Quote

"In the world it is called Tolerance, but in hell it is called Despair, the sin that believes in nothing, cares for nothing, seeks to know nothing, interferes with nothing, enjoys nothing, hates nothing, finds purpose in nothing, lives for nothing, and remains alive because there is nothing for which it will die."

-Dorothy Sayers

The DaVinci Opportunity

Since the release of The DaVinci Code a cultural phenomenon has erupted over the contents of this unoriginal novel. An array of books has been published to refute the claims of Dan Brown’s book. From Breaking the DaVinci Code, and The DaVinci Deception, to The DaVinci Myth, and Dan Brown is the Devil (okay, I made that last one up), more ink has been spilled over this book than any novel in recent memory. With the release of the movie, the rhetoric will only increase.

What is the Biblical response of Christians to this attempt to undermine our beliefs? Do we boycott the book/movie, crying “heresy” and preventing anyone from exposure to the lies and shady historical claims of the author? Is the modern Church strong enough to withstand this assault on our beliefs?

There are many nuances to this debate, but at least we are having a cultural discussion about Christ, which is always good. Heretical claims have been brought against the truths of scripture for thousands of years. As clever a writer as Dan Brown is, his ideas are not new. When claims against the deity of Christ arose in the past, what was the reaction of the Church? Historically, as was the case with the Council of Nicea, the Church came together and reaffirmed the doctrines of Christianity based on a commitment to the foundations of the faith. The fear of the modern church is that those Christians who see the movie or read the book will not know enough about their own faith to gauge accurately as false the claims of The DaVinci Code. The question is, “Whose fault is that?” Is it the fault of Dan Brown that we have an ignorant mass of sheep in our churches? Is it the fault of Ron Howard or Tom Hanks that new believers could not know fact from fiction? How is a boycott of the book/movie going to fix the real problem of ignorant Christians? If the Church did its job and educated the body, we would have no more reason to fear a book like The DaVinci Code than a book claiming the sky is red.

The second point is that while we do not believe the claims of The DaVinci Code, vilifying the author or the actors in the movie is a waste. Why are we surprised when individuals who are not believers act in ways consistent with that unbelief? Would we be furious if a blind man steps on our toe? Of course not, but we are furious when individuals who have not had their eyes opened to the truth of the Gospel insult or act in ways inconsistent with the Gospel. The DaVinci Code is not Dan Brown’s biggest problem, nor is it what is separating him from God; it is Mr. Brown’s unbelief in the Gospel. I do not hate Dan Brown; I am sad that he continues in his unbelief, and I have no reason to believe a boycott of his book is going to change his mind. Therefore, the Church should strive to educate the flock and pray for the lost. Boycotts do not change hearts.

Ground to stand on

There is a story I heard once about a scientist who told God, “Mankind does not need you, we can create from the dust of the earth. We can even create humans better than you!” To which God replied, “Okay, you’re on.” The scientist reached down to pick up a handful of dirt, and God quickly interrupted “Uh-uh, you get your own dirt.”

This story holds a much deeper truth than is initially evident. The common response of the non-believer, when challenged about the existence of God is, “Prove it.” This challenge has precipitated the study of apologetics by many Christians, in an effort to “prove” the validity of our belief system. The danger that many apologists face is to allow the non-believer to utilize science, reason, and logic against the Christian intellectual position. This is impossible for the non-believer. The use of reason and logic by the non-believer to try to discredit the philosophy of the believer is akin to taking a pen and paper and writing an argument against the existence of ink. The very fact that reason and logic exist is proof of an objective reality. The naturalistic viewpoint argues that the entire cosmos is a product of random chance. Isn’t random chance the basis of evolution? How did the scientist arrive at that conclusion? Was it through a scientific method, based on the rules of reason and logic? Science is based on experiments that are repeatable and observable. If everything were random, and not guided by objective laws, nothing would be repeatable (this also shows the struggle of science to prove or disprove the past, but that is for another posting). The believer has sole authority to use reason and logic, for it is only through a presupposition of order and design that reason and logic are used. The non-believer has a philosophy that is fundamentally flawed, and is irreparable, unless objective truth is conceded. The mind of the unbeliever is in need of regeneration. It is not merely a matter of two competing arguments; there really is no ground on which the non-believer can base an argument. The mind of the non-believer is in complete opposition to the truth of the Gospel. It is only belief in the God of the scriptures that man is able to see clearly the world around him.

Science and logic have many uses, but science will never be able to answer the greatest questions regarding the meaning of life. Science is not equipped to answer these questions, and the unbelieving man will search in vain to find them. It is only through faith in Christ that science can accomplish its purpose, to glorify and honor the Creator.