The Hyperion Chronicles

The Hyperion Chronicles
“So Shark the Spawn of Dan”

#391 Oh, Wretched Mortals!

Listen along as you read:

Part 1:

Part 2:

Part 3:

Today the much-hyped controversial movie THE DA VINCI CODE comes out.

For the record: I read Dan Brown’s The Da Vinci Code in 2003, when it was already a best-seller, but not the international Force of Nature we’ve seen the last three years. I had previously read most of the books cited by the characters—including the supremely influential Holy Blood Holy Grail, and thus was already familiar with the now famous claims about Jesus.

I did find the novel to be a page-turner, if definitely plot and idea-propelled and decidedly short on mature characterization. It was a fun read, and like many I had that Monteclair Moment when The Last Supper is mentioned. I too got up from my couch and went to the computer and looked at the world’s most famous fresco, only to blink back astonishment as the seemingly preposterous claim appeared genuine. (I later found this not to be the case.)

For the most part, though, I am well versed on the history of Jesus, both as a historical figure and the “tradition” of Jesus that makes up 99% of what the Christian world thinks it knows about him. Because of this, or perhaps simply because of common sense, I didn’t go Ga Ga over the more sensationalist claims. Some were plausible, some were far-fetched, and some were downright silly to anyone who’s a student of this kind of history. If anything, I was impressed that Brown was able to weave enough “fact,” into the narrative that when he veered off into absolute fantasy it seemed plausible. I myself have tried that out with considerably less success.

What I really wish to write on, however, is not Dan Brown or his book, but the chicken-littles on each side.

Last month I started getting emails from various church leadership organizations (I keep up on a wide variety of topics) telling me how I could prepare my congregation for the assault of the coming film. The material coming my way was eerily similar to the church-level marketing campaign of THE PASSION OF THE CHRIST (a film I was able to see a month early through my church contacts, which you can read my thoughts here), except in complete reverse.

On some level I can appreciate the band-wagoning. After all, Dan Brown’s book has dominated the literary zeitgeist for some time now, and with the approaching movie everyone seems to be hopping on board. I see nothing wrong with a church seeking to use the popularity of the book as enticement for visitors or a fun way to educate its people.

My problem comes from the hysteria. Like it or not, even the most conservative church leaders—when pressed—must admit that much of the crafted message of the gospels—at least in practice—is more along the lines of tradition. The modern church has astonishingly little at its disposal written about the most powerful man in history, and as a matter of practicality, the different exegetical and hermeneutical controversies surrounding the books of the Bible (and the books left out) cannot be articulated in a meaningful way to a congregation on Sunday mornings.

Most church services are acts of worship, and sermons—though Biblically based—are intended to help people through the trials and tribulations of their daily lives, not rehash the latest issue of Biblical Archeology Review.

Not only is there not ample time, but the laity of your average church just isn’t educated enough to grasp the larger framed picture without having their beliefs shaken.

But let’s make no mistake: The Church in general, both the Leviathan in Rome and every Protestant Denomination and Sect using the Bible today, stands condemned for their shameful history when it comes to educating their people.

Personally I have always found it bordering on maniacal irony that many Christians place total faith in the advocacy and efficacy of the Bible, while knowing next-to-nothing about the people, process and politics that went into selecting the books now contained therein. I suppose one could argue that all that is necessary is to feel the power of the words upon your life, but by that logic I could reasonably claim a religion based on beef jerky and Graitch.

Educated people seeking truth should and must demand more. Even if its painful. Especially if its painful.

I may not trust the process that gave us the books of the New Testament, but the Church should at least explain how and why these conclusions were reached. Furthermore, many of the books ultimately deemed “Non-Canonical,” fell short but were not labeled heretical. Why have they fallen by the wayside? Could these books not have been studied and even revered over the centuries, with a clear bright line still in place between them and the Canon? Sadly, this has not happened, and millions of believers are robbed of a rich tradition that might give them a fuller picture.

Back to these “education” efforts. With my strongly-held view that Christians should be educated as to the history of their faith, you might think I’d be in favor of what The Da Vinci Code movie has jump-started, however long in coming.

But I’m not.

What we have instead is not an honest attempt to explain anything, but what can only reasonably be labeled as none other than propaganda. The goal is not further education, but to preach the company line. It may be controversial, but it needs to be said as many times as necessary: what we think of as knowledge about Jesus comes almost wholly from tradition.

Some may view the reasons as sinister: it’s easy to keep people in line the less they know. Others may point out that any religion, especially a movement that took over much of the world, works best when the message is simple. Bottom line: the motivating factors don’t matter. We are where we are, and the Church has no choice but to keep consistent with their message, and dogmatically insist on “truths,” whether or not this makes most serious scholars refuse to take them seriously.

The Church has had some gigantic battles in this arena, like Galileo and Copernicus. It’s hard to believe now, but the entire belief system was once based quite seriously on the understanding that the Earth was the center of the Universe, and evidence opposed to this view were deemed dangerous to Christianity itself.

In the last century we’ve seen the fight on another front: Evolution. As we’ll be getting into this at a later date I will pass over for now, other than to briefly say it’s a fight that didn’t have to happen if both sides didn’t have people with such hard-core agendas.

As controversial as those two battles have and continue to be, they pale in significance when we talk about the very basis of modern faith (i.e., the divinity of Jesus Christ). While sad—and to my mind pathetic—it is no wonder that such measures are now taken when any other viewpoint is offered.

A good example is the recent re-discovery of The Book of Judas. It’s a complicated book, but one revelation: in this version Judas is not evil incarnate for betraying Jesus, but rather the most noble of the disciples, sacrificing himself and his place in history for what needed to be done.

Just like with Da Vinci, I received materials telling me how crazy all of it was. The book was written by Gnostics, it was explained, who believed in secret knowledge. How crazy could you get?

If it wasn’t so laughable I might have choked at their gall. Gnosticism is its own argument we won’t get into here, but to claim its any crazier than anything else of the New Testament is silly.

(I write the preceding paragraph not to call the New Testament untrue in a spiritual sense. That’s a matter of faith for you. But take away your religious beliefs and the claims of any part of the Bible—or for that matter, any religious book. Without faith, they are all absurd. If I told you the Kingdom of God went through Babe Ruth, would you find me credible? If I told you he raised the dead and turned water into beer, would you roll your eyes? If I told you that every time you had chips and salsa you were actually eating the slugger would you call me a nut? My point is that without faith such belief is beyond what can reasonably be posited. In that vein, then, the Gnostics belief that knowledge can secretly come to you is no more crazier than anything else.)

Not only that, but a large number of scholars seriously theorize that the fight of the Early Church against Gnosticism, or secret knowledge, was in large part because such a basis of faith would make it virtually impossible to control the people. If God only speaks to you privately, this undercuts the authority of the local priest who’s telling you what’s right and wrong. (And if you don’t think that’s a major part of how religion comes to flourish, I have some swamp land to sell you.)

Let’s look at another example, this time from The Da Vinci Code. (WARNING: MILD SPOILER AHEAD, ALTHOUGH I SERIOUSLY DOUBT ANY OF YOU HAVE MANAGED TO NOT HEAR IT ALREADY.)

The book puts forth the claim—well known for some time in academic circles—that Jesus was married to Mary Magdalene. More than that, Jesus might even have fathered a line that survived.

You’re welcome to look into this stuff yourself. For the record, it seems unlikely. But let’s say it were true that Jesus was married. So what?

In the Christian understanding of morality, how would Jesus have sinned? At the time all sex was considered carnal and therefore evil. To associate Jesus with sex would make it almost impossible for 2^nd and 3^rd century people to accept him as divine.

But we have a different view now. Contemporary morality wouldn’t be threatened by a man who married lawfully and then had sex.

How is your faith as a Christian affected if you find out Jesus was married (or Judas acted on orders)? For most people it wouldn’t be. These are not bedrock tenets of faith, and don’t shake the very core of Christianity.

In The Da Vinci Code, the allegation is that the Church had to stop the idea of an heir to Jesus (and Mary Magdalene as the chosen disciple), because both concepts undermined the authority of the Church. Why listen to priests if someone in the line of Jesus was still around? (As for the Mary Magdalene angle, the Church took its authority from Jesus telling Peter that he was the foundation of the Church. (1 Peter, Chapter 2.) All popes are spiritual descendents of Peter—the dogma goes—which gives them authority to speak for God. If Mary Magdalene had been the #1 disciple, that would change things quite considerably.)

That could be true. No sane person doubts that the Church—whatever else it is—holds power steadfastly and would do much to keep it. However, the answer might be far simpler. All of the ideas we’ve discussed here buck orthodoxy and contradict (or at least appear to) the official story. I believe the Church fears this more than anything. If a hole is poked in the story, people may start questioning other aspects. Pretty soon the whole thing could come crashing down.

Myself, I believe that more knowledge is always better than less knowledge. Informing people might scare them, but they are better off in the long run.

And this book, The Da Vinci Code, is after all, a novel. It doesn’t “attack” the Church any more than anything else. In fact, it’s probably gotten people more interested in the life of Jesus than anything the Church has done in some time. That’s not a bad thing, and people shouldn’t be afraid of it.

***

While I don’t have quite as much to say about those on the other side, don’t think for a minute I’m any less disgusted with them. I have talked to dozens of people who consider The Da Vinci Code to be absolute Truth.

Get a clue, people. It’s a novel. It’s a particularly clever novel, but a novel all the same. There’s nothing new to anyone who’s looked into it, and while I’ll be the first to admit it was quite a yarn, you can’t seriously call this scholarship.

In one breath a character tears down traditional gospels, attacking how “true” they may be. In the next the same character gives absolute credence to other texts that support the claims of the book, texts that at the very least should be viewed with the same degree of skepticism. Heck: when needed, those originally discredited books are accepted word for word, if the point is made better.

Everything dovetails together because—repeat after me—The Da Vinci Code is a novel, a work of fiction. In real life endings aren’t that neat and tidy, but one of the nice things about writing a book is that you can throw away, discard or just simply change any data that doesn’t go with your story. I don’t blame Dan Brown for this. Every fictional story changes stuff. Otherwise it wouldn’t be a story!

I find it hard to control my derision when I run into someone who has read The Da Vinci Code and considers it fact. I laugh at them, and often point out the intellectual bankruptcy that comes from reading a novel and spouting a new world view.

To read a book for enjoyment is one thing. To have that book spur you into learning new things is great. But to digest a book uncritically, to not think through the obvious gaps in logic, to not look into any of the so-called facts, claims and ideas, to decide to just accept this book for absolute Truth from here on out is the height of idiocy.

Sounds like some other people we know.

Hyperion
May 19, 2006