The Code is Out There
As I mentioned in my posting from last night, I saw The Da Vinci Code yesterday afternoon. The movie has ignited a lot of controversy in Christian religious circles. Some groups have orchestrated boycotts, some groups are trying to ignore it, and a few have suggested that people see the movie in order to provide a discussion point for talking about Christianity with their friends and neighbors. The movie is a blend of distorted history coupled with fiction. The movie follows a typical plot of a conspiracy-theory thriller, with the typical villian (like the Illuminati, or secret spy agencies, or the Skull and Bones) replaced with the Catholic Church and a conservative Catholic group called Opus Dei. Oddly enough, the movie was predictable enough that halfway through, the viewer can figure out what the big secret really is.
There are two assertions made in the movie that are interesting from a theological perspective. The first is that Mary Magdalene was the wife of Jesus, and that she was pregnant when Jesus was crucified. The second is that Jesus was a mortal man, and that assertions of his divinity were produced during the fourth century.
The first assertion is the most interesting, and yet oddly enough, the most irrelevant from a theological perspective. There is nothing that directly supports this theory in the gospels, but there is nothing that contradicts it either. If such an assertion were true, it would not change biblical truth, nor would it conflict with any of the Church creeds. It might shed light on why Mary Magdalene keeps appearing in the gospels, despite having been written in a culture that ignored women. On the other hand, most scholars don't think this assertion is likely.
The second assertion refers to the controversy raised by Arius in the fourth century. Arius believed that if the Son was begotten by the Father, then it meant that only the Father was timeless, and that the Son was created. The First Council of Nicaea in 325 rejected this view, and the Nicene Creed is carefully worded specifically to address this issue. Contrary to the movie's assertions, Arius didn't contend that Jesus was just a mortal prophet. Rather, his heresey was concerning the precise relationship between the Father and the Son.
At its core, The Da Vinci Code is a work of fiction with an anti-Catholic bias. The movie will probably have an unintended side effect, which is to promote the discussion of the nature of God, the arguments at Nicaea, and the history of the Christian faith. If this happens, then perhaps the movie isn't a bad thing after all.
There are two assertions made in the movie that are interesting from a theological perspective. The first is that Mary Magdalene was the wife of Jesus, and that she was pregnant when Jesus was crucified. The second is that Jesus was a mortal man, and that assertions of his divinity were produced during the fourth century.
The first assertion is the most interesting, and yet oddly enough, the most irrelevant from a theological perspective. There is nothing that directly supports this theory in the gospels, but there is nothing that contradicts it either. If such an assertion were true, it would not change biblical truth, nor would it conflict with any of the Church creeds. It might shed light on why Mary Magdalene keeps appearing in the gospels, despite having been written in a culture that ignored women. On the other hand, most scholars don't think this assertion is likely.
The second assertion refers to the controversy raised by Arius in the fourth century. Arius believed that if the Son was begotten by the Father, then it meant that only the Father was timeless, and that the Son was created. The First Council of Nicaea in 325 rejected this view, and the Nicene Creed is carefully worded specifically to address this issue. Contrary to the movie's assertions, Arius didn't contend that Jesus was just a mortal prophet. Rather, his heresey was concerning the precise relationship between the Father and the Son.
At its core, The Da Vinci Code is a work of fiction with an anti-Catholic bias. The movie will probably have an unintended side effect, which is to promote the discussion of the nature of God, the arguments at Nicaea, and the history of the Christian faith. If this happens, then perhaps the movie isn't a bad thing after all.
posted by David at 5/21/2006 10:56:00 PM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home