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?