Toward a Postmodern Response to the Da Vinci Code

Though many of us know that the working subtitle to the Da Vinci Code film--"So Dark the Con of Man"--is appropriately directed at the book and (presumably) the film, it is another thing to actually articulate that truth to those we care for.

The Christian community around the world has been wrestling for about a year on how to respond to the coming Da Vinci Code movie. Not only did the book sell two zillion copies, but the new film brings together some of the most talented, well-liked film makers in the world.

I went to a simulcast at a local church recently. It was broadcast for Church leaders to essentially prepare them to go to war. "We need to arm ourselves" was a common phrase used, as the scholars pointed out the vast number of historic fallacies in the book.

Leave aside the fact that our Christian leaders can't seem to get away from military language when describing evangelism, and the invitation to another human soul to have an encounter with the Prince of Peace: Is this the best way to go about responding to the Da Vinci Code?

The immediate thing that stands out to me is the fear of our community. Our reaction seems to be universally one asking, "How ought we hit back?" Unfortunately this is often how apologetics is conducted in America. We get our debate style from Fox News and conservative radio, and we move into conversations with the same intellectual pride displayed in those genres. If we are lucky, we will escape without our friends saying to themselves, "Gee I won't bring that topic up again. Perhaps I won't speak with him about anything religious in nature again."

It seems to me that being filled with fear or being reactionary are not very attractive faces to display to our friends. It is unreal that some think handing out tracts at the movie theaters or assaulting Dan Brown's character in their sermons is effective. On the contrary, it is a sure way to be marginalized and ridiculed.

I take seriously the idea that the messenger is the message, and that language and film are often used, not to display things as they are, but as power plays to control others. We need to be serious about how we respond because we have not been called to control others (the sin of the Christian antagonists in this book, by the way). We have been called to set others free!

So what might that entail? First, it seems to me that this is an excellent opportunity to show the world that we are open minded. Let's go see the film, and if it is good, let's enjoy it. Let's tell people we enjoyed it. Like being sensitive to race, may we be hyper-sensitive to what we say about this film, because it will say more about our faith than any critique we offer.

Secondly, there are going to be lots of questions brought up by the film. Instead of having eight reasons at hand for why Jesus didn't have an affair with Mary Magdalene, why don't we direct them a different way: Let them tell us what they think about Jesus. Seriously, put aside some of the truth claims of the film. Simply talk about Jesus. Hopefully we have already created credibility with our friends to were their opinions can be said openly and honestly. If the conversation hits that depth, then perhaps we can offer why Jesus is so incredible in our eyes, what attracts us to him over and again, and why we want to live like he did. And perhaps this won't be the last conversation we'll have, but will be open-ended enough to invite further dialogue.

Thirdly, I have found only two words worth using if a critique is at all necessary for the Da Vinci Code: "Conspiracy Theory." Lump it in (as it has already lumped itself in) with the grassy knoll, Roswell, and those who think the moon landings were shot in a sound studio. Say, "I thought that was a better conspiracy film than JFK." It is a complement (with a dose of reality). It may also invite your friends to ask why you thought it was a conspiracy theory film: and then the conversation is about history and not a defensive diatribe about your faith.

Finally, and perhaps most importantly, Apologetics seldom if ever brings someone to faith in Jesus. It certainly does not without a real, authentic Christian care beside it. As Christians, we need to ask the questions raised in the Da Vinci Code much LOUDER than our brothers and sisters who are ensnared by gnosticism. We need to confess boldly where we, as Trinitarian believers, have screwed up in the past two thousand years, and have tragically rejected our God on the cross for a god of power and control.

We need to ask boldly: "How did the New Testament Canon come together?", "What is the appropriate place of political power in our world?" and "Why should we think that Jesus is divine?" (and let's think up some better answers than 'because the Bible says so.')

We need to be honest with the honest questions we all have about our faith. Apologetics is much more valuable for believers than unbelievers. It not only should confirm that the Jesus-way of life is the best possible way to live. It should also showcase the God we experience in prayer, worship and suffering in our own lives, is likewise at work in all the world at all times, and especially in the life, death, and resurrection of Jesus.

I trust NT Wright more than any other scholar today, and here is his treatment of the book: only to be read if you are NOT arming yourself to shot your friends in the head after you see the movie with them.

(NT Wright and CS Lewis are my personal favorites on that front, and these links are great places to begin. For CS Lewis, my favorite book is the Great Divorce and it would serve as a solid starting point. If you are looking for reasons to believe in God's existence, the resurrection of Jesus, etc: here is a worthy site of essays.)