The Use of Language
Which leads, improbably, you may think, into my last two subjects, the first of which is to re-visit the discussion about language; and here, having done quite enough analysis, I simply want to make some positive suggestions about how we might go forward, based on what I have already said:
- First, we need to be modest in our claims for what we are doing by emphasising the metaphorical nature of any discussion about God. Even if we believe that every word of the Bible was dictated verbatim by the Holy Spirit, it still ended up in human language; but we also then have to go on to explain that the Bible we read in English is a translation from various languages, that some of it can't be properly translated and some of it is syntactically incoherent; so let us be careful, on many counts, about the claims we make.
- Secondly, because of the nature of metaphor we require language, as we would in discussing literary metaphor, in order to strengthen each other in our understanding. It is not enough to hold a doctrine of free speech, we also need to understand the purposes of free speech. The Bible in particular but Christian language in general has, for too long, been used as a form of weapon, a bit like a cluster bomb, exploding and sending bomblets of misery all over the place. Firing explosives to proclaim the good news is more than a little paradoxical.
- Thirdly, the result of metaphor is diversity; we will not all agree on what the metaphors mean and we will, if we are creative, construct some new metaphors. One of the most interesting discussions in the 20th Century about the nature of God has been the idea that God is not impassive but was, for example, in the gas chambers with the murdered Jews.
- Fourthly, there may come a point where the use of constructive language produces a consensual thesis which we might call a doctrine, or a creedal statement; but we must be careful that any such statements are provisional, the best paradigm we've got at the moment.
- Finally, even as fine theologians, or librarians, or literary critics, we are servants of those who seek our assistance. This is, I suspect, less of a problem for librarians than it is for theologians; but, never mind. We all know what we need to do.
Which leads, improbably, you may think, into my last two subjects, the first of which is to re-visit the discussion about language; and here, having done quite enough analysis, I simply want to make some positive suggestions about how we might go forward, based on what I have already said:
- First, we need to be modest in our claims for what we are doing by emphasising the metaphorical nature of any discussion about God. Even if we believe that every word of the Bible was dictated verbatim by the Holy Spirit, it still ended up in human language; but we also then have to go on to explain that the Bible we read in English is a translation from various languages, that some of it can't be properly translated and some of it is syntactically incoherent; so let us be careful, on many counts, about the claims we make.
- Secondly, because of the nature of metaphor we require language, as we would in discussing literary metaphor, in order to strengthen each other in our understanding. It is not enough to hold a doctrine of free speech, we also need to understand the purposes of free speech. The Bible in particular but Christian language in general has, for too long, been used as a form of weapon, a bit like a cluster bomb, exploding and sending bomblets of misery all over the place. Firing explosives to proclaim the good news is more than a little paradoxical.
- Thirdly, the result of metaphor is diversity; we will not all agree on what the metaphors mean and we will, if we are creative, construct some new metaphors. One of the most interesting discussions in the 20th Century about the nature of God has been the idea that God is not impassive but was, for example, in the gas chambers with the murdered Jews.
- Fourthly, there may come a point where the use of constructive language produces a consensual thesis which we might call a doctrine, or a creedal statement; but we must be careful that any such statements are provisional, the best paradigm we've got at the moment.
- Finally, even as fine theologians, or librarians, or literary critics, we are servants of those who seek our assistance. This is, I suspect, less of a problem for librarians than it is for theologians; but, never mind. We all know what we need to do.