Athenian Fundamentalism

Why do Christians today think that if it is not innovative, it's not right? Isn't that the reason behind the existence of non-denominationalism, so-called "Christian rock" music, and contemporary worship styles? I used to think that people of this persuasion just saw their views as an alternative to the norm, but not the only way to do something. After all, isn't that what they were accusing fundamentalism of? (Sorry to end this in a preposition, but hey, it's a blog, right?) But the more people I meet, the more I realize they are not only involved in this contemporary Christianity; they are engrossed in it. After speaking to an adherent of contemporary worship, you would think that not only are old Christian hymns bad, but new worship styles are the only way God wants you to worship. They think that if it does not hold to the tenets of Praise and Worship, it just doesn't work. And I am being 100% serious.

But, as crazy as that is, there's another form of this Athenian Christianity that has crept into fundamentalism. Not only has there been a movement to rename it, but there has also been a movement to reclaim it for some dangerous views. While I think that you can be a Calvinist and be a fundamentalist, I don't think that fundamtalism is necessarily Calvinistic. But there are those who would like to revamp our movement for that purpose. There are those who want to rename it so they can force their views upon it, but that's even more narrow-minded than what fundamentalism already is, isn't it? Seems a little dangerous to me.

Let us beware of the Holy Spirit's indictment against the Athenians of Pauls day that they "spent their time in nothing else, but either to tell, or to hear some new thing." Rather, let us "Remove not the old landmark", but let us work to make this thing we call fundamentalism better from within.

Merry Christmas

Hey, little elves of the world, it's Christmas time!!!! You may think it's silly to be excited about this holiday, but I love it. It's always been my favorite and alwaysd will be. My family always has some great traditions in store, and we always look forward to our gathering. Maybe you think it's commercial to buy presents or put up a tree or drink hot chocolate while watching A Charlie Brown Christmas, but I think it's great.

I'm tired of everyone, including Christians, indicting Christmas becuase it's too commercial. Yes, there's too much commercialism surrounding the holiday, but don't let that shadow the holiday that celebrates the birth of the Savior of all mankind. This is a time of year when man can thank God for grace and mercy and start showing a little bit, too.

My New Take on Christmas: "I can't take part in Christmas-bashing; it's gotten too commercial."

Have a very, merry Christmas.

Excerpt From "The Disparity of Baptists Regarding the Issue of Slavery"

Coming Soon to ContendForTruth.com

The mid-1800’s were a defining era in American history. They are also a thoroughly misunderstood period of time. Undoubtedly, the most significant event of this time is the Civil War, but even the causes of this domestic conflict are not universally settled. Whatever the instigation for the secession of the Southern States, one thing is implicit: the future of slavery as an institution was a contributing factor. The disaster that we call the War Between the States was actually the realization of a cultural and political shift that had been brewing for decades. It began in Europe (namely England) and flowed across the Atlantic Ocean into the New England states, but it hit a brick wall at the Mason-Dixon Line. The ensuing destruction of that cultural barrier commenced at Lincoln’s Emancipation Proclamation, but the initial blows were struck by America’s ever-faithful harbingers of liberty: the Baptists. The Baptists did not just play a role in the emancipation of the slaves; they were also instrumental in preparing the mind of a nation for a war that would break families apart, just as it had done to the American Baptist nation.

The American nation rent itself from right to left, along the Mason-Dixon Line and the frontier trails. Some have criticized the Southern Christian for allowing such an institution as slavery to continue, and surely the unity of the Baptist denomination would have continued had Southern Baptists conceded. Even though both sides claimed biblical justification for their convictions, the division was more of a result of cultural differences than theological beliefs. In fact, the Southern Baptist Convention admitted that the bodies of doctrine of the North and the South were the same. The disagreement basically stemmed from slavery. It must be conceded that slavery has been a difficult problem for theologians of all ages, for as Edward T. Babinski notes, “Every book in the Bible takes the existence of slavery for granted from Genesis to Revelation.” An outright condemnation of slavery as an institution is conspicuously absent from the Scriptures, and some unbelievers have also attempted to speak against the God presented in the Bible because He never offers a wholesale condemnation of slavery. Joseph McCabe uses slavery as an opportunity to attack the character of the Lord Jesus Christ when he says, “…there is not a syllable of condemnation of the institution of slavery. According to Jesus “fornication” is a shuddering thing; but the slavery of fifty or sixty million human beings is not a matter for strong language.” Sadly, many Christians have also misunderstood this absence, believing it instead to be permission for the practice. Sadly, many Baptists in the South led this charge in the mid-1800’s.

The Northern Baptists had been slowly convinced of the error of slavery and made inroads to remove slave-owners from their associations. In 1844, the Board of the General Missionary Convention of the Baptist Denomination passed a resolution stating that no slaveholder could serve as a missionary with the board. H.C. Vedder in his Short History of the Baptists makes this statement, “If any one who should offer himself for a missionary, having slaves, should insist on retaining them as his property, we could not appoint him. One thing is certain; we can never be a party to an arrangement which would imply approbation of slavery.” Southern Baptists recoiled at the decision. The Virginia Foreign Mission Society sent out a call to the churches of the South to meet in Augusta, Georgia to consider forming a new association and dissolving the Triennial Convention of the Baptists. In May of 1845, 310 delegates met there and formed their new association, the Southern Baptist Convention, while the northern Baptists formed the American Baptist Missionary Union. (Continued at ContendForTruth.Com)

The Last Mimzy or Pure Whimsy?

Lies From a Stuffed Rabbit

My wife and I settled down one Friday night with really nothing to do. My wife told me she had seen an interesting family movie on our pay-per-view list that might might be a good movie. I had no better ideas, so I complied. It was called The Last Mimzy. Truth be told, the only reason she wanted to watch it was a stuffed rabbit that appeared on the preview page. May I say from personal experience, when it comes to picking things like this, the cover is the least informative thing you can look at. But, we sat down to watch it anyways. What ensued did nothing but aggravate my already-heightened irritation at the Environmental Worship Movement. The movie opened with a snapshot view of urban life. Children are using cell phones at school all day, then playing on their PSP's as soon as they get on the bus to go home. Dads have more Blueteeth than regular teeth. Moms are constantly using technology to communicate rather than doing so personally. The Summary: The modern world is a mess, filled with nothing but distractions, keeping us from truly experiencing life. And to that I say, "Amen!" Even as I write this blog, my poor wife is in the bedroom reading a book, probably falling asleep because all I want to do this fine Saturday evening is watch college football, blog, and do internet research. Let's face it; computers are man's new best friend. By the way, my dog is outside by himself and has been outside for about an hour because of my blogging. There's proof positive. But, man can control his obsession. Man is not a slave to his computer or his cell. He can just as easily put it down as pick it up, and usually, he does. But, granted there are those living only in the realm of cyberspace, dating cyberwomen, and wishing they could eat cyberfood. So, one point to The Last Mimzy. But it is the last, I promise you.
Beyond this point in the movie, it became painfully obvious that the writers' and director's answer to the supposed technology epidemic is complete annihilation of modern technology before it annihilates us. It's that simple: Kill Or Be Killed. Here's the basic gist. A scientist from the future sends back several toy rabbits (made by Intel) to various points in the future. The rabbits are actually supercomputers which will collect information about the one thing the human race needs to survive. The children who find the rabbit are supposed to send the rabbit back to the future to save the planet and the human race from mind and environmental pollution. Two techno-logged children find the very last stuffed animal that the scientist sent back and are the last hope of the human race. Hmmmm. Figuring out what's so wrong this movie yet? Yep, that's it. It's eco-babble targeted at young children who happen to love fuzzy, stuffed animals (as if any kids don't) and would love an opportunity to save the world (as if any kid wouldn't).
So, the two kids find the rabbit in a box along with other objects that purge their brains of all the techno-pollution that they have ingested all their lives. The kids become exponentally smarter within a matter of weeks and start creating tools to send the mimzy back to the future, unbeknownst to them. Then the little boy's teacher enters the fray. He is concerned about some drawings that the little boy has made in class because they are perfect drawings of mandalas. Mandalas are Far Eastern geometric drawings employing shapes (cicles, triangles, squares, etc.) to represent various characteristics of the universe, except of course, for geometric drawings. The teacher (Rainn Wilson) and his fiancee (who knows how to read palms, by the way) then try to get the children's parents to help them uncover the meaning of the children's sudden advancements. The parents (who are obviously backward-thinking ignorant troglodytes) have no desire to take part in this exercise, throw the two hippies out of their house along with the silly rabbit causing all of the confusion. But the little boy retrieves it and the game continues, that is until the ultimate oppressor of free thought emerges (see next paragraph for identity).
That's right, it's the United States government! The Scallywags! The Department of Homeland Security (the closest incarnation of Satan himself in an organizational fashion) places the family under arrest and studies the toys and the children. But, upon closer inspection, it is determined that Mimzy, the cute little rabbit, is actually dying and needs to be returned to the future. The children steal all their toys back, make an escape from the government facility, and go back to where they found the box containing all the goodies at the beginning of the movie. They send Mimzy back, and the scientist in the future cultivates from the rabbit a single tear shed by the little girl, and uses it to make the earth an evolutionary utopia. People in the future no longer have to wear their special pollution protection suits, people communicate telepathically, and children can even fly, all without one shred of modern convenience in sight. I didn't know that flight was the next part of the human evolution. I guess I'll have to start subscribing to Evolutionary Fancy Magazine again. I thought humans had evolved to a state of success, anyways. But, that's another story.
Folks, I expect Al Gore to ramble on about An Unscientific Uncertainty or whatever he calls his movie, and I expect ecologically-minded scientists to trump up "evidence" proving that global warming will destroy the planet if one more person buys an SUV. I'm not even that upset that they tried to pawn it off on kids. After all, they believe it, so why not share it with the next generation, right? But, what really lights my fire is when people like this go after children with so many false pretenses. This movie is chock-full of assumptions and hearsay with nothing to prove it but a cotton rabbit. They prey on children's worst fears and play on their greatest desires. After all, who wouldn't want to fly?

The Gospel Code Part 1: Secrets of a Master Painter

To read the article at its home site and learn more about fundamental Christianity, visit our link at ContendForTruth.com.

---

The secrets of a master painter
by Brian Allison

Disclaimer: This series is not a detailed examination of every error in The Da Vinci Code. There are many capable writers and historians who have set themselves to that task. Rather, this series points out only a few flaws in Dan Brown's research. The purpose of “The Gospel Code” series is to swerve the reader from the lies and to point him to the truth of God's Word; and, while accuracy has been the paramount objective, it must be plainly stated that some of these historical facts might be shaded with personal opinions. But a real seeker of truth must first be willing to admit his personal biases so he can distinguish fact from feelings. If only Dan Brown were willing to admit the same.

Attacks on the deity of the Lord Jesus Christ are novelties that recur every few decades. In the years directly following Christ's ascension, groups began springing up everywhere the apostles went, teaching that Jesus of Nazareth was not really the Son of God. The Gnostics and the Docetists said He only appeared human but was actually a spirit. The Nestorians taught that the union of the divine and human elements divided Christ into two distinct essences (or personalities). The Ebionites believed Christ was human at His birth, the physical child of Joseph and Mary; He then became the Christ at His baptism. Perhaps the most recognizable name in Christological liberalism is Arius, a bishop of Alexandria. He and his followers (Arians) denied the eternal preexistence of Christ, reducing Him to a creation of the Father.[1] It is only natural that these insidious attacks would continue into this century, as well. However, God, being the all-knowing, all-wise entity that He is, has built into His Word His own underlying code that presents and protects the deity of Christ. Since Dan Brown's Da Vinci Code presents the fullest expression of modern-day attacks, his is the one that will be discredited. In this first installment, the life of Leonardo da Vinci will be explored, since he is Dan Brown's underlying protagonist in the Da Vinci Code.

Brown presents many supposed facts about Da Vinci that are either highly-debatable or that are outright lies. However, he presents some aspects of Da Vinci's life that are historically valid. This makes it impossible to condemn the assertions of the Da Vinci Code in totality. For every lie presented as truth, there is another fact that is either true or only mildly-distorted. Therefore, it is just as difficult to discredit all inaccurate statements in this novel as it is for Brown to discredit all the biblical evidences of the deity of Christ from within the vastness of Scripture.

Brown attempts to soil Da Vinci's reputation as a Catholic by pointing out the rumors of Da Vinci's homosexual and pedophilic behavior. Actually, this may be the most valid argument Brown makes about Da Vinci in the book. Da Vinci is quoted as saying "the act of procreation and anything that has any relation to it is so disgusting that human beings would soon die out if there were no pretty faces and sensuous dispositions."[2] He is believed to have had sexual relationships with young men, the youngest being the ten year-old Gian Giacomo Caprotti da Oreno. Da Oreno moved into Leonardo's home and was described by the artist as a thief and a liar, among other things. However, Da Orena stayed with Da Vinci for the next three decades, and is described by Giorgio Vasari as a “youth…in which Leonardo greatly delighted.”[3][4] hardly a purely platonic sentiment. However, there seems to be no substantial evidence that there were any physical relations between the two. But the burden of proof, though circumstantial, is quite convincing by itself. Count Francesco Melzi was a 15 year-old boy when Da Vinci first met him. Melzi became Leonardo's favorite student and life-long companion. Melzi is quoted as saying that Da Vinci's love for him was a "deeply felt and most ardent love,"

What about Da Vinci's supposed anti-Christian beliefs? Brown paints Da Vinci as an infiltrator, sponsored by Roman Catholics while undermining the religion from within. But, what did Da Vinci believe? Was he truly opposed to the Roman Catholic church and Christianity at large? In his Lives of the Artists, Giorgio Vasari says that Da Vinci “formed in his mind a doctrine so heretical that he depended no more on any religion, perhaps placing scientific knowledge higher than Christian faith.”[5] If true, this makes Da Vinci a poor Catholic but not an occultist. In fact, his apparent scholasticism is not truly anti-Catholic. The doctrine of scholasticism, the belief that biblical truth can be reconciled with science (e.g. Aristotelian science), was probably birthed within the church by the Catholic priest Anselm of Canterbury and finds its fullest expression in St. Thomas Aquinas' Summa Theologica. This scholasticism was also upheld by the Roman Catholic Church, as is evidenced by the trial of Galileo Galilei for teaching a heliocentric view of the solar system. So, it is not a far cry for a medieval Catholic to hold science to a level above that of the Bible, since Catholic theology held the two on the same level.

Did Da Vinci implant secret messages into his paintings? Brown leads his readers to believe that Da Vinci intentionally placed his anti-Christian beliefs into his paintings masked by enough Catholic symbology to keep it hidden to the ignorant Christian, who would be too clouded by his religious underpinnings to notice. One of Brown's chief references is the Virgin of the Rocks, a painting made by Da Vinci sometime between 1483 to 1486. One of the chief reasons for this controversy is the fact that there are actually two versions of the painting. The second version appeared sometime between 1491 to 1495 and contains obvious alterations. The original is held at the Louvre in Paris, France while the second version is in the National Gallery in London, England. Dan Brown states that the original painting was altered to create a more orthodox piece of art. He says the original painting shows Jesus as a toddler praying to his cousin John the Baptist, who is with the angel Uriel. He concludes this because the praying child is with Mary. In his mind, this child must be Jesus, because Christ is always with Mary. The second version shows the praying child now holding a cruciform (a common symbol of John the Baptist in Catholic art). In effect, Dan Brown is claiming that John and Jesus were switched. He is saying that if Jesus is the praying baby in the first painting, then he must be praying to John and therefore, worshiping him. However, many art historians have said that the painting may have been revised simply to clarify which child was which; so, the cruciform was added to represent John. Either way, the fact remains that the Virgin of the Rocks is a rather puzzling painting; all the elements incorporated leave the eyes and mind dazed and confused.

But, this confusion may actually lead the observer to the clarification of the matter. Da Vinci was commissioned by a group of nuns from the Confraternity of the Immaculate Conception to paint a picture of Jesus and Mary fleeing to Egypt. As the Catholic legend goes, Jesus and John the Baptist first met on the road to Egypt. In The Da Vinci Code, Brown states that Da Vinci was commissioned to paint a picture incorporating Mary, the angel Uriel, John the Baptist, and Jesus sheltered in a cave. However, the original commission actually was for Mary to be painted with two prophets, not Uriel or John the Baptist.[6] Leonardo creatively diverged from some of the explicit and probably troublesome details specified in the contract. For example, there were to be two prophets; Leonardo included two infantile prophets. Mary was to be painted in gold brocade and ultramarine blue. God the Father was to be in the painting, dressed in gold brocade and ultramarine blue, thereby equalizing Mary and God the Father. Jesus was also to be seated on a golden platform, hardly a plenteous commodity on a road to Egypt. It has been suggested that Da Vinci convoluted the picture merely as an avenue for his frustration caused by the cumbersome details.[7] This may be a valid argument, especially considering the fact that the painting was rejected by the confraternity. Maybe the nuns didn't get the joke.

Another painting commented on by Dan Brown is the world-famous Mona Lisa. Anyone who has seen the portrait has caught himself wondering who the hardly-amused lady is. Brown claims that the Mona Lisa was Da Vinci's favorite work. While it is true that Da Vinci worked on it for four years, there is no evidence that he considered it his finest accomplishment. Other artists and art historians are the ones who heralded it as his greatest work. Nor did he always keep it with him, as Brown proposes. He may believe this because the painting was with Da Vinci when he entered France near the end of his life. But it is just as valid of an argument to say that it stayed with him all his life because the order was canceled as it is to say it was his favorite. After all, four years is a long time to wait for a painting. As for who the painting represents, the theories are too numerous to consider in exhaustion. The most prominent theory is that it is a portrait of Lisa Gherardini, the wife of Francesco del Giocondo, a silk merchant in Florence, Italy (Da Vinci's hometown). Giorgio Vasari assumes this in his Lives of the Artists. It is also interesting to note that Vasari named the painting, not Da Vinci, as Dan Brown claims. Before Vasari's book, the painting had no official title.

Leonardo da Vinci can be described in one word: enigmatic. His life, his paintings, and his religious beliefs are all shrouded in mystery. Anyone who claims to truly have discovered the truth about Da Vinci most certainly has not. He was a genius and, just like many geniuses before and after him, is impossible to fully describe. While there are things that Brown says about Da Vinci that are agreeable, he perverts other aspects of his life to fit his scheme. Truly, Dan Brown is either misguided or lying when he says “All the history, artwork, ancient documents, and secret rituals in the novel are accurate – as are the hidden codes revealed in some of Da Vinci's most famous paintings.”[8]

The Next Piece in the Gospel Code – “A Collated Bible?”

---

[1] All historical examples taken from Charles Ryrie's Basic Theology, Scripture Press Publications, 1986 (pp. 56-57, 251-253).

[2] As quoted by Sigmund Freud, Gesammelte Werke, bd VIII, 1909–1913

[3] Giorgio Vasari. Lives of the Artists

[4] Crompton, Louis: Homosexuality and Civilization. NY, 2003. p.269

[5] Giorgio Vasari. Lives of the Artists, 1550. Quoted by Richard Abanes, The Truth Behind the Da Vinci Code, 2004.

[6] Pietro C. Marani, Leonardo da Vinci: The Complete Paintings (New York: Harry N. Abrams, Inc., 1999; 2003 ed.), pp. 198-199. Referenced by Richard Abanes, The Truth Behind the Da Vinci Code, 2004.

[7] Abanes, pp. 69-70.

[8] Dan Brown, interview with Borders, no date, www.bordersstores.com/features/feature.jsp?file=browndan.