Like a few hundred thousand other people, we went and saw The DaVinci Code this past Saturday.  I was really hoping we'd see some picketers, but no such luck.  Having not read the book, I didn't really go in with many expectations.  The movie itself was alright - not something I think I'd watch again.  Ian McKellen (aka "Gandalf") was great as usual, Tom Hanks wasn't as bad as everyone has made him out to be, and the art and architecture in the movie are fantastic (I'm a sucker for the classics), but overall the movie was just your typical summer popcorn flick.  Good for matinee price, but I'm not sure I'd be as forgiving if I had paid full admission.

I've heard a lot of people inside and outside of the church readily admit that the movie (and book) are full of nonsense, but quickly note that it is still important in creating and fostering religious dialogue.  And I would agree.  I thought that DaVinci Code did raise some interesting issues and questions, of which you are free to comment on and discuss - in fact, I'd encourage that.  For me, there were two main conversation pieces:

1)  What, if anything, about your faith / religion could be changed without it affecting your belief?  Does it all have to remain the way you (or perhaps your religious tradition / denomination / background) have always understood it for you to retain your faith, or are there certain items that are "negotiable?"  Would anything be different if we discovered that Noah and the Ark didn't really exist?  Would anything be different if Jesus were married (as is debated in DaVinci Code)?  What are the central aspects of your faith about which you are unwilling to compromise?

2)  Without having read the book, it seemed to me that the many of the main premises behind DaVinci Code are born out of the conviction that the Christian church (and perhaps religion in general) has throughout history been too-often concerned with the "wrong things."  That the faith has often been used as a tool for oppression, manipulation, hatred, and ignorance rather than love, service, and social betterment.  I do think that the Catholic Church is unfairly singled out and maligned in the movie, but if Christians from all backgrounds and denominations are honest with themselves, we do have to admit our past (and even our daily lives) can be rather sketchy.

So what, as people of faith, can we do about this - a widespread cultural conviction that we have somehow lost our way and become increasingly uncompassionate and irrelevant?  How do we make sure we are concerned with things that really matter and not get hung up on periphery distractions?  How do we make sure that we not use the name of God as justification for our own personal or social agendas?  How do we become more inclusive of minorities and celebrate their role in the church, instead of marginalizing those who might look different than we do?  How do we build bridges and dialogue within and across churches when in recent years everything has seemingly become so polarized? How do we become a church that is concerned about the persons and things that Christ was concerned about?  And is this even possible?

I can't say that have answers for all or even very many of these questions.  But for me, being a follower of Christ often means asking difficult questions.  Difficult questions about my society, church, and personal life.  And a lot of times it also means allowing other people to ask difficult questions of me about those same things.

You might not care for the DaVinci Code or believe the ideas it sets forth, but it is asking all of us - Christian and non-Christian - some very important and interesting questions.  And it seems to me that we'd all be a lot better in the long run to at least entertain them.

Currently Reading Return of the Prodigal Son By Henri Nouwen see related