Out Loud And Proud

Paraphrasing one of Oscar Wilde’s many cynical observations on human nature, there’s only one thing worse than being talked about, and that’s not being talked about. Based on that premise, the Church should make the author of “The Da Vinci Code” honorary Chairman of the Board because he has done more to revive talk about the life of Christ among both believers and disbelievers than the Pope himself. What I find extremely interesting is that Dan Brown’s fictional reappraisal of Christ didn’t involve anything which could remotely be construed as obscene or immoral. As Pamela Hanson observed in one of her recent articles in The Sunday Times, he isn’t being portrayed as a murderer or pedophile or homosexual or philanderer. Were such the case, then the vehement reactions that the book has generated would be warranted and justifiable. But what’s the big deal about Christ possibly being married and having children? All the other Biblical prophets did it. That Christ was half-man half-deity shouldn’t necessarily exclude the possibility of his engaging in sexual relations. After all, the whole pantheon of Greek and Roman man-gods weren’t averse to doing it either. The comparison between the fanciful ideology of the ancient Greeks and modern Christian ideology will undoubtedly raise a hord of hackles because today we understand that the Greek Gods were mythical fabrications of the mind constructed in an attempt to explain the relationship between man and the inexorable forces of nature; between the mysteries of human life and mortality. However, getting down to the bare bones of it (excuse the pun), explaining life, death and the afterlife are three metaphysical preoccupations which lie at the core of both ideologies. Commonalties between Greek mythology and Christian theology aren’t too hard to spot. Its just that one is called theology because its recent and the other is called mythology because its ancient. Since Greek was the language of choice for the writers of the Gospels, it isn’t too far-fetched to imagine that the man-God construct central to ancient Greek culture might have coloured the Gospel writers’ attempts to explain the biggest mystery of all : Christ’s disappearance after burial. With a body never being found, Christ is history’s most sensational unclosed criminal file.

The nature of mortality is defined solely by the reality of death. Alternately, the nature of divinity is defined by the absence of death. Mortality and divinity must therefore be mutually exclusive. However the Greeks didn’t think so, nor it seems did the Gospel writers. So what makes the Greek man-gods fanciful and the gospel authors’ thesis of Christ as the divine mortal credible? Nothing really, besides documented accounts of non-witnesses which historically verify that Christ was a living person who supposedly experienced death and survived it. Convincing enough as credentials for a claim to divinity. But then, according to Christian theology, aren’t all Christians expected to look forward to the same experience? Doesn’t that make all Christians part divine? Granted, Christians have a longer wait to experience resurrection than Christ did, but this is one instance where timing is not of the essence.

If resurrection is to be the common fate of all lesser mortals, then the resurrection of Christ kind of loses its significance. Perhaps the whole event was just God’s greatest presentation of proof that mortals survive death-for greater mortals, immediately; for lesser mortals, eventually. Likewise, Christ’s claim to be the Son of God isn’t incontrovertible evidence of exclusivity in the divinity stakes since the Old Testament is littered with Sons of God. Take King David for example. Lets go the whole hog (no offence intended) and throw in all the children of Israel, and the claim to exclusivity narrows considerably. So if all the Judaic prophets, who were sprung from the Israelite loins of the children of God, got married and had children themselves, what on earth is so shocking about Christ having done the same? Because it wouldn’t have made him unique; The One and Only. And like all the monotheistic religions, Christianity thrives on claims of exclusivity. Jews rest their case solely on the fact that they’re Jewish and therefore they’re always right. That, and the God’s Chosen People award. As for Muslims- well lets not go there. Prophet Muhammed existed after the Risen Christ, making him persona non grata; besides which, he had the audacity to reinforce the Judaic tradition of mortal prophethood.

So what could have persuaded Jews to become followers of Christ when Christ didn’t exactly fit the bill of the anticipated politically empowered Jewish-liberating Messiah. They already had their fair share of miracle-making prophets such as Prophet Ezekiel who resurrected many people during his ministry yet remained soundly rooted in the world of mortals. Jewish converts would have regarded the resurrection of Christ as a sign of the greatness of God rather than proof of the divinity of Christ (which would have ground like sand-paper on their deeply entrenched monotheistic sensibilities). Reference to Christ as the Son of God wouldn’t have meant anything more or less than it did when addressed to other preceding Biblical prophets. I think the early Jewish converts found Christ appealing because he was the closest thing to a truly radical humanitarian reformer/redeemer that they’d seen in centuries. His innovative and enlightened vision of a Loving Merciful God rather than the Angry Vengeful God of the Torah was truly inspiring and irresistible. He also didn’t half kick hypocritical pocket-lining religious authorities in the teeth. Some might suggest that his second coming is overdue.

I suspect it is when Christ’s followers decided (against Christ’s instructions) to spread the word amongst gentiles that things started to get messy. Inasmuch as suggestions of Christ’s exclusive claim to literal divinity must have been played down (if they existed at all in that early period) when attempting to convert Jews, the exact opposite would have been exercised when appealing to pagans to convert. Hype up the demi-god inference of Christ’s mysterious disappearance. Make Christ’s birthday the same day as the birth of the Sun god; make Sunday the day of worship instead of the Sabbath (which Christ honoured) because Sunday was the day of the week which pagans dedicated to their Sun god; lend Mary the mother of Christ some of the aura of the goddess Isis. Hey presto! Pagans convert and they hardly notice any difference. Only the names have changed. In a time when it took a month of Sundays to travel anywhere far beyond one’s immediate vicinity, it would have taken ages before the monotheistic Jewish converts back home got wind of all the modifications being made to their new faith. And, by virtue of the fact that they were now outnumbered, it would have been too late to do anything about the horrible truth of their circumstances: they, the first true believers, were now the heretics.

All humbug? Just another scoop of Da Vinci Code balderdash? Perhaps. But does it matter really whether Christ was a divine being (who was above having sexual relations but not above losing his temper or using racist slurs against gentiles or snapping at his mother). Or whether he was just a mortal being with all the needs and wants of any ordinary human, but given the extraordinary honour of delivering God’s message? Would it change anything about his message of love and sacrifice, or his exemplary goodness which has influenced millions of lives? It really shouldn’t. But it does matter because Christianity is an incarnational faith and without the dogma of Christ’s divinity, there would not be any Vatican Church. Instead, there would be a new reformist Jewish Temple. There would be no Christians but instead enlightened Jewish sectarians. However, isnt that what Christ strove to achieve? If that was not his principle goal and instead his intention was to start a whole new religion, then why during his entire life on earth did he remain a practicing Jew?

Till Christ’s Second Coming, I guess we’ll all have to bite the biscuit and believe what individually makes most sense to us (or doesn’t, since faith often requires the suspension of common sense). In the meantime, when one breaks down the bulk of evidence arguing for Christ’s divinity, it would seem that the strongest case for its validation is the disappearance of his body after the Resurrection. Which reminds me. What happened to Mary Magdalene’s body? It seems she also did a disappearing act after Christ’s last and final show of hands. Did she together with some female companions really run off to France of all places? (I mean, great chefs for sure but so xenophobic! And if they gave Joan of Arc a roasting what’s to say they wouldn’t have given a boatload of foreign women a harder time?) Or did she hang up her proselytizing shoes as soon as Christ left and head off to the hills to spend the rest of her life knitting skull caps? That would be bizarre considering we’re talking about Mary Magdalene, the fiercely loyal devotee, the first person to whom the Risen Christ so lovingly spoke; she whom he designated as the apostle to the apostles. How is it that no-one knows exactly where she died and was buried? Was it in Constantinople or Gethsemane or France, as a variety of sources claim? Frankly I think if Mary Magdalene did do a runner to either protect herself or spread the word or become a recluse, it’s a great shame it wasn’t she who got shipwrecked in Malta instead of St.Paul (as popular myth would have it). Since the Maltese at that time were probably still deeply immersed in the ancient religious worship of the sacred feminine, Mary would have got a right royal welcome. And perhaps the Maltese, great fighters at heart, would then have been the ones to ensure that nothing remotely like the patriarchal misogynistic institution which the Church of Christ soon evolved into would ever have had a chance to take root in Italy. The irony of such a thesis is hilarious.

Perhaps I should write a book about it (fictional of course, with the necessary disclaimer which Sony Pictures has so ludicrously been obliged to include in the Da Vince Code movie; something like:”Names have been changed to protect the innocent and the Undead”). Perhaps by the length of this letter some might sarcastically surmise that the proposed book is a work in progress. I’ll keep you posted.