The Da Vinci Code (MKii)

Protest

So. Found some of the actual protests that the 'news' was 'talking' about. Funny wee read HERE on CBS. It upsets me a tiny bit that people are getting so worked up about it. Awk well. Gives them something to do I suppose, but there's always that fear of being tarred with the same brush. Makes me appreciate how Muslims must have felt around the whole cartoon thing.

Dr. Ted Baehr offers his latest over at MovieGuide.org:

"Many Christians are already theologically malnourished; how will they withstand the assault of distortions, lies and bigotry from THE DA VINCI CODE?
We must combat THE DA VINCI CODE’s attack on Jesus, the Bible and the very integrity of the Christian faith... On which side of the battle line will you stand?"

I hope you're giggling. Or crying.

His question is very telling:
"Many Christians are already theologically malnourished; how will they withstand the assault of distortions, lies and bigotry from THE DA VINCI CODE?"
It is interesting that sees it as his Christian duty to stop the spread of misinformation.
It is also interesting that he assumes our fellows to be more than a little gullible.
Education would seem to be the obvious answer, but that doesn't seem to feature to heavily on his agenda, unless its education as to why the film is bad, and why those of us who liked the film or who couldn't care less are "False prophets."

Anyway, I'm sure he's a very nice man in real life.

Challenge

As to the 'Challenge' of The Da Vinci Code:

• Firstly, there is absolutely no theological problem with Jesus having been married. Many scholars assume he would have been, others reckon that it wasn't in the remit of a First Century Rabbi. It's all guesswork. Why? Because it's not mentioned in anything close to a primary source. Why? Because it's really not that important.
• Secondly, the Bible is not wildly anti-female, but the Church through the years certainly has been. Unless you've been living under a rock, or are a from Korea, you don't need Dan Brown to reveal this shocking fact to you.
• Thirdly, the 'Templar revelation' as to the claims of the Merovingian Dynasty to descent from Jesus have been around for years. Extremely French gentleman Mr. Pierre Plantard started claiming the Priory of Sion was still active. He must have had a good laugh. It's my favourite conspiracy theory of all time, but once again, even if it was true, what effect would that have on the church?
  

Faith and Proof
That said, I think that there is a real challenge to Christianity in The Da Vinci Code, but it's the same challenge that has been raised by countless media, notably 2001's "The Body" in which Fr. Antonio Banderas investigates a crucified corpse dating back to the 1st C A.D. He becomes convinced that it is the body of Jesus of Nazareth, and thus faces an apparent dilemma. In The Da Vinci Code we are presented with a similar dilemma:

"What happens... if persuasive sceintific evidence comes out that the Church's version of the Christ story is inaccurate, and that the greatest story ever told is, in fact, the greatest story ever sold?" (356)

William-worthy puns aside, it presents a serious question:... what would happen if we were faced with irrefutable evidence that the claims of the Bible were false? The scenario is not fictional. Archeaologists and scholars came very close to this dilemma not so long ago. Not the Nag Hammadi gnostic-gospels find. That was small-fry compared to this.

In 1947 some scrolls turned up- The 'Dead Sea Scrolls' (just a bit of fun) which had the potential to rewrite the Bible. Scrolls including Biblical texts were dated between 3rdC BC and 68 BC, making them the oldest Biblical Manuscripts by around 1000 years. Scholars were faced with a problem; What if they were different? What if they proved the tried-and-tested, but much later manuscripts to be rubbish translations, or even worse- forgeries?
It was a possiblity. Should they keep it to themselves?

Truth

In The Da Vinci Code, those who know the truth all draw the same conclusion- that it's best not to tell the ignorant masses, since the Church is so powerful, and since religion can make people better, and since 'It's not about proof- it's about faith.'

Again, this is not so fictional. It seems to be a growing view of world religion- something you choose to belive in because it makes you a better person. Believe it or not, I've even heard this argument from Christians. More than a few.

Many Sullivan S.U.ers when argued down by resident Dawkinsian (and nice guy) Michael Patterson, would give up and , frustrated, be heard to cry, 'But it's just what I believe.'

They meant it too. So do many more. 'Faith' is being redefined.

"But you told me the New Testament is based on Fabrications." Langdon smiled. "Sophie, every faith in the world is based on fabrication. That is the definition of faith- acceptance of that which we imagine to be true, that which we cannot prove." (451)

Blind

"Belief that does not rest on logical proof " is indeed one definition of Faith, but it's not a very good one, and it's not the kind of Faith that the Bible talks about.

• If I have faith in, say, Chris, it doesn't mean he doesn't really exist. It means that I know him to be trustworthy, because I have known him long enough to be convinced that that's the kind of person he is.
• If I have faith that my chair isn't going to collapse it's because I've sat in it a hundred times before, and in other chairs even more times. Sometimes they do collapse, but normally they don't.
• If I have faith that a particular set of principles are a good way to live your life it's because I can see most of them tried and tested in front of me.

'Blind Faith' is not an issue. Those who argue that blind faith is a nessecary ingredient of Christianity reach the same depressing conclusions as my fellow Sullivanites, or Robert Langdon. Just one step away from saying; "It doesn't really matter if it's true or not."

Douglas Adams put it wonderfully. Asked by an American Freethought (chuckle) magazine why he believed that God doesn't exist, he replied that belief wasn't a category. He was convinced that there wasn't a God, and thus was an atheist. That's the key word. Am I convinced? Are you convinced? What if I found irrefutable evidence that the claims of the Bible were false, or became convinced that God doesn't exist?

Sorry

Apologies for the length and ranting tone of my blog. It's over-long because the alternative is exam revision. It's ranty because I have this bee in my bonnet, that just won't be shooed. Why do I get so worked up about it? Awk well. Gives me something to do I suppose.