My criticism of Dan Brown is that he presents a very one-dimensional, stereotypical image of not just the Roman Catholic church (and Opus Dei) but also of Muslim Arab males (in Angels and Demons) and of people with Albinism (he takes someone who looks different and turns them into a demonic monk - how original!)…

I think X-Men, and the underlying themes, will be far more entertaining and thought provoking than the Da Vinci Code…

Frorm the comments that congregants have made or questions that they have asked, it seems that the Da Vinci Code uses very poor scholarship and middle ages dynastic propaghanda. On the other hand, fiction is about taking an idea and playing with it. Peter Benchley read one day about a great white shark and thought “What if one of them decided to stay around?” It was the speculative question that created the book “Jaws.”

As for the Roman Catholic Church, the only thing conceivably worse than Dan Brown’s depiction of that institution today would be the historical record. The Protestant Reformation happened for very good reasons that had less to do with theology than might be imagined.

I’m more interested in seeing XMen 3 this week (with my groomsmen.)

I read the Da Vinci Code as a result of that initial discussion, and read Dan Brown’s other book Angels and Demons. To be honest, they both were “can’t put down” sort of reads but also at the same time they annoyed and irritated me.

I think I felt like this because…

1. the author blends fiction with historical scholarship

2. the author seems to have actively remained ambiguous (in follow up interviews) on the subject of what he counts as legitimate scholarship and what is pure fiction

3. the author has painted a pretty awful picture of the Catholic church and although little has been said, of people with Albinism

But I think what annoys me most is the conspiracy theory element. I don’t know about the US, but in the UK conspiracy theories are all the rage. The latest is that a plane didn’t hit the Pentagon, or the WTC. It startles me how many ordinary people will entertain these theories - but what is most concerning is that when you scratch the surface, these theories are often born out of an underlying prejudice.

In Dan Brown’s case it is clearly something anti-Catholic but also includes other stereotypes / prejudice (the portrayal of an Arab Muslim assassin in Angels and Demons as a woman hater should be noted). In the case of the WTC, these theories eventualy point to anti-Americanism then Mossad and then the old classic “its them Jews wot did it”.

On the subject of Jesus, I just don’t know who he was - all I am certain of is that the core values he represented are ones we can try to embody now - love, compassion, justice, human unity etc. I continue to read a range of books on Jesus from CS Lewis to Marcus Borg and the more I read the more I keep changing annd developing my viewpoint.

Dan Brown has had no impact on this. And after the media storm ends, Liberal / Progressive / Unitarian / UU Christians will continue to investigate / re-evaluate their faith through reference to real scholarship and debate (such as that pioneered by the Westar Institute), the more Evangelical / Conservative element within Christianity will not suddenly have a conversion to more open minded thinking - they will simply find something else to denounce, the conspiracy nuts will consume the rash of related novels with relish, movie goers will simply move onto the next blockbuster (X-Men 3 looks good!) and perhaps a few people just might end up buying the odd book by Geza Vermes or Marcus Borg - some reading it and some getting bored…

i had read a book about Jesus being married back in the 1960s (the one sentance reason was: Rabbis were expected to be married). Biblicaly there’s no evidence one way or the other. I cant say that I ever gave much thought about Jesus having children, but I would think if he actually did, that might merit mention if it was a son- next to the mention of the other male relatives. Nor have there been anything in the early church history that I’ve seen mention of . No prentenders to the throne, etc. So if any, died in the uprising is possible. but yeah, his marital state wasnt important then, and not important now….
I certainly cant see why those who would say he was both “fully human and fully devine” would be bothered at all…

so why are people (millions apparently) reading it?