The Da Vinci Code -- Jesus is still asking questions

Well, we went to see the highly-hyped movie last Friday night.

First off, it was a clever (if not too well-woven) adventure / mystery kind of drama. It was not drenched in sex like many such movies. There was some of the obscenity of violence problem, in illustrating the religious psychosis of the main assassin, the "ghost" monk.

Second, There was some feel for some of the realities of church history, always a need in our culture. It does justly represent (if not with stunning historical accuracy) the church's power-lust and male dominance over the centuries.

Third, it may well just be a parable for our times of the danger of religious power in the secular arena, of the deadly extremes to which self-righteousness can go and often does go. That is, it may just be a parable of the danger of the "religious right" in America (as parodied in the movie's Opus Dei.) That theme, while not made explicit, develops a lot of emotional impact in this film.

Fourth, to my perception at least, it ends with a nice spirit of respect for the perceived achievements of the imagined life and character of Mary the Magdalene. And it treats with respect the issues and choices facing the key character Sophia. The other key character (Robert) knelt at the end to the memory of that same Mary, but it was to me an act of profound respect and courtesy, on a number of levels, rather than an act of worship.

Fifth, was Jesus married? You know what? I don't even care!

There's nothing wrong with being married! Plus, I've read a lot of history in my life. My sense of history (and of the Bible as history) says he was almost certainly not married. There is much credible evidence in that direction, and little in the other. Unfortunately the Roman church's hang-ups about sexuality and marriage over a millennium and a half have greatly clouded that issue and warped its significance for Western cultures.

You know what's the issue with Jesus? It's not whether he was married, or rich, or bald, or fat, or a rabbi, or a Pharisee, or a Zealot.

The problem with Jesus is that he is still asking,

Why do you call me Lord, Lord, and do not do what I say?

Why indeed? Why do we not even put much effort into hearing what he said? What he said shows us what he cared about. He talked VERY LITTLE about the metaphysics of "the godhead" or pre-existence or eternality or the structure of "the church". He talked VERY MUCH about greed and violence, hypocrisy, economics, manipulation of religion, and love of neighbors. I hope that Christians who go watch this, or read the book, will be devoted to hearing and doing what he said rather than to picking fights about whether he was married or not.

James Evans over at EthicsDaily.com raised an-other very good point about this movie controversy.

"Leaders in the Christian community fear that as people read the book or watch the movie they will not be able to sort out the fact from the fiction …

"There is some justification for this anxiety. Stories have long been known to have a certain subversive power. Jesus certainly understood this. His skillful use of parables served to undermine the dominant religion and politics of his day. Those who are committed to a male dominated church today have every reason to be concerned about a piece of fiction that celebrates the possibility of the sacred feminine.

"What's ironic, however, is how quickly this same segment of anxious Christianity has embraced another work of fiction as if it were Gospel truth. The Left Behind series written by Tim LaHaye and Jerry Jenkins have sold nearly 60 million copies. These books offer a fictional account of the end of time. Following what is known as the pre-millennial interpretation of the last days, LaHaye and Jenkins offer up graphic descriptions of the rapture of the church, the rise of the anti-Christ, and the triumphant appearance of Jesus at the second coming."

Pre-millennialism (with "dispensationalism") is the tradition I was raised in. I love those folks, have pastored their churches, read a lot of their books and sung a lot of their songs over the years. My Mom dearly loved her Scofield Bible -- the one with all Scofield's Dallas Dispensationalist notes in it. But that detailed, rigorous neo-scholasticism is not really the message of the Bible or of the Christ. And that makes the Left Behind series not just fictional history, but also fictional (or at best hypothetical) theology, metaphysics, and ethics. That, my friends, is a very powerful combination, and I think is proving to be a very dangerous one.

"Amazingly, even though the story line is a fictional rendering of a particular biblical interpretation, the Left Behind series has taken on an almost canonical status."

Shouldn't we be afraid of that? Yes. I think we should. The Davinci Code can leave people with a certain calmness and hopefulness -- if also with a lot of unanswered questions. The Left Behind books promote a geat deal of paranoia, judgmentalism, and a certain disconnection from our neighbors all around the world. And judgmentalism is often a de facto form of self-righteousness and hate. It produces the "anxious Christianity" Evans mentioned, not the peaceful, neighbor-loving culture that helped the early church be so attractive. I'm afraid the Left Behind phenomenon is warping the spirituality and theology of far more people than will ever be damaged by the Davinci Code.

And Jesus is still stubbornly raising the same meddlesome questions:

Why do you call me Lord, Lord, and do not do what I say?

Why were you searching for me? Did you not know ...

Who is your neighbor?

Why are you obsessed with the speck in your neighbor's eye, but do not deal with the log in your own eye?

And on and on.