i could be brave

Friday, January 20, 2006

The Sacred Masculine and Other Important Stuff

Categories: Books • Life • Religion • Writing

I originally had planed to have this post be about the Sacred Masculine as some sort of joke based off of the preponderance of The Davinci Code believers I've bumped into lately. It was going to be an ironic reaction to the silliness I perceive in it all. However, I did a search on Google for the term and found that it was something that a large number of people seem to take quite seriously. I decided in turn that I should probably take it a little more seriously myself.

If you haven't heard of The Davinci Code you have likely been living under a rock in the Antarctic. Because of this I have no remorse going over the basic idea behind the story and how it compares to actual history not written by fictional characters or conspiracy theory buffs. The idea isn't a new one, and while The Davinci Code's take on it is somewhat unique and presented in an incredibly entertaining way, it also isn't something quite as earth shattering as the uninformed would like to think it is. It certainly doesn't challenge the basic tenants of the Christian faith nearly as thunderously as the book itself leads the reader to think.

But, just so I can prove that I am scatter brained, I wanted to mention a few other things first.

I'm writing this entry using a markup language called Markdown. Basically Markdown is a simplified way of typing out text for the web. It makes it quicker and easier to add links italic text, heading tags, etc. This simplified text markup (get it...Markdown...?) is then run through a script that turns it into the actual html code. I'm really enjoying it. I think it's pretty cool.

Also what is it with people and not knowing the difference between Physician Assisted Suicide and Euthanasia? These are separated in an entirely fundamental way. In one the person is being provided with the means to kill themselves after they have requested those means. In the other a doctor is carrying out the killing themselves and without the person necessarily making the decision that they want to die. A doctor may see a case of Euthanasia as a mercy killing but it is not the same as Physician Assisted Suicide. Don't think they are. Please!

Oregon has a Physician Assisted Suicide law that allows people to request the means to end their lives when they are terminally ill. The Netherlands has legalized Euthanasia that has been put into affect to end the lives of humans that did not ask for their life to be ended. These are facts. Simple truths. I don't want to go into how I feel about the two topics but I do feel strongly that people need to know the difference. I get scary Orwellian/Huxlian shivers when I hear people say there should be legalized Euthanasia in the US. I don't think most of the people realize what they are saying. (Dang there I went gave my opinion)

OK, on to the The Davinci Code stuff.

The premise behind The Davinci Code is that the legend of the Holy Grail is not actually about a cup but about a person. The person in question being Mary Magdalene. If you read through the previous link you will discover there there is some contention as to whether there was one, two, or maybe even three different women in the bible named Mary who could have been Mary Magdalene. Which ones were actually em Mary Magdalene? Good question. To further confuse matters both the Catholic and Greek Orthodox churches disagree on where she went after her time spent as one of the women attending to Jesus. Even further obscuring her story is the fact that Pope Gregory the Great said that Mary of Bethany was a prostitute during a sermon. As you might have read in the link about Mary Magdalene, the church and historians in general are not entirely sure that Mary of Bethany was actually Mary Magdalene. This statement was not a statement of doctrine. However, it did become a teaching in the Catholic church (The Catholic church has since dropped this teaching). Mind you, the Orthodox church never believed this was true. I'm talking of all of this because it gives an idea of how historically there has been some confusion as to who she was and what she did. More importantly I want to establish that while the Catholic church did vilify her through Pope Gregory's sermon that became teaching, the rest of the Christian church did not. This will become important latter in my post.

In The Davinci Code it is basically stated that Jesus was not divine (he was not God's son, nor was he God). Jesus was not only not divine, he was in a sexual relationship with Mary Magdalene. Not only that but she was pregnant with his child. The Davinci Code presents the idea that in reality Jesus' message was about the Sacred Feminine and how important that idea was. The other disciples and indeed the Christian church in general was so threatened by this idea of Mary Magdalene being Jesus' favored one and by the idea of his not being divine that they instigated a smear campaign against her and against women and Pagan beliefs (those being centered around nature, the sacred feminine, and the sacred masculine) in general. The campaign is begun by Emperor Constantine calling the second Christian council typically referred to as the Nicene Council. (The council was called due to the need for their to be some sort of agreement about whether Jesus was indeed exactly the same as God. It is worth noting that Constantine was apparently partial to the Jesus was not the same as God side. More on that in a moment.) The gospels in the Bible are actually designed to deny Mary Magdalene her rightful place as Jesus' favorite (The Gospels of Thomas, Philip and Mary Magdalene, often referred to as the Gnostic gospels, are the more accurate ones). A part of this campaign involves killing those who won't convert and then adopting their symbols for the purposes of furthering Christianity as we know it. This campaign is incredibly successful and eventually no one knows the truth anymore.

Mary Magdalene then travels to France (the Catholic tradition has her traveling to France as well, though minus the child of Jesus) and lives out the rest of her days with Jesus' child. Mary and Jesus' children become a sacred bloodline that the Catholic church is constantly trying to execute. Meanwhile a secret society by the name of The Priory of Scion takes it upon themselves to protect this knowledge of Jesus' relationship with Mary Magdalene from the clutches of the Catholic church who would like nothing better than to eliminate all proof that it was ever the case.

Against this theme the book plays out in modern times and the truth about Jesus and Mary Magdalene is revealed in spectacular short snippets as the characters run from an Opus Dei monk bent on killing them and stealing the secret in order to bury it for good.

It is important to acknowledge the fact that The Davinci Code is a work of fiction though the author does cloud this fact somewhat by stating in the beginning that the book is partially based on some facts:

The Priory of Scion was a real organization. Whether they are still around in their original form is not really known (from what I have read it is unlikely). However, the Mason's are definitely still around and they were closely related at one time. They could still be around. Their secret could be about Mary Magdalene. No one really knows.

Davinci was an incredibly talented and secretive person. He did have an obvious penchant for trying to annoy the Catholic church. Though that isn't a terribly unusual thing for an artist.

The Opus Dei is a real organization within the Catholic church. Opus Dei has been accused of being too extreme. They do not represent the entire Catholic church or even a significant portion of it. They do seem to have a lot of money.

There are some other things he mentions in his facts section but they don't play a part in regards to the Mary Magdalene part of the story.

What is really important when examining how seriously to take the idea put forth in this novel is how credible it all is stacked up against what is really known to be true. First the Nicene council happened in 325 AD. The first of the four Gospels (Luke) was written around 65-80. The others were written some time from then until 120 AD which is considered to be the latest possible publish date of the Gospel of John (the youngest of the four gospels). The Gospel of Thomas is typically dated around 50-140 AD. The Gospel of Mary Magdalene is dated around 150 to 200 AD. The Gospel of Philip is dated around 180-250AD. All of the Gospels are believed to be based at least partially on an earlier source of Jesus' teachings that has not survived. This source is typically referred to as Q (Yes, like the gadget guy in James Bond movies).

Publish dates are considered very important in the historical study of the Gospels. This is because they give an idea of where theological thought progressed after the time of Jesus' death. The dates also give some idea of the probable accuracy of the writing. Writing published closer to the time something actually happened is less likely to contain errors due to removal from the subject and due to the influence of cultural norms or ideas that might have changed since the subject of the writing lived. Another thing considered in respect to biblical writings is the evidence that text has been changed or edited.

The Gospel of Thomas is possibly the earliest of the Gospels in question here. However, the evidence would seem to point to it's not being very stable. There are a number of versions that have been found and the later ones are significantly different than the earlier ones. More importantly, they different in ways that the later Gnostic influence would have wished. In short, the Gospel of Thomas as we have it today isn't the Gospel of Thomas as it was apparently written. Thus the large date span of 40-140 AD.

The other Gnostic Gospels are demonstrably younger than than four that are typically considered the official Gospels. It becomes more difficult with this knowledge to place such importance on their interpretation of Mary's relationship with Jesus.

More importantly in my opinion is that the official Gospels still have Mary Magdalene as the one who discovers that Jesus has risen from the dead. Hardly the part you give to an individual that you are trying to malign. She is the one who immediately understands what is going on while the rest of the disciples mutter under their breath uncertainly. If these gospels were meant to malign her they don't do a good job of it by giving her a pivotal role in the finale. Also as I mentioned earlier, only the Catholic church called Mary Magdalene a prostitute. And while the Catholic church would like to think it is the only one. That has never been the case. The other half of the church at the time (the Greek and Eastern Orthodox churches) never made these assertions. In all of the practices she is a Saint which is hardly a marginalized position to be in.

Now what about the Nicene Council? Well, it came about because Christianity was split between two viewpoints. One believed the Jesus was the same as God. The other side felt Jesus was not quite the same. This group was coming from the Jewish viewpoint that there is only one God. In their minds that meant that while Jesus was divine and therefore was above the Angels in heaven he could not be equal with God. Please take notice of the fact that neither side was saying he was merely a great guy, or simply just a human. I'm way over simplifying this but that is the gist of it. You will also note that neither side was overly concerned with Mary Magdalene. Dan Brown's Nicene Council was basically all about Mary Magdalene and how best to prevent her story from leaking out. More importantly Constantine was originally supportive of the side that didn't believe Jesus was the same as God. However, after the deliberations and the agreement was reached that he was indeed the same as God (the idea of the Trinity being instrumental in this) Constantine went with the agreed upon viewpoint. This is hardly the way Dan Brown explains things in his novel. And that is quite simply because the historical accounts don't back up his story.

I think I have demonstrated, at least as much as possible without writing a book about it, that Christianity as a whole did not have any vested interest in vilifying Mary Magdalene. Nor was early Christianity overly concerned with whether or not she and Jesus had sex and produced offspring. This idea that they had a relationship isn't new but it also isn't something most Christians seemed worth bothering with because they didn't believe it. It was as far as reputable scholars can tell a result of Gnostics adopting Jesus and some of his principles for their own purposes and their own beliefs. Gnostics were around before Jesus and they were around after.

Now, how did early Christians feel about Pagan religions? That part of Dan Brown's story telling is true. The Catholic church did appropriate other religion's symbols. It did murder people in order to expedite other's conversions. The problem here is that the church is a human creation. And to put it quite simply, people (humans) suck. Lest anyone think I forgot about the evil Opus Dei I'll address them quickly as well. Opus Dei has a huge number of members and most of them appear to be completely sincere in efforts to please and worship God. Indeed to Dan Brown's credit the monk in Opus Dei was sincere himself, if seriously misguided. There will always be room in a human creation for abuses of power. It would appear that Opus Dei has at times abused it's power. I don't know enough about it to really say much more. But a quick search on Google found ODAN which is enough to make me not want much to do with them. Though I would be interested to talk to a member myself to see with my own eyes whether their wrongs are the rule or the exception to it.

Which brings me to my second to last problem with The Davinci Code. The novel makes the case, indirectly but undeniably, that the Pagan religions, specifically those that worshiped the Sacred Feminine, would have resulted in a happy little world with no sadness or pain had they been allowed to run their course without the evil Catholic church. This assertion is absolutely ridiculous which is, I think, why Dan Brown only intimated it and never outright said it. People are capable of being evil regardless of what religion they are or are not linked to. History is full of examples of that fact. Does the Catholic church have a little way to go in regards to Male and Female equality in some ways? Yes. Is it focused on destroying any sense of the positive aspects of the Female person? I don't think so. It's fixation with the mother of Jesus is evidence of that.

My final problem with the book is that I simply have trouble believing in the Catholic church's ability to do such a bang up job of hiding the truth for so long. If there is anything the Catholic church has shown itself incapable of successfully hiding, the truth would be that thing (And thank God for that). Censoring Galileo didn't work. They didn't stop Darwin or Martin Luther either. People don't just suck in regards to how they treat each other, they suck at keeping secrets too.

Now, I love conspiracy theories. My friends can attest to that. But this is one that is harder to buy than most. And I don't really buy any of them. They sure are a good read though aren't they?

I mentioned writing a book about this would be relatively easy. In fact I know of two books written about the issues found in The Davinci Code that make it's credibility suspect. I haven't done more than glance at either and can't say how good a job they do. However, they very likely did better than I managed here.

So I guess in closing I want to make a few things clear. I don't believe the Catholic church's hands are clean. There were some terrible things carried out in the name of God and Jesus by Popes, Priests, and other members of the Catholic church. I don't think the Catholic church is perfect now. I don't think it, or any other church, ever will be perfect. Yet it is still the church that I identify the most with. I still find beauty in its symbols (both the appropriated ones and the more original ones). I still find beauty in its quiet service. And even though I was brought up in the church I still respect women. I don't worship the Sacred Feminine; but then I don't worship the Sacred Masculine either. I'm not sure I see anything particularly sacred about either sex. One thing made very clear in the Bible is that the ordinary human Man is very much incomplete without an ordinary human Woman by his side (not behind, not in front). To believe that one sex needs the other to be whole is not to belittle either one, but to recognize how incredibly important both are to each other.

May we all be so luck as to someday be whole.

Posted by Jamie at 12:47 AM