Tom Robbins, on Joseph Campbell:
In actuality, myths are neither fiction nor history. Nor are most myths - and this will surprise some people - an amalgamation of fiction and history. Rather, a myth is something that never happened but is always happening. Myths are the plots of the psyche. They are ongoing symbolic dramatizations of the inner life of the species, external metaphors for internal events.
It is only when it is allowed to crystallize into “history” that a myth becomes useless - and possibly dangerous. For example, when the story of the resurrection of Jesus is read as a symbol for the spiritual rebirth of the individual, it remains alive and can continually resonate in a vital, inspirational way in the modern psyche. But when the resurrection is viewed as historical fact, an archival event that occurred once and once only, some two thousand years ago, then its resonance cannot help but flag. It may proffer some vague hope for our own immortality, but to our deepest consciousness it’s no longer transformative or even very accessible on an everyday basis. The self-renewing model has atrophied into second-hand memory and dogma that the fearful, the uninformed, and the emotionally troubled feel a need to defend with violent action.
There, I guess you probably know now where this old dog sits on the issues.
When we engrave our myths into stone as history or dogma, they become epitaphs.
Clumber, I think I mostly agree with you, but then, what is the resurrection, exactly? What was it that empowered the disciples to go from fearfully cowering in the upper room, to going forth to preach the Gospel boldly, even in the face of persecution unto death?
You say, “For example, when the story of the resurrection of Jesus is read as a symbol for the spiritual rebirth of the individual, it remains alive and can continually resonate in a vital, inspirational way in the modern psyche.”
I see the resurrection as more than a symbol, but definitely not as a literal, historical account. What it actually is would be difficult for me to name. The best I could do, for now, is mystery, which the MadPriest doesn’t like, and who - by the way - sent me over here.
I do like your blog, and I have put you on my blogroll, if that’s OK. Since my blog is also new and my readership is quite small, my listing will likely not bring you many more readers,
Well, that whole thing is not me speaking, but Tom Robbins (yeah, that Tom Robbins!)… I just liked his retelling of the resurrection story in a way that I find interesting and encouraging. I’ve been doing reading on Atonement ideas lately, and found great comfort in a retelling of that story as J. Denny Weaver tells it in The Nonviolent Atonement. There’s lots of ways to tell the stories - it’s what they do to our lives that matters, I believe. Weaver retells the passion story with his Anabaptist roots and I find great comfort and encouragement from his re-working of a story that I know so well that I cannot see it in a new way - until his work.
Oh, I forgot, Grandmère, I am honored to have you here… if MadPriest doesn’t like the resurrection as mystery I guess I don’t understand what it was… I’m just a layperson, so I don’t need to solve the problems of Theology, just think about them and wrestle with them as best I can.
Ok, right. You were quoting, but you did say this, “There, I guess you probably know now where this old dog sits on the issues.” I assumed that you agreed with Robbins.
Atonement. That’s a whole other thing.
Well, I agree about the power of myth. And I think that when we read the Bible narrowly, we end up smaller for it. The typical example is the wedding at Cana, but Revelation is akin to it… when we try to map out history on top of the story of Revelation, we end up with less truth. The story is true, whether it happened that way or not.
Great post. I certainly have to wrestle with this issue every time we say the creed at Eucharist. I usually wind up
interpreting it along these lines but occasionally I have to just stand there quietly during the creed.
It is something very sacred and mysterious we are about in our faith and at Eucharist, and when we demand a historical veracity of the sort that we could take some time machine back and witness things happening, well then we’ve sold the mysteries of our faith for some spare change.
back in the late 80s, when a college professor of mine found out that I was an Episcopalian he said to me, “Oh, well you’ll be reading Jung someday. Every Episcoaplian winds up reading Jung.” To which I guess we should add Joseph Campbell!
I too like that take on “myths” and have not problem with mysteries of the faith. However, I don’t believe that believing the resurrection as a historical fact has to result in a flagging of “resonance” — an either/or situation. In fact, in my faith journey that wouldn’t be true at all. Just because some Christians have allowed it to become so, does not mean that it has to be so.
Did that make sense only to me? It’s either completely meaningless, or deeply profound.