The Mona Lisa: Secret Da Vinci Codes?
Ask The Pastor: How it got started
E-mail your questions
Master List of Articles
Question: I also read the book but would ask specifically what is it about it that is attacking God? I can see it attacking the Roman Catholic church.
Yes, there are many theories that are certainly not from the bible, but even if all of Brown's theory was true I don't see how it would affect my faith in God. Marriage and family are not sins, so why would it be a problem if Christ was?
The last verse of John (21:25) states that there are so many things that Christ did that there is not a book big enough to contain it. While the Bible is all we need, why couldn't there be more documentation of Christ's life? I would find it fascinating to read more accounts if they existed. Just because the Bible doesn't state it, does that mean it couldn't be? Why couldn't Christ have been married and set an example of perfect love between a man and a woman? Thanks!
Anonymous
ATP: Great questions! Thanks for expressing what many people may be thinking about the subject.
There is an excellent article on this subject at ChristianityToday.com written by Collin Hansen in November of 2003. I would recommend flipping over to that web site and taking a look. Hansen explains things very succinctly.
Let me quote and then comment on part of Hansen's article that helps explain the nature of the problem with the Da Vinci Code's comments, and that such things are not harmless. Here's the quote:
The central claim Brown's novel makes about Christianity is that "almost everything our fathers taught us about Christ is false." Why? Because of a single meeting of bishops in 325, at the city of Nicea in modern-day Turkey.
There, argues Brown, church leaders who wanted to consolidate their power base (he calls this, anachronistically, "the Vatican" or "the Roman Catholic church") created a divine Christ and an infallible Scripture—both of them novelties that had never before existed among Christians.
The comments from Brown referenced by Hansen above, were the kinds of things that caused me to laugh when I read the Da Vinci Code. Laugh, not because his comments can't do harm, but because they are soooo not rooted in truth. They are inventions of a fertile imagination, not history.
The followers of Christ did not believe that Jesus was divine or that the Scriptures were infallible until 325 C.E.? Not to be unkind, but to speak in the casual and playful language that two friends might have with one another, that's the dumbest thing I've ever heard!
Let's see, so somewhere between 58 C.E. and 68 C.E. when Matthew in chapter 1 verse 23 of his Gospel, writes about the birth of Jesus and says it fulfills the prophecy from Isaiah 7 "and they shall call His name Immanuel", which translated means "God with us." he didn't mean to communicate that Christ was divine? Helloooo! Helloooo! Earth to Dan, earth to Dan! (Just having some fun here...not trying to put an edge on this.)
The followers of Christ didn't wake up to the fact that Jesus was God until 325 C.E.? Really? News to me. News to Matthew and the others too.
And when Matthew quotes Jesus speaking of the Scriptures in Matthew 5:18, "For truly I say to you, until heaven and earth pass away, not the smallest letter or stroke shall pass away from the Law until all is accomplished." neither he nor Jesus meant to communicate that the Scriptures were infallible? I wonder, Mr. Brown, whatever could they have meant?
Hmmm, funny thing, the earth is still here and I see the stars at night, so the heavens Matthew spoke of are still around. Ok, easy decision: I'm going with Jesus and Matthew instead of Dan Brown!
The tone above is intended to be tongue in cheek and fun, and directed at the comments in the Da Vinci Code, not to the person who sent in the question. I hope this will be read with that in mind. We ought to be able to have some fun even as we debate serious topics.
My point here is that in two simple verses from the Bible, known by many, many children who attend Awana programs, Adventure Clubs and a variety of other church programs with other names, are all it takes to show how far off base are the theories around which the Da Vinci code is based.
Again, not to be unkind, but from a historical perspective they aren't just off base, they are silly. They are the historical equivalent of saying that Elvis is alive! He ain't. And we all know it.
The followers of Christ in the early church knew precisely who he was, and they believed the Bible to be infallible. That was Jewish teaching about what we call the Old Testament, and it was Christian teaching. It was a seamlessly held belief that did not just arise out of the mist in 325 C.E. at the Council of Nicea, no matter what the Da Vinci Code would have you believe.
Why are such theories an affront to the character of God? Because they call him a liar, by claiming that the obvious things recorded in the Bible, aren't true. Moreover, these theories falsely claim that Jesus is a liar by saying that Jesus wasn't divine. These theories falsely destroy the only hope that you and I have: that a perfect sacrifice from the Divine Jesus Christ paid the penalty for our sins!
Without the Divinity of Christ being true, we have no salvation, no hope of eternity and Christianity is a lie and a cruel hoax that has been foisted on millions of unsuspecting people.
Is a book like the Da Vinci Code damaging to people? No, not to those who know the truth. For those, the book...at least most of it...is just an interesting and good read, and way to pass a few hours unraveling a plot. It also provided some levity (humor...though unintended by Brown) as it threw out in serious tones, laughable theories that are frankly intellectually embarrassing to have been stated.
For others who are not familiar with history and with the Bible, the Da Vinci Code's message can do great harm. People can be fooled into thinking that the book's theories have merit. Very intelligent but uninformed people can read such a book, and with its reasonable tone and pseudo-intellectual pronouncements, be persuaded that there is something to the message being promoted.
There isn't! Again, I don't mean to be flippant or unkind, but the theories are laughable when one simply looks at the evidence. But calling God a liar is no laughing matter and neither is damaging the faith or potential faith of readers of such a work.
Balance here is important though I think, as we discuss this subject. I enjoyed reading the book. Didn't bother my faith one whit as I mentioned. Brown is a good writer and the plot was a good one. What is unfortunate is simply that anyone would have taken the theories seriously. That is what caused the rub, and though I have not read anything about Brown's personal beliefs and so have no idea of what he believes...wasn't interested...it was just a novel...it would seem from the way that people take issue with the book that Brown intended something more than just the writing of a good book.
Too bad, had he put a disclaimer in the forward, you still have a good read. Have you seen the movie National Treasure? with Nicholas Cage? Good movie. Go see it. But be forewarned, the movie hints that the Founding Fathers of America hid a secret message on the back of the Declaration of Independence!
Did that movie shake my faith or anyone else's in how our country was founded? Hellooo! (I say with a smile on my face!) Of course not. We know the facts and so we all enjoyed the movie. Secret codes on the Declaration of Independence? Nope. On the Mona Lisa? Ditto.
The Da Vinci Code could have been simply a good novel, like National Treasure was a good movie. But by apparently trying to communicate it's theories as having merit, it stepped into another realm altogether, which is why we are having this discussion.
Wait until movie version of The Da Vinci Code comes out. The discussion will start all over again. It’s a worthwhile chat to be sure, in that it gives us all an opportunity to look at the truth, rather than at some work of pure fiction like The Da Vinci Code.
No comments:
Post a Comment