Tuesday, May 30, 2006
The Truth About Da Vinci
The best-selling whodunit "The DaVinci Code" by Dan Brown is an intriguing novel which raises a number of questions for many readers who may not be aware of its many inaccuracies. This Sunday at five we meet at the Bowlers for supper and a 120 minute video /discussion entitled the "DaVinci Code Deception". Please feel free to come and to invite friends. It is worth knowing something about this polular book and how to examine its claims intelligently. The linked website also has some information which may interest you.
Thursday, May 25, 2006
Sunday at Five
Sunday at Five meets at 2087 Beaton Ave, Comox for Holy Communion, Supper and a video/discussion. We are currently doing a series entitled "In the Dust of the Rabbi" from Focus on the Family. Coming soon: The Da Vinci Code Deception.
Friday, May 19, 2006
Some thoughts from Ed Hird on the Da Vinci Code
http://northshoreoutlook.com/portals-code/list.cgi?paper=43&cat=23&id=651360&more=
North Shore Outlook Newspaper
Interactive Code
Daniel Pi photo
THE OTHER GOOD BOOK - Rev. Ed Hird with the book that is making
headlines.
By JENNIFER MALONEY, Staff Reporter
May 18 2006
Minister welcomes Da Vinci Code film
as an opportunity to explore Christ's story.
Reverend Ed Hird won't be boycotting The Da Vinci Code movie when it
makes its world debut on the big screens of 68 countries tomorrow.
In fact, he's already read the book. The rector of St. Simon's Church in
North Van says the book's theories, which question Christian faith,
present an excellent opportunity to discuss his religion with
non-believers.
Hird credits Dan Brown's novel as sparking a cultural phenomena and
marvels at the 46 million print copies that have been published around
the globe.
But he doesn't like the fact that Brown mixes fact and fiction.
"We live in a very gullible culture where fact and fiction are being
blended together. This for some people is a vindication as to why they
don't like the Roman Catholic Church and those are the people I'd love
to have a conversation with."
The novel is centred around a Harvard professor who throughout the story
informs the reader of theories like how the Roman Emperor Constantine
tried to immortalize Jesus Christ to convert pagans to the Christian
religion. Hird claims such theories aren't new, but the way Brown has
effectively packaged them into a suspense thriller is.
"It's a novel that really grips people," he said. "I think it's worth
engaging. Just below the surface there's a real curiosity in Jesus. It's
on everyone's minds and I encourage people in our church not to be
defensive about it.
"Interact with people and talk about it."
2b) http://www3.telus.net/st_simons/crier.htm
Will the Real Leonardo Please Stand Up?
-an article for the June 2006 Deep Cove Crier, North Vancouver, BC
The Da Vinci Code Movie bus ads boldly state: "Seek the Truth". I would
agree, as only the Truth can set us free. Dan Brown has his 'religion
expert' Leigh Teabing claim that, "almost everything our fathers taught
us about Christ is false." At the start of the 'Da Vinci Code' book,
Dan Brown pledges, "All descriptions of artwork, architecture, documents
and secret rituals in this novel are accurate." These remarkable
allegations are at the heart of many scholars' critique of an otherwise
interesting page-turner. Historical accuracy is not the strong suit of
the Da Vinci Code fad.
The Right Reverend Dr. Tom Wright, Anglican Bishop of Durham and former
Oxford scholar, said at Seattle Pacific University that "it is a
well-known fact of today's culture that some people can't tell fact from
fiction." One third of Canadians today, since reading the Da Vinci Code,
actually believe that descendants of Jesus are walking the earth today.
Dan Brown claims in his Da Vinci Code book that there really was a
Priory of Sion to which Leonardo Da Vinci, Isaac Newton, and Victor Hugo
belonged. Bishop Wright comments that this claim 'can be shown very
easily to be false.' It is now becoming well-known that the Priory of
Sion documents that Dan Brown cites as evidence were 'forgeries cooked
up by three zany Frenchmen in the 1950s.' In fact, says Bishop Wright,
"they cheerfully confessed to this in a devastating television program
shown on British television...." As well, CBS's "60 Minutes" skillfully
outed "The Priory of Sion" as a convoluted hoax, created by two
Frenchmen, Pierre Plantard and Philippe de Cherisey, in 1956. "
Historical inaccuracies are found in virtually every chapter of the Da
Vinci Code. As Bishop Wright notes, "(Dan) Brown...includes the Dead
Sea Scrolls as documents about Jesus. They are nothing of the sort.
Neither Jesus nor early Christianity is mentioned anywhere in the
scrolls." Most significantly "there is not the slightest sign, in Nag
Hammadi (the gnostic Egyptian scrolls) any more than the Dead Sea
Scrolls, of Jesus being married to Mary Magdalene and having a child by
her." Giving a holy kiss in the early church was not a sign of a secret
marriage, but a mark of being fellow Christians. How many people, for
example, would assume that modern Italians are married to everyone that
they kiss on the cheeks?
Thanks to Dan Brown, millions of people are scrutinizing Leonardo's Mona
Lisa and Last Supper paintings for evidence of secret mother-goddess
worship. Yet Mona Lisa, rather than being an androgynous self-portrait
and a secret name for Egyptian fertility goddesses, was actually Madonna
Lisa, married to Francesco di Bartolomeo del Giocondo in March 5th
1495. Mona Lisa was a real life Florentine mother of five children, two
of which became nuns.
And what about the long-haired, rather effeminate, beardless person in
the Last Supper painting? Leonardo in his own notebooks clearly stated
that the person closest to Jesus in the Last Supper painting was John
the beloved disciple, not Mary Magdalene as an alleged secret
mother-goddess and wife. Credible art historians tell us that John the
beloved, as the youngest of the twelve disciples, was always painted by
medieval painters as looking young, beardless, and somewhat effeminate
from 21st-century standards. All one needs to debunk Dan Brown's Last
Supper allegations is to be able to count up to thirteen. As everyone
knows that there were 12 disciples plus Jesus present at the Last
Supper, the supposed addition of Mary Magdalene to the Last Supper
painting would have required fourteen people in the painting. Count it
for yourself: you will only find thirteen!
Did Leonardo's journals include secret codes and messages, as the Da
Vinci Code movie advertisements are telling us? Dr. Ward Gasque
explains that Leonardo's journals were written in common Italian, but
from right to left instead of the opposite method employed today. This
makes perfect sense as Leonardo was left handed. Leonardo's journals are
still on display today and can be read easily with the help of a
bathroom mirror, but no secret codes or messages have ever been
uncovered in his journals.
Dr. Stephen Andrews comments: "Why is it not obvious that The Da Vinci
Code is meant for entertainment, not education? It has about as much
historical credibility as Monty Python's The Life of Brian." Dr. Andrews
elaborates that contrary to Dan Brown's claims, "the Roman Catholic lay
movement, Opus Dei, does not have monks; Westminster Abbey does not have
spires; (and) the Christian habit of worshipping on Sundays was not a
Constantinian accommodation to paganism, but predates Constantine by 200
years..."
Dan Brown claims that the Emperor Constantine in the fourth century
invented the concept of Jesus being God in order to consolidate his hold
on the Roman Empire: "My dear", Teabing declared, "Until that moment in
history, Jesus was viewed by his followers as a mortal prophet..." "Not
the Son of God?" (said Sophie). "Right", Teabing said. In fact, as
Bishop Tom Wright notes, "the divinity of Jesus was already firmly
established by Paul within 20 to 30 years of Jesus' death."
This claim to Jesus' deity was not a 4th century 'Johnny-come-lately'
invention. In 110AD, Ignatius of Antioch, Syria refers to Christ as
God, saying "God Himself was manifested in human form". In 150 AD,
Clement of Alexandria, Egypt said "It is fitting that you should think
of Jesus Christ as of God" In 180 AD, Irenaeus of Lyon, France said of
Jesus that: "He is God, for the name Emmanuel indicates this". In 235
AD, Novatian of Rome, speaking of Jesus, said"...He is not only man, but
God also..."
Dan Brown rejects the trustworthiness of the New Testament by asserting
in the Da Vinci Code (p. 256) that "history is always written by the
winners." But anyone who knows anything about Christian history knows
that the early Christians were anything but "winners." The early
Christians were persecuted, outlawed and even murdered. Some Christians
were thrown into the arena to be eaten by lions. Other were tied up on
poles, drenched with fuel, and lit as streetlamps at night.
"We may safely conclude", says Bishop Wright, "that the Da Vinci Code is
fiction not just in its characters and plot but in most of its other
details as well." I encourage Christians in particular not to be
defensive about the Da Vinci Code movie/book, but rather, as 1 Peter
3:15 puts it, to always be ready to answer those who ask us for the
reason for the hope within us, always with gentleness and respect. I
strongly commend Lee Strobel's brilliant video-based website on the Da
Vinci Code http://leestrobel.com and his book "Exploring the Da Vinci
Code" which can be purchased online. Let's look forward to discussing
http://discussdavinci.com both the claims of the Da Vinci Code and of
Jesus Christ with our neighbours, co-workers, and family during this
'spiritual tsunami' season.
The Reverend Ed Hird+
Rector, St. Simon's Church North Vancouver
Anglican Coalition in Canada
http://www3.telus.net/st_simons
3i) To order Lee Strobel's excellent new book "Exploring the DaVinci
Code" , click on
http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0310273722/ref=ase_churchcommuni-20/102-3059389-5669722?s=books&v=glance&n=283155&tagActionCode=churchcommuni-20
3ii) To order Lee Strobel's Video-based Curriculum guide "Discussing the
DaVinci Code", click on
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/0310272637/churchcommuni-20/102-3059389-5669722?creative=327641&camp=14573&link_code=as1
3iii) To watch what top scholars and experts are saying on video about
the DaVinci Code, click on http://www.leestrobel.com/LS_DaVinciCode.html
a) What are the Claims Made by the Da Vinci Code?
1) Why is America so Attracted to The Da Vinci Code? (5:19) Lee Strobel
http://www.leestrobel.com/videos/davinci/strobelT1100.htm
2) Was Jesus Married to Mary Magdalene as The Da Vinci Code Claims?
(5:50) Mike Licona
http://www.leestrobel.com/videos/davinci/strobelT1087.htm
3) Was Jesus a Husband and a Father? (6:12) Lee Strobel
http://www.leestrobel.com/videos/davinci/strobelT1114.htm
4) Did Christianity Borrow from Other Religions as The Da Vinci Code
Claims? (2:57) Mike Licona
http://www.leestrobel.com/videos/davinci/strobelT1085.htm
5) Breaking The Da Vinci Code (4:34) Lee Strobel
http://www.leestrobel.com/videos/davinci/strobelT1082.htm
6) What are the Most Blatant Errors in The Da Vinci Code? (4:20) Lee
Strobel
http://www.leestrobel.com/videos/davinci/strobelT1097.htm
7) Is There a Secret Message Hidden in the Art of Leonardo Da Vinci?
(6:02) D. James Kennedy, Ph.D.
http://www.leestrobel.com/videos/davinci/strobelT1088.htm
8) Getting into the Specifics of The Da Vinci Code (5:01) Lee Strobel
http://www.leestrobel.com/videos/davinci/strobelT1031.htm
9) What Are Some of the Most Outrageous Claims of The Da Vinci Code?
(1:47) Lee Strobel
http://www.leestrobel.com/videos/davinci/strobelT1103.htm
10) Is The Da Vinci Code Fact or Fiction? (2:39) Lee Strobel
http://www.leestrobel.com/videos/davinci/strobelT1109.htm
11) The Da Vinci Code: Truth or Fiction? (5:10) Lee Strobel
http://www.leestrobel.com/videos/davinci/strobelT1030.htm
12) How Can We Trust the Oral Stories of the Early Disciples? (3:43)
John Ortberg
http://www.leestrobel.com/videos/davinci/strobelT1133.htm
13) How Did the Gospels Get Written? (7:02) John Ortberg
http://www.leestrobel.com/videos/davinci/strobelT1134.htm
14) Did Jesus' Disciples Believe He Was Divine? (5:12) John Ortberg
http://www.leestrobel.com/videos/davinci/strobelT1135.htm
15) Was Christianity Opposed to Women? (6:49) John Ortberg
http://www.leestrobel.com/videos/davinci/strobelT1136.htm
16) Is The Da Vinci Code Good History? (4:51) John Ortberg
http://www.leestrobel.com/videos/davinci/strobelT1137.htm
b) Can We Trust the Four Gospels?
1) Are There More than Eighty Gospels as The Da Vinci Code Claims?
(4:58) Mike Licona
http://www.leestrobel.com/videos/davinci/strobelT1083.htm
2) Has the Bible Changed Over Time as The Da Vinci Code Claims? (2:44)
Mike Licona
http://www.leestrobel.com/videos/davinci/strobelT1084.htm
3) Discussing The Da Vinci Code: Can the Gospels be trusted? (1:51) Lee
Strobel
http://www.leestrobel.com/videos/davinci/strobelT1034.htm
4) Can We Trust the Gnostic Gospels, like the Gospel of Judas? (7:47)
Lee Strobel
http://www.leestrobel.com/videos/davinci/strobelT1111.htm
5) Are there More Than Four Gospels About Jesus? (12:00) D. James
Kennedy, Ph.D.
http://www.leestrobel.com/videos/davinci/strobelT1089.htm
6) What Really Happened at the Council of Nicea Anyway? (7:20) Erwin
Lutzer
http://www.leestrobel.com/videos/davinci/strobelT1092.htm
7) How Did the New Testament Books Become Part of the Bible? (3:17)
Erwin Lutzer
http://www.leestrobel.com/videos/davinci/strobelT1094.htm
8) Who Decided What Books Became Part of the Bible's New Testament?
(8:20) D. James Kennedy, Ph.D. '
http://www.leestrobel.com/videos/davinci/strobelT1090.htm
c) What Does History Reveal?
1) How Reliable is The Da Vinci Code's Account on Emperor Constantine?
(5:44) Lee Strobel
http://www.leestrobel.com/videos/davinci/strobelT1028.htm
2) Can We Trust the Writers of History? (1:21) Lee Strobel
http://www.leestrobel.com/videos/davinci/strobelT1110.htm
3) Why is the Conspiracy Theory of The Da Vinci Code So Compelling to
People? (6:08) Erwin Lutzer
http://www.leestrobel.com/videos/davinci/strobelT1093.htm
4) Discussing The Da Vinci Code: Can history be trusted? (2:00) Lee
Strobel
http://www.leestrobel.com/videos/davinci/strobelT1033.htm
5) What Does History Reveal about the Claims of The Da Vinci Code?
(5:23) Lee Strobel
http://www.leestrobel.com/videos/davinci/strobelT1096.htm
d) Is Jesus the Son of God?
1) What is so Unique About Jesus? (1:22) Erwin Lutzer
http://www.leestrobel.com/videos/davinci/strobelT1095.htm
2) Did Jesus Claim To Be Divine, or Did He Become Divine Based on a
Vote? (10:24) D. James Kennedy, Ph.D.
http://www.leestrobel.com/videos/davinci/strobelT1091.htm
3) Discussing The Da Vinci Code: Is Jesus the Son of God? Lee's
Interview with Dr. Strauss (Part 1) (6:00) Lee Strobel
http://www.leestrobel.com/videos/davinci/strobelT1036.htm
4) Discussing The Da Vinci Code: Is Jesus the Son of God? Lee's
Interview with Dr. Strauss (Part 2) (7:33) Lee Strobel
http://www.leestrobel.com/videos/davinci/strobelT1037.htm
5) Did Jesus Actually Believe He Was Divine? (3:46) Lee Strobel
http://www.leestrobel.com/videos/davinci/strobelT1112.htm
6) Did People Vote to Make Jesus Divine as The Da Vinci Code Claims?
(4:22) Mike Licona
http://www.leestrobel.com/videos/davinci/strobelT1086.htm
7) Discussing The Da Vinci Code: Is Jesus the Son of God? Lee's
Perspective on the Matter (2:38) Lee Strobel
http://www.leestrobel.com/videos/davinci/strobelT1038.htm
e) How Can Christians Respond?
1) How Can Christians Respond to The Da Vinci Code? (6:43) Lee Strobel
http://www.leestrobel.com/videos/davinci/strobelT1113.htm
2) The Da Vinci Code: How Can Christians Respond? (2:07) Lee Strobel
http://www.leestrobel.com/videos/davinci/strobelT1032.htm
3) How do Christians Respond to The Da Vinci Code's Attacks on
Christianity? (3:43) Lee Strobel
http://www.leestrobel.com/videos/davinci/strobelT1101.htm
4) How Can I Capture the Spiritual Curiosity of People Through The Da
Vinci Code? (2:05) Lee Strobel
http://www.leestrobel.com/videos/davinci/strobelT1102.htm
4a)
http://www.theglobeandmail.com//servlet/story/LAC.20060519.DAVINCI19/TPStory/Entertainment/
Da Vinci groan
RICK GROEN, Globe and Mail Newspaper
The Da Vinci Code
*½
Directed by Ron Howard
Written by Akiva Goldsman
Starring Tom Hanks, Audrey Tautou, Ian McKellen, Paul Bettany
Classification: 14A
Before I dismiss the movie as middling-awful, forgive me -- first, just
one more word about the book. Clearly, Dan Brown's The Da Vinci Code is
guaranteed to deeply offend anyone who has a strong belief in the
sanctity of (a) Jesus Christ, or (b) good literature. Just as certainly,
given those sales figures measurable in the multimillions, there are
more than a few of us who fall into neither devout category, and who
have thrilled to the experience of reading a novel that's all about a
futile search for the holy grail of a well-written sentence.
Okay, not quite all about, and this is where Brown proves himself rather
clever. He began with a story that has a certain built-in familiarity
factor, Christianity, and turned it into a vast conspiracy cum cover-up,
whose unravelling assumes the form of a treasure hunt -- complete with
maps followed, puzzles solved, codes broken, bullets dodged -- that
takes us on a contemporary trek through the prettier capitals of Europe,
all the while blurring the contrived fiction with historical facts and
presenting the whole thing in a series of minuscule chapters that flit
by like, well, scenes in a movie.
Cue the eureka, and enter director Ron Howard, along with his trusty
screenwriter Akiva Goldsman, who might have been inspired by just that
"scenic" potential in the book (oh, and maybe a bit by the 40 million
copies sold). And perhaps, having already collaborated on A Beautiful
Mind and Cinderella Man, they saw a providential design in tackling a
work whose take on Christ might be summarized as A Beautiful Man (but
just a man). What they obviously did not see was a monumental problem
that, if not addressed, would make the novel unadaptable and the movie
risibly dull. But more of that later.
Instead, let's start with Goldsman's decision to retain the bulk of the
original plot. And I mean bulk -- even with the narrative somewhat
trimmed, the flick weighs in at a corpulent 2½ hours. So we again open
in the Louvre with a murder, which promptly gives rise to the mystery:
Seems the deceased, a.k.a. the Grand Master of the Priory of Sion,
literally held a key that opens a box that leads to a cylinder that
contains a riddle that points to documents that contain information that
will change human history by putting a newer spin on the New Testament.
Happily, in the agony of his dying moments, he's left behind clues
decipherable only to Robert the symbologist (Tom Hanks) and Sophie the
cryptologist (Audrey Tautou). Unhappily, they're also the prime suspects
in the homicide, at least in the eyes of that dour French cop with the
five o'clock shadow (Jean Reno).
This situation leads to a pattern of behaviour that pretty much
continues through the entire flick: Pause to solve a clue, run like hell
from the cop; solve another clue, run even faster. But not just from the
cop. There's also an albino monk lurking about (Paul Bettany, looking
like a whiter shade of Warhol), who belongs to that conservative crowd
called Opus Dei. I don't know about the Dei, but anybody who can make
cellphone calls in Latin, while flagellating his naked back raw, is a
real piece of Opus. And not to be messed with.
No wonder Hanks looks so sombre and stiff. His sole expression here is a
perpetual scowl framed by that grown-out mane of dishevelled hair --
apparently, playing a symbologist, he's concluded that long locks
symbolize a deep intellect and let's just leave it at that. As for
Tautou, the gamine of Amélie has gone robotic. She seems constantly
stunned, although, in her case, the poor girl may just be preparing
herself for the finale's grand revelation. (My, you'd be stunned too.)
And don't expect a molecule of chemistry between the two. Evidently,
when a symbologist meets a cryptologist, bogus ideas may fly but sparks
don't.
Luckily for us, after a full hour of this solving and fleeing, the pair
seek refuge in the chalet of an eccentric British knight thoroughly
versed in Holy Grail matters. Luckily, because who better to play Sir
Leigh Teabing than Sir Ian McKellen, and the wily vet is quick to give
this lumpy pic what it sorely needs -- an actor willing to shamelessly,
outrageously chew the scenery and spit it out for fun. Since it's the
only fun going, we're nothing if not grateful.
Unfortunately, even Sir Ian is stymied by that aforementioned problem,
the big one. Here it is. In the book, Brown is always embedding key
exposition right into the dialogue.
Time and again, the characters pause in the midst of escaping another
gun-wielding albino to engage in three pages of conversation designed to
expound upon the historical subject at hand -- all that controversial
stuff about the Church insisting on Christ's divinity while underselling
his humanity, especially his very human marriage to the regal Mary
Magdalene, embodiment of the "sacred feminine." In print, this device is
clumsy but workable, and good for readers who like their themes served
up as chat. On the screen, however, it's a proven disaster that,
astonishingly, the script waltzes right into.
So poor Hanks and McKellen are repeatedly weighed down with
marble-mouthfuls like, "That's when Constantine decided to unify Rome
under a single religion," or, "By the 1300s, the Knight Templars had
grown too threatening, so the Vatican issued secret orders to torture
and massacre them." Howard's notion of lightening this load is to
insert, over the gabbing actors, fuzzy flashbacks to the period under
discussion -- quick shots of Crusaders in red-crossed tunics mounting a
charge, or MM herself in the full cry of some Biblical passion. Sorry,
but the only effect is to stop an already moribund movie dead in its
tracks. When we aren't snoozing, we're snickering.
What's worse, having spent his energy on trying to illustrate the
yammering dialogue, Howard appears to have none left over for the rich
visual opportunities staring him smack in the face. Paris, London, the
Louvre, St. Sulpice, Westminster Abbey -- all those glorious locations
and yet so many grey shots. Like a two-bit philosopher working the wrong
side of the stone, Howard has managed to turn gold into lead.
Or maybe that bleakness is deliberate. Just maybe, somewhere between the
molehill of substance and the mountain of hype, The Da Vinci Code in its
various forms has a culture-shattering truth to tell, if only we could
locate and decipher the right clue. I ain't no symbologist, but here's
my pick: "So dark the con of Man."
4b)
http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,20867,19185172-2702,00.html
Jensen won't flagellate the Code
Jill Rowbotham, Religious affairs writer
May 19, 2006
"PRETTY slow-moving," declared Archbishop Peter Jensen after attending
one of the first Sydney sessions of The Da Vinci Code.
"It's a bit long," he added yesterday.
There was a distinct - possibly ominous - lack of indignation from one
of Australia's top Anglicans, given it is controversy that has fed the
public appetite for Dan Brown's wildly successful novel about the "true"
story of Jesus.
Dr Jensen mused that there had been "nothing to greatly offend" in the
film, besides Silas the murderous monk's unpleasant flagellation scenes.
"My faith in Jesus is very secure and that faith is based on history,"
Dr Jensen said. "I'm not offended. From the point of view of what it may
do to people who do not know the facts, that's a worry."
If, however, people were affected by it, the church should take some
responsibility for not teaching them the facts.
The film posits that Jesus married Mary Magdalene and had a child whose
descendants are alive today.
The theory says the legendary "holy grail" is Mary's bloodline and proof
of that has been safeguarded by a dedicated band of believers despite a
church-based conspiracy to destroy it.
"What the film does is raise the question of 'who is Jesus Christ?"' Dr
Jensen said. "It does it in the form of a salvation story. In this case,
it's salvation from the church: can the truth about Jesus save us from
the evil church which has oppressed humankind and especially women and
the poor?
"And if the truth about Jesus ... comes out, the power of the church
will be broken, Jesus will be saved himself, so to speak, and a better
religion will emerge." The film offered a false choice, between seeing
Jesus as human or divine whereas Christianity says he is both.
Dr Jensen sees the novel and film as products of an age in which the
space vacated by Christianity in the West has been filled by more
generalised religious experience he calls "spiritualities". "The Da
Vinci Code is simply the froth on top of the spirituality wave," he
said.
One of the main characters speculates near the end of the film that
maybe "the human is divine". This was a "typically new-age" view, in
which "we worship ourselves, we are divine. The evidence of history
tells us we are not divine".
Dr Jensen urged people to take the opportunity to talk and think about
Jesus. "The movie is not important, but the subject it raises is
immensely important ... Are we going to continue on the track with
Christianity, or go back to old paganism which really says that human
beings are divine? Which is it to be?"
4c) http://www.thedavincidialogue.com/
-an official Da Vinci Code website set up by Sony Pictures, encouraging
critiques by Christians.
4d)
http://www.canada.com/nationalpost/news/story.html?id=fbddd6ac-7146-4e67-b3ea-603b47d44a07&k=37225
Christian ad about Code gets pulledTheatre chain drops spot that was to
appear before film
Brian Hutchinson, National PostPublished: Friday, May 19, 2006
VANCOUVER - A movie house commercial that encourages churchgoers to see
and discuss Hollywood thriller The Da Vinci Code has been dropped by
Canada's largest cinema chain, which said the ad was part of a religious
campaign to "stalk" unsuspecting film patrons.
The 10-second spot was produced by evangelical Christians and was to be
shown for the next month inside 65 Cineplex cinemas in Ontario and
Western Canada.
The ad directs people to a Christian Web site
http://www.discussdavinci.com devoted to the controversial film, which
opens across North America today.
Cineplex Entertainment LP is promoting the movie heavily; however, on
Wednesday, the company abruptly cancelled its $63,000 advertising deal
with Campus Crusade for Christ Canada, a B.C.-based affiliate of the
world's largest evangelical Christian organization, CCC
International(...)
Reached at her office in Toronto, Cineplex spokeswoman Pat Marshall said
it was not, in fact, her company's view that Campus Crusade planned to
harass moviegoers. The e-mail that Cineplex sent to the organization was
a "mistake." Ms. Rajh, she added, "is misinformed."
Cineplex's decision to drop the brief spot was made because the company
"does not show any religious advertising at all," Ms. Marshall
explained, even if it promotes a film the company is showing in its
theatres. The contract with Campus Crusade was made in error. "It
slipped though the cracks."
But Campus Crusade officials note that their ad made no reference to
religion at all; rather, it showed an image of Leonardo's famous
painting, the Mona Lisa, and a tag line that read, "Seek the Truth."
The ad then revealed the address to a Web site operated by Campus
Crusade, where people can discuss The Da Vinci Code and read Christian
perspectives about the film.
That argument did not sway Ms. Marshall. Even if the ad was not overtly
religious, "it was made by a religious organization. And we don't accept
advertising from any religious group."
Famous Players, a Canadian cinema chain bought out by Cineplex last
year, accepted advertising from Campus Crusade when it screened The
Passion of the Christ two years ago. The movie went on to become one of
the highest-grossing films ever.
bhutchinson@nationalpost.com
4e)
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/RTGAM.20060519.wxcrusade19/BNStory/Entertainment/home
Christian crusaders want to discuss Da Vinci
OMAR EL AKKAD
From Friday's Globe and Mail
5) http://www.reason-for-hope.com
The Rev'd Dr. Gil Stieglitz lite.
During a recent visit to Vancouver for the 19th Annual Renewal Mission
2006, Dr. Gil presented seven talks which have been captured on 3 DVDs
and are available for the bargain price of 30.00, including taxes and
shipping. The titles are:
How to Have a Personal Revival
How to Have a Healthy Church
How to Mourn (Processing Pain, Grief and Loss)
How to Draw Near to God
How to Build a Healthy and Vibrant Church (breaking the 200 barrier)
How to Draw the Power of God into Your Life
How to Build a Marriage of Great Joy.
To order go to www.reason-for-hope.com/stieglitz
North Shore Outlook Newspaper
Interactive Code
Daniel Pi photo
THE OTHER GOOD BOOK - Rev. Ed Hird with the book that is making
headlines.
By JENNIFER MALONEY, Staff Reporter
May 18 2006
Minister welcomes Da Vinci Code film
as an opportunity to explore Christ's story.
Reverend Ed Hird won't be boycotting The Da Vinci Code movie when it
makes its world debut on the big screens of 68 countries tomorrow.
In fact, he's already read the book. The rector of St. Simon's Church in
North Van says the book's theories, which question Christian faith,
present an excellent opportunity to discuss his religion with
non-believers.
Hird credits Dan Brown's novel as sparking a cultural phenomena and
marvels at the 46 million print copies that have been published around
the globe.
But he doesn't like the fact that Brown mixes fact and fiction.
"We live in a very gullible culture where fact and fiction are being
blended together. This for some people is a vindication as to why they
don't like the Roman Catholic Church and those are the people I'd love
to have a conversation with."
The novel is centred around a Harvard professor who throughout the story
informs the reader of theories like how the Roman Emperor Constantine
tried to immortalize Jesus Christ to convert pagans to the Christian
religion. Hird claims such theories aren't new, but the way Brown has
effectively packaged them into a suspense thriller is.
"It's a novel that really grips people," he said. "I think it's worth
engaging. Just below the surface there's a real curiosity in Jesus. It's
on everyone's minds and I encourage people in our church not to be
defensive about it.
"Interact with people and talk about it."
2b) http://www3.telus.net/st_simons/crier.htm
Will the Real Leonardo Please Stand Up?
-an article for the June 2006 Deep Cove Crier, North Vancouver, BC
The Da Vinci Code Movie bus ads boldly state: "Seek the Truth". I would
agree, as only the Truth can set us free. Dan Brown has his 'religion
expert' Leigh Teabing claim that, "almost everything our fathers taught
us about Christ is false." At the start of the 'Da Vinci Code' book,
Dan Brown pledges, "All descriptions of artwork, architecture, documents
and secret rituals in this novel are accurate." These remarkable
allegations are at the heart of many scholars' critique of an otherwise
interesting page-turner. Historical accuracy is not the strong suit of
the Da Vinci Code fad.
The Right Reverend Dr. Tom Wright, Anglican Bishop of Durham and former
Oxford scholar, said at Seattle Pacific University that "it is a
well-known fact of today's culture that some people can't tell fact from
fiction." One third of Canadians today, since reading the Da Vinci Code,
actually believe that descendants of Jesus are walking the earth today.
Dan Brown claims in his Da Vinci Code book that there really was a
Priory of Sion to which Leonardo Da Vinci, Isaac Newton, and Victor Hugo
belonged. Bishop Wright comments that this claim 'can be shown very
easily to be false.' It is now becoming well-known that the Priory of
Sion documents that Dan Brown cites as evidence were 'forgeries cooked
up by three zany Frenchmen in the 1950s.' In fact, says Bishop Wright,
"they cheerfully confessed to this in a devastating television program
shown on British television...." As well, CBS's "60 Minutes" skillfully
outed "The Priory of Sion" as a convoluted hoax, created by two
Frenchmen, Pierre Plantard and Philippe de Cherisey, in 1956. "
Historical inaccuracies are found in virtually every chapter of the Da
Vinci Code. As Bishop Wright notes, "(Dan) Brown...includes the Dead
Sea Scrolls as documents about Jesus. They are nothing of the sort.
Neither Jesus nor early Christianity is mentioned anywhere in the
scrolls." Most significantly "there is not the slightest sign, in Nag
Hammadi (the gnostic Egyptian scrolls) any more than the Dead Sea
Scrolls, of Jesus being married to Mary Magdalene and having a child by
her." Giving a holy kiss in the early church was not a sign of a secret
marriage, but a mark of being fellow Christians. How many people, for
example, would assume that modern Italians are married to everyone that
they kiss on the cheeks?
Thanks to Dan Brown, millions of people are scrutinizing Leonardo's Mona
Lisa and Last Supper paintings for evidence of secret mother-goddess
worship. Yet Mona Lisa, rather than being an androgynous self-portrait
and a secret name for Egyptian fertility goddesses, was actually Madonna
Lisa, married to Francesco di Bartolomeo del Giocondo in March 5th
1495. Mona Lisa was a real life Florentine mother of five children, two
of which became nuns.
And what about the long-haired, rather effeminate, beardless person in
the Last Supper painting? Leonardo in his own notebooks clearly stated
that the person closest to Jesus in the Last Supper painting was John
the beloved disciple, not Mary Magdalene as an alleged secret
mother-goddess and wife. Credible art historians tell us that John the
beloved, as the youngest of the twelve disciples, was always painted by
medieval painters as looking young, beardless, and somewhat effeminate
from 21st-century standards. All one needs to debunk Dan Brown's Last
Supper allegations is to be able to count up to thirteen. As everyone
knows that there were 12 disciples plus Jesus present at the Last
Supper, the supposed addition of Mary Magdalene to the Last Supper
painting would have required fourteen people in the painting. Count it
for yourself: you will only find thirteen!
Did Leonardo's journals include secret codes and messages, as the Da
Vinci Code movie advertisements are telling us? Dr. Ward Gasque
explains that Leonardo's journals were written in common Italian, but
from right to left instead of the opposite method employed today. This
makes perfect sense as Leonardo was left handed. Leonardo's journals are
still on display today and can be read easily with the help of a
bathroom mirror, but no secret codes or messages have ever been
uncovered in his journals.
Dr. Stephen Andrews comments: "Why is it not obvious that The Da Vinci
Code is meant for entertainment, not education? It has about as much
historical credibility as Monty Python's The Life of Brian." Dr. Andrews
elaborates that contrary to Dan Brown's claims, "the Roman Catholic lay
movement, Opus Dei, does not have monks; Westminster Abbey does not have
spires; (and) the Christian habit of worshipping on Sundays was not a
Constantinian accommodation to paganism, but predates Constantine by 200
years..."
Dan Brown claims that the Emperor Constantine in the fourth century
invented the concept of Jesus being God in order to consolidate his hold
on the Roman Empire: "My dear", Teabing declared, "Until that moment in
history, Jesus was viewed by his followers as a mortal prophet..." "Not
the Son of God?" (said Sophie). "Right", Teabing said. In fact, as
Bishop Tom Wright notes, "the divinity of Jesus was already firmly
established by Paul within 20 to 30 years of Jesus' death."
This claim to Jesus' deity was not a 4th century 'Johnny-come-lately'
invention. In 110AD, Ignatius of Antioch, Syria refers to Christ as
God, saying "God Himself was manifested in human form". In 150 AD,
Clement of Alexandria, Egypt said "It is fitting that you should think
of Jesus Christ as of God" In 180 AD, Irenaeus of Lyon, France said of
Jesus that: "He is God, for the name Emmanuel indicates this". In 235
AD, Novatian of Rome, speaking of Jesus, said"...He is not only man, but
God also..."
Dan Brown rejects the trustworthiness of the New Testament by asserting
in the Da Vinci Code (p. 256) that "history is always written by the
winners." But anyone who knows anything about Christian history knows
that the early Christians were anything but "winners." The early
Christians were persecuted, outlawed and even murdered. Some Christians
were thrown into the arena to be eaten by lions. Other were tied up on
poles, drenched with fuel, and lit as streetlamps at night.
"We may safely conclude", says Bishop Wright, "that the Da Vinci Code is
fiction not just in its characters and plot but in most of its other
details as well." I encourage Christians in particular not to be
defensive about the Da Vinci Code movie/book, but rather, as 1 Peter
3:15 puts it, to always be ready to answer those who ask us for the
reason for the hope within us, always with gentleness and respect. I
strongly commend Lee Strobel's brilliant video-based website on the Da
Vinci Code http://leestrobel.com and his book "Exploring the Da Vinci
Code" which can be purchased online. Let's look forward to discussing
http://discussdavinci.com both the claims of the Da Vinci Code and of
Jesus Christ with our neighbours, co-workers, and family during this
'spiritual tsunami' season.
The Reverend Ed Hird+
Rector, St. Simon's Church North Vancouver
Anglican Coalition in Canada
http://www3.telus.net/st_simons
3i) To order Lee Strobel's excellent new book "Exploring the DaVinci
Code" , click on
http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0310273722/ref=ase_churchcommuni-20/102-3059389-5669722?s=books&v=glance&n=283155&tagActionCode=churchcommuni-20
3ii) To order Lee Strobel's Video-based Curriculum guide "Discussing the
DaVinci Code", click on
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/0310272637/churchcommuni-20/102-3059389-5669722?creative=327641&camp=14573&link_code=as1
3iii) To watch what top scholars and experts are saying on video about
the DaVinci Code, click on http://www.leestrobel.com/LS_DaVinciCode.html
a) What are the Claims Made by the Da Vinci Code?
1) Why is America so Attracted to The Da Vinci Code? (5:19) Lee Strobel
http://www.leestrobel.com/videos/davinci/strobelT1100.htm
2) Was Jesus Married to Mary Magdalene as The Da Vinci Code Claims?
(5:50) Mike Licona
http://www.leestrobel.com/videos/davinci/strobelT1087.htm
3) Was Jesus a Husband and a Father? (6:12) Lee Strobel
http://www.leestrobel.com/videos/davinci/strobelT1114.htm
4) Did Christianity Borrow from Other Religions as The Da Vinci Code
Claims? (2:57) Mike Licona
http://www.leestrobel.com/videos/davinci/strobelT1085.htm
5) Breaking The Da Vinci Code (4:34) Lee Strobel
http://www.leestrobel.com/videos/davinci/strobelT1082.htm
6) What are the Most Blatant Errors in The Da Vinci Code? (4:20) Lee
Strobel
http://www.leestrobel.com/videos/davinci/strobelT1097.htm
7) Is There a Secret Message Hidden in the Art of Leonardo Da Vinci?
(6:02) D. James Kennedy, Ph.D.
http://www.leestrobel.com/videos/davinci/strobelT1088.htm
8) Getting into the Specifics of The Da Vinci Code (5:01) Lee Strobel
http://www.leestrobel.com/videos/davinci/strobelT1031.htm
9) What Are Some of the Most Outrageous Claims of The Da Vinci Code?
(1:47) Lee Strobel
http://www.leestrobel.com/videos/davinci/strobelT1103.htm
10) Is The Da Vinci Code Fact or Fiction? (2:39) Lee Strobel
http://www.leestrobel.com/videos/davinci/strobelT1109.htm
11) The Da Vinci Code: Truth or Fiction? (5:10) Lee Strobel
http://www.leestrobel.com/videos/davinci/strobelT1030.htm
12) How Can We Trust the Oral Stories of the Early Disciples? (3:43)
John Ortberg
http://www.leestrobel.com/videos/davinci/strobelT1133.htm
13) How Did the Gospels Get Written? (7:02) John Ortberg
http://www.leestrobel.com/videos/davinci/strobelT1134.htm
14) Did Jesus' Disciples Believe He Was Divine? (5:12) John Ortberg
http://www.leestrobel.com/videos/davinci/strobelT1135.htm
15) Was Christianity Opposed to Women? (6:49) John Ortberg
http://www.leestrobel.com/videos/davinci/strobelT1136.htm
16) Is The Da Vinci Code Good History? (4:51) John Ortberg
http://www.leestrobel.com/videos/davinci/strobelT1137.htm
b) Can We Trust the Four Gospels?
1) Are There More than Eighty Gospels as The Da Vinci Code Claims?
(4:58) Mike Licona
http://www.leestrobel.com/videos/davinci/strobelT1083.htm
2) Has the Bible Changed Over Time as The Da Vinci Code Claims? (2:44)
Mike Licona
http://www.leestrobel.com/videos/davinci/strobelT1084.htm
3) Discussing The Da Vinci Code: Can the Gospels be trusted? (1:51) Lee
Strobel
http://www.leestrobel.com/videos/davinci/strobelT1034.htm
4) Can We Trust the Gnostic Gospels, like the Gospel of Judas? (7:47)
Lee Strobel
http://www.leestrobel.com/videos/davinci/strobelT1111.htm
5) Are there More Than Four Gospels About Jesus? (12:00) D. James
Kennedy, Ph.D.
http://www.leestrobel.com/videos/davinci/strobelT1089.htm
6) What Really Happened at the Council of Nicea Anyway? (7:20) Erwin
Lutzer
http://www.leestrobel.com/videos/davinci/strobelT1092.htm
7) How Did the New Testament Books Become Part of the Bible? (3:17)
Erwin Lutzer
http://www.leestrobel.com/videos/davinci/strobelT1094.htm
8) Who Decided What Books Became Part of the Bible's New Testament?
(8:20) D. James Kennedy, Ph.D. '
http://www.leestrobel.com/videos/davinci/strobelT1090.htm
c) What Does History Reveal?
1) How Reliable is The Da Vinci Code's Account on Emperor Constantine?
(5:44) Lee Strobel
http://www.leestrobel.com/videos/davinci/strobelT1028.htm
2) Can We Trust the Writers of History? (1:21) Lee Strobel
http://www.leestrobel.com/videos/davinci/strobelT1110.htm
3) Why is the Conspiracy Theory of The Da Vinci Code So Compelling to
People? (6:08) Erwin Lutzer
http://www.leestrobel.com/videos/davinci/strobelT1093.htm
4) Discussing The Da Vinci Code: Can history be trusted? (2:00) Lee
Strobel
http://www.leestrobel.com/videos/davinci/strobelT1033.htm
5) What Does History Reveal about the Claims of The Da Vinci Code?
(5:23) Lee Strobel
http://www.leestrobel.com/videos/davinci/strobelT1096.htm
d) Is Jesus the Son of God?
1) What is so Unique About Jesus? (1:22) Erwin Lutzer
http://www.leestrobel.com/videos/davinci/strobelT1095.htm
2) Did Jesus Claim To Be Divine, or Did He Become Divine Based on a
Vote? (10:24) D. James Kennedy, Ph.D.
http://www.leestrobel.com/videos/davinci/strobelT1091.htm
3) Discussing The Da Vinci Code: Is Jesus the Son of God? Lee's
Interview with Dr. Strauss (Part 1) (6:00) Lee Strobel
http://www.leestrobel.com/videos/davinci/strobelT1036.htm
4) Discussing The Da Vinci Code: Is Jesus the Son of God? Lee's
Interview with Dr. Strauss (Part 2) (7:33) Lee Strobel
http://www.leestrobel.com/videos/davinci/strobelT1037.htm
5) Did Jesus Actually Believe He Was Divine? (3:46) Lee Strobel
http://www.leestrobel.com/videos/davinci/strobelT1112.htm
6) Did People Vote to Make Jesus Divine as The Da Vinci Code Claims?
(4:22) Mike Licona
http://www.leestrobel.com/videos/davinci/strobelT1086.htm
7) Discussing The Da Vinci Code: Is Jesus the Son of God? Lee's
Perspective on the Matter (2:38) Lee Strobel
http://www.leestrobel.com/videos/davinci/strobelT1038.htm
e) How Can Christians Respond?
1) How Can Christians Respond to The Da Vinci Code? (6:43) Lee Strobel
http://www.leestrobel.com/videos/davinci/strobelT1113.htm
2) The Da Vinci Code: How Can Christians Respond? (2:07) Lee Strobel
http://www.leestrobel.com/videos/davinci/strobelT1032.htm
3) How do Christians Respond to The Da Vinci Code's Attacks on
Christianity? (3:43) Lee Strobel
http://www.leestrobel.com/videos/davinci/strobelT1101.htm
4) How Can I Capture the Spiritual Curiosity of People Through The Da
Vinci Code? (2:05) Lee Strobel
http://www.leestrobel.com/videos/davinci/strobelT1102.htm
4a)
http://www.theglobeandmail.com//servlet/story/LAC.20060519.DAVINCI19/TPStory/Entertainment/
Da Vinci groan
RICK GROEN, Globe and Mail Newspaper
The Da Vinci Code
*½
Directed by Ron Howard
Written by Akiva Goldsman
Starring Tom Hanks, Audrey Tautou, Ian McKellen, Paul Bettany
Classification: 14A
Before I dismiss the movie as middling-awful, forgive me -- first, just
one more word about the book. Clearly, Dan Brown's The Da Vinci Code is
guaranteed to deeply offend anyone who has a strong belief in the
sanctity of (a) Jesus Christ, or (b) good literature. Just as certainly,
given those sales figures measurable in the multimillions, there are
more than a few of us who fall into neither devout category, and who
have thrilled to the experience of reading a novel that's all about a
futile search for the holy grail of a well-written sentence.
Okay, not quite all about, and this is where Brown proves himself rather
clever. He began with a story that has a certain built-in familiarity
factor, Christianity, and turned it into a vast conspiracy cum cover-up,
whose unravelling assumes the form of a treasure hunt -- complete with
maps followed, puzzles solved, codes broken, bullets dodged -- that
takes us on a contemporary trek through the prettier capitals of Europe,
all the while blurring the contrived fiction with historical facts and
presenting the whole thing in a series of minuscule chapters that flit
by like, well, scenes in a movie.
Cue the eureka, and enter director Ron Howard, along with his trusty
screenwriter Akiva Goldsman, who might have been inspired by just that
"scenic" potential in the book (oh, and maybe a bit by the 40 million
copies sold). And perhaps, having already collaborated on A Beautiful
Mind and Cinderella Man, they saw a providential design in tackling a
work whose take on Christ might be summarized as A Beautiful Man (but
just a man). What they obviously did not see was a monumental problem
that, if not addressed, would make the novel unadaptable and the movie
risibly dull. But more of that later.
Instead, let's start with Goldsman's decision to retain the bulk of the
original plot. And I mean bulk -- even with the narrative somewhat
trimmed, the flick weighs in at a corpulent 2½ hours. So we again open
in the Louvre with a murder, which promptly gives rise to the mystery:
Seems the deceased, a.k.a. the Grand Master of the Priory of Sion,
literally held a key that opens a box that leads to a cylinder that
contains a riddle that points to documents that contain information that
will change human history by putting a newer spin on the New Testament.
Happily, in the agony of his dying moments, he's left behind clues
decipherable only to Robert the symbologist (Tom Hanks) and Sophie the
cryptologist (Audrey Tautou). Unhappily, they're also the prime suspects
in the homicide, at least in the eyes of that dour French cop with the
five o'clock shadow (Jean Reno).
This situation leads to a pattern of behaviour that pretty much
continues through the entire flick: Pause to solve a clue, run like hell
from the cop; solve another clue, run even faster. But not just from the
cop. There's also an albino monk lurking about (Paul Bettany, looking
like a whiter shade of Warhol), who belongs to that conservative crowd
called Opus Dei. I don't know about the Dei, but anybody who can make
cellphone calls in Latin, while flagellating his naked back raw, is a
real piece of Opus. And not to be messed with.
No wonder Hanks looks so sombre and stiff. His sole expression here is a
perpetual scowl framed by that grown-out mane of dishevelled hair --
apparently, playing a symbologist, he's concluded that long locks
symbolize a deep intellect and let's just leave it at that. As for
Tautou, the gamine of Amélie has gone robotic. She seems constantly
stunned, although, in her case, the poor girl may just be preparing
herself for the finale's grand revelation. (My, you'd be stunned too.)
And don't expect a molecule of chemistry between the two. Evidently,
when a symbologist meets a cryptologist, bogus ideas may fly but sparks
don't.
Luckily for us, after a full hour of this solving and fleeing, the pair
seek refuge in the chalet of an eccentric British knight thoroughly
versed in Holy Grail matters. Luckily, because who better to play Sir
Leigh Teabing than Sir Ian McKellen, and the wily vet is quick to give
this lumpy pic what it sorely needs -- an actor willing to shamelessly,
outrageously chew the scenery and spit it out for fun. Since it's the
only fun going, we're nothing if not grateful.
Unfortunately, even Sir Ian is stymied by that aforementioned problem,
the big one. Here it is. In the book, Brown is always embedding key
exposition right into the dialogue.
Time and again, the characters pause in the midst of escaping another
gun-wielding albino to engage in three pages of conversation designed to
expound upon the historical subject at hand -- all that controversial
stuff about the Church insisting on Christ's divinity while underselling
his humanity, especially his very human marriage to the regal Mary
Magdalene, embodiment of the "sacred feminine." In print, this device is
clumsy but workable, and good for readers who like their themes served
up as chat. On the screen, however, it's a proven disaster that,
astonishingly, the script waltzes right into.
So poor Hanks and McKellen are repeatedly weighed down with
marble-mouthfuls like, "That's when Constantine decided to unify Rome
under a single religion," or, "By the 1300s, the Knight Templars had
grown too threatening, so the Vatican issued secret orders to torture
and massacre them." Howard's notion of lightening this load is to
insert, over the gabbing actors, fuzzy flashbacks to the period under
discussion -- quick shots of Crusaders in red-crossed tunics mounting a
charge, or MM herself in the full cry of some Biblical passion. Sorry,
but the only effect is to stop an already moribund movie dead in its
tracks. When we aren't snoozing, we're snickering.
What's worse, having spent his energy on trying to illustrate the
yammering dialogue, Howard appears to have none left over for the rich
visual opportunities staring him smack in the face. Paris, London, the
Louvre, St. Sulpice, Westminster Abbey -- all those glorious locations
and yet so many grey shots. Like a two-bit philosopher working the wrong
side of the stone, Howard has managed to turn gold into lead.
Or maybe that bleakness is deliberate. Just maybe, somewhere between the
molehill of substance and the mountain of hype, The Da Vinci Code in its
various forms has a culture-shattering truth to tell, if only we could
locate and decipher the right clue. I ain't no symbologist, but here's
my pick: "So dark the con of Man."
4b)
http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,20867,19185172-2702,00.html
Jensen won't flagellate the Code
Jill Rowbotham, Religious affairs writer
May 19, 2006
"PRETTY slow-moving," declared Archbishop Peter Jensen after attending
one of the first Sydney sessions of The Da Vinci Code.
"It's a bit long," he added yesterday.
There was a distinct - possibly ominous - lack of indignation from one
of Australia's top Anglicans, given it is controversy that has fed the
public appetite for Dan Brown's wildly successful novel about the "true"
story of Jesus.
Dr Jensen mused that there had been "nothing to greatly offend" in the
film, besides Silas the murderous monk's unpleasant flagellation scenes.
"My faith in Jesus is very secure and that faith is based on history,"
Dr Jensen said. "I'm not offended. From the point of view of what it may
do to people who do not know the facts, that's a worry."
If, however, people were affected by it, the church should take some
responsibility for not teaching them the facts.
The film posits that Jesus married Mary Magdalene and had a child whose
descendants are alive today.
The theory says the legendary "holy grail" is Mary's bloodline and proof
of that has been safeguarded by a dedicated band of believers despite a
church-based conspiracy to destroy it.
"What the film does is raise the question of 'who is Jesus Christ?"' Dr
Jensen said. "It does it in the form of a salvation story. In this case,
it's salvation from the church: can the truth about Jesus save us from
the evil church which has oppressed humankind and especially women and
the poor?
"And if the truth about Jesus ... comes out, the power of the church
will be broken, Jesus will be saved himself, so to speak, and a better
religion will emerge." The film offered a false choice, between seeing
Jesus as human or divine whereas Christianity says he is both.
Dr Jensen sees the novel and film as products of an age in which the
space vacated by Christianity in the West has been filled by more
generalised religious experience he calls "spiritualities". "The Da
Vinci Code is simply the froth on top of the spirituality wave," he
said.
One of the main characters speculates near the end of the film that
maybe "the human is divine". This was a "typically new-age" view, in
which "we worship ourselves, we are divine. The evidence of history
tells us we are not divine".
Dr Jensen urged people to take the opportunity to talk and think about
Jesus. "The movie is not important, but the subject it raises is
immensely important ... Are we going to continue on the track with
Christianity, or go back to old paganism which really says that human
beings are divine? Which is it to be?"
4c) http://www.thedavincidialogue.com/
-an official Da Vinci Code website set up by Sony Pictures, encouraging
critiques by Christians.
4d)
http://www.canada.com/nationalpost/news/story.html?id=fbddd6ac-7146-4e67-b3ea-603b47d44a07&k=37225
Christian ad about Code gets pulledTheatre chain drops spot that was to
appear before film
Brian Hutchinson, National PostPublished: Friday, May 19, 2006
VANCOUVER - A movie house commercial that encourages churchgoers to see
and discuss Hollywood thriller The Da Vinci Code has been dropped by
Canada's largest cinema chain, which said the ad was part of a religious
campaign to "stalk" unsuspecting film patrons.
The 10-second spot was produced by evangelical Christians and was to be
shown for the next month inside 65 Cineplex cinemas in Ontario and
Western Canada.
The ad directs people to a Christian Web site
http://www.discussdavinci.com devoted to the controversial film, which
opens across North America today.
Cineplex Entertainment LP is promoting the movie heavily; however, on
Wednesday, the company abruptly cancelled its $63,000 advertising deal
with Campus Crusade for Christ Canada, a B.C.-based affiliate of the
world's largest evangelical Christian organization, CCC
International(...)
Reached at her office in Toronto, Cineplex spokeswoman Pat Marshall said
it was not, in fact, her company's view that Campus Crusade planned to
harass moviegoers. The e-mail that Cineplex sent to the organization was
a "mistake." Ms. Rajh, she added, "is misinformed."
Cineplex's decision to drop the brief spot was made because the company
"does not show any religious advertising at all," Ms. Marshall
explained, even if it promotes a film the company is showing in its
theatres. The contract with Campus Crusade was made in error. "It
slipped though the cracks."
But Campus Crusade officials note that their ad made no reference to
religion at all; rather, it showed an image of Leonardo's famous
painting, the Mona Lisa, and a tag line that read, "Seek the Truth."
The ad then revealed the address to a Web site operated by Campus
Crusade, where people can discuss The Da Vinci Code and read Christian
perspectives about the film.
That argument did not sway Ms. Marshall. Even if the ad was not overtly
religious, "it was made by a religious organization. And we don't accept
advertising from any religious group."
Famous Players, a Canadian cinema chain bought out by Cineplex last
year, accepted advertising from Campus Crusade when it screened The
Passion of the Christ two years ago. The movie went on to become one of
the highest-grossing films ever.
bhutchinson@nationalpost.com
4e)
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/RTGAM.20060519.wxcrusade19/BNStory/Entertainment/home
Christian crusaders want to discuss Da Vinci
OMAR EL AKKAD
From Friday's Globe and Mail
5) http://www.reason-for-hope.com
The Rev'd Dr. Gil Stieglitz lite.
During a recent visit to Vancouver for the 19th Annual Renewal Mission
2006, Dr. Gil presented seven talks which have been captured on 3 DVDs
and are available for the bargain price of 30.00, including taxes and
shipping. The titles are:
How to Have a Personal Revival
How to Have a Healthy Church
How to Mourn (Processing Pain, Grief and Loss)
How to Draw Near to God
How to Build a Healthy and Vibrant Church (breaking the 200 barrier)
How to Draw the Power of God into Your Life
How to Build a Marriage of Great Joy.
To order go to www.reason-for-hope.com/stieglitz
Thursday, May 18, 2006
SUnday May 21st 2006
Hi. Gather at the Bowlers' at five followed by supper. The youth group will be at Riverbend with Youth Unlimited (YFC).
Sunday, May 14, 2006
TIME Magazine Archive Article -- There's No Pulpit Like Home -- Mar. 06, 2006
Here is an interesting Time magazine article on house churches.
Friday, May 12, 2006
Monday, May 08, 2006
Sunday, May 14th 2006
Hello Everyone,
This week we will be meeting at the Bowlers' home on Beaton in Comox.
5-6 Service
6-7 Potluck Dinner
7-8 Discussion time
God bless,
Martin
For more information call 339-4359
This week we will be meeting at the Bowlers' home on Beaton in Comox.
5-6 Service
6-7 Potluck Dinner
7-8 Discussion time
God bless,
Martin
For more information call 339-4359
Thursday, May 04, 2006
Sunday, May 07-2006
Hello everyone,
This is just to inform you we will meet as usual this week at the Davies' home on Pridy Rd. from 5-7. David, Jannice and the family are home. We have no set plan for the 'study ' section this week. Perhaps we could all put on our prayer and thinking caps and give some thought and prayer as to what we'd like to do for the next while.
The evening will be:- study or planning 5-6pm, pot-luck and fellowship 6-7pm
I know Larry, Judy and Ben will not be able to make it this week.
God bless and see you Sunday.
Martin
If there are any changes to this plan for Sunday, I will e-mail you all on Saturday, so check you machines then.
This is just to inform you we will meet as usual this week at the Davies' home on Pridy Rd. from 5-7. David, Jannice and the family are home. We have no set plan for the 'study ' section this week. Perhaps we could all put on our prayer and thinking caps and give some thought and prayer as to what we'd like to do for the next while.
The evening will be:- study or planning 5-6pm, pot-luck and fellowship 6-7pm
I know Larry, Judy and Ben will not be able to make it this week.
God bless and see you Sunday.
Martin
If there are any changes to this plan for Sunday, I will e-mail you all on Saturday, so check you machines then.
Monday, May 01, 2006
Archbishop of Canterbury on "The Gospel of Judas"
Article written for the Mail on Sunday newspaper
16th April 2006
A few days ago, I finally got my copy of the Gospel of Judas that people have been talking about. And no, in case you’re wondering, it didn’t make me tear up the New Testament and start looking for a new job.
It’s actually a fairly conventional book of its kind — and there were dozens like it around in the early centuries of the Church. People who weren’t satisfied with the sort of thing the New Testament had to say spent quite a lot of energy trying to produce something which suited them better.
They wanted Christian teaching to be a matter of exotic and mystical information, shared only with an in-group. So a lot of these books imagine Jesus having long conversations with various people whose names are in the Bible but who we don’t know much about. This, they claim is the real thing— not the boring stuff in the official books. Don’t believe the official version, they say. The truth has been concealed from you by sinister conspiracies of bishops and suchlike villains, but now it can be told.
I suppose that explains why there’s always such an interest in stories about ‘lost’ books coming to light. Think of the massive international industry around the Da Vinci Code: it’s exciting to think of conspiracies and cover-ups when trust in traditional institutions is low. The same sort of thing seems to have happened with the history of the Church and its Bible.
But here’s the problem. We're familiar with a world of cover up stories; we’re on safer ground with their cynicism and worldly wisdom; they are less challenging and don't force us to confront difficult realities. And, like any kind of cynicism, it actually stops us hearing anything genuinely new or surprising. We need to stop and ask ourselves from time to time just why the cynical version is the one that appeals to us , is it just because we can cope much more easily with the picture of a world that always works by manipulation and deceit? Don’t we want to see anything more challenging? Are we just too lazy to recognise something really fresh, something that hints at a bigger and a better world?
The people who wrote the Gospel of Judas were trying to persuade their readers that everyone before them had got Jesus wrong, and that the folk who ran the churches were only in it for their own profit (never mind that these leaders and their followers regularly faced death for what they believed, just as some believers still do now, as we’ve been reminded in recent weeks). This story in itself was an easy option, something that couldn’t ever be completely disproved but would create a climate of mistrust.
But why were those writers not satisfied with what the Bible says? It becomes a lot clearer when we compare the Jesus of the Bible with the Jesus of these other documents.
In the new ‘gospel’, Jesus is made out to be a mystery man, a guru. He laughs mockingly when the disciples try to understand what he’s about. He is said to reveal the mystic names of heavenly powers, and to explain how the universe was created by inferior angels. He claims that the soul is only a very temporary dweller in the body. And Judas is told repeatedly that only he understands Jesus, not the other, dimwitted, disciples. It’s the standard kind of teaching you expect from gurus of a certain sort.
Now turn to the New Testament. Here is the real Jesus who actually has a recognisable human setting. His favourite method of teaching is to tell sharp and sometimes satirical stories of ordinary life, with a sting in the tail. He doesn’t suffer fools (especially religious fools) gladly, but he has all the time in the world for those who are thought to be failures. He is a straightforward, not a cynical man. He likes being with children. He knows his disciples don’t fully understand him and sometimes it makes him angry, but he goes on loving and trusting them. When he’s faced with a horrible and unavoidable death, he trembles and cries, but goes on with it.
When the Jesus of the Gospels comes back from the dead, he doesn’t go and crow over his enemies, he meets his friends and tells them to get out there and talk about him — about what his life and death have made possible, about forgiveness, making peace, being honest about yourself, checking the temptation to judge and condemn, tackling your selfishness at the root, praying simply and trustingly.
This is flesh and blood. It’s not about exotic mysteries. It is about how God makes it possible for us to live a life that isn’t paralysed by guilt, aggression and pride. It asks us to come down to earth and face what’s wrong with us. Is it surprising that some people found this too direct, too in-your-face to cope with? No wonder they preferred to go on about the names of angels and the secrets of how the world began.
Let’s ask ourselves why we’re sometimes more comfortable with such stories about conspiracies and stories about mystical gurus. Is it perhaps because when we turn to what the Bible actually says, Jesus challenges us pretty seriously? What if this is a story we haven’t really listened to before? And what if everything could be different because of this particular story?
That’s the question we ought to be asking at Easter. What if this surprising character in the New Testament is not just another teacher, another guru, but someone who really could change the world? Everything truly can be different because of the real story of Jesus, the Son of God.
Well, that is the real front-page story, bigger than any story about the discovery of a lost document and ultimately more exciting than any number of conspiracy theories.
And that’s perhaps why the Bible story is still being told two thousand years on, by people who have discovered that the world and their lives really have changed.
ENDS
© Rowan Williams 2006
Lambeth Palace press office
Tel: 0207 898 1280
Fax: 0207 261 1765
Top
16th April 2006
A few days ago, I finally got my copy of the Gospel of Judas that people have been talking about. And no, in case you’re wondering, it didn’t make me tear up the New Testament and start looking for a new job.
It’s actually a fairly conventional book of its kind — and there were dozens like it around in the early centuries of the Church. People who weren’t satisfied with the sort of thing the New Testament had to say spent quite a lot of energy trying to produce something which suited them better.
They wanted Christian teaching to be a matter of exotic and mystical information, shared only with an in-group. So a lot of these books imagine Jesus having long conversations with various people whose names are in the Bible but who we don’t know much about. This, they claim is the real thing— not the boring stuff in the official books. Don’t believe the official version, they say. The truth has been concealed from you by sinister conspiracies of bishops and suchlike villains, but now it can be told.
I suppose that explains why there’s always such an interest in stories about ‘lost’ books coming to light. Think of the massive international industry around the Da Vinci Code: it’s exciting to think of conspiracies and cover-ups when trust in traditional institutions is low. The same sort of thing seems to have happened with the history of the Church and its Bible.
But here’s the problem. We're familiar with a world of cover up stories; we’re on safer ground with their cynicism and worldly wisdom; they are less challenging and don't force us to confront difficult realities. And, like any kind of cynicism, it actually stops us hearing anything genuinely new or surprising. We need to stop and ask ourselves from time to time just why the cynical version is the one that appeals to us , is it just because we can cope much more easily with the picture of a world that always works by manipulation and deceit? Don’t we want to see anything more challenging? Are we just too lazy to recognise something really fresh, something that hints at a bigger and a better world?
The people who wrote the Gospel of Judas were trying to persuade their readers that everyone before them had got Jesus wrong, and that the folk who ran the churches were only in it for their own profit (never mind that these leaders and their followers regularly faced death for what they believed, just as some believers still do now, as we’ve been reminded in recent weeks). This story in itself was an easy option, something that couldn’t ever be completely disproved but would create a climate of mistrust.
But why were those writers not satisfied with what the Bible says? It becomes a lot clearer when we compare the Jesus of the Bible with the Jesus of these other documents.
In the new ‘gospel’, Jesus is made out to be a mystery man, a guru. He laughs mockingly when the disciples try to understand what he’s about. He is said to reveal the mystic names of heavenly powers, and to explain how the universe was created by inferior angels. He claims that the soul is only a very temporary dweller in the body. And Judas is told repeatedly that only he understands Jesus, not the other, dimwitted, disciples. It’s the standard kind of teaching you expect from gurus of a certain sort.
Now turn to the New Testament. Here is the real Jesus who actually has a recognisable human setting. His favourite method of teaching is to tell sharp and sometimes satirical stories of ordinary life, with a sting in the tail. He doesn’t suffer fools (especially religious fools) gladly, but he has all the time in the world for those who are thought to be failures. He is a straightforward, not a cynical man. He likes being with children. He knows his disciples don’t fully understand him and sometimes it makes him angry, but he goes on loving and trusting them. When he’s faced with a horrible and unavoidable death, he trembles and cries, but goes on with it.
When the Jesus of the Gospels comes back from the dead, he doesn’t go and crow over his enemies, he meets his friends and tells them to get out there and talk about him — about what his life and death have made possible, about forgiveness, making peace, being honest about yourself, checking the temptation to judge and condemn, tackling your selfishness at the root, praying simply and trustingly.
This is flesh and blood. It’s not about exotic mysteries. It is about how God makes it possible for us to live a life that isn’t paralysed by guilt, aggression and pride. It asks us to come down to earth and face what’s wrong with us. Is it surprising that some people found this too direct, too in-your-face to cope with? No wonder they preferred to go on about the names of angels and the secrets of how the world began.
Let’s ask ourselves why we’re sometimes more comfortable with such stories about conspiracies and stories about mystical gurus. Is it perhaps because when we turn to what the Bible actually says, Jesus challenges us pretty seriously? What if this is a story we haven’t really listened to before? And what if everything could be different because of this particular story?
That’s the question we ought to be asking at Easter. What if this surprising character in the New Testament is not just another teacher, another guru, but someone who really could change the world? Everything truly can be different because of the real story of Jesus, the Son of God.
Well, that is the real front-page story, bigger than any story about the discovery of a lost document and ultimately more exciting than any number of conspiracy theories.
And that’s perhaps why the Bible story is still being told two thousand years on, by people who have discovered that the world and their lives really have changed.
ENDS
© Rowan Williams 2006
Lambeth Palace press office
Tel: 0207 898 1280
Fax: 0207 261 1765
Top
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
