The Da Vinci Code juggernaut continues unabated. It has been on the New York Times bestseller list for over two years, is about to be a movie and has spawned several new sub-genres in publishing. Where to begin talking about this phenomenon?
Let's start with the movie: Sister Mary Michael of Our Lady's Community of Peace and Mercy in Lincoln, England, protested outside the Anglican cathedral where some scenes were shot.
Sister Mary told journalists that her actions were "intended to make a reparation to God for the blasphemy that was taking place." This blasphemy is multi-fold. First there's the book itself, which accuses the Vatican of conspiracy to suppress the truth about Christ's mission. And then, there are the Anglicans who have accepted money from the filmmakers. She said, "the church should not accept money for something that was not a true story and that instead its members should be praying more for funds to arrive."
The filmmakers apparently paid £100,000 for the privilege of filming inside the cathedral. Sister Mary has interpreted this as Anglicans buying pardons. The dean of the cathedral, Very Rev. Alec Knight, described "The Da Vinci Code as a 'load of old tosh' and 'balderdash.'" He further argues, that "the allegation of simony, or buying pardons, was not valid, because simony meant the buying or selling of ecclesiastical preferment."
In journalism this is called keeping the story alive. Often the very same people — like Sister Mary — that want a news story to die are responsible for giving it extra lift.
The Da Vinci Code, by Dan Brown, is a popcorn book, sloppily written but tightly plotted, that regurgitates stories about the "true Christ" that have been circulating for two thousand years. It was a fun read but lacked both the poetic and the mythic beauty of the Gospels. There are better reads in the post-Da Vinci genre – The Eight by Katherine Neville and The Rule of Four by Ian Caldwell and Dustin Thomason to name two.
Both are well-written, engaging thrillers in which ancient secrets are coded inside works of art. The church, of course, is involved in suppressing the secret that threatens its moral and spiritual authority. Both books try to distance themselves from Da Vinci, making certain to assert they are not cheap knock-offs, while at the same time riding its coattails. They, like the cathedral dean, are not merely praying for more funds to arrive — Dan Brown's wake has provided them the funds they need.
They too keep the story alive, through their own self-interest. But, they can't touch the sheer cultural power of Brown's book. It's this very power that has given birth to another sub-genre: the Da Vinci debunking books. The one by James L. Garlow and Peter Jones is subtitled, "You've read the fiction, now read the facts."
I read their book and am still seeking the facts: Brown claims Mary Magdalene was not a prostitute but Jesus' wife and the rock upon which he built the church. And that she is the true Holy Grail — which is a sexual/spiritual pun.
According to the Gospels, Jesus cast seven demons out of Mary and then she shows up at his crucifixion and becomes one of three women to anoint him and is the first person he meets after his resurrection.
The debunking authors acknowledge "any reference to Mary Magdalene as a prostitute does not come from the Bible." And state there is no evidence Jesus was ever married. As to the Holy Grail? "The real church, made up of forgiven sinners from every gender, race, nation, and socioeconomic group, is the spiritual Holy Grail."
So, apparently their idea of fact is to assert pop theology. That's cute; but all it does is keep the story alive. Since they are unconvincing in their argument, Brown seems stronger.
I suppose I too am keeping the story alive, but unlike the debunkers or Sister Mary, The Da Vinci Code does not scare me. I don't believe Christianity is threatened by this book, the movie to come, its imposters or its supporters. If anything, Christianity is threatened by Sister Mary and the theological fact checkers because they insist on treating it as weak and vulnerable. They are not listening to the phenomenon, nor understanding the real criticism made by the book — that the institution of the church defends itself only, not the word of God. Nor are they paying heed to the millions who seek spiritual answers after reading the book. Instead, in their earnestness they keep the wrong story alive, while slowly killing the true story.
