irishrose: I think we (as in, our society--I'm not speaking to you individually) are under this impression that Christmas has only been secularized in, say, the last century, or even half century. And, though I'll admit it probably has become much more secularized in that time, there were secular elements long before the current crop of dirty heathens.
I guess I am referring largely to popular culture for who, I think, Christmas begins with Ebeneezer Scrooge, transforms into Bing Crosby, morphs into Linus and Charlie Brown, and eventually saturates every element of work, market, school and neighborhood....and Baby Jesus is kept in the manger with the sheeps and wise men under a wandering star. You are no doubt correct that secularizing elements have been at work long before that...actually, the history of heresy and orthodoxy in the Christianity is a fascinating study of where the borders of appropriate thought and action are drawn: and it tells us that there have always been multiple perspectives and different practices within, surrounding and in external conflict with the Church...appropriating, absorbing, transforming, creating mutations of all sorts- including the hymns.
In response to Mr. P's question about the value of a particular Christmas song and how Jesus would have responded to it...I felt could be better addressed in the context of songs that Christians sing- thus the brief introduction of hymns. I think I overstated my case when inflating all Christmas carols with Christian hymns...that wasn't my intention.
irishrose: First, let me clarify that I don't think of religious stories as necessarily "essential components of the human experience." I would more say that they can be significant components of the human experience.
I agree with this as well. Not everyone particpates in a religous community, observes religious ritual, or adheres to religious beliefs: for these people, and they are not a small number, religious stories do not deliver the same import (guidance, instruction, inspiration, solidarity, etc.). But, to qualify your clarification, all of these people live in close proximity and have steady contact with many for whom religious stories do provide that certain mojo. Thus, there are precious few, if any, substantial relationships (with institutions, legal systems, workplaces, neighborhoods, academic settings, etc.) where religious stories are not essential components of the dynamic. Now, this does not mean everyone is a closet theist at heart...or that religion is the defining element...just that the impact of religion is generally and deeply pervasive in human experience.
irishrose: Do you think the belief in a personal god is a defining element of the effect of religious myth, or is that belief ancillary to the stories themselves?
This is an excellent question. First, what is the effect of myth? Campbell describes at least four functions of Myth: 1. Mystical (identification with the ground/source of existence); 2. Cosmological (axiomatic fundamentals of how the comos works) 3. Sociological (rules and ideals that validate the social order); 4. Pedagogical (rites of passage and lessons that guide individuals through life passages). I think this (obviously crude summary) is a workable lens for the subject (and probably fit for another thread).
But, in answer to your question, I think dismissal of the personal God element will obviously impact each of these effects of the myth. I say dismissal because it is an act of rejection, and not a small one either: it is saying "I'm not interested" in what, for many (if not all) is the most important part of the dynamic.
In the context of what we're discussing, saying No to God but saying Yes to these stories about God (as I see it) diminishes the story's impact. By saying Yes to God these stories about God become exponentially more important: they deliver a message of ultimate import with crucial consequences. I don't see how this same sort of crucial ultimacy can be attained without the God factor.
Again, if the God of these stories is more than literary imagination (or psychological manipulation, or social exploitation, or familial abuse, or ideological delusion, etc.) then rejecting this God is cutting oneself off from an experience that (as I see it) is much greater than what can be gained from a personal appreciation of these stories.
