Column A metaphor can save us
By JEANNETT BATZ
The merlot was an indulgence;
usually I avoid wine at lunch, afraid Ill doze over the keyboard the rest
of the afternoon. But deadline was met, and the wine was rich and fumy. I held
the glass loosely at the stem, letting it tilt and swirl while I reminisced
about this years Good Friday liturgy -- its stark beauty, its deep
emotional power. Halfway through what I thought was an eloquent account, my
friend looked up from his pasta.
You really believe all that?
All ... what? I asked, afraid he was referring to my
maudlin adjectives.
That Christ rose from the dead, he said impatiently,
to give us eternal life.
The merlot glow dissipated like fog in sun. I reached for the
pitcher of iced tea, buying time.
Did I believe it?
Maybe not literally, detail by detail as exact historic
fact, I hedged, although I dont disbelieve it either. I just
dont know. And to be honest, Im not even sure the literal facts
matter that much to me. Because as metaphor, I believe it absolutely.
I might as well have thrown my head back and issued a war whoop.
Charges of hypocrisy flew across the table, landing hard on the side of my
face. Instead of turning the other cheek, I ducked and tried to deflect them.
You know, Mike, quite a few theologians and church officials would say
the same thing if you got them drunk and injected them with truth
serum.
Then theyre betraying their flock, because those
people depend on the resurrection to be literally true. Thats the very
ground of their faith. They build their lives on it.
Exactly, I replied. The people who believe at
the level of metaphor dont want to shake the faith of people for whom
that makes no sense, so they just translate back and forth. Which is fine,
because theyre all saying the same thing, anyway. Its just two
different levels of truth.
Mike cocked his head, and I knew I was in for it. So who
says the truth of metaphors any higher or better than the truth of
history? He pushed away the rest of his pasta and leaned forward.
What is truth, anyway?
Pilate had asked the same question.
Nobody had answered.
Taking advantage of my silence, Mike fired again: What good
is a metaphor about resurrection if the resurrection didnt physically
happen? For that matter, what good is metaphor, period?
I took a stab about as forceful as a grapefruit knife.
Metaphor is a way to express relationships too profound for regular
prose, I recited. Its the language of symbol; it builds
bridges and connects dissimilar things and reconciles opposites and embraces
paradox. My list, cribbed from old English class notes, kept growing.
Metaphor, I said finally, transcends the material
world.
Driving home, I continued the conversation alone, and suddenly my
points seemed more convincing. Saying something was metaphor didnt mean
it wasnt true, it meant it was true in the most universal way possible.
Jesus literally dying to save us was a powerful fact, a martyrdom worthy of
worship. But if you raised it to metaphor, that death represented the ability
of pure, self-sacrificing love to redeem all of creation. If the metaphor was
true, then its pattern was written into the very structure of the cosmos.
Wasnt that better?
I caught myself immediately: Better was the wrong word. Mike
already thought this notion of metaphorical understanding was elitist, a sort
of Gnostic wink-and-nod fraternity thriving on its own sense of superiority.
Me, I preferred to think of it as a more abstract way of making sense of the
same reality. But I wasnt doing too well making sense of metaphor
itself.
The next day, I called a friend whos a poet. Got
anything good on metaphor? He copied three Wallace Stevens poems for me.
One was called The Poem That Took the Place of a Mountain, and had
a line that read, He breathed its oxygen. The other was called
Poetry is a Destructive Force, and its metaphor tied poetry to
the lion that sleeps in the sun./Its nose is on its paws./It can kill a
man.
If poetic metaphor could kill, maybe a resurrection metaphor could
save us. In the way that, when we flounder for meaning, an idea can save us,
and when we ache with self-hatred, the memory of being loved can save us. Ideas
and memories dont have literal, physical form; you cant stick your
fingers in their sides. So why should we require a Biblical resurrection to
have more physical verifiability than love itself?
Besides, I reminded myself, I dont disbelieve in the
historical resurrection. I just see it more as revelation of redemptive love
and transcendent spirit, rather than a historical act unique to Christianity
changing everything from that point forward. As a little girl, Id learned
about every detail of the resurrection as extraordinary -- which made it rather
disconcerting when I found out that crucifixion was a common practice of the
times, and that dozens of Greek mystery cults told stories of
resurrections.
Now, I found that commonness and universality as reassuring as the
extraordinary event itself. Which sounded, to Mike, like heresy.
Wed simply have to agree to disagree, I decided. But every
time I brushed aside the unfinished conversation, something rewove the web.
Scanning an old copy of The Golden Bough for another purpose, I saw that
James George Frazer had gathered examples from all over the world positing a
sacrificed god whose body is dismembered and buried, thus giving rise to the
fruit trees, beans and wheat grasses that sustain human life. Turning to a
Joseph Campbell book on myth, I found myself staring at an illustration of an
Egyptian bas-relief, the sacrificed Osiris with wheat growing from his body.
Checking the index, I flipped to the section on the Mayans, who believed the
universe was set in motion by the sacrifice of a god. Then I read how, in 1524,
the Aztecs hotly defended their own gods before a council of 12 Spanish friars,
saying, With their sacrifice, they gave us life.
I could just imagine the friars chastising the Aztecs, telling
them their beliefs couldnt possibly be true, because it was Christ who
died to give us life.
A little more metaphorical understanding, and they could have all
knelt down together.
Jeannette Batz is a staff writer for The Riverfront Times,
an alternative newspaper in St. Louis.
National Catholic Reporter, July 14,
2000
|