[July 2002 journal entry]
A Presbyterian Church (USA) pastor/friend asked what place ‘resurrection’ has in my ‘non-religious’ approach to ethics and spirituality. I began with -- “‘Resurrection’ is not weight-bearing.” I told him I am open to ‘resurrection’, but do not know of a way to conceive of or meditate on ‘resurrection’ that does not slip into literal language. He then asked what place ‘myth’ has. I admitted considerable reservation due to the widespread literal use of such, meaning that what he was calling ‘myth’ is rarely treated as ‘myth’ (even in liberal churches where the word ‘myth’ is permitted). Were ‘myths’ conceived/transmitted in pre-modern/pre-scientific settings understood then to be ‘myths’? Given the widespread understanding of such as literally true within the ‘religious’ sphere (with corresponding opposition to considering such as ‘myth’) in our modern/scientific time, it seems unlikely.
