Saturday, February 09, 2008
Evolution Sunday
Today is Evolution Sunday. Churches around the world are celebrating evolution and announcing their support of science. It is an important day for Christianity. It is important to make the point that being a person of faith doesn't mean being ignorant. Here are a couple of important sites to read this weekend.
Bob Cornwall has posted the open letter, written by Dr. Michael Zimmerman, and signed now by more than 11,000 clergy, religious leaders and scholars.
Dr. James F. McGrath has written a piece about the importance of Evolution that dispells some of the common myths and misconceptions of its opponents.
Berkley university has one of the best collections of evolution resources. It is full of great information for everyone including materials for children and advanced topics for adults.
Darwiniana.org has some great higher level information. Particularly good is the explanation of transitional species. The most common disinformation transmitted by creationists is that these transitional species don't exist or that evolution only happens at a micro-level within a species. Of course, we now know that is pure BS. Many transitional species have been found and modern genetic research has located hard evidence of macro evolution including the DNA "smoking gun" that shows how primate DNA mutated to form humans.
18 comments:
Mike, As an architect I've watched as movements have made their way from academia through art and architecture to the general society and finally to the church. The main ones in my time have been modernism, post-modernism and deconstruction/deconstructivism. As I'm sure you know, Jacques Derrida coined the term in the 1960's. In my view, deconstruction/deconstructivism has finally made it to the church in the form of the emergent movement. I've been anticipating its arrival with some trepidation. Now that it's here...I'm afraid. Reading your post makes me wonder.
In the past you've replied that you can't speak for anyone but yourself. After reading your blog for some time, I cannot/won't believe that you don't hold yourself out as a proponent of the emergent movement or that it isn't a cohesive, identifiable, directed, movement with a well-intentioned agenda that, granted, has many facets and has a growing number of adherents especially in the disaffected youth of the church. So help me, here:
Is everything I know wrong? Is it necessary to throw the baby out with the bathwater with regard to Christianity? Is what the emergent church doing/saying/thinking still "Christian"? In what sense is it and in what sense is it not?
In your mind, is it possible to get to the same spiritual/justice-in-this-world place and be a "literalist"? If it is, then what difference does it make?
Peace, Kim
Kim,
Is Everything I know wrong?
You will need to be more specific. There is a high probablity that you are right about something. Did you get your password right when you just logged in?
Is what the emergent church doing/saying/thinking still "Christian"?
I guess it depends on how you define christian. There have been plenty of people who said Martin Luther was not Christian. Define it and I'll be able to answer based on that given definition. Of course I would be answering based on that definition of the term only.
In your mind, is it possible to get to the same spiritual/justice-in-this-world place and be a "literalist"? If it is, then what difference does it make?
Are you a literalist? If so, you tell me. I couldn't do it. I worked hard, but I could not find any possible way to make the dots connect within a world of literalism. It was completely absurd no matter how much I tried to bend the logic and warp theology to make it jump through the needed hoops. I can only speak for myself. I also know that the insistence on only a literal view of ancient texts appears to be destroying many of the worlds largest religions and has killed many people along the way. But of course that is how it looks from my vantage point.
I think that it has been fairly common for "Christians" in the traditional definition of the term to find their beliefs codified in the "Apostles Creed," earliest written version ca. AD 215. There are other similar creeds that say much the same thing:
I believe in God the Father Almighty, Maker of heaven and earth.
And in Jesus Christ his only Son our Lord; who was conceived by the Holy Ghost, born of the Virgin Mary, suffered under Pontius Pilate, was crucified, dead, and buried; he descended into hell; the third day he rose again from the dead; he ascended into heaven, and sitteth on the right hand of God the Father Almighty; from thence he shall come to judge the quick and the dead.
I believe in the Holy Ghost; the holy catholic Church; the communion of saints; the forgiveness of sins; the resurrection of the body; and the life everlasting. AMEN.
Can you comment on that first?
Kim,
By that definition, the apostle Paul was not a "christian" given that this creed was not written until after his death.
You would need to further clarify things like, what exactly is the holy Ghost and what would you think I meant if I said I believe in it? What do the authors of the creed mean by "born of a virgin" and how does that compare with the original authors of that legend? What does it mean to sit at the right hand of God? Can God literally sit somewhere? What is life everlasting and how does that work? What does "maker of heaven and earth" mean and would I have to reject scientific evidence of the big bang or evolution to say I believe that?
Metaphorically, I could say many of those things, but I have no idea what you would be asking me to claim "belief" in. By belief, do you really mean confidence that a certain ancient worldview is the absolutely correct worldview for all time?
Why not tag other aspects of these ancient worldviews into the creeds? Why not add a flat earth, a heaven below the ground and a heaven in the sky with Earth as the center of the universe? Why not add belief in demon possession? Those are all beliefs of many sacred text authors.
Mike, I guess at a very basic level, what I'm asking is this:
Belief in the "Christian" God as described in the Scriptures has never relied on the scientific method to "prove" His existence. By His very (supernatural to us) nature He exists outside of our ability to "prove" He is there or not there. Those who believe "see" and those who do not are "blind" to His presence. To believe in things unseen is the nature of "faith."
If I believe in Him and that belief moves me to the same place that (I think) you are, that is, if I'm moved to action to alleviate suffering, to help end poverty, to work for justice in the workplace and other just causes, what difference does it make to you if I believe in miracles like creation, the virgin birth, the resurrection, the Holy Spirit. Why get hung up on those differences?
On the other hand, if you do not believe the things that have come to represent a time-honored definition of "Christianity" in what sense are you or are you not a "Christian"?
Thanks, by the way, for your thoughtful replies. Kim
Kim,
1) I don't get hung up on those differences. What I've criticized is the insistence that being christians means accepting that ancient world view.
2) I use the label christian because it is through the christian tradition that I first and foremost came to understand the transformational power of faith. It is the narratives based on the legend of Jesus of Nazareth that that inspired me more than any others to take on this task of personal and social transformation.
The mistake of fundamentalism was to change the definiton of christianity toward accepting a particular ancient worldview and a particular pre-modern understanding of scripture. I don't have a problem with people who accpet those things. I do however, have a problem when people try to narrow the definition of christianity to only those who make certain statements of beliefs.
Mike,
I also do not like creeds. My reason is simple, they never include enough infomation. It is what Paul called the "milk" and not the "meat" of the word. It is what they exclude that bother me.
I am a fundamentalist who believes in evolution and the big bang. I am writing an essay to try to reconcile the holy scriptures and science. I belive the scriptures are holy and inspired, but not always, maybe rarely, meant to be taken literal.
God is not ruled by time or space, since he created both and He created matter. With this fact evident, why can't the earth be 4.5billion years old and why can't man have evolved from lower forms.
I don't think Genesis disputes the 4.5 Billion year-old Earth and I don't think it disputes evolution.
God "formed" man from the clay.
God "created the heavens and the earth" in seven days(St Peter said, "a day is like a thousand years to God" --which means, he is not ruled by time.
I am interested in your thoughts
anonymous,
I'd be glad to share my thoughts, but first I need to understand what you mean.
First, explain how God is not ruled by time. I have no idea how that would work so your statement is nonsense to me at this point. I'm not really sure what "ruled" by time means anyway. Time doesn't rule anything. It merely measures the existence of things.
Second, explain what God is made of if it is not matter. If God is some being that does not consist of matter then what is it?
I don't see the value in trying to reconcile the words of Genesis in any way other than to say it was the naivity of ancient people trying to make sense of the world in a pre-enlightenment understanding. I'm sure our feeble attempts will pale in comparison to those in the year 5000. To me the best way to reconcile the problems with these ancient myths is to simply let them be what they are, myths. They tell us more about the people who created them than they do about how the universe really works.
Mike, I guess I'm going to risk your wrath here. You are engaging in classic deconstructive logic which portrays those who hold to a "traditional" Christian world view as backward and narrowminded.
You say you "have a problem when people try to narrow the definition of christianity to only those who make certain statements of beliefs." Others might just as well say they have a problem when people try to broaden the definition of Christianity (note the difference a capital letter makes?) to mean anything anyone wants it to mean. How does any like-minded people define itself?
Of course, Creeds are limited in their scope, but they do describe a structural framework around which to build a held-in-common belief system. The identifying characteristic of deconstruction is that it strikes at the structural framework, calls it into question, maligns it and redefines it away.
Traditional Christianity has always held that God is REAL, omniscient, omnipresent and omnipotent (therefore NOT material). It has always held that Christ was a REAL, historical person (not a myth), and that He was God incarnate.
I admit that the traditional Christian church has been harsh, adamant, arrogant, at times miscreant, violent, misguided and completely abusive of the power entrusted to it. Admittedly, it has not handled the truth in love.
The fact that we have imperfect human beings attempting to handle a perfect truth does not dilute the truth, because that truth exists outside our ability to affect it.
Personally, I would not develop a whole world view on tenets that I also acknowledged were mythological. You may as well develop a paradigm around King Arthur and the Roundtable (also very noble).
The thing is that none of what you hold dear in terms of world issues is by any means beyond the scope of what traditional Christianity would also hold dear. But, on the other hand, to hold oneself out as a christian (even with a lower case "c") is deceiving to others and oneself if one truly only believes that Jesus is a mythological legend.
You've been very kind to reply in the past very thoughtfully. I hope my comments don't make you too upset. I dearly desire to handle the truth in humility and love. I'm hoping for more spirited discussion. Thanks, my friend.
Kim
Kim,
It feels to me like you are avoiding my questions.
I too think God is "real" but we know about God and describe God through myths. I too think Jesus is "real" but we know about him and describe him through myths.
I am suggesting that what makes someone Christian is not our certainty in the historical accuracy of any one set of myths. Instead, it is our alligence to the truths contained in all those myths. The truth that love trumpts evil. The truth that there is a wonderful possiblity of community in a world without the violence, hate, injustice, and greed of Empire. I believe this is something that can be real. I've tasted it and I want more. I was blind but now I see.
All the worlds myths disclose the truth. It is a shame when we try to insist that one particular set of myths and symbols are the objects of our worship rather than the truth those symbols point us to.
Mike, sorry again for the delayed response. I'm trying to answer to the root of your questions. I guess your (to me, oxymoronic) use of the words "real" and "myth" and "legend" in the same train of thought is pivotal.
Deconstruction began in academia and included the notion that the interpretation of the hearer of the spoken word, the reader of the written word, the viewer of art was just as valid or more valid than the intent of the speaker, writer and artist. So it is always tricky trying to communicate (and understand what one believes) because of the deconstructionists predisposition to parse words and re-interpret them.
In my world, "myth" and "legend" still imply "without basis in fact," "invention," "imaginary or fictitious," "nonhistorical" and the like. When myth and legend are applied to "real" persons we run the risk of either defaming or vaunting those persons. Real people don't usually appreciate defamatory mythologies about themselves.
Man has a track record of hypocrisy. He holds out "truths" in public and lives contrary to them in private. The only thing that has changed over time is the inability of persons to keep their lives private. When the "truth" comes out, when the historical accuracy of who someone really is revealed, that person's credibility is either established or damaged. That's why historcial accuracy has tradionally been held in high regard.
When you use the phrase "...our allegiance to the truth contained in all those myths" you could be a Star Wars fanatic or a devote' of the Knights of the Round Table.
I have to heartily disagree that "all the worlds myths disclose truth."
Hopefully, more to follow..
All the Best, Kim
Thanks Kim,
you said "So it is always tricky trying to communicate (and understand what one believes) because of the deconstructionists predisposition to parse words and re-interpret them."
You can't blame deconstructionists for that problem as it is an inherent problem in all communication NOT deconstruction. Just read the stories from the old testament as they struggle with how to write about seeing God. Notice how Moses has to view God either through a burning bush or by glimpsing his backside. Both of those are the creative work of an author dealing with the elusive and non-phyiscal nature of YHWH. They had to decide how to write the character of God in the story. Not all writers did it the same way. So for thousands of years people have been working through this diffuculty of capturing the transcendent into human language. Hense the frequent use of metaphor do do the trick. Notice how Jesus describes God through many metaphors (a father with 2 sons, a shepherd, a woman with a lost coin, etc). How else could anyone describe God. Do we throw out those myths because Jesus can't prove their historical accuracy?
A myth is not an "untrue" story. It is simply a story whose truth is not in its surface level details. Even if the story is based on a "real" historical figure it is still usually told through mythical methods. George Washington's campaign manager constructed a myth about him chopping down a cherry tree as a child to prove his honesty? That is a perfect example of a true myth about a historic figure. I truely believe he was an honest guy and the myth conveys that truth even if it never really happened.
Name a central myth from another major living religion that is untrue in its symbolic meaning?
As for star wars...
Are you really naive enough to think Star Wars is untrue? If you think so then you are rejecting Jesus because it is based on Jesus and many other hero/messiah stories. Did you think star wars was really about something in the future? Aren't you clever enough to realize it is about so much more than that?
Are you suggesting that good can't overcome evil? Are you suggesting that a hero has not come to save us from the Empire?
You are falling for the trap of modernity that misses the meaning of these stories and instead fights over which story was the most historically accurate. That really seems like a silly fight to have.
As always thanks for your thoughtful reply Mike,
I'm saying that there wasn't a time before deconstruction became en vogue where the emphasis was placed on the interpretation of the hearer/reader/viewer and not on the intention of the speaker/writer/artist. This is not about literary interpretation or poeticism or artistic license. It's about the basic disintegration of the ability to communicate because the intention of the creator is deferred to the interpretation of the consumer.
I will agree with you that the Christian faith does provide us with values and imperatives that guide our speech, thoughts and actions. Whether those who claim to believe produce any viable results with those values and imperatives is up for debate. The main difference between us is that I believe that we can produce results while simultaneously holding to traditional Christian beliefs and you apparently do not. Otherwise, why would you make such a fuss over something like evolution?
Where we obviously differ is that, along with traditional Christian believers, I hold Scripture (the Bible) as Holy, historical and true. What you are saying (if I may paraphrase you for argument's sake) is that Scripture is an allegory from which you can draw moral lessons (and that is enough for you). I'm positing that your position is a major departure from traditional Christianity and makes me wonder why you cling to the moniker at all?
What you call "myth" is compromised if the myth is found to be untrue. The stories of Washington and the cherry tree or Lincoln walking miles to return a few cents compromise the values that are put forward in the "myth" when they are exposed as fabrications. When defaming myths are put forward they are only defended against with "truth." Look at the current democratic nomination shennanigans for an example.
It seems clear that Jesus sometimes spoke in parables, which were acknowledged as parables, and at other times he did not speak in parables.
It's ironic that (I think) at this point in our discussion we could actually argue each other's point of view from where we've defined ourselves.
I could argue for evolution based on the "truth" of the "facts" put forward by the scientific community.
You could argue for the "myth" of creation based on the intrinsic, allegorical value of the "story" that God intentionally created the universe and man.
Please believe me when I say that the meaning of the stories is not lost on those of us who hold to traditional beliefs. We simply prefer to believe that certain stories are more valid than others because they are based in "truth" and "fact" as opposed to "myth"
As for central myths of other living religions that are untrue in their symbolic meaning...Well our point isn't necessarily to pit the major religions against each other, is it? But if you insist, 3 of the major religions are monotheistic and the other 2 are polythiestic. These are central myths that are at odds with one another in their symbolic meaning.
The major religions are tolerant of each other only to a point. And one is at odds with all the others (as Scripture stated that it would be).
I have to go for now. I'm interested to read a reply. I'm sure one of your future posts will be fodder for future discussion.
All the best, Kim
Kim,
you said "I'm saying that there wasn't a time before deconstruction became en vogue where the emphasis was placed on the interpretation of the hearer/reader/viewer and not on the intention of the speaker/writer/artist
The type of biblical criticism I'm suggesting absolutely takes the writer into account. Good exegesis is all about getting the context correct before applying meaning.
YES, there has always been this attempt to interpret. There are volumes of Jewish Midrash texts from well before established Christianity where rabbis not only try to interpret the Torah but also create stories of their own to fill in the gaps. This has simply always happened long before modern deconstruction. (maybe just not in your neck of the woods)
you also said "What you call 'myth' is compromised if the myth is found to be untrue. The stories of Washington and the cherry tree or Lincoln walking miles to return a few cents compromise the values that are put forward in the 'myth' when they are exposed as fabrications."
I feel you've missed the truth of those myths just as you missed the truth of religious myths. Those myths were NOT compromised. They were actually proven. What is the point of Washington's cherry tree myth? It is clearly to convey the "truth" that he was an honest person. That is true and therefore the myth is true. Again, you have incorrectly assumed the point/truth of a myth is found in its historical accuratness. This is the trap of modernism that downplays symbolic truth (art) and places all its hope in modern factual propositions (science/doctrine). I feel that if you were a 1st century disciple of Jesus, you'd have stayed up all night arguing with Jesus that there was literally no good samaritan therefore the story is useless.
When you say "3 of the major religions are monotheistic and the other 2 are polythiestic. These are central myths that are at odds with one another in their symbolic meaning."
Again you missed the whole truth of these myths. The number of Gods is not a "truth" that the myths were inteneded to convey. God images (symbols in the stories) were creative elements used to convey a truth about life, community, the world, etc. If monothesitic faiths have a myth about a single male God that destroyed the world with a flood because of the unloving behavior of people, and another faith has a myth about many Gods who cause an endless cycle of painful rebirths based on unloving behavior as karmic results, then those are both true. They both convey the exact same truths. The truth is not how many Gods exist or what the specific punishment REALLY is. The turth is that unloving behavior begets destruction and disharmony while loving behavior yeilds peace and harmony. The deatails of the symbolism are NOT the truth of the stories. Both stories are true regardless of if the symbolic elements ever physically happened. The truth is that they happen all the time everyday. None of them are historically true. God doesn't literally sit on a throne any more than there are 10000 Gods. But, loving people do reap love while evil people do reap destruction. The point of the story isn't to emphatically determine the number of deities.
Lastly, I'm not in any way suggesting that you can't arrive at good conclusions and good ethical decisions while still believing these stories literally. What I'm suggesting is that as long as you insist that your faith tradition's stories are historically correct while all other tradition's are somehow fabrications without truth, then you are by definition being prideful and biggoted. Are you seriously suggesting that all these traditions have bizarre incredible myths but only YOUR tradition is the one that has REALLY HISTORICALLY accurate (but just as bizarre) myths? Come on, that is just plain silly and very divisive. It has been the core of so many religious wars and destruction. Often the religions are really saying the same thing and usually the "truth" is about NOT having war and destruction.
I wonder if I make your stomach churn the way you make mine churn! Ha ha, wouldn’t it be funny to be a bug on the wall when we read each other’s posts?
Anyway Mike, please give me the credit for being able to identify symbolism, parable, allegory and myth when I see/read/hear them and for being able to distinguish them from literal truth and history.
You reveal your thinking in the way that you justify the Washington myth. It is one of the most convoluted trains of thought I have read in a while. At the core of it is that “the ends justify the means”. Can you imagine someone coming to Barack Obama and saying, “Look, we want to cement the impression that you are a Christian and not a Muslim, so we’re going to concoct a story that you made a pilgrimage to Bethlehem to worship at Christ’s traditional birthplace at Christmastime when you were in your 20’s.” Now, I expect that you would say that the discrediting of such a story by the Clinton campaign would not compromise the “myth” because at his heart, the truth is; the spirit of Obama is Christian and not Muslim. Can you not agree that it would be better, more believable, would actually back up the “fact” that Obama is a Christian if the pilgrimage story were historically true?
I’m not arguing that you don’t have the right to believe however you want to about the world’s religions or that they are myths that reveal truths. I’m simply suggesting that this is heresy (which, if you are aware of the definition, I’m sure you will agree) and that yours is not a progression into (the Christian) faith but maybe through the Christian faith and into some other non-Christian belief system. This is reverse “looks like a duck” reasoning. If you don’t look like a duck, don’t walk like a duck, don’t quack like a duck, then you aren’t a duck. Unless you truly are, you can’t say I’m a woman, I’m black, I’m Jewish, I’m gay or I’m a Christian. It’s just fact (that I don’t expect you to agree with). I can write this and still feel peace and love towards you. I don’t hate you. I’m still for world peace, justice in the workplace, fighting poverty, and all the rest.
That said, I wonder how certain passages in Scripture square with your approach and how you incorporate them into your personal orthodoxy. Here’s a couple: In Matthew 10:21-22 Jesus says, "Brother will betray brother to death, and a father his child; and children will rise up against parents and cause them to be put to death. "You will be hated by all because of My name…”
In Matthew 10:34-36 Jesus says, "Do not think that I came to bring peace on the earth; I did not come to bring peace, but a sword. "For I came to SET A MAN AGAINST HIS FATHER, AND A DAUGHTER AGAINST HER MOTHER, AND A DAUGHTER-IN-LAW AGAINST HER MOTHER-IN-LAW; and A MAN'S ENEMIES WILL BE THE MEMBERS OF HIS HOUSEHOLD.”
Mike, This’ll be my last post on this subject. I’ll look for your reply, if you post one. Peace to you. Kim
Kim,
You don’t make my stomach turn at all. I enjoy the dialogue. I feel like it has been fair and healthy debate. I’ve had much worse situations and been at fault many times. You shouldn’t quit so soon.
I realize you likely can see symbolism, but you continue to miss the point that narratives (plays, movies, scripts, etc) are never written to be historically accurate. They are written to convey a more than literal point. We all read/watch them and know this going in.
As for the Obama Christian/Muslim hypothetical satiation you posed, I again think that you missed the point. You would need to go back and think from the author’s perspective. What was the intention of the author? You stated clearly that the intention of this hypothetical author was to convey the truth that Obama is a Christian. Was that truth true? Yes it was. Therefore the story is "true". Let’s look at the other way. What if Obama really did make this pilgrimage? Would the story be false if the “character Obama” was written with red shoes, but the historical truth was that he had brown shoes on that trip? Of course not! The intention of the story was not to tell us what color shoes the man had. The character in the story is NOT the same as the real life person. It never is. The story can only be declared untrue IF you can somehow prove the claim that the intention of the story was to accurately tell us about Obama’s shoes. Therefore, I could with confidence say the story is true based on corroborative evidence I’ve collected about Obama’s faith.
This is why the stories in Genesis (and elsewhere in the Bible) can be symbolically true even though we now know that the historical facts were fabricated the way all good poets and artist create stories. It was a huge mistake of modern secular liberalism to renounce the value of the stories simply because they were proven to not be historically factual. It is also the mistake of modern fundamentalists to try and hold our faith in the dark ages by claiming that the author’s intent was to convey historical facts. Today, we have the unique ability to transcend both mistakes by recognizing that the stories are in fact true precisely because their truth is not intended to be in factualness of the stories. Fundamentalists belittle the stories by forcing them to be what they cannot be.
When do you ever watch a play or movie about a historical character and assume the dialogue is exact history? It is never done that way. A fictional symbolic narrative (the gospels) is the norm for narratives.
In Mathew 10:21-22, the Jesus saying those things is the “character” Jesus in the play. It is his dialogue written by the author of Matthew. What else would we expect it to be? So the character says “Brother will betray brother to death, and a father his child… you will be hated because of my name…” because he is writing the story AFTER AD70 and the horrible war and destruction of the temple by Roman soldiers. The story is true in this case not because it is an accurate prediction, but instead because it is an accurate truth about a PAST event (past by the time it is written). Matthew has the character Jesus say what has by then already become true. Did the historical Jesus say this? We may never know because he didn’t write a book or record any of his sermons. But we do know that his character in the gospel of Matthew says it. Often what we find in these cases is that it says more about the experience of the writer of the play than it does about the historical figures that inspired the play. This character Jesus is what the historical Jesus has become to his followers some 40-70 years after his death. That is important to note, because it gives us a great glimpse at these early Christian communities. We learn a great deal about the different communities by comparing each community’s narrative about Jesus.
The Matthew 10:34 statement about Jesus coming to bring a “sword” is again written by Christians living through the aftermath of War. It was absolutely true for them that their decision to follow Jesus had resulted in great torment and unrest. Therefore, it was true to have Jesus say that in the narrative. Caesar was the one who came to bring Peace to the Empire. It is written in many inscriptions including their coins that we still find today. “Caesar Augustus bringer of great peace to the Empire”, etc. When the writer has Jesus say these things about himself, he is making the point that Jesus is coming to oppose Caesar’s great plan for peace through violent acquisition of lands and oppression of those who oppose his peaceful empire. Calling Jesus the prince of peace is a slap in the face to Caesar who was already know by that title. Son of God is the same type of play on another title of Caesar. Jesus opposed THAT peace but instead he brings the peace of God which is not brought through violence and oppression but instead through mercy and justice.
Hey Mike,
Based on the posts above, I'm wondering what your take is on Hillary Clinton's memories of her 1996 trip to Bosnia. Is it OK for her to recall it in that fashion because her spirit felt like it was under "sniper fire"? Or does it make sense because in her own mind, she believes she is the candidate with the best foreign policy? Does the mythology that she created about that trip get justified because it is consistent with her own deeply felt convictions? See, this is why I get concerned about historical revisionism.
Kim,
Beautiful analogy! Let's examine it. Let's see what can we learn from Hillary's myth? Let's do a bit of exegesis on this story just as if it was a biblical story.
First, we take the story created by Hillary and compare it to the other information we have available (other accounts, photos, film, military reports, etc). Then we study the author's setting. We know the author is in the midst of a campaign, we have records of her campaign strategy, her attampts to present herself as a capable leader, her campaign slogans, TV ads (it's 3am who will answer the red phone), etc. We have a good information about the author's main concern at the time around the creation of the story. That helps a ton! This will be easy.
We often learn more about a story by what one author adds on top of the other stories available at the time. Those added parts are often more telling than the facts. Hillary did land on that day (all accounts agree), yet her version has some gunfire where other versions do not. I wonder why?
Here is what I think we can
exegete from the myth:
1) The author of the story paints the picture of a brave hero capable of remaining calm under pressure. The author want us to know the hero (herself) is brave.
2) The author wants us to know the hero has traveled the world and experienced crisis. The hero is presented as calm under pressure.
3) The author wants us to know the hero can be trusted to carry out a mission in the face of danger. The hero didn't turn back, but marched on inspite of the gunshots.
Was it "ok" for Hillary to tell the myth. Absolutely! It's a free country she can tell whatever story she wants. Was it wise? Probably not. The only way this would be an issue for us, is if somebody comes along later and decides to take the myth literally. If we mistake her little anecdote for historical evidence on par with a history book, then we could be misleading ourselves, but that wouldn't be her fault. She wasn't trying to write a history book. It was just an anecdote and we could see right through it because we are good exegetes.
If we see the myth as a myth then we don't ask the question "did this happen". Instead we place this myth in the larger context of the overall narrative created by Hillary and her entire campaign. By doing this we come away with the real meaning of the myth which is:
Hillary is experienced, cool under pressure, and willing to give everything for the country.
Is that "meaning" true? I don't know. It would take some kind of personal experience to tell us if her meaning is true. What we can "know" for sure is that Hillary wants us to feel this about herself. We can place a high degree of certainty on that fact.
Now you see where literalization of myths can be such a problem, but digging into the myths to derive the intention of the author is very helpful. Now that you found the meaning and intention of the author, you can decide if you agree with their meaning. If you insist on living in the surface level of the story, you will have missed the intention of the author and rendered the myth useless.
Post a Comment