Every Christian Should Read the Da Vinci Code
I have been meaning to write about a new series I am teaching to my senior high students in Sunday School for a few weeks now. I received permission to drop the curriculum I had been working with and build my own summer series based on the Da Vinci Code. While not every student has done so, the objective has been to get as many as possible to read the book and then discuss given chapters each week in class. In addition, we've been delving into the backstory, loosely speaking, looking at the parts of history the Code claims to speak about.
I had already been planning to present my case on here for why every Christian should read the Da Vinci Code, but I got started the other day when Mark was airing more of his distaste for the books and I tried to convince him that he should first read that which he is complaining about.
The Da Vinci Code is an excellent tool to teach what the world believes about the church — a lot of people believe precisely what the book says. Too many Christians live partially or mostly in the Christian ghetto, unaware of what the world thinks about them other than that they are bad, bad people (or worse, “secular humanists”) that need to be rebuked. This is not fulfilling our mission to be salt and light to the world! So, we are working through the Code slowly and carefully, looking at the claims. Now, I could just tell them to read some polemic against it and then my students could go rattle off that polemic to others. But there is another route: I can help them engage the issues thoughtfully, in context, so that they can intelligently discuss them with others. Christians are far too good at keeping up on polemics with no idea what can be affirmed in the stuff they attack. Most things are not black-and-white evil.
For example, many Christians read books like the Kingdom of the Cults and get the idea that there are some serious issues with the Jehovah's Witnesses, Mormons, and other non-orthodox groups that claim to have the true Christian message. If that is all the ever read on the issues, they hear that someone is a Jehovah's Witness and assume the person has to be an idiot. Try having a discussion with a person with an attitude like that, and do you really think the love of Christ is going to come through from you?
That is the problem. Say you have someone come up to you and say, “I just read this exciting book, the Da Vinci Code, and listen to what it said about Jesus and Mary!” In response, you reply, “Ah, it's just a bunch of hogwash fiction with a horrible author who claims his work is fact.” Now, we have a disconnect, and the person who enjoyed the book probably assumes you are just another Christian with knee jerk reactions (not that you are, but too many Christians are). You have shown the person zero respect by downplaying their opinion while putting in no effort to actually understand it a bit. They could rightly become angry with you, since you have not even read the book and yet you are telling them what to think about it. Conversely, if you say, “yes, it had me on the edge of my seat too, but you do have to realize yadda, yadda, yadda is wrong with the historical background,” you'll be much better at reaching them and doing good for the Gospel. Isn't that the goal?
In relation to Jehovah's Witnesses, imagine if people read books like the Kingdom of the Cults, but did so as a resource while carefully and critically engaging with materials from the Jehovah's Witnesses themselves. If the Christian would do that, she would understand how the person she is talking to can be a rational, decent human being and still believe the stuff they do. Moreover, by being able to affirm the good of the material — things like affirming the family, acting like Christ to others, etc. — we can build a “bridge,” as one of my professors, Jerram Barrs, would say to help the person we are talking to see that their core beliefs are built up and not torn down by the Gospel.
Think of Harry Potter and how the Christian reaction has made the church look. Conversely, Prof. Barrs insists he can actually find the Gospel in even the first Harry Potter book. And, I think he is right. Christians were so upset at the possibility that Harry Potter would make “witchcraft acceptable” that they missed a really good series that can be used to affirm much of the Christian message! Harry Potter is far less dangerous than the Da Vinci Code, of course. Nevertheless, the reactions to the Code that I've seen from the best theologians and historians are wise enough to say, “yes, I too found it really exciting and well written, but here are the issues.” You can't say that if you haven't read it. And, given that it is possibly the most influential book on peoples' perspectives on church history in a very long time, it seems critical to be able to interact with people on it.
In interacting with it, I have read Evangelical responses, but I am also using Bart Erhman's book on the Code for precisely the same reason. Erhman is an Evangelical turned agnostic and a serious critic of the Church. But, he is also a historian of some merit, so his critiques of the book are extremely helpful. Moreover, if my students have not only read the Code, but also have heard critiques that are informed by Erhman's views, they are vastly more prepared to give answers outside of the Christian ghetto. (As an aside, Erhman said the book had major errors, but “like everyone else” he found it an engaging read.)
Are there factual issues throughout both Robert Langdon books (_the Da Vinci Code_ and Angels and Demons)? Absolutely. Are there glaring factual errors in virtually every piece of pop fiction in a book or movie? Yes. Sure the author claims some facts and he definitely pushes the limit on those fact pages at the beginning of each book. But get over that, and analyze the rest of the book as you would any other very influential work of fiction. That does everybody a whole lot more good.
Is it great literature? No, of course not. I am not going to even think about claiming that. But I enjoy my McDonald's double cheeseburger meal as a compliment to my pan seared chicken with alfredo and asparagus. I love Shakespeare, but when I'm in bed, getting ready to go to sleep, I'd rather have some fast food that allows my mind to wind down. Yes, even lit majors do read things other than literature at times.
So ends my catechism.
In general, the non-Christian looks at Christianity as a connected set of different denominations. And they perceive the differences as ethnic and social class values, not theological differences. They generally look at older large, mainstream churches (denominational) as interchangeable, whether they be Catholic, Protestant or Mormon. There is some perception of wealth, education and social class differences, as well as viewing some of the fundamentalist groups and churches as relevant to those in distress - alcoholism, drug addiction, etc.
Non-Christians view the pastorate as a trade-off - a low paying job that does not take a lot of time. Not a negative view, but a neutral one. Most people in the commercial workplace put in 50 hours a week, and view teachers as having fewer hours and less pay. And the pastorate having less of both. They view pastors as getting huge tax benefits, in lieu of pay. They do make a distinction as to the role of both chaplains and youth pastors.
About half the population is faced, within their families, with challenges of adults or kids having mental issues, addiction, violence, etc. This half makes use of religious producrts and services provided by churches. They are pretty “street smart” and now where to get help.
The other half is primarily motivated toward getting their decent, normal, well-behaved kids into a top college - one of the “Top 366”, etc. The parents look to get their kid into a better school than what they went to and look at the church as a place for their kids to network, and do some community service (necessary for college admission). Generally, they, and their kids are oriented away from the colleges that their pastors attended.
Voice of extremism here: The local church should be the school system in the first place. That way genuine history, church history, and all other proper educational topics can find their place in teaching the Bible. Sunday School should be school — an adjunct to the general education.
You are quite right about counterfeit money. Perhaps I should put a small caveat on my argument — Christians with no church history background ought not to read the Da Vinci Code alone. It's a good dialogue starter, however. I wouldn't advocate it so much for learning church history as responsibly interacting with non-Christians. It's far easier to discuss the issues in the Da Vinci Code if you've read it. It's far easier to be able to affirm the good in it, so as not to come off as terribly negative, if you've read it, etc. As you say, it's a “decent conspiracy yarn.”
I'm not familiar with Clive Cussler's novels. Any that you would recommend?
I won't say that all Christians should read the Da Vinci Code. I have. Decent conspiracy yarn. While I'm not paranoid about it and I don't tell Christians to avoid it, neither do I recommend it.
One does not learn to recognize counterfeit money by studying counterfeit money, but by studying the real thing.
Weather or not someone has read TDVC or any other of Brown's dreck, I agree that present day Christians ought to be aware of history in general and Church history in particular (as well as historical church doctrine). If tying these lessons to a popular adventure/conspiracy novel compels them to become interested in Church history, then go for it.
I've sometimes wondered about using Clive Cussler novels as a means to interest students in actual historical instances.
Ed: I agree with you, at least in theory. Somehow, though, I doubt today's church would really provide a superior education, given trends within the church. What do you think? At the very least, I hope everyone in my class, while enjoying it, also believes the title “school” is well earned. I'm pretty sure they all would; it's a fairly rigorous class, I think.
Mike: Interesting, analysis. So, how do we work with this situation, do you think?
No, we won't get that anytime soon. I was speaking theoretically — “radical” is from the Latin for “root,” as in, “getting back to the root of things.”
First of all, it helps to look at the church as a cycle. There is a grand wave that the church goes through every 120 years. Somebody (like a Luther) kicks it off, then it reaches a plateau (Calvin) then declines, until the next wave (Great Awakening). Our current wave started about 1880 (Wanamaker), got popular about 1900 (Billy Sunday), then rose to the middle and upper middle class (Billy Graham, followed by the Jesuys movement in 1969). There was a lot of “internal integrity challenges” within ministries like Dobson and Swindoll, etc., but Bakker was the beginning of two decades of corruption. Now wea re at the bottom, and anything goes - we're waiting for the next Luter/Edwards/Sunday …
In general, the restrictive paradigm of classic institutional protestantism restricts the attractiveness to about one sixth of the population. Amplifying Presbyterianism and Anglican (both English and American) visibility would make the church more relevant.
Some of the elements of Mormonism, Jehova's Witnesses and Seventh Day Adventists are relevant, while some are not? On the one hand, theology is not the answer to the relationship question; fuzzy theology is not necessarily bad, but toxic theology is bad.
The economics of families and lifestyles are important, many families choose an address to further their kids educational opportunities.
$4 gasoline changes a lot of the equation - moving people closer together can make some problems easier to solve, but also sponge up resources on short term problems.
Ed:
Mike: Interesting point. Another First Great Awakening with a strong Presbyterian undercurrent would be fine in my book. Another Oxford Movement to reform Anglicanism would also be pleasant. The latter may be more foreseeable in the future, depending on how current battles in the Anglican Communion come out…
I work with an interesting mix of people, the station agents and train operators are primarily blue collar, but about a quarter are well-educated and want their kids to go to a good college. So, I get to see a cross section of the parents of high school grads.
About three million kids graduate from high school, every June, and about one million go on to college. About a third go on to the “top 366” colleges, and that group follows a well-defined path toward college admission. Getting into a good school involves good grades, good SAT's, extracuricular activities and community service. The easiest place to get the community service component is through a church. A kid's community service may not necessarily be in a church (it may be at a nursing home or other secular site), but the church is usually the resource and information provider. This church is usually either a Presbyterian church or an independent evangelical megachurch. Youth pastors are in high demand, and need to fit into this academic/community service mix.
One big challenge is that most of the kids will go to a better college than the youth pastor (and often the senior pastor). That can be perceived as a threat. Another challenge is that “community service” is often viewed as “social gospel” by the senior pastor, church elder board or congregation as a whole.
Here in California, not getting into a top school (like Stanford) is not the end of the world. Many of the state schools (like Cal State Fullerton) are excellent, and employers snap up the grads quickly.
It would be interesting to see churches build on this community service paradigm, and integrate it into the small group experience. That way it wouldn't be just a “college bound kid” experience, but something for the whole family, as well as the “church family”.
My thoughts are that Presbyterians are in the best position to do this. It's fairly easy for an unchurched family to attend a Presbyterian church, learning the order of worship isn't that hard. Anglican liturgy may be a bit of a challenge, and Anglicans are fewer and far between; although there may be some regions where they dominate.
Good points, Mike. An interesting idea for churches helping to “lure” people in, as it were, too.
Interestingly, at Covenant, several professors (as I recall) are actually rather appreciative of the critique of the social gospel, so long as it remains in Rauschenbusch's form and not the later expansions.
You should see if you can grab some info on “the Journey” here in St. Louis. You'd probably find that church's methods interesting, I suspect.