| | You may have figured out by now that I love word pictures. It's the great joy of a writer to find fresh and gripping ways to describe something which might otherwise be hard for the reader to grasp. (Note the very concrete words "gripping" and "grasp"...we use metaphoric language all the time, and some of it loses its impact through familiarity.) But there is a problem with metaphors and parables. It's very difficult to create a one-to-one correlation between two things which are not the SAME thing, but which are being linked for the sake of comparison.
My friend Jon Swanson ran into this recently while sharing word pictures to illustrate our church's new passion statement. (Read more at www.levite.wordpress.com) What he thought was a solid picture of worship was just a stumbling block to someone else.
Reading about his struggle to find a better metaphor reminded me of the parables I was reading yesterday, which for the first time struck me as less than apt...guilt-inducing, to be sure, since they are parables of Jesus. I was meditating on Matthew 13:44 - 46, surely two of the shortest parables on record in the gospels. In fact, it's easier to quote them than to summarize them:
"The kingdom of heaven is like treasure hidden in a field. When a man found it, he hid it again,and then in his joy went and sold all he had and bought that field.
Again, the kingdom of heaven is like a merchant looking for fine pearls. When he found one of great value, he went away and sold everything he had and bought it."
The straightforward interpretation is that God's kingdom is of such worth that we should happily give up everything else to possess it. And I believe Jesus gave these brief illustrations for that purpose only. I think this because when you start scrutinizing them, the absurd reduction goes like this:
Why was the guy in someone else's field, digging? Was he trespassing? Did he tell the owner what he'd found? Did he give fair market value for the field only, or did he include the value of the treasure? If he didn't, was it stealing?
If the merchant needed to sell everything he had in order to buy the one pearl, then his transaction was a wash, right? How was he going to live unless he turned around and sold the pearl? And then he'd be right back where he started...What good was it going to do him in the long run?
Am I right in assuming that the Lord did not intend us to think of such foolishness? The Lord of the Universe has always stooped to our level in order to communicate, and this includes limiting Himself with our language, which is often less precise than we'd like it to be. Recently someone asked me about the masculine pronouns used to identify God. Why, they wanted to know, if God is neither male or female? I can speculate a reason--at least in part, it's that our language only allows for three genders :masculine, feminine and neuter. (Ick.Who wants a neutered god?) Perhaps God, rather than invent something unique, chose to use a word picture which would as closely as possible define God's relationship to us: Father. Yes, it is specific. And yes, "He" could have chose to call "Himself" Mother instead. But He didn't. (Partly, it seems to me, a masculine persona made possible the Messianic sign of the virgin birth. It wouldn't have made much sense if God was viewed as maternal already.)
All of this pondering isn't supposed to open some theological can of worms. It's just to illustrate how tricky words are, and how carefully we need to weigh them. When someone is using a metaphor, the reader is obligated to think critically about what the author's intent is, and not carry the figure of speech beyond its boundaries.
Sometimes I use word pictures which are deliberately obscure--though I never intentionally mislead anyone, I may write in a way that protects my family's privacy. Those closest to me generally can read between the lines...but not always. I discovered recently that I had to provide interpretation of a couple of parable-style posts because friends at a distance were in the dark. I always need to be willing to clarify, or even discard the image completely if it's not working. I admire my friend Jon for being willing to find a different word picture, after investing time in the one which occurred to him first.
One more example, which illustrates both the flexibility and fun of words, and the limits of picture language: My post entitled "Safe" was inspired by an analogy from Dallas Willard's writings. He said that the phrase "safe and sound" originally referred to ships which returned to port. A ship which was safe but NOT sound was put in drydock to be repaired. He likened this to the experience of a person coming to a saving faith in Jesus: safe. As the new Christian matures and is able to live more and more like a follower of Jesus...the person becomes "sound". I like this picture, and found that I could use it in a different context (there's the flexible and fun part). But as strong as it is, this image is also open to the same silliness if we try to extend it too far. Think about it: The ship in drydock is "safe" from the ocean--as long as a hurricane doesn't destroy the whole coastline. Or as long as some vandal doesn't break into the boatyard with a sledge hammer. If a ship is not sound, it is not seaworthy...put it in the water and it will likely sink. Willard was certainly NOT suggesting that a new believer could not handle being in the world without drowning, figuratively or otherwise. As we grow, we are becoming progressively more "sound" and ready for longer and more arduous voyages. But we're in the water much of the time, even if not far out at sea...
Humorists use this reductio ad absurdum for good effect. And it can be amusing to follow an idea to its farthest conclusion. But responsible reading, like careful writing, won't do that to the hurt of the message. If anyone has actually followed this post to its conclusion, bless you! You'll recall that my passion is clarity and excellence in communication. It remains for you to decide whether one can write passionately about clear and excellent writing--and achieve it at the same time.
|
| | Posted 2/20/2007 8:28 AM - 188 Views - 6 eProps - 12 comments
- recommend
  - recs0
- share
- email
 - sent2
|
