Ten Questions to Ask About The DaVinci Code
Steve Camp has posted "Ten Questions to Ask About The DaVinci Code". These simple questions (originally written by Don Whitney) should cause any thinking person to realize that the Christian "conspiracy" presented in the book is full of holes.
posted by Cedricstudio at 2:27 PM
17 Comments:
[RANT]But what is the point? I find it a tad frustrating that Christians seem to go on the defensive as if these are somehow new lies that will sway the masses. If we really have the Truth then why do we need to defend it? Or worse why are we convinced that we could even begin to defend God - is God not really God enough for us? People who have met the risen Jesus will have no problem realizing that this is a fictional representation. If you find folks swayed then possibly the error isn't with someone writing bad fiction based on old lies, but with a Church that isn't introducing people to Jesus just a series of propositions. If the Living Jesus isn't the object then of course any wind of crap that comes along will seem like a threat. But please this is just annoying. Get Jesus man. Once you have Jesus this stuff will just be the joke that it really is. Without Jesus then really we look like the joke for being all up in arms everytime someone writes a fictional book that dares to challenge our core beliefs.[/RANT]
You said, "If we really have the Truth then why do we need to defend it?" Three reasons...
First, God hates what is false and therefore so should we (Psalm 119:163; Prov. 13:5; 1 Cor. 13:6). Second, the Bible warns that false teachings can be dangerous, even destroying people's faith (2 Tim 2:17-18; Titus 1:1; 2 Peter 2:1-3; Romans 16:17-18). Third, the Bible commands us to rebuke, refute, and expose false teachings (Titus 1:9-13; Titus 2:15; 2 Tim. 4:2-4; 1 Tim. 1:3-4; Gal. 1:6-9).
Yes, God has given us the Truth. But He also commands us to defend it boldly (with love, gentleness, and patience).
For more on this, go to:
http://www.cedricstudio.com/personal/doctrine.html
I just don't buy it. The issue is that folks take this as a personal attack on themselves. Rather than an inevitable event in a secular society. Maybe it is the approach that bugs me, makes Christians look insecure. BTW I think God hates prooftexting too: Psalm 119:163 is the psalmist not God who is hating, Prov 13:5 is about lying which isn't really that applicable, 1 Cor 13:6 talks about love rejoicing in the truth not hating untruth, 2 Tim 2:17-18 is first about a specific heresy within the church and v.19 seems to indicate that God's foundation will be strong, Titus 1:1 has nothing to do with your point, 2 Peter 2:1-3 again refers to heresies within the church not challenges from other religions or even secular society, Romans 16:17-18 also talks about divisive people within the Church and has nothing to do with a secular movie, Titus 1:9-13 needs verse 7 for context (context is so important to correctly handle the Word of Truth) and is referring there to a Bishop working in the Church and even affirms the wisdom of secular writers (v.13) revealing the faults of the Christian community (not the other way around), Titus 2:15 again is addressed to the Faithful and has nothing to do with our relationship to the world, 2 Tim 4:2-4 could be stretched to help your case but is clearly firstly written to Timothy a shepherd in the Church, 1 Tim 1:3-4 is again defining the ecclesial duties of Timothy a shephard in Ephesus, and Gal 1:6-9 is clearly addressed to the Church. So the command is how we deal with ourselves internally.
Compare with Sunday's reading from John's gospel: Lifting up his eyes to heaven, Jesus prayed saying:
“Holy Father, keep them in your name that you have given me, so that they may be one just as we are one.
When I was with them I protected them in your name that you gave me, and I guarded them, and none of them was lost
except the son of destruction, in order that the Scripture might be fulfilled.
But now I am coming to you. I speak this in the world so that they may share my joy completely.
I gave them your word, and the world hated them, because they do not belong to the world
any more than I belong to the world. I do not ask that you take them out of the world
but that you keep them from the evil one. They do not belong to the world
any more than I belong to the world. Consecrate them in the truth. Your word is truth. As you sent me into the world,so I sent them into the world. And I consecrate myself for them, so that they also may be consecrated in truth.”
Here Jesus lays it out. The world won't get us because it never got Jesus. But still God's heart aches for the world and so He sent His only Son Jesus into the world, not as the world, but as one who reveals the Father and the Father's heart for us to have real life in this world. Likewise this passage shows Jesus sends us into the world to reveal the Father to the World. Why should we get upset when Jesus' words prove true? The world won't get us. They'll squirm their way around the real Jesus. But the Truth isn't something we hammer on them - it is what we are sanctified into in Christ. In essence truth is the foundation that won't crumble. It is that which lets us live as Christ in this world in the hope that others might also see the Saviour in us. But, and here is my beef, we are too busy defending God and our understanding of truth instead of showing Jesus to people. Jesus isn't a proposition. Jesus is a living person, the resurrected Saviour of the world who still so loves the world that he sends us to reveal the Good News to everyone around us. Not through our faulty logic and "truth statements" but through our lives transformed by the love of Jesus and doing the things the people long to see (like valuing the poor, caring for the sick, loving the lost, eating with sinners (just like Jesus) and revealing the light that darkness cannot overcome).
Hey Cedric,
I just started reading a book called Contending Our All by John Piper. I think you might like it. In it is a list of the controversies that were present during the life of Christ and the apostles. Each of these was met with truth and a defense. Also, Piper presents in the rest of the book a biography of sorts of three men in centuries past who contended for the truths of scripture (Athanasisu, Owen and Machen).
I will admit that there are those who act like "chickens with their heads cut off" whenever something like TDC comes along. That is, in my opinion, the opposite of how one should act if they have been serious students of the Word for some time. The problem, stems in part, from the lack of solid teaching from pastors, elders, small group leaders, etc. Much of what is being taught in church is very man-centered and weak at best. If teachers of God's Word were faithful to proclaiming God as He has revealed Himself through His Word, chaos and panic would manifest itself in much small degrees. But I think it is good to wrestle with things like TDC. There are those who are weak in the faith or new to the faith and they need to see those who love the Lord and want Him to be worshiped in truth, not myths or fiction. They also need to be taught how to be a discerning of what is right and what is wrong concerning our Lord.
God does not need us defending Himself or His truth, nor does God need us to speak for Him and proclaim His message. Yet scripture mandates both, not because God is unable, but because God has decreed that souls will come to faith in Him through the preaching of His Word.
I don't think we should take pleasure in going toe-to-toe (fighting) with those who are in error. But we should count it a joy to share with them the truth as they are taught patiently. And I think we should especially be gracious towards those in the faith who are immature and may be swayed by fiction or false teaching. I remember being a youth and becoming fearful everytime I heard some Discovery Channel program tell me that the Bible was innacurate or mythological. As I grew in the faith and was taught how to be a discerner, there were less and less times where these things got me worked up. Now, stuff like TDC doesn't even phase me. And now I get the wonderful opportunity of helping other believers grow in the same way that I was helped to grow. In growing during that time, I've come to love our risen Lord for who He is and what He has done for me.
May God be glorified as we represent Him and speak His message to the world.
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
Does anyone know if Dan Brown claims to be a Christian? If so, then he would need to be rebuked and corrected for the promotion of his conspiracy theory, no?
By the way, Cedric, I believe 1 John was written in part to address heresies that were being promoted outside of the church...early gnosticism and docetism if my memory serves me correct. John states that these antichrist's left the company of the church (past tense...at the time of the writing) proving that they were really not Christ's covenant people. Yet, still he chose to address their heresey (present tense...at the time of the writing) although they were now idenitified as "of the world" and outside of the church.
Just something else to chew on.
1 John was written to deal with errors of interpretation of the book of John. You are right it is gnosticism, but gnosticism was a problem within the Church as these same people were claiming Christianity through quite a different vision of Christ. This was causing division in the Johannine community.
I think I should be clear that there is a place for truth in our relationship to the world. We live it. Truth changes our lives and so it is important that we protect what we have been entrusted with as a community of faith. However, that is a transformative idea of truth, not a mere set of propositions that can be translated into some evangelism schema. It is found in community, not in individual belief. It belongs to the Church as a community and is the gift of God.
When I say we live it, we live what it has done in our lives. That means we tell the truth to each other including to non-Christians. It means we do the things Jesus commanded (and we believe are true). It means we are able to stand strong, grounded in truth, no matter what the world throws against us and go on loving the world just as Jesus did. Loving it into the Kingdom one soul at a time. (Or more when God shows up amazing things always happen).
Joshua, I agree if Dan Brown claims to be a Christian he should be corrected, but I think that is the role of his faith community not random people upset because he dared to challenge their core beliefs in public. Paul engaged with public debate (as was the custom of the time) which was reasoned and used the language of his hearers. They didn't get upset because he was trying to defend something - but because he was revealing the very Christ that the Jews had crucified.
Yes, I understand the 1 John/ John connection (in that the Word became flesh and these supposed believers were claiming that Christ only appeared to be flesh, hence 1 John's opening statements plus further statements...but all that is the Docetism and rising Gnosticism of his day--that indeed is exactly what I was referring to in my previous comment). Nevertheless, as you say, the false doctrine being promoted started within the visible Christian community and caused division. Clearly these false teachers were not of Christ, but only thought they were or portrayed to be. Thus division did arise and John did address their teaching even as these false teacher were identified as antichrist.
Is not the situation with TDC similar in nature. We have a guy, from what I know, who claims to be a Christian (however erroneous that understanding may be) and is causing division by his faulty doctrine and conspiracy theory. There are young and new believers who buy into this stuff and get their faith shaken and feel like that they are standing on lies. Why then, should not stronger, mature, loving believers address his claims of Christ? (and I don't think that simply because Brown's theory is totally different that the errors corrected in 1 John that we can say, "Different situation, different error...it requires a different response." Had TDC been the error of the day, causing the same problems, John would have done the same things (big assumption, but safe one I think).
I don't think it means that anyone needs to freak out about it. But neither does anyone need to downplay the truth or dodge the issue. If Satan is the Father of lies, then surely we combat those lies with the truth. I do agree that our behavior should contain a love that matches our words, but I don't think that anyone is arguing against that.
Blogger lost my comment! Now I have to retype it. Doh!
Joshua - Thanks for the book recommendation. You wrote, "I don't think we should take pleasure in going toe-to-toe (fighting) with those who are in error. But we should count it a joy to share with them the truth as they are taught patiently". Good point. Perhaps my image of the Da Vinci Code poster with groucho glasses makes me appear snide and ungracious. As such I have taken that image down.
One of Freedom - You wrote, "The issue is that folks take this as a personal attack on themselves". Not at all. The issue is the reliability of the Bible. TDC claims that Christianity is based on a conspiracy and that the Bible can't really be trusted. That doesn't shake my faith at all, but both my Mom and my brother read the book and then expressed serious doubts about the Bible. That breaks my heart. Dan Brown's falsehoods are "destroying the faith of some" (2 Tim 2:18), and the loving thing to do is to defend the truth and try to repair the damage. Unless you can show me one Bible verse that commands us not to?
As for proof texting....
"The righteous hate what is false" (Prov. 13:5). You wrote, "Prov. 13:5 is about lying which isn't really that applicable". How can you say that? This whole issue is about lies versus the truth.
You also wrote, "2 Peter 2:1-3 again refers to heresies within the church...". Actually it refers to heresies not just among Christians but also "among the people" (v.1).
"He [an overseer] must hold firmly to the trustworthy message as it has been taught, so that he can encourage others by sound doctrine and refute those who oppose it." (Titus 1:9). There is nothing in this passage that restricts the refuting to those inside the church. In fact, v.14 makes it clear that Paul is referring to false teachers outside the church.
As for the Timothy passages, yes they were written specifically to Timothy. But why would God hold Timothy to a different set of standards and principles than the rest of us?
I think we Christians can still have a sense of humor. I didn't see the Groucho thing as offensive. And I definitely didn't think you were coming across as rude...having read your other posts and seen your consistent concern and love for lost people, that would have been an unfair judgment. I was merely referring to those who love to argue and debate for the sake of fighting and pouncing on those who are in error...that's not love...and typically that type of attitude does not contain speech that is seasoned with grace. God bless, Cedric.
Mine got lost as well, oh well here it goes again.
I'm really sorry about your mom and brother, but I think the issue is much deeper than one of simply undermining their intellectual assent. If our faith is in the bible then it is misplaced to begin with, this is a common misunderstanding in Christianity. Our faith is in God who alone is immutable. The bible, for us as Christians, comes alive in this context - and this context alone. If you don't have that relationship with Jesus then it doesn't matter how well you know the bible or even if you believe it. Sounds like DB did you a favour in revealing the weakness of your mom and brother's faith. It has revealed where their foundations are weak and where you can begin to show them Jesus. I worry more for people who feel secure because they think they understand something of the bible but have no real relationship with Jesus (as would be evidenced by living as Christ in the world).
I'm not sure the onus would be on me to assert the negative from scripture. But rather on the one who asserts the positive (we should do). Besides I'm not convinced that anything was damaged in this case, rather that something was shown for what it really was. Then again I am an optimist.
As for the texts: Prov 13:5-6 "A righteous [man] hates lying, but a wicked [man] is loathsome and comes to shame." DB isn't lying, he's righting a fictional story that just happens to use old heretical speculations as a plot device. You are positing that he is trying to intentionally decieve folks, but he is just building a story on old speculations from outside of Christiandom. Sure he is an unrighteous person according to this text, but do you know if he has submitted his life to this text? If not why can you hold him to its standards. You overcome evil by doing good not by explaining why it is evil. Still this verse doesn't say God hates untruth, it says the righteous don't lie.
Peter, keep reading v.1 - the context he is addressing is not the prophets who were in plentitude in those days, but the teachers within the church.
Titus, an overseer/bishop is a minister to the Church. Inside they church for sure we need to have good doctrine. In the Church we are grounded in the truth to go into the world (set apart by this truth) and glorify the Father. Just like Jesus did. Jesus was harsh to religious folks and gracious to those outside the faith. I think we've somehow gotten this reversed and we are tough on those outside and we never develop maturity within the Church. Well never is harsh but Churches can be pretty immoral places, not to mention quite devoid of the kinds of activities Jesus modelled in his incarnational ministry.
Timothy isn't a double standard, what he is advised on is good for all shepherds. That still doesn't mean it extends beyond the flock who claim the name of Christ. But rather to urge us who are Christians to devote ourselves to the truth and living what that truth demands of us - love, servanthood and sacrifice.
I just don't see anywhere in scripture where we are told to reduce the gospel to a series of propositions and get intellectual assent. It certainly wasn't the practice of the primitive church which needed to see evidence of Christian service and character before even admitting folks into communion and baptism! It was clear then that chosing Christ would cost something, everything. My concern is that we are so overly concered about defending the truth because we really aren't children of the truth at all and if that comes out we'll find out faith washed away as our house of cards comes tumbling down.
Anyway, I didn't really want to rant. I would love to pray for your mom and brother though. If you are ok with that of course. Also don't feel like you have to agree with me. I am just presenting a different vantage point on this. I read your blog because I don't agree with everything you write and I think that is good for my faith to be challenged. You have a great heart for evangelism and I love that - it lets me see Christ. I don't want to discourge that in anyway so please weigh my words with that in mind.
blessings,
Frank
If our faith is in the bible then it is misplaced to begin with, this is a common misunderstanding in Christianity. Our faith is in God who alone is immutable. The bible, for us as Christians, comes alive in this context - and this context alone.
If I am understanding you correctly, then I would respectfully disagree. I'm not quite sure how you would separate God from His Word. Now, if by the Bible, you mean the actual paper and ink that God's Word has been penned on, then of course, we do not put our faith in printed objects or anything man-made. But if by the Bible you mean, the very Word(s) of God (His promises, His decrees, His self-revelation--which includes but is not limited to propositions, which in His providence He had His spoken word penned down), well, then I would disagree with you, as I'm guessing Cedric would.
I’m curious, though, because I don’t really understand how one would “go preach the gospel” as Jesus commanded and get around the task of sharing any propositions. What then do we say when we preach the gospel? I can’t imagine that we are simply to go and “live a Christ-like” life and somehow expect people to mystically become aware of Jesus and trust Him. Again, the task of speaking and living go hand in hand.
It sounds to me as if you have disdain for propositions which I’ve seen in a lot of po-mo people. FYI, I do not ascribe to a modernist mindset that says that all you need is facts and information and science. Premodernism has it’s flaws too, being too superstitious and all. And I think that is why God has communicated to us verbally. I believe His communication helps us to avoid the pitfalls of each of these mindsets...and we can rightly relate to Him in the way that He has told us...so our response is to His oral word, which gratefully, we have written down.
I, too, like you, do not want to false converts who think they are saved simply because they know the right info. But we must remember that faith comes by the hearing of the Word of God. So in that, I put full confidence in Scripture (God’s Word written down) to change the heart of the dead sinner and call them forth to life!
Let me begin by assuring you that I too put full confidence in the Scriptures as we have recieved them. But then again I also have the Spirit of Christ which gives us a unique relationship to these scriptures. We have the Spirit and the Church to help us interpret the scriptures that are all the letter to Timothy says they are. But the bible is not God, the Word is. This is a common error in modern protestantism. Jesus is the living Word but that doesn't somehow make the bible divine. It is what you say as God's self-revelation but quite distinct from the Godhead (otherwise we'd have a holy Quadrinity). If you don't seperate the two then every time the bible is questioned then it is like questioning God. This is a purely modern approach to the scriptures.
And you are right that there is no magic to preaching the gospel. I do emphasise living the gospel, but this isn't an insular action. One of the ways we reach out is to build communities around various differnt types of games. A bunch of in the church are gamers to begin with so it is only natural that we would want to see our gamer friends get saved. So we host games. We also get into each others lives as these games build community and we pray for our friends. We are quite open about who we are as Christians too - so when we pray for folks we tell them. We offer to help and be good neighbours. We love them as Christ loves them. And we invite them out to stuff our Church commmunity does. When they come into faith they are already part of the community which is exciting. George Hunter wrote a great book on this called the Celtic Way of Evangelism which was a real blessing to me.
I don't discredit scripture's power to speak into the hearts of people either. I am just concerned with the formulaic methodologies that make it easy to accost folks with something many aren't willing to live themselves. There are times when a proposition is right, but there are also times when just eating a meal with someone is right too.
I wonder what you mean by superstitious. I haven't heard post-modernity described that way before. I come at post-modernity through thinkers like Charles Taylor and Paul Ricoeur who are anything but superstitous. Would love to chat about that sometime, but maybe we shouldn't hijack this comments section.
The superstion was in reference to pre-modernism, not post-modernism.
If you don't seperate the two then every time the bible is questioned then it is like questioning God.
Strange way to see it, I think. I have a daughter and when I tell her to do something and she questions me I don't think "Oh, she's not questioning me. She's just questioning my words." That seems foolish. Indeed when she questions my words, she does question me whether my words are spoken or written. Although my words are not me physically (body), they do represent the will of my spirit.
For sake of argument, put aside the fact that scripture is written or in ink. Now, if God came to you and audibly spoke to you tonight, with words, and you disobeyed those words or questioned them, would you not be questioning or disobeying God? I think you would.
Now, suppose you were deaf and could not hear, so God wrote those words down, and you argued and disobeyed them. Would you not be disobeying God or arguing with Him? You sure would. In that respect, I say that when someone questions, doubts, or disobeys the Word of God, they are doing that to God...not that the Bible is God, but His Word...hence the ever famous title, the Word of God. Of course, Jesus is the Living Word. I would never dispute that.
Now lastly, I would never say that we aren't to be friendly to our neighbors, play games with them, love them, eat with them, or whatever. I do that to a degree. But still I ask, what offended the world so much that the Christ, the apostles, early Christians and many other in the world today are being killed for in the name of Christ? Surely it isn't the chummy chummy evangelism of America and modern Christianity. Rather, I believe it is because others speak the word of God which will bring some to life or cause others to grit their teeth and seek to kill you.
So that brings things full circle, I think. In addressing the world, it's questions, false teachings, TDC, etc, we need to share God's message lovingly but truthfully and with passion...and I don't think we need to take months building friendships with others before we share Christ. We may not have that time for any number of God-ordained reasons.
Gotcha about the superstition. I agree, pre-modernist thinking was primarily characterized by juridical thinking and unquestioned authorities.
My problem with your argument, and it is a good argument you put forward, is that there is a world of differance between mediated and unmediated knowledge. The bible is not a simple document - otherwise we would have virtual uniformity of interpretation at least within Christiandom. It is always mediated, re-read, in each generation. Part of the power of scripture is that it can do this and still be the self-revelation of God. But the fact is the way we read the scriptures today is not the same as the first readers. To assume so is to not know your history. Simple case is the way that slavery is dealt with - pre-emancipation scripture was used to support slavery after they go free the same scripture is used to support emancipation. Was the scripture wrong? I think we both agree that is was not but it was how it was being read in those contexts.
So reading the scriptures requires a great deal more effort and study than say an angelic visitation. But to be honest, I teach a lot on hearing the voice of God and it is not unmediated either. We always interpret what we hear, what I hope is that we are learning to interpret better.
As for the chummy, chummy. I think you miss the point. Actually I'm not overtly trying to get my neighbours saved but to live Christ before them so that they will smell the aroma of life (one of my favourite misquoted bible verses there) and be drawn to the Father. The early Church was persecuted in two contexts: from the Jews and later from some pretty messed up Romans. The Jews were upset because the Christians kept infultrating their ranks (being Jews themselves) and freeing folks from the legalistic structures that were there. They practiced what the Jews clearly saw as a heresy and the OT is clear on what to do with heretics. The second situation was really about Christian character not speach. The Christians refused to fall into the state Pantheistic religion. This was seen as a threat so of course they were persecuted. Any group that did this was persecuted, including the Jews.
You really should check out Hunter's book it is a great read.
But the fact is the way we read the scriptures today is not the same as the first readers.
I concede that we all make mistakes in interpreting scripture. Personally, I don't think that the problem with interpretation is with the difficulty level of scripture, but in the fallen nature of mankind.
Still, there's no denying the fact of authorial intent. The writers of scripture, under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit, clearly intended to communicate a message that conveyed a certain meaning, oftentimes with intended applications. I also believe in the perpescuity of scripture, meaning that the overall message of scripture is quite clear...obviously there is sybmolism and there are metaphors that cause some slight confusion. I understand that the Bible is active and living, but not in the sense that it evolves and changes with each generation.
As far as persecution, I do know that believers were persecuted for various reasons (Nero's arson lies being one reason in Rome). But in reading through Foxes Book of Martyrs there clearly were many that were brought to trial and asked to denounce the things that they had been speaking and teaching. When they would not, they were executed.
I'll try to check out that book you were talking about and see where you are coming from. Anyway, thanks for the chat. God bless. -- Josh
If you can't find Hunter let me know I can dig up a paper I wrote on it a few years back. It is a little more theologically oriented than Hunter though and deals with a number of sources other than that one. But Hunter is such a good book on evangelism. Also I do agree that there is an obvious core message to the scriptures which we often refer to as the main and the plain of the gospel.
bless you too Josh.
Post a Comment
<< Home