Religion: Why All The Fuss Over The Da Vinci Code?
I decided to catch a matinee of The Da Vinci Code on opening day, and much to my surprise, to pull into the theater parking lot I had to drive past about a dozen protestors. These protestors were standing beside the road with their signs for all passers-by to see. I'm not sure what bugged me the most about these people. Whether it was the fact that there was actually that many people in my hometown who had nothing better to do, or that fact that they weren't doing it well at all, these people irked me a bit; I mean, come on, their signs sucked! Their signs said things like "Where's your proof?" and "The Truth Can't be Coded." I wish I was making that second one up.
I've been hearing in the media all the hubbub about the Da Vinci Code for weeks now. Because of the media's never-ending coverage of the controversy, and the fact that I wanted to see the film when it came out, I went out and got the book. The book is riveting, and I finished it quite quickly; however, after I finished the novel I was left feeling quite confused--for the life of me, I could not understand what all the fuss was about.
I'm not dense. I realize that the premise of this work of fiction is that Jesus married Mary Magdalene and had children, a premise in no way supported by the Bible. Let me ask you this: Have you ever been in a room full of people when someone says something and everyone else burst into laughter, and even though you heard what they said, you have no idea what was so funny? That's how I felt for days after I read the book. I thought, "I must be missing something." So, on Wednesday, when I heard nationally syndicated talk show host Glenn Beck echoing my thoughts I was enormously relieved--he was confused about the fuss as I was.
First of all, it's a work a fiction. Dan Brown himself says that it's a work of fiction, and that he is in no way trying to advance a new theory on the life of Jesus, he was simply trying to make a few bucks doing the thing novel writers do: write a stinking novel. Sure, Dan Brown claims that certain things in the book are fact, for example, that the Priory of Sion does exist, that documents exist proving that people like Da Vinci, Victor Hugo, Issac Newton, and Botticelli were Grand Masters of the Priory of Sion, and that some member of the Opus Dei sect of the Catholic Church do engage in self-flagellation. He does not claim that Opus Dei does, in fact, have a squad of albino assassin monks that shoot laser beams from their eyes, or that is it is historical fact that Jesus was married. At the end of the day, it's important that everyone remember that the Da Vinci Code is a work of fiction, nothing more. With that being said, this should be the end of the discussion...but it isn't.
So like I said, for weeks I've been listening to people in the media go on and on about The Da Vinci Code controversy as if it were presented as historical fact. I wonder what would've happened if Dan Brown had actually wrote a non-fiction book about the historical evidence of Jesus's marriage My guess is there would be less controversy because it would have never garnered this kind of mainstream press.
That being the case, what would it mean for Christians if real evidence had surfaced that proved that Jesus was in fact a married man. Well, for me personally, nothing would change at all.
If Jesus had a wife, how would that detract from his divinity whatsoever? Marriage is an institution created by God, and who better to show us how to do it but God himself. Here's what I mean by that: When Jesus got into the river the to be baptized, he clearly didn't do it to atone for sins, or to be reborn, he was freaking perfect already. So then why did he do it? I believe he did it to show us how it was supposed to be done, and he could have chosen to teach the people about marriage in the same way.
(Disclaimer: Some of this paragraph is quoted almost verbatim from the Glenn Beck Program. The overlap is unavoidable because I had these thoughts before I ever heard him speak on this subject, and he can put things much more eloquent than I can.) I mean, isn't marriage supposed to a beautiful, sacred institution? Isn't making love to your spouse supposed to be wonderful gift God gave married couples? Is there any time on earth when humans get to be closer to God than when they are creating life; when your supplying the physical body and God is providing the soul. Isn't that an exalted experience?
Furthermore, if you say that Jesus couldn't have been married and still have led a perfect life, isn't that akin to saying that marriage is in fact, none of those things? Isn't it possible, even a little bit, that Jesus was so good, and so righteous, that he could have had a genuine love for a woman that was also perfect and free of sin? Why does every interaction between a man and a woman, especially a married couple, have to be base? I don't believe that's so, and my faith is such that I believe that Jesus would have been able to live that kind of a life.
I don't believe there's any need for the church to be upset by this movie...unless your Catholic. In my mind, Catholics can go ahead and be pissed off by the movie, but only because they look so bad in this movie, not because of the whole 'Jesus was married' thing. In the end, The Da Vinci Code movie could be a great thing for Christianity. Think about it: how much airtime has Jesus been getting lately? If Christian leaders play their cards right, they can use the publicity of this movie to create a bigger revival than the Christian Church has seen in long time...and people protesting with asinine signs outside movie theaters is not the way to do it.
"Marriage: putting one's hand into a bag of snakes on the chance of drawing out an eel." - Leonardo da Vinci
I've been hearing in the media all the hubbub about the Da Vinci Code for weeks now. Because of the media's never-ending coverage of the controversy, and the fact that I wanted to see the film when it came out, I went out and got the book. The book is riveting, and I finished it quite quickly; however, after I finished the novel I was left feeling quite confused--for the life of me, I could not understand what all the fuss was about.
I'm not dense. I realize that the premise of this work of fiction is that Jesus married Mary Magdalene and had children, a premise in no way supported by the Bible. Let me ask you this: Have you ever been in a room full of people when someone says something and everyone else burst into laughter, and even though you heard what they said, you have no idea what was so funny? That's how I felt for days after I read the book. I thought, "I must be missing something." So, on Wednesday, when I heard nationally syndicated talk show host Glenn Beck echoing my thoughts I was enormously relieved--he was confused about the fuss as I was.
First of all, it's a work a fiction. Dan Brown himself says that it's a work of fiction, and that he is in no way trying to advance a new theory on the life of Jesus, he was simply trying to make a few bucks doing the thing novel writers do: write a stinking novel. Sure, Dan Brown claims that certain things in the book are fact, for example, that the Priory of Sion does exist, that documents exist proving that people like Da Vinci, Victor Hugo, Issac Newton, and Botticelli were Grand Masters of the Priory of Sion, and that some member of the Opus Dei sect of the Catholic Church do engage in self-flagellation. He does not claim that Opus Dei does, in fact, have a squad of albino assassin monks that shoot laser beams from their eyes, or that is it is historical fact that Jesus was married. At the end of the day, it's important that everyone remember that the Da Vinci Code is a work of fiction, nothing more. With that being said, this should be the end of the discussion...but it isn't.
So like I said, for weeks I've been listening to people in the media go on and on about The Da Vinci Code controversy as if it were presented as historical fact. I wonder what would've happened if Dan Brown had actually wrote a non-fiction book about the historical evidence of Jesus's marriage My guess is there would be less controversy because it would have never garnered this kind of mainstream press.
That being the case, what would it mean for Christians if real evidence had surfaced that proved that Jesus was in fact a married man. Well, for me personally, nothing would change at all.
If Jesus had a wife, how would that detract from his divinity whatsoever? Marriage is an institution created by God, and who better to show us how to do it but God himself. Here's what I mean by that: When Jesus got into the river the to be baptized, he clearly didn't do it to atone for sins, or to be reborn, he was freaking perfect already. So then why did he do it? I believe he did it to show us how it was supposed to be done, and he could have chosen to teach the people about marriage in the same way.
(Disclaimer: Some of this paragraph is quoted almost verbatim from the Glenn Beck Program. The overlap is unavoidable because I had these thoughts before I ever heard him speak on this subject, and he can put things much more eloquent than I can.) I mean, isn't marriage supposed to a beautiful, sacred institution? Isn't making love to your spouse supposed to be wonderful gift God gave married couples? Is there any time on earth when humans get to be closer to God than when they are creating life; when your supplying the physical body and God is providing the soul. Isn't that an exalted experience?
Furthermore, if you say that Jesus couldn't have been married and still have led a perfect life, isn't that akin to saying that marriage is in fact, none of those things? Isn't it possible, even a little bit, that Jesus was so good, and so righteous, that he could have had a genuine love for a woman that was also perfect and free of sin? Why does every interaction between a man and a woman, especially a married couple, have to be base? I don't believe that's so, and my faith is such that I believe that Jesus would have been able to live that kind of a life.
I don't believe there's any need for the church to be upset by this movie...unless your Catholic. In my mind, Catholics can go ahead and be pissed off by the movie, but only because they look so bad in this movie, not because of the whole 'Jesus was married' thing. In the end, The Da Vinci Code movie could be a great thing for Christianity. Think about it: how much airtime has Jesus been getting lately? If Christian leaders play their cards right, they can use the publicity of this movie to create a bigger revival than the Christian Church has seen in long time...and people protesting with asinine signs outside movie theaters is not the way to do it.
"Marriage: putting one's hand into a bag of snakes on the chance of drawing out an eel." - Leonardo da Vinci