Emerging Africa

Nicolas Berdyaev, the Orthodox philosopher, said:

"Myth is a reality immeasurably greater than concept. It is high time that we stopped identifying myth with invention, with the illusions of primitive mentality, and with anything, in fact, which is essentially opposed to reality... The creation of myths among peoples denotes a real spiritual life,
more real indeed than that of abstract concepts and rational thought. Myth is always concrete and expresses life better than abstract thought can do; its nature is bound up with that of symbol. Myth is the concrete recital of events and original phenomena of the spiritual life symbolized in the natural world, which has engraved itself on the language memory and
creative energy of the people... it brings two worlds together symbolically."

And since he mentions symbols and symbolism, this explanatory note by Fr Alexander Schmemann might be useful:

"The uniqueness of secularism, its difference from the great heresies of the patristic age, is that the latter were provoked by the encounter of Christianity with Hellenism, whereas the former is the result of a "breakdown" within Christianity itself, of its own deep metamorphosis... At the end of the twelfth century a Latin theologian, Berengarius of Tours, was condemned for his teaching on the Eucharist. He maintained that because the presence of Christ in the Eucharistic elements is "mystical" or "symbolic," it is not real. The Lateran Council which condemned him - and here is for me the crux of the matter - simply reversed the formula. It proclaimed that since Christ's presence in the Eucharist is real, it is not "mystical." What is decisive here is precisely the disconnection and the opposition of the two terms verum and mystice, the acceptance, on both sides, that they are mutually exclusive. Western theology thus declared that that which is "mystical" or "symbolic" is not real, whereas that which is "real" is not symbolic. This was, in fact, the collapse of the fundamental Christian mysterion, the antinomical "holding together" of the reality of the symbol, and of the symbolism of reality. It was the collapse of the fundamental Christian understanding of creation in terms of its fundamental sacramentality. And since then, Christian thought, in Scholasticism and beyond it, never ceased to oppose these terms, to reject, implicitly or explicitly, the "symbolic realism" and the "realistic symbolism" of the Christian world view.

Sorry I didn't follow the stream on post-modernism too well (I've been busy trying to get the Bloem church up) but I was delighted to get a Feedbiz invite into this conversation on myth and the Bible.

I think Nic did a great job showing us what people mean in modern language by the word myth. This also makes it difficult to read through the churches historical perspectives because often we impose a modern meaning which is different to the ancient writers intent (I love Umberto Eco's book Mouse or Rat on translation and meaning).
Another way to look at myth, in the ancient sense, is (and this is maybe a combination of the last two points in Nic's defintions) a story that explains the world around us. There could be the humanistic myth, evolutionary myth, spiritism myth etc. In this meaning it is a story which forms the foundation for living and understanding life (irrespective of its claim to historic truth)

My take on the issue is nothing new and I draw a lot from Dom Crossan and NT Wrights conflicting opinions on the resurrection to orientate my thoughts.
Metaphor as still the Word of God.
In many instances Jesus spoke in parables for example, we know that they are not historic but metaphoric. Often elsewhere a historic event is also understood metaphorically or historic events have multiple Scriptural interpretations (this is often the case in Messianic texts). In these instances whether the narrative is historic or not does not impinge on the nature of the text as authoritative or canonical.
All truth is God's truth
I think is was Franky Schaeffer who championed this view. In the Scriptures God often used pagan people to talk to Israel. Why would anything change? All truth is God's truth so we can learn from other religions and points of view. I have read one or two books on the Muslim faith which (given its link to the middle east) has helped me to greatly understand stories found in the Scriptures. But this is not some jump into Universalism or Syncretism is is merely an acknowledgement of a very orthodox and old theology, general revelation. That special revelation is clearer and more accurate is obvious but to not listen to others is to deny the possibility of general revelation.
Historical is important.
I think NT Wright does a great job in arguing this point regarding the resurrection. If the story of the resurrection is a fabrication the Christian message and faith doesn't makes sense. It's a massive subject and given the dominance of liberal scholarship and the option of existential hermeneutics in the last century it couldn't be done justice here. For me it's vital that parts of the bible are historically true.

Therefore I think we hold to the certain understandings of myth in relation to the Scriptures.
The Scriptures are never untrue but can be metaphoric.
The Scriptures give us the narrative which explains origins and orientates our lives (ethics).
The Scriptures carry the meta-narrative whereby life and communion with God is understood. Other narratives are welcome as long as the stand under the Scripture (why this is is an apologetic issue).

Answering some questions
Are myths exclusive?
I don't see why they would need to be. The issue is whether we give another myth (here meaning story that establishes world -ala Fackre) the same authority as the Scriptures which I don't think is an option for Christians.
Does opening ourselves to mythology open us to syncretism?
Not necessarily, Grenz used Greek mythology to illustrate Biblical teaching and so I don't see why they can't work together so long as it is the narrative of the Scriptures that carries the final say.

In conclusion, because myth also has the tendency to be understood as an untruth I would shy away from using it in the same context as the Scriptures. That being said if we come to the table with similar understandings (i.e. myth= a story that establishes world) then why not. But as in any debate we got to make sure we're not talking at cross purposes.

paul for TheEnvoy (Bloemfontein)

I think the goal with God's Word is to be hot, and not luke-warm. Even cold is better than luke-warm.
Revelation 3:15, 16 “15 I know your deeds, that you are neither cold nor hot. I wish you were either one or the other! 16 So, because you are lukewarm--neither hot nor cold--I am about to spit you out of my mouth.”
This was the last of the 7 letters, written some say, to the church of this age. Of wealth and prosperity; the church in the secular world. The ones in danger of post-Christianity; relativistic religion.

This must be a key issue for a forum like this. I think that the biblical order is this:
mysticism is a better path than secularism, or it is closer to the truth; but the actual truth (the loving, personal, just, singular God) is better than them both. If a real relationship with God is 'hot', and a mystic belief is 'cold'; then secularist plurality must be 'luke-warm', the one horror that Jesus does not tolerate.

I think it goes in 3 or 4 generation cycles in Greek influenced societies. Generation 1 receives and accepts Relational Revelation (another word for Doctrine) which they institutionalise and organise into a religion. Generation 2 and/or 3, in a form of justifiable rebellion, gets more and more secular, logical, rational; until they declare that they have now found the un-religious way. Generation 4, in an equal form of justifiable rebellion, turns to mysticism which eventually leads to someone finding, or being found by, Relational Revelation. It's classically Judges.
One can see it in the last few generations. I grew up on the Secret Seven and the Hardy Boys, the little 'heathen kids', as Michael Eaton calls them. They never prayed for help in solving cases or looked at an old book or anything. They were rational. Today we have Harry Potter and Narnia (from 3 generations ago) gripping the hearts of the kids.
The secret is to make sure that the doctrine does not become a religion, but remains a living relationship.

CS Lewis' take is that every myth is actually pointing towards, though is not itself, the Great Myth, which turns out to be true. And every love story is actually pointing towards, though is not itself, the Great Love Story, which turns out to be true.
In Mere Christianity he puts it like this: "The pre-Christian differs from the post-Christian is the same way that a virgin differs from a divorcee."
That says it very well! The pre-Christian is on his way to the truth. the post-Christian missed the turnoff and is convinced it's still coming up. He can only find the truth by turning round.

One of the common atheist misconceptions of Christianity is that Christians are atheists of most of the gods that mankind has believed in at one time or another (semi-popularised by Dawkins' The God Delusion), I think it is more of a preconception than a misconception. Biblically the Christian is not actually atheistic of any of the gods mankind has believed in, although some of the less thoughtful Christians might might want to disagree initially.
If it is true that even the demons believe... (James 2:19) then so ought we to believe in stronghold personalities / wordlview demi gods / spiritual authorities in high places / doctrines of demons... spiritual personalities, whatever you want to call them.
But there are, in this case, two ways of 'believing in'.
Branding is a good illustration (it is only a good illustration if you excuse the tongue in cheek cheep shot of a Mac user). One can believe in the Windows / Vista environment and be appalled by it, hoping never to have to relate with it; and at the same time believe in the Mac environment with joy and faithfulness.
Conversely on can believe in Vista and serve it the way it promises to serve you; and at the same time one can believe in Mac and 'shudder' (please, I don't mean this literally, I really am only joking).
Believing in the existence of someone is not the same as believing in either the fidelity or the word of someone. It would be a very foolish wife who denied the existence of other women based only on the love she has for her husband.

But then one has also to mention a Hindu misconceptions of Christianity, that is synchronism. Biblically there is no room for pluralism or synchronism in the Christian faith.

The Christian is asked to walk the narrow road between pluralism and religion. And when the road is attempted it is found to be a way broad enough, and deeply rewarding in a relational sense. It is the road of divine relationship.. A bit like marriage. Marriage is called between polygamy and frigidity. It sounds to narrow for a lifetime, but as one steps onto it one finds it to be broad enough and deeply rewarding.
But, be warned, this divine relationship is not doable without God's Word and outside of human contact, ie. some local expression of church.

I would recommend 4 of Lewis' writings: Miracles, Mere Christianity, The Weight of Glory and The Abolition of Man. and it looks like Chesterton's Orthodoxy is also very good although I have only just started it, His companion book Heretics, I would imagine would be equally good in the discussion of Christian mythology.

Don't loose heart Nick, Augustine said that humanity has lost happiness so severely that they don't even remember having lost it. It's sometimes the same with an itch, but when someone starts scratching then one realises how itchy it actually is.

Those are great quotes from Steve!
Very useful.

Steve Hayes,

I agree, I believe it is universally agreed that mysticism is about relationship and unity with the divine however conceived while doctrine is in part the description and articulation thereof and things related to it, making it a secondary affair.

Envoy

My second to lase comment "Great Quotes" I posted before reading Envoy's "but we are syncretistic" and the posts thereafter. That's why makes little sense where it is now.

Not sure how this happened.

OK, Thanks for that reassurance.

Yes, I do use words perjoratively (had to look that up). Maybe it's just because I don't have the vocab you do :^) No no, let me be honest; it is on purpose; I find that in this kind of forum it helps save time, get to the point; but I think it's really the undisciplined preacher in me.

But it is not always helpful, thanks for pointing it out.

1. Your pejorative use of "hot".
I would like to know how you would exegete this Revelations passage, clearly something is luke-warm. we cannot be so pluralist that we ignore Jesus.
But I do take the point that the context of Laodiceans was one of luke-warm self-sufficiency, not pluralism. I probably have made it prematurely in the argument without giving enough support (although I do have support, but no one else is in my head - as my wife has to constantly remind me), but my point is that the edges of church could do with a bit more definition. I argue this from a pastoral perspective. This post-modern river is fine for some to cross, but I'm also thinking about Aunty Pat and the slightly brain damaged man, and the family of fundamentals all who are needing to be lead. How do they get across this river with out damaging their faith?
It's the same argument that Paul used in Rom 14 about those who's faith is weak. Not allowing even intellectual freedom to cause my brother to stumble.

2. Post-Christians have missed the turnoff.
Perhaps I could explain it this way: In the parable of the merchant seeking, and finding the pearl of great price. The pearl was not the years invested in finding it, it was something else.
You mentioned that you would not give up the 15 years you spent investing in what you have discovered. I would caution that the the 15 years have come dangerously close to being the thing discovered. The point of the parable is that anything gained on the way (including the time spent and the way itself) is different to and not as valuable at the pearl itself.
Doctrine I believe has an essential part to play.
My language may have been a bit strong. After all Christ did not call his followers Christians, it was the people at Antioch (Acts 11:26)

3. No room for synchronism.
Rema helped organise food relief after the Tsunami together with some of the Northern Shuls and I think some Mosque's were also involved. That kind of synchronism I can not only understand I can also applaud.
But Jesus did constantly warn about the great chasm between the world and the disciple, fueled by what he called (and was killed by) the "hatred of the world".
If we are constantly looking for what unites the world we will end up merely being the world. We are not to look for what divides us, I agree, but looking for The Pearl (singular, not pearls) of great price will draw intolerance.

Thanks for pulling me up.

"You talk of the "chasm between the world and the disciple". In my reading the real chasm inferred by Jesus is that between the law and grace, not the world and the disciple. To separate world from spirit is very neo-platonic, and I almost completely reject this aspect of Greek influence on our western spirituality."
Yes, I also reject the neo-platonic influence on church and it's spiritual schizophrenia. It has been, I think, one of the biggest blind spots for the denominational church for quite a long time. It results in a form of Stoic spirituality which talks a kind of Christianese. It is a dreadful inoculation against the truth (sorry, I'm being pejorative again)
But there are many instances (largely at the end of John) where Jesus speaks of the disparity between the disciple and the world (John 15:18-19, John 16:20, John 17:14-21, etc) I don't think we can ignore that.

"This is a kairos moment, where we can boldly redefine the meaning of "Faith", and in so doing provide the soil in which the trees of tomorrow can grow. While I am not bothered by Aunty Pat's objections to our primal worship sessions or our deconstructivist heresies, it is time to build the "Dream of G-d". So while you worry about todays Aunty Pat, I'll worry about the next generations Aunty Pat. Deal?"
I am very interested in what Paul meant by “Therefore do not let anyone judge you by what you eat or drink, or with regard to a religious festival, a New Moon celebration or a Sabbath day.” (Colossians 2:16).
How do you not let anyone judge you? It's like not letting anyone look down on you because you are young (1 Tim 4:12) or despise you (Titus 2:15).
Either they will or they won't, I think he is saying that we should not let their looking down / despising / judging affect us. But it's not as simple as that. This is an instruction given to those called to lead in a church government sense.
I would disagree with you that we provide anything in a kairos moment, besides all the courage we can muster. Redefining is God's prerogative.
If we are redefining anything it is more of a Chronos moment.
But... deal, I will worry about Aunty Pat today, but I think anyone serious about any local expression of the body of Christ (be it orthodox or emergent) must worry about their Aunty Pat, if she is not there, she will be, soon enough. That is why I believe that the Pastoral gift (of the 5 in Ephesians 4) is the one given to lead.

Here is a thought to keep you awake at night... Those who lead must give an account (Heb 13:17)!

To get back to the mystic soul...

I can tell you how I see mythology working in our faith. I see it, initially, as a kind of un-doctrinal overlap with paganism.
Let me explain: I was speaking with my wife this afternoon about Jesus commands to the waves and the wind. She was saying how easy it is to comprehend Him speaking to demons, commanding them; but who exactly was He speaking to in the waves and the wind? Did the angels suddenly muster to rearrange a potential natural disaster, or did the elements suddenly rearrange themselves in recognition of the voice of the Master?

I don't know, but I can tell you which one I would rather believe. It is so much more imaginative (though un-doctrinal) to speak of Nature as a person. I started reading George Macdonnald's 'At the Back of the North Wind' last year and then decided that I must wait to read it with my son. It is so very full of imagination.

I say un-doctrinal, but perhaps mythology is doctrinal in some respects.
The Magi coming from the east guided by, of all things, a star which seemed to be able to point out a particular stable in a small village. One example which springs to mind.
How about this one: Matthew 18:3, 4 “And he said: “I tell you the truth, unless you change and become like little children, you will never enter the kingdom of heaven. Therefore, whoever humbles himself like this child is the greatest in the kingdom of heaven.”
One of the greatest of all child attributes is imagination, it acts almost as a fuel to faith. And so it should in adults; 1 Corinthians 2:9 (quoting Isaiah 64:4) “However, as it is written: “No eye has seen, no ear has heard, no mind has conceived what God has prepared for those who love him”"
this implies at least some attempts at mental conception... imagination.
If Jesus was able to display fortitude enough to "endure the cross for the joy set before Him" He must have been able to imagine the joy with a very powerful imagination indeed.
It is the mythological nature of The Truth, swallowing up not only all the little truths (E=mc2 and the like), but also all the little myths (Zeus and the like), along its establishing way. Swallowing, not discarding them.
The Truth is very attractive, even evocative, to the imagination of man.

We must be careful though that our pluralism does not mount to the same things as throwing our lot in with the rest, especially siding with the religious.
If you will forgive me, this is Lewis, I think in The Abolition of Man:
"To treat Nature as God, or as Everything, is to loose the whole pith and pleasure of her. Come out, look back, and then you will see... this astonishing cataract of bears, babies and bananas: this immoderate deluge of atoms, orchids, oranges, cancers, canaries, fleas, gases, tornadoes and toads. How could you ever have thought this was the ultimate reality?... Offer her neither worship nor contempt."
"If we are immortal, and if she is doomed (as the scientists tell us) to run down and die, we shall miss this half-shy and half-flamboyant creature, this ogress, this hoyden, this incorrigible fairy, this dumb witch. But the theologians tell us that she, like ourselves, is to be redeemed. The 'vanity' to which she was subjected was her disease, not her essence. She will be cured in character: not tamed (Heaven forbid) nor sterilised. We shall still be able to recognise our old enemy, friend, playfellow and foster mother, so perfected as to be not less, but more, herself. And that will be a merry meeting."

I am a doctrine man, I don't see how I could ever not be. I don't see doctrine as secondary to Lewis type unbounded imagination; actually I see them as exactly the same thing. I think we're inclined to give up on our myth too early, to dig our own intellectual cisterns, to grow up too quick. We will be mature at some stage, but right now we are still children.

One of the most abused (and consequently overlooked) doctrines is that of the Church.
If the 5 fold Ephesians 4 gifts are given "UNTIL we all reach unity in the faith and in the knowledge of the Son of God and become mature, attaining to the whole measure of the fulness of Christ." (Eph 4:13 - emphasis added)
Then we are still very much in need of them.
Now when it comes to model / wineskin I think we would do a lot better to look initially at what Jesus said about church instead of going straight to Paul, or even Peter. That is a discussion worth having; it's about as mystical and romantic at it gets!

"The goal is mature Love, not mere obedience."
Perhaps, but Jesus put it the other way “If you love me, you will obey what I command.” (John 14:15). When I say 'perhaps' I mean that I really don't know what the goal is and I'd like to know how it is that you seem so sure of it, we only see in a mirror dimly. I know that Jesus is marrying one bride, not a multiple personality disorder.
Stray hinted at it:
"The problem with other worldviews is one of religion, or one of secularism. Jesus did not stand for religion or secularism. He stood for something wholly different."
The 'something wholly different' that he stood for we cannot fully comprehend yet, though we should enjoy trying (Prov 25:2). To assume that we know I think is premature. For now we have to be content with at least some mere obedience.

I understand why the post-modern thinking is taking form and why there is reaction against traditional (even recent traditional) church models. I think that one of the things that worries me is that we could end up with a model anyway, just that we make it our selves; that we try and nail some Christian colours to our post-modern mast.
if we have some new colours to nail, surely we need to nail them to His mast? Otherwise we may end up with a real myth.

The key to my thinking is this: Having a doctrine is not tantamount to having a religion; or being religious is not the same thing as being doctrinal. Religion is the problem here, not doctrine. Let's not throw the baby out just because the bathwater is dirty.

Now as far as I can see 'church' was Jesus' concept, not some man's. Although I agree what we see today is most likely not His complete idea.
It doesn't need things added to make it purer; it needs a whole bunch of stuff taken away. Until we are left with... pure doctrine. What we need to take away is religious system.

Did you know that Jesus only mentioned the word 'church' 3 times in the gospels? And those three times were enough, I believe, to tell us everything we need to know to get started with a model / wineskin.
Peter (don't forget Peter's ecclesiastic role) and Paul built on Jesus' words.

My definition of Doctrine: Relational Revelation.
Jesus defined doctrine the first time He used the word 'church' in Matthew 16:17
"Blessed are you, Simon son of Jonah, for this was not revealed to you by man, but by my Father in heaven."
That is doctrine, doctrine is never regurgitated, religion is. A church leader who regurgitates doctrine for his people is a very dangerous thing. A true teacher helps people to find doctrine for themselves.
There is so much romance and passion and kitchen-table family around Jesus' ethos: Church. And Church is, I believe, Jesus' ethos.
I think His idea of a pastor is more than a care giver, and His idea of Church is more than a tribe. Yes, it requires imagination, but not willy-nilly whatever is at the top of our heads (which is post-modernism at the moment, it used to be the Hippie style Jesus movement which gave us the Invisible Church, before that it was Victorian Stoicism, and so we can go backwards in time). Whatever we build must be biblical. I think there is more imagination required in the true myth than we can possibly think!

Oh, there is just so much more to say about Jesus' view of church. How do we start another one of these things?

Anyway (before I get carried away) a few comments:

"Systems should always serve man, not the other way around. Man, as ever evolving in knowledge, will always outgrow these systems. Therefore doctrine is always provisional, and should be treated this way."
If systems should always serve man then what about the system of thought we call logic? Let us be sure that we don't end up serving it.
Doctrine, on the other hand, is not a system. Or rather it can be made into one, but then immediately becomes a religion, not doctrine.

"And what religion calls doctrine science calls hypothesis, and the pattern is exactly the same."
I do not see how this can be, science is a mindless process. Doctrine is a revelation of the Ultimate Mind.

"Doctrine ... is not a system."
No, it is exactly that, in my definition.

"science is a mindless process"
That's just krazy talking - I can't believe you really think this!

"it requires imagination, but not willy-nilly whatever is at the top of our heads"
I agree. Willy-nilly is bad. My re-imaginings, as well as those of various voices in the emergent movement, are based on some hard thinking/prayer/reflection, and have not (as far as I know) simply or frivolously popped out from the upper cranial area.

Also, they are suggestions, pictures, incomplete, provisional; if they spark any inspiration or come over as having anything of G-d, then let those who are inspired run with them. If not, fine.

Aratus, I am tired of this conversation but glad we are at least having it. We have different definitions of words, and hold different myths of G-d.

But I'd hope we have enough overlap to demonstrate some aspect of the Generous Heart of G-d.

Till the next one,
Nic

Pity, we were getting somewhere. But seeing you wrote in the present tense, I can still answer? Yes?
"I am tired of this conversation but glad we are at least having it."

Yes, you are right science is not a mindless process. But it is a human process. Which is very different from doctrine.
I think we do disagree on the definition of doctrine. I don't think it is a system or a process. I think it is a relationship, or the result of a relationship.
There has to be doctrine, how else do we make sense of ?teaching them to obey everything I have commanded"?

I do think though that there is not very much doctrine, less than academic theology would want us to accept.

I think that where we differ is that I'm thinking absolutes. By 'Willy Nilly' I mean 'human' not 'sloppy'. You put it very well "they are suggestions, pictures, incomplete, provisional". If we rely on all our wisdom and knowledge diligently applied we will still get nowhere as productive and relational as doctrine.

But yes. Plenty of overlap! We do serve a Generous God!

I have tried 4 different browsers and I cannot see Nick's and Envoy's last two comments on this thread?