Scott Hodge


The Da Vinci Code (The Movie)

Jul 2, 2005

"Where do I separate fact from fiction?"

That’s a question that I kept asking myself as I read The Da Vinci Code a few months ago.

Davincicode_2From a writing standpoint, the book was excellent.  From a spiritual/religous standpoint, the book was a far departure from my personal beliefs…….which is why I’m already planning a two or three week series of talks which will correlate with the release of the upcoming movie, The Da Vinci Code, being released in May of ’06 (Ron Howard, director & starring Tom Hanks.)

My goal with this series will be to help answer some of the questions that will surface in people’s minds after they see the movie.  And actually, I am glad that this movie is being done (and being done WELL) because it gives us as a church community (and "church" as in the larger church community across the world) a tremendous opportunity to share the truth about Christianity to people who will be full of questions after watching the film (and many of whom, without the aid of this movie, probably would not approach these types of questions like they hopefully will.)

What about you?  Have you read The Da Vinci Code?  What did you think?

What opportunities does this provide for our churches in creating conversations?

Link (to movie site)

6 Responses to “The Da Vinci Code (The Movie)”

  1. Jonathan says:

    Even harder is that us student ministry pastors have to confront this with our teens who have the attention-span of a tetse fly! How do we condense a 3 week talk series full of great stuff into a one-night shot?

  2. kate says:

    I read it a long time ago…I thought it was a great read. Then the women’s book club at our church decided to read it. It was a fun discussion afterward – and we had our pastor sit in so we could ask him technical/biblical/historical questions. It was easy for me to take it all with a grain of salt…but I know a few other readers in my book club had a hard time because they couldn’t help but read it as though it were all fact. I had the opposite effect – I read it all as fiction and then had a hard time holding onto the things that were fact. I think it’s a great idea for you to investigate this with your church.

  3. DigiGirl says:

    I thought the book was an excellent work of fiction, and just that, FICTION. It’s an excellent story written by a very talented author, whose intent was to captivate his readers and sell a few books. Done and done.
    The author clearly states that the story takes place in the context of factual events, places, organizations and rituals. The only thing Dan Brown states as fact is that the Priory of Zion existed at some point in time (he doesn’t say the organization acted as he depicted), and that the art and the locations are all faithfully depicted. Even the publisher’s disclaimer says “All the events and characters in this book are fictitious…”
    This is not The Book of Dan. Certain people need to be reminded that fiction is built on the imagination of the author and provides escapism for the reader. You can say a book is bad fiction or great fiction, but how can you criticise fiction for being factually wrong?
    Furthermore, when someone critiques a non-scriptural work by scriptural standards, then by default they elevate it to a scriptural level. I think it’s great this book is encouraging people to rediscover their faith and get their stories straight (no pun intended). I think it’s naive of some to let a work of fiction uproot their belief system to the point where they’re defending their beliefs and scoffing the author.

  4. steve says:

    dangerous piece of fiction because so many people see it as truth…

  5. steve says:

    dangerous piece of fiction because so many people see it as truth…

  6. Bill says:

    I agree with Steve. It’s not so much that well-rooted believers will have their belief system uprooted, it’s that new believers, those who do not believe or those who are at the crossroad of decision are in danger of being turned away from the truth by a nicely wrapped deception. I think that the author has passed off his research as more than fiction. Maybe he doesn’t call it documented history, but he does suggest that there may be some truth to his conclusions. That’s why we have reactions within churches like Kate described. These are very dangerous to the church and to non-believers. The New Testament is filled with warnings about this, and with exhortation to those of us who believe as to how to address such teachings and teachers. I think it’s clear that we do not have to defend our faith against such writings, but we do need to call it what it is, particularly when they print disclaimers but perpetuate the lie as truth. I do not think it’s naive to say that there should be no middle ground here.

Leave a Reply

  • RSS
  • Twitter
  • Facebook
  • Vimeo
  • Flickr



Top Posts