(Another replay from the American Kitchen archives with some interesting considerations of Christianity as finding a place on the continuum between metaphor and literal. Something I was philosophically wrestling with at the time.)
[I read] an interesting article* on magical thinking as being the actual essence of religion... it seems the author is trying to bridge the gap some into the new post-modern era by soliciting a valid form of expression akin to poetry.
He describes how the Jews themselves "evolved" along this continuum throughout the Old Testament starting with Deuteronomy (meaning "second law") which was written later to "upgrade" some of the cruder more literal sacrifices and laws. Indeed it was Deuteronomy that declares the number one law is to love rather than to sacrifice.
My favorite section is as follows:
The point is that the semiotic space for such dialectical development has been built into religious language and symbolism, honed and augmented over centuries. To invent a social equivalent of religion out of thin air is akin to inventing a new language--much harder than it looks. So the rational elite may indeed be missing out on something--the "essence" of religion.
My suggestion is that while there is, and has always been, a great difference between the esoteric (metaphorical) and exoteric (literal) modes of religious understanding, there is also a continuum running between them. Many people move along this continuum in the course of their lives, beginning with the debunking of Santa Claus. As they learn the moral interpretations of mythic symbols and stories, they grow to put more emphasis on those interpretations than on the assertion that the stories really happened. Eventually they may come to feel that "God is within," animating their moral judgment and feeling for the world. But in most cases this doesn't prevent them from telling their children about Santa Claus, nor does it impel them to attack the "beliefs" of their less-advanced coreligionists.
Therefore it is wrong to classify everyone based on answers to polling questions about religious "belief." What people say they "believe" doesn't necessarily capture the functional role of the "beliefs," their symbolism and moral perspective. It doesn't tell you where they lie on the magical/moral continuum. So the picture of a tiny enlightened elite and literal-minded masses is also wrong.
All in all this reminds me very much of reading N. T. Wright and his push to be a Christian in the post-modern era by somehow giving up all the literalness of creation, miracles, virgin birth, resurrections and such as "narrative" expressions of the people themselves - not untrue, but not true either.
This rather leaves one on squishy ground, but if indeed we are at a major cultural crossroads in the magnitude of the Middle-ages to Enlightenment crossroads, then there just may be another acceptable mode of expression which can include worship of a creator in the genre of poetry, and story-telling that could be valid but not literal.
N. T. Wright, among other intellectual Christians, tend to suggest this is our future hope for the sustainability of Christianity. I'm inclined to agree.
[*sorry, link is now defunct - Rev. Sanders]
