Da Vinci Code: The Earth Is Flat!

by Bob Thune

A well-known Christian organization sent me a piece of mail last week announcing a new strategy to "rebut [the] lies about Jesus" that are put forth in The Da Vinci Code movie.

The hype is just beginning. The evangelical hype, I mean. This is the next big thing for outreach! I have in my possession books by two well-known authors which purport to set the record straight. Churches are planning whole sermon series around this movie.

Are there historical falsehoods in The Da Vinci Code? Yes. Do those falsehoods challenge the orthodox Christian tradition? Yes. Is it our job to “demolish arguments and every pretension that sets itself up against the knowledge of God” (2 Cor 10:5)? Yes. So I appreciate the efforts of those who would challenge heresy and reassert orthodoxy.

But something rubs me the wrong way about this “evangelical response to The Da Vinci Code.” It seems to me like we’re a little too excited about defending the truth. Sometimes, in our passion to make sure people get the right version of the story, the church comes off looking like the Wizard of Oz – as if we’re trying to keep people from looking too carefully behind the curtain.

See, the thing about truth is that it just IS. Truth is true. It doesn’t necessarily need to be defended. The Old Testament word for glory – as in the glory of God – is a word that means weighty. The truth is heavy. If someone wishes to argue for the flatness of the Earth, thoughtful people don’t spend much time debunking that claim. We let the truth speak for itself. But when it comes to The Da Vinci Code, we Christians seem to be worried that the weight of God’s glory in Christ will be obscured by some wrong ideas in a work of popular fiction.

So I’m wondering: what would it be like if the church let truth defend itself? What if our response to Dan Brown’s version of the story was simply to smile and laugh and shake our heads, the same way we would toward flat-earth theorists? Would not such a response prove more thought-provoking than our frantic rush to defend orthodoxy?

“The line between fact and fiction may very well blur, and many men and women will leave theaters with very wrong ideas about Christ,” said the letter I received. I’m trying to imagine a similar letter directed at false views of science: “…many men and women will leave theaters with very wrong ideas about the shape of the earth!”

Apparently we don’t consider the truth about Jesus to be as well established as geology or cosmology. If we did, would we feel the need to defend it so vigorously?

Comments

[stewman]

Bob, I agree that the evangelical knee-jerk response to things like the DaVinci Code can be annoying. Why aren't we as overtly thoughtful about other things? However, I might challenge your thought that truth just IS and that it doesn't necessarily need to be defended. One of the most important ways that truth shows itself to be true is through what God's people say about it. Doctrine has always been clarified most precisely in the face of heretical claims and opposition to the truth. During the 300's when Arius was making false statements about the Godhead, Athanasius challenged him. And then the Council of Nicea in 325 made a clear statement of Trinitarian doctrine. The truth about the Trinity did not just bear itself out apart from any involvement of the Church. It bore itself out through the involvement (and I would argue, through the defense) of the Church. So, when popular culture wants to openly talk about something as weighty as the nature of Christ, I think we must not be silent. I definitely don't think we should be argumentative or reactionary, but we should embrace the opportunity to present Jesus accurately. He is perfect God and perfect Man, united in one Person. This truth does not just show itself to be true unless somebody says something.

[Jeff]

My church is doing a whole 4 week series on "Decoding the Davinci code" I have had problems with it and I feel like I am going against the grain, many in my church are excited about this series. I don't know why we have this aching need to be "relevant" and preach on pop-culture. I also don't like the fact that my church has spent money on different audio/visual features for the series and some other aspects for the series.

But I feel like many will think I am not "with them" if I speak out about this series. I am sort of confused as to what to do about it.
Any ideas would be great.

[Colin]

Bob,
I really like your analogy of the Wizard of Oz behind the curtain. Something just weirds me out about how produced this "response" to the divincy code is. But, I agree with Todd that truth must be defended. I think because of media's portrayals of the novel as fact that there are going to be many questions raised.

Prepared? Yes definitely we should be prepared. Packaged? Umm I'm not so sure.

To me the question comes down to do you take God at His Word. Or do you believe Dan Brown's best selling NOVEL to be a more accurate portrayal of Christ.

The problem I think is that American's (myself included) are too lazy to question. We want the easiest and first answers available. Maybe packaged resources are necessary.

I have no problem with questions. I hope people come out of the movie with questions, the fear as that they will not seek answers.

[Bob]

Stewman, VERY good point. It seems, though that what made the Arian controversy so important was that it was an attack on the Trinity from WITHIN the church. Had Arius set out to write a fictional bestseller, sell the movie rights, and make millions, might that not have cast the debate in a different light?

[stewman]

Bob, equally good point. Dan Brown is not arguing from within the church. However he does state on the first page of his book that "all descriptions of...documents...in this novel are accurate." So, he makes non-fictional assertions in his fictional work. I suppose if Arius had set out to profit from a misrepresentation of the Trinity, he might have suffered more than what actually happened to him...the burning of his writings and his banishment to Yugoslavia. My point was just that the church has always been a staunch defender of the truth, often in much more severe (albeit less cheesy) ways than we see now.

[Ben]

Yeah, I don't see why anyone should protest this movie; it seems like it raises a lot of good questions.

I think it's an interesting theory that Jesus was married to Mary Magdalene. Regardless if they were married or not and had any kids, it is a non-issue because Jesus was both God and man.

Bob, I do disagree with your comparison though. The truth that the earth is round was discovered about 500 years before Jesus was even around. Plus now we can scientifically prove that the earth is round, but we cannot scientifically prove that Jesus was the Son of God or that He really accomplished what He said He was going to. It is hardly a fair comparison.

[Lane]

I think that Stewman is right on when he says that the DVC requires our response, if only to clarify that it is fictional- especially since Dan Brown asserts the truth of his material (until pressed, when he admits he is full of crap, basically). The hysteric response of the church is silly, but the opportunity to discuss Christology and the history of doctrine is an appealing one.

Ben, I think I disagree with you on the protest issue. If you mean we should ease up on the histrionics and calls for boycott, I agree, we look rather foolish. But to calmly but emphatically deny the legitimacy of Brown's claims is our responsibility WHEN we are asked. I have read the book, and though I am a little hazy on the exact 'conspiracy' [an indictment of the book, rather than my memory, I submit], Brown denies the divinity of Jesus. To legitimize as "an interesting theory" such conjecture would be irresponsible on our part.

[anonymous]

I think that this is really a generational question as to how we go about defending our faith. I like Bob's picture of laughing and shaking our heads quietly. . . not like we needed to say something to assuage our fears. Bob and I are both from a generation that abhors packaging, all the way from Kurt and Nirvana knocking Michael Jackson off the charts to Presidents that can't define "is", we're a little skeptical of the establishment. I think this is a good example of the Christian community having good motives but going about it in a (for lack of a better term) nerdy way. I remember the Passion of the Christ hype where a prominent Christian leader said that this movie was the greatest evangelical tool in 2000 years! As if we have the historical clout or intelligence to make such a claim. . . apparently the tongues of fire, Holy Spirit empowerment of the First century does not compare with Mel Gibson.
Having said that, I agree with Stewman that this is a pretty serious challenge to our faith, and I"m a little more forgiving of the sermon series, apologetic pamphlets, etc. . . . in this case because Brown is challenging the very veractiy of the Word of God and yes, the divinity of our Lord. So, let's be intelligent and not over-do it and sound foolish. But, let's also care for our people who may need some answers and help them separate fact from fiction.

first timer,
Aaron

[Pimple]

Great point Colin. Most of the people out there are just don't investigate further. Seeds of doubt are sown easily with a movie like this. They are not so easily uprooted.