by Anonymous Logician, Copyright April 16, 2007, all rights reserved. 680 views
I'm late as usual, but I recently saw The Da Vinci Code, and I have just a couple comments. First, presuppositions are vital to this debate–yet ignored. Opponents of historic Christianity generally treat its claims as equal to the myriad speculations that have come out of philosophical mouths for ages. Yet if Christianity is actually true, then it has volumes to say about this very process of judging. To treat the Christian canon as just another human collection–and from that basis to launch arguments against the faith–is to assume that Christians are wrong before you start. It's as though even when non-Christian thinkers try to assume Christian assumptions for the sake of argument, they still have an eyeball in their own spectacles. Somebody blow the whistle here.
The scene I have in mind takes place about halfway through the movie, when Ian McKellen is trying to persuade Tom Hanks that the church has covered up the true identity of Mary Magdelene since the early councils. McKellen reads from several apocryphal gospels which describe Mary as the wife of Jesus, insisting that, for whatever reason, the Nicene Council rejected these texts and set their own canon up instead. Completely absent is any mention of the Holy Spirit, who, as the divine force behind the Christian writings, would have also providentially intervened to ensure the selection of the proper books. Critics–and not just those like McKellen's character Leigh Teabing–want to fault Christianity for its supernaturalism while snatching away any benefits that might come from belief in the supernatural. Am I the only one who smells something fishy?
My second comment is simply that, theology aside, The Da Vinci Code was nicely done. Not spectacular, but an intriguing murder mystery well-shot by Ron Howard and featuring solid performances by Hanks and McKellen. Though McKellen must have had an easy time portraying a character with antipathy toward the Christian church.
-----