From a letter to Burt
Some of this may not make sense when removed from the context of the email conversation of which it is a part. Nevertheless, I'm putting it all here for record-keeping's sake.
It's strange--your talk about reworking your worldview. I'm fairly certain mine hasn't changed in years. Even in converting to Orthodoxy (which really does give a different worldview than Western Christianity gives), I didn't feel like I radically changed my worldview. I felt like I was embracing an expression of a view I'd had for quite a while, a view I'd developed through my college and early married years that seemed antithetical to most of the Western Christian worldview I'd been exposed to, a view I found hard to describe in "normal" Christian terms, but finally found in Orthodoxy. I guess I feel like I've found a framework for experiencing reality that's unshakeable, that's always supportive, that will always lead to healing and hope, that's True. So, I don't see any need to question it or rework it. I can't imagine any crisis that would threaten it or cause me to doubt it.
I'm searching for a good response to your quest for terms that hold water. There is something in this that seems flawed to me, and perhaps it has to do with the understanding of language I gained while studying the likes of Wittgenstein and Derrida. You're asking for a system of language and thought that is true outside of its own terms, but language only functions within its own terms-- within its own circles. Wittgenstein called these circles of meaning "language games." Most of Western Philosophy is built on the idea that words represent things or ideas in a kind of one on one sign/signifier relationship. The word "tree," for example, is a symbol representing the idea of a tree. Yet, that's not really true for most language, especially when we enter into the realm of discussion about God. In one language-game, a word might stand for things to be manipulated, but in another the same word might be used for asking questions or giving orders. "Water!", for example, can be an exclamation, an order, a request, or an answer to a question; but, which meaning it has depends on the language-game in which it is being used. Thus, the word "water" has no meaning apart from its use within a language-game. Here, I quote from the wikipedia article on Wittgenstein,
"But when everyday language attempts to explain something beyond what it is able, problems arise. At root, this is what is known as the say/show distinction: that which can be said can also be shown, but there is that which can only be shown, not said. In other words, that which can only be shown "we must pass over in silence." To illustrate this point, consider the difference between sense and nonsense. If someone says, for instance, "There is a difference between sense and nonsense," one readily understands what this means. However, if someone did not understand the difference, it would certainly be impossible to explain it. Hence, the difference between sense and nonsense can be shown in statements, but this showing cannot be said (explained) in any meaningful way and therefore remains in silence. Put another way, the say/show distinction shows that while we can meaningfully discuss our experience, we cannot meaningfully discuss those things upon which our experience of the world depends. Thus, if someone on the street were to ask another "What time is it?" there can be a straightforward and meaningful answer. However, if the same person goes on to ask, "Well then what is time?" the situation would be quite different (for how could you meaningfully explain time without appealing to the very concept?). Thus, questions such as "What is time?" and "What is the difference between sense and nonsense?" are nonsensical questions for Wittgenstein. This does not mean that they should not be asked or that they are bad questions, but that their answers can only be shown. These answers, then, will be descriptive rather than explicatory."
The key statement here is "the say/show distinction shows that while we can meaningfully discuss our experience, we cannot meaningfully discuss those things upon which our experience of the world depends." My experience in studying the philosophy of language has led me to agree. There is a point where language breaks down, where it won't "hold water." And that's right at the line of the say/show distinction. So, in a certain sense, it's virtually impossible to have any meaningful discussion about God (as I would assert that our experience of the world depends only on him). We can only meaningfully discuss our experience of God. You must show people God, not talk about Him.
This is one reason why the Orthodoxy approach to theology resonates so deeply within me as true. Basically, the Orthodox practice what's called "apophatic" theology, also known as "the way of negation." Apophatic theology is a theology that attempts to describe God by negation, to speak of God only in terms of what may not be said about God. In brief, the attempt is to gain and express knowledge of God by describing what God is not, rather than by describing what God is. The apophatic tradition is often allied with or expressed in tandem with the approach of mysticism, which focuses on a spontaneous or cultivated individual experience of the divine reality beyond the realm of ordinary perception. In negative theology, it is recognized that we can never truly define God in words. All that can be done is to say, it isn't this, but also, it isn't that either. In the end, the student must transcend words to understand the nature of the Divine. In this sense, negative theology is not a denial. Rather, it is an assertion that whatever the Divine may be, when we attempt to capture it in human words, we must inevitably fall short. Notice that adherents of the apophatic tradition hold that God is beyond the limits of what humans can understand, and that one should not seek God by means of intellectual understanding, but through a direct experience of God, via an encounter with the love, or the energies, of God.
When we do try to use language to positively describe God, we limit what we say to what God Himself revealed to his people through these encounters. In this way, we're carefully speaking words about God revealed by God himself, words we hope will help show people God, rather than tell people about him. This is why the Bible is still authoritative -- because it is the written account of the people of God describing their experience of him. When we read the Bible, we're not reading treatises about God, we're reading the stories of how people experienced God. This is also why the Tradition and history of the Church are authoritative as well -- because they represent the experience of the people of God as they directly encountered God through the centuries.
This is why when you ask a Catholic what they believe, they can point to a 600 page catechism, but when you ask an Orthodox Christian what they believe, they can really only point to the Nicene Creed. The Creed is nothing more than a careful attempt to put into words the experience of God's people of God. So, although the Trinity can't be explained reasonably, and although the language doesn't really "hold water," it is nevertheless how God revealed himself to his people through their experience of Him. How else can one make sense of John 1?
You want an understanding of God that is true outside of its own terms, and I would say that such an understanding stretches the boundaries of what language is able to do, especially in regards to the Divine.
In regards to the completion of your thought, you wrote that you don't want a Christianity that founds itself on principles that don't hold true for anyone but Christians, that you don't want a world that's true only when you're standing in it. I can identify with this much of your spiritual journey. This is, it would seem to me, a search for the Tao of Christ -- the Christ who is The Way of all creation, who can be found in every culture and place and time, the Christ who is Wisdom. I believe I've found this Christ, and that the surest way to encounter Him and know him is found within the Orthodox church.
In a recent discussion on one of the forums I frequent, someone claimed that "Orthodoxy" is not an institution, like "Catholicism" or "Methodism." It's a spiritual path, like "Buddhism." I agree. It is what Christianity was before it was politicized by Frankish popes in quest of earthly power, before it was derailed and systematized by Scholasticism, before it was de-mythified (if that's a word) by the Enlightenment. It is a Way, first and foremost. I would argue thaton many levels Orthodox Christianity is more akin to other faiths of the East than to the Christianity of the West.
It's strange--your talk about reworking your worldview. I'm fairly certain mine hasn't changed in years. Even in converting to Orthodoxy (which really does give a different worldview than Western Christianity gives), I didn't feel like I radically changed my worldview. I felt like I was embracing an expression of a view I'd had for quite a while, a view I'd developed through my college and early married years that seemed antithetical to most of the Western Christian worldview I'd been exposed to, a view I found hard to describe in "normal" Christian terms, but finally found in Orthodoxy. I guess I feel like I've found a framework for experiencing reality that's unshakeable, that's always supportive, that will always lead to healing and hope, that's True. So, I don't see any need to question it or rework it. I can't imagine any crisis that would threaten it or cause me to doubt it.
I'm searching for a good response to your quest for terms that hold water. There is something in this that seems flawed to me, and perhaps it has to do with the understanding of language I gained while studying the likes of Wittgenstein and Derrida. You're asking for a system of language and thought that is true outside of its own terms, but language only functions within its own terms-- within its own circles. Wittgenstein called these circles of meaning "language games." Most of Western Philosophy is built on the idea that words represent things or ideas in a kind of one on one sign/signifier relationship. The word "tree," for example, is a symbol representing the idea of a tree. Yet, that's not really true for most language, especially when we enter into the realm of discussion about God. In one language-game, a word might stand for things to be manipulated, but in another the same word might be used for asking questions or giving orders. "Water!", for example, can be an exclamation, an order, a request, or an answer to a question; but, which meaning it has depends on the language-game in which it is being used. Thus, the word "water" has no meaning apart from its use within a language-game. Here, I quote from the wikipedia article on Wittgenstein,
"But when everyday language attempts to explain something beyond what it is able, problems arise. At root, this is what is known as the say/show distinction: that which can be said can also be shown, but there is that which can only be shown, not said. In other words, that which can only be shown "we must pass over in silence." To illustrate this point, consider the difference between sense and nonsense. If someone says, for instance, "There is a difference between sense and nonsense," one readily understands what this means. However, if someone did not understand the difference, it would certainly be impossible to explain it. Hence, the difference between sense and nonsense can be shown in statements, but this showing cannot be said (explained) in any meaningful way and therefore remains in silence. Put another way, the say/show distinction shows that while we can meaningfully discuss our experience, we cannot meaningfully discuss those things upon which our experience of the world depends. Thus, if someone on the street were to ask another "What time is it?" there can be a straightforward and meaningful answer. However, if the same person goes on to ask, "Well then what is time?" the situation would be quite different (for how could you meaningfully explain time without appealing to the very concept?). Thus, questions such as "What is time?" and "What is the difference between sense and nonsense?" are nonsensical questions for Wittgenstein. This does not mean that they should not be asked or that they are bad questions, but that their answers can only be shown. These answers, then, will be descriptive rather than explicatory."
The key statement here is "the say/show distinction shows that while we can meaningfully discuss our experience, we cannot meaningfully discuss those things upon which our experience of the world depends." My experience in studying the philosophy of language has led me to agree. There is a point where language breaks down, where it won't "hold water." And that's right at the line of the say/show distinction. So, in a certain sense, it's virtually impossible to have any meaningful discussion about God (as I would assert that our experience of the world depends only on him). We can only meaningfully discuss our experience of God. You must show people God, not talk about Him.
This is one reason why the Orthodoxy approach to theology resonates so deeply within me as true. Basically, the Orthodox practice what's called "apophatic" theology, also known as "the way of negation." Apophatic theology is a theology that attempts to describe God by negation, to speak of God only in terms of what may not be said about God. In brief, the attempt is to gain and express knowledge of God by describing what God is not, rather than by describing what God is. The apophatic tradition is often allied with or expressed in tandem with the approach of mysticism, which focuses on a spontaneous or cultivated individual experience of the divine reality beyond the realm of ordinary perception. In negative theology, it is recognized that we can never truly define God in words. All that can be done is to say, it isn't this, but also, it isn't that either. In the end, the student must transcend words to understand the nature of the Divine. In this sense, negative theology is not a denial. Rather, it is an assertion that whatever the Divine may be, when we attempt to capture it in human words, we must inevitably fall short. Notice that adherents of the apophatic tradition hold that God is beyond the limits of what humans can understand, and that one should not seek God by means of intellectual understanding, but through a direct experience of God, via an encounter with the love, or the energies, of God.
When we do try to use language to positively describe God, we limit what we say to what God Himself revealed to his people through these encounters. In this way, we're carefully speaking words about God revealed by God himself, words we hope will help show people God, rather than tell people about him. This is why the Bible is still authoritative -- because it is the written account of the people of God describing their experience of him. When we read the Bible, we're not reading treatises about God, we're reading the stories of how people experienced God. This is also why the Tradition and history of the Church are authoritative as well -- because they represent the experience of the people of God as they directly encountered God through the centuries.
This is why when you ask a Catholic what they believe, they can point to a 600 page catechism, but when you ask an Orthodox Christian what they believe, they can really only point to the Nicene Creed. The Creed is nothing more than a careful attempt to put into words the experience of God's people of God. So, although the Trinity can't be explained reasonably, and although the language doesn't really "hold water," it is nevertheless how God revealed himself to his people through their experience of Him. How else can one make sense of John 1?
You want an understanding of God that is true outside of its own terms, and I would say that such an understanding stretches the boundaries of what language is able to do, especially in regards to the Divine.
In regards to the completion of your thought, you wrote that you don't want a Christianity that founds itself on principles that don't hold true for anyone but Christians, that you don't want a world that's true only when you're standing in it. I can identify with this much of your spiritual journey. This is, it would seem to me, a search for the Tao of Christ -- the Christ who is The Way of all creation, who can be found in every culture and place and time, the Christ who is Wisdom. I believe I've found this Christ, and that the surest way to encounter Him and know him is found within the Orthodox church.
In a recent discussion on one of the forums I frequent, someone claimed that "Orthodoxy" is not an institution, like "Catholicism" or "Methodism." It's a spiritual path, like "Buddhism." I agree. It is what Christianity was before it was politicized by Frankish popes in quest of earthly power, before it was derailed and systematized by Scholasticism, before it was de-mythified (if that's a word) by the Enlightenment. It is a Way, first and foremost. I would argue thaton many levels Orthodox Christianity is more akin to other faiths of the East than to the Christianity of the West.