Image by Freepik
Why Christianity?
(10 minute read)
Key Takeaways:
- Reading ancient Eastern texts through a Western, scientific lens distorts their intent
- When myth is reduced to literal interpretation, its deeper theological power is lost
- How we interpret scripture has real consequences
- The real question isn’t “Did it happen?” but “What truth does it reveal?”
In the following posts, I will be exploring the Christian faith. I begin here for a simple, personal reason: it is the tradition in which I was raised and the one I know best. Because it has shaped my thinking and experience, it is also the tradition I feel most able to examine thoughtfully and honestly.
At the same time, I have come to feel that this faith does not hold personal value for me that it once did. What follows are the reasons why.
I hope this exploration will be of interest to readers from many different backgrounds. The questions raised here could be asked of other religious traditions as well.
Christian teachings—articles of faith, doctrines, and long‑held beliefs—can be complex and sometimes challenging to fully understand. The specific list of beliefs may vary depending on the branch or tradition of Christianity one follows, with certain doctrines receiving more emphasis in some communities than in others.
These teachings affirm one God as creator, understood through the Trinity and expressed in the divinity of Christ. Other doctrines—such as the immaculate conception, communion, and transubstantiation—developed over time as ways of interpreting and expressing these core beliefs.
To better understand the Christian faith, it is helpful to consider how it speaks about the afterlife. Questions about what happens after death are not unique to Christianity; ideas about the afterlife have shaped many religious traditions. Here, the focus will be on how Christianity describes these hopes and warnings, and the central figures connected to them.
Since the life and death of Jesus is central to the Christian faith a brief look at the traditional accounts can help bring these themes into clearer focus. For that reason, we’ll begin by clarifying how the spirit world and the afterlife are understood. From there, the other central elements of the faith can be considered more thoughtfully.
- the descent of Christ into hell
- his accession into heaven
- angels by the tomb
- the exorcism of demons from humans and insertion of said beings into innocent animals
- the calming of the sea
Myth vs. Literal History
Some Christians understand the events of Jesus’ life primarily as literal historical accounts. Others suggest that these narratives also function as literary and symbolic expressions, shaped over time to convey meaning about who Jesus was understood to be. From this perspective, the stories can be seen as part of the process by which his significance came to be articulated and the development of the faith.
The use of the word “myth” may be unsettling to some readers. Yet the Jewish and Christian scriptures contain many stories that have long been understood in this way. In time, the reason for using this term will become clearer. For now, it may be helpful to ask:
- Does interpreting these stories strictly as literal historical events fully address what is meant by the word myth?
- Is this approach the best way to make the stories acceptable, intelligible, and logical for modern man?
- Why should the stories be taken at face value and accepted as literal and historical events?
- Is purifying these stories by debasing them to literal status really help the cause for spreading the Gospel, the ultimate aim for a practicing Christian?
At the heart of these questions is not a desire to dismiss faith, but to understand it more deeply. If the word “myth” is misunderstood, then the stories themselves may also be misunderstood—either reduced to mere fiction or confined to narrow literalism.
Before we can assess how these narratives shape belief and practice, let’s first consider what happens when they are treated only as historical reportage. This brings us to a central concern: the problem with literalism.
The Problem with Literalism
Hebrew and Christian scriptures, from beginning to end, are rich with mythic and symbolic elements. Reading them only as literal history may ask the texts to do something they were not originally intended to do. This strictly literal approach is historically relatively recent and can shift the focus away from how these writings were first understood.
What might it mean if the creation narratives in Genesis were understood only in strictly literal terms? How would that shape our understanding of the world and our place within it? How should we approach images such as the promised return and reign of Christ, or the vision of a red dragon with seven heads and ten horns? What, in practical terms, would a consistently literal reading require of us?
In some ways, we may already be seeing an answer. We are living in a time when a small minority of Christians hold particular convictions very firmly. They regard their interpretation as certain and authoritative. At times, they feel called to promote these beliefs strongly within the Christian community and in the broader culture as well.
While Christians throughout history have affirmed the authority of Scripture, the modern movement that insists on strict inerrancy and consistently literal interpretation largely crystallized in the late 19th and early 20th centuries, particularly within Protestant fundamentalism.1
In some cases, this approach has narrowed the richness of these writings and contributed to their use in ways that seek to control or marginalize others.
At times in history, Christian scriptures have been interpreted in ways that supported harmful or exclusionary agendas. Certain readings were used to justify slavery, segregation, apartheid, and forms of Christian nationalism, as well as to defend racial hierarchies, restrict reproductive rights, marginalize LGBTQ communities, and even legitimize violence.
In many cases, there appears to be a limited familiarity with the historical and literary context and formation of Scripture. The writers of both the First and Second Testaments often drew upon mythic and symbolic language as a way of expressing profound theological truths. Within their own cultures, such forms were understood not as deception, but as meaningful and legitimate ways of communicating reality.
There was very little debate about whether the events “happened” or not. The primary concern was the meaning these stories carried and the truths they revealed about God, humanity, and the world. With that perspective in mind, we can better understand how biblical writers drew upon the shared symbols and narratives of their cultures—a dynamic we will explore in the next section, “Borrowed Stories.”
Borrowed Stories, Shared Symbols
The biblical writers did not work in isolation. As participants in cultures shaped by shared symbols and stories, they naturally expressed their faith through familiar narrative patterns. Recognizing this context can deepen our appreciation of Scripture and the world in which it was formed.
Did God literally create the universe in six days? For many ancient readers, that may not have been the central concern. The deeper conviction was that God is the source of the world in which we live. Whether described as six days, six years, or vast ages, the essential point was not the timeline but the affirmation of divine creativity.
Other ancient traditions include stories that reflect similar themes: humanity formed from clay, woman shaped from man, the naming of animals, or accounts of a great flood. Such mythic ways of understanding the world were widespread throughout the Ancient Near East and beyond. Cultures like the Assyrians, Babylonians, Persians, Greeks, and Romans explored their deepest questions about life and the divine through symbolic storytelling.
Even in more recent history, culturally shaped stories have taken on mythic qualities—such as the familiar tale of a young American president who could not bring himself to lie about cutting down a cherry tree. Such narratives continue to shape and reflect the values of a society.
Many theologians, anthropologists, psychologists, and sociologists suggest that one of the enduring purposes of myth is to help cultures make meaning of their experience. This is true as well of stories about the afterlife and the spirit world—heaven and hell, angels and demons. Such vivid narratives and symbols have long served as important ways of expressing humanity’s deepest hopes, fears, and questions.
How else might experiences of faith be shared, if not through stories? For example, the account of Jesus being tempted in the desert can feel more accessible and memorable than abstract discussions about divinity or the triumph of good over evil. Through narrative, complex theological ideas often become more approachable and lasting.
Some may feel uneasy about using the term myth to describe these stories. Still, our reliance on storytelling is unmistakable. Stories shape and reinforce our ideals and values, and even the simplest ones are repeated because they continue to hold meaning.
In light of this broader human need for meaning-making through story, we can now turn more directly to Christianity itself. How does the Christian tradition draw on these shared patterns of myth and symbol, and what happens when its stories about Jesus and the afterlife are heard in that deeper, more imaginative key?
The Christian Myth
The foundations of Christianity draw on a variety of myths to express what believers understand as truth. In our culture, however, the word myth is often used differently. It commonly suggests something that is untrue or doubtful, rather than a story that conveys meaning.
Here, we are using the academic term myth as a literary tool; a story that conveys a meaningful truth about a person, place, or experience.
I have, at times, found myself in conversation with those who read these texts strictly literally. Some are understandably uncomfortable with the term. They often respond by saying, “I’ve researched this,” and then appeal to a dictionary definition to support their view.
To appreciate the richness of any sacred text, it helps to remember one essential point: the Christian scriptures did not emerge from a modern Western context. They were written in a very different time and place. Reading them with sensitivity to their ancient cultural setting can deepen our understanding.
These writings emerged from diverse faith communities shaped by an Eastern worldview. Their understanding of reality was quite different from that of the modern West. When we approach Christian thought primarily through contemporary Western habits of presenting facts and ideas, we may overlook the original intent of the authors—especially in their use of myth, saga, legend, imagery, and symbol.
When we misunderstand the purpose of myth and read it only in literal terms, we can miss the deeper meaning it is meant to convey.
“My point, once again, is not that those ancient people told literal stories and we are now smart enough to take them symbolically, but that they told them symbolically and we are now dumb enough to take them literally.”
John Dominic Crossan, New Testament Scholar, emeritus professor at DePaul University
Crossan challenges us to move beyond a simple either–or approach to scripture. Rather than choosing between literal belief or dismissal, he urges us to ask what kind of truth a story conveys. This reframing invites a more thoughtful reading that seeks theological and symbolic depth instead of reducing the text to a factual debate.
In the end, the question is not whether scripture fits modern categories of history or science, but whether we read it with imagination and humility. When we let these stories speak through symbol and narrative, we discover a depth that literalism alone cannot offer. Approaching Christian myth this way does not weaken its truth; it deepens our understanding of faith.
1 Marsden, George M. Fundamentalism and American Culture. 2nd ed., Oxford University Press, 2006
Updated June 2, 2026. It has been edited for clarity and continuity.
Leave a Reply