The Da Vinci Code... ooooh, I'm so shaken up...

So, I am taking a class that addresses The Da Vinci Code's claims about the first 300-400 years of Christianity.

Up until three months ago, I was content being one of the five people in the United States who has not read the book. That number is now three, because I read the book, and so did my roommate, because we enrolled in this class.

(It isn't worth reading, in my opinion. The writing is not good; the "mystery" is really predictable; the "secret" knowledge has been around for years.)

I have these observations about the claims of the book:

1) I think we can disregard the Priory of Sion as anything special. They labeled their folder of secret documents "DOSSIERS SECRETS," which means "SECRET DOCUMENTS." This is a dumb idea.

2) Not only did the SECRET DOCUMENTS claim that Leonardo Da Vinci was a grandmaster (and it's a stretch to claim that his paintings hold conspiracy theories and subliminal symbols instead of masterful artistic composition) but they also claim that Sir Isaac Newton, Victor Hugo, and Claude Debussy were also grandmasters. I have never gotten "Jesus and Mary Magdalene were married" from reading Les Miserables or listening to bitonal chords. Never.

3) The "M" that John the beloved/Mary Magdalene and Jesus make in "The Last Supper" cannot stand for "marriage." Leonardo da Vinci spoke Italian. Marriage in Italian is "unione." Not "munione."

4) Don't call Leonardo da Vinci "da Vinci." That is not his last name. It's like calling George, of Orlando "of Orlando" instead of "George."

5) For the purposes of this class, I cannot prove that Jesus and Mary Magdalene were or weren't married. But at the same time, I don't think that The Da Vinci Code wouldn't be looked at with the validity people ascribe to it if women were really comfortable with their place in the church throughout history. As a woman, I can only hope that we figure out what God intends for us as submissive ministers.