myth

This is a preliminary summary of the ongoing discussion on Mike Macon’s blog regarding the scriptural inerrancy, as well as some personal commentary.

In 10 principles for reading the Bible in a postmodern context, Andrew proposes that contributors to an emerging post-evangelical theology adopt Principle 2 - "Let’s pretend it’s not inerrant." He suggests that we "set aside claims to the predetermined inerrancy and sanctity of the Bible, at least insofar as such claims force upon us standards of truthfulness that conflict with criteria of thought that we are not prepared to abandon in other areas of discourse (scientific, historical, literary, social, etc.)." Adopting Principle 2 "allows us to read the Bible as the unbeliever reads it; it helps to defamiliarise the Bible for us, which will be an essential aspect of the deconstruction process…" In the Genesis 1 as True Myth post we’ve been trying to make literal sense of the Biblical creation narratives. What if instead we were to read Genesis 1-3 in light of Principle 2?

Like anyone who has to write in order to find out what he is thinking, I can only say what I hope this piece will be. If it goes the way I hope it might, it should have more than a nodding acquaintance with the True Myth thread. What will become apparent quite quickly, and might as well be confessed now, is that I have done very little study of the history or essential nature of myth as a literary form. Which is not to say that my affection for myth and respect for its role is stylistic, rather that this respect arises from a sense of how deeply we are, individually and socially, susceptible to and in deep need of mythic narrative.