Continued......... The canonical Gospels do contain plenty of evidence that Jesus rejected conventional family life because of the over-riding importance of the Kingdom. Not taking a wife would be entirely in keeping with this attitude to the family. Most interestingly, as I've already mentioned, the Gospel of Thomas suggests that entering the Kingdom requires transcending gender: it's a mixed up, muddled up, shook up world. (Note 5) I'd like to spend more time on Teabing: his account of the Council of Nicaea, for example, is a highly misleading account of a very important event. Teabing the former Royal historian is a disgrace to his nation. But then, here I am, judging a fictional character by the standards of real history. Besides, you've all come here for a discussion, not a lecture. The Da Vinci Code is a fiction, albeit one that is spiced with facts; a giant what if: what if the Gospel of Philip presented the truth, what if the Priory of Sion was more than a hoax…
Fiction and Religion: I've already suggested that the canonical Gospels are not above mixing fact and fiction. Luke's story about the slave's ear, as I've said, provides an excellent illustration of forgiveness, even if it probably never happened: 'Every religion describes God through metaphor, allegory and exaggeration' says Langdon (p.341). So what does Brown hope to achieve by his appeal to the religious imagination? As I've said, Dan Brown uses all the classic devices of a good thriller to keep the reader hooked: reading the book is an intense experience. As one reaches the end of such a book, a sort of disillusionment is bound to set in – after all, it was just a story. Langdon, our hero, is on the point of discovering the Holy Grail, but then we're bound to remember that Langdon is just a fictional character, and even the most credulous reader must suspect that, whatever his abilities as a writer, Dan Brown has no more idea than the rest of us where the Holy Grail really is. At this point, Brown, expert in manipulating readers that he is, rather cleverly delays the climax, and gives us the following little dialogue: 'It is the mystery and wonderment that serve our souls, not the Grail itself. The beauty of the Grail lies in her ethereal nature…For some, the Grail is a chalice that will bring them everlasting life. For others, it is the quest for lost documents and secret history. And for most, I suspect the Holy Grail is simply a grand idea … a glorious unattainable treasure that somehow, even in today's world of chaos, inspires us.' 'But if the Sangreal documents remain hidden, the story of Mary Magdalene will be lost forever,' Langdon said. 'Will it? Look around you. Her story is being told in art, music and books…We are starting to sense the dangers of our history,,,and of our destructive path. We are beginning to sense the need to restore the sacred feminine.' (p. 444) I think its clear what Brown wants to make us feel here: even though he's laid a false historical trail, still, hasn't he pointed to a deeper truth: that we need to sacred feminine to save us from the destructive effects of Constantine's attempt to fuse Christianity and Paganism: The Priory believes that Constantine and his male successors successfully converted the world from matriarchal paganism to patriarchal Christianity by waging a campaign that demonised the sacred feminine … (p. 124) Mother Earth had become a man's world, and the gods of destruction and war were taking their toll. The male ego had spent two millennia running about unchecked by its female counterpart. (p. 125) However, Langdon's grasp of religious symbolism is just as simplistic as Teabing's grasp of history. A religion that has strong symbols of the sacred feminine need not be matriarchal. Langdon is correct in saying that many pagan symbols of the divine feminine were absorbed into Christianity. Look no further than the Santuario Nacional: Dulce Cor Mariae Esto Salus Mea. Any future archaeologist would assume this was the temple of a goddess, and would such an archaeologist be wrong? We have fascinating discussions about that in my classes. But although the Church is dominated by Mary's image, that doesn't mean that women run the show. Goddesses can incite people to war just as much as gods, and the fact that women embody a divine power is not always a reason for giving them authority. On the contrary, the fact that women embody a sacred power can be all the more reason for keeping them in their place: the purpose of rituals is very often to enable the sacred to perform its proper function. Consider the advice Langdon offers to his male students on the sacred value of sex: 'The next time you find yourself with a woman, look in your heart and see if you cannot approach sex as a mystical spiritual act. Challenge yourself to find that spark of divinity that man can only achieve through union with the sacred feminine.' (p. 310) The Catholic Church also teaches that sex is sacred, that every marriage is a Hieros Gamos. The sacred nature of the sexual act is the very reason given by Paul VI in his encyclical Humanae Vitae for not allowing artificial contraception. Of course, I don't want to jump to the other extreme and say that belief in the Sacred Feminine is bound to lead to the repression of women; far from it. If we compare Gnostic Christianity with Orthodox Christianity, it seems that, for the most part, the Gnostics who believed in the Divine Feminine also offered more empowerment to women. I refer you to Chapter III of Elaine Paigel's excellent study The Gnostic Gospels for a suitably nuanced discussion. (Elaine Paigels, The Gnostic Gospels, New York: Random House, 1979). So what is the secret of Brown's success? Certainly, it's a matter of mixing fact and fiction, but it's a question of how he mixes them. He drops in the most sensational facts, provides the most simplistic explanation – easy to understand, whether or not its true – then he moves the plot along. In short, although he uses facts to grab your attention, he never lets the facts get in the way of a good story. -- Cheers, Gabe Menezes. London, England
