evangelicals and the da vinci code and los angeles times

By now there are probably few people in America who do not know that the movie version of the Da Vinci Code, starring the versatile Tom Hanks, will debut on May 19. An interesting May 11 article in the Los Angeles Times mentioned that many Evangelical Christians, instead of opposing the film, like many had opposed the 1988 Scorsese movie The Last Temptation of Christ, have decided to turn the release of the film into another opportunity for evangelism. Their approach today seems to be that opposing the film through pickets or boycotts tends to confirm the notion many have that Evangelicals are closed-minded and weak-minded people who have no time or ability to discuss their faith with honest and open-minded questioners.

In fact, Evangelicalism has "come of age" in the last 18 years in America so that it feels that it has the intellectual armor to take on the assaults of all comers and win the battle for the hearts and minds of America by good theological and historical research. The burden of this and the next essay is to point out three Achilles heels (even one more than Achilles himself had) in Evangelical faith which really should make them vulnerable in discussions with your run-of-the-mill secular humanist rather than victorious in such encounters. Evangelicalism is vulnerable in its conception of God, its explanation of Jesus Christ and in its approach to history. Thus, if you are involved in a discussion with Evangelicals on the Da Vinci Code movie (or book), you might try to probe some of the following. Let's begin with history, since that is the subject of the Da Vinci Code.

Evangelicals and History

It doesn't take much skill to point out the historical errors in the Da Vinci Code. But while Evangelicals as well as anyone else can point to the historical improbability of the suppression of a Jesus-Mary Magdalene intimate relationship or the historical continuity of a "Holy Grail"-type secret for 1000+ years, for example, Evangelicals themselves are not really aware of the precarious state of our knowledge now regarding the shape of earliest Christianity. I use the word "now" because the continuing publication of the Nag Hammadi documents has called into question our notions of orthodoxy and heresy as well as where and when certain expressions of Christianity arose. For example, though the recently-published Gospel of Judas is only preserved in a 4th century text, it is attested in the 2nd century by Irenaeus, and it may point to a reality that goes back much earlier than the mid-2nd century. Who really knows, therefore, whether there wasn't a "pro-Judas" faction among the earliest Christians, and that Judas and his ilk just lost out to the greater zealousness or power of the communities behind what eventually became the canonical Gospels? Who is to say that the notion of secret disciples or specially selected apostles, which already is present in all the canonical Gospels and especially in the Gospel of John (as well as the Gospel of Judas) might not have originated with Jesus himself? Did he sequester one or a small group of the disciples and tell them secrets that he communicated to no one else? Is is possible that these "secret teachings" were preserved and appear in some of the texts scholars call "Gnostic" Gospels? Just as Evangelical scholars argue that the existsence of the four Gospels points unequivocally to the actual historical existence of Jesus (a very reasonable assumption in my judgment), why shouldn't the existence of dozens of "Gnostic" Gospels also point to the reality of Jesus' "secret" teaching to specially-selected disciples?

Therefore, if Evangelicals really want to "take on" the historical shortcomings of Da Vinci Code, they will have to be willing to confess their own ignorance of the development of earliest Christianity. Are they willing to do that? What we don't know now about the development of Christianity from its beginning to about 300 CE is astonishingly huge. This generation of Evangelicals has yet to learn how history's sword cuts both ways. You might say that history helps you or confirms your faith whereas in fact, when you really study the history of earliest Christianity, you discover it usually is frustratingly silent on almost every important question you can ask. In my judgment, history helps secular humanists more than it helps Evangelicals.

Evangelicals and Their View of God

Evangelical Christians want to try to convince you that God is a "personal" God, and that He (few would say "He or She") can be addressed much like you address a friend. Just as Moses spoke to God at the door of the tabernacle--"like a man speaks to his friend"-- so Evangelicals believe in a God who is alive, is real, and is deeply concerned with the affairs of your life. In another essay I referred to this as the "right-thereness" of God in Evangelical theology. God may not grant you a parking space if you pray for it, though Evangelicals are divided over this important issue, but they will all confess that God is a personal God, a God who wants to relate intimately to you, a God who is an approachable friend who listens to and will answer prayer, a God who reveals truth about Himself to those who desire to become closer to Him, a God who showers His people with blessings.

But this idea of God, too, can and should be questioned. The next essay shows you how you should do this.

1852