Guest Commentary: The Duh Vinci Code

By Christine Guthrie

I don’t go to movies that often. I don’t like to spend all that money on tickets and babysitters, only to be disappointed by the mediocrity that often comes out of Hollywood these days.

So how do I decide which movies I will spend my time and money on? One way is to read the reviews. Of course, even if most critics praise a film, it may still not be worth seeing. I have learned some of the code phrases reviewers use that tip me off to the true character of a film. If they say it’s an “important film,” chances are it’s boring, depressing, preachy, or some combination thereof. If the film is one everyone “should see,” it’s really preachy.

I am also suspicious any time a reviewer uses the word “rollicking.” This often means that the film’s premise is just too absurd and the action is too over the top for me to suspend disbelief. If I am at all interested in seeing such a movie, I’ll wait until I can rent it for a buck.

It seems that most reviewers like almost everything. And if a film takes shots at Western culture or traditional religion, especially the Catholic Church, that gives it bonus points. That’s why I am surprised by the critical reaction to The Da Vinci Code. It has all the elements. Based on the best selling novel, it’s full of conspiracy, action, and it takes direct aim at the Catholic Church. According to the director, Ron Howard, it is supposed to be, “a rollicking good bit of entertainment.” (There’s that word.) And it’s got Tom Hanks, too. What’s not to like?

But due to an apparent attack of honesty, most reviews do not include any of the code words I usually expect. Instead of “important,” they are calling it “plodding,” “boring,” and “overly long.” I haven’t found one review that called it “rollicking,” and as far as I know, no one is telling me that this is a movie I “should see.” The reviews are so bad, one might suspect there is some sort of conspiracy.

Nonetheless, Stan and I saw it–he for professional reasons, I because a date night is still a date night, even if it’s a bad movie. So were the reviewers right? Well, I wouldn’t exactly say it was boring, but I do have a long attention span. A couple times I thought the movie was about to end, only to be disappointed. If the projector had broken and the last few scenes had been lost, I’m not sure most people would have noticed. Howard threw in a couple of chase scenes that did little to spice things up.

Tom Hanks is taking almost as much of a beating over this movie as the Catholic Church. Hanks looked as if he was wincing through much of it. Of course, maybe that was because he had second thoughts, or perhaps he just got a glimpse of his hair in a mirror. I’m afraid that after reading his reviews Hanks may be driven to self-flagellation.

The irony in all this is that despite the bad reviews, people will see this movie because Ron Howard and Tom Hanks have a well deserved following. They have made their money by turning out quality, often family-friendly, films. Now this.

The movie reminded me of National Treasure, only less fun. If you yearn to see a movie with conspiracies, chases, plot twists, and the like, rent North by Northwest, although you will be disappointed if you want to see an albino villain.

A New Season

Nearly 3,000 years ago, the Preacher said, "For everything there is a season, and a time for every matter under heaven." October 2004 through today has been a rewarding and interesting season for stanguthrie.com.

With your kind forbearance over the last year and a half, I have posted a weekly commentary or Q&A and (since December 2004) a daily thought. While some people say you should never talk about politics and religion, in this small corner of cyberspace I have endeavored to do both, attempting to show the reasonableness of the Christian faith, the right of Christians to participate in the public sphere, and the responsibility of us all to live the examined life, because a final examination is coming.

I have also attempted to lighten things up occasionally. Ours is a smiling God, and those who seek to follow him should reflect the divine grin.

I'm honored by your choice to invest some of your precious minutes at this site. I'm also grateful for all those who have contributed to the conversation, either as interviewees, posters, or e-mailers. Your contributions have enriched my life, and I trust the lives of others.

Now, however, I sense the need to refocus. Maintaining a website (even a modest one like this) is both a thrill and a burden, and it is time for me to lighten my load just a bit. Thus, I will be cutting back on the number of postings this summer as I look into other projects.

Instead of a weekly commentary, I will attempt to post occasionally. While the quantity will decrease, I hope the quality will increase. I will stop doing the "Thought of the Day" until further notice. I will be glad, of course, to continue answering your e-mails.

Also, I will continue providing links to helpful articles (particularly those I discuss on WMBI's "Mornings" program and on other venues). I will also post new links whenever one of my own articles becomes available online. You'll be able to follow my reading lists and media and speaking schedules here, too.

Summer is the season for reruns, so feel free to peruse my archives at your leisure. I hope to get back into the weekly fray in the fall–tanned, rested, and ready.

"Of making many books, there is no end," the Preacher said, and he might well have included "blogs" if the Web had been available then, adding, "and much [posting] is a weariness of the flesh."

Here's hoping you have a restful and rejuvenating summer. Talk to you soon!

Author Insight: Anthony McRoy on Muslims in Britain

Anthony McRoy, M.A., Ph.D., is a researcher and religious journalist who contributes to evangelical and Muslim periodicals and has appeared on Iranian television. A lecturer in Islamics at the Evangelical Theological College of Wales, McRoy has written a new book, From Rushdie to 7/7: The Radicalisation of Islam in Britain (The Social Affairs Unit, 2006). Stan Guthrie, a senior associate editor for Christianity Today, asked him about the book and recent trends with Muslims in Britain.

Why did you write this book?

I was actually invited to do so by the publishers, a secular institution. They wanted a book about British Muslims, more particularly about the radicalization of the community. They gave me complete literary freedom, which was important, as I had no intention of writing either a hagiography or a hatchet job.

The result was as I wanted it—an objective study of the radicalization of British Muslims, pitched at a level the layman could understand. The book examines the history of the United Kingdom Muslim community, explains issues such as the Qur’an, Shari’ah, Jihad, Islam and democracy, and Muslim mission. Judging by the responses I’ve had from Christians and Muslim leaders who’ve read the book, I appear to have succeeded in my intention.

What does Islam look like in Great Britain?

There are around 1.8 million Muslims with U.K. citizenship, plus an indeterminate number of “asylum seekers” who are not citizens, many—perhaps most—of them Muslims, out of a total U.K. population of roughly 60 million. Islam is not a monolith anywhere, including Britain. One of the points in my book is the great diversity among “radical” Muslims. For example, most British Muslims support Hamas—including its “martyrdom operations” against the Israeli occupiers, but simultaneously oppose Al-Qaeda actions such as 9/11 and 7/7 (though not Al-Qaeda actions against U.S. troops in Iraq). Most British Muslims—including offshoots of the Muslim Brotherhood and similar groups—believe in democratic participation; a small minority oppose it.

The younger, U.K.-born generation is confident in their British identity and rights, and are very missionary-minded—often on a Saturday in U.K. cities you’ll see young Muslims with literature tables trying to win converts. Simultaneously, the younger generation are alienated from government foreign policy on Iraq, Palestine, and now Iran, and exasperated with the inability of their community leaders to address this. It was this generation that was responsible for 7/7.

How is this different from Islam on the Continent?

British Muslims, apart from refugees, are U.K. citizens, whereas many Muslims in Germany, who are often Turkish and Bosnian guest workers, do not always have citizenship. This means that U.K. Muslims are more confident in political participation. On the other hand, you don’t find mainstream Muslims in Britain behaving like those in Belgium, where popular elements lauded 9/11 as payback for U.S. “humiliation” and “oppression” of Muslims.

However, one hears of many of the same features in both contexts—the older, immigrant generation characterised by deference to the authorities, often despised by the younger, radicalized generation born in the West for their ineptitude and unwillingness to confront their governments over foreign policy.

Where do most Muslims in the United Kingdom come from?

Most are of subcontinental origins—either directly from Pakistan, Bangladesh, and India, or from South Asian communities in Africa. Increasingly, though, the community has become more ethnically diverse, with Arabs coming to the fore, especially through the Muslim Association of Britain, which is ideologically linked to the Muslim Brotherhood. There are also now large numbers of Somalis, Albanians, and African Muslims. It should be noted that over 50 percent of U.K. Muslims were born here.

How did the Rushdie affair radicalize Muslims in Britain?

It was the defining crisis in British Muslim history. Before 1989, politicians and media only ever spoke of undifferentiated “Asians.” Thereafter, Muslims, Hindus, and Sikhs distinguished themselves from each other. The generation gap emerged, as exasperation with the Muslim leadership began. We also saw antagonism to “puppet” Muslim regimes such as the Saudis for doing nothing, unlike the Iranians, who threatened to kill Rushdie.

Events thereafter intensified this radicalization. Hatred of the Saudis is virtually universal, after they allowed U.S. troops in, violating the prophet’s command—they see it as equivalent to “the Abomination of Desolation.” Palestine is the central issue for British Muslims, and two of them took part in a “martyrdom operation” there. Iraq completed the alienation process, and now with Iran U.K. Muslims ask why Blair and Bush complain about Iran but ignore the Israeli nuclear arsenal? All these factors in some way are traceable to the Rushdie crisis.

Nearly a year after the London subway attacks, what has changed in your country regarding Muslims and the rest of society?

The government and the Royal Family did all they could to effect reconciliation, and we didn’t get politicians behaving like U.S. Congressman [Tom] Tancredo, who [suggested] Mecca … be nuked. Further, it must be remembered that the U.K. situation differs from America in two ways. Muslims are our biggest minority, and few of us live in places where they are absent—one should compare the Hispanic community for equivalence. Unlike in America, where there are no Muslim congressmen, we have Muslims in the Houses of Parliament. Secondly, most Britons opposed the Iraq war and support the Palestinians—also true of British evangelicals—and the government was also popularly blamed for the 7/7 attacks, because of the Iraq war.

Hence, antagonism is not so prevalent, because Muslims are our neighbors and friends. Nonetheless, there is some suspicion of Muslims, especially on the Tube! Remember, unlike 9/11, it was our own compatriots who attacked us.

Early on after the attacks, Christians seemed to rally to the defense of their Muslim neighbors. Is that still the case?

There are Islamophobic Christians in Britain, but they were Islamophobic before 7/7, so nothing changed with them. For most, however, they are concerned to reach out to Muslims, remembering what I said about them being our neighbors. After all, you can’t share Christ with people you avoid! So, “loving your neighbour” is still the practical response in Britain.

On the other hand, many Christians—like most Britons—want answers about jihad, and are exasperated with the claims of Muslim spokesmen about the “greater jihad” being that against evil impulses, which is not a canonical tradition among Sunnis. Usually British Christians can understand why Muslims are fighting—because of Iraq, Palestine, etc. British TV spends much time on overseas situations, so Britons understand these issues. What they cannot understand is how some British Muslims could callously kill so many innocent people on 7/7. The evasions of Muslim spokesmen do not help.

How have recent events affected the ministry of Christian apologists such as Jay Smith, who aggressively challenge Muslim beliefs in the public square?

Jay says that the entire debate since 7/7 has revolved around the peace and violence paradigm, enabling him to address Qur’anic passages on jihad. Now it is the central issue on campus and elsewhere when he debates Muslims, who are much more on the defensive. Jay always tried to define Islam from its sources—the Qur’an and the Hadith—and now everyone does this.

However, Jay found that Muslim reaction was like a “bounce”—initially he heard condemnation of 7/7, but after events in Guantanamo and so on, support for the bombers increased—a recent poll also demonstrated this. He says that he finds that there is a public and private reaction to 9/11 and 7/7—public condemnation by leaders, but in private, away from the cameras, the younger generation will often be supportive—as he finds when he speaks at Hyde Park Speakers’ Corner. Of course, Jay also gets attacked simply for being American!

Are Muslims in Britain pushing for Islamic law there, and, if so, what should the rest of the society do about it?

The leading organisations are not demanding Shari’ah, but simple provision for Muslims—such as interest-free banking. However, a recent poll showed that many U.K. Muslims would like territorial Shari’ah introduced in Muslim-intensive areas—a dangerous development. Actually, it is usually liberal-left politicians who are responsible for sinister developments, to please Muslim voters—such as renaming streets with “Saint” in the title, asking churches to remove crosses, trying to abolish Christmas celebrations. There have also been attacks on churches by Muslim youths.

Unfortunately, political correctness has inhibited church leaders from doing much about it. U.K. evangelicals until recently have not been organized as a political lobby in the way U.S. evangelicals are—and anyway, there are only one million of us. There are signs of change in this, but much more needs to be done or we’ll wake up one day to find evangelistic mission banned.

What's ahead for Britain and Muslims?

Except in the grace of God, more of the same. I suspect that many young Muslims now regard the 7/7 bombers as heroic martyrs. The looming crisis with Iran will complete this process. I foresee more 7/7s, because the issues that concern British Muslims—Iraq, Palestine and perceived Western oppression of the Middle East—are continuing. Moreover, I would not be surprised that America’s next 9/11—and I am sure there will be another—could be effected by British Muslims, possibly white or black converts with U.K. passports.

British evangelicals should take the opportunity now to establish better relations with our Muslim neighbors at all levels, but equally, we must resist calls for banning “insults” to religion, which could be used against us. We should also encourage Muslims to demand the same liberty for Christian minorities in Islamic lands that they demand here for themselves. It’s the British thing to do.