RIVERSIDE REFLECTIONS: The DaVinci Code
Antonina and I have now read the book and seen the movie. Neither are anything less than spectacular! Too many evangelicals are having this knee-jerk reaction against anything that might be slightly unconventional. I just want to make one disclaimer before continuing: IT IS FICTION!
Yes, it is based on very real historical theory. Most of us call them conspiracy theories because we know they are not likely to be true. At the very least, there is little evidence that they could be true. There are two problems with Dan Brown's work from a theological point of view of which Christians should take note. One of problematic areas have to do with history of the church, formation of the Canon, legalization of Christianity, etc. The other has to do with the implications he draws from the theory of Jesus being married to Mary and having a child. The implication that if this were true would make Jesus not divine is absurd. Further, the implication that it makes Mary in any way divine is also absurd. The logical implecations he tries to draw connecting thie theory with the idea of the divine feminine just does not hold water in my opinion.
It is odd becuase no one cares about these truly problematic areas. Most are simply concerned with the "heresy" that Jesus could have been married. Let me ask this question: If Jesus were married to Mary Magdalene, and they had a child, how would that change what we confess to be true of Christ? I would welcome discussion at this point.
Lastly, I have heard many complain that the movie is trying to "destroy" Christianity. It is my opinion, after enjoying both the book and the movie, that the movie is much more sympathetic to the church than is the book. It seems Ron Howard was going out of his way to tell a great story and to be as careful as he could in handling some very controversial subjects. In the movie, for instance, Langdon (Hanks) argues with Tebing in support of the tradition of the church. This is not in the book to my recollection. Further, at the end of the movie, Langdon seems much more open to Christianity than he was at the beginning. This, too, I do not recall being in the book.
All this said, I must give the move 5 STARS! I encourage you all to see it and to think critically about it. Do some reading, not just from the plethora of "debunking the myth" books, but by reputable historians and theologians. And remember: IT IS FICTION!
Yes, it is based on very real historical theory. Most of us call them conspiracy theories because we know they are not likely to be true. At the very least, there is little evidence that they could be true. There are two problems with Dan Brown's work from a theological point of view of which Christians should take note. One of problematic areas have to do with history of the church, formation of the Canon, legalization of Christianity, etc. The other has to do with the implications he draws from the theory of Jesus being married to Mary and having a child. The implication that if this were true would make Jesus not divine is absurd. Further, the implication that it makes Mary in any way divine is also absurd. The logical implecations he tries to draw connecting thie theory with the idea of the divine feminine just does not hold water in my opinion.
It is odd becuase no one cares about these truly problematic areas. Most are simply concerned with the "heresy" that Jesus could have been married. Let me ask this question: If Jesus were married to Mary Magdalene, and they had a child, how would that change what we confess to be true of Christ? I would welcome discussion at this point.
Lastly, I have heard many complain that the movie is trying to "destroy" Christianity. It is my opinion, after enjoying both the book and the movie, that the movie is much more sympathetic to the church than is the book. It seems Ron Howard was going out of his way to tell a great story and to be as careful as he could in handling some very controversial subjects. In the movie, for instance, Langdon (Hanks) argues with Tebing in support of the tradition of the church. This is not in the book to my recollection. Further, at the end of the movie, Langdon seems much more open to Christianity than he was at the beginning. This, too, I do not recall being in the book.
All this said, I must give the move 5 STARS! I encourage you all to see it and to think critically about it. Do some reading, not just from the plethora of "debunking the myth" books, but by reputable historians and theologians. And remember: IT IS FICTION!
posted by EF + at 11:00 AM
2 Comments:
After reading the book and seeing the movie, I was nothing less than . . . bored stiff. Two Oscar winners and neither showed up (Hanks and Howard). That was my problem with the mess that has become The DiVinci Code. Try Umberto Eco's Foucoult's Pendulum. It's a much better book and far more accurate.
I have tried to read the book but just couldn't. Wasn't my type of book. All it is is speculation that has been blown out of proportion. The thing that kind of makes me think is the people who have read the book without being knowing much of Christ. It scares me that some people who may have not been so called Church goers or whatever are reading this and buying into it. But then again some people may tune in to Christ after reading the book and want to know more. You might as well take the good with the bad.
Post a Comment
<< Home