Wednesday, January 17, 2007

The Davinci Code

(Warning! If you still haven't read or watched The Davinci Code you probably don't want to read this)

I suppose most of the hoopla has died down by now but I finally watched The Davinci Code (I am not sure I will ever have the time to read it). On my first viewing I thought the movie was quite good. I am sucker for cryptic suspense. I enjoyed it right up until it began to start sermonizing in the last 10 minutes.
No Sophie was no proven to be an heir of Christ. So in response Langdon offers the painfully repetitive refrain of the western modernity, "the only thing that matters is what you believe." Really? That is how world-renowned historian Robert Langdon sums up his world view? No, that is not all. He follows to say that "history shows that Jesus was an amazing example, a human inspiration, that's it. That's all the evidence has ever proved."
What?! How has that been proven?
Anyway . . .
Then Langdon returns to the story of when he fell down the well as a child where he reveals to Sophie that he prayed to Jesus. He thought that perhaps he was not alone. To which he comes to the conclusion. "Why does it have to be human or divine. Why can't it be that human is divine?" Correct me if I am wrong but isn't the whole paradox of orthodox the believe that only Jesus is human and divine?

I do not want to undervalue that aspect of the movie because I believe there is validity in someone reaching out and experiencing the presence of the unknown. I just have an issue with how it was framed here.

I also find some validity in Langdon's next question. "Why couldn't Jesus have been a father and still capable of all those miracles?" I think that is a pretty good question. I don't really have thoughtful answer for it. Unless perhaps part of the Jesus's celibacy was to remove biological gender from the issue of salvation.

Of course in the end the "debunking" of orthodoxy is secured in the reliability of our hero Langdon as he uncovers the true resting place of Mary Magdalene and so bolsters a view that critical reason has finally prevailed over the myth of Christianity, though it cannot over conclusive proof.

This is a fairly unnuanced post and a little late in coming for the discussion but there you go.

No comments: