Well, I finally got a chance to see the movie! I'd give it three stars (out of five). I saw it with a group of some one hundred college students from San Jose, Costa Rica. After the movie I was asked to do a brief presentation of the movie's main message and then to field questions from the audience.
The movie didn't start until 9 PM. We began the presentation and discussion at 12 midnight and went until 1.30 AM. I am happy to say that no one fell asleep! Nevertheless, my brain was not at its most alert and active state.
Below are some initial reflections upon seeing the moving and interacting with the college students:
1. The movie is not an exact replica of the book by Dan Brown. Interestingly, when Robert Langdon and Leigh Teabing have the infamous revelatory conversation with Sophie regarding the real origins of Christianity (Constantine choosing the four Gospels, Jesus being married, etc.), Langdon questions some of Teabing's conclusions. This was not so in the book. In addition, in the movie it is not as clear as the book about how this alternative view regarding Jesus and early Christianity is formulated (in other words what the sources are; i.e. Gnostic gospels).
2. Upon watching the movie I now think that there is a bigger issue lurking behind the movie, perhaps even more important than the issues of canonicity and Jesus' identity, if that were possible. One of the things this movie provokes is a suspicion for history itself and a general distrust for any group that claims to have the interpretation of what happened. With comments like, "History is written by the winners" and "the murderers become the heroes for those who write the histories" seem to illustrate an already prevalent attitude of suspicion towards our understanding of really happened in the past.
This phenomenon has existed for some time and is often referred to as postmodernism. Postmodernism is characterized by a general disdain for what are called metanarratives. "A metanarrative is an attempt to grasp the meaning and destiny of human history as a whole by telling a single story about it (Richard Bauckham)." Democracy, Globalization, Islam, Christianity, Modernism can all be considered metanarratives, ways of universalizing values and truths. So, why is this issue important, perhaps even more important than the issues of canon and Jesus' deity? I plan to write more on this in the near future, but for now suffice it to say that if people do not believe it is possible to know with any trustworthy certainty what actually happened in the past and that the only thing we do know comes from those who have picked and chosen what they have wanted to include for their own selfish agendas, then it is futile to discuss how the canon was formed and then use that canon to discuss Jesus' true identity (i.e. Son of God, divine, etc.). So, my question is, how can we convince these sorts of people that we can know what happened in the past, we can know the real and historical Jesus? And how can we convince them that our metanarrative is not like the other ones--it is not totalitarian, it does not squash the individual, it does not have a deviant political agenda? Stay tuned for some reflections at another time...
3. If you plan on having a discussion of the movie, here are a few things I would suggest.
a. First, see the movie by yourself before discussing it because it is different from the book in significant places.
b. Second, ask what the main message of the movie is. This is helpful for them to have to articulate this.
c. Then ask what are the sources the movie uses to establish the alternative explanation for Christianity and Jesus. In the movie the key sources are (1) the Gospel of Phillip; (2) The Gospel of Mary M. (3) the work of Da Vinci; his work is considered a viable source since he was a part of the Priory of Sion.;and (4) Teabing's interpretation of what happened at the Council of Nicea and Constantine's role in Christianity. Upon establishing the movie's sources I found it quite helpful to talk about each one: are they reliable sources, what do they teach, etc.? Da Vinci's stuff is easy to disqualify since the Priory of Sion actually never existed. Dan Brown based his research on a document that was forged by three Frenchmen who admitted to such fraud in grand jury testimony earlier this year. See the works of Ben Witherington and Darrell Bock on the Gospel of Phillip and the Gospel of Mary M for helpful comments on their value as sources on Christian origins. Regarding the Council of Nicea, consult any church history book or even the Internet to find out what really happened. Though no one will argue that Constantine is an angel, he had nothing to do with choosing books of the Bible or deciding whether Jesus was in the end divine or not!
4. Below are a list of some of the questions I was asked. You may find that you are asked similar questions:
A. What is Gnosticism?
b. What is the Gospel of Phillip? The Gospel of Mary Magdalene?
c. How were the books of the Bible chosen?
d. How can we use this movie to share the gospel?
e. Where there other Gospels circulating at the same time as the four canonical Gospels?
f. What happened at the Council of Nicea?
g. Who is Opus Dei?
h. What is the purpose of the four canonical Gospels?
i. What did you think about the last line of the movie, namely that all the really matters is faith, that faith is a mystery that we will never understand; the important thing is that we believe in something, and something is always in the end God?
j. How can we know for sure that the documents we have tell the true story about Jesus?
Well, that is all for now. Stay tuned for more thoughts on the movie and questions raised in this post...
No comments:
Post a Comment