RE-mythologising "God"?

by Narkissos 21 Replies latest jw friends

• 

  Narkissos

  Corollary to the often discussed religious shift from polytheism (including henotheism) to monotheism is a literary shift from mythology to theology.

  Mythology is essentially narrative. The gods and goddesses are good story characters. They act, and things happen to them. They experience birth (or creation), becoming, emotions, sex affairs, fights, victories and defeats.

  "God," otoh, has no such "story" to be told. Whatever he "says" or "does" or "feels" tends to be dismissed as inappropriate anthropomorphism. At best he (or, should I say, "it") can be described: instead of lively mythological narratives we now have static, timeless, theological assertions. And still whatever can be said about "God"'s unchanging being ultimately results in tautology: what he is (and has ever been, and will ever be), he is of necessitybecause he is "God". Theology starts with de-mythologisation (to borrow this term from Bultmann in a slightly different context) and tends to point to mystical silence as the only adequate (non-)talk about "God".

  Of course this hardly satisfies the demands of popular religion. And, as a matter of fact, practical monotheism has always been re-mythologising "God" one way or another. The developments of angelology and demonology in late Judaism, the Christ story and incarnation as the climax of "salvation history" in early Christianity, have all been sneaking narrative, i.e. mythology, into the all-too-abstract "God" of monotheism.

  I wonder if by digging up the name Yhwh from the polytheistic background of Biblical monotheism and reviving it as "Jehovah" for its own sectarian use, the WT has not, in effect, been comparatively successful in re-mythologising "God" for its followers. (I don't mean they did it on purpose, it may just have been a "happy move" from their perspective.) Many JWs with a mainstream Christian background would sincerely say that they are more personally related and committed to "Jehovah" than they have ever been to "God". Is it, somehow, because it suits better the lively realm of mythology than the abstract realm of theology?

  Please discuss...
• 

  Blueblades

  Narc, wasn't it Rutherford who made the name change to Jehovah to remove the followers of Russell from following him. This way he would control the rank and file with the new identity as Jehovah's Witnesses and cut all ties to Russell. I don't believe it had anything to do with doctrine.

  Blueblades
• 

  Narkissos

  blueblades,

  I agree with you, perhaps you missed my remark:

  (I don't mean they did it on purpose, it may just have been a "happy move" from their perspective.)

  My question is about the result, not the intent. I.e., if the "mythological" implications of calling "God" by a personal name did or did not happen to contribute to the relative appeal and growth of JWs on the religious market from the 30's onward.
• 

  nvrgnbk

  Excellent post, Nark.

  I feel many, in the sea of religious thought, are looking for specificity.

  A unique name for the Ultimate Reality would provide just that.

  I know that was a big thing that I clung to as a doubting JW.
• 

  frankiespeakin

  Nark,

  My question is about the result, not the intent. I.e., if the "mythological" implications of calling "God" by a personal name did or did not happen to contribute to the relative appeal and growth of JWs on the religious market from the 30's onward.

  Think the anthropomorphized God gives more growth and and control to the WTBS, its apeal is simple: a loving god who gets very angry if you don't follow his vast list of rules(comandments), not wanting to be destroyed, and most having been previously indoctrinated in the christian myth, gave them a greater chance at success and growth.

  A unanthropomorphized Deity leaves people free to do what ever, which could hardly be counted on to bring more growth and free labor for the WTBS to use to advertise its religion, and capture the minds of the unsuspecting.
• 

  frankiespeakin

  BTW, I do think myths often do serve a good purpose, especially native american mythology, being more enviromentally friendly. But the christian myth is way to lopsided, and has a tendency to make one narotic.
• 

  M.J.

  I think you have a point. In conjunction with the name designation, the WTS has definitely leaned toward something more closely resembling a dualism or henotheism. The whole "vindication of Jehovah's sovereignty" idea seems more mythological-plot-line than theological description.
• 

  Narkissos

  Insightful comments, thank you all.

  One of the Bible catch phrases that sums the issue best, I think, is that of "the living God". In diverse ways it's at the center of the religious pathos which JWs and other religious groups (many of them being way more dynamic and successful at it than JWs, btw) mainly target.

  It feeds much less on metaphysics or theology than on mythology.

  To this sensibility a Jehovah-God who can be really upset, disappointed, angry as well as loving and merciful is more believable than an encompassing yet indifferent "First cause". Even though such a character is more of "a god" than "God".

  It seems more consistent in a way: how can mainstream theology explain God's "anger", "jealousy" or "hate" away as anthropomorphical metaphors and not do the same with God's "mercy" or "love"?
• 

  Open mind

  Every good Regular Pioneer, Bethelite, Missionary, etc. who is interviewed for assembly parts always talks about developing a "close, personal relationship with Jehovah". So much cosier than GOD.

  I tried. Never really worked for me.

  Good post Narkissos.

  Open Mind
• 

  Carmel

  It fits well with the fundamentalist notion of literalism that plagues most of christianity. c arm