Shaken, when Stirred

I went to the movies last Friday night for, I think, the third time in the past 12 months. Is it just me or are there just not as many good movies coming out anymore that make me want to pony up the $8-10 bucks it takes to be entertained (or not) for 2 hours?

Although I did miss about half of the previews, I did manage to see a preview for the new Bond flick, ‘Casino Royale’, I think it’s called. New movie, new Bond, and, of course, a new Bond chick. Is there any more reliable thing in the universe of movie sequels than a different Bond babe in every movie? I mean, how many movies have there been in this marathon-series? We’re easily into the twenties, aren’t we? There have been like eight or nine ‘007’s’, but there has always been a different chick in each installment.

While seeing the James Bond preview started me on that little tangent, it wasn’t the reason I went to the movies, and it isn’t the reason I’m writing this article (though it did, obviously, inspire the title). I went to see the film rendition of the popular bestseller “The DaVinci Code”. It’s a pretty good movie based on a controversial but very thought-provoking book.

The basic premise of the book, as everyone should know by now, is that Jesus Christ not only was a mere man who performed miracles (not the divine son of God), but was also married to Mary Magdalene. While the plot involves Robert Langdon and Sophie Neveu’s attempts to solve the cryptic message left by her dying grandfather on the historic parquet floors of the Louvre art museum, the implications of the pretext reach much farther; especially for Christians.

So why should Christians care that a Hollywood story is depicting Christ in a very poor light? This is, after all, not terribly uncommon, is it? If ‘The Passion’ taught us anything about film making, it has to be that film has a loud, far-reaching voice. And whether we like it or not, people are influenced on some level by what they watch on Hollywood’s silver screens. While Christians generally poured into the theatres to support Mel Gibson’s controversial piece, we will probably take the opposite approach with “The DaVinci Code”. By not going to see it, we’ll say, we’re using our money to make a statement.

Boycotting a movie like “The Da Vinci Code” can definitely send a message, but it can also have more negative affects. While the Christian call is to be “in the world, but not of it”, we have to be careful to not to repeat the mistake of the Anabaptists by emphasizing one half of that statement over the other. Yes, we have a descript calling to set ourselves apart by our actions, but if we step out of the world altogether (as the Anabaptists did), how then can we influence it? We can’t expect the world to always come to our homes and churches when they want our perspectives on Jesus Christ. We have to be ready to take our beliefs to the workplace, and be ready, willing, and able to discuss tough topics.

Part of being “able”, involves a continuing education not only on the doctrines of Christianity, but also on the constitution of the non-Christian population towards Christianity. After all it is the degree of receptiveness to a message, as much (if not more) than the words we use to purvey that message, which will determine its reception. And pop-culture influences from music, to art, to literature will all have an effect on someone’s receptiveness, whether we like it or not. And we can’t celebrate the arrival of “The Passion” and then try to pretend that movies like “The DaVinci Code” never happened, or that we don’t support Hollywood with our money (that’s what’s commonly called wanting to “have you cake and eat it too”).

And so, if we can’t ignore the impact of the movie, we must prepare for it (even embrace it, in a sense). In order to do that, we have to be prepared to discuss the questions the movie will raise in a calm, educated manor while displaying that we care deeply about our faith, but without letting our emotional connection to the material affect our ability to use logical arguments. And so, after reading the book and watching the movie, I’ll present a few areas of contention, which Christians need to be prepared to confront as a response to Dan Brown’s bestseller. These are a few areas brought up by the book/movie that raised question marks for me (and the answers that I either knew off-hand or by revisiting things I had previously known). I’m sure there are many more, but here they are:

The council of Nicea
In Dan Brown’s portrayal of the story, the Council of Nicea was used by Constantine as a merely way to solidify power. And while the council was taking place the Bible was molded to fit the powers of the church. While it is probably true that Constantine’s conversion was embarked upon as a largely political scheme, he did not hand pick the Church Canon (the books that became the Bible).

All Bishops of the church were invited (about 300 attended) and they decided which texts about life of Christ were inspired, and which were either mere historical texts written by onlookers or, worse, by denouncers of Jesus. Church doctrine was also laid out and debated, which is where the conspiracy theorists have their field day.

There was indeed a debate about the nature of Christ’s existence, but it was not as simplistic or deceptive as “The DaVinci Code” makes it seem (on the left, believed to be a Priory picture of Mary Magdeline's heir). Never in the debate was Jesus considered a mere man. The debate had three factions: the Arians, Homoosians, and the Homoiosians (notice the ‘i’ or ‘iota’ in the middle). Those lead by Arius (Arians), who believed Jesus was God’s finest, most pure creation (but a creation), were put up against the intellectual powers of Athanasius, who adamantly defended the Homoosians. The very small Arian faction was eventually put down (and forced to recant or be excommunicated), and a debate between the Homoosians and Homoiosians continued.

The Homoosians contended that Christ, being the Son of God was of the SAME substance with the Father. The Homoiosians contended he was of SIMILAR substance, which would blatantly contradicted Jesus’ own statements that “The Father and I are one”. Eventually the Homoosians led by Athanasius of Alexandria won the day, and correct doctrine was maintained. Only a very small minority ever considered Christ to be a man, and even then, never MERELY a man, but rather a special creation by God for the defined purpose of doing miracles.

It is also unlikely that a religious group (the Catholic Church) that up to this point in History had been persecuted and scattered would have the foresight to carry out “the greatest cover up in history”, even if one was needed (which it wasn’t).

If he wasn’t God, why is he so important?
The story never explains this, even continually referring to him as Jesus ‘Christ’, rather than merely Jesus, or Jesus of Nazareth. What would life altering about a man who was merely a man? How could he be sacrificed in the place of man’s sin on the cross, which is the most important part of the Incarnation. Why such reverence to “the mother of the offspring of Jesus Christ”, when Jesus Christ is supposedly some mere man?

The Knights Templar have the Grail:
It should be noted that the Knights Templar were originally a band of criminals and rapist that were basically hired (“recruited”) for the First Crusade. Not exactly moral protectors whose sole goal was to protect “The Sacred Feminine”. It is more likely they found great treasures in the Holy Lands, which they kept for their wealth, than that they indeed found “the Holy Grail”.

Also much of the political, mystical, and supposed religious power assigned to the Knights Templar runs into a big problem later in History. The idea that they were nearly unbeatable in battle hits a serious roadblock when the Mongolians begin invading Europe and are left completely unchecked until the death of the Great Khan puts a halt to their advances. This concept comes to an even more abrupt end when they are routed on the final crusade they take part in, which opens the door for King Philip of France (NOT the Catholic church) to get rid of a political group that had come to have much sway.

Just because most Christian organizations never mention the Holy Grail, doesn’t mean they are trying to hide something: There’s not historical or biblical context for its importance, that’s why it’s ignored. Just how the government never mentioning an Area 51 leads to conspiracy theories claiming its existence. Silence breeds conspiracy.

The historical and linguistic roots of the female version Yahweh (who was later “covered up” when monotheism developed) are unfounded:
This is found only in the book, and is not mentioned in the movie, but is an important distinction. Dan Brown mentions a female deity Shekinah as the counterpart to the male Yahweh. Shekinah is in fact a Hebrew word concerning God, but is more of an attribute of God, or a presence than another being. It is similar to the concept of the Holy Spirit. However the root for such speculation comes form the word Shekinah being ‘feminine’ in origin, which is a huge linguistic stretch. It is very common in many languages for even inanimate objects to have a feminine or masculine tense, but it doesn’t mean they have gender. Also, Christian doctrine assigns no gender roles to God in the first place, and clearly has room for the different attributes of God (that whole thing called “the trinity” also discussed at the Nicean Council), so the existence of a term like Shekinah with a “female” root is of little consequence to the educated, and entirely non-threatening.

The mixing of symbols in religion, while intriguing, is not definitive of shared religious roots: The swastika was once a symbol used for loads of stuff, including some Jewish organizations (read the Great Gatsby, they have to add a footnote to make this make sense to the reader), before it became the Nazi symbol we know it as today. Does this mean the Nazi’s were a secretly led by a sect of elite Jews trying to cleanse themselves of untrue Jews? Wait maybe I’m on to something here…

Something Christians must be prepared to answer to:
Most of the stuff going on here was pre-Great Schism (church split, caused by the reformation), so Protestants cannot disregard it as a Catholic problem. Any questions regarding Jesus Christ, Judaism, or the universalist mixing of all religions, are a problem for all of Christianity, no matter what their context. They attack the roots of our beliefs, and cannot be avoided.

The sins of the church, from the Catholic Inquisition, to the mutual atrocities of the 30 years war, to the Great Crusades, Christians must admit that the church, while being the vessel of God, did not inherit his divinity or his perfection (the reason Protestants have a problem with a Pope or ‘Patriarch’). We must be willing to admit the faults of the church when it has mixed with political ambitions, while being prepared to explain that the Bible never claims to make men perfect (even “Holy” men).