“Preamble to DaVinci’s Code”
“We have it in our power to begin the world over again.” (Tom Paine)
I guess that this is not the last word on the issues raised by Dan Brown, the writer of the book the DaVinci’s Code nor the movie version it; nor to those others whose quest in life is to get answers. This is hoping that Dan Brown and those of his persuasions are genuine seekers after the truth as it were. However, whatever are his quests and reasons for his fictitious novel and now the movie version of the same, many issues crop up that need answers. I also posit new questions, which hopefully will help us see the light as it were.
One thing is for sure; the world is more religious than the secularists would have us believe. That despite our advancements, in all areas and mostly technological wise; we remain fundamentally inclined to religious beliefs.
The ‘written word ‘as it were is powerful regardless of who writes it. This is clearly what we see when it comes to the issue of the pseudopigraphic and apocryphal document now known as the gospel of Philip. This gospel understood to have been written by Gnostics in the early centuries, at a time when their religious views were in vogue; continues to send tremors in the faith circles to date.
The seemingly sacrilegious issue in both the book and the movie is essentially pegged on the sexual or rather the marriage relationship between our Lord and Mary Magdalene. Religious purists then and now as it were seem to forget that the Ancient Pantheons of the gods in both the Middle East and the whole of the Mediterranean Sea rim were essentially fertility deities.
The debauchery and the sensuality exhibited by the Canaanite, the Greek and the Roman Pantheons of Deities is mind-boggling. Actually god El of the Canaanite Pantheon had consorts besides being pictured as an old white haired wine loving deity. god El could be a precursor of the Abrahamic Faiths Elohim or Allah according to anthropological and etymological studies.
But then is Dan Brown antireligious, a creative writer who is willing to stir up the hornets’ nest or a religious writer who is an apologist for certain beliefs, that he is yet to unravel after of course besmirching Christianity? Of course this is without forgetting that Dan Brown could be simply a businessman who is willing to do anything in order to run all the way to his bank smiling. Or probably his intentions are meant to defraud the faithful the boon and the faith crescendo created by Mel Gibson’s Movie “the Passion of Christ?”
Could Dan Browns fictitious works be an artist expression or a suicide mission tinged with a martyr’s syndrome? Mel Gibson’s movie economically speaking is among the highest raking movies of all time to date. Apart from it being an artist expression of his personal faith it is also a polemic piece of work regarding a Deity or God who dies for the sins of men and is resurrected. It is a movie that rubs the conscience of everyman with regards to the historicity and the implications of the death and the resurrection of Yeshua. It is history as is exemplified through the canonical gospels.
On the reverse side, probably Dan Brown DaVinci’s Code novel or movie are effort to neutralize the ‘effects’ of Mel Gibson’s expression in the Movie, ‘the Passion of Christ’ in the larger society? This is because Dan Brown chooses to rely heavily from the spurious work of the gospel of Philip for his novel. His efforts seem to seek to ‘humanize’ the incarnate deity Christ. This is probably because the Gnostic mind seeks to dislodge humanity in Christ. The Gnostics beliefs deny to a large extent the humanity or any union between a god and humanity. For to them, humanity is gross and evil and for any god to become human that was and it remains unacceptable in their philosophic deliberations. Therefore, for the Gnostics to explain and destroy the validity of the divinity of Christ, they chose to make him (Christ) more human, by allowing him to have a sexual union with a known human and even to bear children with her. This is because their pseudo-lofty knowledge could not integrate human form with the divine form.
That our lord had women around him and was very favourable to them is not a secret. Actually anyone willing to demystify this does not need to go further than the canonical gospels of Matthew, Luke, Mark and John.
Therefore, would being married make Jesus our Lord any inferior or less divine? After all he was both divine and human. To those who bother to read the Living Scripts they will find out that, “He was tempted in all areas as we are.” This of course does not necessarily mean that he indulged in any of our vagaries.
What does Paul mean when he says, ‘Now the holy spirit tells us clearly that in the last times some will turn away from what we believe; they will follow lying spirits and teachings that come from demons. These teachers are hypocrites and liars. They pretend to be religious, but their consciences are dead. They will say it is wrong to be married and wrong to eat certain foods. But god created those foods to be eaten with thanksgiving by people who know and believe the truth. Since everything God created is good, we should not reject any of it.” (1 Tim. 4:14)
The dictionary definition of chaste is, ‘virgin or celibate’ it also means ‘simplicity in life.’ Is the so-called “call to chastity” valid? Or is it a call to a different form of chastity? The reason being or rather the question being, does one become any less chaste by getting married? Or how do we picture, a creator in the Garden of Eden, of course here Eden etymologically being paradise. Is our creator a voyeuristic being that wallows in cherishing the naked male and female forms that He has placed in the garden of bliss? Could these form of chastity be overblown misunderstanding of true holiness and extreme misreading of the Old Testament teachings in regards to ritual cleansing? I propose that Dan Browns goal is essentially to create doubt or plant doubt in the minds of the believers and give arsenals to the disbelievers.
Dan Browns agenda is not very different from the one created by the Danish Cartoonist who drew Islam’s prophet Mohammed’s cartoon. This he does in order to create despondency, build a sense of persecution to the Christian world while creating a sense of alienation to the faithful.
Probably like the Big Brother in ‘1984’ title by George Orwell, Dan Brown wishes to change history, and how about going back in time and picking some spurious works in the name of the “Gospel of Philip” in order to validate his claims? Or just maybe, Dan Brown is just trying to demystify our Divine Lord? This he clearly does in order to create a fallout, despondence while at the same time introducing a religious vacuum to be filled out with secularism’s pet belief, “All is ok and you owe no one anything but yourself.”
The reaction from the believers creates a vacuum and criminalization of sex as it were. Sex is whose concept, if not the Ancient of Days the creator Yahweh? How does one ignore the very ‘sexy’ passages in the Holy Writ? The Genesis creation narratives expose a poetical-musical genre lofty above the now mundane discovery channel documentaries can seek to achieve.
Going on to the historical cum poetic book of Ruth, to the Poetical narratives presented in the Song of Songs, Proverbs and the Ecclesiastes are pregnant with ‘suggestive’ talk as it were. The prophetic narratives too use the man-woman language to express intimacy, betrayal and the relationship between a God and His creation.
The New Testament narratives use the same expressive and intimate relationship. That sex is meant for intimacy is not drowned in the Living Scripts. Those who ignore this language are purists of the worst kind. So far in all fronts Dan Brown has excelled, he has created doubt, and revealed a vacuum while exposing the level of ignorance in Christendom. (Interactive: firstname.lastname@example.org)