More on the realities of words

I have been thinking more about words and reality; both the objective reality that we accept by faith is concretely outside of ourselves, and also the subjective reality that appears to be located inside our awareness and 'occurs' as we subjects interface to and interact with that objective reality. And I have been thinking about how the objective reality seems so often to be mediated to us via words, and some would say even when we 'experience' that reality first hand, we still interpret and remember the experience through words. If this is true, then words constitute our interpreted reality.

The extent to which or words are accurate symbols of a common or shared experience of reality is the extent to which they can be used to communicate (and to 'share') that same reality to others. But let a Protestant try to talk to a Jehovah's Witness about the idea of the 'soul' for instance, and the meaning of the word is so different between the two that communication cannot happen, and the two cannot meaningfully share their experience and understanding of reality. I would say there are a lot of words, phrases and concepts that have entirely different meanings to many people, making communication of the deeper things quite difficult. And, thinking back to Nowen's epilogue, if someone has not encountered/experienced the reality behind our words then they will not have any meaning to them at all.

I am trying to think of the implications of this. Here are a few I can think of (just throwing thoughts out there, rather than stating categorically as a mature view):

1. If words are symbols that can themselves have different meanings to different people, we cannot assume that people will understand even if we formulate our sentences very well
2. We need to listen very carefully to people.
   
3. We need to listen respectfully and if something does not make sense we ought not to assume the person is wrong, but we should try to arrive at a full understanding of just what they are saying first.
   
4. When speaking ourselves, particularly of serious things, or things that go beyond the surface, we should probably try to speak in images that paint pictures for people to see what we are talking about.
5. If the images themselves are ineffective to communicate, we may need to 'show' the person experientially
6. If images are mere symbols (or metaphors) that point beyond themselves to a reality (or evoke that reality in the mind of another), then the words are not the reality itself. Therefore a statement is not true in and of itself, but only as it points someone truly to reality. To elaborate, just as a photo cannot capture the entirety of that which it portrays (without remainder), our words will never capture and fully embody the reality to which they point.
   
7. If 6. is true, then statements that seem to be in conflict can both be true, even if they oppose each other, because they are not designed to be absolutely true but to subjectively point to something (or an aspect of something) in reality.
8. A statement can only be said to be true when communicated in a way where the recipient understands the same meaning of the words as the speaker, and the speaker's meaning reflects the reality to which the statement points.
9. Theologies, dogmas, traditions, philosophies are all models; word-constructs of reality, and thus point to the reality but do not 'own' it as such. One way of putting this is that statements are images, or 'idols'. They are not the thing itself. Therefore, statements can have the risk of being treated as idols.
10. If 9. is true, then we need to be careful about our relationship to statements, and ensure that we love/worship that which is behind them rather than the correct word formulation.
11. Having said 10., words and statements are necessary to share.
12. By evoking an image from words we are actually creating a reality for a person to experience in their imagination, to 'see in their mind's eye' which will, hopefully,  provide the encounter necessary to fill the words with meaning.
    

I think back to the parables of scripture. Jesus spoke of the kingdom of God in parables. He spoke to a people who had already defined the meaning of the kingdom of God according to shared (though varied) expectations and hopes. Given this, and given that Jesus came to (re)define what the Kingdom of God was, he was unable to use those words (or the word Messiah) to convey the meaning and reality he came to teach and proclaim. So he used parables to 'throw beside' images of the reality he had come to reveal to the world.

In this sense, the words did not create the reality of the kingdom, but they communicated the concept of that reality to the hearers, and did so ONLY for those who could receive the words (See Matthew 13). And yet, by communicating the concept of that reality, did the words not invite the hearers to come and participate in that reality? Did they not create a 'land' for people to enter?

Going further in thinking about the power, and especially the creative power, of words I remember reading Walter Brueggermann's commentary on Genesis, where he explores the idea of God 'speaking' the world into being. God calls things into being, and the things 'listen' and respond in obedience. His theological exploration of this is quite good. He notes that, while God's call is sovereign it is "not coercive but evocative. It invites but it does not compel... thus, it may be resisted and unheeded." (p.18). I find it interesting that if the objective reality itself was called into being by words, and if all calling and vocation from God comes from words, and if even our wandering from God's reality can be described as an 'unheeding' of God's words (and a listening to the words of the serpent instead and receiving his mediated reality), then the creative (and destructive) power of words is far greater than I have previously understood. God speaks reality into being, and as we listen and receive his word by faith, we participate in God's reality. and yet, we have the ability to ignore his reality and understand the world in words of our own, in words and images provided by the media and a barrage of songs and sounds and ads and TV shows and movies and posters. An SMS can break a heart.

In this way, the word of God is very powerful, and very important to our life and peace, but I think in many ways the words of the scripture have become foreign to us and hard to relate to (I hear this from so many people who try to read the Bible but really struggle to understand it). The words themselves have been redefined, and the images have been lost (we have come a long way from understanding the significance of nailing one's ear to a door, for example). It is the preacher's (and teacher's) job to find good words to invite people into God's reality and help them to share in it. But I do think the crucial thing is for God himself to be revealed and encountered as the reality behind the words.

This thought evokes very strange ideas in my mind. Words could very well become doorways to God's presence (the 'sacrament of words'). the words which point to God are the words through which God reveals himself, and thus the words are a doorway to communion with God. How many of us can speak of encountering God himself when reading his word?

Read more...

Development on biofuels

If you have read my post does biofuel kill people?, then you might be interested to read this article in today's The Age newspaper online. Seems the UK has wisened up, hopefully others will follow suit.

Read more...

A word about our focus and the locus of reality

As I continue to reflect on the concept of 'words' and of 'presence' I have read an interesting post on Open Source Theology that asks an interesting question: do our words reflect or point to that which exists outside and beyond them, or do they, by being spoken, evoke a reality? I suppose from a Biblical perspective this question goes back to Genesis and Adam's naming of the animals. The question is whether Adam studied the behaviour of the animals and named them in accordance with their behaviour and function, or whether he actually prescribed their function and purpose in the act of naming them.

I understand this is actually a topic of debate in the philosophy of language, and it fascinates me. Our words communicate the shared reality in which we live, but to some extent they shape that reality. Our words 'create' and 'evoke' images in people's minds, and thus guide their focus. Qui-Gon Jinn speaks these words to the young Anakin Skywalker: "Your focus determines your reality." To what extent is our reality determined by the external world around us, and to what extent is it determined by our mind's reflections on that external world, and its foci?

As we communicate a picture of reality to others, and as they accept that picture, it becomes reality in all actuality for them. The extent to which that picture is an accurate portrayal of the external world can sometimes be irrelevant - the words alone are powerful enough to influence important decisions, to bring to tears, to bring joy, and sometimes even to kill. In fact, people have killed themselves over mere electrons on a computer screen because those electrons represented words, which in turn painted a picture in the mind of the reader, which in turn manufactured a 'reality' that was unbearable to them, that in turn tipped them over the edge.

Thus, even if words are merely representative of reality, and even if they are completely false representations of 'reality' they can have the power of life and death. Even in this way words actually create reality inside the one who receives them. And along this line of thinking it seems that the locus of reality is actually inside the mind rather than in the world outside us.

Could this very post alter someone's perception of reality? And in doing so could it alter their attitude and behaviour? And if it changed their behaviour would it have, in fact, altered reality?

If people were aware of the power of their words would they choose them more carefully? Would they use them for good? Would they use them to assist people to focus on what is good for them and good for others? Would they use their words to build people up, to transport them out of their depression, to take them to a place of beauty?

What is the limit of the power of words?

Read more...

Does biofuel kill people?

Following on from my last post, I read an article in The Age newspaper today which alarmed me:

"The biofuel boom is diverting grain, sugar and oilseed crops from dinner plates to fuel tanks. Indeed, biofuels have forced global food prices up by 75%, far more than previously expected."

and goes on to state that as a result:

"The World Bank estimates that rising food prices have pushed 100 million people worldwide below the poverty line."

So, while Fuel companies may be promoting biofuel as a clean, green, 'feel good' alternative to petrol, it may actually be far worse for the world than straight petrol! I suppose this is one of the things I had in mind in my last post. Changes to our living as simple as the things we buy can potentially have a far greater impact than if we sell our houses and give the money to the poor.

I also confirmed that the world's poor are likely poor due to exploitation. I found two good sites on this topic through the world vision newsletter called Don't trade lives!, and Ethical consumerism,which may be worth checking out. The second site goes down to the level of rating different brands on their ethical production.

Just a few thoughts on some practical choices we can make for the better of our race and environment.

Read more...

Beyond Borders

"Whoever has material possessions and sees his brother in need but has no pity on him, how can the love of God be in him?" (1 John 3:17).

Tonight we watched a movie called Beyond Borders with Clive Owen and Angelina Jolie. It is a 'love story' set amidst aid work in war-torn countries that has some interesting and thought-provoking aspects. The wealthy Sarah Beauford is inspired by publicity stunt at a several-hundred-dollar per head charity function she attended. The passionate Dr. Nick Callahan parades in an Ethiopian refugee and asks why the organisation hosting the event has cut funding to the project supporting the child's village/camp. Sarah goes off with about $50K to deliver food and medical supplies to the camp and we the audience are confronted with the realities of life that about 50 million members of earth's human population face.

While the film, in true Hollywood fashion, then goes on to marginalise the refugee aspect to make the love interest the main focus, we the audience are left with the images of the plight of so many people and, if we have any heart, cannot help but to be moved to some extent. Perhaps the director used the images of Sarah's extravagant wealth back home as a contrast mechanism to the situation of the refugees, but it seemed that she was actually a selfish person, more concerned with her love for the doctor than anything else, including her own kids. She did not alter her way of life or her consumption after being confronted with what she saw, and I think in the end we are much the same.

After seeing movies such as this one, and others like Hotel Rwanda, Water, Blood Diamond, etc. what actually changes in the way we live? Why is it that the image and knowledge of human beings suffering does not move us to love them, and to act? I am very challenged and disturbed by this thought. As a Christian especially I hear the words of my God:

"Whoever has material possessions and sees his brother in need but has no pity on him, how can the love of God be in him?" (1 John 3:17).

It was only today that Adrianna was asking me if God has a will for us buying a place to live, and which property would be a more godly one to buy? It was also today that my pastor was talking to me about Christian worldview and integrating it into our lives (so it is not just something partially formed in our minds). I think this is a big issue. After all, are our Christian worldviews Christian at all? If a worldview is an underpinning understanding of life that informs and directs our attitudes and decisions then our life would reflect that worldview. Yet what I see is not lives that reflect the teachings of Christ, but lives which are not much different from anyone else in the western world. Sure, it is less likely for a Christian to get 'plastered/smashed/hammered', but apparently it is just as likely as any other person for a Christian to get divorced or commit adultery, or lie, cheat, steal. And even if we were able to live without any of these sins the world would be a better place, but in reality this is just a diversion from a more serious issue.

If our God is the God of love who commands us also to love one another (1 John 4:7-21), and if love is expressed in concrete acts such as the apostle John as described above, then why are we unaffected when we see our brother in need, and why does nothing change? How can we preach God's love in Jesus on one hand and ignore this injustice on the other?

Getting to the heart of the immediate problem, what is the godly thing and the right thing to do now in light of being confronted with the knowledge that there are millions of people suffering and starving? Would it be more godly not to buy a good house but to get the cheapest thing we could find and give the rest of the money away? Or would this be just a bandaid solution? Or again, even if it was a bandaid solution and would not make any lasting difference, would it still make a difference to one person (like the parable of the starfish)?

Is it best to give continuous, sustained small gestures in the hope that the collective result of these will make a difference (e.g. sponsor children, or regular donations)? Or is it more about getting to the heart of the problem: Why are these people starving and suffering in the first place? It seems to be a combination of local and global politics, exploitation of the third world by first world countries, third world debt, drought and natural disaster, war and corruption. At the heart of all these also is human greed and dehumanisation of our fellow human beings, i.e. people becoming reduced to a means to an end.

Is it a matter of putting more pressure on our own government to act and, for our part, being willing to make sacrifices at a national/state level in the way that our taxes are used? Would we be doing our part for global warming if we spent our disposable cash on foreign aid rather than the latest gadgets and passing thrills, and if we cut back our consumption so that others could also eat and have shelter and medicine?

Can organisations such as Tear Australia provide solid options to help, or are all our small gestures only actions to appease our consciences? Should we be appeasing our consciences at all, or should our motivation be pure compassion, real solidarity with our fellow human beings?

This is such a difficult problem, and I think a lot of people struggle with how to respond. Doing something is better than doing nothing, but is there more that we can do than something?

I would appreciate some honest feedback here!

Read more...

Nouwen's epilogue

We have finished Henri Nouwen's Life of the beloved and it had a kind of sad ending (not that I want to ruin it for anyone but... moohoohaha). The book was written as a personal book for his secular Jewish friend to explain clearly the things of the spiritual life, which he explains in his prologue. The epilpogue reflects on how, after the book was finished and he sent it to his friend, Henri went to visit him and received his feedback, and found that it hadn't hit the mark.

As I read the book I myself had wondered if the words he used were too alien, even though they were not strictly 'Christianese' (for his main words were 'beloved, taken, blessed, broken, given', and he spent about a chapter explaining each word), at the end of the day his friend could not move beyond the words to the reality behind them. They were indeed alien to him.

Henri lamented that after years of sharing together he still could not find the right words to convey life in Christ. I suppose if words are mere symbols that represent a reality (and I am aware that this is something much debated in current philosophy of language), and if that reality is at the most basic level an 'experienced' reality, then those who have not yet experienced it will not be able to fully appreciate the meaning behind the words. I think this is the thesis that Hans Urs Von Bathasaar was presenting in his Love alone is credible (a very hard read!), and perhaps also what Karl Barth was getting at in his theology of revelation. Only as we personally encounter God as he reveals himself to us can we grasp the reality to fill the words with true meaning. Outside of God's self-revelation words are empty symbols. Revelation is thus not so much a cognitive process as a whole-of-person experience. It is an encounter with the true 'presence' of God (there's that word again). Ironic, then, that God reveals himself in his 'word' (John 1). But perhaps it is not so ironic if that 'word' is actually a person that we encounter personally.

If this is true, then perhaps presence is more important than words. But, by the same logic, the comments of anonymous against my previous post may suggest that as the words of the Gospel are presented, the listener encounters the real presence of God himself, coming to fill the words with meaning, since the words are 'true' and thus have a reality 'underwritten' by God's own presence, so to speak. It is as if the words of the gospel are the locus where his presence dwells and is manifest to people.

But at the same time, the Bible stresses that Christians are the special locus of God's presence on earth, his 'temple' so to speak. It is this idea that I would like to explore much further.

Read more...