Last night I headed off in the cold night air, through the smog settling over Perth for the late night session of the "Da Vinci Code"

As I settled into the Cinema for a very rare treat, seeing a movie, a fog of a different kind settled over me. The Code left me underwhelmed, on purely an enjoyment level. It was neither thrilling, action packed or intriguing. Maybe too much has been said about it already so the exciting developments were rather misty, rather than shattering. There were a few scary moments as the white haired angel jumped out of the shadows, but it was not really a thriller.

On the other level of being an affront to Christianity it certainly made me think. What, if anything, was Dan Brown trying to say? Or was it more that he did not really care about anything but his own self interests? In other words, the controversy meant nothing much to him apart from more book sales.

One thing that did concern me was the loose handling of the supposed historical basis for this yarn. Too many flaws to go into concerning Constantine, the formation of scripture and Mary Magdelene. They were presented in a far different light to how accurate history reveals them.
The Gnostic gospels do not state, as was stated in the movie, that Jesus married, or was a companion of Mary Magdelene. The true gospels speak little of Mary M, but make it clear she was a harlot, who found Christ.
The thrust or theme of the movie is that the Church has repressed the feminine side of Christianity, which is certainly true. But how it comes to that conclusion, with false conspiracies, fanciful historical facts and mishandling of any truth is far too easy to dismiss for any reasonble historcial analysis.

That is not to say I dont think it is a great yarn, it is. What concerns me is that those with little or no knowledge of true church history may assume that those facts which are presented as historical facts will be accepted as true.