Reponding to the idea of "Othercotting" the DaVinci Code

I came across this article about the DaVinci Code, read it, and tried to dismiss it. But it seems I can’t. As I have mentioned, I can’t believe all the hype over a fiction book.
Yesterday I worshipped at a church that had a series of sermons on this. The sermon was very good addressing the need to further study church history (which I am the first to admit that I am working on). The pastor explained the difference why the Gnostic gospels were dismissed as heretical. He also pointed out that we can gain insight on further understanding early century beliefs. Very true. And did not condemn seeing the movie, but wanted to educate the inaccuracies both historically and theologically.

All this began a discussion of course, among which includes this article. While some are boycotting (which could be another post but again, I respect those that do not want to see it, although I may debate the reasoning, nevertheless …), this article, suggests we “Othercott”. Meaning we still go to the theater … but see something else (she suggests “Over the Hedge”). And so, this is my response:

Although I respect Barbara, I take issue with her stand.

If her convictions lead her to not seeing it, everyone should be satisfied with that.
But what I take issue is her suggestion on what the rest of us should do.
Why criticize the people who want to engage those who are going to watch it and may be influenced it? What about those that watch it and walk away believing part of it? Is it not better that those who understand Christianity and the heresy of this movie engage in conversation with these viewers?

And regarding her criticism of the conversations she has had with people (and I am certain that she has had several of these, it’s ridiculous to think that all or many of the conversations are going to be like this. And why have I had so few of these terrible conversations, is it her rhetoric? And while we are on it, maybe Barbara should read the gospel of Mary Magdalene since she hears this conversation so many times. (I read the Koran and other texts for this reason). I am the first to say that it comes down to faith, however, giving seekers and critics intelligent refutations to their charges and probably reasons for our faith is what we are instructed to do from Jesus to Paul to Peter.

After visiting Barbara’s blog, I found that one of her favorites of 2005 included “Munich” (a great movie in my opinion). But my question to Barbara would be if supporting DVC is like supporting heresy, isn’t supporting “Munich” like supporting revenge killing? What about all the people who left that movie and all who have visited the blog? They might leave not knowing the difference between retaliation versus self-defense?

My other question is how much money does Barbara have that she can afford to take her family and friends to a movie they are seeing in spite and buying refreshments on top of it? If she has a lot (and I don’t begrudge for having a lot), may I suggest bribing people in line NOT to go see Davinci and giving them a ticket to “Over the Hedge”? Or maybe some Soprano’s style tactics, “Extortion for His Highest”, or stealing film reels in the name of God, breaking knees for Jesus….
I find this as yet another instance where Christians are running away from the battle.
The suggestion of “othercotting” is just as odd as boycotting or protesting. Make someone else rich … in spite. Can’t you just hear the conversations? If you don’t want to see DVC and want to see “Over the Hedges”, great, but making someone else rich in spite of not wanting to make someone rich, doesn’t really advance the cause of the kingdom. I have no intention of seeing the OTH, and my only knowledge of it is the movie poster, but the point remains, if it’s less wrong, or for the most part morally neutral, I don’t understand the wisdom of this advice. Choosing to ignore a bad philosophy rather than engaging it, deconstructing it, and refuting it (then offering a better philosophy like the truth of the Gospel) as Francis Schaeffer taught seems like a poor tactic. Again please do not misunderstand my point, I am not calling for all Christians to see this movie for the sake of evangelism, only if you lead to but at the same time we should not dissuade others from seeing it.


  1. Does the Church not realize that by going to the extremes that hey are in their denouncing of this movie that they are simply providing it with free publicity? I understand that they couldn’t ignore it completely as, from my understanding, it does not portray the church in a very positive light. But it is a work of fiction. I guess it’s a hard line to draw. How do you denounce it without giving the publicity?

  2. LadyCelticFire says:

    I agree with Alex. I think that by the churches making such an extreme “Lets Boycott Da vinci” they are actually making it look like they DO have something to hide. I mean if its false, then phooey on it, it shouldn’t matter.

    I tried to read the book, but must admit, it isnt my kind of reading material, not a spy thriller kinda girl, but I am looking forward to the movie, mainly because I think Tom Hanks is a FANTASTIC actor and ROn Howard is probably one of the most amazing directors out there.

    But yeah, if the church has nothing to hide and the things in the book/filnm are completly false, then why get upset about it… Makes ya look like you DO have something to hide HAHA

  3. Well, obviously I agree.

    In answering Alex’s comment, I wouldn’t be so annoyed if there weren’t the boycotts and the thought of feeling so threatened. As we are all saying, truth is not afraid of any questions. I think it’s great that some churches are answering the historical accuracies, that demonstrates their cultural awareness to their congregation but it’s the hype that is killing me.

    LCF, I like Hanks and Howard and I think I like the concept of the story (minus the historical inaccuracies of course such Mary marrying Jesus). I liked National Treasure and someone told me it sorta moves like that. Which by the way, I was incredibly shocked to find out that there wasn’t really a secret chamber carrying tons and tons of treasure beneath a church off of Wall Street.

  4. Carolanne says:

    I am not sure how “othercotting” works. How does seeing another film make any difference to those involved in the DVC?
    Sounds like just an excuse to go see another movie, to me.
    I agree with Alex.
    I remember one person saying that since the Bible has withstood all the defamation/ criticisms over the years, surely it’s Truth will continue to prevail.
    God is not afraid of man’s lies and hey, He can even use it to get people asking questions and seeking Truth.

  5. celticfire says:

    Well, I was raised catholic and if it is one thing they know how to do, it’s overreact. (Spanish inquisition, ahem)

    (damn, now I got the “inquisition” song from the History of the World stuck in my head, damn you Mel Brooks! Damn you to hell! LOL)

    But I think Alex is on to something, when the Catholic church makes a big stink about this movie, I think more people will be inclined to want to see it.

    For a very very long time the Catholic church has played the paternalistic role of moral judgement in all things, and it doesn’t seem like too many people are attracted to that anymore. Another thing: the Catholic church is rigid as hell. But atleast they admit their pope is appointed, not selected by god like the mormon “Prophets”…

    If I was religious, I would take a stance closer to Jack’s. I am all for seeing controversial movies. But turning your mind off just because you disagree with part, or all of it — is childish, and a prelude to fascist behavior. The world is a big mixing bowl of contradictions, not all of them can be solved today, so you have to explore everything — good advice even for a christian.

    For example, there is an anti-communist movie that came out a few years ago called “The Dancer Upstairs”, it portrayed the revolutionaries in Peru as sadistic killers out for blood. I totally rejected this aspect of the movie, but, other then that, it was a good movie and I walked away moved. Even movies I agree with politically can be bad movies.

    Obviously, movies have a message. I just think one should real the whole message before ignoring it.

  6. People who disagree with this movie (in moral terms I mean) should go see it and then after it’s initial buzz wore off THEN say “Well this isn’t right, that’s a complete lie, etc” It would make more sense and they wouldn’tt be driving people to see it in the first place.

    PS to Celtic. I wasn’t expecting the Spanish Inquisition reference.
    But,then again,nobody expects the Spanish Inquisition!

  7. LadyCelticFire says:

    The inquisition…. Ok even I didn’t expect that. the mind of my husband hahaha I HATE Mel Brookes LMAO

    Now Woody Allen hahaha Its like the division of Beatles and Elvis camps, you were either on one side or the other LOL

    AH We did it again, we stole Jacks Blog WOOT

  8. Bent El Neel says:

    I say so what if alot of people see it? Alot of people saw Harry Potter (me included, I’m a huge fan) but I know it’s just a story, a novel, a work of fiction…just like DVC!!!

    The thing here is that churches are in a damned if you do damned if you don’t position. If they say nothing because it is just a novel and it is just a movie…people will say they don’t respond because they are weak, ignorant or take it as an admission of guilt. If they respond to try and dispell the myths, people are saying they are “over reacting”.

    Honestly, and maybe things are different in the US, but there has hardly been an over reaction here in Australia. Actually teh news item at the end of the news bulletin said: “Davinci Code” gets luke warm reception on special preview night.

    The movie, along with the criticism Chrsitianity has received as a result, does provide fodder for those wanting to shake the foundation of the Christian faith…but hey, there’s always been people like that around, and we managed to survive 2000 years anyway!

    By the way, I lloooove Mel Brooks, and History of the World is one of my favorite movies. I must say I can’t stand Woody Allan though…he is irritating!

  9. LadyCelticFire says:

    Well i guess I am the lone wolf in the Woody Allen boat, thats ok, I am USED to being the SMARTEST one in the room, so this is nothing new hehehehehe

Speak Your Mind