"All language is metaphorical, and if we insist that particular words have only one meaning and the way we understand those words is the only possible interpretation, we have elevated that text to an idol..."
Well I am not unhappy with language being metaphorical and all... but where's the logic in the accusation of idolatry? Of course, if you undermine the authority of texts, then all you have left is... the tyranny of the bishop.
I think this is the case of someone who thinks they are being all postmodern-hip not really understanding the pomo thing anyhow.
Weird.
7 comments:
Hi Mike,
I'm not certain that Bishop Schori's trying to be post-modernly "hip" - by the sounds of things, she seems to genuinely believes the rubbish that she's spouting. I wonder how far she takes the whole "all language is metaphorical" thing though. Sadly, I've no doubt she'll receive death threats as a result of her comments - will this mean that she'll interpret a comment like "I'm going to kill you" as (a) indicating that the writer really wants to kill her, or (b) an expression of support for her policies?
Regards
Roger
P.S. What did you make of her defence of her "Mother Jesus" comments - that medieval mystics had used the same type of language?
"In the beginning was the Metaphor ..."
I'm not sure about all language being metaphorical. If that were the case, then nothing would mean what it says and communication would be impossible. She can't really believe that. She has written what she has written with the assumption that her particular text means what she intends it to mean and that that her words are capable of saying what she means and being understood as such. Otherwise, what's the point in writing.
She has a point in criticising an insistence that the way we understand particular words is the only possible interpretation - we are fallen, after all. But that doesn't stop words having a particular meaning in a particular context and it doesn't excuse us from working hard to try and discern it. I'm particularly thinking about Biblical interpretation here.
I don't follow her logic about idolizing the text, either. Surely if we insist that the way we understand particular words is the only possible interpretation, then surely we have made ourselves or at least our intellects an idol, not the text.
Hope you're well, Parson Michael.
Daniel
Can you think of an example of non-metaphorical language?
I think that question Michael could be a loaded one.
What exactly do you mean by metaphorical? ;)
Actually, having given it some thought, I think I take your point now.
D.
Thanks cyperpastor for saving the day once again (sure sounds like a superhero to me...).
Is there also a second issue here? Metaphorical language is one issue and a second is multiple meanings to language. What do we mean by single meaning? Is confusion over language only the result of the fall? Is Adam's naming of the animals relevant here? MPJ, time to dust off your riding boots for another crack at a hobby horse!
Post a Comment