Da Vinci Code under fire while Anglican 'conspiracy' deepens

As it is Easter, the season of death and crucifixion as opposed to that of love and goodwill, I suppose it is inevitable that another brawl has broken out among the leaders of the Anglican Church. A few years ago, when we religious corrs were seeking a collective noun for a group of bishops, someone came up with the suggestion: 'A bully of bishops.' Never has this seemed more apt. According to Chris Morgan in The Sunday Times, one such group has issued an open letter urging Lord Carey to desist from alleged attacks on his successor Rowan Williams, while Lord Carey's supporters are busy rallying in his defence, the latest being an open letter backing him on the Anglicans For Israel site here. The strange thing about the open letter attacking Carey is we don't know who's actually written it, beyond 'supporters' of Dr Williams. I wonder if whoever is behind it will have the courage to own up or whether they will continue to hide behind the cloak of anonymity? And by heading it 'Dear Bishop Carey' as opposed to Lord Carey, are they being deliberately rude, or merely ignorant? Or possibly both?

Anyway, of much more interest than the eternal squabbles of the Anglican Church is what the Bishop of Durham, Dr Tom Wright, has to say on The Da Vinci Code. As we report Monday, he lays into Dan Brown's bestseller in a new Grove booklet, out soon. Robin Griffith-Jones, Master of the Temple, also has a new book out on the Code. Interviewed recently for us by Andrew Billen, Griffith-Jones has accommodated the vast number of new visitors to his church on the Da Vinci Code tourist trail by putting on weekly talks dedicated to the book. (His next talk is 21 April.) In addition, a survey by organisers of next month's Christian Resources Exhibition, where I happen to be chairing a debate on the book, shows that 13 per cent of churches will be holding some sort of event around the film, out next month. Although a small minority of Christians want both book and film banned, nearly eight out of ten are interested in discussing the issues it raises. You can read our leader on it here. You can also find links to other Easter Anglican sermons here.

I count myself among the number in favour of debate. As an avid fiction reader and fan of Dan Brown's earlier books, I read DVC when it first came out and found it a page-turner. However, like Brown himself, I was amazed by the scale of its subsequent success. More than 40 million copies have sold worldwide. But what amazed me even more was how upset churchgoers, in particular Catholics, were getting over it. I often fielded calls from readers demanding that I 'do something' to refute the claims in the book. I used to just laugh. Refute something that was clearly a work of fiction? What was everyone getting so upset about? I have to confess now that I did those early callers an injustice, I was slow to understand the impact the book was having.

The issues the book raises are however important. Not because it successfully challenges Christian tradition. It does no such thing. What is unnerving is what the whole affair has revealed about a credulous society willing to believe the latest conspiracy theory, even when presented in the guise of true fiction.

So I was fascinated to read Dr Wright's booklet on the subject, and even more interested to interview him over the telephone and hear what else he had to say. And here are a few of his further thoughts on the subject.

Dr Wright believes that both the reception given to the Gospel of Judas and to the Da Vinci Code reflect the mores of a society where individuals are dedicated to doing their 'own thing', whether that might be at a political level, such as 'bombing Iraq', or merely at a more personal level.

He says that Dan Brown has successfully tapped into a contemporary hope that Jesus was merely a "teacher" with special gifts and that all that it is necessary for anyone to do to lead a good life is look within themselves for "the divine".

He says: 'Historically, The Da Vinci Code is worthless. It is absolute rubbish historically. What is very teling about it is that Brown does not even attempt to deal with the question of how Christianity began. He does not even mention the resurrection of Jesus. The only serious explanation of how Christianity began is that Jesus really was raised from the dead. It is very difficult to explain the rest of Christianity without that. Basically, The Da Vinci Code is just a lot of surface noise. But it gets the popular ear because the default position of the Western world at the moment is one where everyone wants to believe Christianity is about self-discovery.  But Judaism and Christianity have always been about God rescuing us and transforming us in the process.'

The consequences of this were potentially catastrophic. 'If you believe the kingdom of God is inside you, you will not worry if the kingdoms of the world are making a lot of noise and bombing each other to bits. But if you believe Ceasar is not Lord, but Jesus is Lord, that imperative drives you to think about what is going on in the world and to work for justice in the world.

'At a time like this, when the American empire is running unchecked and talking about doing to Iran what it has done to Iraq, being told that Christianity is about introspection really cuts the nerve of the Christian political critique. It is an emasculation of the Judeo-Christian tradition. Classic Judaism and classic Christianity are about a creator God who cares for the world and will do something about it.
The sort of religions we see in The Da Vinci Code and The Gospel of Judas are about an escape from the world and a retreat into a private sphere.'

If he is right, that raises the prospect that there really are some pretty sinister conspiracies in the world right now, and DVC is the least of them. So come on, Anglican bishops, stop looking 'inwards' at what is going on in your own church and start talking prophetically about what is happening in the world. Don't let the conspirators win and, above all, don't join in with them yourselves. Churchgoers, and more importantly non-churchgoers, deserve better from the leaders of their nation's established church.

religion ruth gledhill Da Vinci Code Christianity

Comments

[Robert Johnson]

From the travel and tourism industry's point of view, The Da Vinci Code film is an opportunity to bring increased tourism and travel to the UK. But how sincere is this and what should Christians think about it?

This author's point of view is practical: sometimes 'bad' publicity is better than no publicity. Millions of people will see the film and many of them will come to Europe to visit locations used in the film. They will enter genuine holy sites and while there perhaps they will put aside the film's mixed message and have time to consider the beauty of the sites and think about God.

We at HolidayKeys would certainly recommend spending time near each of the sites. There are lots of bed and breakfasts and holiday cottages for rent around Lincoln Cathedral. For Rosslyn Chapel, just south of Edinburgh in Scotland, there are also many cute holiday cottages to rent. Even the north-west of Paris where Chateau de Villette is, there are French holiday villas.

[Dr Bob Davis]

Generally excellent programme tonight on BBC4, exposing both the fraud of the DVC and the need for serious minds to refute it. Ruth came across very strongly, especially in the comments about the Protestant imagination. In this sense (if in no other remotely connected with literary merit), Brown can be associated with Philip Pullman, who similarly harnasses Gnostic heresy in the service of a deep-seatedly anti-Catholic polemic.

Two shortcomings in my view in tonight's programme:

not enough done to lay bare the mendacity and deception at the heart of The Holy Blood and the Holy Grail and the burgeoning nonsense of Rennes-le-chateau

too much credence, still, given to the Gnostic Gospels, which fall far behind the canonical Gospels in terms of proximity to the first followers of Jesus of Nazareth, whatever one then chooses to make of their historicity

conference on DVC in Education Faculty of Glasgow Uni, 20 May 2006

[Dr Bob Davis]

Generally excellent programme tonight on BBC4, exposing both the fraud of the DVC and the need for serious minds to refute it. Ruth came across very strongly, especially in the comments about the Protestant imagination. In this sense (if in no other remotely connected with literary merit), Brown can be associated with Philip Pullman, who similarly harnasses Gnostic heresy in the service of a deep-seatedly anti-Catholic polemic.

Two shortcomings in my view in tonight's programme:

not enough done to lay bare the heart of The Holy Blood and the Holy Grail and the burgeoning nonsense of Rennes-le-chateau

too much credence, still, given to the Gnostic Gospels, which fall far behind the canonical Gospels in terms of proximity to the first followers of Jesus of Nazareth, whatever one then chooses to make of their historicity

[Keith Downer]

The apostle Paul wrote "And if Christ has not been raised, our preaching is useless and so is your faith" (NIV 1 Corinthians 15:14). In 1992, George Carey wrote in The Times "Belief in the resurrection is not an appendage to the Christian faith. It is the Christian faith."
Given our present knowledge of the world and the physical laws which govern it's behaviour, it is impossible to prove the resurrection of Christ actually took place - or, indeed, was even possible - yet millions and millions of supposedly sane individuals have based their faith on this unlikely event. Starting with the Disciples and other early Christians, countless numbers of believers have suffered torturous and agonising death rather than relinquish their belief in Jesus' resurrection, rather than recant their faith before their executioners. Even in today's society, statements made at the moment of death are recognised as deserving of special consideration.
None of which, of course, means anything to the atheist, the agnostic or those unwilling to believe. Over the years, I have followed and embraced every new scientific revelation with great excitement and interest, seen science fiction become reality, watched with amazement as something previously inexplicable has been explained and the true complexity of our existence revealed. If there is one thing I've learnt in my life, it is that nothing can be said - with absolute certainty - to be impossible! Where the Creator of everything we know is concerned, that is certainly true.

[Dr. Irene Lancaster]

Alistair, I agree about creationism. I would not let any child of mine attend a school where that rather new doctrine was taught. However, the point I am trying to make is that Judaism, the religion I know best, does not teach creationism. It has always taught that science and religion go hand in hand. Because of this, I would also be sceptical about the 'religiousity' of science, which is, after all, only a bundle of facts which fit theories that can be disproved by future generations.

In the modern age, the greatest rabbis (but certainly not all of them) have stated that the theory of evolution is not incompatible with religious truth and some have even said that humanity improves with the centuries and that 'the old' is not necessarily the best.

I have suggested before, and firmly believe this, that philosophy is a good antidote to the extremes of both 'faith' and scientific materialism. And more and more pupils are studying it.

On the other hand, I do think that we should learn about each other's faiths as well, although multicultural education has led to less textual based knowledge of Judaism and Christianity, which I think is a pity and has proved disastrous for the Jewish community in this country, as everyone thinks they know what Judaism is about, when, in actual fact, ignorance abounds.

If by musicals you are referring to 'Jerry Springer', which was shown on BBC, I had an interesting e-mail correspondence about this at the time with the BBC DG, Mark Thompson, who has recently been described by the Catholic Tablet newspaper as this country's most influential Catholic.

I said that in Judaism, you couldn't possibly insult God, as God is not a noun, but a verb. However, I felt that to satirize the figure of Jesus in the way the BBC did was to attack the religion of this country in the certain knowledge that the BBC would never attack Islam or Sikhism in similar fashion and was therefore extremely hypocritical of the BBC, as well as being gratuitously upsetting to many license payers, who are also Christians.

Libby Purves, in an article in the Times, accused the critics of this play as being Pharasaical, which shows how much she knows about Judaism: nothing. Because the Pharisees were in favour of interpretation and were the forerunners of the rabbis, who also favour interpretation. I asked myself at the time and ask myself now: why do people always resort to anti-Jewish stereotypes when they want to attack their Christian enemies.

However, what Libby Purves and Mark Thompson did not acknowledge was that both Jerry Springer himself and the director of the London musical also voiced their objections to the play being staged on the BBC, as it is a public-service broadcaster. One might ask: how is the public served by viewing this mockery of the deity?

As for the island: this is difficult. Many of your fellow bloggers know that I am emigrating to Israel very soon. There,in some towns or areas which are predominantly religious, public transport is shut down on Friday night and Saturday: in others, not.

However, no-one is prevented from using private transport or taxis. I would not like to judge an island I know very little about without having weighed up the pros and cons.

I do think however, that one could learn alot from Judaism, which although 'amiably barmy', as the Times put it once, at least does not force those who are not Jewish to follow suit, and certainly does not try to convert you.

As for satirisation of religion, if this leads to attacks on people, as the Jewish community has experienced in the UK and even more in France since 9/11, leading to an Exodus of Jews from these two countries, then I don't think it is a very good idea. However, Jews are very good at self-mockery and even at arguing with the deity: just look up Abraham on the fate of the people of Sodom.

I hope that this has answered some, if not all, of your questions. And isn't it a pity that we are not allowed to discuss these sorts of questions in schools or universities any more, at least not in the way that you would want.

As for the attack on the theatre staging the Sikh play, I disagreed with this attack, as if the same play had been written about rabbis in a synagogue, although I wouldn't like it, this was not the same as ridiculing God, even if in the case of Jesus-as-God, I don't believe in him.

You haven't mentioned the cartoons: I think that Islam should revert to its once famed sense of humour and recognize that the deity can take it and that their reaction is part of the infantilism and therefore lack of self-knowledge discussed in the previous blog.

So, despite what you say, I do not think that any of the reactions you describe in your posting can be compared to 9/11, 7/7, or other similar atrocities.

I apologize about my sermon, but put it down to your very pertinent points.

[Alistair McBay]

Irene, I absolutely agree that Islamic terrorism must be met full-on, but there are other types of religious extremism that must be tackled fully.

Should we not tackle the extremism about teaching creationism in school science classes, and with Government approval?

Should we not worry that ordinary folk are prevented, sometimes violently intimidated, into not watching plays and musicals other people don’t like? This is religious terrorism too.

Should we let people on a UK island shut it down on Sundays because they insist on imposing their religious beliefs on everyone else?

Should we not defend freedom of expression to satirise religion as hard as we defend freedom to practise it?

Your comments on infantile behaviour among clergy of all kinds seems to have echoes in the views of the school inspector who wrote to the Times last week. See http://www.timesonline.co.uk/newspaper/0,,174-2143670,00.html

[Dr. Irene Lancaster]

As far as I am concerned there is only one sort of religious extremism at the moment which is destroying life, and yes, I feel it should be tackled head-on. Any religion, belief system, etc which is half-way truthful should be able to cope with this type of treatment.

I also think, by the way, that all clerics, of whatever persuasion, religion, or creed, should undergo psychological analysis before receiving ordination, or other type of recognition. That should sort out the sheep from the goats, or whatever metaphor you care to use.

Having met a great many Anglican clergy, including Bishops, in my teaching life, I am struck with the infantile behaviour of most of them. If you wonder about my view of rabbis, any infantile behaviour in training for the rabbinate can be cured by studying midrash, which itself is a form of religious psychoanalysis. I am sure, however, that the ones who need it most are neither Christians or Jews.

I also think that Buddhist monks should go through this valuable type of training, as many who come to the West, suddenly 'flip' on meeting western women for the first time, so used are they to adulation and adoration back home.

But what do I know: being married to a psychologist I am probably biased from the outset.

[Alistair McBay]

Irene says that when the secular meets the extreme of religion half way, the voice of reason and compromise is lost, maybe for good. I presume from this she is arguing that the secular world should tackle religious extremism full on, but can you imagine the outcry from religious groups of all kinds if it did?

We already have anti-Semitism, Islamophobia and the Vatican has complained about Christianophobia. And I’d like to make the case for seculaphobia too! But we are all too quick to label valid criticism of our standpoints as incitement to religious hatred, and the modern ease with which we all claim offence, and whereby “extremists” like Christian Voice get a platform, deflects attention from the real extreme of religion, to use Irene’s words. DVC is a case in point, so too Jerry Springer the Opera, Behzti, Popetown – all offensive to some, yes, but nevertheless harmless all in the great scheme of things. Yet they have been the focus of outrage and occasionally violent reaction by religious groups. (Let’s not reopen any debate about cartoons). Thus we mix up the real extremists – like Hamas, Bin Laden, Ahmadinejad – with largely harmless cranks like those of Christian Voice.

Incidentally, to get back to the thrust of this thread, the Scottish Catholic Church has now announced it is to send a DVD, entitled Debunking the Da Vinci Myths, to all 60 Catholic schools and 500 parishes in Scotland. So, 2000 years of Catholic teaching and one hundred plus years of their own single faith, brainwashing schools notwithstanding, the Catholic Church sees DVC as a bigger conspiracy against Christianity than Islam, although the latter flatly denies the basic tenets of the Christian faith, and numbers 1bn adherents who assuredly believe they are right. 40 million holiday-makers looking for a mindless paperback who-dun-it for the beach don’t get Dan Brown out of the crank league in the conspiracy stakes. It doesn’t say much for the Catholic church’s ability to convince its congregation of its claims to absolute authority on the Christian story, does it? I would have thought Catholic homes were the last place it needed to be sent.

[Dr. Irene Lancaster]

A recent newspaper report has cited the police as stating that 10 of the attacks on Jews in Manchester were due to the Prince Harry Nazi armband fiasco last January (just before Holocaust Memorial Day) and that 11 were due to Ken Livingstone's populist and cleverly crafted gibes at Jewish Londoners.

In addition, one could cite sins both of commission and omission by important British institutions, such as the Royal Family (not just Harry), the BBC, the Church of England, newspapers like the Guardian and the Independent and the education system. The government has also contributed to the atmosphere in this country by pandering to antisemitic stereotypes in its depiction of Michael Howard as a pig, and then Fagin, Shylock and Svengali rolled into one, during the last general election.

Those Anglicans like Lord Carey, Ruth herself and groups wanting to put the record straight, such as Anglicans for Israel, as well as members of the Jewish community who dare to put their head above the parapet on these matters, are constantly attacked, ridiculed, defamed and rubbished by their detractors.

Is it any wonder that so many Jews of the Queen's age are telling me that the situation is now much worse here in Britain than it was in the 30s and 40s, whilst the cream of our youth have already emigrated to Israel.

However, what the Jewish community is now experiencing more than ever is that even people in the prime of their lives, with everything material to lose, are increasingly just upping sticks and leaving for Israel, as they feel that they have seen the writing on the wall.

The Jewish population of this country constitutes, as I have said before on this blog, only half a per cent of the population. So there is no way that they can stem the tide of antisemitism on their own. Where are the institutions and voices which would help them, I ask myself?

In my view, power understands power. And power which is no longer there, with the demise of the British Empire, is angry and resentful, so Britain seeks to 'understand' the voices of terror, coming from another power. And that is the real problem: when the secular meets the extreme of religion half way. Then the voice of reason and compromise is lost: maybe for good.

[Malcolm Bowden]

I wonder whether David Jenkins regrets his wonderful soundbite or whether it has had exactly the sort of response he intended? I doubt we shall ever know, just as we shall never know quite what happened on the first Easter Day. And perhaps that's how it should be. St Mark's original gospel ended with the empty tomb and it is likely that the post-resurrection appearances given by the other gospels are in whole or part of a legendary nature. One thing is certain, though. Lives were changed and the Church was born - to become, as Irene recently put it so aptly, Judaism's unruly daughter, sometimes endearing, sometimes (possibly far too often)infuriating and badly behaved, but a daughter nonetheless who ought to be reminded of her duty of respect toward her mother to whom she owes so much!
Christianity may have become (thanks to Gnostic influences) a mystery religion but that's not where it came from. Jesus was in the tradition of the prophets, zealous for the Lord, at times angry and turbulent. He wanted to bring the good news to the poor i.e. the disadvataged, the outsiders and stirred up trouble. His death resulted but the metaphor of the empty tomb reminds us quite simply that you can kill the body but not the soul.

[Keith Downer]

Personally, I am shocked at Irene's revelation that physical attacks on the Jewish community have increased by 40% this year in Manchester. Although I was aware of the uncertainty felt by many Jews who have lived in our country for most - if not all - of their lives, I have not encountered any anti-Semitism amongst people I associate with - or indeed, amongst any members of my community.
One of my concerns is that, logically, given the increasing Muslim population in the UK and the attacks on Israel - the latest horrific murders committed by a Palestinian suicide bomber last Monday in Tel-Aviv - it would be not be surprising if we did experience some incidents by Muslim extremists against the Jewish population in our country.
Do we know who is responsible for the attacks in Manchester or elsewhere in the country? Are they attributed to a religious or racist group?
Thank God, Irene's daughter was not one of the victims last Monday and that she is still prepared to continue with her work helping the Palestinian people. There is no justification in any faith or belief - religious or otherwise - for the indiscriminate murder and injury of men, women and children going about their normal, daily business in Tel-Aviv or anywhere else.

[Alistair McBay]

Actually, Chris, there is some doubt as to what the original quote was. Google "conjuring trick with bones" throws up several versions and interpretations. What does not seem to be in dispute though is Jenkins' scepticism over the historicity of the virgin birth and resurrection stories, with even the the BBC remarking on its pages that Jenkins did not believe in the physical resurrection of Jesus.

Sadly I can't find my copy of A Calling of a Cuckoo to check any further.

And Irene, may you be able to live and practise your faith in peace.

[Chris Rees]

For the sake of historical accuracy (pace Mr McBay) Dr David Jenkins said “The Resurrection is more than a conjuring trick with bones” which carries a slightly different emphasis from the Sunday Express headline.

[Dr. Irene Lancaster]

Alistair has made some assumptions that are incorrect. There is no one Abrahamic religion which has three branches. Historically, Judaism was the first of the three monotheistic religions, out of which grew Christianity and then Islam. Moreover, Judaism does not consist of conspiracies and does not aim to persuade others of its rightness. Jews are indifferent to the religious beliefs and actions of others, as long as they can get on with practising their own religion, or not, as the case may be.

So, for instance, I don't mind if you or anyone else can prove me wrong, because at the end of the day I know I am a Jew and that knowledge transcends argument or anything else. Judaism entails a community and a shared history, which is difficult for some to comprehend, nor do we wish to convince you of this, unless your statements about Jews and Judaism are damaging to our community and well-being.

Currently, due to damaging and untrue statements and assumptions being made about our religion , this year has seen a 40% increase on physical attacks on the Jewish community in Manchester alone. It is this that is worrying to us, not arguments about whether any particular religion is the one true religion, or arguments about conspiracy theories.

As for the Pope, of course you can criticise him and the other two religious leaders you mention. However, on the question of Catholic acceptance of otherwise of Judaism, I was just pointing out that your views on this had been superseded by the Second Vatican Council. That is all.

[Matthew]

Therefore, we say that the meaning of Christ's resurrection is as follows: the disciples were troubled and agitated after the martyrdom of Christ. The Reality of Christ, which signifies His teachings, His bounties, His perfections and His spiritual power, was hidden and concealed for two or three days after His martyrdom, and was not resplendent and manifest. No, rather it was lost, for the believers were few in number and were troubled and agitated. The Cause of Christ was like a lifeless body; and when after three days the disciples became assured and steadfast, and began to serve the Cause of Christ, and resolved to spread the divine teachings, putting His counsels into practice, and arising to serve Him, the Reality of Christ became resplendent and His bounty appeared; His religion found life; His teachings and His admonitions became evident and visible. In other words, the Cause of Christ was like a lifeless body until the life and the bounty of the Holy Spirit surrounded it.

Such is the meaning of the resurrection of Christ, and this was a true resurrection.

(Abdu'l-Baha, Some Answered Questions, p. 102)

[Alistair McBay]

Irene

I am certainly not trying to lead you into anything that Mel Gibson could be criticised for!

The essence of the thread here is whether a novel such as DVC is a conspiracy theory against Christianity. All I am saying is that the Abrahmic religion's three branches are all engaged in a much bigger conspiracy against each other by virtue of their core beliefs. Never mind articles in the Tablet, read the Koran! In practice, many adherents of each of the three Abrahamic faiths may indeed choose to paper over their differences, yet the various holy scriptures expose them for eternity. The apologists are only kidding themselves, as there are many who choose a different response. Check the body count.

And to answer your question as to who am I to argue with the Pope, well I am someone who has an opinion about the world, how it came into being and where it is going, and that opinion is every bit as valid as that of his holiness, or the Chief Rabbi's, or Archbishop Rowan's. In fact my opinion, unlike theirs, is supported by hard evidence rather than blind faith, so it's all the more valid!

To finish on a point of Dr Wright's, he says "the only serious explanation of how Christianity began is that Jesus really was raised from the dead. It is very difficult to explain the rest of Christianity without that". The Koran flatly denies it, while it was Paul (I think) who said that without the resurrection, Christianity is nothing. And I recall a previous Bishop of Durham referred to this pivotal point in the birth of Christianity as "a conjuring trick with bones."

Now there's a conspiracy theory for you!

[Shandini Ganegama]

Lord Jesus's privacy has appeared as the latest world wide curiosity or simply a poor kind of mania among the faithless christians and others.To me personally our lord was exactly as an ordinary being But except in one case.That is lord was not lusty as well as we know that he wasn't luxurious at all.He is the greatest man ever lived on the earth and the very fact that Don Brown raises is the major reason, why Christianity is differ from most of the other religions.Finally Lord has crusified because he claimed that he is the son of god and lord had forgiven all of them.
Even today I believe Don Brown must have been forgiven too.

[Dr. Irene Lancaster]

My dearest Alistair

How can I be cross with you for spreading this type of peace and light around just after Easter, a time when 'the Jews' as you put it so nicely had traditionally to flee for their lives at the hands of 'the Christians'. My Polish mother used to tell me how the whole Jewish community, living near Crakow (birth-place of the last Pope) had to run away from their villages in the 30s and 40s at Easter Day for fear of being lynched as Christ-killers. She wouldn't even talk to me about the Holocaust, though.

Luckily the Catholic Church has progressed so far from that time that the highly-respected Tablet newspaper has just published my very Jewish analysis of the German Catholic Pope's encyclical on love, entitled 'Love Transcendent'. Ruth has, just this minute, very kindly recommended it and posted a link to the full article on her Pope blog.

Unlike you, the 2nd Vatican Council of 1964-5 stated that no longer were Jews to be forced into the position that you are trying to force me into.

May I suggest that you have a go at the Buddhists instead. I don't think you will get very far. I am not going to enter into argument with you, except to say, read my article: you may learn from it and visit Israel, where the Christian communities have increased four-fold since its inception in 1948 and are doing better at school then any other group, including the Jewish majority.

Sorry, I can't carry on with this much longer, as one of our interminable Jewish holidays is just coming up (no doubt Jesus would know what I am talking about), but I am happy to do so when you have read and digested my Tablet article.

After all, if the present Pope, the Head of the largest Christian denomination in the world today, can make amends for his youthful past in Germany by having obviously steeped himself since in Jewish learning (and not just the Hebrew Bible) to the extent of having written a masterpiece on love, based very largely on rabbinic thought, who are you to argue with him?

But I forgive you. The sun is shining: the daffodils are on the table and my beautiful daughter who lives in South Tel Aviv and works for peace with those who would murder her, is still alive, so there must be a God in heaven, somewhere, but that God is nameless.

[Alistair McBay]

Obfuscation, Irene. Nice try, but no cigar!

The Jews denied Jesus was the Messiah, for whom they say they are still waiting. Islam says of course that he or she (now the latter would make a great conspiracy theory!) won't be coming, denying both Judaism and Christianity's faith.

It's interesting too that Catholic groups are appealing to the film producers to put a warning at the opening reel that Jesus' non-death on the cross and therefore non-resurrection is fiction. Will they be asking Muslims to put a similar warning on the cover of the Koran, I wonder?

[Keith Downer]

Like J K Rowling, Dan Brown is an excellent fiction writer who manages to combine originality with superb research and - with his last two books, Angels & Demons (which I strongly recommend) and DVC - a unique insight into that area of unrequited spirituality that we all have deep within ourselves. Where Harry Potter waves his magic wand to excite the imagination and wonderment of children (of all ages), Robert Langdon wanders through supposed religious contradictions and revelations like a professorial James Bond. If only Ford Anglia's could fly and history could be so easily changed to coincide with the imagination of a skilled author!
Of far more importance is the anonymous attack on Lord Carey by apparent supporters of the ABC. Is there really a group of clandestine individuals, influential in the Anglican communion, determined to stoop so low in order to express their support for issues such as normalising homosexuality and appeasement where Islam is concerned at the expense of fellow travellers such as our Jewish friends? If so, I think they are seriously underestimating the support for opposition - rightly or wrongly attributed to Lord Carey - to this approach. Forget the meddling and mischief-making of those atheists, agnostics and unbelievers who cannot resist a none-to-subtle attempt here at exploiting Anglican disputes, the rank-and-file believer can tell the difference between misguided and unfortunate liberal meanderings and the Churchman who stays firmly on the path where Christ has walked.

[Dr. Irene Lancaster]

In response to Alistair's reference to Judaism not being 'up-to-speed', Jesus wasn't even born when Jewish scriptures were being written, the same scriptures on which Judaism is based.

[Martin Joss]

I think the problem with the DVC is that Dan Brown wants his cake and tries to eat it. I understand that he has said it is a work of fiction but when asked what he would change to make it fact he has said "very little".

I am also interested by the fact that Dan Brown has clearly verifable information (such as where in Paris certain locations are in relation to each other) wrong. Given this why would anyone want to take as "gospel" the more controversial stuff?

[Alcuin Bramerton]

The quotes from Rowan Williams and Tom Wright which Ruth Gledhill cites here and in the Times are pertinent. It is interesting to see two senior and very capable churchmen stranded at the bus top, but accurately describing the bus which is disappearing into the distance as they watch.

The fact is that popular spirituality has now moved away from religion.

When Williams says that Christian festivals, these days, are accompanied by “a little flurry of newspaper articles and television programmes raking over the coals of controversies about the historical basis of faith,” he is right. The media do this. And they do it because controversy is the gospel which the church has always offered to the world.

When Wright says that the Da Vinci Code novel “appears to legitimate a free-for-all, do-it-yourself spirituality,” and “gets the popular ear because the default position of the Western world at the moment is one where everyone wants to believe Christianity is about self-discovery,” he is right. This is exactly what New Age Christianity is about. The spiritual task is no longer to be docile in front of the given guru; the spiritual task is to discover the “I AM,” the Christ within.

The modern age to which the church seeks to minister is an age in which there is no agreement among educated, spiritually literate people about which gospels are gospels, about whether, indeed, gospels are necessary at all any more, and no agreement about whether a universal concept of truth is even theoretically possible, let alone desirable.

The New Age mind neither seeks nor legitimates any such agreement, for the obvious reason that different people are at different stages in their personal spiritual evolution and no one size fits all.

Listening to these desperate churchmen, the modern ear might be forgiven for hearing that truth is a political chimera; an expedient fudge invented by the insecure to spin their insecurity into the comforting stasis of yesterday’s dogma.

[Robin Bather]

With regards to the open letter of the Bishops who supposedly support Dr.Williams, it seems to me that Lord Carey is engaging in second guessing, a very unloyal thing to do to his boss.

I can tell you this, in the real world of industry, subordinates who go behind their boss's back and deliberately take decisions knowing them to be against the boss's policies, are unceremoniously sacked.
I myself have done it--sacking that is, not being unloyal. Nobody can put up with unloyalty.

But after all is said and done, let's not be like elderly ladies at a vicarage tea party who are scandalized by some young woman's above-the-knee hemline.

Dr. Williams, for better or worse, is the boss and he should take firm corrective action to show that he IS the boss.

[Steven Carr]

The Bishop of Durham says 'The only serious explanation of how Christianity began is that Jesus really was raised from the dead. It is very difficult to explain the rest of Christianity without that.'

The church in Corinth had many Christians who denied a bodily resurrection from the dead. According to Wright, only a belief in a bodily resurrection can explain how churches arose, such as presumably the church in Corinth which denied bodily resurrection.

I think Bishop Wright has more explaining to do to explain how the earliest Christians converted to Christianity, while denying bodily resurrection.

[Alistair McBay]

What a pathetic fuss from the Christian authorities, and the Times' Easter Monday leader, over the Da Vinci Code.

It conveniently escapes everyone's notice that the Koran flatly denies the basic tenets of the Christian faith - that Jesus was the son of God, that he died on the cross, that he was resurrected from dead and that he will one day return. The Koran is revered as the actual word of God (unlike the Bible) by more than a billion Muslims, and has been so for many centuries.

An earlier contributor says “Who is the liar but the one who denies that Jesus is the Christ? This is the antichrist, the one who denies the Father and the Son.” (1 John 2:22 NASB). Well, the liar appears to be Islam (and Judaism isn't up to speed on this either, just to level things up a bit!)

It (Islam) may or may not be a conspiracy theory but it sure makes Dan Brown look like a rank amateur by comparison. I suppose to complain about Islam's trashing of Christianity would lead to Rowan Williams being branded Islamophobic. That would never do, so inevitably the playground bully picks on the stand-alone geek rather than the other playground gang.

[Alan Pavelin]

Dan Brown and his supporters claim that the Catholic Church has suppressed the "fact" of Jesus' marriage etc. But any suppressing must have been done by individuals, not by an institution. As a Catholic I have known numerous other Catholics, several priests, even one or two bishops. Not one is aware of these suppressed "facts", and if any of them became aware of them they would cease to be Catholics immediately, because what would be the point of continuing? So just who, Mr. Brown, is doing the suppressing? How come not one of these people have ever seen fit to expose these supposed "facts"?

[Mario Pozzetti]

No one in his right mind would imagine the Roman Catholic Church to embrace Dan Brown’s conspiracy theory and apologize for having lied to the human race for over two thousand years. That would be a lot to ask. And I believe it has never been the purpose of the book. The fact that the book makes perfect sense doesn’t make it true but the contrary is also legitimate. In other words I suppose it all comes down to the primordial concept: faith. But I ask myself, would a more human Jesus make Him less Holy? Or, on the contrary, by imagining Him as one of us, it would make it easier to love Him and follow His Gospel and ultimately understand His sacrifice? Would He be less honoured? Less respected? I wonder.

[Dr. Irene Lancaster]

I wonder if I could add to this blog that I was just writing a response to a journalist in the Sunday Times who was talking about forgiveness being an inhuman quality. When I got to the word 'Jews' in my e-mail to her, I had to stop, because my daughter had skyped from Tel Aviv, telling me not to worry. And when I asked what she was talking about, she said I obviously didn't know, but that there had been a suicide bomb attack in the area of the old bus station, on the way to work. And her work is trying to sort out the lives and conditions of those very same Palestinian terrorists who aimed the bomb at her on the way to work.

So I had all the more reason to write to the ST journalist, carrying on my conversation (because how often do I get these kind of phone calls or skyped messages from my daughter), saying, yes that I thought the Christian view of forgiveness was faulty, because it did not take into account natural justice and responsibility, free will and choice.

And, yes my daughter said she would have to stop skyping and get on with her work of trying to help the Palestinians, knowing full well that their government wants the destruction of Israel, and I will now have to wait for a decent hour to contact my husband in California, and also let my younger daughter know that during Passover and Easter week (when else) my daughter is not yet a burnt-out cinder.

[john robinson]

i was astonished to hear the arch bishop of canterburys comments on the resurrection and the connection to conspiracies, he then pleasantly rubbished the recent gospel of judas,but he had to has it shines a new light on the churches teachings over the past two millenium, mind you they proclaimed the gnostic papers has herasy has they made the churches teachings to be false, yet the arch bishop should remember who started the conspirocies on there way, about 300-400years ad the church added to the bible for there own gain to eep people in check, then we had 1200 years of holy wars killing and torture of any decenters plus the ripping off of pilgrims by monks and priests selling nails from the cross wood from the cross and the table of the last supper, we had the inquisition and descrimination against women and homosexuals , how do we know? letters documents writings many by monks, the church has a lot of secrets they dont want you to know, but then you reap what you sow they started the ball rolling so they should not complain when it back fires
john robinson author of IN GODS NAME

[Dr. Irene Lancaster]

I agree with Ruth's sentiments at the end of her posting. Both Judaism and Christianity are basically religions about the here and now and how we can each, in our own small way, be true to the fact that we were all made in the image of God, who out of His own love has created, cares for and forgives us.

God wants us to contribute to the world and to work with Him in alleviating suffering and balancing justice and mercy (the same word in Hebrew).

What He assuredly does not want is pop trash masquerading as religion or Bishops of the established Church acting like the spoiled public school-boys that some of them undoubtedly were and are! As for 'bullies', I have experienced this side of them first hand.

But I don't think that anti-Americanism is part of God's plan for us either, and if you read Canon Andrew White's book on Iraq, after much deliberation and a huge knowledge of the area, he came down in favour of the war to get rid of that tyrant, Saddam Hussein and he also likes Americans.

And I am very sad that the Bishop of Durham has brought Judaism into the equation without mentioning the threat that Iran has itself stated that it poses for Israel. If Iran is allowed to destroy Israel, believe me, Bishop Tom, it will carry on and bomb Europe to shreds as well.

Because bullies never stop with their first victim, but always carry on and get the appeasers in the end too.

Or have you not read your Bonhoeffer?

[Michael Zarlengo]

The DaVinci Jesus or The Real Jesus?
In the book the DaVinci Code, the author has written untrue statements about Jesus. The author states that his book is fiction; nevertheless, these statements have been written and now must be answered.

Was Jesus married and did He have a child?
Jesus is a man and while on earth, He certainly could have enjoyed the blessings of both marriage and descendants. However, Jesus is also the Christ, the Messiah, and it was necessary for the Christ to suffer much for our sakes. Yet another suffering of the Christ, this man of sorrows, was that He would not take a wife and that He would not have descendants.
The Holy Scriptures define the Christ, so that we will clearly know who He is. In both the Old and New Testaments, the Bible takes care to say that the Christ would not have descendants. This is simply one more definition of who Christ is.

In the Old Testament:
“By oppression and judgment he was taken away. And who can speak of his descendants? For he was cut off from the land of the living; for the transgression of my people he was stricken.” (Isa. 53:8 NIV)

In the New Testament:
“In his humiliation he was deprived of justice. Who can speak of his descendants? For his life was taken from the earth.” (Acts 8:33 NIV)

What about marriage, could Jesus have been married and not have had any children? Jesus often spoke of Himself as the bridegroom. He even made it clear He would leave the earth still a groom.

“And Jesus said to them, ‘Can the friends of the bridegroom fast while the bridegroom [Jesus Christ] is with them? As long as they have the bridegroom with them they cannot fast. But the days will come when the bridegroom will be taken away from them, and then they will fast in those days.’” (Mark 2:19–20 NKJV)

However, whom would Jesus marry since He is a bridegroom? Again, Jesus is the Christ, and Jesus Christ kept Himself for His spiritual bride, the Church, not just one individual within the Church.

“This is a great mystery: but I speak concerning Christ and the church.” (Eph. 5:32 KJV)

When people publish untrue statements about Jesus, whether or not they claim it is fiction, it is really their intention to say that Jesus is not the Christ. When people do this, we need to remember that the Holy Scriptures also provide us with a clear definition of who they are:

“Who is the liar but the one who denies that Jesus is the Christ? This is the antichrist, the one who denies the Father and the Son.” (1 John 2:22 NASB)

If you would like more insightful Bible truth about The Real Jesus, please see the books: Tabernacle Gifts, Our First Day in Heaven ISBN 0970454813 and Pray Like This, God’s Secret to Answered Prayer ISBN 097045483X, by Michael Zarlengo, to order go to amazon.com or call 1-877-323-4550.
By Michael Zarlengo & Steven Zarlengo. © Copyright Pray Like This. www.praylikethis.org