The Da Vinci Code: Facts vs. Faith?

Dan Brown apparently believes that the historical claims made by Christianity are false. His hero, Robert Langdon, explains: “Every faith is based on fabrication. That is the definition of faith -- acceptance of that which we imagine to be true, that which we cannot prove.” Sophie was troubled by this perspective: “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.” Though Langdon would never accept the literal truth of those events, believing those lies is not necessarily bad: “Living in that reality helps millions of people cope and be better people.”

Near the end of the movie, Langdon expressed a similar perspective. Though he didn’t believe the ancient documents could prove that Jesus was anything other than a great man, he told Sophie that when he nearly drowned as a boy, he prayed to Jesus. Langdon’s advice for Sophie was: “What matters is what you believe.” Even though Jesus is probably dust in some unknown grave in Palestine, praying fervently to him will somehow transform reality and you will receive what you ask for.

Is my belief all that matters? Are the historical claims of Christianity meaningless? Not in the least. The object of our faith is much more critical than our faith. If I were to go to any nearby lake tomorrow and attempt to ice skate across it, it wouldn’t matter how much faith I have, I would get very wet! On the other hand, if I go to any of those lakes in January and attempt the same feat, it doesn’t matter if I am quaking in my skates, the foot of ice on the surface of the lake will carry me across the lake. The object (the ice) is far more important than my faith in getting me across the lake.

Christianity is an historical religion. Without its history, we have next to nothing: “If Christ has not been raised, then our preaching is useless and so is your faith.”

Dan Brown’s treatment of Biblical history denigrates and confuses the faith. Christians believe in a real, risen, reigning Jesus. He alone gives substance and support to our growing faith. Faith in anything else, no matter how deep, will end in disappointment and death.

The Da Vinci Code: Worshiping the Goddess

The fictional Robert Langdon of Harvard claimed that the church successfully waged “a campaign of propaganda that demonized the sacred feminine, obliterating the goddess from modern religion forever.” (p.124) Why would the church want to banish the goddess? Langdon claimed that the church was threatened by the belief that sex was the means “through which [a person] became spiritually whole.” If worshipers could “commune directly with God”, then this “left the Church out of the loop, undermining their self-proclaimed status as the sole conduit to God.” The church sought to “demonize sex and recast it as a disgusting and sinful act” as a way of holding onto its power over people.

Though at times the church came close to demonizing sex, Brown’s flattering view of these fertility religions is worse. What were these pagan religions really like? Goddess worship presented a sickening combination of sex and violence -- Hollywood was not the first to join these two! The famous archaeologist, W.F. Albright, described this female goddess' thirst for blood: “`With might she hewed down the people of the cities, she smote the folk of the sea-coast, she slew the men of the sunrise.’ After filling her temple (it seems) with men, she barred the gates so that none might escape, after which `she hurled chairs at the youths, tables at the warriors, footstools at the men of might.’ The blood was so deep that she waded in it up to her knees -- nay up to her neck. Under her feet were human heads, above her human hands flew like locusts. In her sensuous delight she decorated herself with suspended heads, while she attached hands to her girdle. Her joy at butchery is described in even more sadistic language: `Her liver swelled with laughter, her heart was full of joy, the liver of Astarte was full of exultation.’ Afterwards she was satisfied and washed her hands in human gore.”

Why does it matter that Langdon has these ancient religions so wrong? Because his benign treatment is used to sell sex as a means of salvation. When Langdon told his students that “sex is natural -- a cherished route to spiritual fulfillment,” a perceptive student asked: “Are you saying that instead of going to chapel, we should have more sex?” This is the natural conclusion to this philosophy. And it is a conclusion that leads to all sorts of sexual and even sadistic perversions since this false god can’t ultimately satisfy. Why not an affair? Why not group sex? Why not combine sex with worship?

But the worship of sex always leads to death. When we forsake the worship of the One True God and worship the gifts he has given us, then we begin a downward spiral toward death and destruction.

The Da Vinci Code: Sex, the Path to God?

Sophie Neveu’s grandfather, Jacques Suaniere, was the leader of the goddess worship cult which was part of his work as the grand master of the Priory of Scion. As the grand master he participated in a religious ceremony which included having sexual intercourse with one of the female leaders of the cult. Sophie became alienated from her grandfather when she witnessed this strange and terrifying ceremony as a child.

Though the movie does not make this a major issue, the book has many references to the religion of this feminine goddess. Unfortunately, Dan Brown gives a more favorable depiction of these ancient fertility religions than he does of Christianity. For example, he claimed that the “church launched a smear campaign against the pagan gods and goddesses, recasting their divine symbols as evil.” (p.37)

What were these religions like and is Brown’s depiction of them accurate? These pagan fertility cults were found in nearly all ancient cultures. This female goddess of fertility had various names (Asherah, Ishtar, Astarte, Ba’alat, etc.) and was thought to be responsible for the fertility of the land. The idea in these religions was that sex was the means of connecting with and receiving blessing from the goddess. The sex ritual that Sophie’s grandfather participated in was like the ancient practice of “Hieros Gamos” (i.e., “holy marriage”) in which the head priestess had sexual intercourse with the head priest or king. Brown claims that this “holy marriage” was a spiritual act. Historically, intercourse was the act through which male and female experienced God. Physical union with the female remained the sole means through which man could become spiritually complete and ultimately achieve gnosis -- knowledge of the divine. Since the days of Isis, sex rites had been considered man’s only bridge from earth to heaven. (p.308)

Wow! Brown (through the voice of Harvard professor Robert Langdon) apparently believes that these “joyous rites to celebrate fertility and the Goddess” (p.453) are a means of experiencing God. This is sex as salvation. Sex as a god to be worshipped. Sex as the means of escape from this painful world. Lest anyone think this is mere fiction, Brown assured his fans in the Parade Magazine article that the “sacred feminine” ideas were maintained in the movie script.

But were these pagan rites truly joyous? Did those who worshiped the goddess truly experience God? See the next post.

The Da Vinci Code: An Open-minded Pursuit of Truth?

A recent issue of Parade Magazine reported that Dan Brown hoped the movie about his book, The Da Vinci Code, would be a “quiet invitation to think about faith, religion and history with a fresh, open-minded perspective.” Should we be opened-minded to the possibility that Jesus was married and produced offspring? that Jesus was simply a “mortal prophet”? that nearly everything we have been taught about Jesus is wrong? Certainly! These questions about who Jesus was/is are paramount because of the audacious claims Jesus made about himself. He asserted that he is “the way, the truth and the life” and that “no one comes to the Father except through” him. An open-minded pursuit of the truth about Jesus may be critical in determining where a person spends eternity.

But Dan Brown may not view open-mindedness in the same way that I do. I wonder if his approach isn’t more like G.K. Chesterton’s description of H.G. Wells: “I think he thought the object of opening the mind is simply opening the mind. Whereas, I am incurably convinced we open our minds to shut them on something solid.” Some people are perennial doubters. Their goal seems to be to disbelieve, deride, disparage anything and everything. As a result, they remain lifelong cynics.

In the next few weeks my posts will attempt to unravel some of the claims of The Da Vinci Code by Dan Brown. Are Brown’s theories valid? What evidence is there to support his claims? Though the truth of Christianity can never be completely proved, there is a wealth of evidence that should enable us to close our minds on something substantial.

Surviving Our Troubles: Expecting Hardships

How would you like to sign up with two million other travelers for a several-month camping trip through a blistering desert? Oh, and by the way, you will do this without the benefit of modern camping equipment or known food and water sources. Ouch!

God’s people embarked on such a trip after being rescued from the oppressive Egyptians. But a journey that God designed to last about half of a year, became a nightmare that lasted nearly half of a century. During this time, the Israelites were crushed by challenges that were designed to strengthen them.

Why were they staggered by each new hardship? I believe they failed because they believed their hardships were all behind them. They had survived the plagues that devastated Egypt. They had been released from their bondage. They had miraculously crossed the Red Sea. They had seen the dreaded Egyptian army drown in that same sea. And now they were experiencing God’s visible leading in the pillar of fire and the cloud. “Promised land, here we come!”

But their prior troubles were only the birth pangs of trouble. In the desert they predictably ran short of food and water (there were no catering services in the Sinai!). But they also had unexpected problems with their leader (Moses disappeared for 40 days) and with new enemies (e.g., the Amalekites). But whether their adversities could have been anticipated or not, they responded to all of them with robust grumbling and whining. At one point they became so irate and irrational that they contemplated a return to Egypt. (What were they going to do -- re-enlist as slaves?!)

Trouble is as much a part of this life as breathing. Life is filled with financial, relational, emotional, physical, and familial troubles. We think problems are momentary interruptions which will soon pass -- when this conflict at work is resolved or my child’s health improves or I get out of debt then normal, trouble-free living will return. But trouble will dog us throughout this life. Jesus warned us: “In this world you will have trouble.” That’s a promise. Serious conflict in your marriage will be followed by a nagging health problem which will be followed by a layoff from your job which will be followed by a broken relationship with your brother which will be followed by your teen’s poor report card which will be followed by the loss of a best friend ... and on and on.

The Apostle Peter warned his friends: “Do not be surprised at the painful trial your are suffering, as though something strange were happening to you.” Problems shouldn’t shock us. They are opportunities to trust God for wisdom and strength to deal with these daily battles.

Surviving Our Troubles, Part 1

Surviving Our Troubles: “Solution Talk”

One day when Jesus was in Jerusalem for one of the Jewish feasts, he took a side trip to the pool of Bethesda -- a pool that purportedly had healing powers. (Tradition said that on occasion an angel would stir the waters and the first one in the water after that stirring would be healed.) As a result of the pool’s reputation and its covered colonnades, it became a gathering place for a “great number of disabled people -- the blind, the lame, and the paralyzed.”

One of the pool’s patrons was a man who had been an invalid for thirty-eight years. Standing over the cripple, Jesus asked him: “Do you want to get well?” Jesus’ question -- which deserved a hearty: “Of course!” -- was answered with a weak complaint: “Sir, I have no one to help me into the pool when the water is stirred. While I am trying to get in, someone else goes down ahead of me.” This man, who was broken in body and in soul, kept returning to the pool out of habit, not out of hope.

Why did Jesus ask such an obvious question? Because not everyone wants to get well. As I was recently waiting in a doctor’s office, I overheard two women try to top each other’s stories from their medical history -- “Well, I had surgery one time and had to stay in the hospital for 3 months!” I could tell that they both relished telling their painful stories. But were they interested in getting well? I’m not sure.
Why don’t sick people want to get well? Because solving problems is hard work. It is easier to whimper over your friend’s rejection than to forgive her and seek reconciliation. It is easier to moan about your fatigue than to develop an exercise program that will restore your energy. It is easier to commiserate with the complainers than to enlist with the committed. It is easier to discard a dying marriage than to learn how to love again. It is easier to stay depressed than to change the thought patterns that feed your sadness. It is easier to criticize the ministries of your church than to join one of those ministries and try to make a difference.

Psychologist and author Mary Pypher’s counseling philosophy is based on “solution talk” rather than “problem talk.” The person who wants to get well is the person who fixes his eyes on solutions: “Lord how should I view this situation differently? What actions can I take to begin solving this problem? Don't let me merely fuss or fret. Show me how to survive this ordeal.”

Stepford Wives

Claire (played by Glenn Close) was a brilliant scientist who murdered her husband and his girlfriend when she caught them in bed together. Horrified by the ugliness of her deed and the world around her, she asked: “What could I do to make the world more beautiful?” Her answer was to turn her dead husband into a robot who then recruited other men who wanted “perfect” wives. Claire believed most women were “over-stressed, over-booked and under-loved” and wanted a “better world where men are men and women are loved and cherished.”

Who wouldn’t want a little less chaos in their world? a trouble-free marriage? a safe world for children? an end to drunken drivers? Claire’s husband, Mike, explained to Joanna (Nicole Kidman) and her husband, Walter (Matthew Broderick) the benefits of scientific engineering: “If you could streamline your partner, if you could overhaul every annoying habit and every physical flaw, every moment of whining and nagging and farting in bed, just imagine being able to enjoy your mate only at their best.” Sounds appealing, doesn’t it?

But what kind of world would that be? If Stepford is any indication, it is not an appealing world. When Walter was tempted by the appeal of the perfect wife, Joanna asked him: “Is this what you really want? women who behave like slaves?” And then she asked: “These machines, these Stepford wives, can they say “I love you”? When informed that they could say it in 58 languages, Joanna, with pleading eyes, asked Walter: “But do they mean it?” She then planted a passionate kiss on her husband’s lips.

Walter ultimately chose to give his wife her freedom -- believing that a free, though imperfect love, was far-superior to the counterfeit, coerced love of a computer-chip wife.

God had a similar choice to make. He could have created a “Stepford” world where there are no victims or violence, arguing or apathy, criticism or coldness. Instead, He created a world where the pots can complain to the potter, where “the sculptures can spit at the sculptor.” Like Walter, God didn’t want robotic perfection.

William Thompson imagined the questions God pondered while creating us: “What if I veil My Divinity so that the creatures [won’t be] overwhelmed by My overpowering Presence? Will the creatures love Me? Can I be loved by creatures I have not programmed to adore me forever? Can love arise out of freedom?” God, like Walter, took the risk of freedom. He knew that force would never produce love. Our God delights in the passionate embrace of free human beings.