In a previous post regarding the divine inspiration of the Bible, in the comments, a conversation ensued regarding why one would believe in Christianity, Jesus, and the Bible. I responded that it was essentially a choice for me. Since then I have done a lot more thinking and reading and my ideas on this subject have evolved (or horribly mutated depending on whether you think the result is good or bad) and I would like to share this with you. It is first necessary for me to identify and put forth the reasons why I do not take the Bible as historically accurate or as the ultimate guide for moral truth for it is upon this assumption that the rest of my thoughts rest.
For centuries the Bible served as the most ancient and leading authority of the history of the earth and its inhabitants. Even today many look to it to discover the origins of the universe and the answers to all moral and life issues. However, the Bible is no longer the most ancient document we have in our possession. Since the late 1800's, when archaeology began to bring to the surface strange and wonderful objects from the distant past, the Bible began to be specifically illuminated in light of these discoveries. No longer is it alone in its descriptions of the universe or moral laws. There is even evidence that the authors of the various books of the Bible may have borrowed certain ideas, or even blatantly copied stories while inserting their own unique characters and ideologies to make them suitable for their own culture. One need only look back on the other posts I've done to see examples of this. Some of the more blatant ones are the flood story where the Sumerian Atrahasis was renamed Utnapishtim by the Babylonians (who admitted their borrowing), and again renamed Noah by the Israelites (who preferred to not give credit where credit is due); the code of Ur-Nammu used as inspiration for the code of Hammurapi, and again borrowed over into the law of Moses; the birth story of Sargon of Akkad remade in the birth story of Moses; the common concept of the underworld and its inhabitants throughout the Ancient Near East almost directly comparable to the Hebrew concept of Sheol. There are other more subtle themes which can also be attributed to a common heritage found throughout the Bible, not only in the Old Testament but in the New Testament as well. It is naive to think that the Bible is still the only unique, and wholly trustworthy source of literature inspired by God alone, for the teaching of moral and historical truth.
I am well aware of Christian apologetics, having studied them and been a proponent of them for many years of my life. However, the problem that I see with trying to prove the historicity of the Bible is that it goes against all good practices of research. Apologetics generally start with the conclusion (that the Bible is the only source of truth and is completely and historically accurate) and then search for the proof. Naturally, they do find some evidence to support their claims, but there is just as much, if not more evidence to the contrary that is ignored or pushed under the carpet. One should start by researching and then build conclusions based on the evidence, not the other way around. Creation science supporters are among the most notorious culprits for finding evidence to support pre-conceived conclusions. That being said, I of course acknowledge the fact that there is no such thing as objectivity and that everyone comes to the research table with some kind of filter. However, Christian apologetics are very blatantly and unapologetically doing the research backwards. These arguments for the veracity of the Bible are good for convincing those who want to be convinced and looking to confirm a position already taken, but are generally inadmissible to those who are researching from the bottom up instead of the top down.
When faced with the evidence pointing in the direction that the Bible is likely not unique, historically accurate, or meant be taken as literal truth, there are two options of what has happened in the writing of the Biblical literature. The first option is syncretism or borrowing of stories and ideas from the neighbouring cultures. The second option is something put forth by the author Joseph Campbell in nearly all of his written works. It is that all of the world's mythology has common themes flowing through them, even within written works that are geographically very far apart, which excludes the possibility of direct borrowing. The reasoning behind this, Joseph Campbell explains in his book, The Hero With a Thousand Faces, is that there are common needs, experiences, and dreams that reside within every human being as they are searching for answers and seeking the divine. He speculates that literature itself could have been originally inspired from dreams. He draws from Freud's work, comparing themes from dreams to those of mythology, drawing striking resemblances. Whatever the reason, whether mythology was inspired from dreams or the very nature of humanity, the reality is that there are common motifs and themes throughout the world's mythology. This in itself is a miracle that will likely be beyond our comprehension for many years to come.
As far as the Biblical literature is concerned, there is evidence of direct syncretism as well as this idea of the common world theme. As a result, it is difficult (for me at least) to put faith in the inerrancy, historical accuracy, and the ability of the Bible to address every moral issue that the modern person is likely to face in this age. "For surely it is folly to preach to children who will be riding rockets to the moon a morality and cosmology based on concepts of the Good Society and of man's place in nature that were coined before the harnessing of the horse! And the world is now far too small, and men's stake in sanity too great, for any more of those old games of Chosen Folk (whether of Jehovah, Allah, Wotan, Manu, or the Devil) by which tribesmen were sustained against their enemies in the days when the serpent still could talk." (Primitive Mythology, pg. 12) Although we call the Bible timeless in its precepts and moral teachings, it is obvious that even we as Christians have an evolved view of what is acceptable from the Bible and that which is not. Slavery being one idea that in the past was confirmed as okay in the eyes of God and is, in our current society, deemed immoral. Holy war in the name of Yahweh, where God commands his people to decimate another nation would likely be frowned upon these days (unless you are a fan of George Bush). What things do we Christians hold dear morally in our time today that, 50 years from now, will be looked upon by the generation of 2060 as completely ludicrous? Possibly homosexuality, which we condemn as a sin, not based on any negative repercussions in society or upon the individual, but on the premise of "God said so" (and therefore we must blindly obey without utilizing our own conscience and intellect) will place an aura of barbarism upon our current Christian culture through the eyes of the generations to follow in the same way we look upon the issue of slavery and the Christians that condoned it in the past.
If then, we follow this trail of the Bible not being the inerrant moral and historical guide that we once thought it was, what does that leave us with? What can we as Christians still glean from this book? Joseph Campbell lays out in his book, Occidental Mythology, the four purposes of mythology, which do transfer over somewhat as the four purposes of the mythology of the Bible, both to its original audience and to us now.
The first purpose is that of "eliciting and supporting a sense of awe before the mystery of being." This can take place as a fear of the demonic, or the rapture of the divine, and everywhere in between. This aspect can be taught, but myth truly fulfills this function when it is experienced. Surely all Christians have that moment when they are reading the Bible, when they have that sense and experience of awe and wonder of God, not based on an historical event, but based on the imagery, passion, and message of the stories.
The second purpose is that of providing a cosmology, a framework that supports the sense of awe of the first purpose. The problem arises, though, when the cosmology presented does not match the mentality of the society in which it is taught. The cosmology of the Bible and the Ancient Near East spoke specifically to that society. "So we note that when the priestly watchers of the skies in ancient Sumer, c. 3500 B.C., learned of the order of the planets, the entire mythic system of the nuclear Near East stepped away from the simple primitive themes of the hunting and planting tribes....Today that vision has dissolved. And here we touch upon a crucial problem of the religions of our time; for the clergies, generally, still are preaching themes from the first to fourth milleniums B.C. No one of adult mind today would turn to the Book of Genesis to learn of the origins of the earth, the plants, the beasts, and man. There was no flood, no tower of Babel, no first couple in paradise, and between the first known appearance of men on earth and the first buildings of cities, not one generation (Adam to Cain) but a good two million must have come into this world and passed along. Today we turn to science for our imagery of the past and of the structure of the world, and what the spinning demons of the atom and the galaxies of the telescope's eye reveal is a wonder that makes the Babel of the Bible seem a toyland dream of the childhood of our brain." (Occidental Mythology, pg. 519-520)
Thus the cosmology of the Bible, to be applicable to modern Christians, cannot be preached as a literal truth, as it cannot possibly speak to the educated, scientific minds of our current culture. That being said, the cosmology of the Bible still has value within the framework of the first purpose of mythology, that of inspiring awe in the individual.
The third function of mythology is "to establish in every member of the group concerned a 'system of sentiments' that can be depended upon to link him spontaneously to its ends." However, the system of sentiments must be proper to the group in which it is applied. "That proper to a matriarchy is improper to a patriarchy; and that of any tribal group is improper to this day of developed individuals crossing paths from east to west and from north to south." (Occidental Mythology, pg. 520) Again, we rise into problems when we try to apply the system of sentiments presented in the Bible, which was written over a span of hundreds of years, where the sentiments expressed in the Old Testament rarely agree completely with each other due to cultural evolution. This carries on into the system of sentiments in the New Testament books where again, trying to reconcile the moral attitudes and precepts held by the Ancient Israelites to those living under the Roman rule is a spider web of theological back pedaling resulting in a confused, and often disillusioned, flock. The system of sentiments must accurately reflect the society to which they are presented, and therefore, when examining the morals and ideologies of the Bible, one must do so utilizing one's own conscience and intellect, before making brash judgments and generalizations based on a system prepared specifically by a people in a time not touched by our modern experiences of ever growing scientific knowledge and the general awareness of the world and other cultures that would not be possible in a society where airplanes, automobiles, and the internet did not exist.
The fourth function, is "to initiate the individual into the order of realities of his own psyche, guiding him toward his own spiritual enrichment and realization." (Occidental Mythology, p. 521) This again must be done in a way that is relative to the culture in which the mythology is presented. This function and the first tend to work together. A sense of awe is developed which then leads to a sense of spiritual realization.
Joseph Campbell states, "...whenever a myth has been taken literally its sense has been perverted; but also, reciprocally, that whenever it has been dismisses as a mere priestly fraud or sign of inferior intelligence, truth has slipped out the other door." (Primitive Mythology, p. 27) How then, without taking a reductionist view of the Bible, can we as Christians still enter into this spiritual journey, knowing full well that the Bible is not inerrant, or historically accurate? How can we attain this sense of awe of being and spiritual realization? The answer again that I have found, and am still working out, comes from the idea of Acquiescing to Believe. It is in part an existential choice, but much more complicated.
This idea of acquiescing to believe was to me imparted and inspired by the famous mythologist, Joseph Campbell, from whom we have already gleaned much of our knowledge of the purpose of mythology. Although the following analogies of this idea are somewhat limited, and an oversimplification of the matter at hand, they do suffice to communicate the sentiment.
When I was a child, I collected stuffed animals. I had quite the collection consisting of over 70 stuffies, all lined up on my shelves in my bedroom of which I could tell you all of their names. These toys were very dear to me, and if asked, I would tell you that they could talk, had emotions, and were, if one has the ability to believe, very much alive. If I had to become separated from one, it caused as much trauma to myself as if I were separated from a family member. However, on the same level, I knew, deep down inside, that these stuffed animals were not really alive, but were in fact just toys. Yet, that feeling, which was at one point on a conscious level, was pushed deep down inside of me as I chose to believe that the stuffies were alive. It was this act of 'make believe' that allowed me to have the relationship with my stuffed animals that I did.
Joseph Campbell explains a very similar concept that exists in primitive religious acts where a worshipper dons a mask and plays the part of the god in a play or dance. The worshippers involved in the festival know that the person in the mask is indeed just a person, but they enter in to the festival and that man becomes the god.
Another analogy which is somewhat closer to home, and can maybe be related to by some others, is a story from my relationship with my wife, Colleen. For some reason, Colleen has this strange fear of being pursued up a flight of stairs by some unknown assailant. As such, I am not allowed to chase her up the stairs. I have though, on occasion, for the pure hilarity of the moment, chased her up the stairs. Upon doing so, Colleen falls into a panic attack which can even be so severe as to draw tears. Colleen knows full well that I am the one who is chasing her up the stairs, yet for some reason, her mind can turn me, her loving husband, into a person of malicious intent who is out to harm her. What is it inside us that can turn things we know to be one thing into another?
As well, when one enters into a really inspiring, and engrossing film (one example of contemporary mythology which fulfills the same purposes laid out previously), we know full well that the movie is not real, that the people on the screen are just overpaid actors putting on a show, yet we can become so emotionally involved, and lost in the story, that we almost believe it to be truly happening - that is, until the credits roll and we are jerked harshly back into our realities.
Another example given by Joseph Campbell is a child who plays a game of make believe. “A professor, is writing at his desk and his four-year old daughter is running about the room. She has nothing to do and is disturbing him. So he gives her three burnt matches, saying, ‘Here,! Play!’ and, sitting on the rug, she begins to play with the matches, Hansel, Gretel, and the witch. A considerable time elapses, during which the professor concentrates upon his task, undisturbed. But then, suddenly, the child shrieks in terror. The father jumps. ‘What is it? What has happened?’ The little girl comes running to him, showing every sign of great fright. ‘Daddy, Daddy,’ she cries, ‘take the witch away! I can’t touch the witch anymore!’"
Leo Frobenius explains this shift from play to reality. “An eruption of emotion, is characteristic of the spontaneous shift of an idea from the level of the sentiments to that of sensual consciousness. Furthermore, the appearance of such an eruption obviously means that a certain spiritual process has reached a conclusion. The match is not a witch; nor was it a witch for the child at the beginning of the game. The process, therefore, rests on the fact that the match has become a witch on the level of the sentiments and the conclusion of the process coincides with the transfer of this idea to the plane of consciousness. The observation of the process escapes the test of conscious thought, since it enters consciousness only after or at the moment of completion. However, inasmuch as the idea is, it must have become. The process is creative, in the highest sense of the word; for, as we have seen, in a little girl a match can become a witch. Briefly stated then: the phase of becoming takes place on the level of the sentiments, while that of being is on the conscious plane.” (Primitive Mythology, p. 23)
It is then required to participate in some sort of ‘game’ of belief before one can actually believe on a conscious level. It is a game of ‘as if’ that then leads one into the festival of religious practice that one has chosen to be a part of. “The chronicles of the saints abound in accounts of their long ordeals of difficult practice, which preceded their moments of being carried away; and we have also the more spontaneous religious games and exercises of the folk to illustrate for us the principle involved.” (Primitive Mythology, p. 25) If we take a look at the evangelical church, which I grew up in and currently attend, this concept is very clear. The worship services, in particular the ‘worship time’ which is so encompassed by music and singing, is indeed designed specifically to bring about this ‘divine seizure.’ Although it may seem that it is a spontaneous act of the Holy Spirit upon our emotions and minds, one must realize that worship leaders are designing the music and worship in order to, in lesser terms, facilitate, and in stronger terms, cause, this divine moving of the Holy Spirit in the participant. Do not be deceived my brothers and sisters. Being a worship leader is a craft that is developed and even taught within our Bible Colleges and Seminaries, I myself have received this training and know what steps are required in order to ‘facilitate’ this moving of the Holy Spirit.
As well, as most Christians know, we must be actively involved in the church, and have an active spiritual life consistently throughout the weeks and months before we can achieve those 'AHA' moments where God speaks to us, where we feel his presence directly, or have an experience which we believe or know was given to us by God. When we feel ‘dry’ we know that it is our own fault of not being involved or seeking God actively. In other words, we must choose to participate in the festivities, religious practices, and rites of our chosen path of worship, in order to make the transfer from the plane of sentiments, or our play of belief in God, to the conscious place of God being true and a reality.
There are Christians who we term as ‘hot and cold’. They are the ones who live for the emotional highs provided by the church service, day camps, or special events where one can go for a week to be immersed in the presence of God and draw inspiration for their lives that will get them to the next event. Indeed all Christians are this way to some degree as none of us can achieve a degree of consistency in our Christian walk that would allow us to not become dependent on these moments of personal experience. Some advice given by Ramakrishna is very appropriate to us in this instance.
“Ramakrishna closed his eyes. ‘Is it only this?’ he said. ‘Does God exist only when the eyes are closed, and disappear when the eyes are opened?’ He opened his eyes. ‘The Play belongs to Him to whom Eternity belongs, and Eternity belongs to Him to whom the Play belongs…..some people climb the seven floors of a building and cannot get down; but some climb up and then, at will, visit the lower floors.” (pg. 26) Our Christianity cannot be based wholly on experiences, especially for me as I am somewhat leery of emotional highs as you will see. As such we should be striving for a way to still have that sense of spirituality without having to seek out the next spiritual high; to be able to ascend to that level of spiritual maturity where the experience isn't all that matters, but to be able to 'climb down' to the lower floors and still have a viable spirituality.
Is our experience of God only within the confines of our carefully planned worship services, our personal devotions, prayer, meditations, all these things which we need in order to develop our ‘relationship’ with the divine? Does God only exist with our eyes closed? “Any state of seizure, whether by life or by the gods, must represent a fall or drop of spiritual niveau, a vulgarization of the play. Nobility of spirit is the grace-or ability-to play, whether in heaven or on earth.” (Primitive Mythology, p.27) Yet, it is through these experiences that one 'feels' close to God. One must be open to this sense of playing 'as if' in order to attain this spiritual enlightenment. This is a big struggle for me personally the reason for which I will share with you. When I am in a church service, very often I will feel emotional, or feel the presence of the divine. However, I can't trust these feelings for myself. I will tell you why. While we lived in New Brunswick, there was a commercial for tourism in PEI and there was a very catchy folk music dingle. The song, for some reason, even though the subject matter was purely a commercial advertising tourism, brought literal tears to my eyes! To this day I can still remember the phone number to call for information on tourism in PEI. "8 double zero, 565-7421!!" If such a commercial can elicit the same emotional response, how can I trust my emotions in the church service?
Yet emotions are intrinsically involved in this act of playing 'as if' in order to gain an understanding of the divine. It is this game of 'as if', even though I know the Bible is not the inerrant moral guide I once thought it was, that allows me to still enter in to the festival of the Christian sphere. "Such a highly played game of 'as if' frees our mind and spirit on the one hand, from the presumption of theology, which pretends to know the laws of God, and, on the other, from the bondage of reason, whose laws do not apply beyond the horizon of human experience." (Primitive mythology, p.28) It is not my struggle to let go of the myth to solidly believed as truth, but rather to let go of the 'bondage of reason', which does not allow me to enter in to the festival as I once used to. It is this stage in between that I am striving for that I have not yet attained. An existential choice is not possible due to my 'reason' getting in the way. I have yet to learn how, through Christianity, to enter in to the spiritual. I feel that the answer lies somewhere in the following statement by Joseph Campbell.
"The play state and the rapturous seizures sometimes deriving from it represent, therefore, a step rather toward than away from the ineluctable truth; and belief-acquiescence in a belief that is not quite belief-is the first step toward the deepened participation that the festival affords in that general will to life which, in its metaphysical aspect, is antecedent to, and the creator of, all life's laws. The opaque weight of the world-both of life on earth and of death, heaven, and hell-is dissolved, and the spirit freed, not from anything, for there was nothing from which to be freed except a myth too solidly believed, but for something, something fresh and new, a spontaneous act." (Primitive Mythology, pg. 28)
