https://ubcentral.org/2006/03/28/the-da-vinci-code/?utm_source=rss&utm_medium=rss&utm_campaign=the-da-vinci-code News From The United Brethren in Christ Church Wed, 21 Oct 2009 05:32:15 +0000 hourly 1 https://ubcentral.org/2006/03/28/the-da-vinci-code/comment-page-1/#comment-101 Sat, 01 Apr 2006 01:16:43 +0000 http://ubcentral.org/?p=400#comment-101 I read the book just earlier this year, knowing how popular it is and that a major movie is coming out. It would be a good idea to see the movie, if only to see if anything is changed from the book and how to answer questions more effectively. At Gethsemane, we will touch upon the Da Vinci code briefly during our post Easter series, which is a study of the crucifixion and resurrection.
Personally, it was a decent novel but I preferred his earlier book “Angels & Demons.” It definitely portrayed pagan practices, the divine feminine, ancient mystery religions, and gnostic gospels as understandable and even to be lauded for bringing equality to the sexes within religious circles. Dan Brown would bristle at the thought of this as being a subversive and anti-Christian story as shown from a quote in this article on MSNBC:
“This is not an idea that I would ever have found appealing. Being raised a Christian and having sung in my church choir for 15 years, I’m well aware that Christ’s crucifixion is the very core of the Christian faith,” Brown told reporters outside the courtroom, referring to the argument in the 1982 book that Christ had not died.
Brown has denied claims that he reproduced sections of argument from the 1982 book and said he disputes the proposition it makes that Jesus did not die on the cross.
“Suggesting a married Jesus is one thing, but questioning the Resurrection undermines the very heart of the Christian belief,” Brown said in a statment released to reporters.
So clearly Brown is not viewing this as undermining the underpinnings of Christianity. I don’t know what his view of essential Christianity doctrines of are, and am not defending him, but Mr. Brown is clearly not trying to kick the legs out from under his own religion. It would also be interesting to see how much of his FICTION work he finds valid or trustworthy in the real world. Clearly he is more interested in telling a good story than a completely factual, real world story.
Clearly, I found the storylines wrong and was frustrated at how untrustworthy sources were given credence and respect. But this could open up plenty of teachable moments, because how often are people asking pastors to explain detailed background information on the resurrection and why we believe it?

]]>