Christian Foes of 'Da Vinci Code' Debate How to Fight It

For discussion of philosophy, religion, spirituality, or any topic that posters wish to approach from a spiritual or religious perspective.
Post Reply
User avatar
Alatar
of Vinyamar
Posts: 10596
Joined: Thu Dec 01, 2005 11:39 pm
Location: Ireland
Contact:

Christian Foes of 'Da Vinci Code' Debate How to Fight It

Post by Alatar »

I'm not sure whether this should be here or in Lasto. I can move if necessary.

From the New York Times
Christian Foes of 'Da Vinci Code' Debate How to Fight It
By LAURIE GOODSTEIN
Many Christian leaders across the country are girding themselves for battle with "The Da Vinci Code," the movie based on the blockbuster novel by Dan Brown that opens on May 19. Whether Roman Catholic or Protestant, Orthodox or evangelical, they agree that the book attacks the pillars of Christianity by raising doubts about the divinity of Jesus and the origins of the Bible.

But they are not at all in agreement on how to best respond to a movie that one leader called "blasphemy on steroids." Some will boycott it. Others will use it as a "teaching moment." Still others will lodge a protest by seeing another movie.

Until recently, the prevailing strategy was to hitch on to the Da Vinci steamroller and use it as an opportunity for evangelism. For months, clergy have been giving their flocks books and DVD's debunking the novel, and some have even encouraged their congregants to see the movie with a nonbeliever.

"I think we really have to see it, at least some of us," said Richard J. Mouw, president of Fuller Theological Seminary, a prominent evangelical school. "It's very important for some Christians at least to be able to engage in an intelligent discussion."

But in recent weeks, calls for boycotts and protests have grown louder, from the Vatican to conservative Christian groups in the United States. They acknowledge that a boycott is not likely to make a dent at the box office, but say the co-optation strategy promoted by others will not adequately convey how offensive "The Da Vinci Code" is to their faith.

"Christians are under no obligation to pay for what Hollywood dishes out, especially a movie that slanders Jesus Christ and the church," said Robert H. Knight, director of the Culture and Family Institute, an affiliate of Concerned Women for America, a conservative Christian group based in Washington.

"I don't have to see 'The Devil in Miss Jones' to know it's pornography, and I don't have to see 'The Da Vinci Code' to know that it's blasphemous," said Mr. Knight, who plans to join religious leaders from groups like Human Life International and Movieguide in Washington on May 17 to announce boycott plans.

A third strategy now gaining currency is being called an "othercott" — urging people to see a different movie on the day "The Da Vinci Code" opens, like "Over the Hedge," an animated family feature. The idea was dreamed up by Barbara Nicolosi, a former nun who now directs Act One, a program in Los Angeles that coaches Christian screenwriters.

Talk of "the movie being an opportunity for evangelism is a line completely concocted by the Sony Pictures marketing machine," said Ms. Nicolosi. "All they care about is getting the box office, and if they don't get the red states to turn out, the movie tanks."

Christians have not been this worked up about a movie since Martin Scorsese's Jesus stepped down off the crucifix in "The Last Temptation of Christ" in 1988.

In "The Da Vinci Code," two sleuths uncover a conspiracy by the Catholic Church to conceal that Jesus married Mary Magdalene and that the myth of his divinity was written into the Bible at the Council of Nicaea in 325 A.D. by the Roman emperor Constantine. "The Da Vinci Code" was marketed as fiction, but Mr. Brown said in a preface page that his descriptions of artwork, documents and rituals "are accurate."

To be sure, there are many Christians who do not regard the book or the movie as a threat. But the outrage is widespread, and the divisions on strategy do not run along denominational lines. Some evangelicals are calling for a boycott, while others are telling their flocks to see the film. Roman Catholic officials are not on the same page either.

The debate has been colored by the Muslim riots over Danish cartoons of the Prophet Muhammad. Most American media outlets refrained from showing the cartoons, and now some Christian leaders are asking why Christians should be expected to sit by while the media promotes a movie that insults their savior.

In Rome recently, Archbishop Angelo Amato, the No. 2 official in the Vatican's doctrinal office, told Catholic communications officials: "If such slanders, offenses and errors had been directed at the Koran or the Holocaust, they would have justly provoked a world uprising. Instead, directed at the Church and Christians, they remain unpunished. I hope you will all boycott the movie."

Cardinal Francis Arinze, a prominent Vatican official from Nigeria, said in a recently released documentary made by a Catholic film agency that Christians should take "legal means" against "The Da Vinci Code," though he did not explain how.

But in the United States, Catholic bishops have opted to take an "educational" approach, said Msgr. Francis Maniscalco, a spokesman for the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops. They have produced a Web site, pamphlets and a documentary, "Jesus Decoded," that will air on NBC affiliates.

"We believe we can fight the Da Vinci Code's position from the point of view of scholarship, and we don't have to shut them down," Monsignor Maniscalco said.

Opus Dei, a Catholic group with a starring role in "The Da Vinci Code" as the evil guardian of the conspiracy, has consistently asked Sony Pictures to add a disclaimer to the movie. But the film's director, Ron Howard, told The Los Angeles Times last week, "Spy thrillers don't start off with disclaimers."

The prevailing evangelism strategy will affect thousands of churches. Focus on the Family, the conservative media ministry founded by Dr. James Dobson, has enlisted 3,000 churches to show a simulcast on the issue the weekend the movie opens.

The Rev. Jim Garlow, pastor of Skyline Wesleyan Church in San Diego, has trained more than 200 pastors in how to encourage their congregations to use the movie to share their faith by throwing "Da Vinci Code parties" in their homes.

"It's the task of the missionary to learn the language of the indigenous people," he said, "and Dan Brown's book has become a universal language. It simply opens doors."
Image
The Vinyamars on Stage! This time at Bag End
User avatar
yovargas
I miss Prim ...
Posts: 15011
Joined: Thu Dec 08, 2005 12:13 am
Location: Florida

Post by yovargas »

:roll:
I wanna love somebody but I don't know how
I wanna throw my body in the river and drown
-The Decemberists


Image
User avatar
Cerin
Posts: 6384
Joined: Mon Nov 21, 2005 3:10 am

Post by Cerin »

Could you be more specific, yov? Do you think it's silly for Christians or Christian institutions to wish to combat what they see as the inaccuracies presented in the movie?
User avatar
yovargas
I miss Prim ...
Posts: 15011
Joined: Thu Dec 08, 2005 12:13 am
Location: Florida

Post by yovargas »

No, I don't think that's silly at all. I think talk of outrage and boycotts is thoroughly silly, though. I half-suspect it's mostly media spin anyways.
I wanna love somebody but I don't know how
I wanna throw my body in the river and drown
-The Decemberists


Image
User avatar
Cerin
Posts: 6384
Joined: Mon Nov 21, 2005 3:10 am

Post by Cerin »

Well, suppose a blockbuster movie was fashioned around the premise that homosexuality is a choice? Do you think a boycott might be one of the tactics used by the gay community to combat that inaccuracy? Can you see why they might be energized to try to prevent a greater acceptance of that perception?

Please note I'm not trying to equate the examples substantively, but just to examine the issues surrounding what is an appropriate way to respond when you think an untruth about something you consider important is about to be propagated by a potentially influential film.
User avatar
Alatar
of Vinyamar
Posts: 10596
Joined: Thu Dec 01, 2005 11:39 pm
Location: Ireland
Contact:

Post by Alatar »

Personally I feel that these "protests" do more harm than good to the Christian cause. They seem overly defensive and make someone like me immediately think "What are you afraid of? Surely belief is a personal thing." Even if people leave the theatre believing that every word is true, does that really affect Christianity? So what does the protest achieve? If the intention is to claim "Blasphemy" then as an adult I will fight for my right to my own beliefs. If I want to go see a film where Jesus Christ does a tap dance on Mohammads head, I reserve my right to do so. No protest group is going to tell me I don't have that right. Instead they'll just get my back up and I'll make a point of seeing it.

The same thing happened with "The Last Temptation of Christ". Honestly, nobody would even remember that movie if it wasn't for the uproar and the attempts to have it banned.
Image
The Vinyamars on Stage! This time at Bag End
User avatar
truehobbit
Cute, cuddly and dangerous to know
Posts: 6019
Joined: Mon Nov 21, 2005 2:52 am
Contact:

Post by truehobbit »

I think that's a good point, Cerin.

Basically, I'm wondering more why there's no Commonsense Foes of Da Vinci Code thinking of how to fight such absurd idiocy. :roll:

Edit: Alatar, it depends on how one assess the impact of such nonsense on the audience, I think.
Cerin made a good comparison: of course you'd have the right to choose to see a movie in which, for example, gays are portrayed as lunatics or something like that, but if there were a danger that this might really influence how society views gays, then they'd have the right to protest.
Last edited by truehobbit on Thu May 11, 2006 3:16 pm, edited 1 time in total.
but being a cheerful hobbit he had not needed hope, as long as despair could be postponed.
User avatar
axordil
Pleasantly Twisted
Posts: 8999
Joined: Tue Apr 18, 2006 7:35 pm
Location: Black Creek Bottoms
Contact:

Post by axordil »

Ideological boycotts of movies are usually a no-win strategy. If the movie is, in fact, any good (gored oxen aside), they have a synergistic effect with word-of-mouth to draw people who might not otherwise have gone into the theatres, while those who participate almost certainly would not have gone anyway.

On the other hand, if a movie is both objectionable AND bad, why bother expending the energy to point it out? Very few people will end up seeing it anyway.

People say they call for boycotts because they feel they have no other method of expressing their outrage. But people are either outraged or not on things like this, so what they are essentially doing is preaching to the choir/rallying the base/yelling into the echo chamber. None of which is particularly helpful to a discourse.

But then, discourse is a dirty word in some quarters.
User avatar
yovargas
I miss Prim ...
Posts: 15011
Joined: Thu Dec 08, 2005 12:13 am
Location: Florida

Post by yovargas »

I think a call for boycotts would be silly in that case too, Cerin. If you think a movie's message is false, just tell people why you think it's false. Discourse, to borrow Ax's term, is more useful then outrage.
I wanna love somebody but I don't know how
I wanna throw my body in the river and drown
-The Decemberists


Image
User avatar
axordil
Pleasantly Twisted
Posts: 8999
Joined: Tue Apr 18, 2006 7:35 pm
Location: Black Creek Bottoms
Contact:

Post by axordil »

Mind you, I think calling a movie based on ANY Dan Brown book "discourse" is kind of a stretch. :D
User avatar
Alatar
of Vinyamar
Posts: 10596
Joined: Thu Dec 01, 2005 11:39 pm
Location: Ireland
Contact:

Post by Alatar »

I really don't get it. The books were a ripping good yarn. The Film will be great fun, I'm sure. What's the big deal?
Image
The Vinyamars on Stage! This time at Bag End
User avatar
Pearly Di
Elvendork
Posts: 1751
Joined: Fri Dec 02, 2005 1:46 pm
Location: The Shire

Post by Pearly Di »

Discourse is MUCH better than outrage.

The Da Vinci Code provides Christians with an excellent opportunity to discuss their faith, and why we believe it. Outrage just makes us look thoroughly defensive and silly. What have we got to hide? Why on earth are we getting our collective knickers in a twist? :scratch: Etc etc etc.
The same thing happened with "The Last Temptation of Christ". Honestly, nobody would even remember that movie if it wasn't for the uproar and the attempts to have it banned.
Quite so, Alatar.

That film is so pretentious and tedious. Its worst crime (well, nearly its worst crime) was to make Christ BORING. Which to me was actually ten times more offensive than showing Him as having sexual feelings. ;)

Having said all of the above, I am not sure I really want to contribute my two cents to Mr Brown's millions. ;)

And the trailer is awful and intensely annoying. :D

I'll read up on all the gnostic conspiracy what-not, but I don't feel in any great rush to go and see the film, I must admit.

Making a big song and dance about boycotting would be very counterproductive though.

Mind you, I'm sure the media would love to make the most of this. ;)
"Frodo undertook his quest out of love - to save the world he knew from disaster at his own expense, if he could ... "
Letter no. 246, The Collected Letters of J.R.R. Tolkien
Avatar by goldlighticons on Live Journal
User avatar
Voronwë the Faithful
At the intersection of here and now
Posts: 46135
Joined: Mon Nov 21, 2005 1:41 am
Contact:

Post by Voronwë the Faithful »

blasphemy on steroids
:D

I think the same thing is going to happen as happened with "The Passion" in the other direction. All the protests and talk of boycotts and such will just feed interest in the movie and make it that much bigger of a hit.
"Spirits in the shape of hawks and eagles flew ever to and from his halls; and their eyes could see to the depths of the seas, and pierce the hidden caverns beneath the world."
User avatar
Cerin
Posts: 6384
Joined: Mon Nov 21, 2005 3:10 am

Post by Cerin »

Wanting, as a personal expression of disagreement, to join a boycott of the film (that is, to predetermine that one won't contribute to its success) is not to say that others don't have the right to see it. Nor is it, I think, an attempt to stifle discourse.

This is different, isn't it, than attempting to prevent the movie from being shown at all?
User avatar
yovargas
I miss Prim ...
Posts: 15011
Joined: Thu Dec 08, 2005 12:13 am
Location: Florida

Post by yovargas »

Organizing a boycott implies an active attempt to convince others not to see it, which seems so silly to me. If you don't wanna see it, don't see it. Why the need to attach the "boycott" label?
I wanna love somebody but I don't know how
I wanna throw my body in the river and drown
-The Decemberists


Image
User avatar
Cerin
Posts: 6384
Joined: Mon Nov 21, 2005 3:10 am

Post by Cerin »

Thanks for that clarification, yov. I agree with ax's observations that practically, it isn't a good strategy.
User avatar
Whistler
Posts: 2865
Joined: Mon Nov 21, 2005 2:34 pm
Contact:

Post by Whistler »

This is not one of those eye-rolling, there-they-go-again situations.

I don't participate in organized boycotts or things of that nature: As has been pointed out, they always backfire. Still, I will certainly not be spending any money to see this film. This is serious business, however people choose to dismiss it.

It's just a story, is it? Of course it is, and that's the point. There are plenty of books about Christ that reach conclusions with which I disagree, but if they are objective and scholarly works I accept them as the inevitable result of a free society. However, this is not a scholarly work; this is a potboiler. I have never heard from a single authority in any field who takes the assertions of this story seriously. In short, it's all bunk.

Now, there is usually nothing wrong with bunk, as long as it's entertaining bunk. But there is a line beyond which an author or film maker must be called (at least) irresponsible. Let's say that somebody wrote a story in which the life and work of Rev. Martin Luther King were so re-invented as to erase the man completely and shatter every fond belief we have concerning him. And let's say also that the story were written so carefully, expertly blending fiction with fact, that only authorities in certain fields could prove it untrue.

Now, would this make for an entertaining story? You bet. Should such a story be written? Almost certainly not: Unfortunately there is a large percentage of the population that believes whatever it sees in the media. King deserves better than manipulative games of this sort, and so do the people who revere him.

(As a side note, Salieri never hated Mozart. But hey, would they lie in a movie?)

In my opinion, the question "Who is Christ?" is the single most important question that any of us will ever answer. To deliberately cloud this question, all for the sake of slick entertainment and a barrel of money, strikes me as a pretty darn disgusting.

And I'm still waiting for the hit piece on Muhammad, but I'm not holding my breath.
User avatar
Primula Baggins
Living in hope
Posts: 40005
Joined: Mon Nov 21, 2005 1:43 am
Location: Sailing the luminiferous aether
Contact:

Post by Primula Baggins »

I remember reading at least one spokesman for a conservative organization saying they would not be organizing against Brokeback Mountain because they'd learned controversy only provided free publicity for the film.

Of course, that was an art-house movie, and this is positioned as a summer blockbuster, so adding to its publicity is less of a concern.

I've never read the book—someone whose judgment I trust said it was poorly written, so I didn't bother. I haven't decided about seeing the movie.
“There, peeping among the cloud-wrack above a dark tor high up in the mountains, Sam saw a white star twinkle for a while. The beauty of it smote his heart, as he looked up out of the forsaken land, and hope returned to him. For like a shaft, clear and cold, the thought pierced him that in the end the Shadow was only a small and passing thing: there was light and high beauty for ever beyond its reach.”
― J.R.R. Tolkien, The Return of the King
User avatar
yovargas
I miss Prim ...
Posts: 15011
Joined: Thu Dec 08, 2005 12:13 am
Location: Florida

Post by yovargas »

Are people really expecting the general populace to take this movie seriously? It's a summer popcorn thriller, not a history documentary. Surely people get that, no?
I wanna love somebody but I don't know how
I wanna throw my body in the river and drown
-The Decemberists


Image
User avatar
Whistler
Posts: 2865
Joined: Mon Nov 21, 2005 2:34 pm
Contact:

Post by Whistler »

yovargas wrote:Are people really expecting the general populace to take this movie seriously? It's a summer popcorn thriller, not a history documentary. Surely people get that, no?
I'm guessing no. But of course I am old and cynical, not young and optimistic like some of the rest of you.
Post Reply