Der Ewige Jude

One of the principal advantages to the progress of evil accomplished by removing the devil, his minions, and their works, from human view, is the consequent inability of the deceived to recognize the historical recurrence of diabolical hatred of Christ. Cultured moderns, including professing Christians who regard themselves as such, do not believe in the devil; authorities like Schleiermacher have given them permission:

There is not a single passage in the New Testament where Christ or his Apostles definitely or indisputably refer to the devil with the intention of either teaching anything new or peculiarly their own, or of correcting or supplementing current beliefs. They make use of the conception in its current popular form. If, nevertheless, we wished to formulate a Christian doctrine of the devil we should be obliged to assume that this conception as known to Christ and his disciples corresponded perfectly with the truth and could not be improved. This position must certainly be taken up by anyone who is unwilling to admit that Christ made use of what we usually call accommodation. Such a complete development of the idea is the more improbable because its chief characteristics have no basis in the Old Testament, their origin being wholly apocryphal. It is apparent from the incidental way in which the subject occurs that neither Christ nor his disciples desired to give support to the idea or vouch for its truth. For Christ seems to introduce it for no particular reason into parables, maxims, and short instructions dealing with quite other subjects. . . . [Glaubenslehre, 2d ed., Mackintosh & Stewart, eds., §45, 1.]

Yes, I know—that’s the way these chaps talk. The work is meticulously constructed, immensely complex, and full of arresting notions tossed off as if they were obvious—as indeed they are—to the initiate. The sum of it is that informed, modern Christians, do not believe in the devil, but may find the concept useful, as Christ and his disciples did, not least for satisfying the expectations of those who cannot understand the Christian faith apart from the concretions that myth offers to understanding.

Believing or not believing in a fallen spirit of archangelic power and intelligence who involves himself deeply in human affairs has a profound influence on one’s view of history. If the modern, liberal view is correct, then one cannot legitimately suspect the existence of an attack upon Christ (and his people with him) that is concerted across generations by a single spiritual enemy, which takes different forms in different historical epochs, but is in fact the same phenomenon. Those who believe in the existence of evil spirits, however--regarding the existence of demons as no more remarkable than their own--can imagine such a thing well within the boundaries of reason, and while they can offer no forensic proofs for it, are able regard human history as something far more complex than the interaction of merely human forces. C. S. Lewis put the explanation in the mouth of That Hideous Strength’s Professor Frost:         

 

I now have to inform you that there are similar organisms above the level of animal life . . . . including the most efficient animal, Man. . . . [T]hough there has been little intercourse, there has been profound influence. Their effect on human history has been far greater than that of the microbes, though, of course, equally unrecognized. In the light of what we now know, all history will have to be rewritten. The real causes of all the principal events are quite unknown to historians; that, indeed, is why history has not yet succeeded in becoming a science.

If evil spirits are what the Christian scriptures make them out to be, they know Christ to be their enemy, and are bent upon doing what they can to damage him. I believe that much of what is known as anti-Semitism is part of this campaign, and that to the eyes that are able to see it, the desire to harm Jews, to rend the flesh and shed the blood of our Lord’s natural family, arise from the same spiritual root as the persecution of the Church, his spiritual family. During the Nazi era this persecution rose to it highest levels, then under the influence of the pseudo-Christianity of a German national party that also persecuted faithful Christians. In the bloody defeat of Nazism and the public exposure of its atrocities, blatant anti-Jewishness fell into disrepute. The hateful images of Der Ewige Jude (the eternal Jew) promulgated by the Nazis, but easily recognizable by Christians as bearing a title that could only properly apply to their Lord, became themselves hateful. But has the attack subsided in our time?

It has not. The same campaign is now carried on under the ideological banners of those who must all costs and in every way put down the “white male,” the new ewige Jude, the victimizer behind so much human misery, and whose titles and image coincide so fully with Christ, the pre-eminent exemplar of the genus. He is the Western man who must be put in his place by multi-culturalism, the sovereign man who must be equalized by feminism, the Lord who must be brought down by egalitarianism, the king who must be commoned, the man of war who must be disarmed, the man of the harsh and stupid old Law that must be supplanted by the kindness and wisdom of the new Freedom, the elite man who must be democritized, against whom only discrimination is never unfair, the pastor whose place can be filled by a woman, the virile man who must be homosexualized, the pioneer and settler now damned as a destroyer, the begetter of new men who must be emasculated, the elect man of an elect race in a world where every man and every nation are equal, the man whose pretensions to pre-eminence must not only be done away with, but have become the new definition of evil.

Christ, the white male in his perfection, is the (as yet mostly) unnamed devil lurking behind every substantial evil that plagues the modern world, der ewige Jude, no longer the Abrahamic man through whom all the nations are blessed, but the source of the earth’s sorrows, the pale Galilean at whose breath the world turns cold, and we—we, who are too wise to believe in Satan have been trained in the name of every good thing to see the world through demonic eyes.

Comments

[Truth Unites... and Divides]

Nice article. I believe in the factual existence of Satan because the Bible refers to him in a factual manner. I do not regard Satan as myth. As an example, I believe the historical narrative of Jesus in the wilderness as being *actually* tempted by Satan and that Jesus quoted Scripture to ward off the temptations. Jesus in the wilderness is NOT a myth.

[smh]

Scheiermacher again [and here's a gem]: "At best [the devil] is represented as a quite unknown cause of rapid transitions from one state of feeling to another of an opposite kind." . . . . "Since that from which we are to be redeemed remains the same whether there be a devil or no, the question as to his existence is not one for Christian Theology but for Cosmology, in the widest sense of that word. It is exactly similar to questions as to the nature of the firmament and the heavenly bodies. In Christian Dogmatics we have nothing to affirm or deny on such subjects."

This is very much like saying, "Since what we will have for supper remains the same whether there be potatoes or no, questions concerning the existence of potatoes are not the concern of Cookery, but of Agriculture in the widest sense of the word. It is exactly similar to questions on the nature of peas and carrots. Cooks have nothing to affirm or deny on such subjects."

It is very unlikely there was anyone in Berlin in 1830 who was willing to look the Herr Reverend Doctor Professor in the eye and say, "Come on, Freddie, get real," or, alternatively, dissolve in a fit of laughter.

Although one cannot say, I suppose, that Schleiermacher was clear on the point, I don't think his attitude toward the subject is difficult to ascertain.

[Bobby Winters]

Tuad,
I believe in Satan too. Do you believe he is flesh or spirit?

[Truth Unites... and Divides]

I once engaged a liberal Protestant, an Episcopalian priest, no less, on the merits of Schliermacher. He thought that Schliermacher was the greatest theologian ever, progenitor of the German school of higher criticism.

I could not agree with his assessment, nor with the practical outworkings of his and Schliermacher's theology.

Sometimes biblical separation is authorized in the event of first-order theological differences. Hence, my gradual adoption of the idea that unrepentant first-order heresy is worse than schism.

[Truth Unites... and Divides]

Since I believe Satan is a fallen angel, an angels are spirit beings, then I believe Satan is a spirit being too.

[Bobby Winters]

>>Since I believe Satan is a fallen angel, an angels are spirit beings, then I believe Satan is a spirit being too.<<

Me too.

[Truth Unites... and Divides]

Geez, who woulda thunk it? Bobby is one of them "literalists". ;-) Heh, heh...

[Stuart Koehl]

>>>Geez, who woulda thunk it? Bobby is one of them "literalists". ;-) Heh, heh.<<<

I believe it, too. After all, in Slavonic, the Lord's Prayer ends:

And put us not to the test, but deliver us from THE SLY ONE.

Good enough for me. Satan is real. He is also mythical.

So there.

[coco]

Mythical also in the sense, methinks, that he is given more credit than he can claim. Fallen human nature can "accomplish" quite a lot on its own.

[Truth Unites... and Divides]

"Satan is real. He is also mythical."

Satan is real mythical. Or Satan is real and mythical.

Pardon me for asking: How does that cohere?

Also, how is your position distinguished from Schliermacher's?

Thanks in advance.

[Truth Unites... and Divides]

"Fallen human nature can "accomplish" quite a lot on its own."

I so agree with you Coco.

This engenders the following question: How did human nature become Fallen? Did Satan have a role in that? If so, how so?

[Bobby Winters]

>>Satan is real mythical. Or Satan is real and mythical.

Pardon me for asking: How does that cohere?<<

It coheres because you never have for one second understood what the word mythical really means.

[coco]

How did human nature become Fallen? Did Satan have a role in that? If so, how so?

Genesis gives a good account. Yes. I don't think I could improve on Genesis.

[Bobby Winters]

>>Geez, who woulda thunk it? Bobby is one of them "literalists". ;-) Heh, heh...<<

I can only believe in him because I believe in spirits. I believe in spirits because I've "seen" them. One sometimes has to use the eyes of the heart rather than the wisdom of men. What I mean by the wisdom of men is believing that only historical events can be true, and the eyes of the heart are those I use to read what Genesis really says.

[Truth Unites... and Divides]

"It coheres because you never have for one second understood what the word mythical really means."

I suppose the word "mythical" possesses several different levels of meaning, making it quite useful for purposes of equivocation.

Please define what you believe the word "mythical" really means.

[Bobby Winters]

A myth is a story that is told with a teaching purpose. My dad told a story about a man who'd had a gun, heard a prowler in the night, and shot him only to discover that the prowler was his son. I rather suspect this story actually happened, but that doesn't matter so much because it teaches us a lesson. Consequently, it is a myth.

The word has some to mean a lie, but this is opposite it's original Greek Meaning.

[Mairnéalach]

"Literal" is also a term quite useful for purposes of equivocation. For instance, no "literalist" I have ever met actually took scripture literally. They all pick and choose, then use "superior exegesis" as a miracle trapdoor to escape the charge of doing so. Usually they just toss off the word as a shibboleth so they can drum up some self-contentment about their possession of the truth. As if anyone could actually possess the Redeemer like some kind of word-talisman to ward off evil equivocators. Wotta laugh.

[Truth Unites... and Divides]

"A myth is a story that is told with a teaching purpose."

Okay. Can a factual, historical event also be told with a teaching purpose as well?

Also, what value does appending the word "myth" to a historically factual event do? Why not leave off the word "myth"? I'm unclear as to the value of a "true myth" or a "real myth".

For instance, the Bible is a collection of "stories" with a teaching purpose. So then, should the Bible be described as a Book of True Myths or a Book of Real Myths?

If a church had a guest speaker, and this guest speaker said that the Bible is a True Myth and that the Incarnation is a Real Myth and that the Resurrection is a True Myth, would this likely engender confusion or clarity among the pew-sitters? Again, if something is historically factual and propositionally true, then what value does calling it a "myth" add? Does it not obscure more than it is helpful?

[Bobby Winters]

>>Okay. Can a factual, historical event also be told with a teaching purpose as well?<<

REPOST with emphasis:
A myth is a story that is told with a teaching purpose. My dad told a story about a man who'd had a gun, heard a prowler in the night, and shot him only to discover that the prowler was his son. I rather suspect this story actually happened, but that doesn't matter so much because it teaches us a lesson. Consequently, it is a myth.
////
>>>If a church had a guest speaker, and this guest speaker said that the Bible is a True Myth and that the Incarnation is a Real Myth and that the Resurrection is a True Myth, would this likely engender confusion or clarity among the pew-sitters? Again, if something is historically factual and propositionally true, then what value does calling it a "myth" add? Does it not obscure more than it is helpful?<<<

There is a difference in what is said from a pulpit to an audience of unevenly prepared believers than what is said on a blog whose audience is intelligent and well-read. As Paul said, there is meat. This blog is for those who can digest the meat.

[coco]

One of the more interesting aspects of Benedict XVI's (unjustly infamous) Regensburg address was his thesis that Christianity was providentially situated in the Greek cultural milieu which greatly enriched it with philosophical underpinnings.

Luke was an example of a cultured Greek who could write history in a sense meaningful to us, formed as we are in the civilisation which had its root in ancient Greece.

Genesis is situated in a vastly different cultural milieu, which is why the term myth is much more appropriate for it than for NT writings on the resurrection. Not that I wish to disparage the truthfulness (should that be truthiness? :) of Genesis.

[Beth]

I would probably classify Bobby's father's story as parable rather than myth. It may be absolutely true, hypothetical, or a composlite, but it has the ring of truth and teaches a particular lesson, as do the paratbles of Jesus.

I would describe myth more broadly. Myth explains the world and ourselves to us -- where did we come from, why are we here, what is our relation to the creator(s) and to creation, etc. C. S. Lewis calls the Biblical story the "true Myth" because it is the one Myth which explains all these things correctly.

This makes sense to me and I find it helpful for this reason(among others): look at the mythologies of the rest of the world. You will find many, many similarities among them. The strangest has some kernal of eternal truth which, when found, a believer can capitalize on to reach its adherents with Biblical truth. I strongly recommend reading _Eternity in Their Hearts_ and _Peace Child_ to see this.

I find that when I study mythology with my students, they see this very quickly -- people have always asked the same questions and told stories to answer them. And as there can only be one true Story, the others are all distortions of it. And I think it actually clarifies for them the relation of "mythology" to the Biblical narrative in a way that makes them less dismissive of the beliefs of other people (people groups and individuals) and more open to looking for the kernals of truth that everyone does know, however far from the one Truth they may be in their thinking.

As for using the term "myth" in this way in teaching -- teach the people in the pews what you mean. They aren't too stupid to learn it if they want to. And if they have ears to hear, they may learn a great deal about Truth that will make them better neighbors. I am sick to tears with dumbing things down because people don't already know them. Teaching is meant to bring us up, not keep us where we are.

(If you want to check out the link when you click on my name below, I've just posted a few days ago a little thought-piece on the value of fiction ["Fiction: A Brief Apologia"]. It doesn't directly address myth, but may be generally helpful. It may be one down if I get around to posting something on Memorial Day.)

[DGP]

...a blog whose audience is intelligent and well-read.

Hmm.

[Beth]

Forgive the typos above. I have trouble proofreading on the computer screen . . . and though I do know how to spell, I am the world's worst typist!

[Judy Warner]

This morning I went to visit the old man I look out for. I am struck that he -- illiterate, ignorant, slow-witted -- has a far better handle on evil and Satan than many of his "betters." He has told me every time I've seen him for several years that the devil is loose in the world because "they killin' these little babies. Who would kill a little baby?" The dope his neighbors smoke -- the devil. The way people shoot each other on the highway for looking crossways -- the devil. Today he told me he learned something new in church yesterday -- that Satan comes after people who go to church. "Why he bother 'bout people who don't go to church? -- he have them already." (He really does talk like Jim in Huck Finn.) He was much taken with this and went over it several times.

He has lived a hard life at the bottom of society, and has seen the devil in a more concrete and easily discernible form than many of us. He would not understand in the least any explanation of Satan as a concept; indeed, he could not understand what a concept is. He simply sees evil and knows its name.

[Stuart Koehl]

>>> would probably classify Bobby's father's story as parable rather than myth.<<<

No, parable has a very specific definition. It is, literally, a puzzle, a story whose meaning is hidden. Jesus used parables to illustrate the story of Israel in God's plan of salvation precisely because the meaning was hidden--to make an obvious case, as did Bobby's dad, would have revealed a tad too much, leading to a premature stoning, which would have ruined everything. That is why the parables all end with stuff like, he who has ears, let him hear.

But Bobby's dad's story doesn't quite fit the concept, of myth, either. It's a morality tale, so if it used animals instead of people, it would meet the classic definition of a fable.

Myths, on the other hand, fall into two broad categories: "explanatory" and "elaborative".

Explanatory myths do just that--they explain something, usually a natural phenomenon, or national origins, or a mystery not amenable to rational inquiry: why are there seasons? where did we come from? what happens when we die?

Elaborative myths are more often based on some historical memory carried forward through the oral tradition, encrusted with poetic elaborations, sometimes fantastic, other times merely anachronistic. Peel back the accretions, you have an authentic memory of some actual historical event, given deeper meaning to the audience by the mythic setting in which it has been put. Thus, looking at the Illiad, we see the story of the seige of Troy ca. 1250 BC, carried down by the oral tradition to some time around 700 BC, when it was finally put into writing. Certainly a great deal of the Illiad reflects things added by the bards over the centuries, and gives a picture of life in Greece during the Dark Ages, but there's also a lot that originated in the late Bronze Age and could only be known by an eye witness from the bronze age, such as the Catalogue of Ships, details of armor, of the topography of Troy and various Mycenaean cities, and even of military tactics (though much of that has to be extracted from the conventions of the poetic genre). In short, the Illiad is a "true myth", and that's just how the Greeks saw it.

[John L]

For an important essay on the work of the devil, and other things, see

http://danielmitsui.com/hieronymus/index.blog/1664938/permanent-scars/

Christ as a white male is stretching things a bit, since he was a Jew of no doubt fairly Arab-looking aspect; the point about aversion to maleness being an aversion to Christ is a good one though.

[John L]

Actually the essay is so good that I post it in its entirety:

THE LION AND THE CARDINAL
29 March 2007
PERMANENT SCARS

TV ES PETRVS & SVPER HANC PETRAM ÆDIFICABO ECCLESIAM MEAM & PORTÆ INFERI NON PRÆVALEBVNT ADVERSVS EAM

Among certain Catholics, there is a sort of easy optimism regarding the near future of the Church; an expectation that if things ever get too bad, God will raise up some new saints and heroes and geniuses to make everything good again. It is an expectation that this will happen as a matter of course.

But the promise against the gates of hell was a promise of ultimate victory only, not of stability and comfort in our lifetimes. If the Church would survive, it would at times survive as it did in the Roman catacombs, the caves of Lebanon, the English recusancy, or the Goto Islands. It would at times survive despite staggering material defeat in desperate circumstances. Hope would be no virtue were it easy.

The optimists are fond of quoting a chapter in Chesterton's Everlasting Man on the five deaths of the faith, and its inexplicable resurrection after each. The implication, of course, is that this is what always happens. I never thought this one of Chesterton's more convincing arguments; were he an Assyrian rather than an Englishman, he might have edited the chapter, because in Assyria the faith died five times without ever returning to life.

But that isn't exactly fair to say; a few faithful Assyrians exist to this day, and a few good Christians existed in each era of death identified by Chesterton. When he spoke of a death of the faith, he never meant that it ceased altogether, but rather that it ceased to be healthy, vibrant and influential. It was not a crisis of Christianity, but of Christian civilization.

But we were never promised that the gates of hell would not prevail against Christian civilization. In Europe, Christian civilization was resurrected five times; there is no promise of a sixth. Christianity may very well need to survive without Christian civilization, as something brutally persecuted, internally conflicted, and societally irrelevant. This really is nothing more than the normal state of Christianity.

There is, among both Catholics and Orthodox, an openly expressed desire to return to the principles of first millennium Christianity. It is a desire I share, insofar as I believe that continuity with the Church Fathers is absolutely indispensable, and that the Roman and Byzantine Churches should be one. But that desire should not delude us about what the Great Church of the first millennium was really like.

Within two centuries of the legalization of Christianity, the Great Church lost two of the ancient patriarchies; within a few more centuries, it lost most of its territory and people to the Mohammedans, and never regained much of it. The story of first millennium Christianity is one of continuous failure and attrition; the Church suffered from Christological and Trinitarian heresies in steady succession, and as easy as it may be to distance the Church from them after the anathemas have been read, all of these heresies arose within the Church. There was a time before the anathemas were read, when each had not yet been condemned, when it was openly professed at all levels of the Church. To live as a Christian in the first millennium, especially in any of the eastern patriarchies, as often as not meant having Christological or Trinitarian heretics for bishops and priests, and most of the faithful either themselves professing the errors or too cowardly or indifferent to oppose them.

For 61 years before the Second Nicene Council, and then for another 28 years after it, the Church of Byzantium was ruled by the Iconoclast emperors and the sycophants whom they were able to place on the patriarchal throne; the images were whitewashed, the monks were tortured and killed, the relics were thrown in the sea, the sanctoral devotions were suppressed. It was the most violent destruction of tradition that has ever occurred within the Church; only a very few caches of icons predating the crisis survived, most of them in the relative safety of Mohammedan rule. There is an admirable length to the historical memory of Byzantine Christianity, which many of its admirers and converts from the occident have not yet attained. Iconoclasm looms large in its mind, and this might temper its boast; for there was a time when Eastern Orthodoxy lost everything too.

There is a truth to this so simple that we often forget it: Satan is smarter than us. And he is stronger than us and he is more patient than us. Were he not, we would have no need of a Savior. We were not promised a paradise in this life but a continuous assault until kingdom come. Satan would destroy, divide and degrade the Church in every way he could devise. He would do this with heresy and schism and war; in the marauding of barbarian hordes and in the plotting of secret societies. He would work through the greed of princes, the lust of kings, the pride of emperors and the folly of popes. He would whisper bad ideas into the ears of well-meaning men. He would wield earthquake and fire and plague, whatever of God's good earth he could subject to his manipulation. He would ruin the Church from within and without. He would work in awful moments and in centuries of unnoticed degradation.

Satan hates the Church and he wants us to hate the Church. And he is smart enough and strong enough and patient enough to ruin everything that makes loving the Church easy. He was smart enough to ruin the seemingly immortal Middle Ages, so he is certainly smart enough to ruin the fragile traditionalist movement today. And he is smart enough to ruin the orthopraxy and theological stability of the Christian East. Were this not obvious as a theological fact, it should be obvious as an historical fact; he has done it before.

And the patristic-medieval Latin Orthodoxy that I desire Roman Catholicism to become, and to which I will devote the efforts of my entire life: he is smart enough to ruin that too. This is what needs to be remembered by those who seek a refuge from modernism in Traditional Catholicism or Eastern Orthodoxy or in their own historicist fantasies of either of them. There is no refuge in the Church Militant. If a Church appears to have withstood modernism, it merely means that Satan is waiting to afflict it with some other error as soon as he is able. The ancient Churches are vulnerable and they have always been vulnerable.

On inspection, they all bear the permanent scars of inimical attack; the losses and ruptures and betrayals of the ancient tradition. Were there a Church without them, it would have no credible claim to be the true Church; it would be something so meager a threat to the principality of Satan that he does not even bother to pay it attention. A Church that is not permanently scarred is not the Body of Christ.

The Apostles understood this, and lived always as if the eschaton were imminent and the enemy nearby. I doubt that any of them expected the society of entire continents to be oriented heavenward for thousands of years. This was something far better than they had any right to expect.

Christian civilization and all of its treasures were a gift; an undeserved and exceedingly generous gift. When a child receives a precious gift from his beloved father, he cherishes it and protects it, remembering always the generosity of him who gave it. Only the most despicable ingratitude would make him neglect it, deface it, decide that it is no longer to his liking and throw it in the trash, or refashion it into something different. This is what is missed by the apologists for the new Catholicism, who constantly assert its sacramental validity as if that were the only thing that matters. The problem with the new liturgy, the banal music, the bare churches is not that they reflect poorly on God; rather, they reflect poorly on us.

But something different is missed by the traditionalists who incessantly complain that the problems are not being fixed quickly enough, or who threaten to leave the Church until they are. If the gift is broken, the child has no right to stamp his feet and demand that his father fix it or buy him a new one immediately. Because he did not deserve it in the first place. The father is perfectly within his rights to withhold his generosity until the child learns his lesson, or to tell the child to fix it himself. It is not our prerogative to demand that the problems in the Church be fixed at our convenience. Nor are these problems necessarily someone else's to fix.

God has entrusted the care of his Church in this world until the parousia to humanity. It is by building it in the territory of the enemy that we participate in the action of Providence in history, and are sanctified. God certainly can assist in extraordinary ways; the remarkable resiliency of the Church at times can only be explained by divine intervention. But nothing of Justice demands that God raise up a new group of saints and heroes and geniuses to fix everything as a matter of course. When the Church needs saints and heroes and geniuses, it may have nobody but us. And most of us are too damnably proud of our false humility to even attempt heroic sanctity.

The state of Christian life now, as always, is one of praying among ruins; of combing through the rubble of a long-destroyed church for pieces we recognize; of clinging to them and treasuring them in a way that men who enjoyed them in their splendor never did. We venerate these pieces of rubble, and study them to figure the way they fit together and the meaning they once had. We induce what we can of the forgotten methods of their construction and the forgotten language of their symbolism and rebuild what we can in our allotted time. We build something beautiful for God, so that the memory of the ancient faith might survive to the next generation, until the forces of evil smash and burn and bury our constructions.

And we do this believing, despite every temptation to despair, that victory has already been won, and that deliverance is near. We were given the task so that in it we might find our purpose and our joy and our sanctity. And persevering, we will inherit a new heaven and a new earth, in which to build in permanence what we build in poor imitation in this broken world.

[Stuart Koehl]

Modernism is dead as a smelt. The Church continues to fall behind the power curve and fight yesterday's enemies.

[Ethan Cordray]

TUAD,

Beth has explained the concept of myth fairly well, in my opinion. Let me add something about the difference between "true myth" and real historical event.

A real historical event can be anything that happened. It can be the fact that I ate cereal for breakfast this morning. It can be the weather from July 11, 1975. It can be the assassination of Julius Caesar. And it can be the resurrection of the Son of God.

All these things are equally historical, but they do not all equally retain their significance. There is no reason for anyone to care what I ate this morning, and very little reason to remember what the weather was like in '75. But there is a lot more reason to remember Caesar's murder, and the greatest reason of all to remember that Christ rose.

So a "myth," per Beth, is something that communicates something essentially true about man, God and the cosmos. Some myths are fictitious, but others are from history. They are called "true myths" both to distinguish them from falsehood, as the modernists would label them, and to assert their significance, which the postmodernists would deny them.

Does that help?

[Mairnéalach]

The devil is real, alright. Judy's old man friend knows his tactics well. He does indeed have materialist unbelievers in his back pocket already. He much prefers to cause foolish division in the church, because he knows that by keeping us at one another's throats, he does more to promote general human misery than by any other means.

One of the Adversary's favorite tactics is to insinuate little doctrines which pose as foundations upon which the Gospel rises or falls. One good example is a certain breed of inerrantist's young earth creationism. I constantly meet good, pious folk who ask me with astonishment something like, "well, if you don't take God almighty at his word that dinosaurs rode the ark, how can you be telling the truth about believing in his son's blood?" usually followed with half-murmured accusations of wolf-in-sheep's-clothing, "felicitous inconsistency", etc etc. or, even better, little hoots of self-congratulatory derision.

This kind of rank bollocks smacks of the Judaizer's tactic, which foully and falsely accused Paul of teaching his flock to sin so that grace may increase. It's a non-sequitur, and a lying ploy so obvious it fairly screams to be called out for what it is.

By the way, Paul pointed out that such people's condemnation is deserved. I agree, and I extend this anathema by analogy, with great prejudice and utter pugnacity, unto people who equate second-order "doctrines" with the precious Gospel itself. Unbelievers don't reject Christianity because of paleontology, or those godless materialists. That's just a red herring they use to try to throw God off the scent. They reject Christ because they don't want to change the way they live their lives.

This is basic spiritual epistemology, and it sorely needs to be better understood by the church. I don't mind a certain breed of "inerrantists" playing exegetical footsies with one another, but whenever I see them making this thing a first-order doctrine, I'm going to combat their foul Hindenburg theology wherever I see it.

[Ethan Cordray]

That's a wonderful article, John.

"A Church that is not permanently scarred is not the Body of Christ." -A line worthy of the finest writer.

Stuart, it may be dead, and yet it lives on, as the ghost known as postmodernism.

"Dead as a smelt" is nice. I'll steal that one.

[GL]

I'll admit that I am no Lewis scholar, but I have always been under the impression that when he used the phrase "true myth," he meant a myth that really happened, that is, a myth rooted in an actual historic event. Many myths may convey truth without being a "true myth." There a parts of the Old Testament which I am quite prepared to accept as myths which convey truth which do not describe actual historical events (e.g., the Book of Job and the Book of Jonah--though Jonah himself appears to have been an actual person and he may have prophesied to the people of Nineveh, that does not require that all the details of the Book of Jonah are historic, and the fact that Jesus cited Jonah and his three days in the belly of the whale (or great fish) does not mean that He was verifying the events historicity--maybe He was and maybe He wasn't)). Can anyone here either refute or confirm that when Lewis used the term "true myth," he meant myths which are rooted in events that really happened and provide citations to his writings to make the case one way or the other? On the evolution thread, I gave a quote which showed that he understood "true myth" to mean myths which really happened. There may be examples where he used that term to clearly described events which did not really happen, but which nonetheless conveyed truth. If so, I would like to know where such uses by him may be found.

This is a sincere question and is not meant to be argumentative.

[GL]

I have trouble proofreading on the computer screen . . . and though I do know how to spell, I am the world's worst typist!

Beth,

You haven't read very many of my posts. I find it very difficult to blog without typos. I create typos simply by missing keys or hitting the wrong ones and I change what I write without properly editing all that needs to be edits. This use to bother me, but then I decided that this is just a blog, not an academic article and decided not to worry about it. In any event, I believe you are in competition with me for the title of world's worst typist. ;-)

[Truth Unites... and Divides]

>>> "Does that help?" <<< by Ethan regarding:

"So a "myth," per Beth, is something that communicates something essentially true about man, God and the cosmos. ... They are called "true myths" both to distinguish them from falsehood, as the modernists would label them, and to assert their significance, which the postmodernists would deny them."

Thank you Ethan. I would still ask my question about the instructive value gained from appending the word "myth" to a historically factual event. Borrowing terminology from the discipline of economics, it seems to me that the marginal cost of using the word "myth" to factual history outweighs the marginal benefit of applying the words "myth" to said events.

On another thread, the "Whitsunday Robert Hart" thread, there is discussion about mainline denoms and the advancement of some reasonable hypotheses as to why they are in the state that they're in.

Mr. Altena says: "Essentially the mainstream Protestant denominations in this country all fell prey to absorbing the tempter's fruits of modern "critical" biblical scholarship. I mean of course not genuine theological scholarship that is the fruit of prayer and right reason, but rather that psuedo-scholarship divorced from prayer and true faith, that presumes God is an idea to be examined rather than THE Person to be encountered, resulting in the pursuit of mastery rather than submission."

Michael observes "The most populated Protestant congegations are generally the most theologically conservative, and those of the more liberal persuasion are witnessing a decrease in membership."

Now with respect to modern "critical" biblical scholarship and the fact that theological conservative churches and denoms are growing, whereas theologically liberal Protestant ones are not....

Could it be that liberal seminaries apply "true myth" scholarship to the Bible moreso than conservative seminaries do, visa versa, or do you think they both apply "true myth" scholarship to the Bible in equal measure?

Further, I like what you wrote Ethan about how "true myth" avoids the error of both modernists and postmodernists. However, my thing is that propositional truth is effective with both the modernists and postmodernists. I think truth is significant in its own right. And that postmodernism because of its incoherence and mass of swirling contradictions, which they happily admit to, will eventually collapse on its own.

Another thing about historical events. Take for example, the Battle of Normandy in WWII. I'm perfectly content to call it a historical event. I'm perfectly fine in seeing that there are many lessons to be gained from this historical event. Lessons that are deep, medium, and shallow.

I don't need the Battle of Normandy to be called a "true myth" or a "real myth" for me to receive the lessons therein. Again, I don't see the enhanced value in attaching the literary concept of "myth" to an historically factual narrative.

[Truth Unites... and Divides]

There are people with legal training on this blog. Out of curiosity, could the idea of a "true myth" work in the courtroom?

Roughly, you have a judge, plaintiff(s), defendant(s), lawyers, and jurors. I kinda recall some phrase about "triers of fact" or something like that. Could we replace that "triers of fact" with "triers of true myth" instead?

Aren't jurors supposed to ascertain whether a criminal or civil offense actually occurred? But if they're informed that they need to think in terms of "true myth", don't you think it will be confusing for the jurors?

But if the judge and the lawyers explain to the jurors that a "myth" is a story told with a teaching purpose (Bobby Winters) or that a "true myth" per Ethan is "... something that communicates something essentially true about man, God and the cosmos. Some myths are fictitious, but others are from history. They are called "true myths"." ...

Don't you think it will be confusing to jurors?

Why not just say whether something is historically true or not? Whether it happened or didn't happen?

[Truth Unites... and Divides]

Satan is a "true myth". I think Schliermacher would go for that. Maybe Satan too.

[David Gray]

>I constantly meet good, pious folk who ask me with astonishment something like, "well, if you don't take God almighty at his word that dinosaurs rode the ark, how can you be telling the truth about believing in his son's blood?"

This makes me question your veracity. I've lived a lifetime among folks who believe in young earth creation and I've NEVER heard someone ask that question. For you to meet them "constantly" seems unlikely.

[Stuart Koehl]

>>>nother thing about historical events. Take for example, the Battle of Normandy in WWII. I'm perfectly content to call it a historical event. I'm perfectly fine in seeing that there are many lessons to be gained from this historical event. Lessons that are deep, medium, and shallow.<<<

The Battle of Normandy was quite real. On the other hand, what most people know about it comes from watching "The Longest Day" or "Saving Private Ryan", both of which are mythical retellings of the story. Does the fact that "Saving Private Ryan" is a myth mean that the Normandy Invasion did not happen? Does it mean there was no 2nd Ranger Battalion and no battle at Carentan?

[Judy Warner]

TUAD, "true myths" isn't a concept applied randomly to current events. They are how important historical events came down to us, because of the way people long ago thought about things, and because of oral tradition which develops a story over the years, unlike writing, to bring out its significance. The Battle of Normandy is not a true myth because we have all the facts and eyewitnesses; it happened in our time. It is true; it is not a myth. Athena emerging from the head of Zeus is a myth; it is not true. Noah and the flood is a true myth: something important happened, and either its story was passed down and developed over the years until it was written down, or God told it to Moses in the form that was most meaningful to His people at the time. (I'm not taking sides here because I don't know which is true.) Either way, it's a true myth.

[Judy Warner]

I wasn't disagreeing with Stuart in my post; I wrote it before I saw his. I hadn't thought about making myths about current events, but come to think of it we have many true myths about American history. The left has taken great pleasure in destroying them in their quest to prove the essential evil of the white male.

[DGP]

Can anyone here either refute or confirm that when Lewis used the term "true myth," he meant myths which are rooted in events that really happened and provide citations to his writings to make the case one way or the other? On the evolution thread, I gave a quote which showed that he understood "true myth" to mean myths which really happened. There may be examples where he used that term to clearly described events which did not really happen, but which nonetheless conveyed truth. If so, I would like to know where such uses by him may be found.

GL,

I'm no Lewis scholar, and in any case for me Lewis' opinion on this particular score matters little. (Yes, he's a great man; that's another story.) However, I'd hazard that the best way to understand Lewis' perspective on "true myth" is how he handled it in Till We Have Faces. The story is replete with myths, one of them true, and others closer to or farther from the truth. Yet even the true myth is only a shadow of the Truth.

[GL]

I'm no Lewis scholar, and in any case for me Lewis' opinion on this particular score matters little.

First, I understand that Lewis was a fallible man, just like you are I. I am not saying otherwise. I am just trying to reach an accurate definition of "true myth" as that term was used by him. The issue is whether we are using that term accurately.

The story is replete with myths, one of them true, and others closer to or farther from the truth.

That I understand. The account of Jonah is a possibly good example of that. Jonah appears to have been a real person. He is mentioned elsewhere in the OT in what appears to be historically actual accounts. He may very well have prophesied to the people of Nineveh. Some of the details in the Book bearing his name, however, may be fictional, a story built on an actual event used to teach a lesson. We do this all the time. There are a myriad of stories about Lincoln, based on fact which, in there details, are not accounts of actual events. Washington chopping down the cherry tree is a good example. As I understand Lewis's use of "true myth," all of the Book of Jonah would be myth, some of it would be "true myth." I take it that he concluded that the NT narrative of the life, death, resurrection and ascension of Christ and the coming of the Holy Spirit was all real and was all "true myth."

I'm trying to get a definition of "true myth" true to Lewis' use of the term.

[DGP]

I'm trying to get a definition of "true myth" true to Lewis' use of the term.

A worthy goal. I think I'm still fond of using Till We Have Faces in pursuit of that definition, because it's arguably more reliable to follow a man's example than his theoretical explication.

[Judy Warner]

The campaign against the eternal Jew continues, not only against white males, but against the original target, Christ's people, the Jews. Anti-Semitism is surging all over the world, including on American college campuses as this article makes clear.

[DGP]

it's arguably more reliable to follow a man's example than his theoretical explication.

I correct myself: That's not true of all men, but more frequently of men whose greatness seems to exceed their theoretical precision.

[labrialumn]

Mairenelaich,
Are you not by mocking such people, doing the Devil's work, yourself? And is not an unfallen creation necessary to make sense of the Fall and Cross? But calling it silly and mocking it does remind me of the ways of the thrower-against.

Stuart,
Modernism is very very powerful in the Roman See. Mairenelaich's being used to attack the foundation of the Gospel is one example. So is the general (though not universal) acceptance of German-school source criticism.

The rest of you:

IF you use the term 'myth' the way that Tolkien and Lewis did, then 'true myth' is sensical. If you do not, and use it in the vernacular since, then it is nonsensical. But to confuse the two senses of the term when one knows that they are different, is a category violation.

[Joe Long]

No need to say the special hatred for the White Male generalizes from Christ - the special hatred for the Male, undifferentiated, will do just as well. And in fact for Man generally, male and female - hated for our creation in the image of God, and for God's incarnation as Man.

So, for instance, black females also attract Satan's rending malice - they have a great deal more in common with, and greater worth to, the Son of Man than Satan does.

[Beth]

Regarding myth:

It is really helpful, I think, if one backs up from individual stories to first understand the broad idea of myth. Every culture has a mythology, which consists of individual stories, yes, but these all cohere around a central point of view regarding the important questions of where we came from, why we are here, and how we should then live. (This is generally religious, but we can have primarily secular mythologies, too, as we do to some degree in the U.S., though as Christianity has declined in influence, the mythology is losing its power -- an interesting point.)

"Saving Private Ryan," for example, is not just "a myth" (or a mythic retelling) itself, separated from all context. It is a part of our total American mythology -- who we are as a people, what we think of ourselves and our destiny and of our place in the world. One of the problems in our culture today is how strong both of the two competing mythologies have become -- are we the nation of George Washington and the cherry tree, or the nation of "those who once held slaves and are still and forever guilty of that sin and all others we have ever committed." (Yes, I simplify; I have other things to do today!)

No one would consider "myth" as a courtroom proof, obviously. But the American mythology may come into play in a courtroom as a defendent, perhaps, is compared to, say, George Washington ("why, he's as honest as George Washington admitting to cutting down the cherry tree"), or Benedict Arnold ("look at how he betrayed his friends"). These would not form *proofs*, but would dispose the jurors to look favorably or unfavorably on the defendent because of the shared mythology. But no one calls the story of the courtroom trial itself "myth" and tries to prove anything that way -- that is just silly and no one here would suggest it.

Myth is about who we are (or would like to be). Some of its individual stories are clear historical fact, many are based in historical fact but have been exaggerated or changed in various ways to more clearly uphold the cultural mythology, some are pure fabrication. But each story is about a bigger "thing" than itself -- it is a means of demonstrating, illustrating, promoting, clarifying, adding strength to, the cultural mythology which tells us who we are.

I don't have Lewis here at home to review, but since I learned this understanding from reading him, I think it's reasonably close to what he means.

As to "true Myth" vs. the rest -- well, the Biblical narrative is true Myth because it tells us truly about where we came from, who we are, and how we should live, because it tells us about the true God and our relation to Him -- whether each individual story found within the narrative is absolutely factual, based on fact, or fictional in nature.

On the other hand, the narrative of Buddhism, for example, is not true Myth -- though it too may contain individual stories which are factual or based on fact or even that show us some particular truth about the important questions. Overall, though, its understanding of where we came from, who we are, and how we should live is untrue.

[GL - thanks for the encouragement. It's hard for an English prof who is also a perfectionist to accept what she writes with typos, though! :) Gotta maintain my reputation . . . ]

[Truth Unites... and Divides]

"IF you use the term 'myth' the way that Tolkien and Lewis did, then 'true myth' is sensical. If you do not, and use it in the vernacular since, then it is nonsensical. But to confuse the two senses of the term when one knows that they are different, is a category violation." - Labrialumn.

The speaker may use the term "myth" or "true myth" sensically, but the people that the speaker's addressing may not understand those terms in the same sensical manner. Hence what I wrote above:

"I suppose the word "mythical" possesses several different levels of meaning, making it quite useful for purposes of equivocation."

[Bobby Winters]

Beth,
Very good.

[Stuart Koehl]

>>>No need to say the special hatred for the White Male generalizes from Christ<<<

And yet, at the same time, we see a "multiculturalist" attempt to "departicularize" Jesus and remove him from his historical context as a first century Galilean Jew. Thus, and in part due to the proliferation of blond, blue-eyed, surfer-boy Jesus images that proliferated from the Victorian era onward, we now get black Jesus, Asian Jesus, Indian Jesus, Native American Jesus and so forth. This represents a type of docetism, for Jesus really did accept incarnation as a particular man in a particular place and a particular time. To remove him from that milieu is to deny the historical reality of the incarnation and reduce Jesus to a symbol. This is a very insidious heresy that takes many different forms, and all the worse because it has been embraced by people who otherwise consider themselves to be very orthodox Christians.

[Truth Unites... and Divides]

>>> This represents a type of docetism, for Jesus really did accept incarnation as a particular man in a particular place and a particular time. To remove him from that milieu is to deny the historical reality of the incarnation and reduce Jesus to a symbol. This is a very insidious heresy that takes many different forms, and all the worse because it has been embraced by people who otherwise consider themselves to be very orthodox Christians. <<< Stuart

Stuart makes a good point about denying historical reality. And in conjunction with Labrialumn's point about category error violations, either willfull or done out of ignorance, isn't it possible, and on occasion probable, that people will make a category violation error between

(A) "True Myth" and (B) Denying Historical Reality?

Is this not related to the point about Hutchens' recitation of Schliermacher?

P.S. In Christianity, Docetism is the belief that Jesus' physical body was an illusion, as was his crucifixion; that is, Jesus only seemed to have a physical body and to physically die, but in reality he was incorporeal, a pure spirit, and hence could not physically die. This belief treats the sentence "the Word was made Flesh" (John 1:14) as merely figurative.

P.P.S. Yes Beth, that was very good.... to a point. ;-)

[Beth]

TUAD -- Yes, one may use a term that has multiple meanings for the purpose of equivocation.

Or one may use it accurately as a means of being precise.

Your are surely not suggeting we should never use any term that has multiple meanings in any setting, ever? If so, we must all stop talking and writing altogether!

I assume that you are not accusing Stuart and others here of equivocation because they are using the term "myth" with this particular -- and by now surely clearly defined -- meaning. It is a tremendously useful and powerful concept which should not be banned from use because *someone* in the audience may not understand it.

The writer or speaker cannot be restrained to using a third-grade level of discourse in order to avoid being accused of equivocation by those who do not understand him. My students use this argument -- "I don't know the big words, so the writer is being pretentious, ambiguous, and unclear." To which my response is -- "Learn the big words and then you'll understand him."

I should hope we can learn from each other at MC. I learn something new just about every time I read here. Besides being introduced to the ideas and reflections of the editors, I also learn things like attentiveness to the particular style of argument of the individual editors and commenters, which helps me to understand them; another thing I learn is new vocabulary and new concepts, which helps me understand all kinds of things I read and hear which would have been mystery to me in the near past.

And when I still find myself mystified, I ask questions till I get it -- because I assume it's my responsibility to learn. A writer or speaker does have a responsibility to be clear, but he cannot possibly take into account every possible hearer of his words. He must choose a level of discourse, and if I'm not up to that level yet, it's my job to get there if I want to understand him.

[Ethan Cordray]

GL,

The Lewisian meaning of "true myth" is an important point to get at. IANALOTS (I am not a Lewis or Tolkien scholar), but let me take a stab at it. This will be a major correction to my previous post, which I think was not really very accurate.

Labrialumn and TUAD,

You are correct that confusing the technical and vernacular meanings of "myth" can lead to confusion. The way I understand it, the reason Tolkien and Lewis -- and also Chesterton, if I remember correctly -- employed the term was to redeem it from just such a confusion.

Tolkien and Lewis were both writing at the noontide of modernism's power. False theologians were everywhere following in Schliermacher's wake, proclaiming Scripture to be full of "mere myths." In this, they meant that the narratives were factually inaccurate, and therefore could be disregarded. They were essentially following the epistemology of logical positivism, that only the factually accurate and the propositionally verifiable are true and meaningful.

Thus, to the modernist mind, Bible stories that are not factually accurate have no meaning, unless one can extract some abstract moral principle from them like one does with a fable. All else were "myths" in the pejorative sense, fanciful stories unworthy of attention. Combined with a materialist bent that dismissed accounts of miracles, this led to a terrific abandonment of Biblical truth and authority.

One response to this was the one taken by the Fundamentalists: accept the modernist epistemology, but assert that everything in the Bible is factually accurate. This aproach runs into obvious problems (e.g. there are competing accounts of the same events, there are non-literal genres), but that is not my subject here.

Tolkien and Lewis took a contrasting approach. Instead of accepting the modernist epistemology, they proposed an alternative. In this they were driven by their prior love of "myth," in the classical sense: the tales of antiquity and pagan northern Europe. They saw in these myths, which modernism dismissed as irrelevant, deep truths about the nature of human life. These truths could not be reduced to abstract propositional statements; instead, they were always expressed in story form.

Then, when they looked at the Bible, Tolkien and Lewis saw that the modernists were correct in saying that it contained many "myths," i.e. these essential stories expressing deep irreducible truths. Moreover, Scripture fit these myths together into a single mighty narrative that encompassed everything that is fundamentally true within humanity and the universe.

By "true myth," then, Tolkien and Lewis meant the story that fully and truly expresses the essence of life. Questions of factual accuracy were not primarily important to them in the way that they were to modernists. Rather, it was the power of the stories to define and reveal the truth of life that made them perfectly true.

This is not to say that historical questions were irrelevant. Lewis and Tolkien believed that the factual truth of Christ's life, death and resurrection were vitally important, and if the Gospels were inaccurate on those points then the faith was in vain. However, lacking the sort of first-hand empirical evidence that modernism would require to accept those events, we must accept their historical veracity on other grounds, namely the beauty and perfection of the story and its attestable power to transform lives.

You may fairly quarrel with Tolkien and Lewis' epistemological approach, or you may decide that the fall of modernism renders their language no longer helpful. You may correctly point out that much that was once thought fictitious has been shown by archaeology to be factually based. But in my opinion Tolkien and Lewis' language of "true myth" was the right one to use against a philosophical system that denied not only Biblical truth but the truth of all the fundamental stories of civilization. And I think it's still important now, when modernism, though philosophically dead, still stalks the night around our churches and campuses.

[Ethan Cordray]

BTW Stuart, modernism may be dead as a smelt in pop culture, but it is alive and well within the natural sciences, and it occasionally sallies forth from that stronghold.

[Stuart Koehl]

>>>BTW Stuart, modernism may be dead as a smelt in pop culture, but it is alive and well within the natural sciences, and it occasionally sallies forth from that stronghold.<<<

Deconstruction rules, modernism drools, even in the hard sciences.

>>>And I think it's still important now, when modernism, though philosophically dead, still stalks the night around our churches and campuses.<<<

Actually, not even there. Post-modernism with its radical nihilism embodying the rejection of all metanarratives, is the zeitgeist of the university, and its bastard cousin, the seminary.

[James Kabala]

Actually, I think the popularity of post-modernism has peaked.

[GL]

I'd hazard that the best way to understand Lewis' perspective on "true myth" is how he handled it in Till We Have Faces. The story is replete with myths, one of them true, and others closer to or farther from the truth. Yet even the true myth is only a shadow of the Truth.

DGP,

Let me follow-up. I am familiar with Till We Have Faces, but I do not recall whether Lewis called what he did there "true myth." Perhaps he did. If so, can you cite my a source on that?

Here is my quote from the evolution thread:

Now the story of Christ is simply a true myth: a myth working on us the same way as the others, but with this tremendous difference that it Really happened: and one must be content to accept it in the same way, remembering that it is God's myth where the others are men's myths; i.e. the Pagan stories are God expressing Himself through the minds of the poets, using such images as He found there, while Christianity is God expressing Himself through what we call 'real things' ... namely, the actual incarnation, crucifixion, and resurrection.

C.S. Lewis (October 1931), quoted in Walter Hooper, "The Other Oxford Movement: Tolkien and the Inklings." Included as a chapter in Tolkien: A Celebration, edited by Joseph Pearce (London: Fount, 1999), pages 184-185 (copied and pasted from Tolkien's Lord of the Rings: Truth, Myth or Both?, available at http://www.crossroad.to/articles2/rings.htm#truemyth).

With all due respect, I am not look for a defintion of "true myth" which we may agree on, but the definition which Lewis intended. He may well have included in the definition of "true myth" stories which did not really happen, but I would like some evidence from his writing that he did so. The above quote seems to indicate that to be a "true myth," as Lewis used that term at that time, the events described must have really happened.

Again, I am not opposed to some of the Scripture being understood as myth conveying a truth without the narrative describing an actual historic event. The Book of Job seems to me to be a good candidate for such an understanding. That the events described may never have happened does in no way take away from the fact that the narrative may have been "God breathed." I'm merely trying to understand from Lewis' pen what he meant by "true myth" and whether when we use that term claiming him as our source (presumably to support our application of that term to a particular part of Scripture) we are using that term as he intended.

I know that their are Lewis scholars (or at least serious afficionados) who read and edit Touchstone. Can you help me here?

[GL]

Yet even the true myth is only a shadow of the Truth.

I certainly agree, DGP.

[Wonders for Oyarsa]

I think you are correct GL - Lewis used the term "true myth" to refer to the incarnation, crucifixion, and resurrection - that which was known through myth becoming historical fact without losing its mythic significance.

Genesis then would be mythology proper (though divinely inspired and Holy Scripture); the gospels would be true myth.

[Wonders for Oyarsa]

And, by this definition, "true myth" is certainly not the shadow of the truth, but the actuality and the shadow wrapped in one.

[GL]

And, by this definition, "true myth" is certainly not the shadow of the truth, but the actuality and the shadow wrapped in one.

I like that.

[GL]

Genesis then would be mythology proper (though divinely inspired and Holy Scripture).

On this point, I am not so sure Genesis is not true myth, but I refuse to be dogmatic. The Flood seems to be a likelier candidate for mythology proper than the creation of man, but there is another thread where that was debated and I do not intend to reopen that here.

[Steve Nicoloso]

Tho' this may not be the thread out on which to hash this subject, it is among the more current ones. And Steve Hutchens' posts are famous for producing plenty of heat (and plenty of light most of the time as well). Stuart contends here, as elsewhere:

Modernism is dead as a smelt. The Church continues to fall behind the power curve and fight yesterday's enemies.

It's not as tho' I disagree with the thesis per se, so much as I'm failing to wrap my head around it. Certainly it is true that modernism, tightly construed, has given way to post-modernism, again tightly construed. But how does this knowledge help us? Where modernism denies all but except positive knowledge, post-modernism denies even that. Which is the greater error? That both views are self-refuting is self-evident. When pressed on an epistemological question, any armchair postmodernist will quickly withdraw to dry smoked carcass (cf. the smelt metaphor) of modernism anyway. The professional one will usually be clever enough to evade the question.

Where does this leave the Church? Indeed, modernism has infected the Church, not least among modernism's staunchest opponents (cf. the implausible "science" defending a literalist view of the Bible and its human authorship--dinosaurs on Noah's ark, Petrine authorship of 2 Peter). Postmodernism, the sea into which the Church has moved, is no doubt streaming into her as well. But is not through the very holes left by corrosive acid of modernism?

To me they are twin errors. Agnosticism can be based on either one: A) I can only know the things that can be logically proved from objective facts; or B) I can only know the things that I personally feel, the facts be damned. The Church stands correctly in opposition to either view. Irrespective of the status of each error in the academe, surely proponents (most of them unwitting proponents, floating happily downstream in one or more modern corrosives) of either view stand in need of conversion both within and without the Church. Surely the problem is agnosticism itself, seen as moral failing instead of, as is all too common today, an intellectual one.

Stuart seems to be saying that the Church habitually chooses, or at least is today choosing, the wrong dragon to slay (the already dead one). But can it be said truly that modernism is dead? He is at least alive and well in his satanic offspring. Does the child differ really so much? Of course the Church must stand for Truth and against error. And how much real diversity is there in error? Are not all errors mere corollaries to "Thou shalt not surely die..."?

[Joe Long]

When talking with the general public, "myth" should be used sparsely and explained when it's used, simply because in common parlance "that's a myth" is equivalent to saying "that's a widely-held false belief". The TV show "Mythbusters" exemplifies that - but that needn't hinder conversation here...

Have to admit, though, every time I hear "True Myth" I'm somehow reminded of Yul Brenner in "The King and I":

Anna: That is a LIE!
King, emphatically: It is a FALSE lie!

[Wonders for Oyarsa]

Well, GL, I hope to avoid it as well. However, there is a point to be made that I think may require referencing it. Assume, for sake of argument, that the history of how creation unfolded was such that Genesis 1 would be wrong as a journalistic account of the external events. Assume, for instance, that the Earth really is over a billion years old, and that our sun preceded our planet and its tumultuous oceans. Now, take Genesis 1 and compare it to Enuma Elish.

The Enuma Elish says that Mardok created the world - sea, sky, and land - by subduing other gods. Genesis says that the Lord created the world by his own word. They are both myths, but Genesis is true and the EE is false. The EE says that Mardok created man out of the blood of a rival, and Genesis says God created man out of the earth, breathing his own life into him. Even assuming universal biological common descent, Genesis is true, and the EE is false. The EE says that man was created to be a slave of the gods; Genesis says man is God's image bearing signature on creation. Genesis: 3, the EE: 0.

Assuming Genesis 1 as mythology for sake of argument, Genesis is a far truer myth than the EE. Here is the confusion - Genesis might not be "true myth" in Lewis' sense of "myth becoming fact", but it is certainly true where the EE was false, though I am using the word "true" to mean "showing us the true nature of who we are" and not "factually correct on scientific details".

So I think Genesis is a true myth, even if it isn't "true myth". So...do we need another word for "true" in my example? Or should we speak of "myth-fact" rather than "true myth" to avoid the confusion?

[Stuart Koehl]

>>>The TV show "Mythbusters" exemplifies that - but that needn't hinder conversation here...<<<

For all the efforts they go through, very often their empirical experiments do not in fact reveal the truth of the myth. As a poor, dumb-ass historian, I don't have all the gizmos and instrumentation. All I have is the documentary and eye witness record. When their (admittedly limited) experiments do not provide "objective" proof of an event that is known to have happened (often not once but many times), then I discount their experiments and go with the record.

Usually, when this happens, it is due to the manner in which they have structured their experiment, or simply how they couched the problem.

Example: The "myth" that you can be sucked down by a sinking ship was supposedly "busted" by having one of the two doofuses sit on top of a 30-foot boat, which they then sank. Not surprisingly, nobody was sucked to a watery grave.

On the other hand, the record of witnesses and survivors of numerous sinkinks of somewhat larger vessels records many instances of people being sucked down by a sinking ship (in fact, a documentary on the Coast Guard on the same channel showed this phenomenon in a gruesome tape of the sinking of a 100-foot steel fishing trawler: one fisherman dives overboard in his bright orange immersion suit and life jacked, and starts to swim away as the ship begins to go down, only to be sucked back into the ship and dragged to his death).

Why the disparity between the record and the experiment? The problem of scale. A small boat sinks slowly, and thus does not generate much of a vacuum in its wake. A large ship can sink at speeds up to 20-30 mph, and displacing hundreds to thousands of tons, creates a huge vacuum in its wake. Here we need to go out of the realm of science fair experiments on steroids, into the realm of six degree of freedom fluid modeling. When you run the numbers through the models (which are based on hard physics), you can actually create a visualization of the wake behind a sinking ship AND calculate its force. Which is more than enough to drag down a human being--or hundreds of human beings.

There is a lesson here for those who seek to "bust" myths: before you can even begin to do so, you must understand the phenomena you are studying, and that includes understanding the documentary record of the past. In biblical studies, most of the assumptions made by the minimalists based on "empirical" observations have in fact been overturned by deeper study of the record, whether this was papyrological, archaeological, historical, sociological or theological. Some myths can't be busted, because, deep down, they just happen to be true.

[Joe Long]

Let's hope they don't decide to bust any nuclear-explosion-related myths...

[Truth Unites... and Divides]

(First of several responses.)

>>> The Battle of Normandy is not a true myth because we have all the facts and eyewitnesses; it happened in our time. It is true; it is not a myth. <<< - Judy

Well, the Resurrection of Jesus did not happen in our time, but it does have facts and eyewitnesses.

Yet folks call the Resurrection a "true myth". Is it because it happened before our lifetimes? And if an event occurred during our lifetimes, then it can't be called a "myth" or "true myth". It can only be a true history or a false history, is that right?

[Stuart Koehl]

>>>Stuart seems to be saying that the Church habitually chooses, or at least is today choosing, the wrong dragon to slay (the already dead one). But can it be said truly that modernism is dead? He is at least alive and well in his satanic offspring. Does the child differ really so much? Of course the Church must stand for Truth and against error. And how much real diversity is there in error? Are not all errors mere corollaries to "Thou shalt not surely die..."?<<<

The child differs enough so that the weapons used against the parent are not effectual against its offspring. Modernism affected a metanarrative. The Church could oppose that metanarrative (of human perfection attained through the unrelenting march of science and "progress") with its own metanarrative of man's bondage into sin and the redemptive sacrifice of Jesus Christ. But post-modernism rejects all metanarratives as being mere social constructs for the mediation of power relationships. You cannot oppose an anti-narrative narrative with a narrative--the ships pass in the night, the argument does not engage the adversary. New approaches, new arguments must be made that do not merely oppose (a nonexistent metanarrative) with our own, but one which addresses the very legitimacy of metanarratives in the first place.

When combatting modernism, the Church could argue on the basis of the superiority or truth of its metanarrative as opposed to that of modernism. Epistemologically, the two were parallel. Modernists would say, "The Enlightenment brought us A, B and C, therefore, our metanarrative is true". The Church would respond by saying, "But A, B, and C have not resulted in human happiness or perfection, while on the other hand, redemption in Christ causes X. Y, and Z, which are manifestly true". It might have been preaching to the choir for the most part, but it was an actual engagement.

When the Church engages post-modernism, that approach does not fly. We say, "X, Y, and Z as postulated in the Gospel is true", and they reply with Pontius Pilate's "Truth? What is that?" Every argument the Church makes is rebutted not with an argument on the facts, but with simple dismissal: all metanarratives are equally valid, therefore no metanarrative can be valid at all. It's nihilism, and modernism was many things but not nihilistic.

As I said, a different approach is needed, starting with the argument that "No metanarratives" is itself a metanarrative, which then, at least, puts us back on some firm terrain on which to take a stand. Pointing out the emptiness of post-modernism both epistemologically and teleologically is a logical first step--but the Church is still busy trying to put down science, at a time when science, in fact, is fighting its own rear guard action against POMO nihilism--and at a time when science and religion are in fact moving towards convergence (for all except the very literal minded on both sides).

[Steve Nicoloso]

Well, Stuart, we are very much agreed on this subject, which itself is quite surprising ;-) Yes, the Church need not be against science, properly understood. And, yes, one cannot counter "an anti-narrative narrative with a narrative." But just how big is this new monster. Yes, he is well entrenched in the ivory towers, but what about in the recliners and bars? Does Joe Sixpack really believe in the absence of meta-narratives? in the true non-existence of truth? Oh, he says he does, in parroting the pat answers fed him by his "betters". But does he really? Does it really take more than about two well-targeted questions to tear his ostensible post-modernism to shreds? No. I think that under duress, our hypothetical Joe Sixpack will unwittingly retreat to the firmer ground of modernism, where he will persist in and defend all the old errors in the same old ways.

Perhaps the Church need concentrate less on Monsters and more on the care of (individual) souls, but insofar as she chases the Monsters, it is not obvious to me that one deserves less concern than the other.

[Wonders for Oyarsa]

I think postmodernism, at its best, is to be understood not as a separate system of its own, but as a critique of modernism. Basically, it doesn't deny the existence of truth per se, but rather is extremely skeptical of claims to know the truth. Modernism, while claiming to just talk objectively about the "way things are", actually used its so called truth as a means of suring up the power of those who distribute said truth.

As a critique, postmodernism is quite valuable. As a philosophical system in and of itself...well...it just isn't that.

[Truth Unites... and Divides]

"Your are surely not suggeting we should never use any term that has multiple meanings in any setting, ever?" - Beth

No, I'm not.

"It is a tremendously useful and powerful concept which should not be banned from use because *someone* in the audience may not understand it."

A writer or speaker does have a responsibility to be clear, but he cannot possibly take into account every possible hearer of his words. He must choose a level of discourse, and if I'm not up to that level yet, it's my job to get there if I want to understand him."

Beth, I appreciate you. You make a reasoned argument.

Let me offer this possibility for you to chew on. Are you, by any chance, familiar with The Jesus Seminar? They were searching for the "historical" Jesus and they had scholars such as Robert Funk, John Crossan, Marcus Borg, et al. I don't know how much familiarity they had with C.S. Lewis and the concept of "true myth".

I would speculate that they had some acquaintance with the literary concept of "true myth" or "myth". And I would speculate that they applied it to the biblical passages on Jesus. These Jesus Seminar scholars then probably propagated the idea that the "Historical Jesus" is a "true myth".

Perhaps there are some folks on this website who endorse the Jesus Seminar. I can't honestly say that I endorse what the Jesus Seminar has done. And I think the possibility or likelihood is that "true myth" is a slippery slope slide into what the Jesus Seminar folks espouse.

So Beth, when you say "It is a tremendously useful and powerful concept which should not be banned from use because *someone* in the audience may not understand it", I agree with you. I'm not for censorship. But at the same time, let's be cognizant that concepts such as "true myth" can also be used by liberal scholars such as those in the Jesus Seminar.

[Zamir]

post modernism is self defeating
if 'all narratives are untrue' then this statement itself is untrue

while I can't see a post-modernist claiming that the Netherlands invaded Germany in WO II

so some narratives must be true : )

Stuart,

could you elucidate us a bit on: 'at a time when science and religion are in fact moving towards convergence '

[Truth Unites... and Divides]

Ethan, that was a very nice post about C.S. Lewis and Tolkien. It gives context that the literary concept of "true myth" was a *reactionary* movement against Schliermacher and the epistemology of logical positivism.

However, sometimes reactionary movements have unintended consequences.

[GL]

In regards to Stuart's excellent post of May 29, 2007 11:13:27 AM, may I suggest that his point illustrates rather well why it is an error in logic (which may or may not have led to an error in conclusion) to infer neo-Darwinian macro-evolution from observable examples of micro-evolution?

If macro-evolution is correct (which, of course, I doubt), then it is mere happenstance that evolution proponents got it right because they have bad input resulting from their treating the sinking of a jon boat (micro-evolution) with what would happen in the sinking of the oil tanker "Jahre Viking" (purportedly the largest ship in world and here representing neo-Darwinian macro-evolution).

[Stuart Koehl]

>>>But just how big is this new monster.<<<

A coral snake is a lot smaller than a diamondback rattler, but it'll kill you dead a lot faster. Nihilism is far more corrosive than positivism. When dealing with a modernist, you could always try to convince him that yours was a better answer than his. With a post-modernist, you're dealing with someone who doesn't believe in answers other than doing what his gut tells him to do.

When the attitude that there are no absolutes takes hold--as it will, since it appeals to the lowest of lowest common denominators--it will be very, very difficult to correct. Talk to some kids in their late teens or early twenties. It's really hard to get some of them to admit that some things (other, than say, smoking or eating trans-fats) are always wrong. I had a very long and frustrating conversation with one young person who would not concede that human sacrifice is always wrong, regardless of circumstances. For her, it had to do with "cultural sensitivity"--who were we to tell the Aztecs not to cut out human hearts, since our culture was equally brutal? Which was neither here nor there, but a sample of the quality of argument you get.

>>>Does Joe Sixpack really believe in the absence of meta-narratives? in the true non-existence of truth? Oh, he says he does, in parroting the pat answers fed him by his "betters". <<<

Don't underestimate force of habit. Wear the costume often enough, repeat the lines often enough, and pretty soon you are the role you play.

>>.No. I think that under duress, our hypothetical Joe Sixpack will unwittingly retreat to the firmer ground of modernism, where he will persist in and defend all the old errors in the same old ways.<<<

Perhaps. I have yet to meet a Joe Sixpack "modernist". What most people call modernists are actually that old-fashioned American archetype, the pragmatist. He's not interested in theories one way or the other--he just wants to know what works. And, if POMO works for him, he'll use it.

[GL]

So I think Genesis is a true myth, even if it isn't "true myth". So...do we need another word for "true" in my example? Or should we speak of "myth-fact" rather than "true myth" to avoid the confusion?

I perfectly well understand your point and agree with it -- to a point. You may use "true myth" to describe what you posted, but you must not claim that you are using it in the same sense that Lewis did or you must show that Lewis did use it in that sense.

That brings me back to the question which I have been asking and which you alone have answered. I believe some posters here claim to be using "true myth" as Lewis did when, in fact, they are not. But, until someone shows otherwise, I believe I have made my point and won't belabor it.

[Wonders for Oyarsa]

Hi GL,

Well, to add to the confusion, I think Lewis would probably be on the "mythical" camp with regard to parts of the Old Testament. Take this part of Surprised by Joy:

I have therefore no difficulty in accepting, say, the view of those scholars who tell us that the account of Creation in Genesis is derived from earlier Semitic stories which were Pagan and mythical. We must of course be quite clear what 'derived from' means. Stories do not reproduce their species like mice. They are told by men. Each re-teller either repeats exactly what his predecessor had told him or else changes it. He may change it unknowingly or deliberately.

Thus at every step in what is called—a little misleadingly—the 'evolution' of a story, a man, all he is and all his attitudes, are involved. And no good work is done anywhere without aid from the Father of Lights. When a series of such retellings turns a creation story which at first had almost no religious or metaphysical significance into a story which achieves the idea of true Creation and of a transcendent Creator (as Genesis does), then nothing will make me believe that some of the re-tellers, or some one of them, has not been guided by God.

And this from God in the Dock:

As to the fabulous element in the Old Testament, I very much doubt if you would be wise to chuck it out. What you get is something gradually coming into focus. If we could sort out all the fabulous elements in the earlier stages and separate them form the historical ones, I think we might lose an essential part of the whole process.

And here, in The Problem of Pain:

The story in Genesis is a story (full of the deepest suggestion) of a magic apple of knowledge; but in the developed doctrine the inherent magic of the apple has dropped out of sight, and the story is simply one of disobedience. I have the deepest respect even for pagan myths, still more for myths in Holy Scripture. I therefore do not doubt that the version which emphasizes the magic apple, and brings together the trees of life and knowledge, contains a deeper and subtler truth than the version which makes the apple simply and solely a pledge of obedience.

So he doesn't use the term "true myth" here, but his interpretation does in fact square with those posters who are using it. I think the confusion comes from an agreement with Lewis with regard to myths in scripture, and then mistakenly using his terminology for the mythical and factual nature of the life of Christ.

[Ethan Cordray]

TUAD, I thnk you make a good point about the utility of the "true myth" concept for the purposes of liberal theologians like the Jesus Seminar (though they may not be on the whole the best example, as they seem greatly interested in demythologizing the "historical Jesus"). Even the clever need to be very clear-headed to resist falling off into any of the popular heresies of our day.

Stuart, I consider postmodernism an unfortunate effect of our excessive material comfort and consequent intellectual laziness. Nihilism only "works" when one doesn't need a stable cultural community to survive. I expect it to be a self-correcting disease that destroys itself by killing the host civilization. Meanwhile, we who have resisted infection will be the ones to build the next one.

[Wonders for Oyarsa]

Tuad,

Indeed, sometimes they do. I do think Lewis and Tolkien were far more nuanced and balanced in their thinking, and far more rooted in ancient history and literature, than the American fundamentalists. As such, I think their response to modernism was a less reactionary one than fundamentalism, is more true to scripture and Christian tradition, and will have a more lasting legacy.

However, this is only my opinion - I may well be wrong. I do hope that you will grow to respect my viewpoint and cease to mislabel it as a collusion with liberalism. This, at least, it is not.

[Truth Unites... and Divides]

I like Joe Long's comment:

>>> When talking with the general public, "myth" should be used sparsely and explained when it's used, simply because in common parlance "that's a myth" is equivalent to saying "that's a widely-held false belief". <<<

His point is what I'm affirming. Judicious, cautious, prudent use of the term "myth" or "true myth". Use it sparingly and explain *precisely* what you mean when using it.

[Ethan Cordray]

>>I think the confusion comes from an agreement with Lewis with regard to myths in scripture, and then mistakenly using his terminology for the mythical and factual nature of the life of Christ.<<

Wonders, I think you may be right. I'd still like to hear a genuine Lewis scholar answer GL's question about Lewis' (and Tolkien's, I consider the concept more central to him than to Lewis) use of the term "true myth." Both concepts (myth made historical fact; fictional myth communicating truth) can be found in his writing, but I do not honestly know which he indicates with "true myth".

[Wonders for Oyarsa]

Not to show my postmodern cards too much, but would it make sense to use the word "story" rather than "myth" in these situations? People are certainly familiar with different ways in which a story might be true - and even of ways (especially in our modern journalistic context) in which a story may be factually correct and deeply deceptive at the same time.

[Truth Unites... and Divides]

WFO: "However, this is only my opinion - I may well be wrong."

Thanks for the humility. I may well be wrong as well!

WFO: "I do hope that you will grow to respect my viewpoint and cease to mislabel it as a collusion with liberalism."

I'm unsure what you're referring to. Can you provide a citation of my writing where I mislabeled your viewpoint as being in collusion with liberalism? BTW, what viewpoint are you referring to?

[Truth Unites... and Divides]

Ethan, WFO, and I think Joe Long, and of course myself, believe that "myth" or "true myth" is confusing or can be confusing.

>>I think the confusion comes from an agreement with Lewis with regard to myths in scripture, and then mistakenly using his terminology for the mythical and factual nature of the life of Christ.<< - WFO

Wonders, I think you may be right. < - Ethan.

Another name for Satan is Author of Confusion.

[Wonders for Oyarsa]

Tuad,

I'm unsure what you're referring to. Can you provide a citation of my writing where I mislabeled your viewpoint as being in collusion with liberalism? BTW, what viewpoint are you referring to?

You are constantly contrasting those who believe the bible is true (as exemplified by the Chicago statement) and those who believe it contains stories that are mythical. You then say it is just a slippery slope from denying the absolute historicity of parts of Genesis to denying the resurrection itself.

There are those of us who rather resent this characterization of our position. Like Lewis, we see some stories of Holy Scripture that are not best read as blow by blow factual or journalistic accounts - the factual history behind the events being cloudy while the spiritual truths are quite clear. And like Lewis, we will defend the historicity of the resurrection to the end.

Another name for Satan is Author of Confusion.

I don't think the term "myth" need be confusing. People in more literary circles can easily hear the term without hearing "falsehood". Using the term to mean falsehood is actually a subtle example of modernist prejudice.

The use of the term "true myth" is only confusing in that some are using it in a way the Lewis and Tolkien did not.

[Mairnéalach]

Labrialumn,

Being created in the image of God, I do the kinds of things God does. One of the things God does is mock lies. Therefore, I mock lies. Now, it is usually impossible to mock lies without offending a liar somewhere.

Now, I think we'd all like to say that God offends liars in order to set them straight, not just for caprice. As a rank sinner, I'm certain I don't do nearly as good a job as He does, but I do share his intent.

I use the expressions "a certain breed of inerrantist" and "making young earth creation a first-order doctrine" deliberately, to highlight the fact that it's a particular lie I hate, not folks who cling to them so desperately.

My mother-in-law is probably one of the Christians with whom I have the most intimate, prayerful, and mutually protective agape relationships on the planet, yet she's a young earth creationist. I don't "mock" her because she's not a bloody jerk about it, unlike the people about whom I spoke earlier.

I also happen to be close to a good elder Christian man who, despite many good and faithful practices, is damnably blind about abortion issues--something which is almost a first-order doctrine with me. Yet, we've not broken fellowship, and I don't "mock him", because he's not a jerk about it. I just pray for him to wake the hell up, and I look for opportunities to show his fault to him.

The Adversary works in all of us, and we all cling to one lie or another. I make no apologies for mocking one lie which I think is fairly damnable, even when beloved Christians cling to it. I don't give offense capriciously, but I will give it when it's needed, and I'll do it, as I said, with extreme prejudice.

Read the "Hindenburg Theology" article and assimilate it, if you wish to interact further on this.

[Truth Unites... and Divides]

WFO,

The Chicago Statements do recognize that the Bible has a wide variety of literary forms and genres. Please see these relevant articles.

From Chicago 1979"

Article XVIII.

WE AFFIRM that the text of Scripture is to be interpreted by grammatico-historical exegesis, taking account of its literary forms and devices, and that Scripture is to interpret Scripture.

WE DENY the legitimacy of any treatment of the text or quest for sources lying behind it that leads to relativizing, dehistoricizing, or discounting its teaching, or rejecting its claims to authorship.

From Chicago 1982:

Article X
WE AFFIRM that Scripture communicates God's truth to us verbally through a wide variety of literary forms.

WE DENY that any of the limits of human language render Scripture inadequate to convey God's message.

This Affirmation is a logical literary extension of Article II which acknowledges the humanity of Scripture. The Bible is God's Word, but it is written in human words; thus, revelation is "verbal." Revelation is "propositional" (Article VI) because it expresses certain propositional truth. Some prefer to call it "sentential" because the truth is expressed in sentences. Whatever the term--verbal, propositional, or sentential--the Bible is a human book which uses normal literary forms. These include parables, satire, irony, hyperbole, metaphor, simile, poetry, and even allegory (e.g., Ezek. 16-17).

As an expression in finite, human language, the Bible has certain limitations in a similar way that Christ as a man had certain limitations. This means that God adapted Himself through human language so that His eternal truth could be understood by man in a temporal world.

Despite the obvious fact of the limitations of any finite linguistic expression, the Denial is quick to point out that these limits do not render Scripture an inadequate means of communicating God's truth. For while there is a divine adaptation (via language) to human finitude there is no accommodation to human error. Error is not essential to human nature. Christ was human and yet He did not err. Adam was human before he erred. So simply because the Bible is written in human language does not mean it must err. In fact, when God uses human language there is a supernatural guarantee that it will not be in error.

Article XIII
WE AFFIRM that awareness of the literary categories, formal and stylistic, of the various parts of Scripture is essential for proper exegesis, and hence we value genre criticism as one of the many disciplines of biblical study.

WE DENY that generic categories which negate historicity may rightly be imposed on biblical narratives which present themselves as factual.

The awareness of what kind of literature one is interpreting is essential to a correct understanding of the text. A correct genre judgment should be made to ensure correct understanding. A parable, for example, should not be treated like a chronicle, nor should poetry be interpreted as though it were a straightforward narrative. Each passage has its own genre, and the interpreter should be cognizant of the specific kind of literature it is as he attempts to interpret it. Without genre recognition an interpreter can be misled in his understanding of the passage. For example, when the prophet speaks of "trees clapping their hands" (Isa. 55:12) one could assume a kind of animism unless he recognized that this is poetry and not prose.

The Denial is directed at an illegitimate use of genre criticism by some who deny the truth of passages which are presented as factual. Some, for instance, take Adam to be a myth, whereas in Scripture he is presented as a real person. Others take Jonah to be an allegory when he is presented as a historical person and so referred to by Christ (Mat. 12:40-42). This Denial is an appropriate and timely warning not to use genre criticism as a cloak for rejecting the truth of Scripture.

Article XIV
WE AFFIRM that the biblical record of events, discourses and sayings, though presented in a variety of appropriate literary forms, corresponds to historical fact.

WE DENY that any event, discourse or saying reported in Scripture was invented by the biblical writers or by the traditions they incorporated.

This article combines the emphases of Articles VI and XIII. While acknowledging the legitimacy of literary forms, this article insists that any record of events presented in Scripture must correspond to historical fact. That is, no reported event, discourse, or saying should be considered imaginary.

The Denial is even more clear than the Affirmation. It stresses that any discourse, saying, or event reported in Scripture must actually have occurred. This means that any hermeneutic or form of biblical criticism which claims that something was invented by the author must be rejected. This does not mean that a parable must be understood to represent historical facts, since a parable does not (by its very genre) purport to report an event or saying but simply to illustrate a point.

[Mairnéalach]

David Gray,

You're right. I don't meet them constantly. But I've met more than one, and let me tell you--the "mocking" which went on was all one-way.

[Mairnéalach]

David Gray,

Let me ask you this. Among all the polite young earthers you've know all your life--have you ever questioned any of them on that point of belief?

If not, then I think it highly unlikely you'd have ever heard the sanctimonious question I've posed above. But then again, if you don't poke sacred cows, you never hear any sacred bellows.

Don't get me wrong. I don't question your assertion that most young earthers are polite, quiet, pious folk. Like my mother in law, who I just interceded for in prayer to help break a horrendous depression (praise God). I AM questioning the circumstances in which you've "never heard that question". If you're just a polite person yourself, I'm glad for you. I hope you never run into one of the bad ones, who will question your salvation if you question dinosaurs on the ark.

They're out there. And there are more than you think.

[labrialumn]

Ethan,
The Fundamentalists did not accept the Modernist epistemology, not at all. They remained premodern, holding to logic, reason and factuality, but not following the Moderns in denying the possibility of the supernatural.

Tolkien and Lewis meant truth myth in this way: That the old myth of the dying and rising God *Really Happened* with Jesus Christ. The story affects us emotionally the way the old myths do, but this time, it REALLY HAPPENED. I've read a sizable percentage of the available Tolkien scholarship.

Are you unfamiliar with the Gospels? The 500 witnesses of the Resurrection that Paul referred to? We do indeed have first-hand witness accounts.

I recognize in what you have written in this particular post, the same historical and epistemological heresies of the emergent "church". Schliermacher did not invent the law of non-contradiction. Thomas Aquinas and Socrates were not Modernists.

While Job is highly literary, we have no reason to suppose that it didn't really happen. If it didn't, it loses some of its power.

Genesis, being written in standard Hebrew vav-consecutive narrative, is simply history, Our Lord Jesus took it that way, and He would know, He was there. . .

Objective reality is still there. We can still try to get the sophists, the eastern religionists, the post-modern emergents, to encounter objective reality in a way which they cannot deny. Dr. Schaeffer discussed one way of doing this in the latter part of _The God Who Is There_. (he is also the first person to use the term "post-modern" in his 1967 _Escape From Reason_ which was an essay against Skinner's running away from reason.)

In fact, we have to do so. Someone who 'believes' without believing that the Faith is *actually true*, as Schaeffer often put it "such that if you brushed your hand against the Cross, you could have gotten a splinter" they have not believed, and are not saved.

Both Lewis and Tolkien, while disbelieving Darwinism, did not believe that it was their role to attack it, as their specialties lay elsewhere.

When people here are attacking fundamentalism, it appears that they are attacking a myth of fundamentalism, not the actual belief in the Apostle's Creed and Scriptural inerrancy.

Dyarsa, or maybe we see where your course ultimately tends, even though you have no desire to go there.

[Joe Long]

I fear that, though we try long and hard to uncouple "myth" from its popular meaning and instead link it to its proper literary use, we may never find that mything link. Actual myth information will be clouded by mythinformation, both by the honestly mythtaken and by the merely mythchievous, while the broader public continues to myth the point entirely...

Okay, the flow of possible puns alone should be enough to deter the overuse of the word "myth". But TUAD, you're right that I consider the use of the word "myth" confusing in a general-public presentation, perhaps prohibitively so. Using a word folks don't understand might impel them to look it up in a dictionary, which is all to the good; but one they think they do know can cause all sorts of trouble. I'm not going to look for the intervention of Satan in the clear-in-context use of the word "myth" by a Lewis fan, though.

[GL]

So he doesn't use the term "true myth" here, but his interpretation does in fact square with those posters who are using it. I think the confusion comes from an agreement with Lewis with regard to myths in scripture, and then mistakenly using his terminology for the mythical and factual nature of the life of Christ.

I agree. I understood that Lewis favored theistic evolution and a mythical understanding of at least parts of Genesis, including the creation of man. But, as you note, he does not call this "true myth." As far as I know, he limited that term to the Gospel account, which, as he affirms, "really happened." I assume he would have considered his understanding of Genesis to fall more into exactly the category of myth Beth and you describe, with perhaps some elements of historic accuracy mixed together with other elements that in our modern understanding are not factual, yet with the whole narrative conveying truth.

Please note, I do not oppose folks citing Lewis as agreeing with them in calling at least parts of Genesis myth. I only have a problem with them calling it "true myth," when I see no evidence that he used the term in that way. Doing so confuses the discussion.

[labrialumn]

Mairenach, but you are mocking truth. It is not God Who does that. And you mock on, complaining that others mock you. Is there some inconsistancy here, perhaps?

And a Creation without the results of the Fall built into it and called "Good" by God -IS- a first-order doctrine. I would rather demonstrate that to you, than have you throw mud at me. Woe be to those who call good, evil, and evil, good. I'm afraid that you are calling truth a lie. That ultimately comes from the Father of Lies "did God -really- say Bereshit bara Elohim?"

[GL]

While Job is highly literary, we have no reason to suppose that it didn't really happen. If it didn't, it loses some of its power.

How so?

[Truth Unites... and Divides]

I adore C.S. Lewis. I read Mere Christianity and the Screwtape Letters in my youth. I also read Tolkien's The Hobbit and the Lord of the Rings trilogy in my youth.

The world would be much, much, vastly poorer place without the wonderful writings and thoughts of C.S. Lewis and Tolkien.

I consider myself a fan of C.S. Lewis and Tolkien, but I don't ape everything they said and believed. Although they're great literary giants and will always have a place in history, they're just as fallible as the next guy.

I agree with perhaps 90%+ of what C.S. Lewis wrote and thought. But just because I don't agree with 100% of what he wrote and thought, doesn't make me less of a fan of his.

Further, I have no problems with anyone who agrees 100% with everything that C.S. Lewis wrote. That is your choice.

[Wonders for Oyarsa]

Sheesh Labrialumn, two can play at that game. In saying that Mairenach is mocking truth, you are calling a falsehood truth, and thus renouncing Christ, who is truth himself. You clearly do not fear the Lord, for that is the beginning of Wisdom. Your father is the devil, for your post contains lies. Your destiny is the lake of fire, for that is the end of all liars...

*rolls eyes*

[Mairnéalach]

Labrialumn,

It's rather telling that, in order to paint me as a tool of Satan, you had to insert a dozen other statements into my mouth. It was necessary for you to twist my words from "dinosaurs did not ride the ark" into "God Created a fallen world". The mind reels with amazement at your self-serving "logic".

Putting words in people's mouths is called bearing false witness. Lying. I may anger you with this accusation, but just wait until somebody does it to you sometime, and you'll finally understand what I mean.

As I mentioned, read the Hindenburg Theology article before making further replies. Otherwise, you'll just be continually tempted to put more words into my mouth for your own purposes.

[Truth Unites... and Divides]

Goodness Gracious, I'm so thick at times! I finally figured out what "LABRIALUMN" refers to. For the longest time, I just thought it was some weird name.

If I'm not mistaken, it means an alumni of L'Abri, the place where Francis Schaeffer used to teach.

Pardon the dumb question Labrialumn, but did you know Francis Schaeffer and learn from him? Did you learn alongside Nancy Pearcey?

If so, that is so cool. And I'm excited to have figured something out that had hitherto completely escaped me.

And of course, Francis Schaeffer had input into the Chicago Statements. ;-)