We're all supposed to be outraged by the DaVinci code, I know; and I admit, I may be. After all, the book (which I have not read) has been sending shock waves for its outlandish claims that Jesus married Mary Magdalene, and the she is the one sitting next to Him at DaVinci's Last Supper, etc. But there are some things which have me wondering. Hoping, actually, because of four things. First there is a somewhat selfish thing, which is the fact that I really like Tom Hanks as an actor, and I don't want to be disappointed by something he's in. Second, there is the fact that Ron Howard is the director. Now I really like Ron Howard. Did you ever see A Beautiful Mind? Five stars, hands down. A masterpiece. And he directed some others too, I forget which offhand, but impressive. Third, there is the note I read somewhere that Howard takes some significant liberties with the novel. And finally--most importantly--I'd really like to end up saying this was a good film when the fundamentalists are all out there trashing it. Sort of like how they used to trash The Simpsons, and now they're singing its praises. Many years before they panned Jesus Christ Superstar. Now that was also antiChristian in many ways, but I remember liking that scene where the disciples are all sitting around musing on how great they'll be, and they sing "Always thought that I'd be an Apostle, knew that I would make it if I tried . . ." Now concering this one we're already getting warnings. I think there's even a recent article in The Lutheran Witness which is full of warnings. Don't get me wrong, I think it's good that people be warned. And who knows, maybe I too will be greatly disappointed and will have to *ugh* say I agree with those warnings. But the movie isn't even out yet, for crying out loud (remember how the Left panned The Passion of the Christ before they saw it?), and so I have another warning: Don't judge a movie by its critics.
Posts
11 comments:
Mary Magdalene, and she is the one sitting next to Him at DaVinci's Last Supper.
Next time one looks at that painting, count the heads. 12 disciples plus 1 Jesus equals 13.
There are only 13 heads in the picture. If Mary Magdalene is the one sitting next to Jesus, then daVinci missed a disciple.
Rightly or wrongly, over the last three years, "The Da Vinci Code" has been more influential than the Bible in suggesting the real nature of Churchianity.
Maybe. In the secular-atheist and agnostic mindsets.
In the greater scope I think it has made Christians take a serious review of their beliefs. Which I think will turn out to be a good thing in most respects.
What is "Churchianity?"
Todd
Chrurchianit is: "Vast multitudes cling to some Church establishment as a drowning man would cling to a life-boat. They bow obsequiously to her priestly and official mandates, and imagine that the blind servility which they tender to the Church will be accounted acceptable service offered to Christ. The simplicity of the Gospel is lost in the imposing forms and glittering accompaniments of modern churchism. Splendid church edifices attract the eye. Splendid music charms the ear. Splendid prayers are addressed to the CONGREGATION. Splendid sermons please the fancy, and leave deluded sinners to slumber on. Church rivalry has achieved a glorious success, if success thundering organs, ostentatious dressing, theatrical singing, pointless praying, rhetorical preaching, careless hearing, and unscriptural practicing!
Or:
Wikipedia says: Churchianity is a pejorative term used to describe practices of Christianity that are viewed as placing a larger emphasis on the institutional traditions of a specific Christian denomination than on the teachings of Jesus Christ.
Holy cow, how did we get from a discussion of the Da Vinci code to some pet peeve of yours? Leave me out of it. Except for this: I would warn of shipwreck on the shoals of Charybdis or of Scylla, that is, of putting one's heart in outward things, or, a malady far more prevalent among American Protestants, of seeing no value in them at all. Careful, you might just wind up denying the Incarnation altogether.
Hmmm... you mean me? I did build up a bit of steam on this Churchianity bit.
Maybe I missed Acluin's point.
What I interpret Acluin as saying is that the secular world is using the DaVinci Code nonsense to define the whole of Christianity as, in fact, Churchianity. (see definitions.)
- In my context of how I interpreted Acluin statement, my brained flowed thus:
The DaVinchi Code relegates Christianity equal to any other historical beliefs system that comes along, and then goes.
The single positive side I see from of "the Code" is that it has made some Christians reveiw their thinking on certain issues. I don't think it has really influence any changes in thinking.
And as my brain wanders further:
Some would argue that Lutheranism is a form of Churchianity. I do not believe so.
Some would argue that American Protestantism is tending to Churchianity. And I tend to agree with in some respects.
Still, it seems that as American Protestatism swings the pendulum farther toward the Churchianity view, some Lutherans are being pulled along with it. But I'm not one of those Lutherans.
Now...Since nothing I've said reflects the intent of your article... about the quality of the upcoming movie.
Here is what I wish I had simply stated to begin with:
I agree that the movie should be a good one. Despite the nonsensical book it is based on.
I guess I agree, except that I'm saying only that I hope the movie's a good one. Maybe I'll be eating crow after I see it.
Guess it depends on what we mean by good. With Tom Hanks it should be a high-quality well-made movie.
I would like to hear your review if you do see it. I have no desire to see it.
Post a Comment