Whether or not the story is literally true there are many spiritual truths that can be discerned for those who take the time to meditate and reflect.
I think the most immediate symbolic meaning of the resurrection is that of spiritual rebirth. Death and resurrection is the dying to the old self, the one trapped in the world, and awakening to the Self, the one liberated from suffering. Christianity's symbol of the risen Christ, and Paul's teachings of "Christ in you", captures that hope and power of self-transcendence.
As far as the literal interpretation of these things, inherent in that is this message, even though it may not be recognized consciously as symbolic per se. It nonetheless plants that "seed" into the subconscious mind which is full of symbolisms, archetypal forms which drive the conscious mind.
James Fowler's work on Stages of Faith, analyzes the structures of the various stages, and the key for me in understanding the Mythic-Literal stage, as well as carrying over into Stage 3 the Synthetic Conventional stage, is that the meaning of the symbol and the symbol itself are fused together in their ways of holding them. It's not until Stage 4 faith, Individuative Reflective, that the meaning can be separated out from the symbolic form, and be recognized in other forms as well.
Someone at the previous stages cannot do that, so to them, if you don't have the symbol, you don't have the meaning. The resurrection must be literally true, or the meaning is lost. I find that helpful to recognize that in others, who will often bawk at the suggestion that the same meaning is found in other religions. "You're trying to say that Jesus is just a
mere symbol?," demonstrates to me that the nature of symbolism is not yet emerged from the symbol itself in their minds.
The symbol and the meaning are one and the same. And it doesn't matter which religion that is within either. It still follows the same developmental arc because of the how we are constructed as human beings. So that's really what literalism is about. Understanding the symbolic nature of these things is nothing that can be forced to be realized, because the threat of the meaning being lost is too great. To see the same meaning elsewhere, threatens their faith. "They can't both be true!".
Personally, I think where faith develops to the next stages comes about as the meaning is being lost in how they are currently being held. A crisis of faith ensues, and the meaning is, again on a subconscious level, being sought to be found elsewhere. For a time, this can be a lateral move, seeking out other systems to do what their current one was doing, joining another religion and trying out their symbols in hope of finding that truth they once experienced at that level previously.
New Age religion for instance, is a lateral move for many coming out of Christianity, becoming a form of Experimental Christianity, with crystals instead of crosses. But they are still held in the same ways because they are still operating within that particular stage of faith, where the symbol and the meaning are fused. Or atheism too can be the same thing, replacing Science with a capital S as external authority for the meaning lost in belief in the Bible as external authority.
It really isn't not about "what" is being believed in all of the world's religions, but the "how" they are being believed. It's the "style" of what is believed that points to the basic vessel of the developmental stage of faith that holds the belief, no matter what the belief or the meaning is, which includes secular beliefs as well.
There is value in the reading both the liberal theologicans such as Crossan or the more conservative perspective.
There is, but I think they are speaking to different audience's needs. For me, to read a conservative author's explanations of how the Bible is inerrant, will have little meaning to me at this stage I am at. At one point in the past it would have, but not any more. I've already believed that way in the past, but no longer can because that cake for me cannot be unbaked, as it were.
Where the value can and does come in for me is to help grow and more "remember what it was like yourself", view, which helps me to be more compassionate and understanding, as opposed to simply thinking "I'm right and you're wrong". That thinking would be wrong on my part. Each way of thinking is "right" for that particular stage, or mode of perception.
For the conservative reading the liberal, I tend to see that as just simply seeing them as "wrong". That's been my experience, and it fits into what I understand about developmental theories in general, how that a stage one has not yet experiences, simply cannot be seen, or understood in that context. It ends up being seen as simply "wrong". But if you had previously been at that stage yourself, then you can remember that mode of perception, because you have personal experience with it.
Whether or not we agree on all the details is much less important than we are both on our journey centred around Christ and we are able to hear each others learnings.
Yes, and that is the hard part. Each person tends to see that how they currently see things is the "right" way, naturally because it's how we think and believe. The challenge is to be able to see through the others eyes, to put that mode of thinking back on yourself and see as they do. And at the heart of that, is the impulse towards the Divine, at any level, at any stage.
That's a very hard thing for people to recognize because they are looking at the fingers pointing at the moon, the beliefs or ways of talking and thinking about it, rather than looking at fact of pointing itself, and what it is we are all wanting to point to. That to me is the "Spirit's eye view", which is beyond all beliefs.
It is that Peak from which we recognize all paths lead up the mountain, and we can see some at the lower elevations on their climb, and others at higher elevations. Each elevation affords both insights and limitations to views, until at the top it all become clear and we are off the paths and standing together.
Sometiimes I wonder what was going on for Paul or the Gospel writers. I'm sure there was the release of potent spiritual forces in the first century Christ walked the earth that can not be accessed as readily as the Apostles.
I'm not sure what you mean by that. I believe that the Spirit of God, is as much fully accessible today as then, and in all ages. What I could agree with is that they may have been a lot more collective impetus because of having a great one in their midst.
When someone encounters a true spiritual master today, it has that impact on the one who has direct experience with them. I've encountered someone like that myself, and the effect was surprising to me. Something gets "transmitted" by proximity. But that something is available to everyone willing to do the work of allowing it in themselves.