From: David Buchanan (DBuchanan@ClassicalRadio.org)
Date: Sun Apr 06 2003 - 02:58:06 BST
Scott and all:
Scott said:
The status (intellectual or social) of myths and symbols is not the issue
here (I too see them as having social origin and utility). The question is
whether or not *theology* is an intellectual activity. Theologians *comment
on* and *interpret* the myths and symbols of their religion, not just repeat
them.
DMB says:
Right. Myth and ritual is not the same as theology, but our discussion would
be poorer if we left them out. They are intimately connected so that
theology is impossible without them. Their nature tells us a great deal
about what theology is up to, no?
Scott said:
Theologians are also working on the problem, for example (quoting from "The
Craft of Theology" by Avery Dulles): Bultmann therefore institutes a program
of demythologizing the New Testament. He tried to strip away the
mythological
structures in order to retreive the existential meaning that lies hidden
beneath them." "Conservative Protestants, who based their faith on the
authority of the Bible, regarded Bultmann as a dangerous heretic. That is,
Bultmann's project has come under criticism because he was too modern, that
is, too SOM-ish.
DMB says:
They object because Bultman isn't literal enough. I think its safe to say
that the liberal/conservative spectrum in Christian theology basically
revolves around not only how strictly, but also how literally the scriptures
are interprepeted. Nobody is denying that some theologians are also
philosophers, and nobody is saying all theologians and theologies are
literalists or fundamentalist by definition. But as Cambell puts it, our
time is marked by a "pathology of the symbol". Fundamentalists are just the
most flamboyant example. Sure, the more "liberal" theologies and theologians
are increasingly willing to speculate and deviate from their Church's
doctrines, and I applaude that, but guys like Alan Watts and Matthew Fox are
still getting de-frocked for it.
Scott said:
A contemporary theologian is more likely to treat Christian myths more or
less as Campbell does.
DMB says:
I'd like to see some of that. I'd be thrilled to be wrong about this, but I
suspect you are only talking about the "exceptional few", as Watts put it.
Scott said:
In sum, the Bible is seen as telling a lot about God (and people)
mythically, while theologians attempt to translate that telling into
something the intellect can handle.
DMB says:
This too is an aspect of the pathology of the symbol. It may not be
literalism, but it misunderstands myth as something that is supposed to
appeal to the intellect. Thus my quotes about the living mythological
symbol, the one that turns you on immediately. The intellect can only come
along later to add its comments.
Thanks,
DMB
P.S. Its all about Saddam
MOQ.ORG - http://www.moq.org
Mail Archives:
Aug '98 - Oct '02 - http://alt.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/
Nov '02 Onward - http://www.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/summary.html
MD Queries - horse@darkstar.uk.net
To unsubscribe from moq_discuss follow the instructions at:
http://www.moq.org/md/subscribe.html
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Sun Apr 06 2003 - 02:59:53 BST