|
Post by Josh on Feb 15, 2007 17:14:36 GMT -8
5/24/06:
In June we'll be watching and discussing a DVD hosted by Lee Strobel (Case for Christ, etc.. author)on the subject of the Da Vinci Code phenomenon and its relevance to Christianity.
Feel free and post any questions, comments, and observations you may have regarding Dan Brown's The Da Vinci Code. I'll be sure and incorporate anything posted here into the discussion.
|
|
|
Post by Josh on Feb 15, 2007 17:15:10 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 their 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.
|
|
|
Post by Josh on Feb 15, 2007 17:16:29 GMT -8
6/15/06: Here's a well-done and interesting website covering the full gamut of historical issues raised by the Da Vinci Code: The Truth About Da Vinci: www.thetruthaboutdavinci.com/
|
|
hume
Advanced Member
Posts: 136
|
Post by hume on Feb 15, 2007 17:19:11 GMT -8
6/06:
First an admission: I haven't read the book or seen the movie (and intend to keep on neither reading nor seeing either one); so I *should* forfeit my right to comment on the DVC phenomenon. My dad read the book some time back & described it to me; and I've watched the Discovery Channel's critical documentary on it. Frankly, the DVC seems to belong in a category with a large number of books that one need not read in order to become aware that they aren't worth reading. (If we had to read every bodice-ripping romance and every "chicken soup" lifestyle advice book before having an opinion about whether it's worth our time, we'd have no time left for better pursuits. Sometimes the important thing to know about a given work of "art" is simply, "Don't bother.")
What irks me most is Brown's manipulative use of historical fiction. If he'd written this stuff as straight non-fiction, it would be easier to recognize the flaws (and it would probably have sold at the rate of your typical conspiracy book -- "the aliens are running the government," that sort of thing). But by converting it to a fictional format, he can reach a wider audience -- and best of all, he gets to spin the material endlessly, with complete freedom to ignore the constraints we impose on a non-fiction book (i.e., our insistence that it make at least an attempt to speak the truth, and offer some objective support for its positions) (not to say that all non-fiction observes these constraints, but at least there's a standard).
If you complain that Brown's making mockery of history, he can say, "Lighten up, it's only a novel."
|
|
hume
Advanced Member
Posts: 136
|
Post by hume on Feb 15, 2007 17:19:52 GMT -8
6/06:
Anyone who complains about DVC is open to the charge that they can't see fiction for what it is. After all, stories are just stories, and we not only don't but shouldn't read them in the way we read non-fiction.
But is this a blank check for fiction writers (or artists in general)? For the very reason that fiction is read without intense scrutiny of facts and arguments, a novelist or storyteller has a certain power over their audience. A novelist can write things that would be laughed at or strongly challenged if spoken by a philosopher or historian -- yet the novel's audience brings a different frame of mind, less critical of such things.
An example: imagine that instead of his autobiography, Hitler had written an "entertaining" mystery packed with Nazi innuendo; assume that his followers read it cover to cover and loved it, discussing it, using its catchier phrases as slogans, etc. Now in that case, I doubt that anyone would be accusing the novel's critics of being "humorless snobs" who can't tell playtime from realtime. That's an extreme example, but it points out that there is, in fact, some kind of line that can be crossed by artists. Whether Dan Brown has crossed that line may be up for debate, but it seems clear that he doesn't get a complete free ride just because his message is contained in a container marked "harmless."
|
|
|
Post by Josh on Feb 15, 2007 17:21:13 GMT -8
6/06:
"boddice-ripping romance" and "chicken soup lifestyle advice book"...
I'm still laughing days later.
|
|