I’m nearly finished reading Karen Armstrong’s A Short History of Myth (ISBN 1841956449), in which she makes a statement that fits well with something I said in this post last week regarding the debate between science and religion. Armstrong describes two “categories” myth and logos. Logos, she says is concern with fact – observable, measurable, fact. Myth, on the other hand reaches into our inner self and (along with our accompanying actions) transforms our character, our “person”. That is of course until, due to circumstances such as changes in society, that myth is no longer able to reach us, and inspire.

One of the drawbacks of having codified our mythology in writing is the fact that unlike predominately oral societies that allow the mythology to develop – once written our mythology ceases to change.

Up until about the time of the Reformation, myth and logos, in western society, were complimentary. Since then logos has overtaken, and indeed is used to undermine myth. Thus, when we seek to use the Bible as a source of logos – of fact – in every respect, we are undermining the key characteristic (myth) that makes it a valuable resource in our spirituality. Without the rich imagery of myth, understanding the “mechanics” of Christ’s death and resurrection – as late antique writers describe it (see for example Athanasius On the Incarnation, Proklos Homily 4) becomes nonsensical, useless.