I attended a worship service at my parents’ church this weekend. And I was struck anew by certain aspects of the service: symbolic acts and references to seminal events in Christian history. Actually, what struck me was the solemn stillness of the congregation. The words and rituals possess great meaning for those folks.
My parents’ church is liberal in its theology, meaning that they’re sceptical about many of the things written in the Bible. Nonetheless, the Christian faith still acts as a focal point for them and provides meaning that might otherwise be missing from their lives.
How can this be? How can someone doubt the accuracy of the biblical text, and yet derive meaning from it? It’s a bit like that movie, True Lies. Only, in this case, it would be better to speak of True Myths.
When we hear the word “myth”, we quickly think “not factual” and then “false”. But maybe this chain of associations is too facile. Perhaps a myth can be not factual and yet true.
Allow me to illustrate the point with an example that would offend many Christians: a sculpture of a female Jesus, naked on the cross. It wouldn’t be historically accurate, but perhaps it could still express truth. Here’s a charitably sympathetic interpretation from a Salvation Army web site:
There once was a sculpture exhibited in the Cathedral of St. John the Divine, New York, which depicts Jesus, naked, on the cross. Not terribly original, except for the fact that Jesus is here portrayed as a woman.
This work of art has been labelled both pornographic and blasphemous, a desecration to the image of Christ. It is a shocking piece of art, there is no question, and offensive to many. …
We can also find paintings depicting Jesus as a black man, as an Asian, as a Native American, and as any other number of races and body types. We generally do not find those images to be blasphemous, but rather representative of the fact that Christ identifies with all people at all times. But Christ as a woman? For many this seems a step too far.
Is sculpting Jesus as a woman simply an extremist feminist statement? Possibly. But there may be other ways to look at it. The birth, life, and death of Jesus should be seen in the light of God’s radical and total identification with humanity. All of humanity. Jesus does not belong exclusively to any particular sub-section of the human race.
So perhaps this artist was merely taking seriously the claim that “in Christ there is neither Jew nor Greek, male nor female, slave nor free.” Perhaps she was trying to wake people up to the fact that Christ’s identification with humanity — women included — should very much impact the way women are viewed and treated in the world today.
When God took on human flesh it made false for all time the idea that the human body should be despised, used, abused, or objectified.
In this case, “not factual” does not necessarily mean “false”. A work of art can be unhistorical and yet meaningful.
Read the rest of this entry »
