Some More Random Thoughts on Philosophers that I Read during Seminary, or a Third Maieutic Brief

It is difficult to know where to start writing or thinking when dealing with language. Moreover, the task becomes even more difficult when the focus is placed upon religious language. I have always seemed to struggle with language and its ability to really communicate truth since I was in college. My Greek professor would always say to us, "Words have usage, not meaning" or "Context is the message." Ever since then, I have been intrigued and perplexed about language.

The primary way that I structure reality is through language. And, being that I have a religious world structure, my reality is described through the lens of religious language. But, how is it that I can talk about something that is not empirical? Is the language that I use different from ordinary language in use only or is it qualitatively different? The only way that I have been able to answer this is by accepting both. Somehow, the language that I use for God is similar to ordinary language yet different than ordinary language.

When I talk to someone about God, when I share my faith to a lost person, or when I discuss my ontological views the language that I use is often quite impotent even though the task is very important. The ramifications of this are quite startling when I remember that most or all of my religious language comes from the originary language of Scripture. I do not seek to undermine the authority of Scripture, but in all that it does offer me it always falls short in explaining God or even my existence. However, I am soon caused to remember that God's revelation has been progressive and that God's revelation of Himself is found most fully in Jesus Christ. I am sure that I can talk about God because God has first talked to me.

Eberhard Jungel in God as the Mystery of the World seeks to discover a way to use language when talking about God. In today's world boundaries have been overlapped between religious and scientific language. Jungel states, "the multiple meanings which adhere to our words in daily usage force a science concerned with unambiguity to clarify the various possibilities which language has to call different things by the same name" (Jungel, 268). Thus, I think that Jungle contends that by matter of fact language can refer to two totally different things by the same name. But, what do I do now when I talk about God? What if someone is thinking about something totally different than my concept of God? Jungel attempts to answer this question by determining that there are three different types of predications or three ways to view language when talking about God.

The first of these predications is to view language as univocal. When I view language as univocal, I consider the sameness of things or that language is the same whether talking about trees or talking about God. This view does attract itself to me on the basis of its simplicity. It would be grand if I could talk to someone else about God the same way I can talk to someone about being human. The logic of this statement and view of language falls apart when I consider the Incarnation of God in Jesus Christ. Univocal language denies the transcendent nature of God. It makes all things immanent, there is no room for an "other than".

The second predication is to view language as equivocal. Equivocal language is totally opposite from univocal language. This view of language makes all things different and unique. It allows me to use the word "God" but does not allow me to define "God." Equivocal language also falls short when I consider the Incarnation. Equivocal language only has room for total transcendence, therefore there is no room for an Incarnation. Ultimately, I think that this view of language leads to a possible linguistic atheism.

In light of these two extremes, Jungel purports a third view of language -- Analogy. Analogy is a synthesis, a model of similarity. This view of language takes a more utilitarian and realistic view. Though things are the same, they are different; and even though things are different, they are at the same time somehow the same. When I use the word "tree" I have a specific image in my mind of a tree that is unique. When I communicate the idea of a tree, though the images are different in each mind, they are still somehow the same. It is my contention that this thought is allowable when thinking "God" because of the analogous use of language. Analogy allows me to talk about God while insuring the transcendence of God.

Yandall Woodfin also has much to say about language and meaning in his chapter, "The Sound of Meaning." Woodfin sees the reality of language as only found in relationships. He states, "One can invent artificial vocables or signs but these are used intelligently only when these are employed within some previously articulated pattern or transpire within established coherent linguistic relationships" (Woodfin, 129). Thus, my Greek professor was not totally correct in his statement, "Words have usage, not meaning." Indeed, words have meaning in and of themselves but these meanings would be incoherent if used outside of particular patterns. Hence, the sentence, "Eat cap page blue cloud run while the switch be wood" makes no sense at all even though the words do have individual meaning.

Woodfin concludes his chapter in an enlightening statement which makes further distinction between religious language and Christian language. Religious language for the Christian is to be used primarily in a function. I am glad to hear a philosopher restate emphatically the goal of proclamation. Language is not just a thing for the Christian, it is a way to make the world a brighter place. I proclaim the Gospel, I use religious language, and speak about meaning in Christ, "in the hope that the spiritual affinities between the biblical and contemporary situation will coalesce in a gracious illuminating moment" (Woodfin, 143). Jesus Christ, the Incarnate Word, is the light of the world and I believe with Dr. Woodfin that when this Word is proclaimed and believed the world will become a brighter place for all humanity.

Dr. Newport has much to say about the questions surrounding meaning and religious language. The biblical language is indeed a unique language. I not only believe this in faith, but I also agree with Newport that, "historical events are revelatory only when they are accompanied by the revelatory word." He continues, "it should be noted that God sometimes reveals himself by words alone through inspired biblical writers" (Newport, 118). I hope that I do not disagree to much with, but in the end I must place my emphasis upon a faith relationship with God rather than the revelatory truth of Scripture. I do not mind being called a person of the Book since the Bible is primarily personal and redemptive; but, I would much rather be known as "one being in Christ" and "a person of the Way."

I was greatly intrigued by the article written by Soskice. She contends that behind the metaphors used in both science and religion, the base issue is finding, "the way in which language may mirror or fit the world" (Soskice, 325). She has shown me that when I use religious language I need to realize that the problems which I have are not unique to me. Even though I am attempting to speak or write about a God who transcends the boundaries of knowledge, I am somehow capable of depicting the reality of God.

In the end, I do believe that language is capable of expressing truth but only in a limited way. However, God knows the limitations of language. The paradox is evident especially in religious language. Jesus is the fullness of the Godhead yet he emptied himself and took the form of a servant. Perhaps the only way to express reality is through the use of paradoxical language; furthermore, perhaps reality is paradoxical in itself!