Brown’s noise
A few weeks back, I finally broke down and gave in. On a trip to the local public library, I checked out copies of Dan Brown’s novels Angels & Devils and The DaVinci Code. Even more, I actually read them! 
Vast amounts of ink have been spilled reviewing, discussing, bemoaning, and condemning these novels, especially The DaVinci Code. As novels go, however, here’s the worst thing that I can say about them:
As works of literature, they fall short. Even more damning, as contemporary “page-turner” novels, they stink. They are formulaic to the point of absurdity. The characters have the depth of the puddles on my driveway on a sunny day. They are duplicitous, in that novels (WORKS OF FICTION) should not contain disclaimers/contentions that they describe “real” things accurately — if that’s such a concern, then write a non-fiction book. I respect fiction, and counterfactual history in particular, too much to let it be sullied by such lowbrow tactics.
I didn’t expect anything from these novels theologically, as I already knew that they were full of crap. I knew going in that the author had an axe to grind wrt orthodox Christianity. Even so, I was still amazed at the ways in which the author worked to give his non-historical suppositions a veneer of plausibility and/or “truthiness.” Dan Brown obviously hates orthodox Christianity, because both books are full of venomous slander that serves no purpose other than to make people doubt the Truth.
I actually found Angels & Devils to be a better “read” than The DaVinci Code, as it was somewhat less implausible (to damn it with faint praise…). I also found the historical underpinnings of it to be of greater interest, and the “science” element had a nice Tom Clancy-ish feel to it. Sure, it fell apart under the weight of its own outrageous implausibility in the end, but at least it wasn’t horrifically offensive right from the conceptual get-go like the Code. I find an indictment of the Papacy much less problematic than one lodged against Christ Himself. So sue me.
All things considered, I enjoyed the Left Behind series more than Brown’s two novels. While both sets of novels are severely lacking theologically (the former via “mere” heterodoxy, and the latter with more blatant blasphemy/heresy), I never got the feeling that LaHaye & Jenkins were putting on airs. Brown, OTOH, seems much more enamored of his “craft” and comes across as being much more pretentious. Quite frankly, neither set/series should be high on anyone’s reading list, especially if someone isn’t properly grounded theologically.
Either a good secular novelist, or something like Paul Maier’s Skeleton novels, would be a much better choice for meeting your fiction-reading needs.
-ghp
Sexism? No.
Ok, I’m slightly worried about making this entry, but I’m still gonna do it. [I know, you're shocked, just like Capt. Renault in Casablanca... ] I’m worried for two reasons:
- That by linking to what I consider to be (at best) ignorant theology (aided & abetted by past pastoral malpractice), if not (at worst) outright heresy, I might cause some folks offense and/or confusion, and
- That this entry might be construed by some as being, shall we say, malicious, because it’s going to refer to another blog (and blogger) that I’ve never read before today (so, there’s no historical context for my opinion, beyond that gleaned by reading many posts today…)
Even so, I’m still going to do it (obviously) because it’s a topic that is quite common in today’s social & theological environments.
Yesterday, a message came across the CAT41 TableTalk mailing list that pointed to a blog posting in which the blogger lobbed the grenade of sexism at the LCMS (see: http://brendagrolle.blogspot.com/2005/10/lcms-and-sexism.html). It was also problematic in that it brought out into stark relief the sad state of theological understanding and apologetics amongst the upper echelons of the LCMS political hierarchy (e.g., at the District President level).
A visit to the blog to read the entry, the subsequent reading of other postings there, and a visit to the discussion forum that the blogger uses instead of enabling comment-based discussions to her postings, yielded a disturbing glimpse of the level to which emotionalism & feminist theologies have infected the LCMS. Such an infection is neither new, nor unique, to the LCMS mind you, but it’s still greatly troubling to see them so staunchly defended to their logical conclusions (e.g., the rendering of Holy Scripture as a cultural relic & example of “patriarchy,” written by “chauvinists” like St. Paul, that has been used to keep women “in their place” over the centuries — I mean, setting the inspired writings of Paul over & against Christ Himself? Please spare me such heretical drivel!).
I’m not sure exactly what can come of reading & commenting on such error. Perhaps nothing more than an increased awareness that we are constantly engaged in battle with the wily foe, along with the reaffirmation that we must always pray for the loving & protective deliverance of all sinners. I certainly wish neither for anyone to be drawn astray, nor for anyone to be offended; however, error needs to be brought to light, and public error can (and must) be called to public account.
-ghp
This Might not be a Bad Thing
From the 12/1 Indianapolis Star:
House prayers can’t invoke Jesus
by Richard D. Walton“A federal court judge Wednesday barred prayers that mention Jesus Christ or endorse any religion at the opening of each daily session of the Indiana House of Representatives.
Judge David Hamilton found that the House practice breached the clause of the U.S. Constitution prohibiting government establishment of religion. While not banning prayers in the House, Hamilton ordered that any person chosen to give the invocation be instructed it must not advance any one faith or be used in a bid to convert listeners.”
Now, I’m neither all that surprised, nor all that disheartened, that this has come to pass.
Why, you ask?
Well, I’m not surprised because our society/culture is fallen, and it can’t get up — at least not how it thinks it can. And a goodly portion doesn’t even want to get up out of the gutter, as they’re there on purpose, and they like it.
I’m not that disheartened because something like this actually removes a harmful ambiguity. It takes away the temptation to think that such situations — where unionism & syncretism are almost too difficult to avoid — are “manageable” and/or can be evangelism/outreach opportunities despite any/all compromises.
I hope that some folks are shocked out of their “can’t we all just get along” stupor (wherein they usually tend to justify things my eisegeting 1 Cor 9:21-23 & Gal 3:26-29 …).
I hold no illusions that this will stop folks from going where they shouldn’t be (Yankee Stadium, after all, will always be alluring — houses of ill-repute often are…), although I confidently pray that God will use this to best further His Will.
It’ll be interesting to see how this all plays out. I imagine that there will be a great hue & cry from the American Evangelical Right, along with those who have become enamored with the acclamation (if not always power) that comes from being a high-profile “player” on the contemporary local/state/national scene. It’ll be fun to watch. 
Update: This is also being discussed over at the Cranach Blog…
-ghp
If Spong were honest…
Recently, I’ve listened to the Issues, Etc. interview & follow-up analysis of John Shelby Spong (Check out the Issues, Etc. archives for May — specifically the 5th & 10th). Spong, a retired Episcopal bishop is well & truly a piece of work. It’s not often that I’m willing to unreservedly declare someone a heretic, but Spong is a heretic. That he calls himself a Christian is truly a testament to the depths that Satan will go to try and deceive us, not to mention the lengths to which we will go to try and rationalize/justify ourselves.
I mention Spong because I thought of him when I read a recent blog rerun by Dr. Al Mohler, entitled It Takes One To Know One. Dr. Mohler describes the path taken by former German Lutheran & liberal theologian Gerd Ludemann. Ludemann’s trajectory through liberal theology, and its denunciation of orthodox, historic Christianity, reads eerily similar to that of Spong’s, with one significant difference.
Ludemann has had the integrity to fess up to the fact that liberal theology is actually not Christian at its heart. Would that Spong had the same amount of integrity to abandon his ludicrous fantasy!
-ghp
-
Analytics & Hosting
