Folks, I am just about DaVincied out. And you’re probably tired of reading this stuff, too – but there is one more point that I think needs to be made, and that point has to do with what Dan Brown refers to as the “divine feminine.”
Undergirding most of The DaVinci Code is the pre-supposition that, during Constantine’s reign, Christianity was somehow transformed into a religion that worships a “male” deity. I’m not going to argue that point that, over time, the church developed into a male-dominated institution. It did. But I do take issue with the notion that the Christianity of the canonized scripture upholds the notion that all of God’s traits are what we could call “male” in nature.
Lets start with this – God has no gender, except to the extent of his incarnation in Jesus. The consistent use of the male pronoun in the biblical texts to refer to God does not mean that God is without feminine qualities.
To the contrary, there are a number of descriptions/depictions of God in scripture that demonstrate qualities that would be considered feminine traits. Most significantly, however, when Genesis talks about God creating people in God’s image, it explicitly describes that image as being comprised of “male and female.” To know our creator, then, is to discover traits that can be found in both men and women in this world. Likewise, though clearly a man, Jesus expressed his love for Jerusalem, God’s city, comparing himelf to a mother hen, who seeks to gather her children together.
There is no reason to conceptualize the Judeo-Christian God as possessing solely male traits, as The DaVinci Code suggests. Indeed as we come to a fuller appreciation of God, we will learn to adore those traits which are feminine s well as those that are masculine.
Excuse me, now. I’m going go grab a shotgun so that I can take this series out back and put it out of its misery.