Redimete Diem!

Look carefully then how you walk, not as unwise but as wise,
making the most of the time, because the days are evil. (Eph. 5:15-16, ESV)

Home  |  Da Vinci Code  |   The Pilgrim's Progress Worship  |  Sermons | Courses
Christian Ethics  |  Miscellany  | FamilyQuestions, etc.


Confronting The Da Vinci Code

Part 2:  History Is Always Interpreted by Sinners

“[H]istory is always written by winners. …
As Napoleon once said, ‘What is history, but a fable agreed upon?’”
(Prof. Teabing in The Da Vinci Code, p. 256)

            Can there be such a thing as an objective history?  To answer that question you must wrestle to define two words: “objective” and “history”.  On one hand, objectivity is defined as a conscious self-denial of bias, a commitment to impartiality.  But objectivity does not exclude an agreed upon set of ground rules.  A judge cannot be objective if he does not know or comply with the laws of the land in matters of any given trial.  Even objectivity requires a world-view, a value system, an impetus that compels the historian to write down or report what he sees because he recognizes it is important.

            History is the other word in need of definition.  It is not enough to talk about dates and dead people.  It requires organization, structure, motive and purpose to compose a history.  Why study history, or for that matter, why deny it, if it has no meaning anyway, if it has no order, if it is forever mysterious, unknowable and, therefore, meaningless?  History also requires a world-view, an approach, even a focal point upon which to attach all else.

            For many of the most ancient of civilizations, early history was based on events.  When the worldwide flood occurred it lodged itself in the memories and folktales and artwork of most of the civilizations which emanated from it around the world in one form or another.  To many, recalling the event itself was clear enough.  But none of those cultural histories could resist attempting to attach to the event some kind of meaning.  It must have meaning.  Whenever man assigns merely his own meaning to events, myth is born.

            Later, history was recorded according to the reigns of kings.  Like the deities of any given nation, the annals of her kings was for her own sense of glory and protection.  That was seen as the purpose for history.  As sons succeeded fathers on the throne, the strength of the nation began to be seen in the heritage that was recorded.  For thousands of years in China, this was what history meant – dynasty meant strength, permanence, identity.  In Egypt, even though the technological “know-how” to build the Great Pyramids was already lost by the time Moses was born, the line of her ancient kings was kept in tact.

            But with the coming of Moses, our understanding of history changed forever.  He wrote history linearly, candidly, objectively, and, most importantly, he wrote from Jahweh’s perspective, not man’s.  History was not about man, it was about God.  It doesn’t boast myth, it makes assertions about true meaning as coming from the Creator, and it calls us to believe what it says.  And as the Israelites were so central to what God was doing in history, we see them as they really were.  They didn’t always win, didn’t always look good.  But the history of this insignificant, little band of homeless people endured in a world of passing empires – “winners” by man’s standard - because the Winner who wrote this history was not man at all.  It was God.

            God’s history tells us man is not endlessly evolving or cycling repeatedly through existential space.  He has been made in the image of God.  It tells us there is a beginning of all things and there will be an end of all things.  And there is also a purpose for all things.  A purpose which even includes man sinning against God, being fallen by nature and being cursed for it by God.  But it also includes a Messiah and redemption of God’s people and of the world he created, and a day when all history will come to an end.

            Literally, all of Western Civilization has been constructed and has prospered on this foundation.  It effects our view of ourselves, our culture, our burden to educate and instruct our children, our appreciation for the arts, the cause, endeavor and opportunity of the sciences.  It effects our social order and government, our sense of right and wrong, our duty of compassion and our eagerness to see that same foundation spread throughout the world.

            There really is a “darkness” in the history of nations, cultures and civilizations that have been constructed without the Creator’s foundation meaning.  Those thousands of years of Chinese dynasties were marked by inhumanity, lack of progress and worship of ancestors as idols.  Egypt, even with its development and early construction of the Great Pyramids, was not advancing but deteriorating as a culture by the time of Moses.  And the only reason we know about these other nations and cultures today is not because they have provided us with their own carefully recorded histories – there were no such things - but because Western Civilization has felt compelled to explore the world, study what it finds through the sciences of sociology and archeology and write their history for them.

            One recent example of this contrast took place in March of 2001.  The Islamic Taliban was in the process of destroying 1500 year old Buddhist monuments carved into the mountains of Afghanistan.  The worldview of Islam has always been so: do not heighten awareness of the world or of history or of other cultures but destroy them.  Bury the past, erase it from memory.

            Today, as represented in the portrayals in Mr. Brown’s book, riding the present “anti-Western Civilization” ground swell that we witness on college and university campuses today, there is an attack on objective history.  “History,” we’re told, “can’t truly be known.  It is written and re-written to suit whoever is in power and whoever is on top at the time.  We simply cannot know the past.”  But history has always been a science and not merely a tool for propaganda.  In a recent address, George Grant made these observations against the premise that history has always been written by the "winners":

            The progenitors of modern history, people like Thucydides and Plutarch were almost always the losers.  Herodotus was a slave.  Thucydides was an exiled, Athenian general of the Peloponnesian War.  He was exiled because he disastrously lost every single one of his commands and ultimately the Athenians lost the war.  He writes the history of the Peloponnesian War and it becomes the definitive form of military history to this day.  Plutarch is a conquered Greek who is imprisoned and ultimately enslaved and he writes the definitive version of how to do biography.  Even Augustine’s City of God is written at a time when the Vandals are pounding down the gates of the city and are about to consume the city and they ultimately do while he is on his deathbed.  So the model for history and much of history is, in fact, written by the losers.*

And it cannot be so simply and flippantly denied and dismissed unless, that is, it is intentionally suppressed.

            Dan Brown demonstrates this clearly in his book.  On one hand, the history of the Christian Church is not to be believed.  It is all a sham, written by winners who have long suppressed the truth.  But in its place, he proposes conspiracy.  He says there is credible evidence which reveals an “alternative” history, and that, at long last, we can know the truth.  First, he hides behind the lie that history cannot be trusted or known and then he gives us what he wants us to trust and to know in its place as history.

            This fallacy will crumble of its own weight.  History can be known for the study of it, which goes back often to original documents and evidence, and which purges itself continually of corruption rather than depending upon it.  And because that is true, that which is put forth as history when it really is not, cannot stand the test of such scrutiny.

            But the real question is: what “objective” shall we hold to in our study of history?  To embrace the foundation of Western Civilization is to continue to progress toward learning and light.  To reject it as mere Christian religiosity and abandon all meaning to life for the sake of “real objectivity” is to turn our faces to the darkness.

 (You may find the complete MP3 address by George Grant at www.gileskirk.com.)

David G. Barker, 2005


David G. Barker
david.barker@ncpres.org