This thread is an expansion of the conversation I’ve been having with Peter Wilkinson. We have been engaged in the typical left v. right debate of biblical interpretation (non-literal v. literal). Can we find a purple (red+blue) view of God.
The reason I’m pushing this is because I feel our Christian metaphors are a stumbling block to spreading Jesus’ message. I think that the key for an open source theology would be to figure out how speak theology without metaphors or at a minimum with different metaphors. I’m not sure it is possible but I wonder what theology would look like if we could make that adjustment. I have a feeling that often the rejection of Christian theology may be a rejection of the metaphors rather than the actual message. Maybe letting go of our attachment to these particular metaphors could be the key to an explosion in the Christian movement.
For example, lets look at the metaphor of monarchy. Jesus and/or God as king ruling over his kingdom. What if people reject or have bad feelings that are evoked by that metaphor? Would it be any better to say God is like a president? What if we could explain our relationship without this metaphor at all?
Another example is the metaphor of Jesus coming into our “heart”. Would a person need to have another salvation experience after a heart transplant? It is easy to see how any educated person would struggle to accept theology that uses this language if that was not something they were introduced to at a young age.
I would love to hear everyone take a stab at explaining some theology outside of the language of metaphor without replacing it with another metaphor that is just as elusive. I realize that is very difficult, but I think worth a try. My thesis in this little study is that if we did strip away the metaphors we might find that most of our disagreements disappear. We may also find something different underneath. In my own life I realized that without the traditional metaphors of my infant faith I had no faith at all. Taking this exercise in my own life caused me to rebuild my faith on firmer footings that do not depend on an acceptance of any one particular metaphor for God and salvation. What do you think?
Re: Beyond metaphor - beyond left v. right
Danutz wasn’t saying which side of the issue either of us was taking - but one of my points was that the word ‘reign’ (which evokes ‘monarchy’) is indeed metaphor, but greatly modified in what it actually means. It goes beyond Jesus being a ‘servant king’; it was a ‘reign’ (through a victory) over sin and death - whereby believers now might ‘reign in life’ - Romans 5:17. So part of the task is not to find better metaphors, but to understand how the NT is changing the very meaning of a metaphor (in this case from its OT antecedents) - in a way that is surprising and unexpected.
I think danutz leapfrogs at least one issue, which is that biblical description of God is metaphor rather than literal equivalence. It has to be, since even language, and the idea of God speaking to us, is an accommodation into human, finite communication. But what about God as ‘father’ (and Jesus as ‘son’)? Are they metaphorical approximations rather than unchangeable titles? Does it make a difference to replace ‘father’ with ‘mother’? There have been plenty of discussions about this kind of metaphor substitution in gender-neutral language projects.
I also take the point that many biblical metaphors are archaic; we not only have the various ideas of ‘monarchy’, but also a ‘kingdom’, the use of the word ‘Lord’ and so on. Some of this metaphorical vocabulary is so much part of the lingua franca of Christians that we don’t give it a second thought. But there is, always, some kind of conscious or subconscious interpretation to be made into the linguistic thought-forms of our own times. Hence the value of some effort at historical contextualisation - and I don’t altogether think we should be encouraged not to make the effort by being given contemporary substitutes for slightly archaic metaphors.
I think the point about ‘heart’ is pushing the issue to an extreme; most people understand that heart means both the physical organ and the innermost centre of our affections, and can readily distinguish between the two. But the phrase ‘inviting Jesus into your heart’ is not a NT expression, though the fact that it is used today tells us that it reflects at least one aspect of Christian initiation.
Left v.right? Danutz seems convinced I am a right wing republican to his left wing liberal anarchism. Politics don’t translate that way to me - certainly not in my own life, and not as I see them practised in the NT.
My thoughts on Tolstoy are just the same as I would have on any televangelist whose personal life contradicted the message he was preaching. In Gandhi’s case, my question is whether the influence Tolstoy had on him concerning the ideals of the sermon on the mount was quite what he was able to deliver in practice - the outcome of the political strategy he insisted on being a Jinnah who turned from a unity to a secessionits position, a disunited India, mass population displacement and a bloodbath.
Despite the above, I still have a suspicion that danutz’s problem is not so much with the metaphor systems of Christianity, but with the realities which they signify.
Re: Beyond metaphor - beyond left v. right
Well it seems that despite my effort to move beyond left v. right we are not there yet. When I say left/right I mean theological left/right rather than political. Although political ideals tend to in many cases line up with theological views.
Peter, I don’t see where I’m jumping the issue of our image of God. It is exactly the opposite. I’m attempting to put language around God (or atleast our image of God). That is the core of theology. I don’t have a problem with Christian metaphors (father, son of God, price of peace, etc) or the metaphors of Jewish tradition (king, judge, creator, etc). It is the inability for us to talk about our faith without those metaphors that troubles me. It doesn’t really trouble me so much that it keeps me from God, but it troubles me that it is keeping most of the world from God. It troubles me that the difference between a few pieces of language causes hate, death, and destruction around the world.
Is our attachment to the particular metaphors in our theology so strong that without them we could no longer know God? What if we define an open source theology that is skinable? Like most modern open source software, should our theology come with a selection of skins that would provide an individualist color scheme that integrates seamlessly on top of our base product? I veiw the metaphors that we use to describe God as the skin for our theology, but I think we spend too much time comparing our individual skin selections rather than working on the base product. (pardon me for using a metaphor…LOL)
Re: Beyond metaphor - beyond left v. right
May I suggest that this is not a matter of red vs. blue but an understanding of linguistics and the way that the human mind is able to make sense of the world. This is a quote from an essay by C.S. Lewis, the title of which I have now forgotten (sorry!):
‘I suggest two rules for exegetics. (1) Never take the images literally. (2) When the purport of the images – what they say to our fear and hope and will and affections – seems to conflict with the theological abstractions, trust the purport of the images every time. For our abstract thinking is itself a tissue of analogies: a continual modelling of spiritual reality in legal or chemical or mechanical terms. Are these likely to be more adequate than the sensuous, organic, and personal images of Scripture – light and darkness, river and well, seed and harvest, master and servant, hen and chickens, father and child? The footprints of the Divine are more visible in that rich soil than across rocks or slag-heaps.’
I don’t think that it is possible for us to think a-metaphorically; the question is what we replace biblical metaphors with. Lewis points out that ‘abstract’ thinking is also metaphorical - but perhaps its ‘legal or chemical or mechanical terms’ are more appealing to us because that is the language which our culture uses to make sense of the world. It is therefore the language which for us has content and that is precisely what a metaphor does: it brings content to words that could otherwise have no meaning due to their largesse. ‘God’ is particularly relevant here since understandings of who God is differ so very widely from culture to culture, faith to faith.
Postmodernism is very keen on linguistics - especially the oppressive nature that language can have (gender, race). There is a lot to be learnt here in the emerging church. But deconstruction of language has led to the belief that words have no referents outside of themselves; that language is so many sounds floating around that we think we understand and use to communicate with but are really deluding ourselves (I think this is how it works, please correct me if I am wrong). Here then is the belief that we can detach meaning from words and stand, as it were, outside of language to observe them. To replace some sounds with others does not then make much difference.
However, I think this to be both mistaken and naive. Language and culture are inextricably intertwined, and each informs and shapes the other. And we think chiefly using language and our language shapes our thinking. I think that is why it is unsuprising that the idea of stripping away metaphor should come about in a scientific culture/language that is always talking about stripping things away to see how they work; or ‘reducing’ something to its ‘elements’ - what does these mean? They are metaphors! Scientific metaphors! My point is: we simply cannot think without metaphor.
That said. Danutz’s point is well taken. The use of a metaphor is that it gives content to an idea. What the emerging church therefore needs to do, I believe, is find ways of giving content back to biblical metaphors. And that task is one we must do as a body (now there’s a nice metaphor!)
Re: Beyond metaphor - beyond left v. right
We have long sought to use metaphor as a way to explain an idea but we are now coming to realize (in the church and in psychology) that it is metaphor that precedes idea. We shouldn’t be looking for ways to remove metaphor from our lanuage but to return to biblical metaphor unclouded by the economic language that pervades our communication today.
Re: Beyond metaphor - beyond left v. right
That doesn’t work because you can’t ask people to remove all their knowledge about the universe and about thier lives in order to understand what the bible is saying. Why not just use different metaphors we can relate to or try to say things in plain language without metaphors where possible? How do you convince someone that has been oppresed by a monarchial political situation to desire a "King"? How do you convince somone that has been wrongfully imprisoned by an unjustice legal system that they should want to embrace God as their "Judge". Are you so attached to the biblical metaphors that you would rather lose God than lose the mataphor? Do you risk that people will reject God simply because they reject your metaphors?
Also, if you rely so heavily on these metaphors to show God’s nature, then don’t you also risk that you are painting a picture of God that has all that bad qualities of a king, judge, or even father. There is nothing wrong with using metaphors. It is how we speak of God, but I’m suggesting that we also say outloud that these are metaphors. We shouldn’t get confused and mistake the metaphor for the real God that is behind the symbolic language.
We should take care to say God is "like" a king but he isn’t really a king. God is "like" a judge but he isn’t really a judge. God is "like" a father but he isn’t really a father.
Re: Beyond metaphor - beyond left v. right
I like the CS Lewis quote the most here. It seems to be the only thing that makes sense.
It is silly to say God is ‘like’ something because it removes him even further away from our world of meaning. All language has at some point in some perspective negative connotations so do we remove language from the realm of Christian thought altogether?
Come on Danutz I’m sure there’s a better way to put it. If we need to describe someone in indescribable terms, saying ‘like’ instead of ‘is’, removes that someone further away from our experience. If I wanted to describe you as courageous, I would say Danutz is a Lion. If I say Danutz is like a lion it is far more cold and clinical, and less experiential. Is the negative connotation of a killer lion going to reduce the metaphor and make it useless? I don’t think so.
The other thing is if we do believe God reveals himself to us in any way the only way to describe that revelation would be through metaphors because that will be true to our experience and still have that element of mystery. Saying ‘like’ makes it just a scientific observation.
Re: Beyond metaphor - beyond left v. right
chandybass, You completely missed the point. My apology for being a horrible communicator. When you say above that "danutz is a lion" you ARE IN FACT saying that "danutz is LIKE a lion". Do you really think I am a literal lion? Of course not! "LIKE" is the language of metaphor. I’m just warning us that sometimes people (literal interpreters of the bible) have been running around taking the meatphors literally and making our theology into somthing absurb. Isn’t that what you appreciated in the lewis quote. I AM AGREEING WITH YOU!
I’m NOT suggesting that we stop using metaphors. I’m saying the opposite, but I want us to make it more clear in our theology that the metaphor is NOT to be taken literally. You would think we wouldn’t have to make this point, but we do because most people I encounter DO take them literally. They literally think the world was created in 6 days or that their will be (or has been) a literal fullfillment of the book or revelation.
I’ve yet to see anyone accept my challenge here and a try to phrase some theological points in literal language.
Re: Beyond metaphor - beyond left v. right
a minor point, but, grammatically speaking to say something is like something else is to use a simile, not a metaphor, therefore ‘like’ is not the language of metaphor at all. I think that you, Danutz, do not really agree with Lewis’ quote - if you did you would not be asking people to phrase theological points in literal language when Lewis’ point is that humans think metaphorically, whatever the context. Can I suggest that the literal understanding of metaphors that may be present in the American church is not all pervasive, and that globally and historically many if not most have had no trouble grasping that a metaphor is a metaphor is a metaphor - despite trouble with despotic kings and the like. Sometimes it is worth the struggle to grasp a metaphor, in the face of immediate difficulties with association, for the riches that are contained within it.
But this aside - perhaps you could give an example of what you mean.
Re: Beyond metaphor - beyond left v. right
Yes you are correct about metaphor/simile. I was being more generic and I should have said "symbolic language" to cover all the varieties of symbolism. People do still have trouble with this concept of not taking metaphor literally.
If you would like an example, lets look at the first one in the bible. Take the symbols used in the book of Genesis. Adam, Even, a garden, a tree of knowledge of good and evil, a serpent. The whole story is a parable/metaphor/myth. But we have huge problems in our theological discussions when people try to take those metaphors/fictional characters as if they were literal non-fictional people, places, and things.
That is my point. There are some people that demand we take those things literally or we can’t even discuss theology.
Re: Beyond metaphor - beyond left v. right
Why should any theological points be made in non-metaphorical, literal language anyway?
My challenge to danutz is: make any points about anything in non-metaphorical language. All language is metaphorical - and describes one set of things - things we perceive - in terms of another, which we call language. A form of words which is always metaphorical - relying on common sets of mental associations, memories, analogies, and the matrix of language within which thoughts are expressed.
We do not have direct access to anything outside of ourselves other than through perceptions (which some would claim are created by language itself). We express perceptions verbally in metaphorical codes. Everything we see and describe - even in scientific language - is an interpretation, and therefore not literal.
That’s not to say we cannot know truth. We may not know truth completely, but we can know it. Especially about God. We can be more confident of knowing God than we can of anything else in the world. That’s quite useful. Even through metaphor, God can make himself known as he really is. At least, that is the claim made about himself through the bible - (a) through people’s experiences of him as recorded in the biblical narrative (b) through the way God uses the bible to bring his truth alive to us.
I don’t think you are going to like or agree with those last two propositions!
Re: Beyond metaphor - beyond left v. right
when i say ‘Danutz is a lion’ there is a very important difference from saying that ‘Danutz is like a lion’. The latter statement places you next to the lion. But the first statement ‘merges’ you and the lion. "like" is the language of similie not metaphor. a similie is a comparison. a metaphor is a merging of meanings.
Finding new metaphors is something that we could try. I’ve heard of metaphors such as God the ‘counselor’ (psychologist) ‘conductor’ (orchestra) and so on.
But the attempts to move away from traditional metaphors also mean that we are moving away from something else. The church, the worldwide body of believers. The point is not that the metaphors have lost their meaning but that the church has to live out the true meanings of these metaphors. We are not lone individuals who can think of God as we please. We are part of the body.