Who needs a liberal theologian to interpret the Bible’s message when we’ve got Saint Paul here to do the work for us? (This picture of PZ Myers was taken while he was playing on the rides at the local creationist doctrinal bargain basement)
I was fascinated to see this post by militant atheist blogger PZ Myers. Myers says that he likes the liberal theologian’s metaphorical view of the Bible because:-
The idea that the Bible should be interpreted as a metaphor is a good one — because it melts the superstition away. The metaphor is a powerful tool.
And because (and this may be the chief reason):-
…opening the Bible up to metaphorical interpretation rips the heart right out of Christianity, and makes central dogmas of the faith untenable and painfully ridiculous.
Or does it? I personally might have a vestigial “superstitious” belief in a real God, a real incarnation and a real resurrection, but I would nevertheless go along with PZ’s view that much of what I would call the “Word of God” is compellingly conveyed through metaphor and many of the moral lessons of those metaphors stand regardless of the ontological significance one attaches to them. This means that the profound teachings inherent in those metaphors can be appropriated by theist and non-theist alike. And if these teachings actually constitute the core “central dogmas of the faith” then the heart of the faith remains in place. Moreover, the Good Book itself says:
Indeed, when Gentiles, who do not have the law, do by nature things required by the law, they are a law for themselves, even though they do not have the law, 15since they show that the requirements of the law are written on their hearts, their consciences also bearing witness, and their thoughts now accusing, now even defending them.) 16This will take place on the day when God will judge men's secrets through Jesus Christ, as my gospel declares. Romans 2:14-16
In other words the “Word of God” reaches the places in (wo)men’s hearts that our religions do not reach. For this reason I have never been at all keen on attacking atheists by suggesting atheist philosophy inclines people toward immorality. This kind of attack is especially rich in the light of the excesses of some very religious people. Believer’s and unbelievers have the same God given conscience that informs them about right and wrong and if unbelievers follow their consciences for good that is something to write home about.
Anyway, in his post PZ precedes to lampoon the literalism of the Ken Ham’s of this world, but then he embarks on a consideration of what is left if the Bible is interpreted metaphorically:
Of course, I'm a right cruel bastard, so when a liberal Christian tells me that Genesis and the sacrifice of Christ are metaphors, I just ask "Metaphors for what?", and then they usually stand there gape-jawed like a fish and flounder trying to figure out what I'm asking. Calling something a metaphor is not a get-out-of-jail free card. It means there's a deeper meaning to extract.
So let’s see what deeper meaning PZ extracts ( *1)
The book of Genesis is telling us that human beings are flawed, that we're all burdened with impulses and desires that are not necessarily good for our society: greed and selfishness, for instance, or violence and deceitfulness. (And also, to a patriarchal society, disobedience — conscientious objections don't seem to have much support in such cultures). The whole of Genesis, not just the creation stories, is about the natural wickedness of human beings, and how we have to be constantly chastised.
You won't find a single rational person who disagrees with that. (but you might find quite a few rational persons - and Christians - who don’t live up to it – ed) We are not angels by nature. We biologists would go even further and say that by nature, we're fractious, squabbling apes. Read that as the lesson of Genesis, and you'll find even us rabid militant atheists in full agreement that it is right. The mythological details are nonsense, of course, but they're just there to make it an interesting and persuasive story.
Excellent! So PZ is admitting that humanity by nature struggles with itself, with its self-centeredness and selfishness; intrinsic traits of human nature that are contrary to good society. That sounds suspiciously like the myth of original sin, yes “sin”, the word with the “I” in middle.
PZ then goes on to consider what he calls the “Jesus myth”. Given that PZ has identified humanity’s problem as being with its intrinsic nature (that is, with its “original sin”) can he now extract the essentials of salvation? This is what he says about the “Jesus myth”:
That's a hero story, a narrative about someone we should emulate, whose greatest virtues are self-sacrifice for the common good. We're wicked deep down as Genesis tells us, but we can also aspire to believe in humanity and give our lives over to charity and justice.
Again, this interpretation is not going to conflict with most godless values (well, unless you're an Ayn Randian, but those are psychopathological aberrations). We're combative apes, but our species also succeeds through cooperation; we have a 'higher' nature to which the best of us can appeal, which has and will help us succeed. Maybe believing in something greater, like sacrifice and hope, can help us be better people.
Not bad, not bad at all! We seem to moving in the right direction. OK, so PZ finds all the suffocating ontological trappings of piety surrounding this basic “myth” repugnant, and he believes these trapping to be dispensable as one would expect of an atheist. And yet look at the comments about Someone we should emulate, about wickedness deep down and above all that last sentence about the transforming power of sacrifice and hope. That’s core Christian values to my mind, or even, if you like, the “central dogma” of Christianity! It is precisely here that the “Jesus myth” is, in my opinion, unparalleled and compelling. That “myth” is about recognizing the “old nature”, repenting of that nature and putting on with hope the “higher nature”, the nature that Christ presents us with. Viz:
Do nothing out of selfish ambition or vain conceit, but in humility consider others better than yourselves. 4Each of you should look not only to your own interests, but also to the interests of others.5Your attitude should be the same as that of Christ Jesus:
6Who, being in very nature God,
did not consider equality with God something to be grasped,
7but made himself nothing,
taking the very nature of a servant,being made in human likeness.
8And being found in appearance as a man,he humbled himself
and became obedient to death—
even death on a cross!
9Therefore God exalted him to the highest place
and gave him the name that is above every name,
10that at the name of Jesus every knee should bow,
in heaven and on earth and under the earth,11and every tongue confess that Jesus Christ is Lord,
to the glory of God the Father. (Philipians 2:3-11)
This “myth” is a story about the greatest sacrifice imaginable: He who has most to lose voluntarily losing everything; God giving up being God and becoming a humble servant, obedient to the point of humiliation and death. This is the myth of the Grace of God that utterly flaws one’s own superficial morality and shows it up for what it is: Hypocrisy. But if we immerse ourselves in this myth it inspires us and proves to have the power to change our lives. It focuses our minds on the concepts of repentance, forgiveness, love, hope, and above all the Grace Of God. Now, I personally am still superstitious enough to believe that this life transforming myth about the higher nature was acted out for real in some higher plane. But perhaps the story of Christ has power to make us better people whatever our views on its ontological status.
The man from Galilee has one more challenge for us all before I finish. PZ Myers would not doubt regard with angry contempt the views of many Christians on the ontological realities associated with the above myth. Conversely there are many fundagelicals out there who treat PZ Myers as if he is the very distillate of the anti-Christ. These two sides, it seems, are beyond reconciliation. If we now set this implacable stand off against the words of the man from Galilee whilst He hung on The Cross we realise just how high the moral bar has been set:
Father, forgive them for they know not what they do. Luke 23:34 (*2)
Footnotes:
*1 PZ actually says “These are interpretations that liberal theologians make, but surprisingly, they're also perfectly copacetic with atheist and humanist ideals.” So it seems that the Liberal Theologians have achieved something!
*2 Some early manuscripts do not have this sentence
