The problem with doing theology and then comparing notes with others is that human language is completely inadequate for the task. Any human language. We could literally be describing the exact same thing, but use such wildly differing descriptions that we argue militantly about what we've observed and experienced. Why is this? Because of what language is, and how it works at the most basic level.
A language, as such, is essentially a group of symbols whose meaning has been mutually agreed upon by two or more parties. This is true whether those symbols are composed of sounds which can be heard, or written, drawn, or engraved pictures or characters which can be seen. Thus in English, we have the written symbol "bird," which we have agreed represents a vocalized labial stop, an unconstrained sound, a liquid sound made with the tongue curled against the hard palate of the mouth, and a vocalized dental stop. Further we have agreed that both written symbol and the sounds it represents themselves represent a warm blooded two legged vertebrae with wings, feathers, and a beak, which may or may not be capable of self-powered flight. But for the Chinese speaker, the audible symbol is something like "niao," and the visual symbol is something else altogether.
What these symbols which we have agreed upon represent come from the things we experience with our five senses. What we have smelled, what we have touched, what we have tasted, what we have seen, and what we have heard all become symbols stored in our brains. Our brains then use these symbols to process other symbols and information which we encounter.
The human brain however, can only process and describe something using the symbols it has, and the symbols it has are limited to our three dimensions of space and one dimension of time. A concept like Eternity, even when experienced as Eternity, must still be filtered through those symbols which the brain has at its disposal. As a result, if one's internal set of symbols, or internal language doesn't match someone else's internal language exactly, one person will not fully understand what the other person is trying to describe and may misunderstand it completely.
One analogy of this deficiency might be the color "blue." Most ancient languages, Greek in particular, have no word for "blue." This was not because "blue" did not exist, but they simply did not experience it as a separate color. In order to describe it, they used terms like "wine dark" or "the color of sapphires" and other similar descriptions. As a result, this could lead to confusion about what color someone might have been trying to describe a thing. And even with English having this symbol "blue" there can still be some confusion as some people see and experience color differently from another, and of course there are different shades, and still, one person might swear something was "green" while another will swear it is in fact "blue."
Spiritual realities take place in more dimensions than we as human beings can experience, and because we cannot experience them, we have no symbols to accurately describe things within them. With no common frame of reference, no common "lexicon" if you will, there is no way to really describe with any accuracy what one sees and hears when the veil is lifted for that person. We have the English symbol "Eternity," for example, but we have no functional, agreed upon experience to attach to it, and so we resort to different descriptions like "timeless," "the ever present now," "all of time happening at once," "outside of time and space," and so on. And none of these descriptions presents a clear and accurate meaning to our brains because our brains can't experience it through their inputs, the five senses.
And so, when someone does have an experience with God where the veil is pulled back, they fumble and grasp for ways to describe it. And sometimes, the way they describe things is different from the accepted descriptions we have agreed upon through study, opinion, and mutual discussion whether or not we have had such an experience ourselves.
Another analogy which comes to mind is the old one about the blind men and the elephant. There are a group of blind men who are trying to describe an elephant, but they of course cannot see the animal. So one describes the elephant like a rope, feeling its tail. One describes it like a wall, feeling its side. Still another describes it like a tree feeling its leg, and still another describes it like a hose feeling its trunk. All are attempting to describe the elephant accurately, but are unable to do so because they can only describe what they've experienced using the symbols of things they have themselves previously experienced.
This is why attempting to maintain a strict dogmatic theology, a strict description barring all others, simply doesn't work when dealing with the Reality. This is the reason why one's personal theology must always be held as being able to adapt, change, and grow as one experiences God in different ways more and more.
No comments:
Post a Comment