I just don't get it
I have avoided reading the Da Vinci Code for some time now, but have now plunged ahead as the Adult Ed Committee asked me to start out the Fall Sunday Forums with four sessions on the allegations of the book. While I knew that I would most likely be non-plussed by the anti-Catholic posture, I was told repeatedly to be prepared for a ripping yarn.
But having now slogged through most of it, I find it not some great page-turner, but a puerile comic book, all too impressed with its self-importance. Frankly, for an author who intends to debunk the canonical portrait of Jesus, Dan Brown gives me no indication that he has even read the four Gospels. His references to the orthodox Christ (and, indeed, all early church history) was gleaned from watching a half hour show on Jesus on the History Channel.
And what's this tripe about the gnostic gospels teaching about a purely human (and apparently lusty) Jesus? The point of gnosticism in its docetic Christian form is that he wasn't human.
And call me old fashioned, but the thought of worshipping at the bones of Mary Magdalene as the goddess sounds not merely like a simple revision of Christianity but rather idolatrous. Shouldn't Christians have a sense of revulsion, rather than curiosity?
I have been told not to blow away my audience by quickly dismissing the book. It's going to be a struggle. So far I have been debating titleing the first talk either "This is blasphemy" or "What Bullshit." I think the latter may be a little more eye catching in the parish newletter.
I have heard other pastors and other Christian leaders say that no matter what the merits of his thesis, Dan Brown raises important issues that need to be discussed. Well, no he doesn't.
Can anyone help me here?
But having now slogged through most of it, I find it not some great page-turner, but a puerile comic book, all too impressed with its self-importance. Frankly, for an author who intends to debunk the canonical portrait of Jesus, Dan Brown gives me no indication that he has even read the four Gospels. His references to the orthodox Christ (and, indeed, all early church history) was gleaned from watching a half hour show on Jesus on the History Channel.
And what's this tripe about the gnostic gospels teaching about a purely human (and apparently lusty) Jesus? The point of gnosticism in its docetic Christian form is that he wasn't human.
And call me old fashioned, but the thought of worshipping at the bones of Mary Magdalene as the goddess sounds not merely like a simple revision of Christianity but rather idolatrous. Shouldn't Christians have a sense of revulsion, rather than curiosity?
I have been told not to blow away my audience by quickly dismissing the book. It's going to be a struggle. So far I have been debating titleing the first talk either "This is blasphemy" or "What Bullshit." I think the latter may be a little more eye catching in the parish newletter.
I have heard other pastors and other Christian leaders say that no matter what the merits of his thesis, Dan Brown raises important issues that need to be discussed. Well, no he doesn't.
Can anyone help me here?
posted by peregrinator at 8:26 AM
3 Comments:
Hey Richard+
Totally agree with you. I didn't read DVC but saw the movie - and did (at the suggestion of another) read "Angels and Demons" Brown's "just prior" book of the same vein. Or should I say "vain"?
To me, Brown simply hammers against the institutional church - his anvil is the Roman Catholic Church - and my guess is that he does so because it is an easy target. So on to some questions you might add for discussion:
1. Is it reasonable to assume that the Church exists to lie to its people? - Brown clearly thinks this is the reality if not the intention.
2. Did you know that these ideas (all the major ones about Jesus being married to Mary M., "myth" of the resurrection, etc.) are nothing new - ideas NOT "suppressed" by the church BUT "rejected" by the church? - One reason I didn't read DVC is that I had heard it all before in seminary - and so did you!
I could offer some more questions for discussion; however, I think you can do a better job than I can. Yet I think the BEST tack to take is to arm your people with knowledge to be able to refute these issues in personal conversations. It all comes down to Apologetics which is unfortunately a dying (if not dead) subject in the Episcopal Church.
I share your frustration. Wish I could be part of your class.
Your Friend,
John Riebe+
I think the only important issue his work raises is an indirect point: many Christians, nominal or otherwise, don't really get the origins of the faith tradition, and where the bible comes from, and why we believe Jesus to be God, as well as the second person of the Trinity. If they did, it wouldn't be so scandalous. So DB may have done us a favor there.
Thanks gentlemen.
I think I will use the sessions to discuss issues of canon, the gnostic gospels, the place of women in early Xnity, and the portrait of Jesus in the NT.
On the title, Mrs. Peregrinator thought "What Bullshit" was better than "This is Blasphemy".
Post a Comment
<< Home