Does Da Vinci re-code Christendom? -May 24, 2006

Last week saw the release of 2006’s first potential blockbuster. It’s one that has evangelicals and Catholics around the world advocating boycotts amidst accusations that the film is deliberately undermining Christianity and fatally deceiving millions of people.

But is this film really destructive of Christianity or is it an opportunity to dialogue with people who are searching for truth, the many people who feel they have been misled by the church and that Christianity lacks integrity?

Based on the controversial ‘theological thriller’ by Dan Brown that has now sold over 60 million copies worldwide, The Da Vinci Code tells the story of Robert Langdon, a Harvard professor (played by Tom Hanks), Sophie Neveu, a Paris police officer (played by Audrey Tautou), and Sir Leigh Teabing, a British eccentric (played by Ian McKellen) as they try to elude police and villains in France and England in their search for the Holy Grail.

The Holy Grail, described in the film as “the greatest cover-up in human history,” is the proof that Jesus was married to Mary Magdalene, was the father of a daughter (born after the crucifixion), and has a bloodline that continues to this day.

Not only has the church kept this a secret for 2000 years, it is also held responsible for deceptions rooted in the fourth century (involving the formation of the Biblical canon and the development of the doctrine of Jesus’ divinity) and for 2000 years of oppression against women, the poor and the powerless.

Widely panned by critics and filmgoers alike, The Da Vinci Code may not draw the mass audiences which were predicted. The film does indeed have its share of flaws, most notably a lack of character development (as in the book) and the unfortunate use of, and fixation on, the albino villain (also in the book). Some of the plot elements seem even more absurd on screen than on paper (this gets worse near the end of the film).

Nevertheless, because the novel was not well-written, I liked the film version of the story better than the novel (as opposed to, for example, Umberto Eco’s great theological thriller, The Name of the Rose). Ron Howard has put together an intelligent and satisfying thriller. The locations were beautiful (great cinematography), the dark settings provided the right tone, and Hans Zimmer’s music was appropriate, only rarely intruding on the story.

It’s true that the acting was underplayed (with the exception of McKellen, who was excellent), but with accomplished actors like Hanks, Tautou and Reno, that is not a bad thing. Howard’s direction was taut and moved swiftly through the book without noticeable gaps. One could complain about the lack of chemistry between the two leads (and many have) but in a genre rife with clichés, it was a relief to see the film steer clear of a formulaic romance.

The film also corrected some of the errors in the novel (like the ridiculous claim that Jesus’ divine-human nature was Constantine’s idea) and actually fleshed out parts of the book, making it less preachy and less controversial.

However, the film is still controversial enough for some Christian reviewers to accuse it of “undermining the pillars on which our faith rests” by seeking to convince people that Christianity is built on a lie. Brown and Howard deny that they are trying to destroy Christianity and, despite a claim made by Teabing that his secret could “devastate the very foundations of Christianity”, the film ends with the suggestion that the revelations in the film could actually renew Christianity.

So how might Christians respond to The Da Vinci Code furore? Do we waste our time refuting the film’s central premise about Jesus’ bloodline when almost no one believes it anyway? To hide behind the Bible and doctrine in a desperate attempt to defend orthodoxy risks being seen as fanatical fear of the truth.

A better response would be to ask why this story has captured the imagination of so many people, and then to see it as an opportunity to talk the reality of Jesus and the early church. Following the examples of Jesus and Paul, this should be a dialogue, an intelligent conversation.

The Da Vinci Code challenges us to wrestle with vital questions about the history of the early church. There have been many Christians throughout history (like the sixteenth-century Anabaptists) who have been critical of the established church. Perhaps we should welcome the current frustration with Christendom and its deceptions and see this as an opportunity to share our own frustrations.

That means doing some homework, beginning with a critical analysis of the Council of Nicaea and the development of both the Nicene Creed and the New Testament. We might ask questions bout Athanasius, who is called the ‘father of orthodoxy’ and spent much of the fourth century defending the Nicene Creed but who had hundreds of people tortured and killed for disagreeing with him.

Can we really disagree with the film when it draws attention to the fact that Christendom was the product of fourth-century politics and to the reality that “as long as there has been ‘one true God’, there has been killing in his name?”

And can we disagree that the church has, for much of its history, been partly responsible for oppressing women, the poor and the powerless? We may also point out, however, that throughout its history many people in the church have preached and lived Jesus’ gospel of love and have denounced and worked against violence and injustice.

Even if we dismiss the ‘revelations’ in The Da Vinci Code, can we not agree with the film, in principle, that an honest search for truth can renew instead of destroy?

Vic Thiessen is programme director of the London Mennonite Centre and runs workshops on film and theology. A longer version of this article is appearing in The Canadian Mennonite.