Wed 18 Jan 2006
It’s taken me awhile to get back to the story of the Raven I mentioned last week, but here we are. The author makes use of the story as part of an essay on individual paths to faith — intuition, tradition, and revelation. He builds on an idea I first encountered as a teenager, in the writings of C.S. Lewis. In addition to nature, the thinking goes, some of God’s truth is encoded in the stories and beliefs of every culture. Then, when a people encounters the gospel, they have been prepared by their own long-codified search for meaning. Hence the suffering raven who takes the form of a human and eventually brings light to the whole earth resembles Jesus enough that the Messiah story makes sense to the native Alaskans.
I, too, am an “all truth is God’s truth” type, and I find it fun to search for God’s unveiling everywhere. And yet, one of the reasons I take such pleasure in these old stories is that they are essentially amoral. Sure, the old guy is hiding the light. But there’s no benevolence in Raven’s curiosity– he just wants to get that light, by golly. You read a story like that, and you’re not sure who to root for, and the ending has as much to do with the capriciousness of fate (the eagle swooping down) as it does with any grand plans of any of the characters. The topsy-turvy back and forth in the fight for hidden treasure is both empty and charming.
Compare this with the stories of the New Testament, in which the good guys, the bad guys, the stakes, and the ultimate outcomes are quite clear. The “whys” are as important as the “hows.”
In real life I get tired out, trying to assign moral significance to experience. I have been trained to do it by the stories that shape my faith. But is there is more of God’s truth in Raven than a simple prefiguring of the gospel? What about the freeing playfulness of the story? I sense an invitation in the way it makes me relax and let the gods fight it out, trusting that it will work out okay in the end.
In real life this attitude might translate to something like the freedom to simply exist, living with faith that all-powerful goodness has invaded my sphere and is doing its good work. Allowing the Holy Spirit and the prophets to assign meaning as they see fit. Doing the tasks that come to hand, and letting the struggle go on around me without needing to worry or categorize or wave the banner of any cause. Recognizing Jesus everywhere.
January 19th, 2006 at 11:58 pm
I like it
January 21st, 2006 at 12:45 am
I especially like the bit about recognizing Jesus everywhere. I could sure do better seeing things with different eyes.
January 27th, 2006 at 12:24 pm
Sorry it took me so long to read and respond to these thoughtful response to my article!
I thought about the moral ambiguity of the story afterwards too. I even looked up some other versions on the web to make sure I wasn’t getting it all wrong. In one, Raven is not hurt, making him less sacrificial. In one, the man who owns the light is the eagle (which makes the chasing part make sense - though I thought eagle = Rome was an interesting allusion).
Is the Bible, even the NT, all that morally cut-and-dried? The OT sure isn’t - there is moral ambiguity in every story, especially with characters like Jacob (sleazeball/man of faith). Even a story as innocent as Ruth leaves room for hanky panky. David’s kingdom and family peter out. Daniel, one of the most positively treated characters in the OT, if you read between the lines is at least complicit with the (evil) empire.
The striking thing about the NT against that background is that it does portray one person, Jesus, without that moral ambiguity - but even in Acts there is plenty of room to question whether the author is approving everything wholesale or insinuating that the Christians’ motives and actions may not be spotless.
So, I think it is more complex, but you’re right that the Bible does train us to look for moral significance in stories, and the Raven story is charming because it resists that sort of reading.
Back to the context of the whole article, though, I am trying to affirm the goodness of intuition/natural theology, but also point out its limitations. Likewise, I’m affirming tradition as a better guide than individualized intuition, but ultimately arguing that revelation is indispensible to knowing God, even though that revelation may be guarded by an unfaithful religious establishment.
Anyway, thanks again for reading, thinking about and responding to my article!
January 27th, 2006 at 12:36 pm
[…] I noticed rather late that my friend Erin posted some interesting thoughts about my Epiphany/Raven article on her blog. […]
January 27th, 2006 at 12:36 pm
Raven article discussion…
I noticed rather later that my friend Erin posted some interesting thoughts about my Epiphany/Raven article on her blog.
Check Erin’s response out here.
……
January 27th, 2006 at 1:12 pm
Hi Nate,
Thanks for the feedback! Sorry I forgot to do a pingback thing on my post, I meant to but… you know.
One of the hazards of trying to explain a thought in a few paragraphs is that the reduction results in oversimplification. Which is to say, I agree that things are not so cut-and-dried as I indicated in the original post.
Having grown up Roman Catholic, the value of tradition as a correction to do-it-yourself religion has (almost) always seemed like a “no-duh” to me. And vice versa. Nowadays, hanging around mainly North American evangelical protestants, I get a sense of how dangerous and radical that line of thinking can seem in certain circles.
I say, more power to the balance of powers.
January 30th, 2006 at 1:07 pm
[…] Oh, and Nate, the author of the raven article, posted some comments about my comments on it. We’re so meta! If you want to get meta-meta, you can comment on his comments on my comments. […]
February 26th, 2008 at 12:57 pm
travel health insurance association…
autobiographies beseeches.Huston amid,personify,liable …