On metaphor and more

It is difficult to understand the intent of Duncan Cameron's letters (March '08 and April '07) as he ends up agreeing with what he seems to be trying to attack or correct. Duncan forgot that Zander Dunn's letter (March 2007) was responding to Calvin Brown's (January 2007) narrow interpretation on the virgin birth. Duncan agrees with me that if we are able to carry on a vibrant conversation then our denomination could be challenged; neither of us could accept a denomination that would not. However, I am not convinced we currently have that open climate; especially when statements like “must be believed by Christians,” and not sharing a belief in the virgin birth “undermines the whole authority of scripture” are used. Diversity of opinion I will celebrate, blind insistence on seeing things only from a perspective that mollifies a minority I cannot support – and neither could Luther nor any of the Reformers.
Duncan seems to think that faith is a sum of its contents, that to believe in Jesus one simply must believe certain things about Jesus and that one could have a faith devoid of content. This unfortunate confusion leads Duncan to insist on things which may not really matter. It is as if he wants us to think that the details of Jesus' life are like ingredients in a recipe and if we get them all in and mix them properly then we shall have a good faith, a faith with content. Yet as other letter writers pointed out, “my faith is not a house of ecclesiastical cards propped up by the Immaculate Conception,” and, “tell us where in the New Testament Jesus says that to be his disciple we must believe his mother was a virgin.” It seems to me that rather than adherence to particular statements or assertions, Jesus required attention to how we live – keeping his commandment.
In Duncan's response to Dunn's letter he tried to make a distinction between metaphor and reality saying “it's sad when we mistake metaphor for reality.” He is confused about the use of metaphors and mistakes the application of his own example. Based on his use of Tom Cochrane's Life is a Highway metaphor, it is Calvin Brown and not Zander Dunn who mistook a metaphor to be reality. But is he suggesting that metaphors are not real? Isn't the whole use of metaphor based on the simple fact that the transference of meaning can evoke a greater sense of meaning, of reality? What can be said better than “Juliet is the sun,” or “he fell flat on his face” or “Jesus is prophet, priest and king?” If a metaphor is not real then it is dead and meaningless.
Duncan asserts that the gospels together provide a complete picture and that some parts shouldn't be ignored. This was exactly the point I was making (December 2007) about the difficulty some must feel who put so much weight in the idea of the virgin birth. To suggest that difficulty goes both ways misses my point; Duncan reinforces my point very well.
Finally, it would seem that Duncan and I are both committed to that reassuring phrase that we as part of a reformed body must never forget: “under the continual illumination of the Holy Spirit.” It is a great arrogance to believe that we have finally got it all figured out. I welcome the days when that spirit of truth and openness will once again fill our meetings and permeate our discussions so that we can discern God's will and not simply have to listen to the will of others.