Saturday Afternoon Thoughts

We have a new pastor at our church, after two years without. I thought some of the interim pastors were pretty good though, so our congregation did not suffer in the least. One of the things the new pastor brought to the church is the idea of looking at the Gospels, in particular, but also the Old Testament as well, not so much as literal truths that you can find a record of somewhere, but as telling a particular story to bring out larger truths. Logos versus Mythos.

For instance, take the wedding in Cana story from the Gospel According to John. Following the the mythological approach, we can see that Jesus was prevailed on by his mother to provide the host with more wine since they had run out, a major faux pas. We can see that he complied, even though it was not something he wanted to do. This alludes to the fact that we went willingly to the cross, not because he wanted to but because God wanted him to. We see that the miraculous wine tasted better than all the wine before. This alludes to the fact that Jesus himself was the greatest teacher and prophet of all that Isreal had produced. There are other points that can be dug out of that one story, but the overall point was to show us who Jesus was.

I found this type of biblical analysis to be very helpful. It opens up the Gospels to a much richer experience, that had, at least for me, been totally absent. I tend to rely on facts, as I can adduce them, to form my opinions. It is a hazard of my training and practice as a civil engineer. But, I wondered about that other side, the Logos. Did Jesus actually turn water into wine? For that matter, did he actually walk on water, feed the multitude, or raise Lazarus from the dead, not to mention the troubling "virgin birth"? My pastor's response was troubling. "I don't know" he said. "I also don't care. The larger truth of what these stories tell is what is important."

Hmmm.

Can you see the problem here? It's that these Gospels were written for a public who already believed. They were written to bolster their belief and keep them in the faith. Like Paul's letters, they were written to certain audiences at certain times, and sought to hold the early congregations together.

But what if someone doesn't believe? What if, in fact, someone argues that Jesus was a deluded con man who was manipulated into going to the cross by people who had an agenda to get out from under the Jewish hierarchy. Or even worse, that Jesus wasn't crucified at all, but got away with his live-in girlfriend, Mary Magdalene, and lived to 82 years old in Southern France (or Egypt or...) Yes, I have heard these arguments made along with others more and less bizarre. Taking the Gospels as simply mythos, there is no defence for these kind of charges, but there is also no way to cause doubt about the other person's position. Ultimately, he or she has to come to believe anyway. But it possible to plant seeds.

This is where I think Logos comes into play. We can say to such a person that yes, we believe that people actually witnessed these miracles, or at least the ones that happened between Jesus' baptism and when he went to the cross. More, the miracles taken literally speak to Jesus' power over creation. Then we go on to articulate what the Gospel writer wanted us to get out of a given story. We can say that while these stories were circulating, none of the Sadducees bothered to pen a retort, though they were certainly capable. We can say that the apostles, who are represented in the Gospels as exceedingly thick suddenly after Pentacost became eloquent advocates of Jesus' teachings. We can, as Paul said, plant seeds.

I think our pastor is currently harping on the mythos, to the exclusion of the logos, and losing part of the message. More to the point, if we are to be a congregation of the Evangelical Lutheran Church, don't we need both sides to carry out the mission?

Just a thought.