I subscribe to the Sojourners email newsletter. It can be very frustrating to read, but it’s interesting to keep up with what the religious left is thinking. The latest issue has a revealing interview with Emergent Church leader Brian McLaren on The Da Vinci Code. Here is the first question and response…
What do you think the popularity of The Da Vinci Code reveals about pop culture attitudes toward Christianity and the church?
Brian McLaren: I think a lot of people have read the book, not just as a popular page-turner but also as an experience in shared frustration with status-quo, male-dominated, power-oriented, cover-up-prone organized Christian religion. We need to ask ourselves why the vision of Jesus hinted at in Dan Brown’s book is more interesting, attractive, and intriguing to these people than the standard vision of Jesus they hear about in church. Why would so many people be disappointed to find that Brown’s version of Jesus has been largely discredited as fanciful and inaccurate, leaving only the church’s conventional version? Is it possible that, even though Brown’s fictional version misleads in many ways, it at least serves to open up the possibility that the church’s conventional version of Jesus may not do him justice?
And this…
Do you think the book contains any significantly detrimental distortions of the Christian faith?
McLaren: The book is fiction and it’s filled with a lot of fiction about a lot of things that a lot of people have already debunked. But frankly, I don’t think it has more harmful ideas in it than the Left Behind novels. And in a certain way, what the Left Behind novels do, the way they twist scripture toward a certain theological and political end, I think Brown is twisting scripture, just to other political ends.
I’m not a big fan of the Left Behind series, but there is no comparison between that and Dan Brown’s assault on the historicity of the Christian Faith.
It seems to me that McLaren is as hostile to the cause of Christ as Dan Brown, probably even more so since he purports to be working from inside it.
Perhaps I just don’t have the experience with McLaren that you do, but I don’t see much wrong with what he said…
Please clarify.
OK, maybe I’m overreacting a bit (too much Florida sun maybe?), but it sure sounds to me like McLaren finds more to like in Dan Brown that he does in most Christians.
Perhaps so, and I’ll admit he exhibits the typical Emergent hostility toward traditionalism and “the church” (a reference which he never quite makes clear). But, I think he makes two good points:There is something in the falsehoods about Christ that Brown promotes that is more attractive to unbelievers than the truth. Allowing for the natural man’s tendency toward exchanging the truth for a lie, we do need to be about the business of “advertising” God’s truth and making sure the world knows it’s more attractive than lies.Twisting of Scripture happens inside and outside the American church.I do take exception with his caricature of traditional Christianity as “status-quo” and “male-dominated,” as well as his dismissal of the book’s lies about Christ as non-detrimental to the gospel. On those points, I agree with you. But I’m not sure the comparison with the Left Behind series is entirely unwarranted…it just deals with less central doctrines.
This is a great example of what Ken, while channeling his professor, would call, “scweeppin statements.” Let me get this right: Brian compares Left Behind, a clearly futuristic book based on a certain interpretation, to the historical events of Nicaea that helped formed the creedal basis for the church today? He either needs a large dose of medicated sleep or never went to Bible college. This is such a silly statement I really don’t know what else to say.
Regardless of his frustration with the “church” he needs to be careful in how he speaks toward it. Brian would be well advised to be more specific in potentially harmful movements and always communicate the hope that it is the Lord’s Church regardless of the fringe movements or weak moments. God will work in His Church and His fame will spread through it even when the day looks like night.
Justin Taylor commented on McLaren’s blather on his blog:
“I don’t think it has more harmful ideas in it than the Left Behind novels.”
I agree. We should make sure we have our eschatology correct before we acknowledge the deity of Christ. 😉
Heh, David- I alost took you seriously at first. Don’t worry..I’m loosing up slowly.
I tend to agree that the Left Behind series should not be compared to The Da Vinci Code. Apples and oranges. From my understanding, Lahaye is a professing Christian and he does not attack the diety of Christ in his fiction. Brown does. One is classified as Christian fictional literature, the other should not be.
I think you are on to something Eric. McLaren probably sees Dan Brown’s work as just simply one of many meta-narratives and the closer you move to absolutizing Truth (as Lahaye often implies about his eschatology), then the closer you move towards hostility. I have to put another plug in for D.A. Carson’s Becoming Conversant with the Emergent Church. It is excellent at explaining McLaren’s perspective. To be fair, many in the emerging church movement think that he misunderstands them, but he deals fairly with the objective information.
On an aside, Dan how are the Left Behind books based on a historical interpretation of Nicea? I missed that perspective in my Bible college training. (Not picking a fight, just curious)
Oh, I misunderstood your comment, Dan. Sorry. Maybe I was picking a fight without knowing it. I see what you were saying. Sorry again.
Here’s an entertaining review of The Da Vinci Code that was published back in 2003:
J. Mark Bertrand
No problem Jason. I actually needed a comma in the sentence. I have corrected it. It now reads, “Let me get this right: Brian compares Left Behind, a clearly futuristic book based on a certain interpretation, to the historical events of Nicaea that helped formed the creedal basis for the church today?”