Dan Brown is in conflict again with the Vatican. American writer Dan Brown came to international prominence with the novel "The Da Vinci Code", in which he argued that Jesus had not died on the cross at Easter and had instead married Mary and created a line of descendants. The novel was made into a successful movie starring Tom Hanks, An earlier novel - "Angels and Demons" - is now the basis of another movie again starring Tom Hanks. This time, Hanks (as Harvard Professor Robert Langdon) is on a mission to save the Vatican from being destroyed by a canister of anti-matter. The villains this time include the Masons and the Illuminati.

Like the other novel, this is a very entertaining read. But it should only be read as entertainment - and not as a fictionalized account of facts.

This is where the controversy begins.

I was drawn into the "Da Vinci Code" controversy years ago as a result of running across a group of American tourists in London doing the "Da Vinci Code tour" - visiting the locations mentioned in the novel. I was intrigued that people should travel 3,000 miles for such a trip (this was well before the movie was made). In those days I used to preach at Wesley Mission, Sydney in January and so decided to devote a sermon to the subject a few weeks later. I was one of the first Christian commentators in Australia to buy into this controversy. This became one of my guest sermon party pieces for the next couple of years.

My first reaction to the "Da Vinci Code" was to note the novel's similarity with 1982 "The Holy Blood and The Hail Grail" by Michael Baigent, Richard Leigh and Henry Lincoln. That non-fiction book was controversial but it did not sell as well the more entertaining "Da Vinci Code". (There has since been a legal action by the authors against Brown). That book is still in print and worth a read if you like alternative theories of Christianity.

Brown is an entertaining writer. But he should not be relied upon as a theological scholar (and he does not claim to be one).

The basic problem is that people read more into his novels than they should. Some of the difficulty arises from the opening pages in both novels in which there is a description of "fact". Certainly both novels - "Da Vinci Code" and "Angels and Demons" - do contain facts but the problem is that the reader (especially with a limited historical background) may not notice when the master story-teller moves from fact across to fiction.

Indeed, I found all the errors all rather irritating. For example, the "Da Vinci Code" there is an error on the 1st para on the 1st page. Curator Jacques Sauniere (coincidentally a Father Sauniere is also an important figure in "The Holy Blood and The Holy Grail" book) is aged 76. No one of that age would be allowed to work in France under the retirement laws. By the way, the exciting chase sequence in London - which appealed to my American tourists - contains the two heroes leaping over the ticket barrier on the Underground: you may be able to leap over them in the US but they are too high for the average person to leap over in London!

Here are three suggestions:

1. For Christians concerned about this controversy: I do not endorse banning the novels or urging a boycott of the movies (which is apparently what the Vatican is now recommending). The Christian church has had a long controversy over banning - and burning - books and so it is not pleasant to see this reversion to censorship. Instead: trust the lay people to read the books and make their own assessment. A person's faith should be strong enough to withstand allegations of, for example, Jesus not dying on the cross at the first Easter. (If Jesus did not die and instead and went with Mary to a life of retirement in southern France - why would so many of his contemporaries perish for a belief that they knew to be fake?!)

2. For Christian bureaucrats in Rome and elsewhere: what does the popularity of "The Da Vinci Code" say about how the Christian faith is viewed in western countries. There is obviously a great hunger for knowledge about God and yet there is not the same enthusiasm about going to church to acquire that knowledge. I often hear the statement (in one form or another): "I believe in God but I don't believe in the church". Brown's novel should be a wakeup call for the church bureaucrats.

3. For Christian lay people: read widely about the faith and the history of it. (Given the decline in the number of Christian publishers and Christian bookshops, there seems to be a general decline in the number of Christian readers!) This reading will help will help people make more sense of the Brown novel.

Finally a history lesson the professionals - the British Royal Family. The Office of the Lord Chamberlain was given the role three centuries ago to censor stage plays. The British Harold Wilson Labour Government abolished that censorship role in the mid-1960s - and the conservatives complained that this would be the end of British civilization once theatres were able to stage plays critical of the Royal Family or other radical ideas (eg sex).

The US sex musical "Hair" came to London in the late 1960s. The conservatives decided that this would really be the end of British civilization if people attended and so encouraged a boycott.

But the Royals know how to deal with such a threat. The Duke of Bedford was at the opening night and HRH Princess Anne was at the third night. The British Establishment had absorbed this latest threat and reduced its controversy. It was safe enough to take your maiden aunt to see it. The musical was popular and entertaining - but not a political threat. British audiences agreed with that assessment.

If the Vatican really knew how to handle public relations, it would send along a few cardinals (they must be senior men) to see the movies. Let them emerge from the cinema saying how much they had enjoyed the Dan Brown movie as entertainment and then leave it at that. The world (as far as they are concerned) has bigger things to worry about eg the global financial crisis.

Keith Suter