Monday, February 21, 2005
Is there a problem with metaphor?
I think I had a revelation about the nature of the traditional/conservative/earlier (to use Borg's term) religous outlook towards metaphor. Remember when Jerry Falwell declared that Tinky Winky from the Teletubbies was gay? What did he use: The fact that TW is purple, male, has a triangle on his head, and carries a purse. All metaphors (or at least indicators) that this silly character is 'promoting the homosexual agenda' or even worse 'telling kids that it's okay to be gay' or worst of all 'telling kids to become gay.'
I know that many people like Falwell read the Bible literally and factually, and don't allow a metaphorical understanding of any passage unless it's a parable. I'm wondering if the traditional/conservative/right-wing/earlier tradition sees metaphor and allegory mainly as a tool of the devil. It makes some sort of sense. The devil has to hide his messages and not be so blatant about his evel schemes. God can speak to us directly and tell us exactly what we need to know, and has done so completely and totally in the Bible.
Of course, those of us who watch and love Joan of Arcadia understand that God is never direct in communication with us mere mortals, even when God is standing before you in some form and appears very real and very concrete, you won't get a straight answer out of God. The liberal/progressive/emergent tradition reads the Bible as mostly metaphor. The important lessons are there, but they are generalized lessons from specific examples. Is it possible to read Jesus' view of punishment in the tale of the adulteress (John 8:1-11) to mean that only when we encounter a woman who has committed adultery we should only kill her if we are sinless ourselves? When we talk about killing a rapist or a terrorist we are free to kill them despite our own sinful state? It could be. I think it's a short-sighted interpretation. I also don't think that any Christian thinker has made this claim.
In the end: Is metaphor only a tool of the devil? I don't think so. I think metaphor is the language that moves us beyond our limitations and towards God. It can also move us beyond our limitations to evil as well. Perhaps this is one reason why discussions between the two traditions of Christianity can be so difficult. ¶ 12:14 PM
I know that many people like Falwell read the Bible literally and factually, and don't allow a metaphorical understanding of any passage unless it's a parable. I'm wondering if the traditional/conservative/right-wing/earlier tradition sees metaphor and allegory mainly as a tool of the devil. It makes some sort of sense. The devil has to hide his messages and not be so blatant about his evel schemes. God can speak to us directly and tell us exactly what we need to know, and has done so completely and totally in the Bible.
Of course, those of us who watch and love Joan of Arcadia understand that God is never direct in communication with us mere mortals, even when God is standing before you in some form and appears very real and very concrete, you won't get a straight answer out of God. The liberal/progressive/emergent tradition reads the Bible as mostly metaphor. The important lessons are there, but they are generalized lessons from specific examples. Is it possible to read Jesus' view of punishment in the tale of the adulteress (John 8:1-11) to mean that only when we encounter a woman who has committed adultery we should only kill her if we are sinless ourselves? When we talk about killing a rapist or a terrorist we are free to kill them despite our own sinful state? It could be. I think it's a short-sighted interpretation. I also don't think that any Christian thinker has made this claim.
In the end: Is metaphor only a tool of the devil? I don't think so. I think metaphor is the language that moves us beyond our limitations and towards God. It can also move us beyond our limitations to evil as well. Perhaps this is one reason why discussions between the two traditions of Christianity can be so difficult. ¶ 12:14 PM
