The past couple of years, Dan Brown’s The Da Vinci Code has been a best-seller worldwide. People are fascinated by the speculation and conjecture the book raises as it seeks to revise historically the life of Jesus. For the uninitiated, the novel’s thesis proposes that Jesus marries Mary Magdalene and their daughter produces a line of European royalty.

When the historicity of this thesis is challenged, Brown’s response is “If people are talking about Jesus, it can’t be all bad.” Let’s think about this. What if I came to you and began discussing how I planned to kill my wife. Where I might hide the body and how I might execute this foul act. Then, you said, “That’s terrible” but I replied, “Well, I’m discussing my marriage, it can’t be all bad.” I’m contemplating destroying my marriage! In the same way, what Brown is suggesting undermines the integrity of who Jesus is and what the Church has taught for 2000 years. We’re not exploring Jesus, we’re destroying the true mission and ministry of Christ to reconnect people to the Father, by following Brown.

This is a classic example of how a process can be constructive or destructive. Much of what is being considered at present by the “emerging” church is what I consider a healthy process. The goal is to rediscover the DNA of the apostolic church of the first century. Our churches can easily be weighed down by cultural baggage of which we are completely unaware. We baptise our methodology and grimly hang on to it regardless of the outcomes because we’re convinced it’s biblical. This process of rethinking the church can be constructive; conversely, Brown’s reinvention won’t unleash the church in the 21st century but only damage it. Let’s not just talk about Jesus but think critically of how we might accurately present Jesus, the crucified and risen Lord.