Brian McLaren on The Da Vinci Code

Sojourners sent out an email this week in which Brian McLaren gives his take on The Da Vinci Code. Rather than jump into the already crowded waters churning around the numerous factual errors in the book, McLaren asks the important question - why? Why do people want to believe that Brown is right about this stuff? Strobel, two weekends ago, speculated that it is an easy out, an excuse not to have to make a decision about Christ's claims. I think that is only one possibility. Here is what McLaren had to say:

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?

So you think The Da Vinci Code taps into dissatisfaction with Jesus as we know him?

McLaren: For all the flaws of Brown's book, I think what he's doing is suggesting that the dominant religious institutions have created their own caricature of Jesus. And I think people have a sense that that's true. It's my honest feeling that anyone trying to share their faith in America today has to realize that the Religious Right has polluted the air. The name "Jesus" and the word "Christianity" are associated with something judgmental, hostile, hypocritical, angry, negative, defensive, anti-homosexual, etc. Many of our churches, even though they feel they represent the truth, actually are upholding something that's distorted and false.

I also think that the whole issue of male domination is huge and that Brown's suggestion that the real Jesus was not as misogynist or anti-woman as the Christian religion often has been is very attractive. Brown's book is about exposing hypocrisy and cover-up in organized religion, and it is exposing organized religion's grasping for power. Again, there's something in that that people resonate with in the age of pedophilia scandals, televangelists, and religious political alliances. As a follower of Jesus I resonate with their concerns as well.

If you agree with Barbara Nicolosi's statement that "The debate is all on hell's terms... You don't debate the Devil. You do not give evil the authority to question God" then McLaren's tone might strike you as indulgent. But what McLaren seems to get and Nicolosi has missed is that it isn't the devil asking the questions, it is our neighbors, our co-workers, and our family members.