Joseph Campbell Mything The M

Joseph Campbell Mything The M

JOSEPH CAMPBELL – MYTHING THE MARK

by Richard Pyle

Joseph Campbell, author of books about myths and subject of the PBS series The Power of Myth, has influenced people’s spiritual views far beyond what one might imagine. Among his admirers is George Lucas, producer of Star Wars, the movie that gave us the line, “May the Force be with You.” That sentence reflects as well as any the New Age belief in God as an impersonal force.

Campbell, in his TV series and book of the same name, also severely criticizes orthodox Christianity. Anyone who becomes a critic is fair game for a critique himself and should be tested to see whether his criticism is scholarly, honest and factually accurate. Unfortunately, Campbell failed on all these counts. He regularly misrepresented the Christian faith, calling a teaching Christian that was unbiblical.

For example, Campbell says: “… good, standard Christian doctrine — that at the end of the world there will be a general supplement and those who have acted virtuously will be sent to heaven, and those who have acted in an evil way to hell.”<1> This is not Christian doctrine. The Bible says no man is saved by his own works. Instead salvation is found in Christ who lived a perfect life and died to pay for mankind’s sins.

Campbell misrepresents the proper Christian view of women: “… Western subjugation of the female is a function of biblical thinking.”<2> “In the biblical tradition … the female as the epitome of sex is the corrupter.”<3> The Bible says the female is made in the image of God (Genesis 1:27), that she is of equal value with the male in God’s sight, (Galatians 3:28) and that a husband’s proper duty toward his wife is to love her with a selfsacrificial love (Ephesians 5:25). The woman is not pictured as the corrupter, that’s Satan’s role. Adam did try to blame her (Genesis 3:12), but God didn’t accept that excuse. Some Christians have mistreated and abused women, but they have not done so because the Bible commands or condones it.

His description of the Christian view of nature and natural urges also is inaccurate. He says “In the biblical tradition … every natural impulse is sinful unless it has been baptized or circumcised.”<4> He also says “… nature is thought of as corrupt, every spontaneous act is sinful and not to be yielded to.”<5> The biblical view of nature is that God created nature and then pronounced it good. Man sinned and brought misery and death on himself and to the creation over which he had dominion. Creation has been marred, but still testifies to its creator in all his divinity and power.

In the Christian view, natural human impulses are not in themselves sinful. God has created man with needs and appetites that are acceptable in their proper context and proportion. Sex is acceptable to God when it occurs within the confines of marriage but unacceptable when it occurs during an adulterous affair that destroys a family.

Campbell also erros in presenting his own unsubstantiated opinions and assumptions as facts. For example, he says, “… there is no physical heaven anywhere in the universe,”<6> which begs the question, “Has he been all over the universe to verify that?”

Campbell says that for 20th century western man, the Bible “… does not accord with our concept of the universe or of the dignity of man,”<7> a statement that overlooks the millions of people who find it acceptable.

Campbell says the Bible is mostly metaphoric, a collection of myths and stories loosely woven around characters who may or may not have existed. He regards Bible stories as being on a par with American Indian legends, Eskimo myths and aborigine tales. Campbell calls the virgin birth a symbolic event.<8> He regards Christ’s resurrection the same way. <9> He calls heaven a metaphor. <10> He says stories of Christ’s miracles are poetry, not factual accounts.<11> He considers all elements of Christian belief to be metaphors, not facts.<12>

While dismissing much of the Bible as myth and metaphor, Campbell sidesteps the literary difficulty of regarding the Bible as such. There are portions of Scripture that are symbolic. Other parts, however, are clearly not symbolic and shouldn’t be interpreted as such. Biblical passages that are prose, straightforward statements of fact or principle, some of which even contain direct statements that the writer intends to be read that way, cannot be interepreted otherwise. An example is Luke’s introduction to his Gospel:

“Many have undertaken to draw up an account of the things that have been fulfilled among us, just as they were handed down to us by those who from the first werre eyewitnesses and servants of the (word). Therefore since I myself have carefully investigated everything from the beginning, it seemed good also to me to write an orderly account for you…” (Luke 1:1-3)

Campbell likewise does not address the difficulties archeology presents to one who views the Bible as myth. William F. Albright, noted archeologist and author, wrote of the Bible’s historical reliability, “Discovery after discovery has established the accuracy of innumerable details and has brought increased recognition to the value of the Bible as a source of history.”<13> Millar Burrows of Yale wrote, “…archeological work has unquestionably strengthened confidence in the reliability of the scriptural record.”<14>

Further testimony to the Bible’s stature is found in its record of fulfilled prophecy. There are numerous biblical prophecies of events that already have taken place. In instances where they can be checked, the prophecies have a record of 100% accuracy with regard to specific events, places and people. Biblical prophecy is more than primitive men sitting around campfires, making upstories about where they came from, where they are going and why life is the way it is.

Having critiqued Christianity’s critic, let us move on to analyze what Campbell would set up in place of Christianity, a belief system he defined in “The Power of Myth.”

In Campbell’s cosmology God is not a personal being, but rather an impersonal force as energy. <15> He speaks of God as “… transcendent ground or energy itself.” <16>, or that a God is “… a personification of a motivation, power or value system that functions in human life and in the universe …” <17>. For Campbell, the creation or nature is an emanation from this impersonal force <18>. Man, as a part of nature and thus one with the divine force, is divine <19>. He says, “you are god, not in your ego, but in your deepest being, where you are one with the nondual transcendent.” <20>

In Campbell’s view, because man is divine in his innermost parts, man should look inward for truth, authority and guidance. According to Campbell, we should listen to the demands of our hearts <21>, follow our ‘bliss <22>, “… rely on our intuitions, our true being.” <23>, and get in touch with our real selves <24>. This inward journey leaves behind: fears, desires, and duties <25>; thou shalt nots <26>; ego defined as “… what you think you want, what you will to believe, what you think you can afford, what you decide to love, what you regard yourself as bound to” <27>; and rules derived from the historical needs and tasks of society, once one is mature enough to have internalized them to some extent <28>. In addition to these internalized societal norms, the extent of man’s inward or subjective authority is limited in Campbell’s system by the requirement to be compassionate, which he defines as seeing yourself in others <29> and sharing their suffering <30>. Further, he indicates that following our inward leading should not bring us into the pursuit of bestial self-interest <31> or living to our animal nature <32>.

From the Christian perspective there are many difficulties with Campbell’s system. First, if God is an impersonal force, why is the most complex and highly developed manifestation or emanation of that force — man — distinctly personal? In Christian terminology — how can personal man be made in the image of impersonal God? Indeed the unique diversity of all creation speaks of a personal creator, not an impersonal force, being behind it all. Why would an impersonal force emanate anything? Did this force desire company or fellowship? Did it have a sense of creativity? If so, doesn’t that begin to make it personal, not impersonal?

One might ask about the poverty of life under an impersonal force. Can it hear our prayers and pleadings? Is it moved with compassion at our suffering? As an impersonal force does it have any empathy with or identification with or understanding of the fears and trials in the lives of us personal beings? Isn’t it much better to have life under the living God of the Bible, who tells his people to boldly bring their prayers and petitions before Him that they may “… receive mercy and find grace to help us in our time of need”? (Heb. 4:16).

Campbell would have us believe that man’s goal is getting in touch with that divine force that spawned us all, being one with it or “dissolved in identification” with it <33>. Is this desirable ? Is it a desirable thing to be dissolved in identification with an impersonal force, balk into a great energy field, presumably giving up those things that make one a personal being — identity, individuality, and uniqueness? Isn’t much better the Christian’s pursuit — eternal life with God where individuality, uniqueness, and identity are maintained but purified of that which contaminates, purified of greed, hate, selfishness and self-ambition?

Campbell creation as being one with the force from which it emanates. This makes him a pantheist. In the biblical view, God the creator is distinct from his creation. While the creation reflects God and we can learn something of Him by studying it, creation is not God any more than a painting is the painter.

In Campbell’s system, man is divine. However, human history and experience testify that man is not divine but fallible and finite. The multiple failures and inabilities of individuals and the corporate crimes and tragedies of society prove that man is fallen and incapable of mounting God’s throne.

The biblical position is that though man is made in the image of God and has been given dominion over the Earth, man is not God. As God said through Ezekiel: “In the pride of your heart you say, ‘I am a God; I sit on the throne of a god in the heart of the seas! But you are a man and not a God, though you think you are as wise as a god.” (Ezekiel 28:18-20)

Satan said to Eve in the garden of Eden, “You will be like God” (Gen. 3:5). He used the prospect of attaining divinity as an inducement to disobey God.

In Campbell’s system, where each man is divine and looks to himself for truth, authority and direction, there is no basis for judging the morality of another’s actions, even actions as heinous as Adolph Hitler’s. Under Campbell’s system, one can say that in murdering 6 million Jews that he was following his own inner leading, doing what he thought was right.

Campbell does try to set limits on where one’s inner leadings may lead, but the limits are flawed. The requirement that one must not act in base self-interest, for example, does not pass the “Hitler test.” Hitler may have believed he ordered the murder of concentration camp victims not in his own interest but in the interest of the world. Campbell’s requirement that we internalize societal norms is valueless. To what extent do we internalize society’s norms? If each man is God, what societal norm can bind him?

Campbell also requires that behavior be circumscribed by compassion. He defines compassion as seeing one’s self in others and sharing in their suffering. Neither aspect of this definition of compassion requires that one do anything about the suffering of his fellowman, instead it would seem that it would be enough in Campbell’s system to mearly empathize and sympathize with another’s pain. Much better is the Christian definition of compassion, which requires that one love his fellow man with the same devotion with which he loves himself and that he express this love by satisfying others’ needs.

Campbell’s limits on the extent of one’s inner leading then are too vague and can’t prevent harmful behavior.

The biblical records contains the history of a time when men looked within for truth. It was one of the most sorrowful and chaotic times in the history of Israel. It was the period covered by the book of Judges, a time of war and turmoil and moral laxity. Much of these troubles resulted from the fact that it was a time when “… every man did that which was right in is own eyes.” (Judges 21:25).

Endnotes:

1. Joseph Campbell with Bill Moyers, The Power of Myth, Edited by Betty Sue Flowers, Doubleday, New York, 1988, pg. 226.
2. The Power of Myth, pg. 172.
3. Ibid, pg. 47.
4. Ibid,.
5. Ibid, pg. 99.
6. Ibid, pg. 56.
7. Ibid, pg. 31.
8. Ibid, pg. 176.
9. Ibid, pg. 57.
10. Ibid,.
11. Ibid, pg. 142.
12. Ibid, pg. 219.
13. Albright, William F., The Archaeology of Palestine, Revised edition, Harmondsworth, Middlesex; Pelican Books, 1960; ppg. 127- 128, quoted in Evidence Demands a Verdict by Josh McDowell, Campus Crusade for Christ, San Bernadino, Calif., 1972, pg. 68.
14. Millar Burrows, What Mean These Stones? Meridian Books, New York, 1956; pg. 1 quoted in Evidence Demands a Verdict, pg. 69.
15. The Power of Myth, pg. 207, 54.
16. Ibid, pg. 213.
17. Ibid, pg. 22.
18. Ibid, pp. 53, 54.
19. Ibid, pg. 210.
20. Ibid, pg. 211.
21. Ibid, pg. 147.
22. Ibid, pp. 229, 148.
23. Ibid, pg. 14 of the Introduction.
24. Ibid, pg. 143.
25. Ibid, pg. 162.
26. Ibid, pg. 154.
27. Ibid, pg. 149.
28. Ibid, pg. 154.
29. Ibid, pg. 214.
30. Ibid, pg. 174.
31. Ibid, pg. 160.
32. Ibid, pg. 174.
33. Ibid, pg. 210.

(c) 1990, PFO – All rights reserved by Personal Freedom Outreach. Reproduction is prohibited except for portions intended for personal use and noncommercial purposes. For reproduction permission, please contact: Personal Freedom Outreach, P.O. Box 26026, Saint Louis, Missouri 63136, (314) 388-2648.