(How's that for a google-aware thread title? )

- - -

Since Joseph Campbell, the goddess, and other references to mythology were mentioned in this thread, I thought we might spend a little time going over the relationship and possible value of myth to those on the Christian pathway.

For those interested in my "bottom line," here, my assessment is that comparative mythology is of very little value to Christians. I'm not saying it's not interesting, or that it can't help to see the Gospel in a new light, but in terms of providing important information about God and how to grow in union with God, forget it. Myth represents a much lower approach to the divine than the revelation of Christ (or even other religious founders), hence the following Scriptures:

. . . insist that certain people stop teaching strange doctrines and taking notice of myths and endless genealogies; these things are only likely to raise irrelevant doubts instead of furtherin the designs of God which are revealed in faith.
- 1 Tim. 1: 4 -

Have nothing to do with godless mysths and old wives' tales. Train yourself spiritually.
- 1 Tim. 4: 7 -

It was not by any cleverly invented myths that we were repeating when we brought you the knowledge of the power and the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ; we had seen his majesty for ourselves.
- 2 Pt. 1: 16 -

The revelation of Christ is an historical event, not a mythological fabrication. It resonates with many themes found in mythologies around the world, but that shouldn't be surprising if we understand myths to be projections/externalizations of unconscious human archetypal tendencies. Indeed, it is this resonance between the Gospel and our inner human yearnings (which myths express) that accounts for our receptivity to the Gospel. If there were too great a disparity, the Gospel seeds would not "take." Hence, Christian missionaries often found a surprising willingness to accept the Gospel among people who had never even heard of Judaism; their mythologies had prepared them for the Gospel and thus constituted what came to be called a "proto-evangelium," or pre-evangelization.

So what of Joseph Campbell, then, and comparative mythology?

As I noted on another thread, I think Campbell is a very fine comparative mythologist. I've read several of his books and have watched his PBS interview with Bill Moyers many times. Campbell is an engaging storyteller who brings these myths to life and enables us to actually feel the stirrings of their deep inner sources.

Where things get confusing is in Campbell's treatment of Christianity as but one myth among many -- e.g., an instance of the "dying and rising god" myth, and others. It's fair game for a mythologist to do so, but one is left with the impression that the Christian story is naught but a myth, having little if any historical foundation. Campbell might actually believe that to be the case, but it is clearly not.

Jesus really did live, teach, heal and die from crucifixion; very few historians doubt this. It's also historical fact that, shortly after his death, his followers began to proclaim that he had risen. Communities were formed around the implications of this "good news," and a powerful Spirit was at work among them as they, too, taught, healed and worked miracles as Jesus had done. Again, this is historical fact, not mythological contrivance. There's just no other way to explain the beginning of Christianity and the Christian Church. Certainly, there are legendary embellishments that have worked their way in to the telling of the story, but that doesn't discount the historical foundations of Christianity.

Long opening post, I realize, but this is a big topic, and one that has had an influence on how people understand Jesus, Christianity and Christian faith. It's certain that many have had their faith strengthened by watching Campbell and Moyers, in that they saw at work the proto-evangelium. Others with a weaker faith saw Christianity flattened and experienced an increase in doubt concerning Christian teaching and its reliability. It doesn't help matters that Campbell seems to have his own issues and agenda concerning the Church; all sorts of snide remarks and negative insinuations creep into his accounts, and this only seems to impress the fawning Moyers rather than provoke probing questions.

- tag to Michael, who mentioned something of Campbell's religious orientation in the other thread; tell us more now, please.

Phil said: Others with a weaker faith saw Christianity flattened and experienced an increase in doubt concerning Christian teaching and its reliability.

That seems inevitable in this era of cultural relativism where there are few, if any, absolute truths. In this context Christianity is but one of many ways of understanding the world �- no better or worse than others but simply "appropriate" to the culture of origin. But I suppose that's fair game as Christianity isn't the only religion on the planet that claims to be "the one true religion". Campbell obviously notices some amazing similarities between the various myths and religions from around the world. That makes the idea that Phil mentioned of "proto-evangelium" an interesting concept. Certainly a valid line of inquiry (as politically incorrect as it might be, which is why it has some appeal to me) is that "all roads lead to Christ", as it were. I have little doubt that Phil and others could build a quite persuasive case that this is so. That may turn out to be true or not but it seems a valid line of reasoning. But it seems many scholars these days do not find nobility or reason in any research that does not start from the perspective of "inclusiveness." Personally, I just don't equate enlightenment with throwing away the ability or desire to make critical discernments. It might be a case where Christianity is true and Islam is false. It could also be the reverse. Or, it could be that both are false. It might even be the case, as Campbell seems to suggest, that they ALL are false and that all myth and religion are nothing more than a reflection of something deep in the human psyche.

Long story short, this cultural relativistic world does not leave me convinced that Christianity is true but it does lead me to seriously entertain the possibility that all religions are not equally true. If the latter is the case then rather then seeing "all truth" (or "no truth") in all these little bits and pieces that Campbell puts together to tell his psychological story, one could put these same bits and pieces together to tell a religious story�maybe even a Christian story. You never know.

Oh, boy !!! This will be a very long thread.

Like Abe Lincoln, a good lawyer knows the other side's case. People can, and do devote their entire lives to this study, and that can keep me humble. Do we really know the other cultures and understand them well enough to critique them? Didn't it take the Church fathers hundreds of years to sort through
the Greek and Roman myths? How can we be so sure we are right?


"Then Paul stood in the midst of Mars' hill and said, Ye men of Athens, I percieve that in all things ye are too superstitious." -Acts 17:22

http://www.infidels.org/librar...aves/16/chap45.shtml

http://pages.ca.inter.net/oblio/home.htm

http://www.ageofreason.org

"But sanctify the Lord God in your hearts: and be always ready to give an answer to every man that asketh you a reason of the hope that is in you, with meakness and fear." -I Peter 3:15


http://www.geocities.com/metagetics/mythology2.htm

http://answers.org/apologetics/appealdenied.html

http://christianitytoday.com/ct/2001/006/1.32.html

http://www.firstthings.com/fti...s/ft9604/girard.html

That's alot of links, but when preparing for battle I remember Robert Duvall is the colonel in Apocalypse Now exclaiming, "Proper Preparation Prevents Poor Performance." (The five 'P' principal) "I love the smell of apologetics in the morning, it smells like VICTORY!!!"

caritas,

mm <*)))))><

Do we really know the other cultures and understand them well enough to critique them?

MM, although some of the nuance of, say, the Jivaro tribe might not be known to me, I feel pretty confident in pronouncing head-hunting or human sacrifice as barbaric.

Of course, some people are highly offended by such mythological or religious symbols as Christmas Trees. Recently they were banned from King County libraries. I guess they�re going to have to strip those trees of their angels and mangers, replace them with erect fertility symbols and [expletive deleted] rings, and try to get them back in as "Winter Festival" trees. [Read the Gary Aldrich book "Unlimited Access" to have an idea of what I�m talking about in regards to acceptable Christmas trees, particularly acceptable White House Christmas tree.]

Do we really know the other cultures and understand them well enough to critique them?

I was talking about contrasting myth with the Gospel, which is historical. No disrespect to any culture was intended.

In Spiral Dynamics, mythical consciousness belongs to the Purple level, which is one step above the primitive. It is the first way we begin to bring order to our lives and relate our stories to the transcendent. Most religions have retained an attentiveness to this level through its stories, symbols, rituals, and even things like Christmas trees. But as people have come to reject "organized religion," they find themselves lamentably deficient in Purple. Hence, the attraction to Joseph Campbell, Wicca, Native American religion and even some of the New Agey practices.

Phil:

The domain of mythical consciousness usually becomes known during devotion to the transcendental Divine, wouldn't you say? But when the mythical domain becomes real, viscerally so, in the psyche of the person, and prior to an experience of God as completely other and loving, then one can see how the rich numinous domain of archypes can become a source of security one would never want to let go of.

One of Michael's links to a post-modern group of atheists shows how a contact with this mythical realm would generate such a degree of ambivalence that reason alone could never again be trusted. But what is most fascinating in this transformation from atheism to subjective knowing of the numinous is realizing how dead the body had formerly been, submerged below awareness, since, once conscious, it is the immediate, validating abode of this realm; no surprise, then, that there are so few declared atheists even among psychotherapists, who might otherwise hold to notions similiar to what we see in Campbell.

And so I would differentiate between mythical consciousness, as you allude to re: Spiral Dynamics, and conscious awareness of this realm, which tends to lead to an experience of the body as sacred and alchemical. Nevertheless, one cannot discern, at least from my experience, the transcendental Divine from even the richness of these archetypes, except perhaps via dissillusionment with the creaturely powers.

Right, w.c. In the Purple realm, the numinosity of the archetypes and the myths which both express and form their unfolding prevail, as the development of the power of reason has not yet come to fruition. We see this in children and in many cultures that are still organized around myths and rituals. From such Purple, communal-bonding powers, Red emerges, providing the energy for individual assertion, which produces problems that are resolved by the Blue system and the more conceptual religious expressions which characterize that level. So for one who has good Blue development, myth can still be experienced, but it does not eclipse the authority-backed conceptual systems that are shaping consciousness at this stage. In the best of circumstances (as one often finds in Catholicism ), mythological resonances are congruent with what reason affirms and myth provides a symbolic connection between rational and emotional levels of faith.

The problem with so many these days is that they have very poor Blue development, or the ideologies generated by Green zone advocates have actually spilled in to the Blue layers and become dogmas of sorts. These people really don't know the difference between good and evil, truth and falsehood, right and wrong, etc., for that's the contribution of Blue -- to shed a certain amount of clarity on those issues.

For more info on what I mean by these colors, see http://www.spiraldynamics.org/pdf_resources/SDMC.pdf
Also, http://www.spiraldynamics.org/Graves/colors.htm

I see this as a major advantage of Catholicism, that is the ability to travel through differing levels of development, myth, mystery, symbol and substance,
memes, dynamics, Dark Nights of the Soul with attendant depressions and agnosticism, Spirit of Blasphemy or the like.

Many have traveled all the way to "Perfection" or "Union" in the Roman and Orthodox traditions, and left their stairs or maps or ladders or castles for us in order to follow them, and there are several dozen worth their own discussion topics,
and Lord willing we shall get 'round to them soon.

Of course Christianity is mythical, but as C.S. Lewis, a student of myth and a writer in the fantasy and science fiction genre has observed,
it is "the myth that is true."

caritas,

mm <*)))))><