Thursday, February 21, 2013

Pagan Origins of Redemptive Romance



I am not a scholar in any field, and I am certainly not a cultural anthropologist, but I have read a few essays by people who are, and I have come to believe that our emphasis on redemptive violence and redemptive romance comes from our pagan past.  There is some evidence (particularly linguistic) of very early people groups that eventually split and moved to parts of India, Europe and the Middle East.  These Indo-Europeans were our very early western ancestors.  Some scholars try to reverse engineer Indo-European culture by comparing what we know of the ancient cultures that resulted from it.  It is interesting that almost every ancient culture throughout the area believed in certain gods: a sky god, a sun god, a god of the dawn, a god of the earth, etc.  However, in addition to the gods that describe these natural phenomena two or three gods are in almost every pantheon that describe activities that originate within humans: a god of war, or a god of “striking,” or of violence (Thor, Shiva, Mars, Ares); and a goddess of love, and sometimes also a god of love (Ishtar, Rati, Kama, Freyja, Cupid, Venus, Aphrodite, Eros).[1]  The third god that many cultures include is more abstract and has fewer similarities from one culture to the next.  It is the god of intelligence, wisdom, or trickery (Enki and Athena are examples, but so is Loki).  However, as I commented before, what is more interesting is that the events that the mythology recognizes as having real power are almost always one of these three.  

Take the story of Psyche and Cupid, for example.[2]  Here's my whirlwind summary: Psyche is beautiful and Venus is jealous so she tells Cupid to put a curse upon Psyche.  Cupid does it (the first actual change in circumstances is created by violence), though it goes wrong and he ends up not cursing her the way he had planned, but he makes it impossible for her to fall in love with any mortal man, and he accidently falls in love with her himself.  Over time, Psyche figures out that she is supposed to marry a god or monster thing and she hooks up with Cupid, knowing that she can never look at him and lives with him in a magical palace (the second actual change in circumstances is created by romance).  Psyche is happy in the magical palace, but her sisters confuse her and convince her that since she has never seen her husband, he is a monster and she should kill him.  She starts to go through with her plan, but changes her mind and Cupid kicks her out of the magical palace (The third major change in circumstances is the result of a sort of violence - though neither party actually acts in physical violence towards the other.  This is kind of the exception to the rule here).  Psyche wanders the world doing tasks for various gods at first and ultimately for Venus who is still mad at Psyche.  Because Cupid is in love with Psyche he helps her find the loophole in each of the tricky tasks that Venus tries to set up for her.  Cupid finally pleads that Jupiter make Psyche a goddess because Cupid is unbearably in love with her and Jupiter consents (romance creates the fourth actual change in circumstances) and that's that.  Interestingly, since they can now be together forever, the story ends.  Nothing is noteworthy about their bliss.  It is also noteworthy that in the earliest versions of this story it is clear that Psyche is representative of the human soul, and Cupid is representative of romantic love.[3]  The overt message of the myth is that the human soul finds its ultimate fulfillment in the bliss of romantic love.

The Biblical view is completely different.  If we read the story of Joshua from a western perspective, it seems like Joshua violently raises the city of Jericho (and there is clearly some violence in the story).  However, if we try to read it from a Hebrew perspective, it is Joshua’s obedience that creates a real change in the circumstances of the characters.  Hosea is a story that we often interpret as encouraging redemptive romance.  And while there is romance, it is God’s mercy and Hosea’s obedience that actually create the greatest change in the story.  It is not coincidence that Jesus tells us to obey all that he has commanded (Matthew 28:20), and that we’re his friends if we do so (John 15:14).  The Bible has already established obedience and submission as the actions that create the most real change in our lives and in the world.  We are even told that Jesus’ death on the cross is an act of obedience (Philippians 2:8).  The idea that a romantic relationship would be the fulfillment of the soul, the psyche, is completely absent from the Bible.  Instead, our love (love is willing and acting for someone else) relationship with God is the place where our souls are fulfilled.  We can create positive change outwardly and inwardly through obeying God who tells us in the Bible and through the Holy Spirit how to love him (Power through submission!) This power has and will continue to change the world!


[1] Most of my research on this topic came from various pages of J.P Mallory and D.Q. Adams, Encyclopedia of Indo European Culture (Chicago: Fitzroy Dearborn Publishers, 1997).  But, I admit, I also did some reading on Wikipedia.  What can I say, I already admitted that I’m not a scholar in any field, right?  I would be really fascinated to hear what someone who actually is a cultural anthropologist or a specialist in Proto Indo-European Culture might say about my theory.
[2] This story is not a pure Proto Indo-European myth, but it is a significant myth in more than one Indo-European culture.  Since there is Greek art depicting the myth that dates back to the 4th century B.C.E. (according to Wikipedia, again, not a scholar), it was probably first told, in some form, around the same time that significant portions of the Old Testament were being written.
[3] The Greek word "Psyche" actually means “soul,” and "Eros" (the Greek equivalent to Cupid) actually means romantic desire.

6 comments:

  1. Interesting!

    While reading the cultural background and the retelling of Psyche and Cupid, I found myself pondering the possible purpose of the redemption the characters sought. I mean, redemptive "___" is one thing, but why? Why is each tool (violence, romance, etc) being used? In pondering, it seems like there's frequently three key focuses: relationship, identity, and a quest for peace; and further, in pursuing violence or romance or "___", it seems like we pursue the ultimate tool, the one that brings lasting peace: a reconciliation of relationship, and settling of identity.

    And then I began to wonder, "why does each story end"? Yes, logistically a story has to end, but in this case in particular, there's an implied "happily ever after," a conclusion, a peace. But does life stop? No. Perhaps at its end the story is only just beginning! Topic choice reveals what the teller values, ...or perhaps what the teller is grappeling with.

    I enjoyed encountering the addition of a third option, "Redemptive Obedience", in the last paragraph. I agree that obedience is valuable, but I wonder, is it yet the ultimate tool?

    The Bible has strong themes of frustrated and imperfect obedience (eg: Acts 15:10-11), coupled with strong themes of faith that *God* will redeem. Some might say that perhaps there is a fourth option, "Redemptive Faith", but even that seems to fall somewhat short of the reality.

    I love how you said "our love relationship with God is the place where our souls are fulfilled", there is something thunderously true about that. There is something about what Jesus did that restores our identity and fixes relationship. When we begin to receive his love and forgiveness we get freed into "the obedience that comes from faith" (Romans 1:5), a redemptive relationship with the one who was willing to give up *everything* for us.

    I would love to write much more. :)

    ReplyDelete
  2. Thanks for your thoughts, David. I would love it if you would write much more.

    As I thought about your Redeeming ____ idea, I began to wonder about obedience. I don't think that it would be fair to say that obedience redeems in Scripture. Only the grace of God which is found in Christ Jesus redeems. I think the reason that change and power always come through obedience in Scripture is that obedience is the only attitude where we really get out of the way, so to speak, at let God's grace have at the situation.

    I think that may be the single, fundamental difference between a pagan worldview and a Christian worldview. In the Pagan view, the idea is that the individual does things to bring about the change they desire. They perform a ritual. They choose to kill the baddies. They choose to fall deeply in love. The power to save is something that the individual can control, or can at least partially participate in the control of the event. In the Christian worldview, we want God to be in control. We submit our control to God through obedience. Sometimes this is a lot harder (just ask Job, or anyone who has gone through a time of suffering), but it is the way we allow God to work His will, and the way we live out our love relationship with God.

    Thanks again for posting.

    ReplyDelete
  3. That feels more one-sided than I'm prepared to lean at present, like God is the planner and our input would serve to hinder him, like I can't be myself with him. I'm sure that's not entirely what you meant ... and boy howdy, this topic could get deep!

    I'm also not prepared to believe that change and power always come through obedience in scripture. Frequently change and power were released simply in response to faith in Christ (eg: "your faith has healed you" -Jesus).

    If only I had more time to write! I know how I sort some of these themes out. I'm curious to see how you might sort them, since I respect your thinking so much.

    ReplyDelete
  4. David, thanks again for your response. I believe that you are someone who walks closely with Jesus so let me take another stab at explaining what I mean by those points. Perhaps that will prepare you to lean in my direction. If it doesn’t, we may simply disagree (though I think if you disagree with this, we may have significantly diverging interpretations of major themes in Scripture).

    Our relationship with God is not one sided. God gives us all unique gifts, and personalities, and skills, and roles. God gives us all free will. We are called to love God with all of it: heart, soul, mind and strength. We are called to abide, with all that we are, in Christ. However, as far as we are from a one sided relationship, we are much farther from a relationship of equals. And in modern American culture, the latter extreme is more often how people act (particularly in the Low Church, or in places where people accurately recognize that God relates to us personally and directly). God is not our drinking buddy. God is not our kid brother. While Jesus does say that he has called us “Friends.” “Father” and “bondservant” are much more common words in the NT. We can only rightly talk about God loving us and caring about our personal desires when we’re building on Job 38, and on the reality that God is about something bigger than us in the world (though you do need both if you want to come up with an accurate picture of what the Bible says on the subject). Our obedience is fundamental to our relationship with God. Even Jesus, who is himself God, described himself as doing “nothing of his own accord, but only what he sees the Father doing.” (John 5:19)

    To qualify myself, there are a lot of times when I have prayed and asked for direction and given no answer (I have even asked for direction and felt God say that both options are good and I can choose either). I believe that in those moments, obeying our general callings in Scripture can lead to a great deal of positive change. When it seems like the Holy Spirit is silent, we can still obey our call to abide in Christ, to make disciples of all nations, to love our neighbor, to carry out the ministry of reconciliation, etc.

    Lastly, I would be very open to qualifying my statement on power for positive change always coming through obedience if I saw a few counter examples (I could bump it down to “almost always” if you think of a few. I couldn’t find any). The example of “your faith has healed you” is biblically set within the larger picture of Jesus being obedient to the Father in all things, and the command that we have faith in God and Jesus. Even then, you kind of picked one of the hardest one-offs to interpret in the whole NT. What does it mean that their faith healed them? Does it mean that if I have enough faith, I can make God heal me, or do anything else I want? I don’t think it does. I don’t know what all the implications of that phrase are. But I do think our faith only ever makes sense when we see it as mental assent and action based upon previously revealed truth. This implies that God initiates things by revealing truth. God leads and I follow (ie. obey).

    Thanks again for your comments, David. I am really grateful for your help in shading this view.

    ReplyDelete
  5. I really enjoyed that reply! Your heart is aimed in such good directions!

    I thought about having fun writing a long reply using my own "Kingdom of God" blog, and fleshing out how I like to describe things, so we could compare, but I just can't find the time quickly.

    I love to emphasize the strength of the New Covenant and new birth, which affects heavily a person's understanding of obedience and God's character.

    ReplyDelete
  6. When you get the time, I'd love to read it. :)

    ReplyDelete