Could be. Who knows? Let's assume he
did. What impact would that have on your faith? There is another pattern in
Da Vinci's paintings--the index finger pointed upward. You find one of the
disciples in The Last Supper pointing upward. Da Vinci's painting of John
the Baptist shows him conspicuously pointing upward. According to those who
know more about Da Vinci than I ever will, it was his way of indicating the
belief that John the Baptist was the true Messiah, number One. Maybe he
really did that too. But wait--If he believed John was the true Messiah, and
Jesus a false one, what does that do to the bloodline of Jesus and Mary
Magdalene idea? Wouldn't it be discredited? Shouldn't we be following the
line of John instead?
The above notwithstanding, I do believe
The Da Vinci Code has a message worth hearing. At least, this is what I have
taken from it:
- The Church should celebrate the
gifts of women equally with men.
- There is a rich variety of images
relating to God in scripture. We should embrace them all. In the original
Hebrew language of the Old Testament, for example, "Holy Spirit" is in
feminine form. What are the implications of that? There are likewise
passages showing God in roles typically associated with the feminine aspect,
such as nurturing, nourishing. God, of course, is not male or female. Those
are anthropomorphisms, helpful points of reference for human beings. But when
we use masculine points of reference to the exclusion of feminine
understandings that are in the Bible too, we do a disservice to both God and
ourselves.
- The Da Vinci
Code provides an opening for talking to others about the
Christian faith. When questions come from a friend or associate about the
book, what better opportunity to share what you have learned and experienced.
We don't have to know it all. We never will have all the answers. Life is alot
about humility. But just knowing Someone who has the answers is enough to
keep us grateful for today.
And hopeful for tomorrow,
Pastor Don