Home / Academics / Division of Religion & Philosophy /

Deeper Than Da Vinci

Firestorm reactions. Wisdom sought and given. Outrageous theses debunked. Apologetic mandate met. Denominations of every stripe jumping on the “Da Vinci Code” bandwagon, perhaps rolling slowly to a stop.

And to all this we say, “Thank you, Jesus!” It’s confirmed - author Dan Brown and alleged “scholars” of his ilk are disreputable historians, poor thinkers, and just plain seekers of the sensational.

Some of us, however, sense something besides the Browns of the world gnawing at our culture’s roots, and at levels deeper than mere “code” schemas can ever hope to convey. So here’s the bottom line from the top: People are suckers for pseudo-history, especially if it’s anti-Christian pseudo-history.

In other words, Brown’s bloodline conspiracy nonsense is just a blip on the radar screen, just a symptom of a more widespread disease, when it comes to historical agendas unfriendly to Christian faith. The entire “Jesus didn’t die – he married – had children – was a Gnostic mystic – the Church oppresses truth – Opus Dei – Knights Templar” line of reasoning is far from being the whole picture. 

It makes me wonder if we as Christians aren’t currently witnessing glimmers, if not out-and-out signs, of an emerging anti-Christian metanarrative, one that’s already here but now attempting to take on Christian faith face-to-face as its cause celebra. Are we awakening culturally, then, to something that can’t be captured conceptually any longer by the usual anti-Christian culprits known as postmodernism, naturalism, pluralism, and the like?

I, for one, think this is exactly what’s happening. On the other hand, this elusive something has been around ever since the Word became flesh, or better, since Adam and Eve – with eyes on Satan – reneged on the cultural mandate laid down by God Himself! 

The very concept of anti-Christian pseudo-history seems to appeal to otherwise intelligent people, individuals only too willing to embrace uncritically whatever distorted histories come their way. And if revising a flurry of facts involves giving Christians a black eye, a punch to the gut, or a skinned knee in the process, then so much the better for its pseudo-cause. 

Imagine, if you will, a diabolic interpretation of history foisted upon an unsuspecting global culture while simultaneously contrived to match the Christian interpretation of history point-for-point, but with conclusions contrary, of course, to either biblical events or episodes from church history as they’ve already come to be known. Farfetched? Not at all.

Case in point. What if medieval historian Thomas Madden is right when he affirms that the latest research paints a far better picture of both the Crusades and the Inquisition than history has previously been willing to canvas?  Meaning that when the historical ethos is taken into consideration, things could be far less negative than the modernist interpretation would have us believe.

With the crusaders often caricatured as blood-thirsty slaughterers of the innocent bent on imperialism, Madden urges us to remember that it was Islamic aggression that had already, mind you, taken over the Holy Land. Viewed this way, Pope Urban II sanctioned the First Crusade in 1095 as a defensive measure first and foremost. 

Nor did the Church lead or command actual military operations; rather, secular powers did – Richard the Lionhearted, for one.  Nor did the crusaders try to convert the Muslims to Christian faith, killing them if they refused; rather, they traveled far and wide to defeat enemies they believed to be a grave threat to the world.

Nor were they motivated to battle, pillage and plunder for the sake of getting rich; rather, many participants sold all they owned in order to enlist as crusaders and later returned home impoverished, if they were fortunate enough to survive. Nor were the Crusades any more brutal than any other war that had taken place in the ancient and medieval worlds.

True, those who took up the cross (the real meaning of “crusade”) weren’t always paragons of chivalry or Christian sanctification, but Madden insists that the standard atrocity-based interpretation of crusader Christianity is historically naïve. Yet the uneasy, if not seared, consciences of 21st century skeptics will continue to prefer this understanding, if only for reasons of rejecting the gospel’s divine implications.

As for the medievals themselves, heresy was seen as something that threatened the very fabric of their society. Madden tells us that the Inquisition was actually an attempt by Pope Lucius III to prevent unjust executions from being carried out by secular rulers, not Church officials, men who were generally ignorant of theology and untutored in the rules of evidence. Suspects slated to die for “heresy” – a crime against the state – often waited nervously for the office of the Inquisition to intervene.

Madden’s findings indicate that the majority of cases brought before the Inquisition were acquitted and that untold thousands were probably saved from death at the hands of secular lords and overzealous mobs anxious to protect their realms from heresy.  And those found guilty were even offered a time of repentance, if wanted.

Granted, the ears of unbelieving moderns hear just the opposite – that the Inquisition is surely the epitome of religious intolerance, hypocrisy, and brutality.  Although abuses occurred at times, this just isn’t the case overall, says Madden.

Other historical examples abound, each clearly tainted by interpretations given over to Christian disbelief. Check out the Quran’s retelling of the story of Isaac in order to make Ishmael the venerated child of promise in Isaac’s stead. Nothing more than the Muslim party line!

Listen to the stories of missionary oppression sprung from the soil of the Enlightenment, which means, of course, that Christian missionaries everywhere were principals to the indiscriminate annihilation of native cultures. Absurd!

American Puritan preachers, being nothing more than wild-eyed fanatics, tortured and burned unsuspecting women as witches, even condemning them by the hundreds beyond the confines of Salem, Massachusetts. Simply grossly exaggerated!

What these pseudo-historical snippets show us, however, is that any anti-Christian metanarrative now underway is only piecemeal to date.  But could it grow and expand into something more coherent in form, more deeply systemic, in the decades to come? I’d count on it.

And if this pseudo-Christian “religious” story does hit its stride and win the day culturally, it will have crept in with the soundlessness of a shadow, materialized bodily, and presented itself as the malevolent twin to Christian truth. Perhaps as a narrative too attractive to reject, a Faustian story too adept at stealing away the souls of its devotees, unhappily it will prove the point that people – to their spiritual injury – are indeed suckers for anti-Christian pseudo-history.

Surely the Greek poet Simonides was right when he said: “With ease the gods deceive theminds of men.” A saying reminiscent of the whole “principalities and powers” gambit depicted in Scripture. In tandem with humanity’s collective, sinful imagination, an evolving anti-Christian metanarrative falls easily within the purview of Satanic feasibility, truth be told. Something for which Dan Brown and Leonardo da Vinci himself never bargained.

Hal Ostrander

Chair, Religion & Philosophy Division

Brewton-Parker College

Mount Vernon, Georgia

July 2006