Response to "DaVinci Code"
In the interest of being ready for questions about "The DaVinci Code", I am looking for a solid, comprehensive book that will deal with the issues raised by Dan Brown's creative approach to history. I have seen at least a half dozen books on the market and that number seems to be growing. So if any of you have read one or several of these books, I would like to get your opinion on it.
posted by PD at 10:43 AM
13 Comments:
Dan,
Actually, I used to be friends with Dan Brown. He was in my sisters class. Kind of a pot-head, but a real nice guy. It wasn't the same guy that wrote "The Davinci Code" though.
Unfortunately that's as close as I come to knowing anything about the book or any books written about it. I know I should read it, and I want to, but... you know how it goes. I would also be interested in hearing from those who do know something.
It seemed Brian had a link on his blog at one time. I never did check it out.
Peace,
Dan
I think the best response to anyone who actually has questions about stuff from the DaVinci Code is, "Ummm... it's fictional. That means it's not real. It's just a story."
Is there really any need to engage in any further debate? I mean even the author admits that it's all made up. Anyone who thinks otherwise is just dangerously gullible.
As someone whose degree is in Church History, it's actually amusing to encounter Brown as a church historian. Admittedly, my emphasis is on 17th to 19th century history, but I did one of my Comprehensive Exams on Eusebius, the Father of Church History. As a church historian, Brown couldn't get a D on an Early Church History exam.
One of my hobbies is listening to audio books and buying and selling them for profit on Ebay. I listened to the unabridged version of the book about a year ago (and sold it for a modest profit.)
The first half of it is suspenseful and captivating. The premise is interesting. What's bothersome is that you can 'feel' that Brown believes it. It's about 25% too long. It really drags at the end. (And, the punch line is that Sophie is the great, great. . .granddaughter of Jesus and Mary Magdalene.)
FYI: The title of my Easter Sermon will be: HOW WE KNOW THE DA VINCI CODE IS JUST A STORY.
Here's my take. The book is intriguing because it is asking questions that people are asking. Most of the responses I've seen from the church has been, "No, Jesus did not marry Mary Magdalene and no he did not have children." But I think we are answering the wrong question.
Here is what I think people are asking and where we have done a poor job in responding.
1. How do we know the Scriptures are valid and not written just to justify the early church? The stories I've read about how the canon came together are a fantastic story in themselves.
2. What is the role of the Catholic church? Brown seems more anti-Catholic than anti-Jesus to me. And while I respect the Catholic church, I have to deal with the fact that I have chosen not to be Catholic.
3. Why was Jesus single? If today's Catholic priests are a representation of that, don't you see why people are asking this question?
Here is where I think mistakes are being made in responding to the book.
1. "It isn't really that great a book." You've already discredited yourself since millions upon millions disagree with you.
2. "Brown's facts are totally wrong." It isn't the facts that are such a concern to people. It is their questions. And we give contrary facts and act all ruffled by someone even asking the questions. We basically are saying they are asking ridiculous questions. If you want to engage people, give respect to their questions. Then they just might hear your answers.
I hate church signs. I see the stupidest, most condescending messages on church signs all the time. My wife and I came up with a sign that we think sums up most church signs. It would read "Are you stupid or ignorant? Let us decide."
Dangerously gullible or not, I found myself asking--Is any of this true? Are there even hints of truth at what he is saying? And then waking up to a realization that the Bible does not give me a 24/7 account of Christ's life--so what did he do the rest of the time? Is it possible he had a family? And does that make any difference to me and my faith now if it were true?
I do think that the movie/book is a chance to open up conversation about Christ and his life. And I find myself unprepared for anything people might ask of me. I am not a scholar, I'm not a seminary student, not a early church historian and the questions that people will ask are ones that I have not even thought to ask myself.
I think it's a great opportunity for growth for those who already have faith and a chance for those who do not, to really think about Christ.
And I did think it was an intriguing book, but I will agree that while the beginning was very good, the ending of the book left much to be desired.
I liked the book, I like that genre. Highly recommend reading the book before one argues against it (mike...). I liked Brian's list of good question and would add -
4. Has the church been dominated by patriarchy and suppressed the role of women in the early church because of that?
"...why would the later, more patriarchal church have bothered to corrupt the text ...It seems pretty obvious that they were trying to cover something up that they didn't like.)"
( Mike Clawson, previous blog)
Brian's questions are good ones. Brown's answers to those questions obviously are not, and even he admits it.
Personally I see the DaVinci Code more as an opportunity than a threat. I have a friend that came to Christ and to our youth group in part because reading those book sparked an interest in finding out more about the real gospels.
But it wasn't necessary to engage in a debate with him about why the books are in error. It was enough to let him know that no one really takes Dan Brown's answers seriously. Then we were able to move on to his real questions (similar to the ones Brian mentioned).
Hey I'm going to do a sermon series on May on the good questions. Mike, what were the questions your guy was asking at youth group.
He wanted to know about the apocryphal books like The Gospel of Thomas and whether there might be anything of value in them.
He also just wanted to know more about who Jesus really was. He didn't really consider himself a Christian at the time but was really interested and hungry to know more. Now he's a growing Christian and an active part of our church plant, and says that he's considering a career in ministry.
Not sure what the anonymous quote of Mike Clawson is. One, I don't see it anywhere. Two, without a reference and absolutely no context and obviously some of it left out, I have no idea what the point is.
I think it's something I said about how later manuscripts of Romans were changed to make the female apostle Junia's name masculine. The difference is that we have earlier, more accurate manuscripts that reveal the change.
Maybe the point was that I seem to agree with Dan Brown's premise that the Catholic Church has altered and surpressed certain texts to fit their agenda. And the truth is, I think that is a possibility in certain cases. But of course, there's a big difference between saying that one name in one verse was changed because of the patriarchal biases of the culture of that time, and saying that there's a deep seated conspiracy throughout the whole history of the church to supress the truth about the central fact of our faith.
I plan on doing a presentation on The Da Vinci Code. A neighbor already asked what direction I was going and was I ready for his comments. I told him I was going to begin with an apology--not the best way to begin a presentation but bear with me.
If 40 million people have bought the book-- and some of them have read it-- it must be resonating with something. I wonder if the book provides a good out for many people.
The church is not seen as the loving, accepting, gracious place it should be. I think Dan Brown's book provides a way to dismiss the Church and its teaching. I.e. If Dan Brown is right then the church is a farce and I can ignore everything I heard.
I just wonder if my first response to the book shouldn't be an apology for being so judgmental and unforgiving.
Secondly, though it is a work of fiction, Brown claims all the documents, etc. are true. He also claims elswhere he believes his own story. I think it desrves a response.
Post a Comment
<< Home