Mythology need not be taken seriously in order to have a powerful influence.
Many modern scholars suggest there were scholars in each culture and civilization who knew their mythology was not meant to be taken literally. In other words, the Greek Pantheon, for example, was not so much religion as religious reasoning. We should regard cynicism as a basic human trait, not simply the result of our peculiar Western culture. Sometimes we catch glimpses in letters or fragments of ancient writing which suggest at least some scholars knew better than to take the story itself seriously, but understand its importance in the feel and flavor of life.
We need to understand the term "mythology" is less about wild tales which can be proven false, and more about the fundamental assumptions regarding reality. In particular, it flavors what people consider moral and immoral. In academic settings, we can refer to something as a "myth," not to discount the presumed factual basis, so much as elevate the narrative to a powerful position regardless of how factual it may be. This recognizes the function of mythology.
For example, we rightly say the Enlightenment is the foundation of the Modern Age. We separate the Enlightenment, as part of Western Civilization, from Classical Civilization. If we want to be precise, my arguments elsewhere against Aristotelian epistemology is correct in one sense, but not precise in another sense. While the structure of the basic frame of reference is pretty much the same, as the Enlightenment was the intellectual harvest of the Renaissance's seeking to recover the Classics, but there is a powerful influence leading up to that point which was quite different from what was present in the Classical Period.
The Greeks and Romans carried an entirely different mythology than the German tribes which invaded Europe at the fall of Rome. When we read accounts of everyday life in Greece, and what the finest philosophers considered normal in human behavior, we are often disturbed or even shocked by what we see. That's because we are viewing this foreign culture from our somewhat Germanic mythology. The reflexive expectations regarding reality has a totally different flavor, so that the Enlightenment is a Germanic version of ancient Greece and Rome.
Thus, to be precise, Western evangelical religion is Enlightenment, not exactly Aristotelian. You'll see most of the same sins in both the Enlightenment and Ancient Greece, but a variation in the attitudes about those sins. For example, there was absolutely zero problems with homosexual relations in Greece. The only complaints you'll see are hardly moralistic about the nature of the act itself, but how engaging this form of activity is a symptom of something else. At worst, it was viewed as simply decadent and wasteful of resources. In the Germanic mythology, it's condemned as inherently immoral to be the victim, while an acceptable option, even manly, to be the master in such an encounter. For the Greeks, young men didn't avoid providing it to other men as somehow unpleasant; it was simply normal for that time of life. But among Germans it was unavoidably a sign of being effeminate. A German young male is correctly insulted by a request to provide favors, but a Greek lad would be flattered, even if unwilling. This is but one small symptom of the difference in moral assumptions.
Thus, in our Post-Enlightenment society, all moral discussions remained indelibly tinged with a Germanic viewpoint. What matters for us is how we approach the Bible. If we cling to our Enlightenment approach, and avoid taking into consideration the influence of Germanic mythology in our moral assumptions, we will always fail to understand some of the most important issues. We will color everything with our assumptions about what is good or bad, when not only did Classical Civilization have a different set of assumptions, but Ancient Hebrew had yet another set of different assumptions. For example, in the Hebrew mind, neither side in a homosexual encounter is in any way painted good. It's not studly to want or get a boy. However, it was entirely typical in the sense of fallen and sinful, and spoken of matter-of-factly. They would not understand our Victorian delicacy (yet another flavor of mythology) about such things. But the entire question is unmistakably painted as utterly pagan and idolatrous, relentlessly Satanic and shamefully filthy, degrading all participants. We struggle to capture the essence of it because our Germanic mythology leaves us with a snickering locker room approval of the stud.
The only reason all this is so hard, requiring a very intensive effort to study and understand, is because the distance between us and the Bible is actually huge. Simply translating from one tongue to another is not enough. If we get cranky when so-called "liberals" read their mythology into Scripture, it would be only fair to look in the mirror and complain about ourselves, too. It should hardly surprise us Satan has worked so long and hard to make revelation as foreign as possible. The Devil can't prevent grace changing us into new creatures, but he has a vested interest in watering down the change as much as possible.
Revelation cannot be silenced, but it can be confused.
Let's examine further the difference between Victorian and Hebrew sensibilities.
In short, a Victorian would be shocked at the very existence of an evil desire. A Hebrew would hardly be surprised or concerned about evil desires, but about the tendency to give in to them. Under the Law of Moses, this was an invitation for God to remove His protection, and a threat to the community for that reason.
For example, let's talk about that the gut-wrenching issue of child molestation. In a Hebrew world, no one is surprised when a man has desires to sexually use and abuse children of either sex. To them, it's part of the omnisexual nature of men. If there's an orifice, men want to poke it. Sure, it's sometimes entangled in desires for power and dominance, but sometimes it's easier to simply see it all as unrestrained testosterone in action. The flesh wants what it wants and isn't choosy about how it gets what it wants. Every man seems to have his share of this, and it's not particularly evil until you start giving in to the temptations to get satisfaction in ways which harm. Indeed, no one is shocked that some do surrender, and they wisely discuss the sad consequences. They would then try to construct social customs which offered some realistic escape from temptation, even while acknowledging utter prevention is simply not possible.
Victorians imagined the very desire itself was somehow shocking. They wanted to pretend good morals would prevent, or at least squelch, such evil desires. To them, the very existence of desire is somehow scandalous. It's based on the mythology that man can be perfected. We might be free to discuss and debate how, but the assumption mankind is not entirely fallen is hidden there in the mythology. Thus, the primary debate is not whether mankind is fallen, but what the remedy would be, and how far reaching such a remedy would be. Both liberal and conservative threads of social thinking agree on the basic lie that systems and conditions can make things so very much better, not simply in how people live, but in some way change human nature itself. That, or at least they suffer some delusion about what human nature is in the first place.
Victorian cultural assumptions are based firmly in the Enlightenment, in part as a reaction. The Enlightenment authors snickered about human moral weaknesses, because humor is based on cultural assumptions about what's evil. A culture's mythology is a major factor in this, as noted above. Part of what makes people laugh is building on what makes them nervous, what creates internal tensions and neuroses. An ancient Hebrew would not chuckle much about a joke on some man's sexual desire because their culture harbors few illusions about it. Illusion is what gives rise to neurosis. So even while an Enlightenment writer might try to tell us adultery is somehow normal in human character, he still takes full advantage of the nervous tension created by the cultural milieu which says it's evil to want it.
Jesus said adultery in the heart was evil. His intent was not to create a false tension, but to make us all humble about being fallen. There was a whole raft of assumptions about human nature jarringly different between what He assumed about human character and what we read into it from our place today. That it is a sin to look upon a woman with lust, when she cannot possibly be yours without violating God's Laws, is not meant to sharpen your resolve to stop that desire. The whole point is you cannot. You are a sinner by your very nature. Rather, it is a call to know your weaknesses for what they are, a danger and threat to yourself and others. The Enlightenment author counsels we just take it in stride and give in only when we stand a good chance of getting away with it. It won't hurt anything. Much. The Victorian simply says don't let anyone know when you do get away with it. Deny to your conscious mind; build neuroses around it. If not, at least pretend and make society itself neurotic.
Jesus says confess it and try to clean up the mess. Confess it before you do it so your brother can be on guard against your weakness. Nothing personal, but all are fallen and we won't give anyone much chance to sin. You don't stand alone, nobly protecting others by your great virtue, etc. You knit yourself to others as a community of failures because, no matter how bad that turns out, it's still always better than the alternatives. It's in this very embrace of our failures we stand in the place for God's miracles to change us. Don't wallow in it, but don't pretend you can somehow overcome on your own.
This business of the Hebrew concept translated most often by the English word "covet" is not aimed at what you desire, but what you reach out for. You can't simply stop having a testosterone reaction, and you had better not pretend you don't want her if you do. You can avoid letting this thing eat you alive, with fantasies exploring ways you could get your hands and other parts of your body on hers. Instead, remind yourself she's off limits and get on with your life. Don't let that lusting voice vote. Cultivate the habit of looking away when you see something too enticing, because you surely know, this will also pass with time. Without the artificial precision between thought and action so common in Pharisaical legalism, we can decide we are grateful for what God has given and pray He help us escape the power of our sinful lusts.
That admonition, "Confess your sins to one another"? It presumes you aren't living in some perverted nightmare of Victorian neurosis, nor snickering like some Enlightenment writer. It presumes you all look in the mirror and know you are no better. You don't live in fear of what your fellow Christian might be tempted to want, but to build a fellowship so powerful you all carry each other across the tough moments of torment. Yes, you know brother So-n-so lusts after your little girl, but you welcome him into your fellowship because you are no better, lusting for his fine house.
We do always twist God's Word through our filthy cultural mythology.
Sin denied is sin which cannot die.
In the imagery and parabolic language of the Kingdom, we nail our old fleshly selves to the Cross of Christ. While we can commit ourselves to killing our sinful inclinations that way, it is not as if all of them die at once. We can only bring to the Cross weaknesses which catch our awareness. It's one thing to bravely assert we will carry our cross, and quite another to confess those things we have done which caused harm to our Christian witness.
If it is but we who cover ours sins, they will be simply hidden until He brings them out. If He covers our sins, they are washed away in His blood.
This is the principle by which we live in a world which sees vast resources devoted to stopping child molestation and pornography, yet sees the political leadership engaging these very things on a scale we can scarcely imagine. Their appetites are fired in part by magnifying our normal revulsion for sin, so that child snuff films are now common fare for these political elites. People who lust for power have no restraints, aside from mere appearances. There is a wild mythology they are somehow better people, when they are more often far worse.
In effect, the political elite simply ensure it is they alone permitted to engage in these awful deeds. The same goes of drug abuse and almost all frauds and thefts. It's okay if they do it, but it's a crime for you and I. In the case of drugs and sex crimes, the culture keeps alive the false horror at what is actually a very common weakness of the flesh.
This silly notion of being horrified at rather mundane human fleshly appetites, while ignoring how most adults have ample capacity for doing these things if they let themselves go, is what creates the awful situation. If we do not acknowledge or own fleshly desires, we cannot pretend to crusade against any sins in this world.
Want to save the children? Start by throwing away the corrupt cultural mythology which pretends to make childhood a sacred ground. Children are people, too, and born into sin themselves. We may believe they aren't fully accountable until some minimal age, but this hardly stops them from sinning once they reach that point.
By Ed Hurst
22 January 2012
COPYRIGHT NOTICE: People of honor need no copyright laws; they are only too happy to give credit where credit is due. Others will ignore copyright laws whenever they please. If you are of the latter, please note what Moses said about dishonorable behavior -- "be sure your sin will find you out" (Numbers 32:23)