The Da Vinci Code: Christian and Secular Responses

I feel particularly bad posting on this topic, since such a post seems only to add to the reputation of a notoriously vapid work, which is infinitely unworthy of both the popularity that it merits in secular culture and the protests which it evokes in Christian culture. To be fair, I will state at the beginning of this post that I have not been inclined to waste my time on reading the novel, and I thus do not know it first hand; in my defense, I have seen the movie, know its content through various friends who have read it, and have also read large portions of Baigent's pseudo-history of the Holy Grail, on which it was based. In any case, I am not interested in discussing or refuting specific arguments made in the novel, but rather in analysing both the Christian and secular reaction to this cultural artefact.

I have been largely frustrated by the Christian uproar over the novel. To begin, Christians seem to have the idea that this book has caused many Christians to doubt their faith, and armed non-Christians against Christianity and the church. To be blunt, I'm not sure how true this is. There are probably Christians who were already doubting their faith, and who turned to the Da Vinci code as a convenient excuse for abandoning Christianity. Likewise, there are probably non-Christians who turn to the Da Vinci code because it affirms something that they already believe. However, in both of these cases, this work acts as a convenient catalyst for pre-existing doubt. My point is that Christians should be far more concerned about this pre-existent doubt and its causes than they are about the Da Vinci code, which is popular as the effect rather than the cause of cultural doubt.

In many ways, the Da Vinci code seems to draw its power from a combination of intellectual vacuity and non-dogmatic spirituality. Because North Americans (I have heard that the novel is far less popular in Europe) like to pretend to be intelligent, but do not really possess a capacity for critical thinking, they turn to novels like the Da Vinci code as form of Intellect Lite; they like the way that the novel provides a comfortable facade of critical thinking without engaging them in the rigorous, uncertain, and often "boring" academic process of sifting through historical fact and fiction, a process which always produces results far less definitive and overarching than those "discovered" by Dan Brown's main character. They also like the way that the work toys with spiritual themes; by presenting religion with very little dogma (I use this word in the technical, not derogatory, sense), Dan Brown taps into the postmodern love of "spirituality" that offers everything to its adherents and requires nothing in return. Thus, the Da Vinci code appeals to problems that already exist in our culture, but it is not the primary cause of these problems.

Thus, I see the Christian uproar about the Da Vinci code as largely an overblown attack on a straw man. As is usual in evangelical circles, we prefer to attack the immediate, tangible effects of human corruption rather than grapple with the principalities and powers that lie behind these effects. There were a number of alternatives that non-Christians turned to before the Da Vinci Code, and there will be more after the Da Vinci Code. Simply destroying the Da Vinci Code will do little good; other heresies and falsehoods will arise to take its place as an outlet for disbelief. Rather, we need to seek to destroy the very roots of disbelief in society; identifying these roots will take much more prayer, reflection, and meditation than is comfortable for activistic Christians seeking immediate and tangible results, but the ultimate effect will not only be much more potent, but also more Christian.

Moreover, we need to repent of our own role in helping to construct an intellectual and spiritual environment that prepares society to receive such works. After all, we are little better when it comes to promoting true intellectual endeavors; in many ways, much contemporary Christian literature is little better than the Da Vinci code in its appeal to the North American lust for Intellect Lite. We also encourage non-commital spirituality by presenting God as yet another benevolent and unthreatening product in a consumer centred society; we love to talk vaguely about his "wonderful plan for our lives" (which sounds strangely like a sales pitch for life insurance), but speak little of His right (not option) to be Lord of our lives, and the crosses that we must painfully take up daily. If we are so willing to represent God as a tame, unthreatening figure (and until we have been purged of the last ounce of our pride, God will always seem somewhat threatening to us), why are we so upset that Dan Brown has merely extended our own representation by rendering Him less threatening to sexuality and feminity?

If we are truly concerned about the impact of the Da Vinci Code, we must begin, not with militant protests, but with quiet repentance on our knees. We must pray that God will give us another chance to impact - not our society's reading material - but their hearts, minds and souls. We must pray that he will help us to identify the spiritual battles that are really worth fighting (and there are battles worth fighting), and to avoid those, such as the Da Vinci Code fiasco, that merely drain the energy that could be employed much more usefully elsewhere in our engagement with the world and its culture. Otherwise, we will continue to undertake our irrelevant skirmishes while the real battle is taking place elsewhere.