Visible "Word"

If we are going to say that the sacraments are Visible "Words" we will want to think long and hard about what words are.

The purpose (of word) and sacrament

It seems to me that Calvin's description of the purpose of the sacraments could pretty much be applied to the purpose of the Bible too.

Calvin strikingly asserts that of the ordinary sacraments of the Old Testament that these “ancient sacraments looked to the same purpose to which ours now tend: to direct and almost lead men by the hand to Christ, or rather, as images, to represent him and show him forth to be known. We have already taught that they are seals by which God’s promises are sealed, and, moreover, it is very clear that no promise has ever been offered to men except in Christ [2 Cor 1:20]. Consequently, to teach us any promise of God, they must show forth Christ.” He adds that the only difference between the sacraments of the Old and New Testament is that “the former foreshadowed Christ promised while he was as yet awaited; the latter attest him as already given and revealed.” (Institutes 4.14.20)

Now, I fully admit that there is a danger of theological confusion here. We often tend to describe the sacraments in contrast to the Word, and some of that may be going on here. You could say that the Scriptures are the promises of God and that the sacraments seal them. But I think you could equally say the scriptures present (and seal?) the promises of God, could you not?

That the sacraments are images need not trouble us too much since words are symbols or signs too.

Sacramental Words and World

I'm frequently coming across things that might just be relevant to the great thesis. Today someone kindly suggested the work of David Brown (Professor at St Andrews) that is up for the Archbishop's book prize.

If I had a great theological library on my doorstep, I'd be having a good look in:

God and Mystery in Words: Experience through Metaphor and Drama (Oxford University Press, 2008)

First Sentence: “ONE way of characterizing what I am trying to achieve in this part of the book is as an exploration of how language can sometimes be said to function sacramentally, in conveying experiences of divine presence.”

God and Grace of Body: Sacrament in Ordinary (Oxford University Press, 2007)

Words, Signs, Sacaraments, Ideas, Things

Here are a couple of quotations from Revd Dr Peter Leithart's blog that might make it into the Dissasertation:

William Perkins on figures of speech: “There is a certaine agreement and proportion of the externall things with the internall, and of the actions of one with the actions of the other: wherby it commeth to passe, that the signes, as it were certaine visible words incurring into the externall sense, do by a certaine proportionable resemblance draw a Christian minde to the consideration of the things signified, and to be applyed. This mutuall, and as I may say, sacramentall relation, is the cause of so many figurative speeches and Metonymies which are used.”

And:

"I have found Thomas’s explanation of the quadriga convincing. He argues that the multiple spiritual senses are not “located” in the words but in the things that the words name. One might say that for Thomas the words have a single, namely literal, sense; but the things they name are themselves signs, the “words” with which God writes history, and these things foreshadow later things."

Is French such a rubbish language?

In arguing for the arbitrariness of words, the concepts they signify and the connection between the two, Jonathan Culler claims that:

The English concepts of a “wicked” man and of a “pet” have no real counterparts in French. (Culler, Jonathan, Ferdinand de Saussure (New York, Penguin, 1976) p13)

Is that really so?

No doubt Culler would just tell me how much it shows that I'm shaped by my language and culture but it seems to me that "wicked" and "pet" are pretty basic ideas. Are the Frenchies really that different from us that they have no morally depraved individuals and no domesticated animals they treat as members of the family?

The word is not the thing

One of the most basic principles of semiotics is that “the word is not the thing”, that is, that the verbal signifier is not the thing signified (see e.g. Chandler, Semiotics p64ff citing Korzybski 1933).

I wonder how this fits with an ancient Hebrew understanding of signification where the word “dabar” means word or thing.

Dr Leithart has some thoughts on his blog entitled Hebrew Hermeneutics (Thurs 29^th March) drawing on Rhonda Wauhkonen discussion of Nicholas of Lyra's "Hebraic" semiotics in a 1992 article on Chaucer contrasting Augustine's signum / res distinction. (Unfortunately I can’t get the continue reading or recent entries links to work).

According to Chandler, Foucault makes the big claim that “only in the early modern period did scholars come to see words and other signifiers as representations which were subject to conventions rather than copies (Foucault 1970). By the seventeenth century, clear distinctions were being made between representations (signifiers), ideas (signifieds) and things (referents).” (p71) I’m not sure I entirely follow or am persuaded by that, but anyway…

I wonder how historical developments in the understanding of signification might map onto understandings of what’s going on in the Lord’s Supper? Is transubstantiation maybe something to do with some larger cultural difficulty with distinguishing the signifier and the thing signified, with Zwingli over-reacting by separating signifier and signified? Or something like that?

World / Text / Sign / Sacrament

Sorry if I’m boring you on this subject, but here goes (again, perhaps):

Roland Barthes speaks of the world as a text: a system of signs that we read as meaningful.

Eastern Orthodox theologians speak of the world as a sacrament or sacramental.

Reformed theologians have spoken of the sacraments as words. Semiotics tells us that words are signs. May we call the sacraments texts, signifying systems, meaningful discourses, sermons (rather than isolated words)?

Could we also call the sacraments a world, a system, a social space, a microcosm, an epitome or re-making of a world or a renewal of the world?

Please do let me know if this is either gobbledygook or dangerous heresy, wont you?

Incarnation and the possibility of meaning, speaking etc.

By the time you have thought with Paul Ricoeur (Interpretation Theroy, p25) of “… the kind of intentional exteriorization that writing exhibits….” and “… Plato’s critique of writing as a kind of alienation…” you have to say that the incarnation of the Word is the precondition of the possibility of all successful speaking, writing and meaning.

The Son is “the kind of intentional exteriorization” of the Father: he is begotten.

The Son is made even more “external” in his incarnation as he wills to become Man in a meaningful way that speaks to men.

In the inter-Trinitarian relations and the incarnation there is no alienation required or implied. Plato’s “problem” is solved since the Word does not change in becoming: he remains entirely himself. The Father’s eternal begetting of the Son is not a “loss” to him but a gain in meaning as he knows Himself in a new way in the Son.

Real Presence / Absence of Authors & Jesus

Is writing something down the elimination or preservation of the human messenger-author?

Both, surely. The author is both absent (probably distant in space and time from the readers and very likely dead and gone) but present in, with, through, by or behind his words.

Now compare the Lord’s Supper in which Jesus is really absent (bodily in heaven) and really present (by His Word and Spirit).

What a difference writing a word makes

Paul Ricoeur says in Interpretation Theory, p26:

The most obvious change from speaking to writing concerns the relation between the message and its medium or channel. At first glance, it concerns only this relation, but upon closer examination, the first alteration irradiates in every direction, affecting in a diverse manner all the factors and functions. Our task, therefore, will be to proceed from this central change toward its various peripheral effects….

The inscription, substituted for the immediate vocal, physiognomic, or gestural expression, is in itself a tremendous cultural achievement. The human fact disappears. Now material “marks” convey the message.

Langue and Parole in Scripture, Human and Divine

I should have mentioned yesterday when blogging about the usefulness of Saussure’s categories of Langue (language as system) and Parole (language in use) and the Supper as a word or language, that the distinction is worth applying to Scripture too.

Claims to special inspiration of Scripture apply properly and fully to the parole of the Bible: these words in use in their situations (addressed by God to his people, both the original hearers and all subsequent generations), not to the Langue of the Bible.

No claim is being made that the words of Scripture as Langue are uniquely inspired. God did not use a whole new language (called Bibline or Scripturish) or a special set of vocabulary (though neologisms in Scripture, especially in prophetic oracles) would be an interesting case). The words of the Bible are really and fully are human words.

Having said that, of course, God is the creator (we might say, the author) and Lord of human language. The language (langue) is “divine” in the sense that God made it and governs it (providentially) but this would really be an abuse of the term: a similar claim could be made for every created thing. We thus distinguish the special inspiration of these words of Scripture for these purposes from the creation, sustaining and providential governing of these and all other words alike.

The Bible is then human words (and grammatical constructions and so on) used by God such that they are divine words (and syntax). The inspired word is the product of creation, providence and special inspiration.

Its all semiotics now

Ricoeur, Paul, Interpretation Theory: Discourse and the Surplus of Meaning (Fort Worth, Texas Christian University, 1976) p4 says:

As concerns the extension of the structural model to non-linguistic entities, the application may be less spectacular – including, as it does, road signals, cultural codes such as table manners, costume, building and dwelling codes, decorative patterns, etc. – but it is theoretically interesting in that it gives an empirical content to the concept of semiology or general semantics, which was developed independently by Saussure and Charles S. Pierce. Linguistics here becomes one province of the general theory of signs, albeit a province that has the privilege of being both one species and the paradigmatic example of a sign-system.

Langue and Parole in the Supper

Given (once again) that the Supper is a word, I wonder if (using F. de Saussure’s categories from Course In General Lingusitics) you could have a langue and parole understanding of the Supper.

The Langue is the language as system or grid, the fixed meaning that prevails across time and place, the collective code, the shared framework or common linguistic world. This would have a special connection to Christ’s institution of the Supper. We might say that in instituting the Lord's Supper, Jesus coined new (tangible) words, even that he created a whole new way of speaking, a new language.

The Parole is language as event or transaction, a personal, specific individualisation in use, a message given and received between persons in a particular place and time. This would have a special connection to each celebration of the Supper, even to the individual giving and receiving of the elements.

Translating Bread and Wine

Since the bread and wine of The Lord’s Supper are (visible or tangible) words, given in what one might call the particular “language” of one situated culture, that of Israel in the first century, one might argue that what is needed is a dynamic equivalence “translation” of the elements into all the different cultural languages of human societies over time and around the world.

On this view, one would isolate the essential meaning of the word-signs (perhaps a staple food and a red drink used in festivity) and render it in meaningful ways: say, rice and red tea might be used China.

For my self I am a literalist. Let’s always and consistently have bread and wine. The most important meaning given to bread and wine is that found in the Scriptures, where bread (or its constituents, such as grain) and wine are presented very frequently.

Behind all this is are question of whether all cultures and languages are equal or whether we should seek to learn the Bible’s language and conform to its culture and whether the symbolism of the Lord’s Supper is natural (general) or conventional (special).

No doubt one could use other elements if bread and wine really weren’t ever going to be available to you, but would it really be The Lord’s Supper in gold capital letters? Similarly, one might use the Good News Bible or The Message, but we wouldn’t want to confuse them with the Word of God, would we?

No burger and coke eucharists for us and perhaps some time with James Jordan’s Through New Eyes (on biblical symbolism / worldview).

Barth on Scripture smelling Fishy

I’ve been reading Stanley Fish, Is There A Text In This Class? and it strikes me that he shares with Barth a desire to hold on to the objectivity of the text (at least at times) but an emphasis on the moment of reception of the text by readers as the really meaningful moment, almost the time when the text “becomes” a Text. Barth could say something like that about the written Word of God.

Fitting Words to Worlds

One of the categories of speech act theory is to ask whether the “direction of fit” in an utterance is “world to words” or “words to world”; that is, is the speaker trying to conform his words to some realities in the world or is he trying to conform some realities in the world to his words.

This is a useful analytical tool, but the realities are rather more complex and if pressed the distinctions begin to break down.

Assuming we don’t simply think in the words of our utterance, a speaker will almost always be trying to conform his words to something that’s going on in the world, in his brain: his thoughts.

One of the basic insights of speech act theory is that we are always doing things with our words. When we speak we are usually trying to do something in the world, else there would be no point in speaking. As soon as our words are out there (even if they are “only” seeking to say something truthful about the world) they become a new fact in the world and have changed the world.

Sticks and Stones...

One of the potentially useful things about speech act theory, what I have been trying to think about, is that it emphasises the fact that words are things that persons use which establish personal relationships.

I quite liked this from Vanhoozer:

We can say of meaning what has been said of guns: words don’t kill (or state, or question, or promise, etc.); people do.

Vanhoozer, Kevin J., Is there a meaning in this text? The Bible, the reader and the morality of literary knowledge (Leicester, Apollos, 1998) p202

Few Books & Good

Dr Garry Williams is fond of quoting Revd Professor O'Donnovan's advice to him: "few books and good".

Feeling that there are far too many books to read about words, language and speech acts, I'm going to look for a few important ones. Maybe:

Derrida, Jacques, Of Grammatology (trans. Spivak) (Baltimore, John Hopkins Univeristy Press, 1975)

- , Limited Inc. (ed. Graff) (Evanston, IL, Northwestern University Press, 1988)

Fish, Stanley, Is There a Text in This Class? The Authority of Interpretive Communities (Cambridge, MA, Harvard University Press, 1980)

Ricoeur, Paul, Interpretation Theory: Discourse and the Surplus of Meaning (Fort Worth, Texas Christian University Press, 1976)

Saussure, Ferdinand de, Course in General Linguistics (London, Owen, 1960)

Wittgenstein, Ludwig, Philosophical Investigations (Oxford, Blackwell, 1967 / 1953)

A word-based culture?

I live and "work" at Oak Hill. It is undoubtedly a very word based culture. There is little public art or music, for example, but lots of talk and books.

And I've been trying to think about the Word and the Supper. The Supper is of course "things" more obviously than the Word is a "thing", though of course the word is mediated to us by the physical and there are lots of books and ink and pages about.

Anyway, some of that stuff flooded into my mind when I read this interesting snippet on Pastor Douglas Wilson's blog:

The Reformers not only revered their biblical heritage, but recovered its energies, its acids, its spices, its 'red wine and cheese', the sting and zing of the Magnificat. We should therefore be chary of assuming that a more verbal spirituality, which Protestantism undoubtedly was, was necessarily more bookish or intellectual. It commuted between the lofty discourse of the classics and the rude simplicities of the venacular. The living Word which Luther talking about, emerged from a filthy stable and ended on a foul cross. Theology was worked out in the study, certainly, but above all in living, dying, being damned" Theologia crucis"

(Matheson, The Imaginative World of the Reformation, p. 127).

And this (via the same source) was wonderful:

I wish we did not have to fritter away on frivolous things, like lectures and literature, the time we might have given to serious, solid and constructive work like cutting out cardboard figures and pasting coloured tinsel upon them

(G.K. Chesterton as quoted in Thomas Peters, The Christian Imagination, p. 10).

Evangelicals undoubtedly have much more thinking to do about words and things, culture and creation. I'm going to start with Revd Dr David P Field 'Not The Least Lash Lost' (linked to from his blog, linked to on the right) about how nothing we ever do is lost and all creation is transformed into the New Creation, hence the added importance of daily acts of service (the dishes) and culture building (writing symphonies and painting portraits).

Homo Significans

“Homo sapiens is essentially, homo loquens, a speaking being, ‘speaking’ not in the sense (p1) in which parrots speak but in the sense of using sounds to convey meaning. This means that homo sapiens is really homo significans, a being who lives on expression and communication of meaning.” (p2)

Wierzbicka, Anna, English Speech Act Verbs: A semantic dictionary (Marrickville, Academic Press Australia, 1987)