I can hear him as clearly today as I did in the moment he first spoke the words. It was in the midst of a course at Eden Theological Seminary in First Testament studies when the Rev. Dr. Walter Brueggemann piercingly and powerfully looked over the upper edge of the half-glasses he always either wore or had perched on the top of his head and said in his characteristic near whispered low roar, “Don’t ever . . . ever get caught being in the business of defending God. God is quite capable of God’s own defense, thank you very much. Yours is the business, the calling, of proclaiming God’s sovereignty and reconciling love to the world. You do the work God has given to you to do and God will take care of the rest.” If you have ever had the opportunity to hear him speak the passion of his faith from the depth of his convictions, then even as you have just read these words you, too, are able to conjure up in the vividness of your memory the power of these words. “Don’t ever . . . ever get caught being in the business of defending God. God is quite capable of God’s own defense, thank you very much.”

What brought these words to mind? About an hour ago, I was driving along listening to a talk-radio show which included in the topics being addressed the issue of ‘Defensive Medicine’. It seems that many physicians today are caught in the very real legal crossfire of litigation and are increasingly making decisions regarding health care on the basis of what can be defended. This means that, sometimes, medical recommendations are being made which reflect a physicians concern for what can be prosecuted, rather than journey anywhere outside of the norm of previously accepted practice. Certainly this can be viewed as advantageous for the patient in that it keeps them from becoming ‘guinea pigs’ for over-zealous or over-aggressive physicians yet, on the other hand, key advances in medical treatment are gradually becoming more stagnant as physicians practice reserved treatment procedures as a way of controlling medical malpractice lawsuits. It is a two-edged sword without any easy answers: Tort reform might make some difference in this trend but, only if tort reform is combined with a change in what is rooting itself as a cultural mindset which is frequently articulated as, ‘Someone will pay for this.’

This got me to thinking about my own ministry and the firestorm of ecclesial criticism around the newly released The Da Vinci Code. Throughout the region, people are either picketing the theatres which show the movie or they are flocking through the turn-styles to see it for themselves. People are either condemning the author, Dan Brown, for writing the mystery novel as though the information in it were factual or they are congratulating him for writing the mystery novel in a way that causes folks to question the facts Christianity and, particularly, the Catholic church, have long taught them. In some places, people have purchased the book only to add their copy to a fire in protest of the information put forth in the novel and, in other places, people are purchasing the book to read it so that they can participate in an informed and thoughtful way as they continue to grow in their Biblical faith journey. (Oddly enough, no matter what people do with the book, when they purchase it, Dan Brown profits by it . . . which would be sort of like protesting the bad fuel efficiency of SUV’s by buying one, then choosing to burn it on the public square of opinion: either way, the manufacturer makes money. Wouldn’t it be a better protest not to buy the book? Sorry, I digress.)

The Da Vinci Code is a novel in a similar manner that Da Vinci’s Last Supper is a painting: neither Dan Brown, nor Da Vinci, were there, but both are making assertions as to what transpired in the midst of Jesus’ ministry. In the case of Da Vinci’s Last Supper, the Church is comfortable with the Christology put forth and holds the work in deepest regard ~ often lauding Da Vinci as a ‘Master Artist’. In the case of The Da Vinci Code, many in the Church are finding themselves incredibly uncomfortable about the picture of Jesus which is being painted and are doing nearly everything they can to discredit the author. Mind you, neither of the artists behind the artwork were present as Jesus walked the earth, yet one is held in highest esteem and the other is being ridiculed. Some elements of the Church are becoming defensive of Christ and find themselves picketing their own discomfort ~ as though they were with Christ in the beginning and know the story as a first-hand witness. Other individuals are defensive of the Church and its’ teachings, defending dogma and doctrine as though the purity and untaintedness of the law has the power to save the soul. Dan Brown is no more questioning the Divinity of Christ than is Da Vinci. Yet, what Dan Brown does propose is that, indeed, Jesus was, as the Church teaches, both fully human and fully Divine, which is not a picture of Jesus many want to consider.

In our St. Paul Carpenters of Faith Adult Sunday School Class, the question was asked, “Would it make any difference to your faith if it was proven that Jesus fathered a child by Mary Magdalene?” (The underlying premise of The Da Vinci Code”.) It is an excellent question! Why is it acceptable for the Catholic Church to teach that only men can be priests based on the rationale that, from accepted Canonical readings in the Bible, Jesus called only men to be his disciples ~ and yet it is unacceptable to consider that, in the course of his ministry, Jesus might have had a close, even intimate, relationship with a woman ~ which, too, is a part of the accepted Canonical readings in the Bible (i.e. the women who went to the tomb, Mary Magdalene’s place in scripture, and Jesus’ meeting with the Samaritan woman at the well)? No, I am not going to begin teaching that Jesus has children with Mary Magdalene: it is not there in the Bible, but neither do I teach that the Last Supper was held with all of the disciples sitting on one side of the table. Neither of those ideas are supported by the Biblical texts which Christianity embraces. (Jewish custom would have had all of the disciples gathered around the table, possibly even reclining on pillows and such around the table, rather than seated on one side ~ as though a picture were to be taken.) Yet, I believe it is our defensive nature which reveals our own inner questions that we often hold at bay, praying we will never have to face them. “Would it make any difference to my faith if it was proven that Jesus fathered a child by Mary Magdalene?” Yes, it would. I believe it would only deepen my faith in a God who dares to walk the earth and take on the weakness of humanity in order to transform it by the strength and power of God.

It is interesting that defensive religion is so much like defensive medicine: both place the Physician in an untenable position in offering healing and hope to others, and both set the forward movement of their respective disciplines back in time for fear of what might happen. Jesus said, “Do not be afraid.” He said it to the disciples on the boat in a storm, he said it to the disciples in an upper room, he said it to Mary Magdalene at the tomb, he said it the disciples locked away in Jerusalem, and he says it to us here today: “Do not be afraid.”

“Don’t ever . . . ever get caught in the business of defending God. God is quite capable of God’s own defense, thank you very much.” Maybe if we spent less time trying to defend God’s honor and more time living God’s grace the whole ‘heresy’ of Jesus fathering children would be moot, for the world would know that Jesus is the father of many children ~ and we are them in faith.