There was an interesting post that by Eric that Dom picked up on and posted on his blog. The basic premise was that with the Da Vinci Code movie coming out and Sony actively marketing the film to Churches interested in dialoguing with the thesis of the film, churches were falling into a form of Spiritual Pornography, that is, looking at something unhealthy but titilating or engaging with a story that fundamentally attacks the traditional Christian narrative.
The discussion on Dom’s post has moved down another bunny hole, so I thought I would post my musings on the original comment here.
I certainly hear what Eric is saying. It can be a slippery ride engaging with those ideas and stories that challenge our narrative. It can be disconcerting. Uncomfortable. Maybe even dangerous. There is also something to be said about promoting a film that has clear anti-Catholic leanings and would seem to attack or devalue one of the most ancient traditions of the Christian faith. But I see the danger as a positive, I see the uncomfort as a necessity. To think that if the church avoids these difficult narratives people will be left untouched by them is foolish. Though our clergy may be, people are not walled inside our churches. They are engaging difficult ideas in universities, in homes and in stories, and for us to ignore them, or avert our eyes from them is counter-productive.
Beyond the obvious sexual reference pornography can be defined as lurid or sensational material, and in the context of the church the Da Vinci Code could certainly fit that criteria. But the issue for us around such sensational material is not the material itself but how we intend to engage it.
The church once had a great history of engaging dangerous culture and redeeming it. The church took on the pagan traditions of the winter solstice and spring equinox and redeemed them to celebrate the birth, death and resurrection of our Lord Jesus Christ. The anchor of the Eastern Orthodox calendar, the advent, finds it roots in pagan worship. As pagans celebrated the return of the sun and the rebirth of God. Christians redeemed the tradition to remind people of Jesus incarnation and birth as a human child. The focal point of the Western tradition, Easter, predates the death of the Christ as a pagan celebration focused on the return of various deities from the underworld. Christians embraced the dangerous cultural practice to celebrate the death and resurrection of Christ. The Church has always looked into the dangerous stories that surrounded it and found ways to redeem them.
The dichotomy of sacred and secular is a modern invention. As we look to participate with God in the creation of his kingdom we need to celebrate what is redeemed in our culture and look to redeem what is not. Da Vinci Code included.
Jer,
your points here are true but one sided. There are certain things that the earliest believers did not try to redeem but saw as tools of the enemy and believed that they needed to be destroyed and eventually would be. For Ex. the debauchery seen in the colisum were not repeated or redeemable. Actually they were a reminder of the martyrs that continually took place there. Sorry but much of your history here is misinformed.
Dom, to be honest the tone of your comment is condescending.
Of course the debauchery of the coliseum was something that needed to be left behind by the church, so was the worship of Pagan Gods during the winter soltice and spring equinox. But like those two festivals the early Christians sought to redeem everything in their experience and so as horrible as the coliseum was Christians stood against the empire allowing the horror of the games to become a message of needed change and ardent faith. They looked into the face of a godless practise and redeemed what they could using it to glorify their God. Redeeming culture is not about accepting everything. It is about taking the lead in culture to point practises and people back to God.
My history is not misinformed, my point of view is simply different than yours.
jer,
sorry if my thoughts came across condescending. Thanks for your perspective.
Dom, I know you and really do respect you. We have engaged in lots of good debate and I have appreciated your insight into many of my blindspots, but sometimes in your writing you can sound dismissive. I know it’s not your intent, so maybe I am just being sensitive.
Jer, I doubt that you were being sensitive
I’m not surprised but i am saddened in some sense. Let me expalin!
I’m a horrible writer and thus don’t eloquently present my perspective. I apologize again if my perspective on this issue came across as dismissive. Since we have a different relationship than most who are blogging (we know each other personally) i thought you’d see my view within the contextual work i’ve done both in my continual studying of ancient Christianity and Classical studies which i am now pursuing. Having said that i understand you probably have your own sources which have led you to your own conclusion. And thus in typical postmodern fashion have reiterated your stanze in your timely adage ” my point of view is simply different than yours.” This we agree on, maybe one day we’ll find out if one was true and the other was false, but maybe that doesn’t matter, and it’s just the journey that counts.
d.r. – laudator temporis acti
Ah Dom, my friend,
you old die-hard 
now I remember why I like you so much
both of you, hug and make up…actually, that’s kinda boring. argue some more.
Pingback: Jeremy Duncan » Blog Archive » Redeeming Culture II
Pingback: Jeremy Duncan » Herald Comments