So, I went to see the Da Vinci Code this weekend with some friends and the verdict is...well...it was alright as far as entertainment value. I believe that it did firmly prove that having Tom Hanks in your movie does not guarantee success. Even the great Tom Hanks needs lines that have sentences longer than 5 words. Some of the lines felt like they belonged in a Star Wars movie(newer ones). As far as the theology goes, I'm still not sure how some of the lines were pulled off with a straight face....but whatever. I had the opportunity to share the gospel this week in Panera Bread company with guy and the conversation started because of the book. I can't complain when a book (even a messed-up one) provides an opportunity for a spiritual conversation.
But, here's a question that does seem to keep coming up in one way or another and I'd love to hear what others have to say. I've been studying a document put out by some highly respected pastors/professors who want to draw a line on what the gospel is truly about. You can check out this document on www.togetherforthegospel.org and go to the 'about' section. I haven't had too many issues with it but I did have some questions on the very first one. Here is article 1:
Article I
We affirm that the sole authority for the Church is the Bible, verbally inspired, inerrant, infallible, and totally sufficient and trustworthy.
We deny that the Bible is a mere witness to the divine revelation, or that any portion of Scripture is marked by error or the effects of human sinfulness.
So, if we take this Scripture seriously, then Jesus has been given ALL authority over heaven and earth which include the church. Does he exercise this authority through Scripture? Absolutely, but it seems like an important nuance to me that isn't mentioned. Lest anyone think, I just took one verse to prove my point, one should also see Romans 13:1, John 19:11, as well as Philippians 2:9-11 to name a few. It seems like Sciptures makes the point very clear that all authority has been given to Jesus. (highly ironic, I think) Even John in the first chapter talks about the Word being there in the beginning and the Word was made flesh. Therefore the authority of Scripture should possibly be reworded as God's authority exercised through His inspired Word.
The only other issue which makes me just a little nervous is the denial part that no Scripture is marked by human error. I think I know what they are trying to say(and would agree with it) but people could see some insuations that maybe they shouldn't. For example, it doesn't mean that people's sinfulness could not hinder a translation of a proper reading of the text. Also, what do you do with simple things like in I Samuel where numbers are simply missing because we don't have them anymore. I know these are small issues but are still worth mentioning if we are talking about a total agreement with every statement in the declaration.
AGAIN, let me say that I deeply respect the guys that put this document together and I know I'm being a bit nitpicky. BUT, any time you draw a line in the sand, it's a pretty big deal- especially when you are talking about the Gospel. I'm open to pushback and debate. Bring it on!!! :)
Posts
16 comments:
i wish you had posted this, one week from today...why, because i'll be working on a paper all this week. I've already delayed getting to it posting with Matt on this blog. So...unless you get a ton of activity...Next Monday...I'll be diving in with a response. ;-)
I suppose it depends on how literally you take the Bible.
I've known some pastors and lay Christians to insist the Bible is accurate in every detail, utterly authoritative in matters of history and science, and so on. I consider that a mistake.
The Bible is what it is -- a collection of divinely inspired stories that relate the transcendent glory and majesty of God, that reveal his desire for the nations, and that recount his plan of salvation.
But while it's invaluable for history and literature, to insist that it is the last word on history or science is to ascribe a 20th-century modernist attitude to its authors. Given that the ancient Hebrews didn't take its story literally, and given that the accounts often differ in the order of events, provide conflicting details within parallel passages, and -- in the case of Deuteronomy and Exodus -- can't even always agree on how to perform the same sacrifice, I think we often are guilty of forcing Scripture to be something that it is not.
It is all the things that Peter said it is in his epistle -- God-breathed, inspired and useful for many purposes. Reading through it and experiencing the turmoil and tumult of its stories, the beauty of its poetry and the brilliance of its wisdom -- and most of all, encountering the God revealed within its pages -- is a radically life-changing experience.
I figured I would step back from this to see what some other people said. David has pretty much said exactly what I would say. I guess I, as a "late-modernist," have a hard time believing that the writer's own theologies, opinions, and world views are not conveyed in the words they wrote. Therefore, I cannot accept that every word was written as if God Himself spoke them. I give scripture authority, because I do believe that the authors were intimate with God, often times much more intimate than I ever will be with my creator. I also believe that living through miracles such as having scales on your eyes or living with the Christ, Jesus, will give you authority as one that saw God's hand directly. I've had this "conversation" way too much, so I'm not really feeling like continuing, but I think you get the point.
As far as the Da Vinci Code goes, let me say this...
I am so freaking tired of the church reacting to one fad after another, as though the new trendy movie, book or other gimmick is the magic bullet that will bring everyone to Christ. This year it's the "Da Vinci Code." Last year it was "The Lion, the Witch and the Wardrobe." Two years ago, it was "The Passion of the Christ."
Here we are, three movies, the Prayer of Jabez, WWJD bracelets and God Only Knows what else later, and the church is still missing the point and failing radically to engage the culture.
If we want to engage the culture and the people who live in it, we need to forget the Fad Du Jour and start showing the gospel's relevance to things that actually matter to people, rather than to things that tickle their fancy for an hour or two.
To wit: What relevance does Christ have to a family with gainful employment and no drug addictions, but still has trouble putting food on the table and paying the rent? What matters the gospel to a nation with zero savings, skyrocketing fuel costs and an economic bubble sure to break in the next ten years? What point in believing in Jesus when people are dying in Iraq and Afghanistan, when leaders jockey for power without regard for anything more than political convenience, and when all the major religious leaders can do is to moralize and blame homosexuals and abortionists for the state of the nation?
It's a sad day for us all if we're looking to the Da Vinci Code to give us opportunities to share the reasons for the hope that we have.
By the way, Matt, you need to stop agreeing with me so much, or people are going to realize we're really the same person.
What a great idea...choose several screen names and act like you have a lot of people to back you up. It's brilliant...maybe I should try it:)
Ha, ha! I'm actually presently surprised that we agree so much on so many different issues. Again, I agree on your last post as well :P
I think it's fear of what will happen if we truly engage culture that keeps "the church" scraping with such lackluster pop-culture issues such as the ones you mentioned.
Back at CHRefugee, a Christian humor forum I used to frequent, we came to the conclusion that everyone who participates in Internet forums is actually the same person.
This person, whom we identified as Fred Millicent of Omaha, Neb., is the archetypal loser who lives in his mother's basement and surfs the Internet in his underwear. Now in his early to mid-40s, Fred goes online and pretends to be other people in order to get his kicks. Unfortunately he doesn't quite have the hang of it, and everybody he meets and talks with online is really just another of his online personas.
Maybe it's a solipsist quandary common to us all, or maybe it's just a recognition of the facility with which you can violate the trust that's essential to the web, but everyone who takes part in these things gets the idea immediately.
(But of course you know all this already. You're Fred.)
Oh, and Matt ...
These aren't the droids you're looking for.
But on a more serious note and more on topic with the conversation...I wish I could share both of your optimisms that the Da Vinci code is just a fad like the Passion and Chronicles. There are a couple of key differences. One, the passion was nothing new when it came out...just a really bad lens at looking at the New Testament that came from the midievil period's preoccupation with focusing on the suffering of Christ as opposed to His actual life. And Narnia was...well Narnia. The thing that strikes me a little differently about Da Vinci is that it really isn't about the movie at all. It's about what has been circulating in academia for the last 15 years and now has finally made it's way to the popular culture. Now, do I think that in a year the Da Vinci code will be a memory? Absolutely, but the fact still remains that it was a vehicle that brought what was taking place in the pseudo-scholarly world and introducing to a popular audience. This is why I do think it's important that Christians are educated enough to dialogue intelligently on these issues.
Having said all that, I am always amazed how when the Gospel involves meeting real needs, the concerns over theology become so secondary as to be just a small hurdle for "hearing" of the Gospel.
I will say I don't mind when ANYTHING, even an average(or below average) move, gives us an opportunity to share the good news. What was it Paul said? He didn't even care about the motivations of the people giving the Gospel...just so long as it was being preached.
Tim,
I agree completely that CHristians should know more about our religion -- what the Bible does and doesn't say, what the core doctrines of the faith are, and of course some actual church history. I've encountered this "Your canon was all picked just to control people" silliness behind the Da Vinci Code dozens of times, not just in college but since then as well. It's never rattled me that much because I've taken the time to learn some of the church history for myself, and I wish more people would do that too.
Still, I don't think the DVC represents any new breakthrough or breakout of thinking about the gospels in popular thought. This stuff has been floated before in popular books, and while there are always some people who find it enticing, my general impression is that people by and large are too bombarded with information to really absorb it, and too absorbed with things they consider important to really care.
Personally, I think it's great when pop and high culture leads to discussions of deeper matters, and I welcome those opportunities when they come along. My concern is when churches hype the pop culture moment past the point of reason -- i.e., buying out complete showings of a movie -- and when they fear it beyond all common sense. We serve a God whose music sets the stars to dancing, whose whispers can fell empires and whose heart has changed billions of lives. Do we really expect that his purposes will be thwarted simply because the cashier at J.C. Penney says "Happy holidays" or because Ron Howard made a second-rate movie based on a second-rate book by Dan Brown? Sounds like poppycock to me.
yo, just to let you guys know, I was pretty stoked about digging into to some good discussion on the Word...but was was a little put off when I found out Matt was two people. Now I'm lol about it. I may get to come up there in Nov with the SS class from FBC Clarksville. We'll see.
FTW
I'm definitely not smart enough to be "marauder" :)
And I'm not young enough to be Matt. So there you have it: We're so obviously different people, we must be the same guy, QED.
You did not see tthe DaVinci code this week, or last week, or even LAST MONTH, so I definitely think it's time for you to update your blog!
:-)
I read the book and thought it was good. Entertaining and provocative. Thing is, when people start using movies, books, televangelists, ect. to bolster their opinions about the "truth" of the Bible or God, it makes Christianity look like its weak. We dont need to be constantly defending ourselves and our God to people who maybe arent even challenging us in the first place. Heck, we might as well kick it old school and start playing our records backwards again. What is so good about this movie is its making people question what they belive. I think thats a really good thing. The more questions we ask, the more the truth reveals itself.
(and by we, I mean us as Christians.
Post a Comment