Christians and the "Code"

A friend of mine gave me a copy of The Da Vinci Code. So, in light of all the (now bad) press for the movie and the fact that it's the best selling work of fiction ever (and no, Sir Ian McKellen, I'm not referring to the Bible), I read it, hoping to understand why it's such a phenomenon and what all the fuss is about. And by the way, I took this picture last year completely unaware that just a few yards in front of me lay buried the Holy Grail. What was I thinking...had I simply realized the great pyramid in front of me contained 666 pieces of glass and that Mitterand was in a secret society that protected, well, secrets, and that the curator of the Louvre was really good at anagrams. . .

But back to real reality. Having read it, I very much understand at one level why it would cause a fuss. I still, though, don't understand why it's the hit that it is. Sure, it's page-turning suspensful, but so are a lot of other airport books. There's hardly any character development, no psychological intrigue, and the plot is too predictable. Dan Brown occasionally bores the reader by needlessly explaining tid bits like the Fibinocci sequence. It's as though he's assuming the reader lacks a certain modicum of intelligence (and given the 40 plus million who've bought the book, maybe he's on to something). I have no interest or intention of ever paying to see the movie.

As to the fuss, I understand it. Of course it's a work of fiction. But in the fictional reality of this novel, Christ was but a man who, although lived a profoundly moral life, was nevertheless not divine. He died and to this day remains dead. Furthermore, the Bible itself is spoken of as nothing more than a collection of false tales and myths hand picked by "the pagan Roman emperor Constantine the Great."

Chills should run through any Christian when the divinty of Chirst or the authority of the Bible is questioned or denied--regardless of the genre or medium. So, yeah, I understand the fuss. To counter by saying that it's just a work of fiction, that Christians should be strong enough in their faith so as not to be upset by a novel completely misses the point. The issue isn't so much the impact the book has on the life or faith of a believer in Christ. What's so important is the influence the book may have (recall again it's massive worldwide appeal) on those who don't associate themselve with Christianity or those who nominally call themselves Christian but for all practical purposes are completely secular (think Europe). For these people, such an appealing work of modern culture is in a prime position to influence their thoughts on Christianity.

I write all this to say this: I believe that the Christian's response to this book and movie should not be shrill or bombastic. Nor should the Christian be unconcerned about the popularity of the book or the book's anti-Christian premise. To state it in the positive, a Christian must be prepared to declare the truth about the gospel of Christ and the real hope that is Christianity. This must be done, though, with humility and respect. In other words, I Peter 3:15. That's my hope anyway--that all the hullabaloo surrounding The Da Vinci Code will prompt the Church to shore up on apologetics and to pursue all the open doors of dialogue this cultural sensation will produce. And, Lord willing, the church will be larger and stronger for it.

100 Million and Counting?

The Heritage Foundation released a study that should give every American pause. Here's the first paragraph:

If enacted, the Comprehensive Immigration Reform Act (CIRA, S.2611) would be the most dramatic change in immigration law in 80 years, allowing an estimated 103 million persons to legally immigrate to the U.S. over the next 20 years—fully one-third of the current population of the United States.

The Politics of Right and Wrong

In a recent essay, Time's Andrew Sullivan had the following to say:

So let me suggest that we take back the word Christian while giving the religious right a new adjective: Christianist. Christianity, in this view, is simply a faith. Christianism is an ideology, politics, an ism. The distinction between Christian and Christianist echoes the distinction we make between Muslim and Islamist. Muslims are those who follow Islam. Islamists are those who want to wield Islam as a political force and conflate state and mosque. Not all Islamists are violent. Only a tiny few are terrorists. And I should underline that the term Christianist is in no way designed to label people on the religious right as favoring any violence at all. I mean merely by the term Christianist the view that religious faith is so important that it must also have a precise political agenda. It is the belief that religion dictates politics and that politics should dictate the laws for everyone, Christian and non-Christian alike.

That's what I dissent from, and I dissent from it as a Christian. I dissent from the political pollution of sincere, personal faith. I dissent most strongly from the attempt to argue that one party represents God and that the other doesn't. I dissent from having my faith co-opted and wielded by people whose politics I do not share and whose intolerance I abhor. The word Christian belongs to no political party. It's time the quiet majority of believers took it back.

I agree with Mr. Sullivan that the word Christian belongs to no political party (as if a word could belong to anyone). But I couldn't disagree more with his underlying thesis, namely that one should keep his religion seperated from his politics. It's not surprising, then, that I can't agree more with my brother-in-law's response to Sullivan's essay:

I am appalled at Andrew Sullivan’s subtle attempt to compare the Christian Right with Islamic extremists in his article “My Problem with Christianism.” Christianity and Islam are two separate religions with a separate set of beliefs and ways to respond to the world. It was a lowball and unfair move by Sullivan to make that comparison. With that said, Sullivan falls into the same trap he preaches against with his incorrect categorization of the majority of Christians. He describes Christians based on his own views of religion and politics. It is obvious Sullivan is no student of church history and the Bible, which is our objective standard for how we interact in this world.

The Bible tells us as Christians we are Christ’s ambassadors. This means there should be no separation between our religious life and our public life. Jesus and our early church founders (Peter, James, John, Paul etc.) are perfect examples. Their public life was a living mirror of their inner religious life, so much so that the governments of their time persecuted and killed them out of fear of what they were doing to public opinion. Church history is filled with examples of Christians whose religion “dictated their politics.” And what were those counter cultural issues they took a stand on in their public lives? The same moral issues that many in the Christian Right represent today. I believe Sullivan’s assessment of today’s evangelicals is wrong. As one of the thousands of evangelical Christians in America I am glad to carry on the tradition of our fathers in having my faith dictate my political views.

Joel M. Borkert

Well said. I recently had a conversation with a 1L in lawschool. The subject eventually turned to politics and this individual said, "I just can't believe how President Bush tries to impose his morality on everybody. Don't you find that wrong?" My response went something like this: I don't think the issue is George Bush imposing his morality. I don't see how any politician (or anyone for that matter) can come to any political conclusion without moral considerations guiding him. Republicans AND Democrats base all their decisions to some degree or another on their moral framework. It's just that different moral paradigms are at play. Our politics reflect our values, and our values are formed by our moral considerations. Those moral considerations are ultimately going to be consistent with and dependent upon our religious faith, whatever it may be.

This student I talked with and Mr. Sullivan both suffer from the same self-righteous illusion that they are the objective, enlightend ones, capable of divorcing their personal, private faith from their public political positions. The fact of the matter, though, is that if we're to be spiritually and intellectually honest, we can't simultaneously believe in the virtue of our faith if we advocate political positions that run counter to it. Such a truth respects no party line.

Cool Comet

I haven't had a chance to spot Comet Schwassmann-Wachmann 3, but I'm hoping the sky cooperates tonight. I thought the above photo of the comet is stunning.

Sick Elephant

Peggy Noonan argues that it may take a GOP defeat in November to remind the Republican's of what the voters really want. I think she's right. It's also possible that two years of Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi might be enough to ensure that a majority of American's won't even think about voting for a Democrat in the 2008 Presidential election.

Shame on US

It looks like the US is going to soften its stand and, in conjunction with the EU and Russia, cave in and allow money to be channeled to the terrorist run Palestinian government. Stupid stupid stupid. You'd think after 9/11 we'd learn that giving money to a state of blood thirsty self combusting savages who's stated goal is the elimination of the state of Israel is a bad idea.

Of course, knee-jerk reaction aside, the concern is that but for the foreign aid to the Hamas led government, civil war will break out in the West Bank and Gaza and that this would be bad for, well, everyone. Maybe so. But as long as the US and the rest of the world holds the hands of the Palestinians, they are never going to learn responsible government. Elections have consequences, we're fond of saying. The Palestinians elected a terrorist organization to run their government. I think, practically speaking, (admittedly not politically speaking) the best thing to do is let them reach a breaking point--a point where they realize their real problems aren't Israel and the US but their own leaders who use Islam, corruption, and popular ignorance to divert attention away from themeselves and on to easier, more convenient scapegoats. Why take responsibility when they can rewrite history, play the helpless victim card and demand that they be taken seriously while plotting to blow up malls and pizza parlors?

It's worked so far. And we're not any closer to making them realize it's not a prudent course of action.

Here's Big Lizard's take on things...

87% was a B- in grade school...

One more reason why 60-plus Republican Senators would be nice: What's Behind the New Fight over Judges