CYPRESSWOOD CHURCH OF CHRIST
May 28, 2006
www.geocities.com/adon77373/cypresswoodbulletin.htm
MEMORIAL DAY TOMORROW: REMEMBER!
LIFT UP THE FOLLOWING IN PRAYER:
Our congregation Our nation, military and leaders
Various friends, relatives and co-workers James and Leon in the military
Bob Stolte is in the hospital
EVENTS: Summer Youth Series (7 pm)
June 5 - Memorial (Zambian Vocal Group) July 10 - West Houston (Harding)
June 12 - Sugar Grove (Pepperdine) July 17 - First Colony (LCU - Rob Duncan)
June 19 - Kingwood (OCU) July 24 - Bammel (Lipscomb)
June 26 - Huntsville July 31 - Southeast (ACU/Acappella)
THE DA VINCI CODE
(part 2)
“What has been will be again, what has been done will be done again; there is nothing new under the sun” (Ecclesiastes 1:9).
Solomon was right, “there is nothing new under the sun.” What is seen as theology in The Da Vinci Code comes from the Gnostics of the second and third centuries. Both John and Paul faced these ideas in infant forms in Asia Minor (see John’s writings and Colossians). Because many today are not familiar with history, and church history in particular, this all sounds new and interesting. While we do not need to be experts in church history, we can understand the basics of Gnostic teachings and how to address them from scripture.
Both the book and the movie have been considered a number of things by Bible believers; heresy, paganism, false teachings, etc. While these are fair descriptions, just stating this will not convince people of the problems associated with the book and film. What we need to do is to show where some of this is leading.
The first problem, and the most important, is that of the view of Jesus. The book has one character stating that everything we were taught or know about Jesus is wrong. The “holy grail” in the book relates to the idea that Jesus did not die on the cross, but ended up marrying Mary Magdalene, having a child, and living in France. Another idea is that knowing He was going to die, Jesus sent Mary and the child away. If there is no death of Jesus then there is no resurrection and no salvation. The appeal of this approach is a crossless view that basically states that we can find our own way to heaven through the “holy grail” and the “sacred feminine.”
This is not the first or only time the death and resurrection has been questioned. Even in the first century we see this happening. That is why much time is spent on the purpose of the life, death and resurrection of Jesus. We can boil it down to the fact that God wanted to reconcile His creation to Himself and did so through the atoning sacrifice of Jesus Christ. Jesus Himself stated that He came to ransom humankind (Mark 10:45) and Paul states that He was a sin offering for us (2 Corinthians 5:21). Found in Christ are such things as forgiveness, redemption, justification, and reconciliation.
How Gnostics see God affects many teachings. Gnostics do not believe that a holy God would have created matter, matter being evil. It is clear from various texts that God created the world and that Jesus, being God, was involved in that (see Genesis 1:1; Colossians 1:15). God is actively involved in His creation, seeking to reconcile not just humankind but creation itself (see Romans 8:22-25). The Gnostics have a god that is unknowable, unattainable, and uninvolved. That is not what we read in scripture.
The rejection of the death and resurrection of Jesus ignores the evidence found in scripture itself, that is, in the twenty seven books we call the New Testament. Luke writes both as a physician and historian of people, places, events, geography, culture, and religious themes that were, and are, well known both then and now. In examining both the death and resurrection of Jesus, we have eyewitnesses who saw both events. They saw Jesus die, the soldier spearing Him, the grave and preparations made, and the stone rolled in front of the tomb. And they saw the empty tomb and eyewitnesses (some 500 - 1 Corinthians 15) saw the risen, flesh and blood Savior. They saw Him eat in their presence and they touched Him.
We have been done a disservice by The Jesus Seminar when many of them talk about a “spiritual” but not physical resurrection. They see the Gospel of Thomas and its Gnostic teachings as equal to Matthew, Mark, Luke and John, which has led them to deny the physical resurrection and the purposes behind it. Over the last decade or so, these ideas have been getting press play by a press that has no idea of the differences in theology between Gnosticism, liberal theology and Bible believers.
The Gnostic texts that are the bases of The Da Vinci Code are at best incomplete. Portions of the texts are missing and scholars supply words, but some of that are assumptions. To build a theology on such assumptions is a dangerous affair. It is assumed that Jesus kissed Mary but that is information that is supplied by the translator.
Historically, the Gospels of Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John have been considered true because they were widely circulated, were known very early in the church fathers writings, and those who had connections with the apostle John confirmed them. The gospels of the book and film, and Gnosticism, all were from the middle of the second century and beyond. There were none in competition with the Four; for all the gospels found such as the Gospel of Mary, the Gospel of Judas, etc., came later. In other words, they were not contemporaries with the first century.
Part of the emphases in the book and film is the “sacred feminine.” The theme is that the early church, being dominated by men, rejected any role of women in the church and therefore destroyed the records of these important people. While there might be some truth in this, as least in the interpretation, the Gnostic texts are not supportive of this idea. Some of those texts suggest that women should in some way be transformed into men in order to be fully accepted to what ever god they are looking to. What we see in the Gnostic texts are more pagan ideas of women than Biblical, with witches, high priestesses, and rituals.
Dan Brown states as true, among other things, the rituals mentioned in the book. Again, one can see more paganism in this wrapped in Christian terms. Even today, opponents of historic Christianity often use Biblical terms but redefine them. As mentioned earlier, The Jesus Seminar believes in a resurrection that is spiritual but not physical. The God of the Old Testament is a God of wrath while the God of the New Testament is a God of love. Those who say such things have not been careful in their reading of either testament, having missed the love and gracious activity in the Old and the coming judgment in the New. We live in a society that redefines words to avoid facing the consequences of actions.
In this whole thing, the rejection of the atoning sacrifice of Jesus for our sins, that fact that we need a Savior because we could not save ourselves (see the past articles on “Lost Sheep, Lost Coins, and Lost Sons), is the theme of scripture. There is great appeal to the idea that if I do this and that, I will save myself, and do not need a god of any kind to do so. Unfortunately, this self-seeking idea is seen in too many areas that claim Christianity. The health and wealth preachers emphasize this in a dangerous cycle that if you are blessed, God has blessed you and if you give, you will be blessed more, and when you reach your potential, you will be happy. But when their world crashes, they have no foundation to draw on. In a do-it-yourself society, The Da Vinci Code has great appeal. Combine that with the general distrust and suspicion of the formal religion, then the “divine spark within the self” finds support of for “the king of piety endemic to America” (1).
There have been a number of books in recent months that address both the book and the film from a Biblical perspective. Books by Ben Wittenington, Darrell Bock, Josh McDowell and Lee Strobel are worth looking at (2). Let me say, we do not have to panic about all of this. Yes there are some dangerous ideas involved, but we can approach people with the idea of showing that the God and Father of the Lord Jesus Christ wants an intimate relationship with all, and it doesn’t require secret codes, special knowledge, nor strange rituals. That might be the reason why people are drawn to The Da Vinci Code, rather than the simplicity of immersion into Christ. He has made it clear in scripture what He wants through faith in His Son.
George B. Mearns
(1) Richard Vara and Tara Dooley, “Gnostic Gospels one key to Da Vinci Code origins,” Houston Chronicle, 5/22/06.
(2) Here is a list of books that might be helpful in dealing with the book using various types of evidence for
the accuracy of the Bible in general and the New Testament in particular. If interested, picking up one
or two of these can be helpful.
Ken Boa, The Gospel According to the Da Vinci Code, B&H, 2006.
Darrell Bock, Breaking the Da Vinci Code, 2004.
James Garlow and Peter Jones, Cracking the Da Vinci‘s Code, 2004.
James Garlow, The Da Vinci Code Breaker, Bethany House, 2006 (dictionary of terms).
Michael Green, The Books The Church Suppressed, Monarch Books, 2005 (on church history).
Hank Hanegraaff and Paul Meier, The Da Vinci Fact or Fiction?, Tyndale, 2004 (history).
Josh McDowell, The Da Vinci Code A Quest for Answers, 2006.
Peter Jones, Stolen Identity, Victor, 2006 (on Gnosticism and paganism).
Erwin Lutzer, The Da Vinci Deception, Tyndale, 2004.
Lee Strobel and Garry Poole, Exploring the Da Vinci Code, 2006.
Ben Wittenington, The Gospel Code, 2004 (on theology).