A Response to Dan Brown's 'The Da Vinci Code'
 Print version

A Response to Dan Brown's 'The DaVinci Code'

By Chadd Hafer, Associate Minister of Darling St Anglican Church

Review

Harvard Professor of Religious Symbology, Robert Langdon is awakened in the middle of the night by an urgent phone call. The concierge informs him that the French police are already on the way up to his hotel room. Jacques Sauniere, the highly regarded curator of the Louvre has been murdered inside of the famous art museum, and mysterious symbols have been discovered on and around his body. Professor Langdon was only visiting Paris to talk about the release of his new book on religious symbolism. But now he is being asked to go with the police to the scene of the crime to help them solve this intriguing murder.
The clues surrounding Sauniere’s body brings Langdon into contact with cryptologist Sophie Neveu. Together they discover that Sauniere was a senior member of a religious sect known as The Priory of Sion, of which the great Leonardo Da Vinci had also been a high-ranking member. For centuries, this mysterious society has been entrusted with the duty of guarding the greatest secret of all time – a secret that, if revealed, would rewrite history and shake the Christian Church to its very foundation. Now, as two of the few remaining people in the world capable of deciphering and unlocking the secret of The Da Vinci Code, Langdon and Neveu have inherited some very powerful and dangerous enemies. If the two can’t crack the code and get to the secret before their foes, then the truth will be lost forever.

Introduction

Welcome to the suspenseful world of Dan Brown’s, The Da Vinci Code. Although it’s been accused of looking like just another airport novel, in the world of The Da Vinci Code few things are as they appear. With nearly 7.5 million copies in print and a Ron Howard movie to be released in 2005, obviously The Da Vinci Code has been well written and well marketed. Brown constructs a number of separate story lines and then brings them together at just the right moment for maximum impact. The Da Vinci Code also hooks its readers by challenging them with riddle upon mysterious riddle. Though not normally a fan of the murder mystery, I found myself being drawn into this novel: trying to unscramble words and crack codes before the answers could be revealed to me in the approaching pages. However, part of the success of The Da Vinci Code must also be attributed to the controversy that it has caused. I quote a statement from one of The Da Vinci Code's' central characters as he puts forth the great conspiracy,

"What happens...if persuasive scientific evidence comes out that the Church's version of the Christ story is inaccurate, and the greatest story every told is, in fact, the greatest story ever sold? I'll tell you what happens if the documents get out... The Vatican faces a crises of faith unprecedented in its two-millennia history." (The Da Vinci Code, p. 267)

There can be little doubt that Brown sets out to generate controversy by questioning the validity of the largest religion on earth. Those who have been around Christianity for a while will realiize that Brown’s conspiracy theories don’t cover much new territory. For example, Brown resurrects the popular myth about Jesus marrying Mary Magdalene and their descendents living in France to this day. However, Brown cleverly uses fiction and quasi history to create evidence for such theories out of nowhere. Throughout his novel, Brown inserts just enough history to make his conspiracy theories appear to be factually based. However, he uses the book's fictional nature to cover over historical inaccuracies, misinformation, and just plain lack of evidence. In fact, one of the tricky things about this novel, and the reason it has created such a stir, is that it’s almost impossible for the average reader to tell where history ends and quasi history begins. In Dan Brown’s world of intrigue, fact and fiction are virtually indistinguishable. Therefore, The Da Vinci Code has shaken the faith of some Christians, while convincing some non-believers that their decision to stay away from Christianity was well founded.

But through the centuries, Christians have become quite skilful at turning opposition into opportunity. The Sydney Morning Herald recently printed an article about a pastor in Memphis Tennessee who found a way to take advantage of the controversy that has been stirred up by this book. People were coming up to him, asking if he thought that the conspiracy theory of The Da Vinci Code could be true? So he decided to organise a church meeting that would allow people to discuss the issue. To his surprise, seven hundred people turned up: one hundred more people than there were seats in the building! As far as I’m concerned, if The Da Vinci Code stirs people enough to cause them to go back and rediscover the facts behind the historic Christian faith, then Biblical Christianity will only be stronger for it.

Therefore, the purpose of this paper is to present some of the fundamental facts of the Christian faith which are called into question by The Da Vinci Code. Because the quasi-historical nature of The Da Vinci Code has caused some people to believe that Brown’s conspiracy is based on historical fact, I will be treating this theory as if it were a real historical argument. However, I personally understand that what Brown has written is not based on factual evidence, but on fictional ideas.

“Everyone loves a conspiracy” (Da Vinci Code, p. 169)

In the middle of The Da Vinci Code, Brown inserts this popular platitude that, in many ways, sums up the entire story. In Brown’s novel, it is not where you end up, but getting there, that is so interesting. In order to create his conspiracy, Brown needs a conspirator and a motive. For his chief conspirator, Brown chooses the fourth century Roman emperor, Constantine, and some of the powerbrokers from within the fourth century Christian Church. The motive? Christianity had grown so quickly since the time of Christ that almost three hundred years later it was threatening to take over pagan Rome. The unrest between Christians and pagans was about to rend Rome in two.

Therefore, the politically astute Constantine, though a pagan at heart, decided to back the winning horse and convert to Christianity. Once he had his foot inside the Church door, Constantine used his influence to rewrite the Jesus story to make it suit his own agendas. By cleverly combining elements of Christianity and with popular paganism, Constantine created a hybrid religion that appeased the people of Rome. But it also gave the leaders of the fourth century Church a power-monopoly by squashing all other versions of the Jesus story and imposing a version that suited their agendas. According to Brown’s Da Vinci theory, the truth about the real Jesus has been hidden away for centuries, waiting for the right moment to be revealed. Let’s take a closer look at some of the key components of this theory:

1. “The Bible, as we know it today, was collated by the pagan Roman emperor Constantine the Great in 325 AD” (The Da Vinci Code, p. 231)

Did Constantine compile the modern Biblical canon (or definitive list of authoritative books)?
According to Brown’s Da Vinci theory, Constantine’s first step in his political scheme was to create his own authoritative Bible that was based only on the documents that best served his purposes. However, the historical facts of this matter are that the 66 books of our modern Bible were recognised as authoritative Scripture long before the fourth century AD; and the emperor Constantine had nothing to do with bringing these books together.

The Bible is comprised of two parts. The Old Testament contains the Jewish Scriptures that were written before the time of Christ. The New Testament contains those books that were written after Christ’s death and resurrection. Before the New Testament documents about Jesus Christ were completed, Christians used (and continue to use) the Jewish Scriptures. There are two main reasons for this: 1. Jesus taught that the prophecies contained within these Scriptures were written about him (eg Luke 24:13 – 27). 2. Jesus, his original twelve disciples, plus thousands of the very first Christians, were Jews (Act 2).

Biblical scholars agree that the current books of the Old Testament were already in use and being treated as sacred Scriptures, centuries before the time of Christ. The first century Jewish historian Josephus, writes a version of Jewish history (Jewish Antiquities) that closely mirrors the history of the Jewish Scriptures, and makes obvious references to the Biblical books along the way. And the Council of Jamnia in 90 AD also reaffirmed the books of our Old Testament canon more than two centuries before Constantine. So obviously, Constantine didn’t have anything to do with collating the books of the Old Testament. This is significant because these books make up about two-thirds of the modern Christian Bible.

However, while we have evidence that the Old Testament canon existed even prior to the first century, the New Testament canon wasn’t officially finalised until the fourth century. But the absence of a definitive New Testament canon during the first few centuries of the early Church doesn’t mean that early Christians didn’t have any idea about which New Testament books were or weren’t to be viewed as God’s Word. For example, we know that Jesus named the apostle Peter as his designated leader of the early Church when he declared,

“Blessed are you Simon, son of Jonah…Whatever you bind on earth will be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth will be loosed in heaven” (Matthew 16:18 -19).

Therefore it is telling that in his second letter to the early church, Peter indicates that Paul’s letters were to be treated as sacred Scripture. Peter writes,

“…Paul also wrote you with the wisdom that God gave him. He writes the same way in all his letters, speaking in them of these matters. His letters contain some things that are hard to understand, which ignorant and unstable people distort, as they do the other Scriptures…” (2 Peter 3:15 – 16).

We also know that the early Church leaders were already quoting the four gospels as Scripture by the early second century. Now together, the gospels and the letters of Paul already comprise 17 of the 27 books of our modern New Testament. Furthermore, an important early Church document known as the Muratorian fragment (dated about 170 AD) includes in its list of Scriptures (along with the gospels and the letters of Paul) Acts, Jude, 1 and 2 John, and Revelation. This demonstrates that at least 61 books (39 Old Testament books and 22 New Testament books) of our modern sixty six-book Bible were already being treated as sacred Scripture almost a century before Constantine was even born. It is true that by the time of Constantine’s reign there were still a handful of debated books that made finalising the New Testament canon difficult. But most of these disputed books eventually made it into the canon; and the few that weren’t included were still regarded with respect by the early Church leaders.

What about extra Biblical records of Jesus?
Brown is right in asserting that other non-Biblical records about Jesus did exist in the first century. But if Constantine and the Church were trying to keep these documents a secret, they did a lousy job. Luke actually opens our third gospel with the following statement,

“Many have undertaken to draw up an account of the things that have been fulfilled among us…” (Luke 1:1)

Nonetheless, it is only fair to ask why, if there were so many accounts being written about Jesus, there are now only four gospel accounts in the New Testament? However, the truth is far less intriguing than what is suggested by Brown’s conspiracy theory. Just like modern believers, first century Christians also wanted accurate details of the life of the person they called ‘Lord’ and ‘Saviour’. We need to keep in mind that under the emperor Nero, many first century Christians faced intense persecution and even death, simply for following Jesus. If these believers were going to suffer and die for their faith in Jesus, then it only makes sense that they would have wanted to know the truth about his life and his teaching. Biblical Christians have never been willing to accept just any written account of Jesus’ life, but only those that can be historically connected to the Apostles and Prophets. This too is confirmed the apostle Paul’s companion, Luke, in the dedication of his gospel,

“Many have undertaken to draw up an account of the things that have been fulfilled among us… Therefore, since I myself have carefully investigated everything from the beginning, it seemed good also to me to write an orderly account for you, most excellent Theophilus, so that you may know the certainty of the things you have been taught.” (Luke 1:1, 3 – 4)

To help him establish his plot, Brown puts forward the Gnostic gospels as his contenders against the Biblical accounts of Jesus’ life. Beside the fact that the Gnostic gospels were never among the books considered for the canon by the early Church leaders, there are two other major problems with these Gnostic writings. First of all, most scholars agree that the Gnostic gospels were written at least a century too late to have been authored by the people for whom they are named (e.g. Thomas, Philip, Mary…). Secondly, the Gnostic gospels are comprised of alleged sayings of Jesus, written down without historical setting or context. They obviously assume that the reader already knows who Jesus is (a vital detail that the first century gospel writers couldn’t and didn’t take for granted). Furthermore, although the Gnostic gospels do record some teachings of Jesus found in the canonical gospels, they contain obvious Gnostic embellishments. Therefore, these documents were never serious contenders for the Biblical canon. In fact, even the famous second century Gnostic leader Marcion did not list these Gnostic writings as part of his canon, but only books found in our current New Testament! So at the end of the day, the Church included only our four gospels because these were considered to be accurate accounts of the life and teaching of Jesus Christ and because they contained the authoritative testimonies of Jesus original disciples.

Therefore, there is ample evidence to prove that Constantine had nothing to do with bringing together the books of the Bible, or with conspiring to keep certain books out of the Bible. In fact, the Biblical canon wasn’t finalised until about 30 years after Constantine’s death. For further discussion on the bringing together of the Biblical canon see http://www.bible-researcher.com/bruce1.html

2. Did Constantine have a hand in embellishing the Biblical documents?

“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 Da Vinci Code, p. 234)

The Old Testament Manuscripts
There is also solid evidence to prove that Constantine did not add any embellishments to our modern Biblical documents. The earliest manuscripts we have of the Old Testament were found in the Qumran caves among the Dead Sea Scrolls and pre date Constantine by approximately 400 years. All of our Old Testament books were found among these scrolls except for the book of Esther. The most amazing of these manuscripts is a complete scroll of the book of Isaiah (a prophet often referred to by Jesus). It has been dated at 100 BC. Yet when compared with our modern translation of Isaiah, it has less than 5% variation, none of which represents significant change to the overall meaning of the original text. A picture and analysis of this scroll can be viewed at http://religion.rutgers.edu/iho/dss.html. Comparing these early Old Testament manuscripts with our own demonstrates that Constantine did nothing to change or edit our Old Testament Scriptures.

The New Testament Manuscripts
In regard to the New Testament, I have already mentioned that the early Church leaders were quoting from our current New Testament books as early as 95 – 100 AD. Furthermore, the Bodmer Papyrus contains large portions of John and Luke’s gospels, 1 and 2 Peter, and Jude. These manuscripts pre-date Constantine by more than a century, and yet are similar to our current versions of these books. These documents can be viewed at http://biblefacts.org/history/oldtext.html#P66. There are literally thousands more very early New Testament manuscripts in existence in museums and libraries around the world (and on the web), far more than for any other ancient literary work. By comparing these manuscripts with our current New Testament, it is easy to prove that the original 1st century New Testament documents have been reliably passed down to us. Frederic Kenyon, former director of the British Museum in London, and a leading expert on ancient manuscripts has stated in regard to the authenticity of our New Testament documents,

“The interval then between the dates of original composition and the earliest extant evidence becomes so small as to be in fact negligible, and the last foundation for an doubt that the Scriptures have come down to us substantially as they were written has now been removed.” (The Bible and Archaeology. 1940, pp. 288 f.)

Therefore, the evidence suggests that Constantine did not collate, embellish or edit our modern Bible. Let’s now take a look at how this evidence impacts Brown’s claim that the Church distorted the facts about the historical Jesus?

3. “Almost everything our fathers taught us about Christ is false.” (The Da Vinci Code, p. 235)

“Until [the time of Constantine], Jesus was viewed by his followers as a mortal prophet… a great and powerful man, but a man nonetheless. A mortal. Not the Son of God." (The Da Vinci Code, p. 233)

Interestingly enough, we don’t even have to turn to the Bible to prove that Christians believed that Jesus was more than a mere mortal, long before the time of Constantine. For example, in 112 AD the Roman governor Pliny records that,

“Christians were in the habit of meeting regularly before dawn on a fixed day to chant verses alternately among themselves in honour of Christ as if to a god.” (Pliny, Letters x.96)

The first century Jewish historian Josephus also speaks of Jesus being a wonder worker and of his followers’ belief in his resurrection. The Roman historian Tacitus, a contemporary of Pliny and an obviously hostile critic of the Christian movement, writes of Christ’s crucifixion and of ‘the deadly superstition’ that broke out among his believers after Christ’s death (almost certainly referring to his resurrection). Furthermore, there is also evidence that the first century Jews believed from their own Scriptures that the term ‘Christ’ referred to a heavenly figure, and not just a man. For example, at Jesus’ trial, the Jewish high priest asked him,

“Are you the Christ, the Son of the Blessed One?” (Mark 14:60 – 66).

Clearly Christians did believe that Christ was more than just a man, long before Constantine. But Brown doesn’t just suggest that Constantine embellished Jesus’ godlike traits. He also asserts that Constantine edited out the gospels that spoke of Christ’s humanity.

“Constantine commissioned and financed a new Bible, which omitted those gospels that spoke of Christ’s human traits...” (The Da Vinci Code, p. 234)

This is a bizarre notion since Jesus’ humanity is as central to Christian doctrine as is his deity. In fact, some of the early heresies that the church fought against had to do with the belief that Jesus wasn’t truly human, but instead was like an angelic figure. To this the apostle John replied,

“Many deceivers who do not acknowledge Jesus Christ as coming in the flesh, have gone out into the world. Any such person is the deceiver and the antichrist.” (2 John 7)

Because the Biblical doctrine of the incarnation of Christ is so important to the Christian faith, the four gospels are filled with references to Jesus human traits. In these gospels we are told of Jesus’ birth and given his human ancestry (Matthew 1). We are told that he grew in physical maturity and understanding (Luke 2:52); that he felt hunger (Luke 4:2), that he felt tired and slept (Mark 4:38); that he felt overwhelmed (Matthew 26:36 – 38); and, most significantly, that he died (John 19:28 – 30). In fact, the charge of blasphemy that led to Jesus’ crucifixion was based on the fact that Jesus was making himself out to be like God, although he appeared to be a mere man (John 10:31 – 33). So the notion that Constantine edited out all mentions of Jesus that made him appear human is clearly not true. But if Christ was just a man, as Brown asserts, where did Christian worship come from?

4. Does Christ-worship come from a misreading of religious symbolism and metaphors?

“…every faith in the world is based on fabrication. That is the definition of faith – acceptance of that which we imagine to be true, that which we cannot prove. Every religion describes God through metaphor, allegory and exaggeration…The problems arise when we begin to believe literally in our own metaphors… My friends who are devout Christians definitely believe that Christ literally walked on water, literally turned water into wine, and was born of a literal virgin birth… Religious allegory has become a part of the fabric of reality.” ( The Da Vinci Code, p. 341 – 342)

I can’t help but wonder whether Brown has ever spotted his own contradiction at this point. First he tries to persuade his readers that the Biblical story about Jesus has been totally rewritten by Constantine in his cunning conspiracy to unite pagan and Christian Rome under his power. Then he asserts that the real problem with the Biblical documents is that Christians take them too literally, and don’t understand their symbolic meaning. But how can devout believers be expected to draw religious significance from Biblical documents that were apparently falsified by a pagan emperor for political gain?

Brown’s Da Vinci dilemma is that if he asserts that Jesus was just a man, and not the long awaited Christ of God, then how does he explain the rapid growth of the Christian religion? It is a well-established fact that, where both Judaism and Christianity were concerned, the Christ was a figure sent from God. So if Jesus was just a man then he was not the Christ. And if Jesus was not Christ, then there could be no Christian religion based on him. And if there was no Christian religion and Church, then there could be no Church conspiracy.

One final, and somewhat enigmatic, aspect of Brown’s novel that I want to look at is that he seems unable to decide whether Christianity was unfairly biased against ancient paganism or whether it was actually born out of ancient paganism.

5. Are Judeo/Christian beliefs rooted in paganism?

"By fusing pagan symbols, dates and rituals into the growing Christian tradition, [Constantine] created a kind of hybrid religion that was acceptable to both parties… The vestiges of pagan religion in Christian symbology are undeniable… Nothing is Christianity is original… Even Christianity’s weekly holy day was stolen from the pagans… To this day, most church goers attend services on Sunday morning with no idea that they are there on account of the pagan sun god’s weekly tribute – Sun day.” (The Da Vinci Code, pgs. 232 – 233)

“[The triangle represents the male] blade and [the inverted triangle the female] chalice. Fused as one [they form] The Star of David… the perfect union of male and female… Solomon’s seal… marking the Holy of Holies, where the male and female deities – Yahweh and Shekinah – were thought to dwell.” (p. 446)

It is one thing to say that Judaism and Christianity were born in the midst of pagan cultures; but it is a very different thing to claim that they were born out of pagan cultures. Arguably the most important event in Israel’s history is the Exodus: when God used Moses to deliver the Israelite people out of idolatrous Egypt and lead them into their own Promised Land. Central to this event was the giving of the ‘Ten Commandments’ that were to form the basis of the Jewish religion and lifestyle to this day. The opening statement of this famous document declares,

“I am the LORD (Yahweh) your God, who brought you out of Egypt, out of the land of slavery. You shall have no other gods before me. You shall not make for yourself an idol in the form of anything in heaven above or on earth beneath or in the waters below. You shall not bow down to them or worship them…”

Throughout the rest of the Old Testament, all forms of pagan worship -- idolatry, witchcraft sorcery, etc are utterly condemned. And although the Old Testament writers don’t try to keep it a secret that sometimes Israel disobeyed God’s law and fell into these practices (eg the incident with the golden calf in Exodus 32), such behaviour is always condemned by God’s law and by his prophets. Furthermore, it is common knowledge that the faith of Israel is very much monotheistic. Therefore, the idea that the Jewish Scriptures also refer to a goddess named, ‘Shekinah’ who dwelt with Yahweh in the temple is absolutely false. The word, ‘Shekinah’ that Brown refers to, is actually a Hebrew term that speaks of God’s glory.

As previously stated, Jesus and his apostles were also Jews. Therefore, they too believed that there was but one God, and that believers should not worship idols or any pagan deities. But while the Christian religion was born in Jerusalem among the Jews, it quickly spread into the pagan world. In fact, the Romans sometimes referred to Christians as ‘atheists’ because they refused to join the rest of Rome in its worship of pagan deities (eg see ‘Martyrdom of Polycarp’ 8:1-3). But As the Christian message went out from Judea and into the pagan world, many did convert to Christianity from their pagan ways. But this required repenting of their former lifestyle, not bringing it along with them. Consider the following instructions from Peter to the early church,

“As obedient children, do not conform to the evil desires you had when you lived in ignorance. But just as he who called you is holy, so be holy in all you do; for it is written: ‘Be holy, because I am holy.’ …For you have spent enough time in the past doing what pagans choose to do – living in debauchery, lust, drunkenness, orgies, carousing and detestable idolatry. They think it strange that you do not plunge with them into the same flood of dissipation, and they heap abuse on you.” (1 Peter 1:14 – 26; 4:3 – 4. Also see Acts 19).

In his novel, Brown gives us very little evidence to back up his claim that Judeo/Christianity grew out of, and compromised with, paganism. He simply confuses facts, such as the fact that some Christians worship on Sunday, with the notion that this must demonstrate that modern Christian worship is really influenced by paganism. But today even secular people refer to planets, days, and months that are named after various Greco/Roman gods, but this doesn’t mean that they believe in these gods or follow them.

Brown also refers to Constantine having to face wars and conflicts between Christians and pagans that threatened to rend Rome in two. The fact is that until Constantine granted the Church legal protection, Christians had faced three centuries of persecution under the pagan Roman Empire. Until this time, Christians did not possess the political power to take on Rome. And far from being a militant movement, early Christians saw passive martyrdom for the sake of Christ as the supreme honour. This belief reflected Jesus’ own teaching,

“Blessed are you when people persecute you and falsely say all kinds of evil against you because of me. Rejoice and be glad, because great is your reward in heaven…” (Matthew 5:11 – 12)

In other words, Brown’s portrayal of Christianity as a wild dog that Constantine needed to tame is simply false.

One final aspect of Brown’s novel begs to be dealt with here. Brown is often scathing in his assessment of the Church. And sadly, there have been some dark moments in Christian history. But on the other hand, The Da Vinci Code gives us glowing reports of paganism, as if paganism represents the best of pure and perfect religion. But just a cursory survey of the ancient pagan religions will demonstrate that they have a history of violence that easily rivals the worst days of Christianity (For example, see the following article from the BBC history site entitled, ‘Bodies for the Gods: The Practice of Human Sacrifice’ by Dr Mike Parker-Pearson http://www.bbc.co.uk/history/ancient/prehistory/human_sacrifice_01.shtml
Also, you may want to compare the number of modern charitable and care giving organization that have been born out of Christianity against the number of such organizations that have been born out of paganism.

Concluding Thoughts

How appropriate is it for a writer to use quasi history to call into question the validity of the historic Christian faith? I’ll let you be the judge of that. But whereas Brown seems to hide his critique of the Christianity behind secret societies and fictitious documents, the Biblical testimony about Jesus has been openly proclaimed and intentionally circulated since the time of Christ. Through the centuries the gospel message has been subjected to almost every form of attack imaginable. But it still stands the test of time.
However, The Da Vinci Code does pose a question that is well worth thinking about. What if the entire Jesus story is, in fact, false? What if the man who gave us the Gospel, the New Testament, the Christian Church and other Christian movements, Christmas, Easter, our system of dating history (AD and BC), the symbol of the cross, and the hope of resurrection, is nothing more than an embellished fraud? Very few people seem comfortable with completely writing off Jesus. But if The Da Vinci Code is right, we really have no other choice. Brown’s mere man and misunderstood messiah is not the same Jesus of history who came as God’s son to die for the sins of the world. Either Jesus really is God’s appointed saviour of the world or the entire Christian message is the greatest hoax of all time. If it is a hoax, then how foolish we all are for allowing Jesus to continue to play such a prominent role in our history and our world. But if Jesus is the one that the Bible proclaims him to be, then how foolish it would be to ignore him.

Recommended reading:
- The Truth About Jesus by Paul Barnett (Aquila Press. 1994)
- The Case For Christ: A Journalist’s Personal Investigation Of the Evidence for Jesus by Lee Strobel (Zondervan. 1998)
- Cracking Da Vinci's Code by James L Garlow and Peter Jones

If you have any further questions please send them to the following email address info@darlingst.org.au

 Print version

home | meetings | news | kidz biz | resources | about us | contact | help
Darling Street Anglican Church - info@darlingst.org.au - copyright information