The Da Vinci Code: Opportunity or “Othercott”?
Posted by Andreas Köstenberger on May 12, 2006 in Blog | 6 comments
In my public appearances on The Da Vinci Code, I routinely make the point that the release of the movie presents the church with a golden opportunity for witness. In this I am joined by many others who have prepared helpful resources for dealing with the central claims of The Da Vinci Code.
Yet not everyone agrees that the church ought to use the release of the movie as a witnessing opportunity. In a recent column posted at http://www.christianitytoday.com/movies/commentaries/othercott.html entitled “Let’s ‘Othercott’ Da Vinci,” Barbara Nicolosi (founder and director of Act One, an organization whose mission is to train committed Christian writers to work in the Hollywood film industry) calls on Christians to “othercott” (apologies for the verbal monstrosity!) The Da Vinci Code. Rather than boycott the movie (which according to Nicolosi would be to “throw away” one’s “vote”), she calls on Christians to go and see another movie released May 19, Over the Hedge by DreamWorks. Otherwise, we should simply ignore The Da Vinci Code.
Nicolosi cites four major reasons for this proposal.
(1) It makes her physically sick to hear people say bad things about the one she loves (Jesus). Why add to her pain?
(2) “The debate is all on hell’s terms,” but “[t]he climate of evangelism is not consistent with a posture of defiance and cynicism.”
(3) Dialoguing with people about The Da Vinci Code would be equivalent to debating with the devil, and “You don’t debate the Devil.”
(4) Most people in the churches don’t know their Bible well enough to enter into this kind of debate and so are likely to be swayed by opposing arguments.
“Othercott” or opportunity for Christian witness? What are we to make of Nicolosi’s proposal? Here’s my response.
(1) It makes me sick, too, to hear people blaspheme the name of Christ, but my advice would be, “Toughen up a little!” As Christians, we are called to take up our cross and follow Jesus, and that includes enduring abuse for his name. “To this you were called, because Christ suffered for you, leaving you an example, that you should follow in his steps” (1 Peter 2:21).
(2) The debate may be on hell’s territory, the world without Christ, but it need not be on hell’s terms. That’s what’s wrong with many of our churches, that the only evangelism in which they are willing to engage is done on their terms and on their premises. Jesus, on the other hand, went to where the people were and engaged them on their terms (example: the Samaritan woman in John 4), though he didn’t stop there. Taking them from where they were, he led them to the truth about himself (he is the Savior of the world) and about themselves (they are sinners). Paul told Timothy to preach the gospel “in season and out of season” (2 Tim. 4:2). This means to share the good news of Jesus Christ not only to those who are open but to be faithful to proclaim the gospel whether or not people are receptive.
(3) Well, I don’t know about debating the devil, but I know that Jesus did do verbal combat with the devil at his temptation, matching (misused) Scripture with (appropriately used) Scripture. (One more thought: Did Jesus ignore the Pharisees?) Peter writes that we should resist the devil, standing firm in the faith (1 Peter 5:9). Paul likewise calls on believers to put on God’s armor so that they can stand their ground against the devil’s schemes (Eph. 6:10–17). He also says, “We demolish arguments and every pretension that sets itself up against the knowledge of God, and we take captive every thought to make it obedient to Christ” (2 Cor. 10:5). None of these verses sound like we ought to leave the playing field to the devil out of disgust or dismay that the name of Christ is being slandered.
(4) Are we to refrain from engagement with the enemy merely because our troops are ill-prepared? This may be reason to make sure we first prepare our troops before sending them into battle, but it can hardly be reason not to engage the enemy in the first place. In fact, this is precisely what is happening. Many churches are doing this, and many resources are available.
I, for one, think the “othercott” is a really bad idea. Let’s take full advantage of the release of The Da Vinci Code as a witnessing opportunity and trust God to do his mighty work through us. Several friends and I plan to stand in the foyer of a movie theater at a preview session the night before opening night. We will hand out booklets to those who go see the movie and seek to engage them in conversation, “making the most of every opportunity, because the days are evil” (Eph. 5:16).
While this may be an opportunity to witness, I am somewhat doubtful that it will. I say this because experience tells me that no matter how much a reasearch a movie, if I want to engage someone about it the first thing they ask is if I have seen it. I have no plan to watch The Da Vinci Code, and for many people that will end the discussion. Secondly, I find that every time there is a claim that a movie will be a great witnessing opportunity, it never seems to be. As soon as the movie goes out of the theatres, everyone forgets about it.
Whether or not we choose to see the film or read the book we should be prepared to answer questions that will come our way. Good subjects to review would be on the history of the church and the reliability of the Biblical canon, and Jesus Christ’s claims about himself, since those are some of the main themes Dan Brown where attempts to rewrite history.
Thanks for coming to RCCC. I feel that some of our fellow believers either “stick their head in the sand” , hoping that it will go away, or ignore issues like this. The Da Vinci code, even though once torn apart through research, is still a very dangerous piece of fiction. While Barbara Nicolosi was correct in stating that most people in most churches don’t know enough of the bible to enter into this kind of debate, there are some who do. I spoke with you last night about an apologetic way to show that the only thing Mr. Brown has to stand on is the Gnostic gospels. Knowing full well that these books include teachings which are directly opposite of the four Gospels which we know today it is very easy to be able to sumise that Mr. Brown is a sensationalist at the very least.
Personally, I like the idea of the “othercott” and plan on seeing “Over the Hedge” on the weekend. Of course, Nicolosi’s reasoning is so bad it cannot even be described as flawed. You have correctly addressed these issues. My reason for participating in the “othercott” is not because I am afraid of the Da Vinci Code. I just want to help send Hollywood a message although I will be the first to admit that you cannot organize evangelicals in this fashion. They simply will not participate. I plan on seeing the Code (as I read the book) and participating in the debate with all willing to engage. I just won’t see it opening weekend.
I have the strange suspicion that the “othercott” was the original brainchild of a marketing guru at DreamWorks.
Dr. Henry Blackaby said it best in Experiencing God when he told how the Canadian police learned how to detect counterfeit money. The Canadian police studied the real thing, not the counterfeit. The Da Vinci Code is counterfeit. I haven’t seen it nor have I read the book nor do I intend to but when my son approached me this morning about it after he had seen it and said he thought it was fake it lead us into a conversation of the truth of God’s Word with him and his wife. I can’t tell you about the movie but it’s the perfect lead into sharing the gospel. Study the real thing! The Da Vinci Code, like the grass, will wither but God’s Truth will stand forever.