I certainly see your point of view. I read the book but will not be going to see the movie. My son thinks the key may be in what your athiest friend said, that being examining your faith. God is big enough to stand up to that examination.

>>If Christianity can’t stand up to questioning, it’s not worth believing. I want to have a faith that is worth believing.

And yet, we're told not to test God, and to be even more cautious in testing ourselves lest we fall. After all, look where the atheist's questions got him.

You might consider a conversation between two spouses, where the one tells the other that their marriage is strong enough to stand up to a harmless affair or two.

Great - finally a Christian who is taking Dan Brown's book as it is - fiction. I too have really enjoyed his book as a page-turning novel and am looking forward to the film.

Is the book a challenge to the church? Yes, but not just because it presents stories, myths and gnostic heresies. It is a challenge because if it causes Christians to stumble, pastors and teachers need to rethink their communication of orthodox belief to their congregations.

I do have concerns about the book - but not for Christians - my only problem would be if it became culture's only popular reference about Jesus. I guess the church is going to have to get on out there and tell the truth. The only way to dispel darkness is to switch on the light, not complain or protest about the darkness or explain why it is wrong.

Of all the books out there to read, including a wide variety of better written and more edifying pop fiction, you chose "The Da Vinci Code"? So what do you say to Jesus when you get to heaven and He says, "I gave you 718,320 hours [just under 82 years] to advance my kingdom on earth, and you spent 5 of them reading the Da Vinci Code? Why? Why is it even necessary to read pop fiction to be entertained? We didn't have pop fiction in 20 A.D., so why do you think you needed it?"

Read the book. Found it comparable to Indiana Jones. Never did understand where they got the idea there that demons were locked up in the Ark. If the Code rattles your foundation, then it seems to me you had better check what it is you're anchored to. Half the Church ranted and raged about the Passion. Membership button or not, people remain people...........

Unfortunately, you're assuming that everyone in church is as well-educated and thoughtful as you are. Too many Church people know so little about the Bible, about Christ's person and work, etc, that they are unable to process information like this. And Dan Brown himself is so deluded as to actually believe that his book is 'well-researched' and stands on good historical footing. In the end, the reason there should be a Christian response is simple: some Christians will be entirely confused because American churches have too often sold themselves short in terms of education. As a minister, if the people I serve are wholly incapable of grasping the concepts discussed in things like the Da Vinci Code, it is my job to know these things and help them. It's all part of being a shepherd, and should not be taken lightly.
It seems like this article is written with a bit of naivete. Telling someone who has no idea what's going on and takes everything they hear or read at face value to 'just learn to question' is not very good advice. It's tantamount to giving a class of seventh graders condoms and saying 'You shouldn't be having sex, but just in case...'

Elizabeth,

Thank you for putting into words the feelings I have towards The Da Vinci Code. I couldn't agree more with everything you wrote. I devoured the book during a summer break and thoroughly enjoyed it. I'm looking forward to seeing the movie although it's been getting a lot of bad reviews.

No matter what faith tradition you are a part of, you will be faced with ideas that challenge your beliefs. This is healthy and should be embraced as we seek to understand God in deeper and more profound ways. Sheltering ourselves from "heresy" and opposing viewpoints can lead us to have a weak and shallow faith.

Oh dear, oh dear, oh dear.

1) This blog is a blatant attempt to create controversy without bothering to check the evidence.Just like "The Da Vinci Code" in fact. Dan Brown's website has not yet conceded that his historical thesis is rubbish, but instead relies on a postmodern "what is truth anyway?" apologetic.

2) The reason that Brown cannot "come out" is that Doubleday spent a fortune, transporting him around every media outlet that would listen to him proclaiming that his novel would shed light on the secrets at the heart of Western culture.

3) Brown knows his theory is pap - the infamous Walt Disney passage is a dead giveaway - but he is capable of a little dissimulation. He did use the word fact to mislead his audience after all. And the recent libel trial in London was very suspicious.

4) Brown's book is deeply antisemitic. The image of Yahweh and the Shekinah making love in the holy of holies is deeply offensive to religious Jews, as is the idea that Satanic rituals were performed there - and many Satanists do claim the Hieros Gamos as their own. Watch "Rosemary's Baby, for heavens sake.

5) A lot of people have been taken in by Brown's rhetoric - stop condescending to them. Given the didactic style of many passages, Teabing's arguments were clearly meant to be taken seriously.

6) Whether the books overall thesis is accepted by most readers or not, Brown's book increases skeptcism about the past, religious belief, and truth in general.

7) Brown's book is a triumph of market research and advertising over style and substance. Surely that gives veryone reason to mourn.

"7) Brown's book is a triumph of market research and advertising over style and substance. Surely that gives veryone reason to mourn."

Of all, this is probably the best of the spiel. Bottom line is we're a society that thrives on hype. If it ain't outlined in neon lights, and a public hoo-ahh isn't made about the product then that item is doomed to marginalization.

For me, The Da Vinci Code is a laugh riot, not to be taken seriously, and not worth the "serious" consideration everyone is giving it. I've not read the book, nor will I see the movie because one of my co-workers gave me a run down, and when he got to the particulars of the "code" I started laughing (I mean really laughing hard)
If you enjoy historical fantasy, then the Da Vinci Code should deliver in spades. I would consider it on the same level as the movie "National Treasure."
Fun and entertaining, with just a enough historical spice to bribe the viewer into suspending disbelief.
As for those who will point to the Da Vinci Code as proof positive that the Church has a conspiracy going (like one of my relatives is doing), there is nothing anyone can do, or say that will change their minds.

I must disagree with the writer of this post that the Da Vinci code is not claiming to be fact: the preface at the beginning of the book states precisely the opposite. Nor does the book merely 'sensationalize' for the sake of the plot: it presents falsehoods as historical facts (I'm not even thinking of doctrine here, but of verifiable events like the chronology of church orthodoxy or the church's development under the emperor Constantine.) What we need to consider most seriously, however, is not whether Christians will be shaken by the book- we at least have support networks to rely on in grappling with the issues. A far greater threat lies in the effect of the book on non-Christians who are not as familiar with the material. In personal experience three of my friends have independently made the argument that although they don't know anything about the background to the book, the fact that 'so many people are reading it' means 'there must be something to it'. Christians must be active in refuting its deceitful claims.

Sounds sort of like an excuse for watching porn.

It's rousing. It provokes questions. It's only fiction. Being in our culture almost insists on it. If people are so shaken up by it as to ruin their marriages, then they must have had problems to begin with. And really, no one gets hurt.

Re: Lindsay's post: "three of my friends have independently made the argument that although they don't know anything about the background to the book, the fact that 'so many people are reading it' means 'there must be something to it'."
That's a wonderful example to turn around and share with your friends, Lindsay: So many people have been reading the Bible, a perennial best-seller, that there must be something to it! This exchange with your friends has opened the door for you. Get them each a Bible and let them see a real page-turner for themselves!

I read the book; I saw the movie. And while it is a story and a novel it is not JUST a story or JUST a novel. The fact that it is about Christ changes everything. The fact that Jesus is not neutral in any culture of the world, beginning with His own, makes this much more than a story. So to use the “It is just a novel” line is at best naive.

One inherent danger is that Dan Brown does not merely raise questions as Elizabeth Diffin suggests. His book is designed to get us to question answers the Bible clearly provides. It causes us to not merely question our faith but to mistrust where the answers come from. And by the way, it is working. I have read several letters from people who are walking away from faith in Christ as a direct result of reading the book. Does the book threaten to topple Christianity as the novel claims it could? Not at all. It just hurts sheep whose faith legs are wobbly.

How about this thought. If a story was written in such a way as to smear my wife, still under the guise of a being “just a story,” I would still be deeply upset. I would be so disturbed because I happen to love my wife more than my own life. I think this is how I am to love Jesus too. I am deeply disturbed at the personal nature of attack on Jesus my Lord. It hurts me because I love him. It is a struggle to say I love him and Da Vinci too because story or not, it attacks his identity, mission, intentions and lowers him to be nothing more that a misunderstood version of me. It says the very bride, which he gave himself to redeem and keep pure is nothing more than a power hungry political pawn.

It is sad when (according to Barna) 2,000,000 people are being affected by it. It hurts when I think about the 18 year old college student with a sincere seeking heart decides Christianity is a hoax and the church cannot be trusted. It is sad when Christians fail to engage their culture by protesting without learning the issues surrounding the book or simply dismiss it as a “Novel” and fail to grasp the offense to Christ and His cause.

We should become aware and alert. Jude 1:3-4 says, …contend for the faith… because certain men slip in among us…changing grace into a license for immorality (divine feminine? We were meant to experience God through sex and the church made it evil. It is in the Da Vinci Code) and deny Jesus Christ our only Sovereign and Lord. (Jesus was just a man, Constantine gave Jesus the promotion to deity for his own political gain. It is in the Da Vinci Code) So Christian read the book, see the movie but do not take Dan Brown's questions as your own. Go study the authenticity of the Bible yourself, Learn the Bibles claims on the person of Christ yourself and then as Colossians 4:6 instructs us. Let your conversation be always full of grace, seasoned with salt, so that you may know how to answer everyone. It is not “JUST” a novel, it is an opportunity to gather people to Christ. Seize it!

Finally, just an observation about my experience in watching the Da Vinci code. On lady clapped at the movies end but I cannot remember a time leaving a theater when people were so silent and somber. It was as though hope had been dealt a mortal wound and people were in shock that their champion had fallen. Just a story?

If someone you LOVE DEARLY - spouse, parent, close friend (or yourself) - is publicly presented in ways that negatively misrepresent everything you know to be true of that person's character, especially given abundant proof that the public portrayal is based on outright falsehoods, you WILL NOT enjoy it, be pleased, or be entertained. Your love for that person will compel you to defend their reputation against those who are shamelessly perverting it. The only context where it might be entertaining or laughable would be one of these celebrity "roasts" where EVERYONE INVOLVED clearly understands that the character assassination is being done in jest.

This is true on an entirely human level, but is INFINITELY MORE TRUE when it comes to the divine Person, Character, Reputation, and saving activities of our Lord Jesus Christ. Jesus Christ is the Only Foundation for the Christian life and the Church. This ungodly world, the sinful flesh, and Satan (who successfully deceives the nations) are all continuously at work to seduce people away from devotion to Christ. Even a small child should recognize that the Da Vinci Code in all its manifestations is fully employed in that agenda.

Do not be deceived, those who love Jesus Christ will not be found enjoying fellowship with those who mock him.

I agree with this post. I have read the book twice, which according to John means I am going to get twice the grief from Jesus for wasting twice the time, and it is just a reasonably good novel. The theology is junk. He really does not like the Catholic church, which is also proved in his other books. But it is just a book. And from the reviews it is not even a classic movie. At best 3 stars. If the questions raised by this book or movie are the worst I am going to have face as a pastor, well bring it on.

Oh and since I have have the habit of reading not only Brown, but Grisham, Cussler, Ludlum, and Clancy as well, I have a lot explaining to do for the hours I have shot down the tube. Come to think of it, that might be the least I have to answer for.

But anyway, it is book, popular, but just a book and a movie. The gates of hell will not prevail.

I question the validity of anyone's relationship with the "Real" Jesus, if that person is promoting the Da Vinci Code book or movie.

A teacher colleague of mine, was estatic about the novel, proclaiming its virtues and how it proved to her that Christianity was a fairy tale. When I asked if she had ever read the Bible, she answered, "Some."

So whether Dan Brown is promoting it as fact or fiction seems irrelevant; people are buying into it as fact! People with little to no knowledge of the Holy Scriptures will take it as truth.

Therefore, for so called "Chistians" to promote this book is unconscionable! I guess they will have to give an answer to God on judgement they as to why they gave their money to a group of people who spoke lies about Him!

Elizabeth Diffin's faith probably could have been better strengthened by spending a little time in God's Word and prayer rather than giving an ounce of credibility to the Da Vinci Code with her commentary.

How could a Christian say with a straight face that they like the Da Vinci Code? Perhaps their Spirit is so dulled that they no longer see any harm in blasphemy. Yes, its clear that Diffin, in her own words, "became more aware of the world." Is this strengthening ones faith?

Sister, in a world full of "fiction" about our Lord, I'd rather hear of a Christian writer that takes the opportunity to stand and refute the "fiction" and tells about "TRUTH".

Earlier I wrote - "A lot of people have been taken in by Brown's rhetoric - stop condescending to them."
I think several bloggers have failed to take this on board. Highly educated and intelligent people can believe all kinds of crazy things - I know several graduate students who have developed a taste for religious conspiracy theories thanks to books like Da Vinci. And just because someone is uneducated, it doesn't make them unitelligent. However, they might find it more difficult to discern spin from scholarship in books like Da Vinci. And people who have been taken in by Da Vinci simply because they are unintelligent aren't likely to change their minds because we're sneering at them.
All three groups can follow an argument, and maybe providing a response to a popular novel wouldn't be such a waste of time?

Has anyone noticed a similarity between Dan Brown's style of argument and Ken Ham's? I know Ken is on the side of the Kingdom, but should he be getting away with half truths, poor exegesis and conspiracy theories, if we are slamming Dan Brown for the same reasons?

Which brings me to another point. Is Mr Brown's greatest crime poor scholarship, or opposing the Kingdom? Many evangelical reviews make it sound as if the former is the greater sin - the book can be dismissed because the scholarship is so poor. By the same token, should poor old Ken get such a hammering from mainstream evangelicals, just because his scholarship is so bad? He may have sloppy arguments, but he undoubtedly points people towards the creator.

the book is a novel....just fiction ...
if it gets people talking about Jesus who normally wouldn't ,that is a good thing.
Christians should be ready with the real facts,The Gospel ,not worrying about the effects of a novel on their own faith .

People!
Some of you are losing it, and not in an attractive way either.
The world recognizes its own, it has never, nor will it ever recognize Jesus until he comes with his rod of iron.
WE ARE NOT TO MAKE CONVERTS!
That's the Spirit of G-d's job, we just present the gospel and if refuse we move on.
But:
The world is looking to secure it's own, and this book/movie is what the world produces to secure it's own. It's own will watch it, believe it, and remark amongst themselves, "Aha, so much for that Jesus fellow!"
If the world is willing to believe a lie based on fantasy, then what on G-d's green, blue, and brown earth do you think you can say to change that mentality?
"Well, for one I wouldn't see that movie...," blah...blah...and more sactimonious blah!
Yeah, big statement you all are making there. How bout go seeing what the world thinks is the truth, and then when the world says, "well, I saw the Da Vinci Code...yada...yada...yada...and that proves Jesus isn't the son of G-d!" be ready to say, "Oh really?"
Yeah really, because what just occurred is a possible once in a life time opportunity for that person of the world to hear the truth, unfiltered, unadulturated, and in all it's glory.
If you're afraid of a movie, and your faith is shaken so easily with an obviously over the top pile of Bull's waste. Then perhaps the problem lies less with the OP, and more with your own spiritual insecurity.

I am in total agreement with "leoskeo" and "Roy". This book and movie dishonor and bring reproach upon the name of our Lord Jesus Christ. You can not "Like DaVinci and Love Jesus" at the same time. Sorry. If you truly love Jesus, then your heart will be grieved at such blasphemy and you will take no joy in unrighteousness. We are not to partake in the unfruitful works of darkness but rather reprove them.

I am very disappointed and saddened by such responses. The Church seems to be losing all sense of reverence and respect for the holiness of God.

I don't have to see porn to know that it's bad. I don't have to see the Da Vinci Code to know that it's biased alleged-fact-presented-as-fiction. I recently saw a special on counterfeit money experts at the FBI. They said that they spend little time looking at the counterfeits, but know the real thing so well that counterfeits are obvious. It's the same way in the church. You should know why you believe what you believe, but that doesn't mean you have to do research on every piece of shoddy pseudo-scholarship that comes along proclaiming Da Vinci, Gospel of Judas/Thomas/Egyptians, etc.

As for it being just a novel, all you have to do is read some of Dan Brown's statements about how he became a believer to put the lie to the line that it's "just" fiction. Does Dan Brown's own statements sound to anybody else like a Christian giving his testimony? You know, "I used to be a drug-taking atheist, now I know Jesus." In his case, he started writing the book to disprove the theory, but ended up a believer.

Here's what I don't get. In recent years there have been a host of scandals in the publiching industry. Authors of news stories and books have been found to be plagiarizing, making up stories and changing facts. The guilty writers have been fired. Contracts have been cancelled. And there has generally been hand-wringing in the ivory towers of the industry.

I can here you saying, "That's easy, this is a novel." But it says in black and white in the front of the book that the historical facts presented are true.

There are probably more than a dozen books, tapes and seminars available that easily prove that Dan Brown is playing fast and loose with history. Why is he not suffering the same fate as his counterparts?

Does anyone remember Eric von Daniken's "Chariots of the Gods" (1968)? It attacks orthodox Christianity at the same level as Dan Brown's fiction, and it enjoyed the same media exposure (at least in the UK). Hopefully Brown will be relegated to the same end of the bookshelf in 30 years time, but by then we'll probably have some another crank theory to deal with. Whilst we in the church cannot predict what flight of fancy the popular culture will follow next, what we can do is what we've always done, keep our focus on Jesus, and to direct our energies towards lifting him up.

I find the argument that not standing up against this book is akin to not defending your spouse when they are publicly smeared a weak one.

As others have pointed out, if God is real, then we can engage others with the truth, rather than with defensiveness; because truth bears witness to itself; or in this case, Himself.

Personally, when I hear people reacting defensively it reminds me of what I expect from cult followers who are more interested in pulling the wool over their own eyes than in engaging others on the pertinent issues.

In my experience, the one who really stands out as a strong witness is someone who is able to respond not defensively, but in a gracious yet steadfast manner – both through the calm and through the storm.

God does not need defending. He is more than capable of doing that on His own. The key issue is what our response will be when we have the opportunity (and that’s what this is- an opportunity) to speak about what we know to be true. And remember, it’s often the non-verbals - such as tone of voice, body language, etc - that communicate more essentials about God’s nature than all our most polished doctrinal defenses.

I wrote a comment earlier sharing how I agreed with the article. I can understand why people would have problems with reading and going to see The DaVinci Code. I'm not surprised that many of the comments have been critical of the article and the approach it supports.

However, I would ask that those who disagree with the article and those who support it would not engage in attacks on our spirituality. Disagree with the ideas but not the person. Through the comments I have been told that since I enjoyed the story, not the facts, of the DaVici Code that I:

1. Don't have a real realtionship with God
2. Don't have the Spirit working in my life
3. Don't truly love Jesus

Let's try to avoid making personal attacks on each other over opposing viewpoints. Disagreement is to be expected and can help us grow but personal attacks won't get us anywhere.

Actor Tom Hanks plus Director Ron Howard equals super mega blockbuster movie, right? Wrong! While the controversy surrounding Da Vinci was certainly enough to guarantee a strong opening, it won't be enough to warrant repeat viewings. Setting theological heresies, and gross historical revisionism aside, it was, to quote Simon Cowell, hideously boring! Toward the end of the movie, you were quite literally thinking to yourself, "when is it going to end?" To quote James Rocchi, a film critic for CBS 5 television in San Francisco and the online outlet Cinematical, he said, "I kept thinking of the Energizer Bunny, because it kept going and going and going, and not in a good way." The only character that was at least entertaining was Ian McKellen's role as Leigh Teabing. You are better off watching Over the Hedge, which is, at the very least, entertaining. I won't give the movie away, but the squirrel steals the show.

You write:
"No one is trying to trick us into thinking it is true, any more than E.B. White tried to convince us that pigs can talk. That’s the nature of fiction: you suspend reality for a couple of hours and experience another world. And I found Brown’s world to be a great ride."

And I say, "You've got to be kidding, right?" Dan Brown in the introduction to the novel states plainly "FACT: All descriptions of artwork, architecture, documents, and secret rituals in this novel are accurate." Which is a blatant LIE!

I would recommend N.T. Wright's response to this film and novel. He seems far more informed about the history of this debate. And the Gnostic gospels have not as you say, "been around since shortly after Matthew and Luke wrote theirs" there is at the very least a span of over 100 years between them.

This book and film are both "dangerous" and are a direct assault on the divinity of Christ. The Early Church would not have been so kind to such heresy. Of course, I suppose that's why modern "scholars" are vilifying the Church Fathers to begin with isn't it.

The best analysis I have read, so far. Probably because it expresses my feelings about The DaVinci Code. I could not have said it better, myself.

Darren,
Your words make some assumptions that may not be completely accurate.

First: To defend does not always make you defensive. To defend is often, especially in a relationship based upon love a response of love for someone.

Second: To defend does not always mean the person you are defending is defenseless. I would not defend my wife because she is defenseless but because I love her. The same is true with Christ; I do not defend him in this matter because he cannot defend himself but because I love him. This does not render Jesus Christ defenseless or me defensive.

Third: There are many ways of defending that do not include defensiveness. They can as you assert to tell the truth, and using the truth to defend does not necessarily mean defensiveness.

Fourth: It is not just the Name of Christ we defend. As a pastor it is not only Christ I stand to “Defend” either, it is the sheep he has entrusted into my care. I defend those who have not grown to a place to discern the rhetoric of Dan Brown from truth. This does not make me defensive, just a defender. Reread the words I wrote, they are not defensive word but defending words. They are not attacking words but words of instruction about gracious speech and contending for faith.

I agree with you that we need not be defensive or for that matter offensive. But that does not mean we will never defend of offend. I also agree that we need not attack each other. My personal conviction was to read the book and see the movie. It did not entertain me, it offended me. It slandered my savior and attacked the church for which he gave his own life. I read and saw so that I could speak with intelligence and credibility to people I encounter. I say if you cannot read or watch without harm to your soul, then do not. If you read or watch, then do so. But do not make the mistake that this is neutral ground. Again I say, this is an opportunity, Seize it!

It is amazing to me that thousands of pastors across the country, so called spirit filled leaders are reacting to the book like it is a fact. I think the reason we are reacting to something so obviously heretical and just plain ridiculous is because pastors across America know that they are serving congregations that are spiritually immature. They are protecting them at great length because they haven't taught their people to think for themselves. Absent of their Sunday AM happy message, people don't know the Word.

Faddish leadership is lame. What would happen if the church were known more for its response and proactivity in real issues like hunger, disease, homelessness, widows, teen pregnancy, then its response towards a fiction novel.

We have proven the church is immature and missing the mark missionally becuase of our overreaction and glamorization of a hollywood movie. If we were actually teaching our people the word, they wouldn't get duped so easily.

But it isn't all bad, at least this is an opportunity for us to teach some basic truth about history and the origin of Christianity. How many pastors will actually do that though?

I could totally relate to this article. I don't read much fiction anymore because I don't have much free time to give to fiction literature, but did pick this one up because of the controversy. I liked it for its quick pace and murder mystery. I will probabably go see the movie as well as a refresher on the book.

With that said, I wish that Christians would stop protesting the film and just go see it. If we go see it, we can talk about it intelligently and may use it as a springboard for talking about Christianity. We need to be prepared to give our answers for our reason of the hope that is within us - not be afraid to face the controversy by avoiding it.

It is interesting to me how sooooo many Christians are afraid to think or to let other people think for themselves. There are some people who accept whatever they are spoon-fed by the church--then they go out and make the church look like a fool. There are others who want to think because God gave them a brain that he will hold them accountable for using.

Why can't people disagree without resorting to viewing the "other" as a heretic or bashing their belief in God? Many who would bash someone else for not having the right the "beliefs" are the same ones who do not have the right "practice!" For instance: love your neighbor.

As an "undercover" reader of action adventure novels I would have to disagree and suggest that it was not all that good. Not bad enough to take back to the library in disgust but not so good I had to stay up to read it. One of the characteristics (of several) that make it mediocre is the research screw-ups presented as real, not fiction. Many action adventure novels speak of historical realities and in the best ones you can trust the historical realities on par with an academic history – the authors did the research. Not Dan Brown. I don’t know if it was intentional or if it is just bad or non-existent research.
I have no problems with challenges to the faith. I am not ready to riot over a 2nd rate novel (or a first rate one if one should come along) that challenges my faith or my Lord. It is however a good contact point to present the real Jesus and the real good news to a world that is increasingly unfamiliar with both.

I must confess that I am little non plussed when someone says that they enjoy The DaVinci Code and also love Jesus Christ. I picked up the novel so that I would be informed about the controversy. Since I had heard what a page turner it is, I actually expected to have a good, entertaining read even if I disagreed with the ideas. I ended up returning the book half finished two weeks late to the library. It was no page turner for me. It really was not the ideas about Jesus that turned me off. I became too disgusted with the mishandling of truth and the blatant promotion of pagan religion. I cannot find any enjoyment in fiction that promotes ideas and attitudes toward truth that undermine and oppose the gospel.

As a Christian pastor in San Francisco, I spend a lot of time with people who self-identify as "spiritual" and give Jesus high marks, but who don't like the organized Christian church very much. So far, their reactions to the DaVinci Code are running the gamut from "entertaining novel" to "poorly written novel." None of the seekers I know report believing that Dan Brown is presenting an accurate alternative to the Bible; they think he has written a novel. Most of my "seeking" friends and aquaintances think the defensive, angry, fearful response from "The Church" is because the novel shines a light on gender inequalities and the 2,000 year history of men in power squelching dissent, telling other people how to believe and punishing those who didn't submit to their human systems.
My take on all of this?
I read the book because members of my congregation were asking me about it. I read the Harry Potter books for the same reason.
The novel didn't threaten either my belief in Christ or my sense of his divine nature. It did remind me of how often those who claim to know Him (calling Lord, Lord!) have distorted His message, though. And, it is sparked great conversations with people wanting to discover the real Jesus. Praise God for that.

Really, I'm with Gregg here. There are intelligent discussions of history and faith to be had, this isn't one of them, and not worth getting worked up over. In the same way I wouldn't see porn as a good entry to a discussion on the Christian view of sexuality. There are just plain other ways to have similar conversations.

My aversion to seeing this movie has nothing to do with being against freedom of thought or whatever. I plain just don't want to support blasphemy financially. And Brown does blaspheme, with his whole passage on the name of God shockingly bold. Why would I give him money? I did read the book, but only because I borrowed it from my sister-in-law. And maybe I'll see the movie the same way. But I won't pay for a ticket, because I don't want in any way to financially support anyone who believes in idolatry if I can help it.

Christians died in defiance of that which Brown celebrates. That means something to me and how I use my wallet. This isn't about freedom of thought or encouraging dialogue. For me this is about standing with my brothers and sisters who sizzled on the griddles because they wouldn't make a wee offering to the gods, gods who Brown would have us celebrate. I'm not afraid of it at all, but neither will I give it any support whatsoever.

II John verse 7 says, “ For many deceivers have gone out into the world, those who do not acknowledge
Jesus Christ as coming in the flesh. This is the deceiver and the antichrist” (NASB, read also I John 4:2, 3).

The denial that Christ came “in the flesh” is well-known to be a central teaching of so-called “Christian” gnosticism. In the Da Vinci Code, Dan Brown insists that the Gnostic “gospels” that preach this “identity marker of the antichrist” should have been accepted by the Church. My friend, the early Church did not tolerate the Gnostics, gnosticism, or their “gospels”, because they recognized them for exactly what they were: the activity of THE ENEMY of Christ. One reason why there are so extremely few surviving gnostic writings is that the orthodox early Church universally condemned and destroyed them. They did not indulge themselves in them. There is excellent reason to believe that the early Church was closer (not just chronologically) to the Mind and Heart of our Lord than the modern church. When we enthusiastically expose ourselves to things they hated and destroyed, it is high time for us to “test ourselves to see if we are in the faith.”

I read the book last Sunday as I was traveling. It's been sitting on my shelf for a year and a half waiting for me to get around to it. I've never been one to race into the big phenomena...

As a novel I found it well, to be honest, sort of ho-hum. I don't know what all the hype is about. There are much better authors out there. As a mystery story it was fairly transparent as to who was the bad guy, what was going to happen next, and they all lived happily ever after. Plus, if the author really, truly thinks that all those events could have happened in the space of 24 hrs. he takes himself entirely too seriously.

I don't live in the States, and in the Catholic nation where I live, peole have swallowed this book hook, line and sinker as being THE truth, so this was one of my motivations for reading the book. The word "novel" doesn't mean fiction to them for some reason. Granted, we're not talking about the intellectually elite of this country; who knows what they think? But the average person here is always looking for the next big thing to believe in, and they're quite happy to reject the claims of Jesus, whom they have known about all their lives. Mostly because they've never had a personal relationship with him. And ANYthing to prove that the Catholic Church has lied to them all their lives has to be good. (Which it has... but not necessarily in the ways Dan Brown portrays.)

I'll go see the movie too, since my non-believing friends are all talking about it; it gives me a way to understand where they're coming from. To say that I won't go see it makes me sound snooty and "holier than thou" in this culture, which burns my bridges before I can cross them. Paul and Jesus understood well the cultures where they lived and used what they knew to talk to people about truth, so I figure I ought to do the same.

BROWN'S RUSE?

Taking my cue from Jim, but a question for all...

Jim said " ...And Dan Brown himself is so deluded as to actually believe that his book is 'well-researched' and stands on good historical footing."

It is true that very little research is needed to realize the palpable weaknesses and gross inaccuracies in Brown's account. This got me thinking: either Brown is deluded (as Jim suggests) or he is out to play a trick on the main group of anticipated respondents to his work: Christians.

Maybe Brown has set us up, confident that we would indeed respond

by bashing his book,
by going to unnecessarily great lengths to rigorously point out what are really palpable inaccuracies in his book,
by erecting misleading dichotomies of fact and fiction,
by observing an unhealthy diet of prrof-texting,

and the like...

In responding

too defensively,
taking ourselves far too seriously,
manifesting a lack of knowledge of the human dimension of our historical heritage,
and exhibiting some measure of narrow-mindedness, hate and intolerance along the way,

have we played into Brown's hands?

Should anyone pay any attention to such a group of people? Do important characteristics like humility and love appear to be in somewhat short supply, if not missing altogether, in the way we have responded?

I wonder...

"I had never heard of Opus Dei or the Cult of the Feminine in my pre-Da Vinci days. And even if Brown sensationalized them, which I’m sure he did for the sake of the plot, I was interested and able to do research and became more aware of the world."

I sincerely hope that you are not using Dan Brown's novel as your source for such "research". If you were to research the Priory of Sion, you'd find that they were a completely fabricated organization, whose history and members were made-up by some French guy in the mid 1900s.

I'm not scared of what's in the book, per se, I'm simply scared that people will not look to other sources before assuming truth from within the fiction.

I too found the book to be a page turner. I was not bothered by the statements about Jesus and Mary or Constantine. I enjoy what if books and that was what Dan Brown wrote in my opinion. I feel the book is a good conversation starter for people truly seeking. I saw the movie and found it a little long but not bad. I also enjoy historical fiction and I feel this genre could fit right into that!

This is quite the discussion.

I read about the Da Vinci controversy last summer from various different sources, and decided I likely wouldn't read the book. However, my local librarian, a non-believer, said that the book was, and I quote "wow!" So I read it. Why? So I could find some common ground with her.

(I work in a Christian environment, my neighbours are Christians, my Children attend a Christian school, and my friends are Christians. I need to work at it to connect with unbelievers!)

As a believer, the premise of the book was hard to read. I hate to hear or see my Saviour shamed, or defamed. My faith is not bound up in myth or lies. It is the only Truth! However, as a novel, well, I like a good conspiracy theory!!!

God was gracious to me at Christmas time, by having someone give me The Case for Christ by Lee Strobel. Most of the answers I needed to answer Dan Brown's lies are in that book. I was also able to recommend it to my librarian. Has she read it? I don't know. But, I was able to meet her where she is, and for that, I thank the Lord for The DaVinci Code.

I also thank the Lord for DVC, because, even in my very orthodox church, many believers are concerned about the attacks on our faith by the popular culture. DVC is only one of recent novels. I am able to share with them what I have learned, and suggest books to them to read so that they will be better prepared to stand.

Paul tells us to always have an answer for our faith. The world doesn't listen anymore to "Well the Bible says..." We need answers to why we believe the Bible and thus God. I think God's telling us it's time that we engaged the culture instead of avoiding it! Other books to help challenge our thinking and defending our faith:

Reasonable Faith- William Lane Craig
Case for Christ- Lee Strobel
Listen to evangelist Ravi Zacharrias
visit the web site for Stand to Reason

It's time, folks!

Honestly, I don't understand what all the fuss is about. When it comes down to it, most of us here are criticising Brown's faulty representation of history and his apparently poor writing skills - when what really should be the issue is whether it really questions our faith.

I don't think it is wrong in any way to enjoy reading the book, and as mentioned by someone else earlier - if God will question you about spending time reading it, don't you think there will be so many other things He might question you about? Like you spending 2 hours watching Scary Movie 4, for example? There are so many things we do that are purely for entertainment. In the same way you can criticise Brown's writing, I can enjoy it too, if it's a question of linguistic expertise.

And we cannot honestly believe that every book of fiction has its historical facts straight. Who has to believe what he writes? We talk as if Brown's Bible is his book, when really, its his piece of fiction. Fiction that, as mentioned, is so obviously based on twisted fact, that there should be no controversy at all. What we need is to get our facts straight, so we can quell controversy when it comes at us.

If we all we this passionate over the plight of the impoverished and victims of war, perhaps we would show Christ's love through actions and not word wars.

In the extreme, let's think about those who don't even have books.