The politically correct postmodern OST response to The Da Vinci Code (book and film) might be to affect an air of world-weariness, and leave the arguments to lesser mortals. By doing so, we may be missing something, however. Brian McLaren gives an excellent interview at www.sojo.net, in which he confronts the issue of why people are drawn to a wildly fictional account of Jesus and his descendants as opposed to the standard version they hear about in church.
McLaren suggests that for all the flaws in Dan Brown’s book (and it sounds as if the film propagates the flaws faithfully whilst failing to make good cinema), there may be in its popularity something of a reaction taking place against what is sensed to be a caricature version of Jesus presented by the church - not in what it says about him, but in the “status quo, male dominated, power-oriented, cover-up prone organized Christian religion”.
He goes on to say that the notion “that the real Jesus was not as misogynist or anti-women as the Christian religion often has been is very attractive”.
McLaren brackets The Da Vinci Code with Left Behind in the way they twist scripture to political ends, but maybe Brown is more honest: “He just wanted to write a page-turner and he was very successful at that.”
McLaren makes a plea for Christians to have a better knowledge of both the bible and church history as opposed to the over-simplified understanding they are often served up with.
McLaren also comments on the pendulum swing the church often goes through with regard to emphasizing the divinity or humanity of Christ. When a book like Brown’s emphasizes the humanity of Christ, it can be a sign to the church saying we underemphasize his humanity.
Finally, McLaren makes an appeal for genuine conversation with others about the book, rather than argument. In that way, the Holy Spirit is more likely to enter into our conversations. Asking questions of unbelieving readers might have a better effect than trying immediately to demolish Brown’s story. He concludes: “Ultimately, The Da Vinci Code is telling us important things about the image of Jesus that (are) being portrayed by the dominant Christian voices. (Readers) don’t find that satisfactory, genuine or authentic, so they’re looking for something that seems more real and authentic.”
Is McLaren hitting the nail on the head, or is he being too subtle in analysing responses to the Da Vinci Code phenomenon?
Especially in the voice of
Especially in the voice of the grandmother at the end of the book, I found some pretty accurate critiques, not of Jesus, but of the “male-dominated” church. Sure, it’s splitting, but the traditionally male attributes of domination and power have had some nasty effects on the church’s life. Making from for traditionally female attributes of compassion and intimacy would be a welcome move from my point of view. However, while is attractive to me, it felt like more of a soapbox in our church discussions. The people who had gathered with me either just didn’t get it or weren’t ready for it yet. They still like the wise grandpa in the sky for the most part.
In our conversations, there was not as much concern about whether or not Jesus was married as with the Biblical canon. Our discussion of the DaVinci Code allowed for a wonderful teaching moment on the development of the canon, which books were actually being considered but didn’t make it, that there is more dispute about the OT versus the NT, and why the “gnostic” texts are as big a deal as some make them out to be. It relieved some anxiety on the value of the Bible we have.
In our circle, no one felt the need to demolish the book, but no one has the need to see the movie either. They’re getting sick of the whole thing. As for a more authentic Jesus, I’m not sure. More human, sure, more authentic (read self-sacrificing, cross-bearing), I doubt it.