by New Wineskins Staff
May – June, 2006

Some of the criticisms of the movie and book versions of Dan Brown’s The DaVinci Code are just bashfests. Others are well-pondered and wisely-defended tomes. And a few of them are just plain hilarious. We’ve picked a few choice ones we’ve been hearing on the grapevine …

The REAL Da Vinci Code Conspiracy!

  • Opus Dei
  • Happy Days
  • Opie Taylor

Coincidence? I don’t think so…

~ Tedd Kidd, Nashville

Propping Up The DaVinci Code
… (There’s a moment early on [in the movie] when the famous symbologist tells the police cryptologist that the words they are looking at are scrambled. “An anagram!” she exclaims. What is this, the Word Jumble?)

~ Philip Martin, movie critic, Little Rock

“Prof. Langdon is no Indiana Jones. I give this movie two thumbs down and wouldn’t recommend you waste your money. Instead, take the money you would spend on tickets, a coke and popcorn and give it your favorite charity.”

Jason Retherford

“A Christian is someone who has made a commitment to following Jesus, to imitating him in his thoughts and values and actions. So, when we ask what a Christian response to The Da Vinci Code should look like, we’re really asking WWJDWDVC: What Would Jesus Do With The Da Vinci Code?”

John Alan Turner (co-author of The Gospel According To The Da Vinci Code: The Truth About The Writings of Dan Brown)

If I had been able to watch The DaVinci Code without any preconceived notions, I would probably rate it as average and not tremendously memorable. It was another mystery movie in the same category as National Treasure.
However, I was not able to view it in an objective manner. There is too much hype surrounding it. I went to it with a curiosity to determine whether or not it was the danger that many in the Christian community were accusing it of being. But there was also the voice of my fourteen-year-old ringing my ears — “What is the big deal? It’s like a government espionage flick. It’s fiction!”
So with this dichotomy in mind, I watched and accepted the entertainment of the movie. I found the “evidence” to be far-fetched, but interesting. Again, not extremely memorable and I doubt I will watch it again. There was one scene, however, that drew my concern. Near the end of the movie, the two main characters talk of the choice that will be made, based on the knowledge of Christ’s bloodline. The character played by Tom Hanks gives a speech regarding the humanity versus divinity of Christ. He suggests that it does not matter if Jesus was God or man. What matters if that he taught a moral and positive way of living. He encouraged the last living descendent to think carefully before she told the world the truth and destroyed the faith of many.
Herein lies the danger. It is tempting in this post-modern age to view all things with acceptance. Our culture suggests that it does not matter – we can all believe whatever we want. The important thing is how we treat each other. We must not impose our reality on others.
Ah, but it does matter! Having a personal relationship with the God of the universe is much different than knowing about and following a good man. It shapes my whole being, life, relationships — and it affects whether or not I believe it important enough to share with others.
As CS Lewis has so often been quoted of late, “You can shut Him up for a fool, you can spit at Him and kill him as a demon or you can fall at His feet and call Him Lord and God. But let us not come with any patronizing nonsense about His being a great human teacher. He has not left that open to us. He did not intend to.”

– Jackie Halstead

“In the movie, the main male character, explains that the idea of the Sacred Feminine came from the ancient Greeks who believed that men and women were different species striving to be in harmony with one another. This was symbolized by male deities seeking after the Sacred Feminine. The concept of men and women being separate species opens the door wide for inequality. Even the language used in describing this belief system connotes that men are individuals while women are merely ideals. The image of the Sacred Feminine does not make women equals, but rather, it places them on unattainable pedestals. The deification of Mary Magdalene turns her more into a symbol than a living person who was transformed by grace and intimately loved by God despite her imperfections. Another example of the patriarchal stance of the book and film is that the “Grand Masters”, who are the highest and most important of the Knights Templar, are always men. Even though it was supposedly a woman whom Christ entrusted with his illumination and his seed, she eternally needs her male knights to protect her and her secret. This is also demonstrated by the fact that although Sophie Neveau, the primary female character, originally rescues Robert Langdon, the primary male, she cannot seem to do anything else without him by her side.”



Leave a Reply