myth and religion
Last night at Theology on Tap we talked about the role of myth in Christianity, and whether or not there is or should be one at all.
One of the points brought up was that it is a slippery slope. If I say I can't synthesize or distinguish one of the two creation stories as true, where do I draw the line? At Elijah's ascension? Did that "really" happen? Or the virgin birth? Or the resurrection? Can we pick parts of the scriptures and designate them as myth without doing the same to others.
I think Jeff had a really good point about this when he brought up the different genres within the Bible. Historically, we break up scriptures into History, Poetry, Prophesy, Law, and others. I identify with this strongly because this lets us point out that the book of Revelation was written in the very specific, very stylized form of Apoctolyptic Literature. Whether or not you believe Revelation describes the fall of Israel and the burning of the Temple or some fantastic point in the future, or both, we can all agree that it is highly symbolic and purposefully written in a very specific style.
Similarly, we know that Jesus often taught in parables - myths to illustrate a point. Would it be so far off to suggest that God may have used this method elsewhere in the Bible - the story that he tells us about himself? Why wouldn't it be reasonable to suggest that certain parts of scripture - the creation accounts for example - are both God breathed and myth? We know that God is vaster than we can imagine even now .... Just imagine if he told the early priests how he really created the heavens and the earth, setting up microcosms that would go on and flourish and evolve forever. Would they have understood? I don't think so.
But they would have understood that their God is a great artist and a great planner. Both of the creation stories reveal the great awe and majesty of our Father. Both reaffirm that his creation was good to begin with and that it now needs restoration. Both do so in powerful ways that just wouldn't have been possible if the factual truth were set out for us.
And this leads me now to ponder the question, does something have to be factual for it to be true?
One of the points brought up was that it is a slippery slope. If I say I can't synthesize or distinguish one of the two creation stories as true, where do I draw the line? At Elijah's ascension? Did that "really" happen? Or the virgin birth? Or the resurrection? Can we pick parts of the scriptures and designate them as myth without doing the same to others.
I think Jeff had a really good point about this when he brought up the different genres within the Bible. Historically, we break up scriptures into History, Poetry, Prophesy, Law, and others. I identify with this strongly because this lets us point out that the book of Revelation was written in the very specific, very stylized form of Apoctolyptic Literature. Whether or not you believe Revelation describes the fall of Israel and the burning of the Temple or some fantastic point in the future, or both, we can all agree that it is highly symbolic and purposefully written in a very specific style.
Similarly, we know that Jesus often taught in parables - myths to illustrate a point. Would it be so far off to suggest that God may have used this method elsewhere in the Bible - the story that he tells us about himself? Why wouldn't it be reasonable to suggest that certain parts of scripture - the creation accounts for example - are both God breathed and myth? We know that God is vaster than we can imagine even now .... Just imagine if he told the early priests how he really created the heavens and the earth, setting up microcosms that would go on and flourish and evolve forever. Would they have understood? I don't think so.
But they would have understood that their God is a great artist and a great planner. Both of the creation stories reveal the great awe and majesty of our Father. Both reaffirm that his creation was good to begin with and that it now needs restoration. Both do so in powerful ways that just wouldn't have been possible if the factual truth were set out for us.
And this leads me now to ponder the question, does something have to be factual for it to be true?
posted by Mel at 8:38 AM
6 Comments:
Hmmm,you are making me think. Darn you my brain is tired. ;)
More thoughts later.
I guess we won't know till we die. How are things in Colorado? You need to post more! <3, bev
I know! Things have been so busy. That's no excuse, I know =). For some of the nonessentials (which I believe this to be, although I know that lots would dissagree) that we really can't know, why do we as christians allow things like this to divide us, and, perhaps even worse, allow them to confuse and frustrate nonchristians and christians alike. sigh. too much thinking ;)
I think about how often Jesus and the apostles talked about various old testament events as being factual, so I find it hard not to follow suit. Not only that, but honestly, I take everything science takes as fact with a grain of salt. What is "fact" according to science changes so much in only a few years or decades. Looking back at history, heck, even of the last 100 years, what has been considered true has changed so many times. I honestly do not have enough proof in the matter, but where there is fuzziness, I chose to go with God's word, as he doesn't change (though we can misread what he said sometimes).
that's a good point josh - I hadn't thought about the way that scientific truth is constantly evolving. Hey, you should come to theology on tap some time - thursdays @ 8 @ the rio
I would love to, but I have a thursday night bible study at my church every week, though it'll end come thanksgiving, so if it's still going on after that, I might just go.
Post a Comment
<< Home