Symbols are all about Reality
by TOM HARPUR, thestar.com
Last week, I argued strongly for a mythical-allegorical
understanding of the Christian Gospels and the stories they
tell. I also said New Testament scholarship has been on the
wrong scent trying to track down "historical" nuggets in the
Jesus Story; that the way to go is to understand the complete
account as a "divine drama where Jesus, as the persona
representing the Christ of the universal myth" does and says
the same things all ancient saviour figures in the various
mystery rituals did and said.
I concluded with this question for the faith: Does
saying something or someone is "symbolic" mean that it or
he/she is "unreal" or disconnected from reality? Is an
allegorical and metaphorical story simply a fairy tale or
worse? Is it really "debunking" Christianity to say its
central tale is a sublime myth?
To try to clarify this issue, I want to share with you
a letter from a bright atheist who says this is the first
article he turns to each Sunday. He notes that I frequently
try to combat the current tide of biblical literalism by
expounding the symbolic nature of all "God talk," especially
in the sacred literature of world religions. He gives this
effort a nod of approval since he finds the statements made by
religious literalists to be often "ludicrous and
contradictory."
However, he makes this rather ludicrous statement
himself. He writes: "I have no specific grief with symbols.
They work as teaching aids and expression tools but we both
know they are not statements of reality."
Because he holds such a view, he goes on to say he
finds it "fascinating" that we seem to share many of the same
premises but have come to widely divergent conclusions. I
remain a firm believer; he, an atheist. Then he says: "Quite
frankly, I don't see why you still believe. Faith cannot be
the answer. You are too logical for that old excuse."
He closes with his "open-minded willingness" to be
persuaded otherwise and his appreciation of my willingness "to
go beyond a purely Christian perspective." He closes: "Every
week I learn something."
I have already responded to this letter but it's
important to repeat and flesh out what was in that reply. The
matters at stake are weighty, not just for the agnostics and
atheists who regularly read and react to the column but for
the general public as well. Few areas of knowledge and of
spirituality in particular are surrounded by more
misunderstanding than the subject here in hand.
There are a hundred reasons, logically, rationally and
also intuitively, that I am a believer. This is not the time
to expatiate on them. Here the focus is on symbolism and its
alleged unreality.
The truth is that symbols, metaphors, and allegories
have everything to do with reality. To dismiss them as mere
fiction or, as another reader recently wrote, "the equivalent
of lies," is sheer ignorance or lack of thought.
Think about it. A wedding ring is of itself merely a
circle of precious metal, but it's a symbol of a mighty
reality. It is not of itself love, commitment, fidelity,
marriage, or family, but it can powerfully represent all of
these and more. Its potency is far beyond all proportion to
its commercial value or beauty.
Life is surrounded by and only made possible by symbols
and symbolism, from the world of advertising to quantum
physics and the various grades of mathematics. More obvious
even still is the fact of human language. All words are
symbols. It's what they stand for and the power they represent
and convey that's so important. Life is virtually impossible
without them.
That's why poet Ralph Waldo Emerson could boldly say:
"A good symbol is the best argument, and is a missionary to
persuade thousands." You just have to think of Winston
Churchill during World War II flashing his cocky V-for-victory
symbol with upraised fingers to know the truth of Emerson's
insight.
American educator John Dewey, in
The Quest For Certainty,
writes: `The invention or discovery of symbols
is doubtless by far the greatest single event in the history
of man. Without them no advance is possible; with them there
is no limit set to intellectual development except inherent
stupidity."
But, since people are more open to being convinced by
science rather than theology or philosophy, here's the
scientist Sir James Jeans. In
The World Around Us,
he says: "When we try to discuss the ultimate structure of the
atom, we are driven to speak in terms of similes, metaphors,
and parables."
It's exactly the same when humans try to speak of the
things of God.
Theologian and author Tom Harpur's books focus
on spiritual growth. He can be reached at thestar@bmts.com.
This article is published here without permission because it disappeared from the web and because its message
offers important clarification desperately needed today, a time when religion
seems to have gone off the deep end (fundamentalism) in so many circles.
The publisher or author can contact Symbols.Net
here.
