
I wasn't planning on getting involved in the Da Vinci Code hype mostly because I find fiction novels really boring and also because I feel like I'm wasting my time by engrossing myself in an imaginary world. However, a couple weeks ago, I went on a road trip to MN with some friends, and while driving through ND I suddenly realized that I was incredibly bored and hadn't remembered to bring any books along. The Da Vinci Code had managed to make its way along on the trip via a friend, so it was either the Da Vinci Code or the mighty plains of North Dakota...
Ah, yes, another lively spark of controversy to arouse the Christian community.
When I hear talk of people's faith 'being challenged' or people 'losing their faith' over this novel, it makes me wonder what faith they are talking about? What is this faith that is being lost and challenged? Faith in parents' beliefs? Faith in friends' beliefs? Faith in a little set of rules from church?
Check it out:
The very core of who I am and the life that I live is this: I believe that Jesus Christ was born c. 2000 years ago and that he was God in human flesh. I believe that before he ascended back to heaven he was crucified on a cross and laid in a tomb for three days before coming back to life to prove his divinity. Did the Da Vinci Code rock my fragile, little world by challenging my belief in this?
Before answering that, let’s go back to why I believe such a crazy supernatural event actually happened. Seriously, what the flip would possess someone to believe that somebody could bring himself back from the dead? Do I believe that Jesus rose from the dead because my parents told me that he did? I used to. But then I discovered that most people usually don’t come back alive after dying.
I like reading about history. That’s the way most people learn about history—by reading. When people read about Julius Caesar’s assassination, Alexander’s conquests, or Nero’s insanity, how often do they ask themselves, “Did this really happen or is history a big conspiracy?” Usually, people don’t question whether or not Alexander the Great conquered the Persian Empire. Mostly because it has no relevance in most people’s daily activities. Does it matter if Julius Caesar actually said “Et tu, Brute?”? If he actually
didn’t say that, I will not change even a single thing about myself and the way I live because it means nothing to me and most other people. Another reason people don’t question it is because it’s not hard to believe. Assassinations happen, friends can betray, generals can conquer—nothing too difficult to wrap our minds around.
So then we’ve got the gospels of Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John. Not only do they center around an outrageous claim that Jesus rose from the dead, but, if true, it has a drastic significance to the way a person acts, thinks, believes. People don’t like ripples in their little pool of comfort. If Jesus actually rose from the dead, it means there’s a world outside of the little pool, a world outside of self—it gives evidence for a concept that we’re taught to avoid at all costs, the unthinkable: Truth.
So, basically, as with just about every belief about the past, about politics, about philosophy, about life in general; theories are the underlying matter—the building blocks of beliefs and ideals. All we have is theories. Whoever says evolution is a fact is absurd. Whoever says scientific methods can prove an intelligent Creator is mistaken. All that exists on mankind’s paper are theories drawn from evidence we can see and touch and smell. And with enough faith, any theory is possible.
I would say that, hands down, the best theory about the gospels in the Bible is that they are incredibly historically reliable according to the criteria for which historical credibility is evaluated. I was going to go in depth about the criteria that credibility entails, but that information has been already composed in a bunch of other, more reliable places than this blogsite. But I would just like to mention that these theories explain a whole gamut of deep questions humanity longs to answer. They explain life on a
philosophical plane, which includes the questions of good and evil, the purpose of life, the origin of evil. They explain the
psychological nature of humanity, such as why humans long to be valued and how this affects the way we treat each other. As far as
sociology goes, the gospels give us awesome guidelines to live by. Seeing everyone as equal and being a servant to others—it’s something that’s only talked about. Would wars happen if people followed these guidelines?
Historically, it checks out—the places, the people, the events. One could argue that these theories fail the test of science. But to be able to truly do that one would have to prove that the supernatural does not exist. I don’t know why people are so quick to claim miracles can’t happen just because they themselves haven’t observed any. Do they think that their little world is the universal world and that they are the omniscient deity? And some of them like claiming
others are close-minded…?
Anyway, like I said, any theory is possible. Obviously, the implication is that, though any theory is possible, not any theory is true. This is why I think it is extremely important that our theories be very carefully evaluated.
Herein lies the problem: people are often too engrossed in their own lifestyles/desires/etc. to even possess a desire to genuinely evaluate the validity of their own personal theories. Of course the thought of everybody having an own personal truth is attractive. What’s not to like about it? Everybody is happy then, right? Happy—and intellectually lazy (generalizations again).
Back to Da Vinci Code:
My world was not rocked in the slightest by the Da Vinci Code theory. Mostly because this theory is complete bull-honkey. If you doubt, then go find any articles on the authenticity of the Da Vinci Code claims. Newsweek will do—I read that the other day. I apologize, but I don’t see how a person who accepts the claims of the Da Vinci Code as truth can be identified as anyone other than a fickle and ignorant person who could actually care less about real, factual history.
This “losing faith” deal wouldn’t be an issue if the faith was built on a real relationship with the living Jesus Christ. And I’d just like to say that I
hope those other faiths are lost, because they are empty. If a faith is built on anything other than a genuine yearning for truth—a yearning without protective walls on all sides of self, but one that is willing to abandon self in the name of truth, if required—then this faith is only a shallow belief system that will never quit tossing with the wind and the waves.
That is why I think this whole Da Vinci craze will be a good event for the church in the long run. I hope it will force the Christian culture to delve into its roots and find truth, rather than continuing in a formulized way of living, or
religion, void of relational dependence on God. My hope is that Jesus will become more than a philosophical idea to set at ease a psychological need, more than an mere “embodiment of goodness” to make us behave, more than a bedtime story for little kids. Who knows, maybe through this Da Vinci Code thing, the Church will find Jesus Christ, the true and Living God.