NEW YORK -- There are two major arguments being presented in Sallie McFague's book "Metaphorical Theology: Models of God in Religious Language" (1982). One is the problem of religious language and the other being the essentiality and insight to metaphorical theology. I find her assertion over this thesis as remarkable, considering that her approach to the analysis and prospects of these controversies achieve cyclic phenomena. Meaning, it does not only rest as another debate on the philosophical narrative of religion and religious experience.
What is religious language then? In my own understanding, to some extent, it is a language distinct from the language we use everyday. It is talking about God; the specialized terms that are attributed to several aspects: cultural or religious. But as we talk about God we drift into the "metaphysical" and "mysterious" language. There is, on the other hand, shortage of understanding this aspect. Is our understanding of God limited to the Biblical sense? If that is so, is the God-description in it sufficient to satisfy the sense or even justifiable? To delve into this topic we should know what the meaning of language is. Language, Webster describes, as "the expression and communication of emotions or ideas between human beings by means of speech, either written or spoken." But language can also be concrete or abstract. To speak about God is to speak beyond our common grounds. When we speak about God we tend to alienate ourselves in this world. What does that mean? We are attuned to just believe the attribution of God in Biblical descriptions far from our comprehension. Some sections in the Bible, perhaps, provide stories to better explain these essences. This is to, in a sense, remove inconsistencies and redundancies so as to shape religious framework. Ian Ramsey in his book "Religious Language: An Empirical Placing of Theological Phrases" (1963), illustrates a point: "We may (also) expect religious language centre on 'God' as a key word, an 'ultimate' of explanation, which becomes the subject of significant tautologies... We all know how the phrase 'God is Love' has been criticized as being a platitude, because it is alleged to say nothing... If so... the logical structure of the phrase 'God is Love' would be something as follows: We should have to tell a story of human devotion until a characteristically religious situation was evoked." McFague quotes Simone Weil who said that though she might be sure of her devotion, there is a "great uncertainty at the level of words adequate to express the reality of God." Being sure of God, that there is an entity, a supernatural Being guiding the universe is not a problem but how do we exactly describe the immanence of this of this Being and how to relate it to the multitude is a dilemma. One of the forerunners in their religious expression of God is the Christians who interpret the "Word of God" in several ways. But how do Christians dwell deep into the core of that religious experience and relate to the everyday interaction with other people is the great question. McFague says modern man is not in the "sacramental age" where every phenomenon is being connected to divine power or intervention. She also blames the traditional church, which has constricted the religious interest to idolatry and irrelevant: "It becomes idolatrous because without sense of awe, wonder, and mystery, we forget the inevitable distance between our words and the divine reality. It becomes irrelevant because without a sense of immanence of the divine in our lives, we find language about God empty and meaningless." We must, in this case, look into the plurality of the religious context. But what I am concerned is the relativity of McFague's intentions over religious language. If she says that though she considers the images and words about God in the Bible as authoritative and appropriate she deconstructs the sentiments over religious literalism. I do, however, agree that modern man should look into the religious context more significantly but also review its literary appropriateness. McFague also talks about "metaphorical theology?" Metaphors give color to one's literary work. In my experience in creative writing, a poet would bargain for anything just to find that fitting metaphor for his poetry. Filipino poet Jose Garcia Villa raved over his metaphor: "Imagine God a peacock-/Imagine Him crucified,-/Over Him the beauty/Of great peacock feathers//... O Lord of Peacocks,/Behold Thy tribe below./O Peacock God, Hear our peacock prayers.//" (Poem No. 79). Or even "I made myself to burn/Brightly to seek and learn/The unknowable temperature/Of God's calenture.//" (Poem No. 82). However, ordinary language is highly metaphorical, especially when we describe our everyday experiences. By incorporating metaphors in our everyday language we make our stories dense and rich. But metaphorical theology? How do we talk about God and His attributes? Logical, grammatical, ethical and spiritual aspects intertwine in this. How do we permeate God's supreme calenture? By speaking of God in the metaphorical sense will make a connection to the multitude, for only in metaphors can we present God who is mysterious and mystifying. How did Jesus describe the Kingdom of God to ordinary people? Thru the power of the parables. McFague points out that by using this metaphoric analogy, it achieves a grip on the understanding of man. By comparing situations or things that have uncommon makes religious expression more effective. One curl at direct statements, they're unpalatable but the power of parables make situation interesting and impersonal. Every person has its way of using the "religious language"; it is constantly being altered upon by influences. One's view of God differs from the other.
What is religious language then? In my own understanding, to some extent, it is a language distinct from the language we use everyday. It is talking about God; the specialized terms that are attributed to several aspects: cultural or religious. But as we talk about God we drift into the "metaphysical" and "mysterious" language. There is, on the other hand, shortage of understanding this aspect. Is our understanding of God limited to the Biblical sense? If that is so, is the God-description in it sufficient to satisfy the sense or even justifiable? To delve into this topic we should know what the meaning of language is. Language, Webster describes, as "the expression and communication of emotions or ideas between human beings by means of speech, either written or spoken." But language can also be concrete or abstract. To speak about God is to speak beyond our common grounds. When we speak about God we tend to alienate ourselves in this world. What does that mean? We are attuned to just believe the attribution of God in Biblical descriptions far from our comprehension. Some sections in the Bible, perhaps, provide stories to better explain these essences. This is to, in a sense, remove inconsistencies and redundancies so as to shape religious framework. Ian Ramsey in his book "Religious Language: An Empirical Placing of Theological Phrases" (1963), illustrates a point: "We may (also) expect religious language centre on 'God' as a key word, an 'ultimate' of explanation, which becomes the subject of significant tautologies... We all know how the phrase 'God is Love' has been criticized as being a platitude, because it is alleged to say nothing... If so... the logical structure of the phrase 'God is Love' would be something as follows: We should have to tell a story of human devotion until a characteristically religious situation was evoked." McFague quotes Simone Weil who said that though she might be sure of her devotion, there is a "great uncertainty at the level of words adequate to express the reality of God." Being sure of God, that there is an entity, a supernatural Being guiding the universe is not a problem but how do we exactly describe the immanence of this of this Being and how to relate it to the multitude is a dilemma. One of the forerunners in their religious expression of God is the Christians who interpret the "Word of God" in several ways. But how do Christians dwell deep into the core of that religious experience and relate to the everyday interaction with other people is the great question. McFague says modern man is not in the "sacramental age" where every phenomenon is being connected to divine power or intervention. She also blames the traditional church, which has constricted the religious interest to idolatry and irrelevant: "It becomes idolatrous because without sense of awe, wonder, and mystery, we forget the inevitable distance between our words and the divine reality. It becomes irrelevant because without a sense of immanence of the divine in our lives, we find language about God empty and meaningless." We must, in this case, look into the plurality of the religious context. But what I am concerned is the relativity of McFague's intentions over religious language. If she says that though she considers the images and words about God in the Bible as authoritative and appropriate she deconstructs the sentiments over religious literalism. I do, however, agree that modern man should look into the religious context more significantly but also review its literary appropriateness. McFague also talks about "metaphorical theology?" Metaphors give color to one's literary work. In my experience in creative writing, a poet would bargain for anything just to find that fitting metaphor for his poetry. Filipino poet Jose Garcia Villa raved over his metaphor: "Imagine God a peacock-/Imagine Him crucified,-/Over Him the beauty/Of great peacock feathers//... O Lord of Peacocks,/Behold Thy tribe below./O Peacock God, Hear our peacock prayers.//" (Poem No. 79). Or even "I made myself to burn/Brightly to seek and learn/The unknowable temperature/Of God's calenture.//" (Poem No. 82). However, ordinary language is highly metaphorical, especially when we describe our everyday experiences. By incorporating metaphors in our everyday language we make our stories dense and rich. But metaphorical theology? How do we talk about God and His attributes? Logical, grammatical, ethical and spiritual aspects intertwine in this. How do we permeate God's supreme calenture? By speaking of God in the metaphorical sense will make a connection to the multitude, for only in metaphors can we present God who is mysterious and mystifying. How did Jesus describe the Kingdom of God to ordinary people? Thru the power of the parables. McFague points out that by using this metaphoric analogy, it achieves a grip on the understanding of man. By comparing situations or things that have uncommon makes religious expression more effective. One curl at direct statements, they're unpalatable but the power of parables make situation interesting and impersonal. Every person has its way of using the "religious language"; it is constantly being altered upon by influences. One's view of God differs from the other.
(Published in Sun.Star Bacolod Dec. 16, 2006 under my column, The Mango Generation)
No comments:
Post a Comment