Thanks to amazon.com and the magic of ebooks, I spent most of the last day reading Dan Brown's The Da Vinci Code. (unlike yesterday, I now know that Da Vinci is not spelled DaVinci).  For the ten people out there who've not read it or been told what it contains, consider this a spoiler alert.

Overall, I liked the book.  It was adventurous, pseudo intellectual, and generally playful.  One of the main points, however, struck a nerve.  I speak, of course, about the sacred feminine so often referred to in the text.  First, let me state what I understand to be the author's point, then I'll state what my issues are based on that understanding.

The Priory believe in the sanctity of women, their innate ability to produce life.  They exult them, as did many religions prior to Christianity, as goddesses.  They believe that man's (the gender, not all humankind) ability to commune with Deity happens only via woman.  In short, woman is divine and man partakes of that divinity via union with woman.

The reason that I take issue with this line of thought is this - despite the numerous overtones and undertones of balance - yin / yang, male / female, black / white - humankind, the Priory perspective is not balanced.  The female is divine and the male is not.  That seems more than a little unbalanced to me.

What I would consider balanced is this - believing in the sanctity of man and woman, that woman cannot produce life without man nor can man without woman, that ultimate communion with Deity (creating life, thus becoming a creator like unto Deity) for man requires the woman and for woman requires man.  If one is divine, then so is the other.  If one is not, then neither is the other.  This is balanced.  This more correctly reflects the difference between man and woman.  Each needs the other to be whole.

This in no way is meant to disparage woman or the sacred feminine but simply to recognize that woman is only half of the equation.  Had the text reflected this as well, I think the ideas that seemed radical would have been much easier to swallow.  Then again...it's only a work of fiction, perhaps Brown was after a good thriller and not trying to be an ideologue.