Dan Brown's highly successful novel, The Da Vinci Code, has generated huge interest. Well over nine million copies had been sold by this summer and the Toronto Star has listed it as the number one selling hardcover novel for more than 125 weeks. Hollywood veteran Ron Howard has agreed to direct the movie version for Sony Pictures with Tom Hanks cast in the starring role.

Why all the fuss? The story begins with the murder of the Louvre museum's curator. But this curator is also the keeper of an ancient secret that, if revealed, would undermine the authority of the church and completely discredit biblical Christianity. Before dying, the curator attempts to pass on the secret to his granddaughter, Sophie Neveu, a beautiful French cryptologist (one who analyses codes) and to Robert Langdon, a Harvard professor of symbology. If you have never heard of a professor of symbology that's because none exist. Dan Brown created the position to describe a person who studies symbols.

Remember. This is a novel, not a true story!

So what's the secret? It is the location, and true identity, of the Holy Grail. But in Brown's novel, the Grail is not the cup used by Jesus at the Last Supper. Instead the reader is told the Holy Grail is Mary Magdalene. Not only does Brown describe her as the Holy Grail, but also as the wife of Jesus, who carried the royal bloodline of Christ by giving birth to his child!

Does anyone really take these ideas seriously? Yes, they do. This is partly due to the way Brown has written his story. The first word in the book, in bold capital letters is "FACT". A few lines later Brown writes, "All descriptions of artwork, architecture, documents and secret rituals in this novel are accurate." The average reader, with no special training in these areas, will assume the statement is true.

The seductive thing is that for the first 200 pages, readers are impressed with the author's intelligence, accuracy and careful attention to details. You come to believe his insights and assertions. He's good. He builds trust. He's credible and careful. And then about page 230, he shifts his focus from art, symbols and geography to matters of faith, theology and the Bible. What he says about those three topics is completely inaccurate. The problem is that many readers by then will have come to trust him and will accept whatever he says.

But what Brown says is simply not true. Many articles have been written about his inaccuracies. I will comment on three that most obviously misrepresent the Christian faith.

First is the question of Jesus' divinity. The novel contains this fascinating conversation between Sophie and Sir Lionel Teabing, a retired British historian and an expert on religious beliefs. Teabing is giving his views on a church gathering called by the Roman Emperor Constantine at the town of Nicea in the year 325. That gathering is an historical fact - from it came the Nicene Creed - but in the novel Teabing explains it like this:

"At this gathering many aspects of Christianity were debated and voted upon - the date of Easter, the role of bishop, the administration of sacraments, and, of course, the divinity of Jesus."

"A relatively close vote at that," Teabing added. "Nonetheless, establishing Christ's divinity was critical to the further unification of the Roman Empire and to the new Vatican power base. By officially endorsing Jesus as the Son of God, Constantine turned Jesus into a deity who existed beyond the scope of the human world, an entity whose power was unchallengeable. This not only precluded further pagan challenges to Christianity, but now the followers of Christ were able to redeem themselves only via the established sacred channel -- the Roman Catholic Church.

"It was all about power," Teabing continued. "Christ as Messiah was critical to the functioning of church and state. Many scholars claim that the early church literally stole Jesus from his original followers, hijacking his human message, shrouding it in an impenetrable cloak of divinity and using it to expand their own power."

Brown's claim that the earliest Christians did not believe Jesus was divine; that he Jesus was made divine by those who won an ecclesiastical fight at the council of Nicea in 325 AD is simply not true! In reality, Jesus was worshipped from the start. Numerous New Testament texts, written years before the council of Nicea, proclaim the divinity of Jesus.

By 325 AD, the idea that Jesus was divine was already 'ancient' history. On more than 200 occasions the apostle Paul refers to Jesus as "Lord". The Greek word used is "kyrios", a word the Greeks themselves used to denote divinity. The Romans also used kyrios to denote the divinity of the emperor. So when the earliest Christians proclaim "Jesus is Lord" it is clear this was not an issue decided by a later church council. On that score Dan Brown just doesn't have his facts straight, no matter what he might say about "facts" at the start of the book.

Secondly, can we trust the gospels? Brown claims the true story of Jesus is found in second-century texts that have been ignored or suppressed by the church rather than in the four gospels found in the New Testament. Reading from page 234 of the novel:
"The twist is this," Teabing said " because Constantine upgraded Jesus' status, almost four centuries after Jesus' death, thousands of documents already existed chronicling his life as a mortal man. To rewrite the history books, Constantine knew he would need a bold stroke. From this sprang the most profound moment in Christian history. Constantine commissioned and financed a new Bible, which omitted those gospels that spoke of Christ's human traits and embellished those gospels that made him godlike. The earlier gospels were outlawed, gathered up and burned."

It is bizarre for Brown to claim gospels that speak of Jesus' human traits were omitted from the Bible. I can only conclude he has not bothered to read Matthew, Mark or John, since these original gospels are persistently interested in earthly details. The four original gospels describe in detail Jesus' teaching, his acts of compassion toward the sick and his care for his followers.

There are other texts that witness to Jesus, such as the gospel of Thomas, the gospel of Mary and other writings. But these texts hardly show an earthly Jesus as Brown claims in his book. Quite the opposite!

I remember from my seminary days a professor telling us about one of the second-century texts that describes Jesus playing in the village as a young boy. Another kid bumped up against him and knocked Jesus over. In a fit of rage, Jesus zapped the kid, killing him. Soon, other parents where pleading with Joseph and Mary to leave the village because Jesus was killing too many children. The a reason these legendary stories weren't accepted into the canon of scripture is that most of them were written later than the four gospels and came from gnostic literature. Gnosticism was a philosophical worldview that stated, among other things, that the flesh was evil. Some Gnostics taught that because the flesh was evil, everyone should be celibate and ascetic. Others claimed the flesh was an illusion so it didn't matter what we did with our bodies. Sexual license resulted. Because of their view of the body, many Gnostics denied Jesus came in the flesh. They claimed he only appeared to be human. Consequently, they also denied his death and resurrection.

These texts have been floating around for centuries, but were not accepted into the canon of scripture because of their obvious inferiority. The towering New Testament scholar, Raymond Brown, says these documents were the "rubbish of the second century." They still are. They carry none of the value Dan Brown gives them.

Thirdly, Brown claims Mary Magdalene was the wife of Jesus and mother of his child. This is probably the most contentious claim he makes in his book. There is not a reputable Biblical scholar anywhere who believes this. Not one, neither liberal nor conservative. One of the best-known liberal Biblical scholars, Robert Price of the Jesus Seminar, said that while it's always possible Jesus was married or "romantically involved," mere possibility isn't probability and gets us nowhere. He also commented "Jesus might have been a space alien too. Some think he was. But historians do not."

Even if Jesus was married to Mary Magdalene it would not change the church's teaching on his divinity. I see no theological reason to prevent his marriage if that was God's intent. But if I can play the CSI card here, all the historical evidence indicates Jesus remained single.

Darrell Bock opposes the author's claim that Jesus married. In his new book, Breaking the Da Vinci Code, Bock persuasively argues that an unmarried Jesus is not at all improbable. While most Jewish men in Jesus day did marry, there were many exceptions. In fact, a fringe first-century religious group called the Essenes, was admired for its celibacy.

Although I disagree with most of Brown's ideas there is one that might make some of us Christians think. It has to do with the way the church over the centuries has silenced the voice of women. In The Da Vinci Code, Robert Langdon describes the Holy Grail this way:
"The Grail is literally the ancient symbol for womanhood, and the Holy Grail represents the sacred feminine and the goddess which, of course, has been lost, virtually eliminated by the church. The power of the female and her ability to produce life was once very sacred, but it posed a threat to the rise of the predominately male church, and so the sacred feminine was demonized and called unclean. It was man, not God who created the concept of 'original sin,' whereby Eve tasted of the apple and caused the downfall of the human race. Woman, once the sacred giver of life, was now the enemy."

A few pages later, Teabing claims, "Jesus was the original feminist. He intended for the future of his church to be in the hands of Mary Magdalene. And Peter had a problem with that."

Brown claims the Holy Grail is really the womb of Mary Magdalene. Mark Burrows who teaches the history of Christianity at Andover Newton Theological School writes: Brown is surely on to something in mingling religion and the erotic, the mysterious and the pleasurable. Such a combination strikes a chord among those who rarely heard ministers say much on the subject or assume that Christianity is either opposed to sexual enjoyment or unequipped to deal with it. Brown woos readers who hunger for passion and meaning, enticing them with a vision that unites sexuality and spirituality… In any case many women … purport to find this novel profoundly meaningful.

Readers have warmed to the author's efforts to envision a religion more deeply committed to women's experience and leadership than the one they have encountered in the church. Mary Magdalene, he contends, was a leader in the early church - a fact the church quickly acted to suppress…" (Mark Burrows, "Gospel Fantasy", Christian Century, June 1, 2004). While Mary Magdalene was the first person to proclaim the resurrection of Jesus, many churches have expected women to remain silent. In other cases women have been denied the chance to use their leadership gifts.

While I have been critical of some elements in this novel, I am glad Dan Brown wrote the book. For one thing, like Mel Gibson's Passion movie, Brown has brought serious religious discussion into the public forum. That's good. This particular novel is impacting our understanding of the faith more profoundly than any other in recent years. The impact will continue when the movie is released.

After reading The Da Vinci Code, I am grateful for the real Jesus- the one who is fully human and fully divine. And I am grateful that the church has preserved this truth - for some at the very cost of their lives- in the sacred scriptures and the creeds. I am grateful God calls you and me to follow this one who teaches us to love God with all our heart and shows us how to love and serve our neighbour.

I am grateful that as we face the challenges of any given day, we are not only looking to the great teachings of a mere mortal man who lived a long time ago - but we are empowered by the living presence of the divine Son of God who is Christ-in-us- the hope of Glory.