.
Feedback

Santa Claus, Christ and Myth

What is myth, what is real? Why should we care? Does myth make a difference in our lives?

She came up to me after church and asked, “What part of the Bible is true and what part is myth?”  My response was not what she was expecting.  I told her it was all myth.  Not what she expected from her pastor.  My statement was not technically accurate.  Not all of the Bible is myth.  Some of it is human response to myth.

Now I suspect, dear reader, that I have some “splaining” to do.  First, the literal/historical claim for the Bible does not hold up under logical inquiry as a historical document.  Its context certainly is historical.  There really was an Egyptian, Babylonian, and Roman Empire.  There really was a man we call Jesus.  The stories we read are mostly cast in one of, or in response to, one of these historical settings.  But that is about as much as we can say about their historicity. For example in the Gospel of Luke the birth of Jesus, a seasonal topic, was born in Bethlehem while in Matthew he was born in Nazareth.  From an historical sense, no child can be born in two different places so far apart.  One might be true, but not both.

In both Luke and Matthew Jesus was born of a virgin, while in Mark and John, as well as in the writings of Paul there is no mention of a virgin birth.  You would think that a virgin birth would be worth noting by the older writings of Paul or Mark, but they don’t bring it up.  They don’t seem to have heard it.  Not what you would expect.

Now you might think I am trying to debunk the Bible, but trust me, I am not.  If I’m trying to do anything, it’s trying to get you to let go of your material understanding of the creation long enough to grasp a deeper and more spiritual understanding, one that has deep moral consequence as well. 

Thus, the role of myth.  Most people, when they think about it, believe myth is a story that is not true, because it is not literally true.  But that is a very limited understanding.  One of my favorite definitions of myth is that it “tells a story that cannot be told by mere facts alone.”  Unlike history, which attempts to chronicle one event after another over a period of time, myth attempts to convey a community’s values that transcend time.  Like poetry, myth uses language that conveys its message through metaphor, simile, and other devises to create image beyond the literal. 

Let’s bring this down to earth for a moment.  We have numerous stories about Jesus of Nazareth, most of which are based in the genuine experience of Jesus in the lives of believing communities long after his execution by the Roman Empire.  They do not always agree with each other because they are telling different versions of personal or communal experiences.  One of the things many of the stories have in common is that they are generally subversive of the dominant cultural view of the way the world should work.  The dominant Roman culture said Caesar was “King of Kings,” while the Christians countered “Our Jesus is King of Kings.”   The Romans said our Caesar was born under a special star and is the son of this or that god.  The Christians claimed that “Our Jesus was born under a special star that draws the truly wise and that he was the only Son of the one true God.  If you want to hack off the emperor and his minions and become a martyr keep talking that way in the face of power. 

When the Romans claimed that peace could only be maintained through the projection of power throughout the world, Pax Romana, the Christians told stories about peace through justice.  Thus, while the Romans forced a power system that excluded the majority from sharing in the wealth of the empire, the Christians countered with stories of Jesus healing and including everyone in full community.  While the Romans maintained that some people should be kept down because they were inferior, the Christians proclaimed that the poor will be lifted up and the powerful brought low.  While the Romans forced the lower classes to pay high taxed to support the Roman power structure, the Christians claimed God’s desire to relieve the poor using the wealth of God’s world equitably.  In other words the Romans claimed that the way they had made the systems of the world were the way they should always be, the Christians responded with subversive stories and myth to proclaim that God wants the world to be different, that power does not make right, justice for all makes right, that excluding some from inclusion in community does not make right.  God desires all to be included and equal in His eyes and in ours.

The myths about Jesus tell about the real experience of his message in response to events surrounding the community that told the story.  The message of God’s desire for His creation has been preserved in myth and I believe is still alive today.  It is also subversive today.  And, the empire of our time has created its own counter myths to justify itself and maintain its power.

In this Christmas season we see the clash of two of these myths and have the choice of which one will inspire and guide our lives.  The Christian story speaks of God giving the world a gift in the message of Jesus to elevate the marginalized and to treat them as children of God.  It is a story of a God that loves all unconditionally, (agape) and shows no preference to the powerful of this world.  To counter that vision of the Kingdom of God, the empire of today has created a counter myth.  One of the characters in the myth is Santa Claus.  Think about it.  Santa Claus offers conditional love by having a list of naughty or nice, rewarding the nice and punishing the naughty.  The Christian mythology says God loves both the nice and the naughty and His people do the same.  The empire of today does not seem to have a problem with a Santa Claus that gives more abundantly to the wealthiest while ignoring the least of these.  This demonstrates the empire’s practice of treating the marginalized and poor as lazy, indolent and deserving of their status.  It demonstrates the notion that the poor and marginalized can be punished out of their plight.  In the Christian mythology, the least of these is cared for and lifted up, using all the resources we have at our disposal in imitation of the God of agape love.

As I said above, we have a choice of which mythology will guide and inspire us.  If we chose the mythology of the empire, we live by that myth.  We justify oppressing those weaker than us.  We defend those systems that deny adequate health care, food, clothing, education, justice, or freedom to love who we would, to those we have power over.  If we choose the mythology of a just God, we live by that myth.  We love without condition.  We seek justice for the weak as well as the powerful.  We include those Christ included.  In that sense, our accepted or lived out mythology is our life.  

Newsletter & Alerts

Get the best stories each day and important breaking news

Subscribe

Not from Sonoma Valley Patch? Find your Local Patch »

Loading comments ...
Note Article
Just a short thought to get the word out quickly about anything in your neighborhood.
Share something with your neighbors. Write a new post... What's up? Make an announcement, speak your mind, or sell something
Ralph Hutchinson May 18, 2013 at 08:51 pm
I still say the People will be wise to these bush league tactics and the residents of Sonoma willRead More vote against the destruction of the Plaza and our small town feel. We won''t sell out like Napa or Healdsburg and certainly we're not like the 101 corridor.
Ralph Hutchinson May 17, 2013 at 09:38 am
Another Cuban party perhaps in the works at the Kenwood Ranch, chompin on contraband cigars, etc?Read More Grand prize trips to Cuba with Californians Building Bridges and rub elbows with fatcat Politicians? Or maybe Kings tickets?
Ralph Hutchinson May 17, 2013 at 11:37 am
What kind of conflicts of interest are present with Nancy Simpson? She is on the County Landmarks,Read More formerly affiliated with Sonoma Valley Visitors Bureau and Wendy Peterson? Are all these agencies and bureaus interlocked some receiving TOT tax revenues, and all standing to benefit from anything Darius Anderson can build?
Ralph Hutchinson May 17, 2013 at 11:32 am
Is Darius really after a casino in Sonoma either at General Vallejo State Park next to his RamekinsRead More location or up valley at Sonoma Development Center?
Ralph Hutchinson May 17, 2013 at 11:31 am
Ms. G doesn't even live in Sonoma does she? Isn't it Cloverdale? Wasn't she a big proponent of theRead More bypass in her town?
sal nero May 15, 2013 at 08:11 pm
The Sonoma Sun's website (but not SunFMTV) has been down for hours. What's happening ?
Ralph Hutchinson May 15, 2013 at 03:25 pm
Did Darius Anderso agree to buyout The Patch and have the archives and comments removed as part ofRead More this new software update? Afterall "Cows Not Casinos", Measure A Rosewood Hillside hotel, and Measure C Hospital Eminent Domain would be better if the People of Sonoma forgot all about it and let his hotel venture fly easier.
sal nero May 15, 2013 at 03:20 pm
When Bolling "lost" his comments on Sonoma Valley Bank and then the whole archive heRead More blamed a glitch yet they have never been restored. That has benefitted the Hotel Index-Tribune and allowed a cover up of key historical dates and facts. Please hurry and restore the Patch's missing blogs and comments ASAP so that the confidence the Sonoma Patch has attained is not damaged. Thanks
Ralph Hutchinson May 15, 2013 at 03:09 pm
The comments to various articles and blogs are also completely missing. Please restore asap.
Dee Baucher May 18, 2013 at 09:37 am
I write about the issue of the BRACA test, because I am someone who developed breast cancer, and whoRead More needed the test. Even though I already had breast cancer, the decision of whether to have a bilateral mastectomy (rather than just a removal of the cancer with a "lumpectomy" or the removal of only one, effected, breast) was dependent upon the results of that test. If I had a genetic marker that indicated I was likely to develop more breast cancers, there would be no reason to avoid having both breasts removed at once. Even though my doctors recognized the importance of getting this test done before surgical decisions were made, the insurance company was resistant to providing coverage for the test. There were many heated phone conversations with the insurance company, and many letters of documentation before I was finally allowed to have the test. The basic test for BRAC I and BRAC II (the 2 main genes identified) cost $3,000. However, there are even more specialized tests for the smaller BRAC genes (rare genes that are less common) that cost thousands of dollars extra, and would have been helpful because of my family history. I was not able to fight with the insurance company for permission to obtain those extra tests, since I was already weak and ill from the chemotherapy, at that time. It is not reasonable or acceptable for women to have to fight to get necessary tests performed, because of excessive charging for those tests, and resistance of the medical insurance companies to provide coverage to obtain them. This situation needs to be changed. I hope that Angelina Jolie's story will bring attention to this issue, and will help our Supreme Court to recognize the unfairness in allowing a company to lay claim on a "patent" of our genes. The main research to provide the exact mapping of our genes was provided by the "Human Genome Project", which was primarily paid for by the US taxpayers, via that extensive NIH study. The Myriad company did some further research to refine knowledge on the BRACA genes; but they should not be allowed a total patent which blocks all other US labs from performing tests on that same part of our DNA. That is unreasonable in terms of the amount of profit they are claiming, and unfair to US humans who should be able to claim ownership of their own DNA.
Dee Baucher May 18, 2013 at 08:50 am
I am not used to Hollywood-types having the type of integrity and honesty, that Ms. Jolie displayedRead More with her NY Times revelation. I commend her for having the courage to act proactively with surgical removal of her breasts, in addition to the planned removal of her ovaries. She lost her beloved mother to the disease, and she clearly understands the devastation that would befall her own children (if she were to develop the types of cancers that her genetic makeup render her vulnerable to). I agree with her decision, and hope that I would have the same strength, if confronted with the genetic evidence that she was able to have documented with the BRACA testing. Unfortunately, many women who would benefit in the same way, from advance knowledge about their genetic vulnerability to those cancers, are denied the ability to get the tests. The company that "owns" the test, by virtue of their assertion that they "own the patent" on that identified portion of our DNA, charge $3,000.00 for the test. That cost is too high for most women in the US to easily afford, and our health insurance typically refuses to cover the test for most women. There is currently a case before the US Supreme Court challenging the idea of a medical company owning our genes. Many of us are hopeful that the court will halt this company from claiming this patent, so that laboratories all over the country can provide the test to us inexpensively, and therefore it will be available to all who should have it. The costs for the type of very sophisticated plastic surgery/ breast reconstruction that Ms. Jolie underwent, are also extremely high. It is doubtful that insurance or Obamacare will provide coverage for that type of costly prophylactic surgery. Those are battles that women will need to fight in the future, when more women become informed about their personal risks and choices.