I have to say, The Da Vinci Code makes me mad. Sure, it's loaded with theological error and pseudohistory; I'm angrier that such a badly written book has taken the world by storm. So little happens in this book it's laughable. The main character's a prig who keeps saying 'of course…' as if everything he's said is known to everyone who matters. Poor little Sophie (wisdom!!) and the poor little reader have to rely on their teachers to get history right.
Brian McLaren just interviewed with Sojourners, where he rattled off some interesting comments, as he is wont to do. Though I've resonated with things he's said in the past, more and more, I want to distance myself from him because he seems to either speak before he thinks, or he really believes that organized Christianity as a whole has gotten it wrong. But what he said that most resonated for me was this:
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?