So what if Jesus was married?
"What difference does it make whether or not Jesus was married. It doesn't affect his teaching does it?" This is a question that a lot of people have been asking. "Couldn't you accept this as true and have it not change a thing?"

It does make a difference, though not for the reasons you might think; and while some of you may take issue with the assumptions behind why it is important, the purpose of this post will be to explain why the question is important in the first place.

On the one hand, marriage, sex and having children, taken together, are a good thing. So much so that we can argue, on one level, that marriage, in and of itself, should have no effect on how we view Jesus. After all, in addition to being fully God, Jesus is also fully man.

On the other hand, while marriage would not diminish who Jesus is, to say that he was married (as odd as this sounds) would. Here's why:

More than becoming a man in order to just deliver a message, Jesus' purpose for entering into history was to do something for mankind that both needed to be done, but that mankind could not do for itself. This was to fix mankind's relationship with God; in order to accomplish this, he had to live his life without sinning in thought or action, and, in dying, accept a punishment and thereby pay a debt that would allow mankind to be reconciled to God. In other words, Jesus' "prime directive" was to reunite man to God ; anything that he said or did was in support of this purpose.

So if Jesus' purpose in becoming man was to die the death he died by being hung on the cross, two questions arise in relation to his being married:

1) Would marriage have supported or hindered this purpose?

and

2) What does this say about the reliability of Bible?

The first question is less weighty than the second, but still has great relevance. If the purpose of Jesus' coming was to live and die in the way that He did in order to to show God's love by obtaining reconciliation for mankind, then getting married only hinders that purpose by creating questions and diversions of precisely the kind that we find in The daVinci Code.

More importantly, If Jesus was married, this would not only muddy the waters by raising the question "why"? but it would also mean that the Bible (which is pretty clear that He was not married) is not a reliable source of information.

Therefore, if, in answer to question 2, the Bible is not reliable, not only are the words of Jesus also unreliable, but so is the information in provides on what we need to know in order to be reconciled to God. In turn this is important because if we cannot be reconciled with God, we have no reason to have confidence or hope in this world or in any world after we die -and without this hope, there is no sensible reason for anyone to live or strive for anything greater than their own self-interest.

Of course, in order for my thinking to be relevant, all the assumptions that I am making about God, reconciliation, hope, and the Bible being the vehicle by which God tells us things - these things must all be true.

Is this helpful to those of you who have been asking this question?

Several French critics have weighted...
Several French critics have weighted in on The Da Vinci Code film. Remember, it premiered at the Cannes film festival. Claude Imbert, who writes for Le Point, a thoughtful newsweekly, said devastating things about the film's treatment of history. Comparing it to the other premiere, Marie Antoinette, he says, we will not learn anything significant about the life of Christ or the guillotined queen. But we will learn something about our passion for deconstruction!

Yet, after railing against the historical violations of Dan Browns novel-turned-film, he then admonishes the Roman Catholic Church. Why? Because its Cardinals have over-reacted, worried as they are over doctrinal distortions. They have dignified a theological error, instead of realizing this great truth: "The Kingdom of God belongs, once and for all, to those who are inspired by Faith." Even though Imbert denies that the film gives any access to the Kingdom, he still reduces everything that matters to a personal muse. Sacrebleu!

- William Edgar

Time to refocus our gaze?
As Lenny has said, "we get emails..."

This is good. The site was designed to be a place where not only would the issues raised by the book and the movie be explored, but done so in such a way as to encourage people to read the book and interact with the movie so that conversation about The da Vinci Code story would be informed, intelligent and good natured.

Given this, however, you may or may not be surprised by the strong sentiment of many of the correspondents who accepted our invitation to contact us. Those who write seem to fall into three general categories:

The first is "Thanks for the site. It's really helpful".

A second is "You guys are idiots for making such a big deal out of this"!

And category 3 is "Who the hell are you to encourage boycotts, tell me how to think, and talk about "truth" when the only truth that history knows is that the church oppresses and condemns people in God's name even to this day; and too bad for you that Al Queda hit the World Trade Center before you had your chance. You freaking terrorists."

Despite the lack of nuance here, this last one really does reflect the category fairly well.

What are we to make of this?

Here are a few leading questions that fellow Christians might consider:

1. In Luke 6:22, Jesus tells His disciples that when the world hates them on account of Him, they should consider themselves blessed. Should we consider ourselves blessed in this respect, or is there a different dynamic going on here?
   
   
2. Are we representing the person of Christ so well that our friends and our culture are rejecting Him only after clearly grasping who He is - or are they rejecting something else?
   
   
3. Are the Category 3 folks writing in reaction to the gospel or are there things that you and I do and say every day which contribute to this perception that the church (Christians) are oppressive and condemning?

What do you think the truth might be ?