|
Cracking Da vinci's Code
Peter Jones
First published in Evangelium, Vol. 2, Issue 3 (Jul/Aug 2004)
Editor’s Note: Dr. Peter Jones, our Adjunct Professor of New
Testament and Scholar-in-Residence, co-authored the book
Cracking Da Vinci’s Code. His book answers Dan Brown’s attacks
against Christianity in his best-selling novel The Da Vinci
Code. Dr. Jones’s defense of the Gospel has garnered national
attention. He has appeared on several television programs (some
of which include Fox News Channel, MSNBC, and CNN) as well as
many radio broadcasts and newspapers nation-wide, even
world-wide. At the end of January 2004, Cook Communications
asked me to co-write with Dr. James L. Garlow, pastor of Skyline
Wesleyan Church in San Diego, a response to the novel The Da
Vinci Code. For those of you who may be unfamiliar with The Da
Vinci Code, the author, Dan Brown, taps into the public’s
fascination with conspiracy theories, anti-Roman Catholic
clericalism, and the “true” origins of Christianity. The end
product is a scathing attack on biblical Christianity. Brown
questions and rejects orthodox claims by cleverly weaving
historical fact and fiction, which we call “faction,” thereby
making it difficult for the uninformed reader to be sure of
much, except that the Bible is doubtlessly wrong.
On the level of the superficial plot that keeps the pages
turning, The Da Vinci Code argues that Jesus and Mary Magdalene
were lovers, had children, and a descendant of that biological
line presently lives in Paris. Elements within the Church will
kill to keep this secret from ever getting out. The novel
develops the theory that Mary was the apostle whom Jesus
intended to lead the church but was forced to flee to France to
escape the ire of her male colleagues. Amongst other
“revelations,” The Da Vinci Code claims the original church,
made up of Gnostic disciples, celebrated the worship of female
wisdom and practiced ritual sexuality. All this was replaced by
the macho-male-dominated church of later centuries, who
suppressed women, sex, and liberated spirituality.
In the history of the church, countless numbers of critics and
scoffers have written books that attempted to undermine and
debunk Christianity. Yet, none has received as much attention in
popular culture as The Da Vinci Code. Presently, there are over
seven million copies in print and an estimated 30 million
readers world-wide. According to a reliable report, it is even
being read in China. The book has been on the New York Times
bestseller list for over 63 consecutive weeks, and now we hear
that famed director, Ron Howard of A Beautiful Mind, is slated
to release a movie based on the book in 2005, with, it is
believed, Russell Crowe in the lead role. Millions of readers
are falling for Brown’s rhetoric. Many more will do the same
when they experience the persuasive power of Hollywood magic.
Why all the interest around this novel? In an interview with
People Magazine, I said that Brown’s novel is successful because
he touches a major fissure in contemporary American culture—that
of the fading Christian culture of the past and the rising
neo-pagan spirituality of America’s “bright” globalist future.
Since the 1960s, America has witnessed a revolution far more
powerful than the one that established this country as an
independent nation. The recent revolutionaries have cut us free
from our Christian-inspired past. In one generation, they have
established new and radical views of the family, education,
morals, marriage, sexuality, spirituality, and God. Darwinism
has eliminated the need of a Creator; feminism is slowly
executing Christ and God—the ultimate patriarchs. These views
have become the new politically-correct orthodoxy of the
cultural elite. Up until now, this revolutionary ideology had
generally remained within the ivory towers of academia, taught
with intellectual persuasiveness to your children in the privacy
of required classes. However, with Brown’s novel—and in spades,
with the eventual movie—this revolutionary agenda spills over
into the popular culture in a way no piece of academic
propaganda ever could. The church needs to be on guard.
Brown does two things which we have sought to counter in our
book. Negatively, he seeks to undermine Jesus, the Canon, and
the Gospel, using the “findings” of modern New Testament
“science.” Positively, he proposes a “new” spiritual agenda for
the “end of the days.”
Undermining Orthodox Christianity
In the past, our Christian witness was much simpler. The Bible
provided the overall framework for the way people thought. We
could cite the Bible as the clincher of our arguments, and
non-believers would either accept or reject the Bible’s
affirmations as applicable or not to their lives. They simply
identified themselves as “unbelievers.” Things are quickly
changing. Now we are all spiritual “believers” in one thing or
another, for there are various choices for the believing public.
This is the power of The Da Vinci Code. It relativizes the
biblical witness of Jesus. It claims as “fact” that the New
Testament is a secondary, later account; that the true Jesus was
a Gnostic; and that the earliest and most authentic “Christian”
writings were the Gnostic Gospel of Thomas and the hypothetical
document Q.
Listen to one of the main characters in The Da Vinci Code:
Many scholars claim that the early Church literally stole Jesus
from His original followers, hijacking His human message,
shrouding it in an impenetrable cloak of divinity, and using it
to expand their own power (233).
In other words, the biblical witness concerning Jesus is an
imposter—a later inaccurate composition created by macho,
patriarchal males who believed Jesus to be divine. The truth,
according to Brown, is that before the Council of Nicea in 325
AD, “Jesus was viewed by His followers as a...mortal…man” (232).
Dan Brown cleverly uses elements from the Jesus Seminar and the
radical wing of New Testament scholarship to argue that the
Bible is suspect and that we now have “secret scrolls” (the
Gnostic Gospels) that were suppressed by the Church. Brown
argues that these texts pre-date the Bible and give us the true
picture of Jesus—a mere human in love with Mary Magdelene, with
no sense of his death as an atonement for sin.
The early church faced the seductive power of the Gnostic texts
when they first appeared. Those same texts have been recently
discovered (in 1945 in Egypt) and translated into English. They
are now being used by apostate biblical scholars, radical,
goddess-worshiping feminist theologians, and now by Dan Brown’s
clever yarn, to undermine the very historicity of the New
Testament. Many now believe that this novel tells the truth
about Christianity and find in it a compelling reason to leave
the Church.
How should we respond? Here are a couple suggestions. We argue
that the Q/Thomas reconstruction of radical, pro-Gnostic
scholarship is overwhelmingly hypothetical and is far from
gaining anything close to a consensus, even among mainline
scholars. Moreover, an early Gnostic community could not have
predated the orthodox apostles. We show, for instance, that no
reputable scholar puts into question the early dates of the
apostle Paul. Saul was a contemporary of Jesus, converted around
35 AD, and wrote in the Forties and Fifties. In 1 Corinthians
15:3-5, Paul cites the earliest written form of the Gospel
(which came from Palestine), and this “creed” is in no sense
“Gnostic,” since it insists on the atoning death and
resurrection of Jesus “according to the Scriptures” which
Gnosticism denies.
We argue that from the beginning, the first disciples saw Jesus
as divine. Again, Paul is the king-pin of the argument. His
early writings, from the Forties and Fifties, show that the
divinity of Jesus is already a fundamental element of the
church’s faith. Most of the apostles gave their lives for that
faith, and there is a mass of evidence proving that the second
and third century Fathers confessed Jesus to be divine.
Therefore, the notion that the deity of Christ was first
introduced in 325 AD must be rejected.
Promotion of a “New” Spirituality
Brown’s “positive” approach is to resurrect what he calls
“pre-Christian” symbols and by them promote the ancient
spirituality of paganism. This is the worship of Nature as god.
The all-inclusive circle, “the divine feminine,” and the figure
of the goddess offer hope for the future of the planet in the
Age of Aquarius. He finds this new message encoded in the
architecture of Roslyn Chapel, which he calls “the Cathedral of
Codes” (432):
Each block [of the chapel] was carved with a symbol…to create a
multifaceted surface (436)…Christian cruciforms, Jewish stars,
Masonic seals, Templar crosses, cornucopias, pyramids,
astrological signs, plants, vegetables, pentacles and roses…Rosslyn
Chapel was a shrine to all faiths…to all traditions…and, above
all, to nature and the goddess (434).
The hero of the novel, Robert Langdon, appropriately a
forty-something handsome professor at Harvard, is exhorted in
terms missionary and prophetic: “We are beginning to sense the
need to restore the sacred feminine…Sing her song. The world
needs modern troubadours” (444).
Here is Brown’s deep code—the old, earlier, and authentic pagan
spirituality is now replacing its later “Christian” imposter.
Pre-Christian, peace-loving “matriarchal paganism” and the
“divine feminine” are displacing the inventions of our
power-hungry, macho fathers (124) and their violent “patriarchal
Christianity.” In short, the pre-Christian goddess is replacing
the God of the Bible. This, of course, was the “gospel” of
ancient Gnosticism, which, in its extreme forms, declared that
their goddess will cast the biblical God into hell. In The Da
Vinci Code the biblical God is cast into oblivion. He is never
mentioned.
On the internet, one can read many postings declaring that Dan
Brown’s novel “gave permission” to abandon biblical
Christianity. One sixteen year old girl said to a woman who was
attempting to share the Gospel: “The Da Vinci Code shows the
Bible is a fake. Besides, I feel very comfortable with the
spirituality I have discovered there. It fits me fine.” This
young woman has been affected by both elements of the novel. She
dismisses the Bible as bogus history, and she is a convert to
this “new spirituality”— the sad result of a powerful, double
whammy!
Conclusion
It is important to show that Brown’s novel is neither a piece of
harmless fiction nor a neutral, objective restatement of the
“facts.” His massive ideological agenda colors everything he
writes. People need to know that this is a propaganda piece for
Brown’s recently discovered spirituality. In order to be ready
to give a reason for the hope that is within us, it is my belief
that Christians need to read this novel to become acquainted
with what our neighbors are now believing. For when this novel
and its movie is finished with America, evangelism will never be
the same.
We can deplore the success of this anti-Christian propaganda and
race up the nearest mountain. But the “lie” always calls forth a
statement of “the truth.” This is the way the persecuted Church
throughout history has responded, not with flight but with
creeds, not with craven fear but with confessions, and not with
spiritual ghettos but with open theological argument. Actually,
Brown “gives permission” to raise the question of spirituality.
On a plane the other day, three women were reading his book
within the confines of 10C and 12F. It is easy to begin a
conversation on the nature of the Christian faith, and since
Brown’s account is so flawed, people can be moved by a
well-presented biblical defense of the facts. The Da Vinci Code
can be a wonderful occasion for evangelism.
Westminster Seminary California seeks to promote a responsible
theological answer to the neo-pagan threat in our time and point
people to the truth. May God grant us a revival of true faith
and courageous witness in these difficult times. Only a fully
biblical, reformed faith has the answer to the pagan challenge.
May we stand together to produce that response, strengthened by
the knowledge that we have not been given “a spirit of fear but
a spirit of power and love and self-control,” in order to “take
every thought captive to the obedience of Christ.”
Permissions: You are permitted to reproduce and distribute this material in
any format provided that you do NOT alter the wording in any
way and you do not charge a fee beyond the cost of
reproduction. For web posting, a link to this document on
our website is preferred. Any distributed copy must contain
the following statement: By [author's full name] ©
[date]
Westminster Seminary California.
Website: www.wscal.edu.
E-mail:
info@wscal.edu.
Phone: 888/480.8474
For Evangelium articles, the reproduced copy must contain:
"First published in Evangelium, Vol. 2, Issue 1 (Jan/Feb 2004)."
|
|
S. M. Baugh
R. Scott Clark
Iain M. Duguid
Bryan D. Estelle
W. Robert Godfrey
Michael S. Horton
Dennis E. Johnson
Hywel R. Jones
Peter R. Jones
Joel E. Kim
Julius J. Kim
George C. Scipione
Robert B. Strimple
David M. VanDrunen
|