Saturday, May 27, 2006

Bad Movie, But Don't Dismiss It
'The Da Vinci Code' was boring and full of historical inaccuracies--but we can't dismiss its central notion of a married Jesus.

Bishop John Shelby Spong, the retired Episcopal bishop of Newark, N.J., writes a weekly online column on faith, politics and the events that shape our lives. To learn more and receive a free month of Bishop Spong’s insightful columns, visit http://www.bishopspong.com/free.

To get into the theater for the first New Jersey showing of "The Da Vinci Code," I had to walk past a small picket line of three local Catholic women saying their rosaries and carrying a sign that read, “'The Da Vinci Code' insults our Lord and his Church. Stop blasphemy.” Presenting my press card, I asked for an interview. They told me they were part of a statewide Catholic effort to oppose the distortions of their faith in “The Da Vinci Code.” When I asked if they had read the book, they answered, “No,” and then said they would not think of reading blasphemy. “How do you then know that it insults your Lord and his Church?” I inquired. “Our church said so,” they responded. I next asked if they had seen Mel Gibson’s “The Passion of the Christ.” “Oh yes,” they said, “that was wonderful.” Are you aware, I continued, that most biblical scholars think Mel Gibson’s film grossly distorted the New Testament portrait of the crucifixion by blending it with medieval Catholic piety? “Our church told us that it was true,” they intoned. That interview was going nowhere, so I departed, recalling the words of an evangelical leader who said, “We live in a Jesus-haunted culture that is biblically illiterate.”
I am neither a fan of detective stories nor of the cinema. My chief experience in viewing this motion picture was boredom. The plot was beyond credibility, the claimed historical basis was badly flawed, and the acting, other than that of two supporting characters, was not spectacular. Despite its chases and violence, I found it slow-moving. Had the story not been draped around the central icon of the religious tradition that has informed our civilization, I do not believe it would come close to having the appeal of the “007” series--or even “Murder, She Wrote.” Keeping the heirs of Jesus concealed for more than 2,000 years in order to preserve a theologically correct interpretation of Jesus as the Incarnation of God and the second person of the Holy Trinity is a bizarre theme, to say the least. The titillating idea that Jesus was married to Mary Magdalene and that this union produced a daughter--who in turn kept the divine bloodline of Jesus alive for all those centuries, despite a massive ecclesiastical plot to destroy this theological bombshell--makes for good theater, but it doesn’t make for good history. First of all, the time between Jesus and today represents a minimum of 60 generations. Even if the union of Jesus and Magdalene had produced an heir, the percentage of "divine blood" present in any heirs by the 60th generation would be infinitesimal. The idea that, after 60 generations, this bloodline resided in a single 21st-century woman--and not in literally hundreds of thousands of heirs--is patently absurd, unless each generation had only a single child. When I asked the picketers how this movie insults Jesus, they pointed to its storyline about Jesus marrying and having a child. I found in those words the negative attitudes about women that are rooted in the patriarchal sexism practiced by the Christian Church through the centuries. Is there something evil about marriage and childbirth? Is marriage a compromise with sin, as the Church fathers have proclaimed? St. Jerome went so far as to argue that the only redeeming feature of marriage was that it produced more virgins. I do not believe that women are the corrupters of “holy men.” Yet that idea lingers on in a church that installed mandatory celibacy and unnatural virginity as pathways to holiness. What those “ideals” produced, however, has been little more than distorted sexuality and massive amounts of debilitating guilt. It's true that nowhere in the Bible does it say that Jesus was married. But before anyone feels too relieved at this news, nowhere in the Bible does it say that he was not married. Yet Mark, Matthew, and Luke all assert that a band of women accompanied Jesus and the disciples all the way from Galilee to Jerusalem. Under the Jewish social and cultural norms of that time, these women could have been only one of two things: wives or prostitutes. When these women were listed in the biblical texts, Magdalene was always placed first, as if she had a claim to status the other women did not possess. Of course, these hints constitute only circumstantial evidence, but they do raise questions and open the door to a way to read the gospels outside the box of literalism.

6 comments:

Anonymous said...

I do agree that the Da Vinci Code is absurd in the least. A work of fiction is only credible when it is incredible, don't you think? Have you read it, by the way? I never did actually. I had a gut feeling it was boring before I even picked it up. Usually the gut feeling is right. All men must listen to gut feeling but I do think that you should try to find the Da Vinci Cod. Its should be exciting as it is almost half the size of the Da Vinci Code... well, not nearly half... I think. Where do you stand when it comes to the Da Vinci Code, Mr. x?

Dhanen Mahes said...

I never really had the urge to pick it up. It was already familiar ground, I'd read about the whole Mary Magdalene thing some time back. But no one could prove it and it degenerated into one of those theological debate based on belief and politics and not fact. The thing about history is that it's easily re-written to suit political needs or wants( so is, for that matter, religion). And you must understand, women having an important role in religion may be groundbreaking for some, but many cultures in the world originally revered women as demi-gods and life givers. Then some time back everything got twisted around and women were turned into second class citizens.
I have to give credit where credit is due tho. The Da Vinci Code managed to ignite passion for investigation. And it also gave many women a sense of how special being a woman really is. And that is something no one can take away, not media, not society, and not power-mongers hiding under the robe of religion.
I do want to read the Va Dinci Cod tho : )

Anonymous said...

Mr. x... I've been meaning to ask you, in your blogpost, I see that you say that you write but I have not come across any substantial work of yours and the work that I do find lacks a certain flair... You don't seem to be able to visualize too well, it seems. You do know that a mark of talented writers is the ability to describe things in the way that allows the reader to visualize it for themselves.........................

Anonymous said...

Hey dhanen! I'm just dropping by to say hi. Dont know if you still remember me. :) Sim..your elocution friend. haha.. hope 2 catch up wif u soon. Take care, and i just stumbled across your blog so will take my time in reading it. Cheers! God bless.

Dhanen Mahes said...

Simmy! I went to your blog! I read your blog! I left a comment! I'm excited!
And to Ms. Anonymous, I haven't posted anything substantial on my blog. My blog is a sort of scratch pad, I write off the top of my head here, and then edit it later. Thank you for pointing out the weakness in my writing, I will try to visualise things more effectively. It would be a great help if you pointed out where exactly you saw this inability to visualise so I can avoid making the same mistake.
I do know there are talented writers out there, I never claimed to be one of them :)

Anonymous said...

This site is one of the best I have ever seen, wish I had one like this.
»