My work focuses on a new methodology that advocates using the monomyth to present the Gospel of Christ. Even without using the monomyth as an apologetic tool, very little has been written on using storytelling as a mode of presenting the Christian faith in evangelism with nonbelievers. In Searching for God Knows What, D. Miller (2004) built the case that systematic theology does not accurately represent the scope of the Gospel. Miller (2004) suggested that when presenting the Gospel, especially to non-Christians, storytelling is the optimal mode of teaching.
Miller’s (2004) justification for this is that the Gospel “was a message communicated to the heart as much as to the head; that is, the methodology was as important as the message itself, that the ideas could not be presented accurately outside the emotion within which the truths were embedded” (p. 56). Accordingly, God did not communicate these truths “to us through cold lists and dead formulas” (Miller, 2004, p. 55). Miller (2004) listed two biblical narratives as examples, those of Job and Hosea; both of which express truths of God’s relationship with mankind, not through didactic statements, but through stories that are capable of expressing feelings, emotions, and experiences in a manner that lists of factual truths could never do proper justice (p. 216).
The conclusion of Searching for God Knows What is a presentation of the Gospel using William Shakespeare’s Romeo and Juliet, which Miller (2004) described as “the most beautiful explanation for the gospel of Jesus ever presented” (p. 218). In the balcony scene of the play, Juliet offers herself to Romeo, if he would be willing deny his name, which meant denying his family and his very self. At this proposition, if Romeo chooses to deny his name, “he will not gain love for love’s sake, but rather Juliet herself […] and the two shall become one” (Miller, 2004, p. 225). Juliet initiated this exchange with her spoken invitation of love, and then Romeo’s response completed the transaction of love with his trust in her words. Miller (2004) noted that Christ gave a similar proposition saying that only people who are willing to hate their families and even their own lives are worthy to be his disciples (p. 224). Through Jesus’ call of discipleship and also the pact agreed upon between Romeo and Juliet in the balcony scene, the image portrayed is that “[t]rue love, love in its highest form, must cost the participants everything. Both parties would have to be willing to give up everything in order to have each other” (Miller, 2004, p. 224). In the story of Romeo and Juliet both parties deny everything, finding union in their deaths, just as Jesus and his followers are likewise united in death through Jesus’ crucifixion and resurrection.
In The Hero with a Thousand Faces, J. Campbell (1972) presented a compilation of myths and folktales from all corners of the world in order to illustrate the basic truths that are embraced by a large cross-section of humanity. The opening sentence of this book expresses the far-reaching implications of this concept:
Whether we listen with aloof amusement to the dreamlike mumbo jumbo of some red-eyed witch doctor of the Congo, or read with cultivated rapture thin translations from the sonnets of the mystic Lao-tse; now and again crack the hard nutshell of an argument of Aquinas; or catch suddenly the shining meaning of a bizarre Eskimo fairy tale: it will be always the one, shape-shifting yet marvelously constant story that we find, together with a challengingly persistent suggestion of more remaining to be experienced than will ever be known or told. (Campbell, 1972, p. 3)
Campbell (1972) named this single, constant story that boils up from man’s unconsciousness the monomyth (pp. 36-37). Campbell (1972) urged his readers to study the monomyth’s consistencies and examine its variations, “and therewith come to an understanding of the deep forces that have shaped man’s destiny and must continue to determine both our private and our public lives” (p. 256).
One of these consistencies found within the monomyth is that of a virgin maiden who has fallen prey to an evil trick or has been put under a curse that has cast her in a bodily prison of eternal sleep. Campbell (1972) categorized and entitled this reoccurring story motif as “The Lady of the House of Sleep” (Cambpell, 1972, p. 110). Campbell (1972) compared two tales, one from Norse mythology and the second from the Brother Grimm’s fairy tales as an example of this theme (pp. 62-63). The first tale features Brynhild who slept in her virginity trapped in a circle of fire until the coming of Siegfried. The second tale, “Little Briar-rose,” also known as “Sleeping Beauty,” similarly involves a young lady who “was put to sleep by a jealous hag” to be awoken later by a prince. In the case of Briar-rose, she was not the only one inflicted by her curse, but her entire world also fell to sleep, even the animals, and a thick hedge of thorns engulfed her castle home (pp.62-63). A similar fate is found in a Persian tale from One Thousand and One Nights in which a Persian city was turned to stone “-king and queen, soldiers, inhabitants, and all- because its people refused the call of Allah” (Campbell, 1972, p. 63).
The stories of Gautama Sakyamuni (6th century BCE, India) and Moses (Ancient Hebrew) are another comparison that Campbell (1972) used to illustrate the monomyth (pp. 31-35). Gautama left his life of princely comfort to find the meaning of life, until he finally came to enlightenment under the Bo Tree. In this state of enlightenment he became the Buddha and “went back into the cities of men where he moved among the citizens of the world, bestowing the inestimable boon of the knowledge of the Way” (Campbell, 1972, p. 34). Moses likewise, according to Campbell (1972) led the Israelites out of Egyptian slavery and once in the wilderness he went up Mount Sinai and “[t]he Lord gave to him the Tables of the Law and commanded Moses to return with these to Israel, the people of the Lord” (p. 34). At the conclusion of this comparison, Campbell (1972) stated the following:
Whether presented in the vast, almost oceanic images of the Orient, in the vigorous narratives of the Greeks, or in the majestic legends of the Bible, the adventure of the hero normally follows the pattern of the nuclear unit above described: a separation from the world, a penetration to some source of power, and a life-enhancing return. The whole of the Orient has been blessed by the boon brought back by Guatama Buddha- his wonderful teaching of the Good Law- just as the Occident has been by the Decalogue of Moses. (p. 35)
Campbell (1972) reasoned that the result of a complete hero cycle is nothing short of the “freedom to live” (pp. 238-243). The hero is free from guilt but not free from his sins because he is good (Campbell, 1972, p. 238). Instead, the hero finds his freedom in knowing “the true relationship of the passing phenomena of time to the imperishable life that lives and dies in all” (Campbell, 1972, p. 238). At the heart of this ongoing, shape-shifting monomyth is the hero who Campbell (1972) described as “the champion of all things becoming, not of things become, because he is. […] He does not mistake apparent changelessness in time for the permanence of Being, nor is he fearful of the next moment (or the “other thing”), as destroying the permanent with its change” (p. 243). At this level of consciousness, freedom is gained as the “Prince of Eternity” brings restoration to all thins as he kisses the “Princess of the World” (Campbell, 1972, p. 243).
In the epilogue, Campbell (1972) asserted, “There is no final system for the interpretation of myths, and there never will be any such thing” (p. 381). Despite this claim, Campbell (1972) explained that mythology has been interpreted in various methods from man’s effort to explain nature, as simple fantasy stories that were later misunderstood by the successors of the creators, as allegorical instructions for a society, the composite production pushed out of the recesses of man’s collective unconscious, a mode from which man’s metaphysical insights have arisen, to “God’s Revelation to His children” (p. 382). Campbell (1972), however, insisted that the interpretation of mythology can and must be interpreted under all of these viewpoints depending on the current functional need of mythology today, since “mythology shows itself to be as amenable as life itself to the obsessions and requirements of the individual, the race, and the age” (p. 382).
It is from Campbell’s piecing together of the monomyth that I have derived the research question: “Is there a well-known piece of Chinese Literature that can be used as a cultural starting point to present the Gospel of Jesus Christ?” As a Christian theologian, I interpret mythology from the judging viewpoint that mythology is God’s revelation to the world. Mythology is the unconscious truths concerning God’s nature and relationship to humanity, which have crept into man’s stories through recurring symbols and themes. Just as creation points to divinity, mythology when pieced together as a monomyth, points to the highest truth and authority, the divine Trinity – Father, Son, and Holy Ghost. Jesus is the prince of the monomyth and he has come to restore the cursed state of the princess and her world.
A parachurch organization known as Campus Crusade for Christ employs a method of evangelism that involves posing the question: “Have you Heard of the Four Spiritual Laws?” (Bright, 1965). This approach, as with others of its kind, present the Gospel of Jesus, the most basic teaching of Christianity, through a list of facts concerning man’s depravity and God’s act of salvation for mankind. “The Romans’ Road to Salvation” (Beebe, n.d.) is another example of a scriptural tract that follows this approach with a listing of verses from Romans that guides a person to salvation. Even if a popular evangelism tract such as these is not used in evangelistic conversations, many Christians still present the core beliefs of Christian salvation in a similar method, because this has been the method taught to many Christians.
This is problematic for three reasons. First, this method is not as conducive as it once was in what has become a largely postmodern world, in which many people reject absolute truths, especially in the realm of religion. Second, this method does not present Christian beliefs in a manner that connects people’s current position, beliefs, and culture in their daily lives to the Christian faith. Instead, Christians presenting the Gospel in this method tend to build up walls with a “we’re right and you’re wrong” presentation of the Gospel, creating a “you” vs. “us” dynamic in such relationships where religious faith is shared. Stated simply, this method starts from a position of conflict, therefore the message is responded to with hostility. Third, this method is difficult to present to someone who is not already familiar with the terms and concepts of the Christian faith, such as the Fall, sin, penalty of sin, condemnation, hell, the nature of Christ, the incarnation, holiness, righteousness, atonement, forensic justification, grace, faith, eternal life, and heaven.
Recent methods and ideas of presenting the Gospel message focus on working through the culture, movies, music, and literature of the receivers of the message; therefore starting with ideas and concepts the receivers already know. Presenting the Gospel through this method resolves all three of the problems associated with the facts-based presentation of the Christian faith. First, this method is relevant in a postmodern world, because it begins from a truth, a concept, or a story that is already part of the non-Christian’s current worldview. Second, this method does not build division like the facts-based presentation of the Gospel, but instead it starts with a common understanding between the Christian and the non-Christian that can be used as a connection to the Gospel of Jesus Christ. Third, this method uses terms and concepts that the non-Christian already knows.
One method of making connections and working within and through a culture to present the Christian faith is to utilize Campbell’s (1972) work with the monomyth that depicts the recurrence of similar themes and story motifs found across all cultures, which point to a higher truth known unconsciously by all of mankind, yet A Christian who believes that the Christian faith is the highest truth could then use the stories of any culture and pull out the common themes of the monomyth and point those unknown truths to the Christian faith. can be seen manifest consciously through the art, literature, and poetry of humanity.
Considering these problems of a facts-based presentation of the Gospel and the method of using the monomyth for presenting the Gospel of Jesus, I went to China in August of 2006 with the research question: “Is there a well-known piece of Chinese Literature that can be used as a cultural starting point to present the Gospel of Jesus Christ?” The answer to this research project could be beneficial for helping a Christian present the Gospel in a method that is more effective in its relation to a Chinese non-Christian’s culture and worldview, and in a method that might be more conductive for future discussion and relationship with the non-Christian. I also believe this research would be beneficial to Christians who might only be familiar with the systematic, facts-only presentation of the Gospel.
Beebe, W. (n.d.). The Romans road to heaven. Lebanon, OH: Fellowship Tract
Leauge.
Bright, B. (1965). Have you heard of the four spiritual laws?. Orlando, FL: New
Life Productions.
Campbell, J. (1972). The hero with a thousand of faces. Princeton, NJ: Princeton
