Wednesday, September 30, 2009

The Lost Symbol: Is Brown’s Latest Book The Da Vinci Code part 2?

The Lost Symbol: Is Brown’s Latest Book The Da Vinci Code part 2?

Review and analysis by Craig A. Smith

When the author of The Da Vinci Code writes a new book, people take notice. The marketing department at Doubleday is depending on this fact to sell Dan Brown’s new novel. In fact, if you look at the back of The Lost Symbol, you won’t find a single endorsement of the book itself. Instead, you’ll see rave reviews for The Da Vinci Code!

Building on the success of The Da Vinci Code is understandable. After all, that book was an international sensation, selling more than 45 million copies. Will The Lost Symbol be as popular? Probably not, nor will it generate the kind of controversy that Brown’s last work stirred up.

The Lost Symbol features the main character from both The Da Vinci Code and Angels & Demons: Robert Langdon, a charismatic “symbologist” who deciphers ancient puzzles and coded messages. While most of the activity in The Da Vinci Code and Angels & Demons centered in Europe, particularly in Rome, The Lost Symbol brings Langdon home to the United States where he turns his attention to the Masonic Order and to strange codes embedded in the architecture of our nation’s capital, Washington D.C.

Like The Da Vinci Code, The Lost Symbol claims to be based on historical fact. Before the story begins, a fact page claims:

In 1991, a document was locked in the safe of the director of the CIA. The document is still there today. It’s cryptic text includes references to an ancient portal and an unknown location underground. The document also contains the phrase “It’s buried out there somewhere.”

The fact page goes on to state that:

all organizations in this novel exist, including the Freemasons, the Invisible College, the Office of Security, the SMSC, and the Institute of Noetic Sciences. All rituals, science, artwork, and monuments in this novel are real.

Whether or not these claims are true is somewhat difficult to assess. No citations or references are given, so the reader must either trust Brown’s claims or try to replicate his research independently, a daunting task given the number of historical claims that fill this book. Certainly some of what he claims is actually true, but it was precisely this skillful - and sometimes undetectable - blending of fact with fiction that made the claims of The Da Vinci Code so potentially destructive. If one presumes that all of the historical, scientific and spiritual claims of The Lost Symbol are true simply because a few of them are, this book has the same potential as The Da Vinci Code. Of course, in Brown’s defense, one can say that this is a novel – that is, a work of fiction – and one would have to be quite ignorant to take all the claims of a work of fiction as fact.

But does The Lost Symbol, like The Da Vinci Code, make claims that readers are intended to evaluate as being more than simply a good story? Probably, and Christians ought to be aware of and at least a few of these, if for no other reason than they may provide an opportunity to speak Truth into the life of someone who has read this book.

Claim #1: Human Divinity

While The Da Vinci Code had the feel of an attack on Christian history, The Lost Symbol appears to be a more positive apologetic for Brown’s religious beliefs. Since I read Brown’s book Digital Fortress several years ago, I have suspected that the author’s real beliefs lay somewhere in the New Age camp. The Lost Symbol confirms this. A pervasive theme throughout the book is the idea that we are all gods, striving to realize our true potential. This “truth” is presented as being at the core of all religions, even Christianity, though obscured by time and ignorance:

“Even the Bible concurs,” Bellamy said. “If we accept as Genesis tells us, that ‘God created man in his own image,’ then we also must accept what this implies – that mankind was not created inferior to God. In Luke 17:20 we are told, ‘The kingdom of God is within you.’”

“I’m sorry, but I don’t know any Christians who consider themselves God’s equal.”

“Of course not,” Bellamy said, his tone hardening. “Because most Christians want it both ways. They want to be able to proudly declare they are believers in the Bible and yet simply ignore those parts they find too difficult or too inconvenient to believe.”

In the Ancient Near East, the concept of an “image” was closely related to the idea of representation. That is, to be made in/as the Image of God was to be made God’s representatives in creation. This is quite clear when you read Genesis and see that mankind was told to “rule” creation and was given the task of naming the animals, thus taking up authority delegated by God whom we represent. This does say something quite astounding about the worth and value of humanity. However, to say that being made in/as God’s Image implies equality with God is simply wrong. Similarly, the quote from Luke is misunderstood. First, this verse is Luke 17:21, not 17:20, probably a simple typo. Second, this is a misleading translation. The “you” here is plural in the original Greek, not singular as readers may be tempted to think given that the English “you” serves as both a singular and plural pronoun. The Greek word entos (translated here as “within”) when it occurs with a plural pronoun should more naturally be translated “among”. For this reason, the verse should be rendered “the kingdom of God is among you” or “the kingdom of God is in your midst.” In the biblical context, what may sound like a New Age maxim is actually a statement about the kingdom of God as already present within the community of disciples rather than being an external political system that many of the Jews of Jesus’ day were looking for.

In any event, one of the central themes of the bible is that God is God and we are not. The idea that the Bible teaches that we are equal to God is simply ridiculous.

Claim #2: Science supports New Age claims.

Not surprisingly, given the recent popularity of books like The Secret or films like What The Bleep Do We Know, Brown seeks to put this notion of individual divinity on scientific footing, claiming that modern physics is only re-discovering truth known long ago by the “Ancient Wisdom” so favored by New Age mystics:

“The scientific wisdom of the ancients was staggering…modern physics is only now beginning to comprehend it all.”

The Lost Symbol refers frequently to the “Noetic Sciences” and to experiments which supposedly show that human consciousness and directed thinking can alter the physical world.

One supposed proof of our ability to change the world through our thoughts is the work of Masaru Emoto who claimed that water crystals could be made to form in pleasing shapes when exposed to positive thoughts whereas they formed hideous shapes when exposed to negative thoughts. Emoto’s “experiments” have been widely hailed by New Age apologists and, while Brown does not directly mention Emoto, he does have one of his characters reflect on an identical experiment, indicating Brown’s awareness of Emoto’s work.

What is not mentioned is the fact that Emoto’s work has been criticized for lacking sufficient experimental controls and for lacking scientific rigor. Emoto himself has admitted that he is not a scientist and that the photographers who produced the images of the water crystals which supposedly prove his theory were instructed to choose only the most pleasing shapes.

In short, there is little or no evidence for these New Age claims, yet Brown persists in advancing these claims as accurate and portraying “Noetic Scientists” as reliable researchers while belittling the Bible and Christian faith, except where he wants to twist them to support his own ideas. For instance, in discussing the physics theory of quantum entanglement, which he connects to Tao and Brahman, he says that:

“To this day, Jews and Christians still strive for ‘atonement’… although most of us have forgotten it is actually ‘at-one-ment’ we’re seeking.”

The original Hebrew and Greek words for “atonement” literally mean “to cover over.” While it is true that Christ’s sacrifice on the cross covers over our sin and allows a restoration of our fellowship with God, it is quite a leap to say that this concept is the same as the Taoist concept of the universal consciousness and the interconnectedness of all things.

Claim #3 – America was founded as a Masonic, rather than a Christian nation.

Evangelicals persistently argue that the founding fathers of the United States were devout Christians. Brown claims that this is not true and that, at best, they were deists, who believed in a distant and relatively uninvolved God. More important than their religious affiliation, though, was their involvement with the Masonic Order, symbols from which were incorporated into nearly every piece of architecture and art from early American history.

That Masonic symbols are prevalent cannot be denied, but the role of Masonic rituals and teaching in American politics is a bit less clear. In any event, the simmering controversy over the role of Christian faith in America’s history is on the front burner these days and, while a thorough address of the issue is beyond the scope of this article, Christians should not overlook the possible impact of Brown’s claims. As Kato Mivule noted in a recent blog:

Yet still Dan Brown undercuts the political ‘Christian Establishment’ in America by linking the symbols, Masonic lodges, and all the Freemason ideologies to the founding fathers of the United States – and Presidents of the United States of America, which is a true fact despite the claims to ‘Christianize’ American Presidents by Evangelicals.

This is far the most powerful ‘Dan Brown’ blow, cleverly, subtly, and intelligently against the notion by political evangelical Americans that America was founded as a Christian Nation.

In my own opinion, the religious history of the United States is more complex than both sides of this debate tend to recognize. On the one hand, there can be no doubt that many of the founding fathers of our nation practiced orthodox Christianity or that, where faith was involved, it was Christian faith. On the other hand, it also seems clear that at least some of our founding fathers were deists who were only Christian in the most surface of senses. For example, certainly most Evangelicals would be uncomfortable with the theological beliefs of Ben Franklin who seems to have had serious doubts about the divinity of Christ. Consequently, it is both true and false that America was founded as a “Christian” nation. Certainly it was not a Muslim or a Hindu nation, but the Christianity of our founders was not, in every case, a matter of orthodox belief and practice.

My question is: what does it matter? Anyone who claims that America has no significant Christian roots is simply a fool. Anyone who claims that the founding fathers were, each and every one, shining examples of biblical faith and personal piety is also guilty of oversimplifying the truth. But in the end, the faith of our fathers matters very little in comparison to the faith of ourselves. The important thing is not so much what they believed, but what you believe.

In any event, Brown falls firmly into the camp that seems to want to deny the crucial role Christian faith in early America. Christians will be well-advised to have at least a rudimentary understanding of this debate if they want to be able to speak effectively with friends who read The Lost Symbol.

At the end of the day, my prediction is that The Lost Symbol will not have a significant cultural impact. From a literary standpoint, it’s a good story, but not a great one. The characters all have a decided similarity to characters in The Da Vinci Code and the plot development is formulaic. I will be very surprised if it sells even a fraction as many copies as The Da Vinci Code did. Following the formula that seemed to work so well with his last book, Brown’s latest novel again tries to stir up religious controversy, but I doubt that it will succeed to any great extent. It is more interesting as an expression of the author’s personal New Age leanings than anything else.

Still, even if The Lost Symbol were to sell only a fraction as many copies as The Da Vinci Code, that would still mean a lot of readers! And, while the opportunities to talk about Truth are less overt here, there are still places where Christians can expect to enter into some meaningful conversations with readers of The Lost Symbol.

Craig is the executive director of the Shepherd Project. He can be reached for comment on Facebook at: http://www.facebook.com/diggingdeep

Thursday, May 21, 2009

Angels & Demons Follow-Up

So I just saw the movie Angels & Demons.  Interesting.  

First, the movie did rather seriously soften the anti-Catholicism of the book on which it was based.  I particularly noticed one place where the book had essentially said "Christianity just borrowed everything from other religions", the movie went with "new religions often borrow traditions from older religions to ease the transition."  Thus the choice of Dec. 25 for Christmas went from a Christianized version of the pagan celebration of the winter solstice (the book) to a convient time to celebrate the birth of the son of God (the movie).  I guess this sort of thing is what the film producers meant when they tried to suggest that the movie was actually pro-Christianity.

Saying the movie is pro-Christian is going a bit far, however.  Angels & Demons retains a significant number of damaging inaccuracies like the fact that science and faith are consistently painted as opposing forces throughout history when in fact an astounding number of science's greatest minds have been devout Christians.  Furthermore, Galileo is painted as a scientific martyr persecuted by the Church when this simply does not fit the facts.  Galileo was at odds with the Church, of course, but it seems to me that the conflict emerged from his disagreement with scientific status quo about geocentrism.  This theory was backed by the scientific establishment of the day which was, in turn, backed by the Catholic Church.  Thus the Catholic Church was the enforcer of the determination that Galileo not teach heliocentrism until further scientific inquiry could be conducted.  To say that the Church persecuted Galileo for his blasphemous heliocentric theory is simply incorrect. 

Angels & Demons also contains a signficant number of snide comments like "Be careful...these are men of God, after all".  Such comments are fewer in the movie than in the book, but they aren't exactly few and far between here, either.

On the whole, the movie has been much-sanitized.  Whereas the book was extremely anti-Catholic, and by extension, to some degree anti-Christian, the movie "plays nice."   Apart from the misrepresentation of the science/faith controversy, Ron Howard seems to have learned his lesson from The Da Vinci Code:  check your facts.  Most of the blatant historical inaccuracies in the book Angels & Demons have been removed from the film version.  

Monday, May 11, 2009

Angels & Demons

Getting lots of requests for my take on Angels & Demons. A video interview will be available in the Deep & Wide e-newsletter in the next few days, so make sure you're signed up to receive that at www.shepherdproject.com.

In the meantime, here's my quick take: Angels & Demons won't have anywhere near the impact of The Da Vinci Code. The DVC was bigger because it took aim at Christianity more generally whereas Angels & Demons is less anti-Christian and more anti-Catholic. It is really the Catholic church that comes out looking bad in Angels & Demons. Consequently, most Christians probably won't pay this movie adaptation any attention at all.

That might be a mistake, however, as Angels & Demons does raise some interesting issues that certainly impact Christianity as a whole. Again, though, it is not as blatantly targeting the historoical foundations of Christianity as the Da Vinci Code.

Check out the video interview in a few days.

Saturday, April 25, 2009

80/20

I keep hearing about the 80/20 rule: 20% of the people in the Church are doing 80% of the work. I don't buy it. The numbers might be right, but the rule is wrong. 20% of the people CAN'T do 80% of the work. At best, 20% of the people can do 20% of the work. That means that 80% of the work that the Church should be doing just isn't getting done.

Monday, March 30, 2009

These "Greater Things".

In John 14:12, Jesus says that "Truly, truly, I say to you: the works I do, the one believing in me will likewise do, and greater things than these he will do, becaue I go to the Father."



Does Jesus really mean this? I think he does.



There are 2 key questions that we need to ask:



1. What are the “things/works” Jesus has in mind here?



The Greek word here is ergon, which at its most basic level, simply means effort or activity. This is a word that Jesus used frequently, but he used it in a particular way: In almost every case where Jesus used it, it was accompanied by a reference to the Father. Sometimes it was used to refer to miracles (John 10:25, 15:25, et.al.)

But more often, it was used to refer to a larger concept:
· John 4:34 34 "My food," said Jesus, "is to do the will of him who sent me and to finish his work.
· John 8:39 39 "Abraham is our father," they answered. "If you were Abraham's children," said Jesus, "then you would do the things Abraham did." (Here it probably doesn't mean miracles because Abraham is not reported to have done any. Rather, it refers to the totality of Abrahams life of trusting in God, which was credited to him as righteousness
· John 17:4 4 I have brought you glory on earth by completing the work you gave me to do.


As Jesus used the word, it seems to refer to the totality of his ministry. This ministry included miracles, but it is clear that the miracles weren’t primarily about showing what Jesus could do but about revealing who Jesus is: the perfect revelation of God; the exact representation of the Father. In other words, the work (ergon) of Jesus was to represent and reveal the Father. Miracles were one means of doing that, but they weren’t the only means. When Jesus talks about his “works”…and the works of his followers, he’s talking primarily about this business of revealing and representing the Father.


2. What does he mean that his followers will do “greater” things/works?
What he is not saying:
(1) He wasn’t speaking only to the apostles. (The promise is to, lit. “the one believing in me”)
(2) He doesn’t mean that any Christian alone, or that all Christians together – will do a greater quantity of miracles. To say this, he probably would have used the Greek word polus. Instead, he used megas which implies something greater in quality rather than in quantity.
(3) He doesn’t mean that Christians will do more dramatic miracles. First, none of Jesus’ followers have done as many miracles as Jesus or miracles that that were as dramatic as Jesus’ miracles. While followers of Jesus have even raised the dead, even these revivifications were not as dramatic as Jesus’ raising of Lazarus. Both Paul and Peter raised people who had only been dead for a short time, not 4 days. Second, remember, the “things” here are not primarily a miracles, but the larger work of revealing and representing the Father. This may include miracles, but it’s not primarily about miracles.


So what is Jesus saying? He’s saying that we will reveal and represent the Father in even greater ways than he has. How can that be? First, remember that the works Jesus is talking about are not our own. Jesus said that his works were actually God the Father working through him (Jn. 14:10) and, in the same way, our works are actually God the Son working through us. In that sense, our works are actually Jesus continuing his own work. With that in mind, we can see that our works – or his works through us - are greater in several senses:


(1) Our works impact a larger geographical area that Jesus’ works. Jesus did not minister outside of Israel, but his followers, both individually and corporately have.
(2) Our works impact a greater number of people than Jesus works. Jesus fed 5,000 but they didn’t all believe. In fact, many abandoned him when they realized he wasn’t going to be the Messiah they were seeking (John 6). But when Peter preached his first sermon, 5,000 believed. (Acts 2)
(3) Because of what Jesus did on the cross, our works now have an eternal impact far greater than Jesus’ earthy works. This needs some explanation. First, Jesus regularly minimized the significance of his physical healings in order to point to the greater significance of a spiritual healing that was coming. For example, see John 5:1-21, noting especially v.20. Second, John 7:37-39 seems to foretell of a ministry of believers by which they would become a spring which “flows out” of them. John identifies this as the coming Holy Spirit in v.39. What Jesus seems to have been saying is that he would not only quench his followers thirst, but make them into quenchers of others’ thirst as the Spirit filled them up and then flowed out of them in ministry to others. Third, John 20:21-23 clearly continues this promise, suggesting that through the Spirit we are to continue the ministry of Jesus: If you forgive anyone his sins, they are forgiven; if you do not forgive them, they are not forgiven." The translation of this passage is a bit tricky and has led to some confusion, but it seems to me to be a statement not that the followers of Jesus would get to determine whose sins are forgiven but would have the incredible privilege of announcing the forgiveness of sins to those who respond in faith to Jesus. It might be rendered: if you should forgive the sins of anyone, it is because their sins have already been forgiven and if you should not forgive the sins of anyone, it is because their sins have already not been forgiven.


So, when Jesus said that we will do greater works than he, he was saying that he was going to the cross to empower us to both continue and amplify his earthly ministry.