Religious Language: The Language of Reverence

a talk at the Unitarian Church of Los Alamos, NM
by Dale Arnink, minister emeritus
Aug. 3, 2003

I’m going to introduce, and then make several remarks about, a topic of discussion current among many UUs regarding religious language and a language of reverence. I will then narrow the focus of religious language somewhat to examine the word “mystery,” and to examine the use of metaphors in religious discourse.

The occasion: Sinkford’s remarks and Bumbaugh’s remarks

Those who went to June GA returned to say there was much discussion at the UU annual meeting about a “Language of Reverence.”

In a sermon at a Texas church last January UUA President Bill Sinkford made a remark that was then picked up by a Texas newspaper reporter, added to remarks made in an interview, distorted in ways you know reporters can do, and published; it caught attention, but even the correctly edited remarks furthered the attention and resulted in continuing discussion.

In the sermon Pres. Sinkford made the observation that Unitarian Universalists (UUs) have moved away from the use of religious language, and where and when it is used people get into turmoil about it. He remarked about our Principles and Purposes, “we have in our Principles an affirmation of our faith which uses not one single piece of religious language. Not one. Not even one word that would be considered traditionally religious. And that is a wonderment to me; I wonder whether this kind of language can adequately capture who we are and what we're about.”

Sinkford talked about a deep religious experience he had a few years ago when it seemed his teenage son was about to die; though a humanist most of his life he treasures that experience and finds he must use pretty traditional language to speak of it. He then cautiously goes on, “But ‘religious language’ doesn't have to mean ‘God talk.’ And I'm not suggesting that Unitarian Universalism return to traditional Christian language. But I do feel that we need some language that would allow us to capture the possibility of reverence, to name the holy, to talk about human agency in theological terms-the ability of humans to shape and frame our world guided by what we find to be of ultimate importance.”

Pres. Sinkford’s phrase the “language of reverence” actually is borrowed from a talk delivered in Colorado to a humanist group by David Bumbaugh, a professor at Meadville/Lombard (with whom Don Neeper and I are both respectfully acquainted.)

Sinkford explains: “Now David is a Humanist. And he believes that Humanists, who ‘once offered a serious challenge to liberal religion, now find [themselves] increasingly engaged in a monologue,’ largely because of a vocabulary inadequate to engage other people of faith. ‘We have manned the ramparts of reason and are prepared to defend the citadel of the mind,’ Bumbaugh writes. ‘But in the process of defending, we have lost…the ability to speak of that which is sacred, holy, of ultimate importance to us, the language which would allow us to enter into critical dialogue with the religious community.’”

A “Language of Reverence” thus has been a hot topic. The President e-mailed all on the UUA list asking that this become a wide discussion about our “foundational language.” It got attention at the June GA. There is on the UUA web site a special place for the topic, and e-mail discussion of the topic. I’m exceedingly glad, myself, for this discussion: as Sinkford reportedly said at GA, showing that for him reverence needn’t mean piousness: “God, I’m having fun!”

So I begin with two points about this discussion of religious language in general before moving on to discuss the word “mystery” as part of our vocabulary and the use of metaphor in religious discourse.

First, remarks on our level of sophistication for using religious language.

My impression is that despite their high education level, most UUs are a bit illiterate and inexperienced when it comes to religion, especially the varieties of Christianity; I agree with Bumbaugh that given our clumsiness with religious language we don’t have much skill for entering into “critical dialogue with the religious community.”

But--important subpoint here, my motivation for giving this talk-- I am even more concerned that we haven’t many skills for entering into critical dialogue with our own UU community. We don’t take individual effort to speak to each other and listen to each other carefully to learn what is of crucial importance to our UU acquaintances.

We pledge in the UUA Principles & Purposes to encourage one another to spiritual growth. One of the ways to do that is to ask for explanations and details and listen carefully ; supportively questioning someone into greater clarity of expression about what is deepest and most important in their lives. This is and will be our religious language. And you must not impose your own definitions and associations upon their words. It is important everywhere but especially true when listening to religious language, that we follow the advise of the great philosopher of language, Ludwig Wittgenstein: the meaning of the words, phrases, sentences, is best discovered by studying their USE, not by jumping to definition. We must listen very carefully and deeply to understand how our UU acquaintances are using what may be familiar and argued-about words.

Second, some remarks about the subcategory of religious language called the language of reverence.

Some words have power and most words are functional but wimpy. The power of language comes from years and centuries of built up uses and associations.

B. B. McInteer recently related that upon experiencing a severe back spasm he groaned, “Good God!” A few minutes later he got another shooting pain and said, “Jesus Christ!”

He later reflected upon his nearly automatic use of this religious language when he had rejected the sources of that language years ago when he decided he was not a Christian but a humanist. He brought the issue before the local philosophy discussion group. One of the participants observed that for handling severe pain, “Thomas Jefferson!” just does not do.

It seems to me that those who are seeking a “ language of reverence” are asking for powerful words that are shared with a community. I think that for us in America, perhaps Western civilization, this kind of vocabulary only exists within the Christian tradition. It is futile to ask, as Pres. Sinkford does, for a language of reverence but to then say it doesn’t have to be Christian language. There is, as yet, no other that has the power of communally shared religious language.

[In what follows I am aware of leaving aside the issue of UU Christians using Christian vocabulary in our communities. This issue especially deserves and needs attention, but would detract from several more immediate points to be made. The Los Alamos church has very few UU Christians. The point was made in discussion which followed that the listening skills and widening of accepting awareness advocated here is especially necessary for this aspect of our internal dialogue, including work with our Partner Churches.]

As Bumbaugh, in his talk(s), indicates, we UUs in general, and we humanists, have religious language and religious images. Bumbaugh is very clear and eloquent about this and his two talks posted on the UUA website should be required reading. But I would say that these resources are relatively new in history and are not even used with universal consent among us yet. Of course they are not treated reverentially! Not yet. But the fact that they already have a powerful impact for numerous individuals is promising.

Empirically, religious language simply is the vocabulary of a group of religious people used to reflect upon and share their life as individuals and community. Sinkford is wrong to say the P & P do not contain religious language; it is the language produced by and used in our religious communities; he ought to have said they do not contain traditionally familiar religious language, i.e. the language of some other community; but then, of course, why should it?!

I have no difficulty saying that our Principles and Purposes is an important part of our religious language. But it is not composed of traditional religious language, the language with which Christians, including UU Christians, are so (traditionally) comfortable. It certainly does not approach yet the religious language of devotion, commitment, reverence, ideology (“world view” or theology/philosophy). Our religious language is not yet a language of reverence and won’t be for a long time. If we nostalgically long for that sort of language, then we must borrow from others.

[I quietly reject, and have tried to persuade ministerial colleagues they should reject, the title of Reverend. I say that most of us are not in any traditional sense reverent nor should we seek to be revered. The title doesn’t fit but colleagues seem to cling to it. Perhaps to enter into critical discussion with other church traditions? I doubt it.]

And borrowing entails constantly distinguishing our revisions to the traditional language, a tiresome, contentious effort which itself enervates the language. (I don’t deny some possibility of breathing a liberal viewpoint into the traditional language; but I am reminded that as influential a theologian as Paul Tillich couldn’t either replace with nor make central to, the concept “God,” his notion of Ground of Being.)

My preference is to abandon the old, or at least much of the most powerful of the old (because precisely these words are so tied together by an unacceptable theology and so many associative meanings) vocabulary and take part in the long-term growth of the new vocabulary.

We develop a new and usable vocabulary by having lots of conversations with one another about our religious experiences and our interpretations of those experiences, our experiences of Insight, sustenance, harmony, tenacity, depth, meaning, failure and renewal, tragedy. (And, when necessary, using the words of other traditions, east and west, and indicating the nature of our individual adaptations.) To repeat, this is and will be our religious language. Much of the vocabulary will become commonly shared and powerful.

So, I see our task as that of finding a new language for our own individual and community empirical religious experience. We must talk about what is most important to us, about what is “foundational.”

Perhaps a place to start is to take on two words I seem to find frequently in UU discussions of religion and accounts of religious experience: the words are “Mystery” and “Metaphor.” How do they work? (Perhaps I notice these two words most because I get so peeved at how the words are abused.)

Mystery is both traditionally Christian and diversely used elsewhere, as, e.g., in Mystery Novels, or, from a recently received e-mail spam, “how to adopt the mystery of success in current financial markets.”

“Mystery” is a word so diversely and variously used that it may be as troublesome as the word “God,” for easy communication. But I think it may be salvagable if we are careful to designate and qualify our uses.

I hate it when the ending statements of a religious presentation or disussion invoke the traditional theological view of the Mystery of God, the Absolute Mystery of the Absolute. E.g, “Well there’s no use in arguing, It's all a Mystery anyway.” Or after going on for some time about ways that God can be experienced or conceived we are told, “But remember, God is the Supreme Mystery.”

I want to shout, “Then why have you been effing the Ineffable!! If God is Inexpressible, why didn’t you shut up at the beginning? If the Mystery you invoke is not vocable, don’t do it!!” (Pardon my grammar!)

I want to argue that there are many kinds of religious/life mysteries and we can and should talk about them in UU circles.

The one we can’t talk about is the Mystery of all Mysteries that has been referred to in this language: Mystery as the Ineffable, Supreme Mystery, Ultimate Mystery, Divine Mystery, Eternal and Infinite, Unknown and Unknowable, Totally Other, Ultimate Mystery, Incomprehensible, Unintelligible, Unfathomable. Encompassing and Incomprehensible Mystery.

(These often are, but need not be limited to, distinctions between Supernatural and Natural; Encompassing Mystery, e.g. could be a part of a Natural theology.)

Note that the medieval theologians who produced “Negative Theology” had it precisely right. One can only say what Mystery is not; never what it is, not even indirectly or poetically. This mystery is not anything knowable, graspable, imaginable, experiencable. It is therefore truly inexpressible.

Note also the necessity of “revelation” for a religion built upon such an Unknowable, i.e. a message thought to come from the “other side” though it must be in human terms to be understood. The revelation is a “knowable” something given by and ratified by the Unknowable through a specific revelation.

Further note the difficulties of a doctrine of revelation (which may indicate why UUs don’t get much into “revelation”!) just a few issues: the means and the message; verifiability of source and content; a further doctrine of inspiration (e.g., religious vs. artistic); precision of content; interpretations allowed; who can interpret and how; the power of the keepers of the mystery; the institutional conduits of revelation; the limits of not knowing anything beyond what is revealed (though the “keepers” usually go far beyond that limit. They “eff” the ineffable constantly!”

Revelation may assert that this Unknowable is adorable, and is the Source of love and goodness.

I do not know on what basis a UU could explain why they think this Mystery should be responded to with any particular attitude at all. It is simply beyond comprehension.

Is there a limit, a boundary, to all we know, experience, have experienced, can experience, etc.? Of course. Can we call this a mystery? Of course. Can we draw any conclusions? No. Is there an attitude we should have about it? I think many attitudes in fact arise, all natural, none to be justified or recommended.

A serious topic for UUs might be how we have allowed ourselves to be misled by traditional monotheism to believe that we can declare WITH that tradition that there is an Incomprehensible Mystery, but then to accept from that tradition the notion that we can give attributes to that Undefinable Mystery without wrestling with our own idea of revelation. We find it comfortable to make claims about that Mystery that it is the Creative Source, Loving Parent, Moral Judge, Everlasting and supportive Arms, etc. We do that without being able to found those images in revelation; meanwhile we also reject some of the so-called revealed images of the Mystery as Consuming Judge, Wrathful Lord, and Jealous Deity. Why do we UUs do that, and, more importantly, how can we justify it?!

I think we should begin by being indifferent to the Absolute Mystery and ask what images can we find in the natural world in our neck of the Universe that are naturally useful to our experience and understanding of such a world.

You’ll see, in a few minutes, why people should never, ever propose that they have a metaphor or a poetic image for this absolute Mystery.

There are other and useful notions of Mystery that UUs can talk about because these mysteries are not Totally Other and Beyond Human Capacities. Let me suggest three.

Mystery as the Boundary of what one “knows” or is aware of. The Unexplored and Not Yet Understood--though potentially open to inquiry.

The “scrim” in theatre is a gauze curtain. It becomes an opaque wall in some lighting conditions; it reveals shadowy presences under other lighting; with proper illumination the scrim disappears and behind it is another very visible scenery set.

Mystery as boundary I compare to the scrim when it is opaque but is known to be present to the savvy theatre goer. He or she knows there is a curtain there which will be illuminated in new ways as the play goes on.

Thus we now stand at the boundary of the mystery of what stem cell research might show forth, what an international legal system and world court might accomplish, what the legal acceptance of a variety of committed relationships might mean for families. For mystery of this sort we don’t have much knowledge, but some; we are fascinated by such topics and drawn to them; there are countless unanswered questions; but the boundary has yet to be crossed and the region of mystery explored.

Mysteries such as these are found by many UUs to be inspirational and motivational to their deepest selves. This is an example of how such mysteries should enter our religious discourse.

Mystery as the partly graspable; here there are clues about the mystery, but it may never reveal all its secrets. I compare this mystery to the theatre scrim when it only allows one to see a few items clearly while most are dimly lit. A couple examples (the first of which, for future reference, is an extended metaphor.)

• Wm. Wordsworth
  And I have felt a presence that disturbs me with the joy of elevated thoughts;
  A sense sublime of something far more deeply interfused,
  Whose dwelling is the light of setting suns,
  And the round ocean and the living air,
  A motion and a spirit, that impels
  All thinking things, all objects of alll thought,
  And rolls through all things.
  
• Freud’s and Wm James’: “oceanic feeling” wherein one senses that one is an individual wave and yet part of the whole ocean.

This sense of mystery is most usually occasioned by something quite concrete: a panoramic or dramatically charged view, a particular occasion of beauty, the passage of some part of a musical performance, an account of human extraordinary sharing or effort, e.g.

While not strictly definiable these occasions and experiences can be talked about, communally confirmed, and the vocabulary can be refined.

Don’t many of you respond to the Wordsworth poem, “Yes, I know what he is talking about.” Haven’t you had that “oceanic feeling” viewing a sunset?

Experience is wider and deeper than consciousness; consciousness is wider and deeper than our rational vocabulary. We can use image, metaphors, poetic language to partially come to terms with this sort of mystery, and this sort of mystery is an essential part of religious experience and so must enter our vocabulary and discussions.

I move on now to another mystery, Mystery as encounter with “limit-experience.” (Inter alia, cf. Gabriel Marcel, Karl Jaspers, Sam Keen, David Tracy)

This realm of mystery is intensely personal but can be talked about with other self-aware individuals. This realm of mystery keeps on expanding before us as we solve our particular problems. It resembles a horizon that recedes into the distance as we advance. The sense of mystery is that one will advance into that realm and yet feel the same, no “progress” can be made in resolving the mystery.

This sense of mystery can be brought on by happenings in our lives that shock us into a recognition that our ordinary existence is encompassed by another usually unacknowledged realm. We slip into and out of this sense as the ordinary, mundane world takes over once again. But we feel a deep “more” to our lives. The “more” can be brought to awareness by personal failure, death of loved ones, tragedy; also by joy, ecstasy, relationships “going deep.” Or the wonder of where an insight comes from, how we survived an accident, why we experienced the “lust” for life.

Other experiences are limit-experiences such as truly pondering the big personal questions : What is the meaning of my life? Why am I here? Who am I? What is my destiny?

There are other questions that lead to more questions to more questions: Do I (we) really know anything? Why should I (we) be good? What does it all mean?

Compare the story that says the universe rests on the back of a turtle; but what supports the turtle? It stands on the back of another turtle. But what supports it?! Listen, it's turtles all the way down!

Also cf. the perfectly logical child: where did the world come from, mommy? God. But who made God?

A great mystery is that the universe exists at all; another that it is even intelligible at all. Such topics run us into the brick wall of our limits.

Is there a beginning to the Universe? Is there an edge?

These “limit-experiences” can shake us to our depths and challenge us to take some sort of stand; one sense that there is no real answer though an answer seems demanded of us. So we answer, we take a stand, though it must be a stance of blind faith, which may change tomorrow.

Several concluding remarks about Mystery.

The traditions of western Monotheism put all these experiences and mysteries into one big basket and tell us to revere the basket. I want to unpack all these experiences and issues and look to our own experiences for, in great part, starting over again. The habits of thinking monotheistically hinder us from truly understanding and interpreting our religious experiences.

And the final issue about mystery I wish to raise is that it is very important to keep in mind the problem of when and whether Mystery is in us, or is in some sense objective: does my sense of mystery, my experience of mystery imply a realm of the mysterious; if so, what of that realm of mystery is confirmed in my experience and what is contributed by my experience, and what is the combination. (Note that these questions do not always have clear answers! Experience is a mystery!) [Later discussion pointed out a similar problem with transcendence and the transcendent.]

Compare Mystery and my (your) experience of the Eerie. You may recall frequently experiencing the eerie as a kid. I’ve found the experience to be less common, though not absent, as an adult. I go to a place and have a sense of the eerie; I say, “That place is eerie; there’s something spooky there.” But I’m drawn to the experience and return often, sometimes going away quickly with a shudder. But as experience is prolonged, the sense of the eerie diminishes, until one day I go there and do not experience anything eerie or spooky. I now presume that the eerie was in me, not in the place.

Or, perhaps, the eerie was a combination of certain real qualities of the place encountered with “interpretive structures” I brought to the place, but as those changed over time the relationship changed to become -- Normal.

The appropriate response to real Mystery is Awe and Wonder. Not mystification and enthrallment. I think humans have a troublesome predisposition to idolatry of mystery--another huge topic that involves a universal and pathetic human need for power and projection to endure the burden of self-consciousness.

Given the time constraints I must be brief now about

METAPHOR.

Just as models are crucial tools for doing science, metaphor is a crucial tool for attempting to come to terms with some of the deepest issues of human living, i.e. religion.

I think anything having to do with Absolute Mystery requires Blind Faith, not just in the Mystery but in the harbingers of revelations about the mystery. I recommend indifference to the Infinite Incomprehensible.

But there are other mysteries about which we have partial information, half-formed insights, wagered opinions, fleeting acquaintance, feelings that can’t find words, etc. About such issues in life metaphors may be that which sheds further insight, new information, and even a sort of confirmation or validity. About what exceeds the simply rational and verbal, the metaphor may bring a comprehensible though perhaps partial grasp which is then subject to rational discussion.

Most of us know metaphor from some English class as an item of rhetoric, of an ornamental use of language along with analogy and simile. Poetry is said to be the safe haven for metaphorical vocabulary. Metaphor invites looking at two quite different things with the suggestion that there are similarities among the differences that will illuminate the one thing for which a metaphor has been proposed. Richard is neither a lion nor a heart but look at that Richard, isn’t he the lion hearted? We know that an argument is not a war but the metaphor is implied whenever we speak of “shooting down” the opposition’s arguments, attacking the other’s weak points, saying their position is indefensible, challenging, Go ahead, take a shot at this, etc. And yes it is not just flowery but insightful to remark, “My love is like a red, red rose.”

Recent scholarship has confirmed what Aristotle already suggested, that metaphor is a crucial and even foundational cognitive tool. As such metaphor is not merely a pleasing ornament but a way of understanding, a tool of cognitive expansion, of deeper insight, of the realization even of new information. [see, e.g. Metaphors We Live By, George Lakoff and Mark Johnson; also, Metaphor, by Eva Feder Kittay]

There are ways that one can determine whether a metaphor is insightful, or useful, or “fits.” This is a kind of verification of vocabulary uses and meanings.

I urge UUs to carefully note that whether as ornament or as crucial cognitive tool, metaphor can only be used when one has acquaintance of some sort with the two items or areas to be compared. Metaphor assumes an acquaintance with both sides; associating the two brings out a new perspective upon, or an unnoticed aspect of the one side.

Returning to one of my pet peeves: One cannot say that one is proposing a metaphor which will illuminate the Incomprehensible Mystery. Metaphors are used to make a comparison of some sort which will show that among the obviously different attributes, there are similar attributes. Quite simply, one can not propose comparisons for the Incomparable.

But we can develop metaphors and images for those areas of our experience which exceed our strictly rational/literal capabilities. And those who have had similar experiences can confirm whether the metaphor “fits.”

And when a metaphor “grabs you” as somehow significant, meaningful, you can be assured that it is not speaking to you from the Great Beyond; it is speaking to you of some natural area of your experience.

So I conclude by repeating, what we need to be doing as UUs is empirical theology based upon discussions of our natural experience in the wondrous and awesome natural world. This is and will be our religious language; it can eventually come to express the commonalities of our shared experiences and thus express our deepest understandings, commitments, values and goals. At that point we will also have a religious language of reverence. (if we have continued to use that word.)

Unitarian Universalist Association
25 Beacon St. | Boston, MA 02108 | 617-742-2100