a review by Vic Thiessen

The 19th of May saw the release of this year’s first potential blockbuster and it has evangelicals and Catholics around the world recommending boycotts amidst accusations that the film is deliberately undermining Christianity and fatally deceiving millions of people. Is this film the vanguard of a movement to destroy Christianity or is it an opportunity to dialogue with people who are searching for truth, people who (like the Anabaptists of the sixteenth century) 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 (as reported by CNN), 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). And 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). In my opinion, 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 corrected some of the errors in the novel (like the ridiculous claim that Jesus’ divinity 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 “raising doubts about the divinity of Jesus and the origins of the Bible”, and of heaping blasphemy upon blasphemy as it seeks 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 should we, as Christians, respond to The Da Vinci Code? Do we polish our swords of truth and strike out against the lies propagated by the book and the film? Do we waste our time refuting the film’s central premise about Jesus’ bloodline when almost no one believes it anyway? If we hide behind the Bible and doctrine in a desperate attempt to defend orthodoxy, we risk being seen as fanatics who are afraid of the truth, whose words can be dismissed by those who are willing to think. Another option is to ask ourselves why this story has captured the imaginations of so many people and see this as a unique and exciting opportunity to talk with friends and colleagues about Jesus and the early church. It is an opportunity we dare not miss. But, following the examples of Jesus and Paul, this talk should be a dialogue, an intelligent conversation that is willing to let the Holy Spirit work as we listen to the questions of others and share our own.

Yes, I do believe 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. It also means asking questions. For example, we might ask about 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. Asking these kinds of questions may be uncomfortable for many of us. But only when we have proven that we are not afraid to ask these questions ourselves will we be respected by those who are searching for the answers.

Entering into dialogue means we are not only critical but can accept some of the film’s arguments. Can we disagree with the film when it draws attention to the fact that Christendom was the product of fourth-century politics and to the fact 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? But we can point out 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 oppression.

Even if we believe that the revelations in The Da Vinci Code are not true, can we not agree with the film, in principle, that an honest search for truth can renew instead of destroy? Walking together with fellow searchers in a spirit of honest dialogue allows for the possibility that we might learn from them and they from us and that together we might move one step further on the journey toward greater understanding and truth.

May 20, 2006
(Commissioned by The Canadian Mennonite)