Jun 11
Nicely ignorant
AKMA bemoans the way people talk of “the real meaning”:
You know, when someone makes the claim to tell you what this or that really means. It functions as an authority claim (or a discussion-ender): “What this Greek word really means is. . . .” or “You said X, but you really mean Y.”
As far as I encounter this, it’s often an example of the etymological fallacy, and it’s far too prevalent in the pulpit, at least. Only the other day I heard, yet again, that “the real meaning” of proskuneo (to worship) is “I come towards to kiss” – and doesn’t that just give you a warm fuzzy about worship?
Except, of course, that’s not what it “really means.” When did you last hear a native English speaker say “Of course, the real meaning of “nice” is ignorant.” Never, except in irony. Yet the etymological process is the same, and “nice” derives, of course, from nescio - I do not know. As native speakers, however, we know what the word means, and it’s not “ignorant.”
While the bare-faced misappropriation of etymology rarely crops up in more serious discussion of, say, the biblical text, there are still overtones of it smuggled in via the agglutinating approach to meaning, excoriated by Barr, but still hovering out there. Just about every possible meaning of a word gets lumped together, and then this “Überwort” gets imported back into the sentence with every possible meaning intact, and turned into theology.
Words, however, do not work like that, which is precisely why the Sunday School teacher was horrified when one child praised Jesus thus: “Jesus, you’re wicked, Lord.” Nice!
June 11th, 2007 at 8:30 pm
The greatest culprits for the bending (for ‘bending’, read ‘murder’) of language are the salaried word-smiths who ought to know much better, journalists. For each occasion that I have recently heard ‘coruscating’ correctly used, I have heard it misapplied many more times to mean aggressively critical of another’s argument. Of course, it means glittering, an altogether beautiful, illuminating adjective.
So, what of ’salvation’; what does that mean? I guess that may depend on which theological team you turn out for, and within that which number shirt you put on. The evangelist in the Number 9 shirt is not too worried so long as he gets service from the Number 6 in midfield who has done all the work in getting the ball to the opponent’s goalmouth (or, filled the church for the guest speaker). His view of the field (his theology) is predicated by his role on the pitch. Number 9’s view of salvation is markedly different from Number 1’s; Number 1 is on a loser and destined for hell if he doesn’t clear up the mess made by the defence (churchwardens?), unless, of course, it’s down to a penalty shoot-out, which as our commentator and Methodist brother-in-Christ, Motty, would say ‘is in the lap of the gods’. Worse still, perhaps, you wear the black kit and have a whistle, the deontological position much favoured by Fundamentalists. But, before we earn a red card for disrespecting the fellow in charge (God?) we affirm that the aim is to win the match (bring disciples to the Lord, offer worship in spirit and in truth, increase the work of the Kingdom, and so forth); each player will have contributed according to her or his gifting, but will have seen it through their own eyes and judge it within their own understanding, hence the word ’salvation’ defines differently across a range of understandings.
My fear with obfuscation of the ‘real meaning’ is exactly that, the core essentials of faith become lost and leave the disciple confused and weak in faith where that need not have happened. However, excessive attention to meaning and definition leads down the rather sad route of some post-war philosophy that the energy and power of words to challenge and change is lost.
So, perhaps someone can help me. Are non-human animals ’saved’? I switched off recently in a sermon when I fastened on words that I must have read dozens of times but had never ’seen’ before: Genesis 9.5b,c ‘I will demand an accounting from every animal. And from each man, too, I will demand an accounting for the life of his fellow man’ (from the politically incorrect version of the NIV). Genesis 5c I have no problem with; humankind is accountable to God. But of 5b? I am inclined to Andrew Linzey’s encompassing views of God’s relationship with non-human animals, but Genesis 5b seems to say something much stronger.
June 11th, 2007 at 10:27 pm
Peter, I’m not entirely sure what you’re saying. On “salvation” however, let me clarify. There’s every good reason to have a concept of it, and fill that out, and use the word “salvation” to refer to it. There’s no good reason for assuming that the word refers to exactly the same concept in Luke and John, say, nor Clement and Athanasius, nor that you or I mean exactly the same by it. Noticeably, today, for example, one person mght stress the “going to heaven when you die” and think that’s what the word means, whiile another might see the more political and relational justice aspects coming to the fore. Such people are highly likely to talk past each other than to each other, unless they realise that the word doesn’t mean precisely the same for both of them.