I was thinking the other day about the movie No Country For Old Men by the Coen Brothers. The film is dark and sometimes troubling in its depiction of fallen nature and I know, “Christians aren’t supposed to watch movies like this, right?!” (See Jim’s insightful thoughts from yesterday and what “Christians” far too often partake of in the media).

Quite often, when Christians are confronted with movies containing violence, language and depravity, they respond with something like Philippians 4:8:

Finally, brothers, whatever is true, whatever is honorable, whatever is just, whatever is pure, whatever is lovely, whatever is commendable, if there is any excellence, if there is anything worthy of praise, think about these things (Philippians 4:8).

But I worry that what many Christians mean by referencing this verse is not what Paul had in mind when writing it. Many Christians mean that we should focus on things that are warm and fuzzy and “family friendly.” You know, “safe for the whole family” types of things. So, of course it stands to reason that a movie like No Country for Old Men, with its “gratuitous” violence is not suitable, because it shows a lot of violence.

And yet, according to the way in which many well-meaning Christians apply Philippians 4:8 to popular culture, it should stand to reason that we should not think upon the Cross of Christ. After all, the Cross is certainly not lovely or commendable. To this day it remains one of the most horrendous and gruesome forms of torture the world has ever known. It was brutal and played on humiliation throughout. Certainly this is not warm, fuzzy or “safe for the whole family,” is it? Or is it?

In reality, what seems to have happened is that many well-intentioned Christians have reduced the art of media discernment to simply asking what is appropriate for an eight-year old or what makes you feel “spiritual,” warm and fuzzy.

These thoughts prompt the question of whether or not it’s possible to be spurred on to considering holiness by a movie depicting depravity. Of course it is. Much of the point of the film is the pointless nature of depravity and that, when left to themselves, men degenerate into something we can barely understand. We lie to ourselves when we try to say things like “mankind is basically good” and films like this help to remind us of just what we’re capable of; what lurks inside each of us.

The film also holds out the lure of redemption. Throughout, you realize that there is nothing the characters can do to break the cycle in which they’ve found themselves. That’s much the point of salvation itself, isn’t it? We cannot and will not do it on our own (Romans 3), but God, being rich in the great mercy with which He loves us, made us alive, together with Christ (Ephesians 2).

I wonder just how much hope I would be able to have if the Gospel were really as tame as some would have us to believe and I am thankful that there are films such as this to remind me of its power. Regardless of the filmmakers’ intentions. I will indeed think about these things.

• Read Eyes Wide Open: Looking For God in Popular Culture by William Romanowski
• Read Cormac McCarthy

One of the best resources that I’ve seen in a while is the Modern Parables DVD study series. Compass Cinema has recast six of Jesus’ Kingdom parables in modern settings to great effect. Each session is accompanied by a teaching video, study guide and teachers’ supplemental material. Thomas Purifoy is the creator and director of the series. I recently had the chance to ask Purifoy a few questions.

• Were you raised in a Christian home?

Both my parents were evangelical believers and blessed me with a wonderful Christian upbringing.

• Were you raised in an artistic home?

Not particularly, although my parents encouraged both my sister and I to pursue the arts.

• How did you first become interested in film?

My mother has always enjoyed movies, so she was the one who first sparked my interest in film. As I grew up, we would sit for hours watching American Movie Classics.

• Can you share a bit about your “salvation experience?”

My parents led me to faith at an early age, helping me to understand my sin and my need for a savior. I accepted Christ when I was 8 years old.

• How has your faith impacted your interest in film?

My faith has had a strong influence on the way I view film, primarily because I believe God created us to work, and that our individual jobs have a unique bearing on the way He is redeeming the world. I believe that work is one of the means through which God is advancing His Kindgom. In light of that, the way that I approach film will have either a positive or negative impact on the Kingdom. Just because I’m a Christian doesn’t necessarily mean that I’m pursuing my vocation well, or making the right decisions in it. It’s my responsibility to be self-consciously aware of the way this particular kind of work has an impact on the Kingdom, and how I need to think about the implications of what I do with film.

• Had you studied the parables much prior to tackling this project?

I had studied them some in regard to other areas of theology, but not in depth.

• What made you want to reset the Parables?

I have always been fascinated with Jesus’ parables, not only as stories, but also because Jesus chose this particular means of teaching as a vehicle for a third of His recorded ministry. That’s really amazing to me. I grew up learning the Bible through more rationalistic methods of theology, yet found myself always enjoying stories in my personal life. When I began to understand that these stories were explorations into theology, or a type of narrative theology that was intimately related to all the rest of His teaching, then I began to grasp the intrinsic power within them.

On a more practical level, however, the parables are perhaps the most filmable parts of the Bible. Films often work best with short stories, and parables have a solid narrative structure already developed. All that is required is to flesh it out in an accurate way. In other words, Jesus did all the hard work and I’m simply doing a little window dressing.

Finally, I’m a learner at heart, and there have always been a lot of the parables that I didn’t understand. For instance, The Shrewd Manager has been one of those parables that always made me scratch my head. If Jesus gave us these parables for a reason, then they should fit neatly in with the rest of His teaching. Instead, they at times seemed to be the victims of bad 20th-century literary criticism that let the reader interpret the parables however he or she chose, with little regard for the larger context of what Jesus was doing. By spending time on the parables, I wanted to understand them better myself, then begin to correct a lot of general misapprehension.

• How did you choose the initial parables? How many parables do you hope to film?

I choose the different parables in this first volume for a variety of reasons. First, I tried to choose parables that covered a broad range of theological areas without overlap, such as prayer, loving one’s neighbor, dealing with money, etc. Jesus often taught different parables on the same topics, so I tried to make sure each parable covered a unique area of Jesus’ teaching ministry.

Second, I tried to choose a few parables that were well known, such as the good Samaritan and prodigal son.

Third, I tried to choose some parables that were more difficult to understand, perhaps weren’t as obvious on the surface as to what they meant, and had therefore either been subject to consistent mis-interpretation or simple neglect. I think the shrewd manager, the persistent widow, and the treasure hidden in a field all applied here.

Finally, I felt I needed to include the parable of the sower because it’s the first and in some ways the meta-parable of all the parables. It introduces all the other parables and is the one all three synoptists start out with to introduce that part of Jesus’ ministry. I struggled with it the most, actually. The final result on film, which was a pure act of God’s providence, was not what I originally intended.

As far as your question as to how many, I think there might be 24 of the parables that would translate well to film. The key is having enough narrative structure to translate accurately without wandering off on a tangent.

• Can you share a bit about the “Cinematic Theology” section?

The term “cinematic theology” came from Ian Kern, my Assistant Producer on the project. The idea behind it, that somehow you can do theology with cinema, was with me from very first film. I am a great admirer of the work of Jonathan Edwards. In one of his posthumous works entitled The Image of Divine Things, he explores the world of natural typology, that is, the way God embedded certain theological concepts in nature. I have been strongly influenced in my view of creation by both his thinking as well as the theological genius of Geerhardos Vos and his contributions to Biblical theology. Vos does an excellent job showing how God structured history and even particular people to encapsulate the redemptive work with which He was changing the world. He shows the marriage between form and content in redemptive history, and I think that recognizing that this is the way creation works is vital to any narrative artist. The fact is, many non-Christians implicitly understand this better than many Christians, and the superiority of their art demonstrates it. I believe that theology is embedded within good art, and hence cinema can certainly be embedded with theology.

As far as the Cinematic Theology section in Modern Parables, the idea behind it is to begin to explore how the medium of film is intrinsically related to the way God has created the world and is redeeming the world. Doug Powell, an apologetics expert and friend, told me that “film is the most Christian of artistic mediums” and I think he may be right. It has the ability to reflect creation in a way that few other mediums do. Moreover, it gives the filmmaker the ability to create new worlds in a way that is respectfully God-like. Being a creator with a small “c” is exactly what God wanted all of us to do, and I think if we see how theology and cinema relate, we are better equipped both to engage that all-pervasive medium as well as to reflect on what God is doing in our own lives.

• Why did you choose a different cinematic style for each parable? How did you pair the style to the parable?

The simple answer is that I thought it would be a fun way to learn more about each of these filmmakers that I like. These six film are my first filmmaking efforts; they’re really student work. I have not been to film school, so in a way, these short subjects are school for me. As far as pairing the parable to a style, I felt that some stories just fit better than others. For instance, The Shrewd Manager is inherently a comical story, but with a great deal of irony. Woody Allen immediately came to mind. Prodigal Sons, however, is a more complex and interrelated story, and the character of the older son has often been misunderstood. Welles’ ability to look at old things in a new light, as well as his use of non-linear form, seemed to be a good fit. The fact is, you could probably have filmed all these parables in a variety of ways – there is no one right way – but this just seemed right to me. Someone else would have done it differently, and the choice would have been no better or worse. Rather, it’s the execution that matters.

• What separates this study from other group studies?

The unique aspect of this study is that it seeks to bring narrative films, pastoral exposition, and in-depth Bible teaching all together in one place. You can find all those things in other places, but not together. Furthermore, it’s an experiment that I wanted to try to compress complex Biblical teaching into a small, efficient place. It is hard being a modern teacher and trying to communicate a large amount of information to a large group of people quickly without confusing them. A hundred years ago, this method of teaching would have been completely ineffective. But today, our minds are very, very sophisticated when it comes to visual media – much more so than we realize. If you understand how visual media works, as well as how your learner engages it, then you have a possibility of capitalizing on its strengths to overcome other weaknesses. It’s certainly not good for everything (which is often the mistake people make with film, tv, or video – the medium has many limitations that are ignored).

My goal with this study was to try to take the best of all these worlds and uniquely combine them to create a new learning experience that would take people very deep, very quickly, without them ever realizing it.

• Anything else?

In closing, I’d say that one of my favorite things about creating the study was just seeing how brilliant Jesus was in teaching these parables, as well as how expansive creation is in terms of its artistic potential. There is great excitement about the way the Kingdom of God is advancing, and it is a great privilege simply to be a very small part of it, while at the same time using a medium that is peculiarly new in the history of the world.

• Visit the Modern Parables official website

My wife and I recently watched the movie Jesus Camp. For those who have not seen it, it is a documentary about a Pentecostal church camp. The film is very well done with many great camera angles, but it is clearly made with an agenda in mind. Besides the crowd manipulation of children, and the Ted Haggard footage, one of the most disturbing things about the portrayal is the fusing of Christianity and patriotism. Though the film claims to be about the camp, it is this combination of religion and patriotism that is really at the core of the movie.

Throughout the movie, references are made to America as being “God’s nation.” At one point, they break coffee cups declaring that with each broken cup, they are unleashing a bit more of the Spirit, breaking the bonds of Satan over this country’s government. In another service, they bring out a cardboard figure of George W. Bush and pray blessings over him. Don’t get me wrong, I think we need pray for our government and our leaders (1 Timothy 2:1-3, etc.), but I’m not sure that we’ll be featuring any life-size presidents in our church services any time soon (actually, yes, I am sure).

Throughout the movie, they flash to a radio host (Mike Papantonio) as the apparent voice of reason, decrying the religious, right wing conspiracy that’s taking over our country. He decries the call to teach Intelligent Design as lying to our children and claims that George W. Bush and Dick Cheney owe their election to this vast conspiracy. Perhaps what’s so troubling is that the churchgoers, leaders and the children are as comfortable praising George W. Bush as they are God.

At one point, the radio host argues that Christians like these are not just raising Christian kids but warriors for the Republican Party. What’s so troubling is that it’s perfectly reasonable based on groups such as this one to see why he’s worried about such things; that’s exactly what they’re doing. While it’s disturbing that many in the larger culture think of a “right wing religious conspiracy,” it’s perhaps more troubling that that’s exactly what many people are calling for.
We must be careful that our religion and patriotism do not become so fused that they become inseparable. We must recognize that God ordains our rulers (Romans 13), but God also ordained that the Assyrians would wage war against Israel (Isaiah 10:5-11), that Pharaoh would not let the Egyptians go (Romans 9:14-18) and that Jesus would be put to death (Acts 2:23). Simply because God has placed a person in a position of authority does not mean that they are necessarily doing God’s will. This is a hard truth to grasp. We must be wary of condoning any politician’s actions outright in the name of God without first submitting their every deed to the scrutiny of the Gospel.

I personally believe that there are some issues such as abortion which for which Christians have a responsibility, but that does not mean that to be Christian in America means to be Republican. As Rod Dreher (in Crunchy Cons and elsewhere) and others have been arguing, the modern form of “conservatism” espoused by the Republican party bears little resemblance to traditional conservative thought or to many biblical ideals.

I certainly believe in raising my children with biblical convictions, but I also believe in raising them with critical thinking skills and discernment. I want them to be able judge how to vote on specific issues based on Gospel-thinking rather than believing that simply voting a straight party line is “God’s will.”

This movie has again reminded me of just how important a well-formed, well-rounded biblical worldview truly is. We must see that the Gospel is about all of life and we must filter everything through it. When we do, we will be challenged, in the (paraphrased) words of Derek Webb, that

our first allegiance is not to a flag, a country, or a man
our first allegiance is not to democracy or blood
it’s to a king & a kingdom

Any allegiance to country must be secondary to and filtered through allegiance to Christ. But it is becoming increasingly common to combine the two as if they were inseparable.

For those of you who have seen the movie, what are your thoughts?

• Watch Jesus Camp for yourself
• Read Crunchy Cons by Rod Dreher

I recently watched two movies, which in and of itself is a big deal! My schedule rarely allows the time to watch an entire movie uninterrupted (although we did schedule time to go see Amazing Grace the other day), but that’s not the point. The point is that I was particularly struck by the fact that these two movies both presented rather interesting concepts of God, though neither is primarily known for such content.

The first movie was Groundhog Day starring Bill Murray and the second was The Truman Show with Jim Carrey. Both movies, in their own way, demonstrate how quickly, if given the chance, we will re-cast God into our own images, trying to make Him understandable and ultimately, less than He is.

Bill Murray’s character wakes up to an ever-repeating day until he “gets it right (which in and of itself presents an interesting take on the works-based system).” At one point, he is with the love interest played by Andie MacDowell in a diner Murray has frequented quite a bit during his purgatory. He tries explaining what’s happening to MacDowell’s character by predicting things that are going to happen. At one point, he claims that he is “a god,” not “the God” but a god. He then offers the rhetorical question that maybe (the) God really isn’t all-powerful, He’s just been around so long that He knows everything that’s going to happen.

In the Truman Show, the God characterizations are a bit more blatant. Jim Carrey plays a character who was legally adopted by a corporation and then placed in a television show without his knowledge. Everyone he meets is an actor and he lives in the largest studio ever built, which, along with the Great Wall of China, according to the movie, is one of only two man-made structures visible from space. Truman’s life is structured by Christof, the creator and director of the “show.”

At one point, Christof is being interviewed and the remark is made about how thankful the interviewer is because he knows how well Christof guards his privacy, an obvious affront to what he has done to Truman and an implicit charge that God is hypocritical. As the movie progresses, it becomes obvious that Christof only has Truman’s best interests in mind as long as they serve his own best interests, another implicit attack on God (at least from my perspective).

Though neither of these movies overtly claim to be about God, they both offer insights from the fallen world about how quick we are to want to redefine and re-make God. Without the guide of Scripture, we will automatically re-cast God in our own fashion, reading our own limitations and weaknesses onto Him until He is little more than a little bigger than us.

The god of the movies is certainly not omnipotent, omnipresent, or omniscient. The god of culture is self-serving and limited, not to mention lacking in goodness, much less holiness. It’s telling that when given the opportunity, we will immediately begin stripping God of all that sets Him apart.

But the God of the Bible will not be contained by our limitations and will not bow to our expecations. Exodus 15:11 asks the rhetorical question:

Who is like you, O LORD, among the gods?
Who is like you, majestic in holiness,
awesome in glorious deeds, doing wonders?

The answer, of course is that no one, nothing is like God and no one can do what He does. I’ve often wondered how much of our thinking about God is influenced more by society than by Scripture and I worry that the answer is probably that more of our thinking about God is influenced by culture than we might like to think. God is not like us only bigger or better, He is wholly other and we must remember that any attempt to understand God is the creature trying to explain the Creator, the finite explaining the infinite or the clay the potter, we simply cannot.

These two movies are simple but powerful reminders that we simply don’t want God to be God because it means that we are not. Believers must always be diligent in shaping our thoughts of God from Scripture rather than ourselves because, most of the time, we don’t even realize how prone we are to look away from God and into the mirror.

• Read Reel Spirituality: Theology and Film in Dialogue by Robert K. Johnston
• Read No One Like Him: The Doctrine of God by John Feinberg
• Read Eyes Wide Open: Looking For God in Popular Culture by William Romanowski
• Watch Groundhog Day
• Watch The Truman Show

My wife and I had the privilege this past Friday to watch the movie adaptation of William Wilberforce’s crusade to end the slave trade in England, Amazing Grace.

The movie picks up some time after Wilberforce has already been convicted to pursue the the abolitionist movement. Though his faith is briefly touched upon as is that of John Newton, this is a Hollywould film and the faith is actually downplayed rather than portrayed as a true driving factor.

Even with the downplaying of the faith, telling the tale of Wilberforce and John Newton must at some point include reference to the faith which drove them. In one particular scene, Newton is recounting his past deeds and he says “I know one thing, I know that I’m a great sinner but Christ is an even greatest savior.”

While some criticisms focus on the fact it’s a very “white” story, let’s be honest, it focuses on Wilberforce and Newton, so it’s understandable that the brutalities of slavery are not vividly portrayed. For the tale, there was too much cleavage which is always unnecessary but all the moreso in a tale of such stalwart faith.

Even with some of the possible criticisms, it is a powerful story that is told well and is certainly recommended and convicting. The movie was done quite well as opposed to something like One Night With the King which featured forced dialogue and awkward acting and an overdone narrator. Amazing Grace’s characters were believable though quickly developed while One Night With the King features underdone characters in overdone scenes.

While Amazing Grace’s story is certianly uplifting as we see the power of perseverance for what is right, it is also tremendously convicting. Convicting that we so rarely find such stories and that they stand out as so rare when they do come along. I couldn’t help but think of John Piper’s book Don’t Waste Your Life.

The more I think about Christianity in America, the more clever I realize that serpent of old truly is. Rather than being outright attacked, we are being lulled to sleep. Rather than facing direct persecution, we are forgetting discipline. All the while, our grasp of the truly miraculous, truly life-changing message of the Gospel is being lost in the fog of a life of ease.

The portrayal of William Wilberforce (and John Newton) convicted me personally of how little diligence I truly have in the Christian life. I claim allegiance to the kingdom of Christ yet fight so little for it. Instead, I try to smuggle my scraps of contraband sin in through the back door and pretend that they’re really not so bad. I hold my words when I know that I should speak because I don’t feel like a conflict that day or I pretend that sin isn’t really all that bad. At least my sin isn’t. After all, I’m still better than that guy over there.

Wilbeforce represents a life so gripped by the power of the Gospel that there is no choice but to act because even our dreams will convict us when we do not. Modern American Christians often worry about the perceived persecution we believe is coming our way, but we rarely stop to think that it could actually be more dangerous to the church if the persecution doesn’t come. We don’t live radical lives of faith because we feel as though we don’t have to.

Wilberforce stands as a larger-than-life reminder that “faith without works is dead” (James 2:14) and a rebuke that so few of us have the discipline or diligence to make a difference for the kingdom. Though we may argue that we don’t face such blatant societal evils as slavery, ceratinly abortion is no less hideous. How is it that so many of us are willing to do so little? Such was the case in Wilberforce’s day and we stand as testimony that there is indeed nothing new under the sun (Ecclesiastes 1:9).

I’d love to hear your thoughts if you’ve had a chance to see the movie.

• Watch the movie trailer
• Read Amazing Grace in the Life of William Wilberforce by John Piper
• Listen to Piper’s biographical sketch of Wilberforce
• Read the article You Have Not Labored in Vain from Christian History & Biography
• Read a profile of Wilberforce also from Christian History & Biography
• Read Don’t Waste Your Life by John Piper
• Watch One Night With the King

My wife and I recently watched the 1972 documentary “Marjoe.” Chronicling the exploits of a then 28-year Marjoe Gortner. Marjoe had travelled the southern-tent-revival circuit as a child, claiming to be the world’s youngest ordained minister at only four years old.

Years later, Gornter returned to the preaching circuit, this time with a documentary film crew, to expose himself as a con artist and also to call attention to several other ministry personalities who were defrauding men and women across the nation.

In 1972 when the film was originally released, the idea of a con-man minister wasn’t as nearly widespread as it is today. Modern audiences watch with disgus but without surprise, having been desensitized by Robert Tilton and others. Watching the film, it’s interesting to see the obvious influence of Mick Jagger on Gortner’s stage presence and the obvious influence of Gortner on Rod Parsley. It’s also interesting to watch as many of the tactics Gortner freely used as gimmicks continue in the ministries of many televangelists, even today.

But what is perhaps most interesting about Gortner is a seemingly passing comment that he makes. In one scene, Gortner is saying that he doesn’t consider himself to be evil, bad sure, but not evil; anyone who gets up and says things they don’t believe is bad, but he’s not evil. He then asks a seemingly passing question: “Can God save a religion addict?” This struck me as the crucial point of the entire fim. While the film makers want to you to focus on Gortner’s betrayal and shuckterisms, I think that they’ve actually asked a more penetrating question that they could have ever realized.

America is full of “religion addicts” but it is not full of Christians. By reducing salvation to a one-time event, we have had to come up with all kinds of ways to keep people excited about it. The Pentecostals look for the “baptism of the Holy Ghost,” while Fundamentalists (or some Baptists) erect lists of do’s and don’ts and you progress by keeping the code. Others try to do away with it all and seek to simply dialogue, but the truth is, even many professing Christians are still looking for sometime more.

Gortner’s passing comment has in fact hit the nail on the head of some of the great difficulties with many interpretations of Christianity. We have so greatly reduced salvation to the point that it’s no longer enough. Yes, it’s a “get-to-heaven” card, but for many it means precious little to life here and now. Rob Bell discusses this in his book Velvet Elvis when he says:

“If we only have a legal-transaction understanding of salvation in which we are forgiven of our sins so we can go to heaven, then salvation essentially becomes a ticket to somewhere else. In this understanding, eternity is something that kicks in when we die. But Jesus did not teach this. Jesus said that when we believe, we have crossed over from death to life.”

The sub-par understanding of salvation that so many possess leaves them “religion addicts” because they don’t understand the full picture of salvation life, not just for eternity, but for the “here and now.” We must be shaped by the Scripture and admit that this will sometimes mean we must rethink our popular notions, such that salvation is simply a one-time experience and only has ramifications for eternity. So many are left wanting more because they have no idea what they already have in Christ.

I in no way condone Gortner’s actions. But I do find it interesting that even the admittedly lost people of this world see that the way so many practice their faith lacks so much.

• Read Wikipedia’s entry on Marjoe Gortner.
• Read the IMDB entry on the film.
• Buy Marjoe.
• Buy Velvet Elvis by Rob Bell.

A recent online article argued: “Why Da Vinci Is Better as Book.” Four of the reasons listed revolve around the comical line: “In print, you can imagine Tom _______ instead of Tom Hanks.” Moving from Tom Cruise to Tom Selleck, to Tom Arnold, and Tom Green, the author is apparently not a Tom Hanks fan. Regardless, the article begs the question of whether or not the Da Vinci Code is a good book. What I find telling is that the article begins by stating, “No, I didn’t read “The Da Vinci Code.” Yes, I admit it, my literary habits, if you can call them that, tend to run more toward comic books.” I’m not sure this is a man who is fit to say that any story is better as book than film.

I finally read the book this weekend. It’s been in my “to read” pile for some time and as the furor grew, I kept thinking “I need to actually read it,” so I did. Others have addressed the key complaints: Jesus’ divinity was imposed, He married Mary Magdalene and fathered, etc. These have been dealt with, so I won’t address them. Rather, I’d like to think about other issues raised by this phenomenon. First, the blurring between fact and fiction, the possibility that the Christian repsonse has actually helped the book’s sales and influence and last, I’d like to ask the question, “is it a good book?” (is it a good story, are the characters sufficiently developed, are words used well, does the author develop concrete imagery, those types of questions).

First, the Da Vinci Code book and movie are part of a growing number of works blurring the line between fact and fiction. We’ve seen this trend gain tremendous headway particularly on television with the rise of “reality TV.” I’ll admit, I do watch Survivorman, Deadliest Catch and Dirty Jobs when I get a chance. But these shows present “reality” as entertainment. When the concept has been transferred to the page, we find authors presenting fiction as reality. The most notable recent example of this has probably been that of James Frey.

Frey’s “memoir” A Million Little Pieces fell into just that as allegations of fabrication and plagiarism emerged. After much scrutiny, according to Wikipedia, “Frey acknowledged that he either embellished or outright fabricated many elements of the book.” That’s a real problem for a book claiming to be a memoir. Many here will rightly point out that the Da Vinci Code is not a memoir and openly claims to be fiction, therefore any concerns in this area are unfounded. I wish they were.

Dan Brown cleverly plays the same game as James Frey, but Brown gets away with it because he claims the book is fiction. However, complicating matters is the fact that Brown feels compelled to open the book with a list of “facts.” These include pointing out that the orgianizations chronicled in the book (Priory of Sion and Opus Dei) are real, which therefore implies that the claims made by these groups in the book are also factual. These “claims of fact” are not part of the story, but preface it and therefore, color many’s perception of all that follows.

Second, I think that it is entirely possible that the Christian response to the book has actually boosted its sales (and thus its possible influence) tremendously. As I’ll discuss in a moment, it’s not a good book in the same way Tale of Two Cities is a good book. When literary critics gaze back, they will not see the Da Vinci Code. When cultural historians do the same, they just might see it. It is entirely possible that Brown chose his content specifically because of the “uproar” factor. Though we can not know that for certain, it was indeed a bold move.

Churches have devoted entire seminars and/or Sundays to the book. Christian authors have spilled much ink, Christian commentators have filled many airwaves, Christian magazines have devoted their cover stories to it. What better press could an author hope for? I’ve written elsewhere that about the possibility of boycotts. While I’m not sure that boycotts are the answer, I’m also becoming convinced that the “Christian response” has actually boosted the sales of a sub-par book with controversial content.

Had we simply and quietly addressed some of the key claims without denouncing and demonizing the book and author, I wonder if things might not have gone a bit differently. Instead, we see photos of book burnings and that’s just the type of image that sells and that stirs someone to become curious about a book they may have otherwise ignored.

Last, I want to briefly consider the literary merits of the book itself. I’ve made no secret thus far that I don’t consider it to be well-written. The story concept is fairly compelling, containing murder, conspiracy, chases, everything the modern man needs to be entertained. But this ultimately becomes part of the problem. It is not about literature, it’s about entertainment.

Modern fiction (for the most part) has tried to adapt itself to the television culture. The result has been fast-paced books with lots of action and short (sometimes very short) chapters that serve not to develop characters, but to move the plot. Da Vinci Code fits the bill perfectly. The characters are developed by their actions rather than dialoge or monologue. The result is that there is no connection other than that we know Langdon is supposed to be the “good guy” and that’s who we’re supposed to root for; there is no depth and therefore, the only drive for Langdon is that he is a “historian” who cares about the truth.

The language itself is sparse, but not in the sense that makes Camus’ The Stranger so compelling. Instead, it’s a “just the facts ma’am” approach that is not interested in developing concrete images or characters, just moving the plot, focusing on many shallow action words, trying to force suspense rather than letting it develop naturally. Overall, I would have to say that it’s poorly written but cleverly marketed and that’s a shame that such a project receives such success.

After having read the book for myself, I’m not surprised at its success. The characters are shallow, the action is fast-paced, the emotions are few, the plot is predictable and it is chock-full of controversy; just what every “average American” desires, an easy-to-read shallow book saying that belief in Christ is unfounded! I’d be surprised if it didn’t sell well.

It seems odd to me that besides the overly obvious (and necessary to address) issues raised by the book, I’ve not read any reviews of its poor artistic merits. It’s interesting that Christians, even in their response to something like this, continue to believe that the message overshadows the medium. Don’t get me wrong, the fallacies presented in Dan Brown’s “work” must be addressed, but this is not even a book of which I could say “I disagree with what he said but he said it well,” and I’ve not heard any Christians point out how poorly written it really is. i pray that we may come to hold everything up to the excellencies of Christ (who is God); even our literary notions.

For those of you who have read the book, I’d love your thoughts, on the content and presentation.

• Read The Da Vinci Code by Dan Brown.