I read an essay some time ago, I can't remember who wrote it, but he identified as a Christian.
He wrote that he didn't take the miracles of Jesus literally; according to him they did not actually take place, but are metaphors for something deeper; stories pointing to a spiritual truth.
He also said that the Virgin birth may or may not be true, but that it didn't matter if it wasn't; Jesus would still be divine either way.
Further more; the demons spoken about in the Bible are not actual demons but mental manifestations or metaphors for something else; a spiritual sickness for example. They are not real entities that exist outside of the mind. I think he said that angels are manifestations of God's love, but again, not real beings - not something to be seen, but moments in time when you are touched by God's hand. (That would mean that they're no supernatural beings, good or bad, in the created world; only God's love and the total rejection of God's love - darkness and evil, as experienced and created by humans).
... and lastly, he said that we don't really know what happened at the Resurrection and that there're many different possibilities, maybe the body of Christ disappeared somehow and that Christ appeared before people in spirit and not bodily.
I think the general thought was that you don't have to believe that any supernatural events took place (except for Christ appearing in spirit, I would assume) to be a Christian. That you can take all the events in the Gospels that go beyond the laws of nature as metaphors pointing to a deeper truth.
I'm interested to know what people think about this view. Is it possible to hold this view and still be considered Christian?
(Edit: I should point out that these are not my opinions, just to be clear.)