| Ponderings | ||||||||||||||
| March 4, 2003 | ||||||||||||||
| Today I have been thinking about mythology. I've been reading a book called "Wild at Heart" by John Eldridge. In it, he addresses what it means to be a real man and why men in the church seem to be bored with Christianity. He proposes that there is much deeper truth to the mythical story of the damsel in distress and the need of men to be warring against something, and I think that he is correct. The question is where have we failed in teaching people. Where is the interface between mythology and reality? If mythology rightfully teaches us that a real man's passion, the essence of his heart and manhood, are indeed to have a battle to fight, a beauty to rescue, and an adventure to live; and if a woman's femininity is distinctly tied to her being fought for, having adventure to share, and a beauty to unveil, then what might mythology also teach us about how such things are granted? Is it possible that along with the powerful and true archetypes of men and women that mythology also speaks about the source of their essence, their heart, and their character? Is it by chance that Arthur, the Pendragon of England, awaited a quest on an evening dedicated to a Being Wholly Other? Is it merely coincidence that the mythology of Greece and Rome repeatedly attributed the quests, missions, and feats of heroism to the will of the gods? Do ancient and primitive cultures rightly see the supernatural dynamic of blessing and initiation as more significant for making men and women than physical development? Do so many stories place significance on the name of man being his essence and character merely as artistic or poetic license, or is there some deeper truth? Is it just because of my heritage that the deepest challenge to integrity is when my father tells me "remember what your name is" or is it because there is truly something powerful about a name, something that can only be drawn from the supernatural workings of God? Is it a false dichotomy to draw a line between a woman's attractive personality and her physical beauty? Perhaps's Shakespeare's sonnet concerning a flower that abuses its beauty being more horrifying than a rotting weed rightly explains our repulsion at a physically flawless woman who lacks grace, charm, or refinement. Perhaps this is why Eliza Doolittle is such a wonderful heroine after her physical essence and behavior are melded into a unity. And perhaps Paul the apostle speaks of this in his theology concerning personal wholism and unity of thought? Too many thoughts to be answered in one day, but an interesting contemplative journey. May we learn to bear the image of our creator rightly and purely! |
||||||||||||||
| Comments? Thoughts? Send them here! | ||||||||||||||