![[tmbchr]™](/journal/popocculture-blog-logo.jpg){kind=logo}
Man & God: The Bait & Switch
The big issue at the heart of the Da Vinci Code - at least the one on the surface - seems to be the question of whether Jesus was truly a man or truly a god. The movie takes the stance that by “proving” that Jesus was married and had children, then he was truly “just a man.” And they seem to be saying that his being just a man doesn’t necessarily diminish the importance of his life or teachings. A generous reading of that message could be that since Jesus was just a man, then humanity is uplifted, because we too are all “just men” (and woman, of course).
It’s interesting though that they have chosen this tactic to discuss the issue of Christ. They have framed it in the sense of: was Jesus God or Man? They seem to completely ignore that the true Catholic teaching is that he was fully both. Even more telling perhaps is that they never approach the question of was Jesus even a real person? Do the mythic dimensions and the human dimensions meet at a real point in recorded history?
Why isn’t that question approached? Obviously it’s “just fiction” after all, but even with fiction we can still speculate as to the purpose and effects of particular framing devices. What happens when the Jesus question is framed as to whether he was god or man, rather than more broadly of whether he existed at all, or if myth has some kind of reality of it’s own?
Well, for one, it seems that we see a bit of a bait and switch. The movie sets up a false enemy - the idea that Jesus was completely divine and nothing else. Then they proceed to chip away at this image of exclusive divinity by several routes:
- That the formation of the Roman Church was merely politically expedient
- That the Roman Church has done some bad things historically: persecution of heretics, the restriction of women, etc
- That the Roman Church is obsessed with it’s own power and with inflicting pain
- That Jesus was married and had kids
Really, none of those - taken singly or as a group - actually violate or diminish Jesus’ divinity. Agreeing with any or all of the above does not logically lead to the conclusion that Jesus was “just a man” and not also divine. But they are bundled together as a memeplex, such that to believe one necessarily makes you admit the possibility of all the rest.
Suddenly you’re sucked into a chain of false causality where believing that Jesus got erections means that he couldn’t have been the Incarnation of God. And into the vaccuum, you’re forced to project your own explanations as to why marriage and sex and progeny precludes divinity. And your reasons will likely have something to do with the idea that sex is dirty or immoral. And yet, where did you get that idea? From the Judeo-Christian tradition - the very same one that you’re supposed to be throwing out with the bathwater. And thus you’re caught in a cleverly constructed double bind.
Or, say you agree that the Catholic Church has done some screwed up things over the years and hurt a lot of people. Suddenly that becomes the foundation of you agreeing with the plainly stated message of the movie that Jesus was an important man and that his teachings aren’t upheld by the Church as it is or was. So you’re forced into the double bind of being a non-Christian and championing Jesus’ life, teachings and values. You find yourself calling Christians un-Christian when you don’t even call yourself one.
And where do any of these paths leave you mentally and emotionally? Could it be the case that a full-frontal public assault on Christianity is the most effective and subtle tool of evangelization today because it ends up reinforcing the underlying values of it while transforming them for a new, more socially enlightened age?
Wouldn’t it be wild if the Da Vinci Code was actually released surreptitiously by the Catholic Church (by way of Dan Brown, member of the “Council of Shadows”?) in order to reform it’s image in the public eye and extend the reach of it’s value system? On that note, it’s interesting to point out that the Da Vinci Code is very careful to articulate that the bad guys within the Church are a secret council, rather than the Church itself or even the Pope. We never once see the Pope attend any of the meetings of the Council of Shadows - but we do see a historical clip of a Pope being “blackmailed” by the Knights Templar. A tenuous line of observation at best, but still interesting.
In the end though, it seems by reducing Jesus to a man re-injects humanist values into the culture. Humanist values, which I might point out, arose from Christianity to begin with. Not as a refutation of Christianity, but as a fulfillment of it. It is the philosophical approach to religion which ushered in the Renaissance, the Reformation, the Enlightenment and the birth of modern science, society and the state as we know it. Which would mean that the Da Vinci Code isn’t revolutionary at all so much as it is another brick in the wall.
May 21st, 2006 at 8:45 pm
The Humanity vs. Divinity question on JC caused tremendous debate for about three hundred years in the early church–there were riots, battle royals in marketplaces, murders over the idea the Jesus was “all man” “all god” “half-god half man” “all god all man” etc. Even Gnosticism, and its resurrection in Cathar and Bogomenian practice, didn’t come to a conclusion on this. So while it all seems like hogwash to me–I mean, come on, why are you going to stab a fruit vendor over him thinking that Uncle JC is “half god half man” and not all god all man?–but given the history of rage over split hairs, it’s not surprising.
On Humanism, there seem to be strands to it that lead to a very Nietzschean space, so even if Xianity was the foundation for humanism, rationalism, renaissance etc., it can become very alien. People share an ancestor with fungus, after all.
May 21st, 2006 at 10:22 pm
Why is it impossible for the divine to have sex and father children?
The issue of what it means to be divine and what it means to be human is very complex and profound. But Christian reactionaries seem to be obsessed with the idea that a physically generative Jesus somehow detracts from His divinity.
May 21st, 2006 at 10:25 pm
heh heh. heh heh. heh heh heh heh. I see a lot of that on the left side of the blogosphere. It even describes me a little bit.
May 21st, 2006 at 11:20 pm
fungus? sure, why not…………and i have divine in me too. and i have children.
May 22nd, 2006 at 12:02 am
The Mystery of Two Natures
May 22nd, 2006 at 3:32 am
I see the “big issue” over the Da Vinci Code as less an upset over the primariness of his human nature, but rather his survival past the “sacrifice” of his crucifixion. By saying the crucifixion was a scam, or at best, didn’t result in his death, negates the foundation the church claims it’s based on.
May 22nd, 2006 at 7:48 am
All I have to say is that this is the best damn commentary on the Da Vinci Code I have read.
May 22nd, 2006 at 9:57 am
By saying the crucifixion was a scam, or at best, didn’t result in his death, negates the foundation the church claims it’s based on.
Yes, this is true. Conflicts with the Nicean creed. Which of course was one of many wrong turns made by the Xtian faith.
What is interesting about the whole Nicean thing is that it essentially permits Xtian faithfuls to worship Jesus the Risen Lord while ignoring just about everything He said.
May 22nd, 2006 at 10:30 am
That seems like a fairly good sum-up of Christianity, as I know it. I don’t necessarily even think Jesus was right about everything, so it’s not that people don’t follow his teachings I take issue with, but the hypocracy of calling yourself a Christian while ignoring most of what he said, that really gets me. The sheer un-Christian-ness of it all, geez!
Speaking of the crucifixion being a sham, I read an interesting bit about Jesus in a Seth/Jane Roberts book once. According to it, Jesus wasn’t crucified at all. A man got crucified ‘as’ Jesus, but it was some crazy dude who thought he was Jesus. I don’t remember how or why exactly he took Jesus’ place, but there was quite a bit mentioned about it a new myth being created from higher levels of consciousness, and how it didn’t matter who acted it out. In any case, Jesus went into hiding while his religious-fanatic stunt double hung on the cross. The Resurrected Jesus was just the alive, real Jesus. He played along with what people believed, though, as that was part of his role in the creation of the new myth.
So that story goes anyway.
May 22nd, 2006 at 12:53 pm
The Templar Legacy takes a similar tack, in that Jesus was just a man, and this myth was built up around him. It even has a bit of made up scripture called “The Testimony of Simon”, which relates what the hell Peter was thinking, along with… Well, I won’t spoil it. It is a good read, if a little slow.
Anyway, it’s an interesting book, better written than DVC, and with more interesting characters, IMHO.
May 22nd, 2006 at 1:18 pm
you can only recognise what jesus was actually saying if you have it in your heart already. otherwise the dogma is your lord.
May 22nd, 2006 at 4:47 pm
Wait, but that’s not even in the Da Vinci Code, as far as I remember! Certainly not in the movie! They never say anything except that Magdalene fled and gave birth. They don’t mention Jesus not being crucified.