|
This article is found at
http://www.logoscrc.ca/metaphors and
reformed
Return to Christian Resource Corner
This article can be copied and distributed freely provided its content has not
been changed. This resource cannot be sold or distributed for financial gain. It
must be free. And it must be unedited. Otherwise, the author reserves all rights
to the resource.
Metaphors and the Reformed Tradition
By Shiao Chong, Christian Reformed Campus Minister
Serving at York University, Toronto
www.logoscrc.ca |
chaplain@logoscrc.ca
In The Dream of the Rood,
a first century Old English Christian poem, the cross (or rood) on which Jesus
was crucified appeared in a dream and described the crucifixion as follows (in
translation):
“And then I saw the Lord of
all mankind hasten with eager zeal that he might mount upon me. … Then the young
hero (who was God Almighty) got ready, resolute and strong in heart. He climbed
onto the lofty gallows-tree, bold in the sight of many watching men, … I
trembled as the warrior embraced me. … A rood I was raised up; and I held high
the noble King, the Lord of heaven above.”
This poetic description may
sound strange to many modern ears. Unlike our preoccupation with Christ’s
suffering at the crucifixion, this Old English poem portrays Jesus as a warrior
hero going into battle with boldness, zeal and deliberate intention. The poem
similarly describes Christ’s resurrection as a victorious hero’s homecoming.
Of course, Jesus was neither
a real warrior nor was he doing battle in the literal sense. Jesus as victorious
warrior is a metaphor. Although this metaphor is not common today, in the first
century, where real battles and real warriors abound, Christ as warrior is a
view that early medieval Christians can relate to. This is not to say that they
did not appreciate Christ’s suffering. But Christ as conquering hero, rather
than Christ as suffering servant, was the dominant metaphor.
We tend to forget that the
church does not have a static view of Christ over the centuries. Nor does the
universal church have a single view of Christ across cultures, geographies,
denominations and traditions. Part of the differences between various Christian
traditions and denominations stems from different dominant or guiding metaphors
at work within people’s hearts and minds. To show you what I mean, I will first
explain the role metaphors play in theology and spirituality. Next, I will give
an example of how metaphors can unify and guide a Christian tradition. Finally,
I will propose unifying metaphors for the Reformed tradition that may give us,
the Christian Reformed Church, some direction for the future.
The Role of Metaphors
In 1667, the British
historian Sir Thomas Sprat wrote in his History of the Royal Society that
figurative language such as metaphors and images should be banished “out of all
civil societies, as a thing fatal to Peace and good Manners,” because such
figurative language bring “mists and uncertainties on our knowledge”. Thus,
people should “return back to … a close, naked, natural way of speaking … as
near the Mathematical plainness as they can.” Sprat’s distinction between
figurative language and plain, literal language is still common today.
Many think that the literal
language of “mathematical plainness” is more true, to the point and more
conducive to knowledge while figurative language such as metaphors are more
likely to confuse and are really only good for making literal language less
boring. But most philosophers, literary and linguistic scholars today recognize
this distinction as inaccurate. In fact, literal language depends on metaphor.
For example, let us examine Sprat’s words again. What did he mean by “mists
and uncertainties on our knowledge” or “a close, naked, natural way of
speaking”? The words “mists” and “naked” here function as metaphors. Thus,
ironically, Sprat used metaphors to denounce the use of metaphors!
Words are not born as
literal. Instead, it is probably the reverse. Take for example “the legs of a
chair”. Chairs, of course, do not have real legs. Thus, this is a metaphor. But
it has become so commonplace that we do not think of it as metaphorical but as
literal. Hence, mathematical and scientific language cannot be devoid of
metaphors or figurative language, Thomas Sprat notwithstanding. Metaphors do not
cloud our thinking, but rather, like any responsible use of language,
they aid us in our thinking and knowing. Even philosophy and theology cannot
avoid using metaphors.
When we use a metaphor, we
say that one thing is another. We take a word out of its common context and
re-apply it to a new situation. For instance, “God is love” is metaphorical. So
is, “Jesus the lamb of God.” Or, “the Church is the Body of Christ.” Consider
also these: born again, fall into sin, the image of God,
and the fruit of the Spirit. The Bible uses all these metaphors to teach
us spiritual truths. We cannot do theology without metaphors.
Similarly, we cannot
practice spirituality without employing metaphorical language. We often pray to
God our Father (he is not “father” in the literal sense) and end with “in the
name of Jesus” (how can one be literally “in” a name?). In worship, we sing “a
mighty fortress is our God” and “Lord, I lift your name on high”. We celebrate
the Lord’s Supper by eating and drinking Christ’s “body and blood”. We confess
and ask God “to wash our sins away”. To read the Bible is to read a rich
storehouse of metaphors, images, similes, analogies and stories.
Metaphors, therefore, are
not merely decorations to spice up boring theological language. Metaphors are
the meat, or if you prefer the rice, of theological and religious language. We
cannot live without metaphors.
Metaphors That Unify
All Christian traditions
share a common source of religious metaphors – the Bible. But I believe that
different metaphors play dominant roles in different traditions. These dominant
metaphors influence and shape that tradition’s doctrines and piety. Other
biblical metaphors are not absent, but they are recessive metaphors. The
dominant metaphors act as that tradition’s unifying force because they seep into
the people’s collective memory. This does not, however, prevent disagreements.
Furthermore, in our cross-denominational world, different dominant metaphors are
also crossing traditional denominational boundaries. Let me clarify these claims
by looking at one specific tradition: evangelicalism.
Evangelicalism is not
confined to a particular denomination. In addition to most Baptists and the
like, it is common to hear of evangelical Anglicans and evangelical Lutherans
and many Christian Reformed people might also consider themselves evangelical.
There are no clearly identified doctrines that unify all these diverse groups
together. But there are common emphases in belief and practice, like:
1)
conversion as dramatic change,
2)
the Bible as source of all spiritual truths,
3)
active evangelism and mission, and
4)
the Cross, or Christ’s crucifixion
(based on David Bebbington,
Evangelicalism in Modern Britain, 1989, pages 1-17).
But let me suggest some
recurring dominant metaphors in evangelicalism. The dominant evangelical view of
Christ is Jesus as Savior. Jesus as Savior is the dominant metaphor that pushes
the evangelical tradition to emphasize the Cross, conversion and evangelism.
Connected to Jesus as Savior is the metaphor of salvation as being born again.
Through the born again metaphor, most evangelicals see salvation as a dramatic,
one-time conversion event instead of, say, a gradual process.
Thanks to these metaphors,
certain texts like John 3:16 and Revelation 3:20 also dominate. Because saving
souls and evangelism are central, evangelicals tend to favor the New Testament
over the Old as it seems to facilitate salvation better. In terms of piety,
Jesus as loving friend is another dominant metaphor in evangelicalism. From
“What a Friend We Have in Jesus” to “You are My All in All”, evangelical hymns
and songs emphasize an intense personal loving friendship with Jesus or God.
This cluster of metaphors,
images and texts shapes the evangelical movement, moving evangelicals to do
theology in certain ways, to emphasize certain doctrines, to prefer certain
kinds of practices to others. And these choices collectively reinforce these
metaphors’ influence in the people’s collective memory. Of course, various other
factors, such as history, also shape the evangelical tradition. But the power of
metaphor as a unifying and shaping force has been too often neglected.
Metaphors for the
Reformed Tradition
All this does not mean that
other metaphors, like Jesus is Lord, are ignored in evangelicalism but they are
recessive metaphors. However, I believe Jesus is Lord is the dominant Reformed
view of Christ. Other dominant metaphors in Reformed Christianity are God as
gracious King, and God as Creator. (You can probably find other dominant
metaphors.) These metaphors move us Reformed Christians, perhaps even
subconsciously, to favor such doctrines as God’s sovereignty, election and
predestination over the doctrine of human free will. They also move us to
emphasize, “Our world belongs to God!” They move our theologians to see
salvation as first and foremost a gift from a gracious God. Thus, Ephesians 2:8
– “For it is by grace you have been saved, through faith – and this not from
yourselves, it is the gift of God – not by works, so that no one can boast” (NIV)
– rather than John 3:16 is the dominant text in Reformed views of salvation.
I belong to the Reformed
denomination the Christian Reformed Church, which produced an identity statement
titled, What It Means To Be Reformed (Faith Alive, 2002). It identified
three emphases or streams in Reformed Christianity: the doctrinal, the pietistic
and the transformational streams. While technically accurate, this statement is
missing a unifying vision that can bring all three streams together, even while
allowing for their diversity.
I suggest these three
streams flow from the same source – the dominant metaphors of Jesus as Lord, of
a gracious God on the throne, of the Creator God, embodied in texts like Isaiah
6:1-8 and Colossians 1:15-23. These metaphors are why the doctrinal stream
emphasizes scripture, creation-fall-redemption, grace, covenant and common
grace. Because we primarily see God as King rather than Friend, we have a
stronger appreciation of covenantal theology than most evangelicals. Even our
pietistic stream’s emphasis on a personal relationship to Jesus – that I
“belong, body and soul, in life and in death, to my faithful Savior Jesus
Christ” (Heidelberg Catechism, Q & A 1) – differs from the evangelicals’
emphasis. Our piety also emphasizes gratitude and the church in ways that
evangelicalism don’t. Similarly, our transformational stream sees God as
reigning over all areas of life, with keywords like kingdom, cultural mandate,
and Christian vocation.
These dominant metaphors
shape Reformed Christians in all three streams. Despite our different streams,
we can appreciate the fact that we flow from the same source. Having the same
dominant metaphors does not mean we never change or disagree. It does not mean
we cannot change doctrines or practices that need changing. Dominant metaphors
are embodied or applied in a diversity of ways across time, space, cultures and
theologies. The beauty of metaphors is their ability to accommodate a
diversified unity.
One Body, Many Members
In
today’s cross-denominational Christianity, Christians in different traditions
may be cross-fertilized by different dominant metaphors. For instance, just as
many Reformed Christians are beginning to think like evangelicals, an increasing
number of evangelicals are starting to catch on to a Reformed vision. A famous
example is Charles Colson whose book (How Now Shall We Live? Tyndale,
1999) challenges the evangelical community to go beyond private faith and
personal salvation to applying a Christian worldview to all areas of life.
Does this mean
the universal church’s future would be a melting pot blend of all traditions? I
don’t think so, for two reasons. Firstly, cross-fertilizations do not create a
blend but result in either adaptation or adoption. Either the
Christian stays loyal to her tradition and adapts the other’s strengths
into her own, or she adopts the other tradition’s dominant metaphors. For
instance, Charles Colson adapted the Reformed perspective into his
evangelicalism by justifying his worldview emphasis as a form of pre-evangelism
(pages 30-31). The Jesus as Saviour motif still looms larger than Jesus as Lord
– worldview thinking is adapted into an evangelism paradigm. An example of
adoption is the increasing numbers of Reformed Christians who view infant
baptism from an evangelical salvation-repentance paradigm rather than the
Reformed covenant-grace perspective.
Secondly, I believe God will ultimately prevent the homogenization
of all Christian traditions. Why? Because, using Paul’s metaphor, God designed
the universal church to be one body with many diverse members (1 Corinthians
12:12-31). There is something redemptive about the denominational diversity that
currently splits Christian unity. If all denominations or traditions become,
say, a hand, where will the foot be? If all were evangelicals, where will the
richness of the Reformed or Anglican or Orthodox perspective be? It is too
simplistic to claim that we should all simply be “one in Christ”. Such claims
ignore the dynamics of homogenization and subtle “religious imperialism”. Just
as economic globalization unwittingly spreads Western culture, the current
dominance of North American evangelical books, music and videos in the global
Christian market unwittingly amounts to a religious imperialism of sorts.
Therefore, saying we should forget about our different traditions and be united
in loving Jesus is like a dominant West saying cultural differences are not
important and the world should just be one happy global village. But as an
ethnic minority, my cultural difference is part of who I am.
Our dominant metaphors are part of who we are as Reformed
Christians. Christian unity does not require us to dissolve our Reformed
identity. Instead, it is as Reformed Christians, shaped by our dominant
metaphors, that we best contribute to Christ’s universal church. The foot best
serves the body by being the best foot it can be, not by impersonating the hand.
We should not compete with other traditions, but we need to complement their
strengths with ours for the body’s common good. We should learn from other
traditions, such as evangelicalism, not by adopting their paradigms, but rather,
by adapting their strengths into our dominant Reformed metaphors. This way, both
Reformed and evangelical traditions mutually strengthen each other without loss
of identity, but still draw closer to each other in unity and cooperation.
For example, instead of
adopting evangelical models and methods of evangelism that assumes a dramatic
one-time decision, we need to adapt and change those models to fit our Reformed
emphasis on salvation as God’s gift. We should do evangelism with a Reformed
accent rather than mimicking an evangelical accent. This would foster a
diversity of evangelism approaches for a diverse world, rather than a McDonald’s
one-taste-fits-all approach. The same can be said for other areas such as
worship music and style.
Finally, for those Reformed
Christians who are tired or impatient with the Reformed tradition: please
consider carefully what treasures you risk losing. What will it cost Christ’s
universal church if Reformed Christians forget their dominant metaphors? Can we
instead find new, fresh and relevant ways to re-embody these metaphors in our
doctrines, piety and transformational engagement with the world? I pray that we
will continue to draw inspiration and creativity from these spiritually true
metaphors: Our Creator God is a gracious King, and Jesus Christ is Lord of all!
Copyright © Shiao C. Chong 2008
This article can be copied and distributed freely provided its content has not
been changed. This resource cannot be sold or distributed for financial gain. It
must be free. And it must be unedited. Otherwise, the author reserves all rights
to the resource.
Return to
Christian Resource Corner |
