|
The popular topic of the “dinner party” circuit these days is yet another New
York Times best seller. The Da Vinci Code, by Dan Brown, has been the number
one selling book on Amazon.com for several weeks. Like other books which have
captured public interest with a mix of historical fact and theological heresy,
this thrilling mystery has an engaging plot with content that is so rich and
well written that it is hard to put down. Therein lies the problem: lots of
people are reading the book and having a hard time separating history from
heresy, and fact from fiction.
I had chosen not to invest the time reading this book—until my son started
reading it. Then, in order to be able to discuss it with him, I decided to dive
in for what turned out to be a fun, but bumpy ride.
This suspense novel is based on a conspiracy that covers the vast majority of
groups ever connected with Christianity throughout the last 2000 years: the
Knights Templars, the Masons, the Roman Catholic Church, and a secret Catholic
society known as the Priory of Sion, which is claimed to have included Grand
Masters of note such as Isaac Newton and Leonardo da Vinci. The main characters
range from a Harvard art historian to an albino monk assassin. The book begins
where the director of the Louvre is murdered and through secret codes written
in his own blood, he is able to direct a search to solve the mystery of his
death, and reveal a shocking secret that has been concealed for centuries.
This secret or grand conspiracy is what gives the book its plot—and its heresy.
The Da Vinci Code claims nothing less than that Christianity is a big lie.
Those in power in the early centuries of the church used the deity of Christ to
deny the true worship of the Divine Feminine. It gets worse. The book claims
that Jesus Christ was married to Mary Magdalene, that a child was born to them,
and that Mary and her child fled after the crucifixion to Gaul (modern day
western Europe) where they established the Merovingian line of European
royalty.
I cannot argue Brown’s opinions about art history or fully understand his
mathematical claims in the Fibonacci sequence. But as a Bible teacher, I do
have a problem with his implications of an easily dismissed heresy treated as
historical fact. It seems that Brown has crossed the line between a suspense
novel and a hidden agenda to attack Christianity and the credibility of the New
Testament. At least it appears that way. His blending of history and heresy is
either a great marketing ploy (knowing that lots of people will buy the book in
order to discuss the possibility of its veracity) or a reasonable search for
truth. I have my suspicions that it isn’t the latter.
Historical novels are based on fact, not fiction. And when an author adds
content, it should never fly in the face of facts. But in Brown’s case, he has
attempted to rewrite history, directly contradicting the historical accounts of
Scripture.
A few key points/problems need to be noted:
-
Brown lays the groundwork of this conspiracy (to falsely elevate Jesus to the
status of deity) by denying the inspiration and the authority of the four New
Testament gospels: Mathew, Mark, Luke, and John. He replaces the Bible’s
historical documents with the so-called “Gnostic Gospels” found in Nag Hammadi
in Egypt just after World War II. These texts are called the “unaltered
gospels” and the New Testament is considered propaganda for promoting a
male-dominated religious world. Brown claims Jesus, who was a true feminist,
had intended for Mary Magdalene to lead the church after His death but Peter
did not approve. So Mary Magdalene was sent off to Gaul, taking not only her
child, but the Holy Grail (according to medieval legend, the cup said to be
used by Jesus at the Last Supper, and by Joseph of Arimathea to collect His
blood and sweat at the crucifixion). You might remember the popular book Holy
Blood, Holy Grail (1983) which took these claims to be fact.
So what’s my problem? I have a major problem with the Gnostic gospels being
considered authoritative and the claim that the New Testament is the result of
men in church leadership inventing Christianity in order to oppress women and
the goddess worship of that day. The fact is that in contrast to the first
century historical gospels, the Gnostic gospels were second and third century
forgeries that were written to support heretical Gnostic teachings about Jesus.
The early church did not establish the canon (official set of New Testament
writings) at Nicaea, though a general consensus was already evident at that
time. The New Testament writings were already set apart because of their
authorship by the apostles, their alignment with the teachings of Jesus, and
because of their clearly orthodox content, coinciding with the other New
Testament writings as recognized by the churches throughout the (then) world.
Also don’t you think that if Jesus really wanted Mary Magdalene to be the
leader of the church after his crucifixion, instead of Peter, then that is
exactly what would have happened. The implication that Jesus made a mistake or
that his original desire was overrun by chauvinist followers is just short of
blasphemous.
-
Now let’s take a look at a particularly important event. Emperor Constantine
(referred to as the Great Satan) is claimed to have never even become a
Christian, but was simply taking advantage of a religious policy for political
purposes. The claim is that Constantine called the Council of Nicaea in 325
A.D. in order to invent the idea of Christ’s divinity and celibacy, thereby
burying the real story of Mary Magdalene and further suppressing female
significance in the church. The Emperor was said to have led the bishops to
declare Jesus as the Son of God by a close vote.
So what’s my problem? History records that Constantine did convert to
Christianity which explains the numerous changes he made in government policy
(i.e. ceasing the persecution of Christians, etc.) It was not long after his
commitment to Christianity that Constantine called together all church leaders
from around the Roman empire and beyond to come up with a statement of belief
(the Nicene Creed) and to reject the heretical teachings of one Arius, who
taught that Jesus was not united to God the Father. The council did not invent
the divinity of Jesus. This was already the declaration of the church
proclaimed by the apostles (who gave their life for this truth) and by Jesus
Himself (who did likewise). The vote was not in any way close at the Council.
In fact, according to most historical accounts, only two out of 300 or so
bishops did not sign the creed.
-
Where does Brown get his information? According to journalist Sandra Miesel’s
article in Crises Magazine (Sept 2003),the following are some of the resources
he cites: The Gnostic Gospels by Elaine Pagel, a feminist scholar from Harvard
who also just wrote the book Beyond Belief; The Templar Revelation: Secret
Guardians of the True Identity of Christ, by Lynn Pricket and Olive Prince;
Holy Blood, Holy Grail by Baigent, Lee & Lincoln; The Goddess in the
Gospels—Reclaiming the Sacred Feminine and The Woman with the Alabaster
Jar—Mary Magdalene and the Holy Grail, both by Margaret Starbird, and others.
Need I say more?
So what’s my problem? Brown’s resources are all incredibly unreliable. The only
true measure as to whether a resource is reliable when it comes to biblical
truth is the Bible itself. The Word of God is God’s revelation to us of Himself
revealed to us in both external and internal ways. The external historical
facts are overwhelming in support of its claims, both in historical and
archeological content. But the internal evidence, which is the working of the
Holy Spirit in our lives is what actually reveals to us both an understanding
of Scripture (Romans 8:9) and an acceptance of its truth (John 16:13). As Jesus
Himself said, “My sheep hear my voice” (John 10:27).
I am sure I have only scratched the surface of the many details that one could
pick apart in this book to discredit its theological credibility (I’ll leave
that to the theologians). But at the end of the day, when the Bible is not
considered authoritative, all kinds of false teachings will emerge (2 Peter
2:1).
I like a good book when I find it. And The Da Vinci Code is certainly a good
read. But if we build our theology around it, it moves from a good read to a
dangerous cult. And that is up to you, the reader. The bottom line is you
cannot recognize a lie (or in this case fiction) unless you know the truth.
« Back
|
|
|
| | | |
|
|
| | |
|
Women's Community Bible Study
•
3434 Roswell Road
•
Atlanta, GA 30305
•
(404)842-5800
Copyright © 2009 WCBSonline.org All Rights Reserved |
| |
