On the limits of metaphors

It seems to me that the further back in religious history one goes, the more acceptable it is to apply the "metaphor" principle to an event.  Or rather, perhaps I should say in all fairness, a supposed event.  Take, for example, the idea that the resurrection of Jesus was only a "metaphorical" event.  A teaching kind of story, like the fable or fairy tale with a moral, a lesson to be learned.  Now there are certainly good stories with good lessons, even inspiring stories with inspiring lessons.  Perhaps this is one of them.  Would it matter?

I think that it is of course much safer to apply the metaphor principle to events distant in time.  However, I see no compelling reason why, for example, I shouldn't tell you that Mother Teresa never cared for the poor.  After all, the stories you have heard about Mother Teresa are really just that - inspiring stories with a moral, designed to teach you and inspire you.  Actually, she never lifted a finger to do the things which you think she did.  She simply read an inspiring story (which never happened in physical reality), and decided that the proper response was to create a new inspiring story (which never happened in reality)...

To be continued...  Really. 

BTW, what do you think of this video (h/t Pete Rollins)

And if you are looking for more, you might want to check out this event here in Edmonton, which I think will provide lots of food for thought & discussion:

Borg-Crossan Seminar: On October 30th and 31st, 2009, distinguished biblical scholars, Drs. Marcus Borg and John Dominic Crossan, will present a seminar, entitled “Jesus and the Call to Discipleship”, as part of Christ Church’s Centennial Celebrations. Borg and Crossan have written and lectured extensively on Jesus and the challenges of taking His message into our world. Registration for the seminar is $100, and must be received by June 30th, 2009. A limited number of tickets for a seminar and private dinner with the presenters on October 31st, at the Faculty Club, are also available for $275/person.

Comments

[Preston Parsons]

Hmmm. Fundamentalists without power are Hitlers in embryo, and fundamentalists with power are Hitlers? Exclusive truth claims lead to genocide?

Excessive and misleading rhetoric much?

This is a really, really, cheap trick, hardly worthy of being called scholarly debate.

[Malcolm+]

Hidden under it all was a valid point, completely discredited by violating Godwin's Law.

People who are absolutely convinced that they are right and any other view is dangerous at best, if not evil - such folk do (and should) give one pause.

The Hitler comparison was unhelpful.

That said, one of the unhelpful aspects of present disputes in the Church is the manner in which both sides (though I admit I am more apt to notice the conservative side) reduce their opponents to indefensible caricatures.

I recall the ever so "reasonably" phrased question from one conservative blogger which was the modern version of "does the honourable member still beat his wife."

(see http://undercurrentofhostility.blogspot.com/2008/04/answer-me-this.html and http://undercurrentofhostility.blogspot.com/2008/04/okay-okay.html )

Some fundamentalists can conclude that violence is defensible in advancing their beliefs.
Some liberals don't believe in sin.
Some conservatives hate gays.
Some liberals don't take scripture seriously.

All of us need to learn that equating everyone who holds a point of view with the most extreme expression of that view is fundamentally dishonest.

[joseph]

The unfortunate comparison got me wondering whether Crossan himself was moving in the same direction as he complains about. Fundamentalism is found at either end of a spectrum.

On a broader note, I think that a renewal of the various traditions of reading a text are needed in the church. In particular I am thinking of Augustine's view (Conf XII, xix) of using "multiple interpretations" (literal, moral & figurative) as a means for the whole community to read the text. I find modernist language like "literalist" to have actually much missed the point, and to have ignored interpretive tradition which has preceded us, particularly in the fathers. But that would seem to call for a whole other post...

[Preston Parsons]

Have you had a chance to read Byassee's Praise Seeking Understanding? Been working through pieces of it this week. About Augustine's habits of scriptural interpretation. It's been quite a satisfying read.

I wonder the same thing about Crossan here. He *seems* to be making the same kind of exclusivist truth claims that he is arguing against, namely that "fundamentalists" are quite wrong.

Which would be deliciously ironic, because I do trust that his truth claim does not lead him to the contemplation of killing his intellectual opponents.

[joseph]

I haven't read Byassee's work. I'll have to add it to the post -easter reading list. Or maybe you could do a guest post and review the work here...

[joseph]

Malcolm - I think you are right in that whenever one "side" begins to caricature the other and set up straw men, the whole thing starts to slide downhill. Honest engagement can be a rare commodity these days.