Post by Josh on Feb 12, 2007 18:41:54 GMT -8
6/5/06:
Very well done movie, considering the genre. Great actors, well paced. It's obvious why it's been successful- successful as a blockbuster and bound to be quite successful in it's undermining of orthodox Christianity in the popular psyche.
I don't want to say this. I've avoided the hype for a long time. I normally cringe at how Christians can be so reactionary about anything that even remotely seems to challenge their faith. I don't like bandwagons.
But I have to say I believe this movie will go a long way toward affecting the zeitgeist of our culture- the spirit of the age. It's key themes are ideas that a lot of itching ears want to hear, regardless of the fact that almost all concern for historical fact has gone out the window. It's premises are ideas we've all been groomed to accept for quite some time now:
that Jesus was just a man,
that Jesus really only had a message of love,
that the Church and dogma distorted that message,
that dogma just leads to oppression, wars, and racism,
that Christianity represses women,
that the Bible is corrupted,
that humans are the only divinity,
that faith has nothing to do with reason or evidence,
that we should believe whatever we want to believe
These arguments, a new creed of sorts, are all very convincingly and sincerely put forth in such a way that we are endeared to them, we are persuaded to see them as true in our gut. I can't recall how many times in my watching of the movie I heard a "hmmmm" of enlightenment from someone in the theater after some key line echoing one of these sentiments.
I went to Barnes and Noble the other day and noticed that there's a whole new sub-section in the Christianity department entitled Gnosis. The age old parody and empty shadow of historic Christianity (gnosticism)is back for round 17- back in force.
I know, it's fiction. But fiction has always been one of the best ways to change the minds of the people, for good or for ill.
Normally, historical fiction gets its bite from the fact that it sets an created plot and characters in a factual, historically credible setting. History-themed books and films are regularly critiqued for the adherence (or lack of adherence) to reality (think Saving Private Ryan). In fact, we are very used to films that strive to be 'historically accurate'- we've come to expect it more and more.
And here comes a story with that historical feel- a story whose author advertises his story as historically reliable, and yet that couldn't be further from the truth.
Most people who watch this movie will know that the truth is being stretched here and there. What they don't know is that it really is stretched or flat out broken almost everywhere. Someone who accepts it as 80% accurate might be astounded to find it to be more like 20% accurate.
And that's the danger. Dan Brown knows people will take it with a grain of salt, so he multiplied his historical mistruths to ensure that a large bulk of his fallacious claims would still be swallowed hook, line, and sinker.
I know this whole 'phenomenon' is controversial with Christians and non-Christians alike for a lot of different reasons. I welcome any replies to this post and would love to dialogue respectfully with anyone on this.
If anyone wants to know specifics as to mistruths in the Da Vinci Code, please ask questions here or come to our IC Forum where we'll be discussing the details.
Lest I end on a gloomy note, I must say that this is not something new in Church history. Like I said, Gnoticism rears it's ugly head now and then, and it has always failed. May God raise up men and women to speak the truth in love now as He always has done, not in a spirit of panic or hype, but in a well-informed and conscientious way.
And, of course, I don't begrudge free speech or advocate censorship (although someone needs to be a champion of historical veracity here!). Hey, this is a great opportunity to talk about all these things. That's the advantage when Christianity is in the spotlight.
Very well done movie, considering the genre. Great actors, well paced. It's obvious why it's been successful- successful as a blockbuster and bound to be quite successful in it's undermining of orthodox Christianity in the popular psyche.
I don't want to say this. I've avoided the hype for a long time. I normally cringe at how Christians can be so reactionary about anything that even remotely seems to challenge their faith. I don't like bandwagons.
But I have to say I believe this movie will go a long way toward affecting the zeitgeist of our culture- the spirit of the age. It's key themes are ideas that a lot of itching ears want to hear, regardless of the fact that almost all concern for historical fact has gone out the window. It's premises are ideas we've all been groomed to accept for quite some time now:
that Jesus was just a man,
that Jesus really only had a message of love,
that the Church and dogma distorted that message,
that dogma just leads to oppression, wars, and racism,
that Christianity represses women,
that the Bible is corrupted,
that humans are the only divinity,
that faith has nothing to do with reason or evidence,
that we should believe whatever we want to believe
These arguments, a new creed of sorts, are all very convincingly and sincerely put forth in such a way that we are endeared to them, we are persuaded to see them as true in our gut. I can't recall how many times in my watching of the movie I heard a "hmmmm" of enlightenment from someone in the theater after some key line echoing one of these sentiments.
I went to Barnes and Noble the other day and noticed that there's a whole new sub-section in the Christianity department entitled Gnosis. The age old parody and empty shadow of historic Christianity (gnosticism)is back for round 17- back in force.
I know, it's fiction. But fiction has always been one of the best ways to change the minds of the people, for good or for ill.
Normally, historical fiction gets its bite from the fact that it sets an created plot and characters in a factual, historically credible setting. History-themed books and films are regularly critiqued for the adherence (or lack of adherence) to reality (think Saving Private Ryan). In fact, we are very used to films that strive to be 'historically accurate'- we've come to expect it more and more.
And here comes a story with that historical feel- a story whose author advertises his story as historically reliable, and yet that couldn't be further from the truth.
Most people who watch this movie will know that the truth is being stretched here and there. What they don't know is that it really is stretched or flat out broken almost everywhere. Someone who accepts it as 80% accurate might be astounded to find it to be more like 20% accurate.
And that's the danger. Dan Brown knows people will take it with a grain of salt, so he multiplied his historical mistruths to ensure that a large bulk of his fallacious claims would still be swallowed hook, line, and sinker.
I know this whole 'phenomenon' is controversial with Christians and non-Christians alike for a lot of different reasons. I welcome any replies to this post and would love to dialogue respectfully with anyone on this.
If anyone wants to know specifics as to mistruths in the Da Vinci Code, please ask questions here or come to our IC Forum where we'll be discussing the details.
Lest I end on a gloomy note, I must say that this is not something new in Church history. Like I said, Gnoticism rears it's ugly head now and then, and it has always failed. May God raise up men and women to speak the truth in love now as He always has done, not in a spirit of panic or hype, but in a well-informed and conscientious way.
And, of course, I don't begrudge free speech or advocate censorship (although someone needs to be a champion of historical veracity here!). Hey, this is a great opportunity to talk about all these things. That's the advantage when Christianity is in the spotlight.
