www.byzcath.org Forums General Discussions Town Hall from Faith to Myth

I was reviewing some of the materials by Joseph Campbell, Andrew Greeley, Mircea Eliade, et al., and I had a dawning realization. It is so obvious that once I realized it, I also thought "Duh."

It's this: The work of so many scholars to decode the religious beliefs of the world into pre-modern metaphors for psychology has resulted in destroying the faith of a lot of people.

A lot of people --including clergy, especially of the more liberal theological schools of thought-- basically don't believe anymore. They are essentially existentialists and nihilists. Religion for them has become their happy talk: it is their coded mythology for life and the joy of living that keeps them going from void unto void.

Maybe that's why, for some in the Roman Catholic Church, holding hands while saying the Lord's Prayer is a more important form of communion --and, to them, a more real form of communion-- than receiving the Eucharist. Or, perhaps, that's why some folks are trying to redefine the Eucharist as a verb for holding hands and smiling . . .

Yet, all this existential decoding of religion is really just a new religion . . . a tower of Babel of idolatry of the self. They're worshipping themselves.

Meanwhile, I'm pleased to ruminate, the religious communities (Catholic, Orthodox and Protestant) that actually worship the living and almighty God are alive and thriving.

One should pray that that simple fact will be enough to cause the doubters to have a rethink.

Kyrie Eleison !

--John

Christ, the true Light, You enlighten and sanctify every man. May Your light shine in us that we may see Your radiance. Help us to live according to Your commandments, through the prayers of Your all-pure Mother and all Your Saints. Amen.

Amen to both you and John!

All theological trajectories boil down to this: What is Revelation?

I know...duh!

Back to my Starbucks...

Gordo

What would be an example of a "pre-modern metaphor for psychology"?

I have probably encountered this. A former professor of mine doubted the resurrection and other 'mythical' aspects of the faith. I don't know what led him to believe that, but he was influenced by the "Jesus Seminar" and the quest for the historical Jesus as opposed to the mythical Jesus of the Bible. He would speak of the Christ in John, the Christ in Matthew, in Luke and in Mark as if they were "different Jesus'".

Terry

Terry,

The Hero's Journey, which Joseph Campbell posited, is an example. It is (allegedly) found in many of the world's myths, and it consists of a person who must undergo a great transformation.

Usually, the plot is that the person is somehow called or summoned from his ordinary life; then he finds a sage who offers some help; but then he must face his demons alone (symbolized by a dungeon, a monster, the dark Side of the Force, etc.); and then he emerges victorious but transformed because the thing that was faced is now integrated into the hero's personality in a positive way.

This is a metaphor for psychological growth. It is useful to describe growing up, facing death, and for all the transformations in life in between. Psychologically throughout life, we must leave the stage of life we knew before; we must face that which is terrible and dreadful to us; and we must either integrate into our personalities or be destroyed.

This makes for good psychology and a good story.

It makes for lousy theology. Nevertheless, a lot of folks who have lost their faith think that all theology is "story" and they therefore create a mythology of story. So, for example, Jesus really didn't work miracles and rise from the dead; that's just a story to help us understand that life consists of "dying" and "rising" to new levels of consciousness and compassion. Etc.

In short, the deconstructionist mythifiers of theology think that there really is nothing else than this materialist life; so they dress it up with myths (stories) to make it more palatable, "life-affirming," inspiring and, of course, "relevant."

You mentioned "The Jesus Seminar." I saw one of the founders of that movement interviewed in an atheistic, anti-religious film entitled "The God who Wasn't There." In it he said --and I am not making this up -- that he attends the Episcopal Church because he knows that they know it's all mythology. ( !)

-- John

John,

You're up early this morning!

Ah, that argument. That was rather big in the late 1800s. I do like Tolkien's response to those who say that Christianity is just another of the myths of past cultures, implying as well that it's outdated. Their thoughts fit in with Hegel's "Philosophy of History". Tolkien listened to their argument and responded that indeed, but Christ is the True Myth. (I read an essay of his somewhere expressing the idea, but I don't have it in front of me and don't precisely remember which essay it was.)

He spoke about this with C.S. Lewis who then was captivated by the idea in a letter. He wrote:

Jungian psychology uses these mythic archetypes as well. After digging around on the internet, I seem to have found that Campbell took Jung's archetypes even further.

I think you're right about that, Dr. Eric.

-- John

Terry, I think you are right. Unfortunately, the proponents of Christianity-as-a-myth purport their view to be the latest *conclusion* of objective reasearch. The so-called "Jesus Project" that you cited is just one of the latest examples. It's tiresome.

-- John

Now, to a certain extent some of these things are true for us, just not true for Christianity.

We do take on a kind of "Star Wars" path.

We start out as some kind of nobody until a wise Sage like figure comes along and opens to us a world we could never have imagined.

For some of us it is a mentor, a parent, but for those who cast out into the deep it is a Starets, an Elder who can show us the ways of God. (Who is much more powerful than the Force )

Eventually the parent/mentor/guide/Elder must depart by death/retirement/moving and we now have to become the hero of our own little movies. We now have the tools we need to forge ahead even though we think we don't.

Eventually (whether this happens at the end or middle of our lives) we will confront and defeat our Archnemesis who or whatever it may be and things will be at peace... until the sequel.

Many moderns mistake theology for mythical-psychobabble.. for example, on a discussion about women's ordination, one TEC member stated something to the effect of - "well, that's your theology, but women are being oppressed by not being ordained".. as if theology is 'less real' because the end result is not to their liking. Frankly, I think that these types will use any mind games, sales methodology, or armchair-psychologies to get the end result they desire, no matter the means. If they get their way, they are happy - if not, then those who disagree are -phobes, -ists, totalitarians, etc..

The search for the "historical Jesus" hinges certain a priori assumptions. One of them is that truth cannot be developed or found in tradition, such as with the Trinity or the Ressurection. You can go down the line with every type of "Christianity-as-myth" that you are referring to; they all rest on a priori assumptions that are founded outside of faith.

Would it be possible to answer those critics from faith?

Should we seek to possess objective knowledge of Christianity, so that it is not founded within the faith but in modern (or post-modern) methods of knowing from philosophy, archeology, and science?

We may in that fashion give an answer in their terms, but that could be a fruitless venture that hardens the heart.

Terry

I read these posts with interest today -- I have a unique perspective on some of these issues both as a religious studies scholar, as a trained academic historian, as a college professor and as a resident in a very conservative region of the Country.

First, all of the data I have seen about Americans and religion seems to indicate that your statement that Campbell, et. al. have shaken the faith of many is incorrect. Americans are very religious people and probably are more religious now than they have been at any other time in history.

Second, my experience with young people has led me to observe that those who no longer believe reject Christianity NOT because they have been influenced by "liberals" but because the only faith they have seen is one that asks them both to deny their reason. In particular, it is the harsh judgmental attitudes of fundamentalist right-wing Christians that they seem to find most objectionable.

I am not saying this to defend the silliness of the "all religions are the same" mantra of older liberals. (In my experience, no current religious study scholar accepts this nonsense anymore. The current emphasis is on understanding religions within their social contexts, etc. That is, in today's religious studies climate, Durkheim is much more in vogue than Campbell.) I do however get tired of the "liberals have destroyed the world" mantra -- the reality is that we Christians have often presented a judgmental, harsh model of Christianity to today's youth. I do think that they often are rejecting us rather than Christ. It is this that gives me hope for their future faith -- when they meet Christ as He is (and not as we too often have mistakenly presented him to be) they will love Him for they will see Him as He is!

Terry,


I think the essay you are talking about is "On Faery Stories" which was delivered to the British Academy in 1937, I think.

Michael

John,

I pretty much agree with everything you say here, especially what regards the Roman Catholic Church. How could you "do -- or should I say 'celebrate' -- a clown mass" if you believe the Mass is the renewal of the unique Sacrifice of Christ on the Cross? etc., etc.

Why hear Confessions, if there is no sin, since God -- "He-Who-May-Be" -- couldn't care less about human foibles?

IMO, correcting this whole apostasy is one of Pope Benedict's highest priorities, and as part of that, the motivation for Summorum Pontificum, which is the Mass as it was Before-Scholars-And-Psychological-Myths. (And I mean no disrespect toward appropriately celebrated Masses of the Ordinary Form.)

It is a rare thing to find a parish where even many people can remember the phrase "the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass" and what it means.

Best,
Michael