The Swirling Maelstorm of Language

I am currently reading Tim Keel's book, "Intuitive Leadership" and amongst other things he talks about the difference in how different languages are read. The three styles of language he talks about are Chinese, Hebrew/Arabic, and Greek/English. Chinese, as well as other languages of that region have a pictorial value to their language. The symbols used often partially reflect the word they are representing. By contrast Greek and English use completely arbitrary and abstract symbols combined together to make words which only have meaning when we are taught them but often hold little resemblance to the things that refer to. Keel also notes that in Arabic and Hebrew one reads right to left, which apparently requires the use of the right brain instead of the left, and that Hebrew and Arabic do not use vowels, so that part of the act of reading is the filling in of those gaps. The result, Keel argues is that language takes on a greater meaning because of the increased stimulation.

I could go on and on about language, how its meanings are shaped by culture, and so on, but instead I wanted to spend a moment of the question of how we read. Unfortunately because of the format I am using, we are forced to look at this topic through a limited lens but I will still try. The idea that I wanted to talk about was less the question of left to right/right to left/top to bottom, but instead the nonlinear way of speaking and reading. When I go to outline my sermon, I often struggle with seeing a clear line through the swirl of ideas that I usually start from. Some of this is necessary refining to take the often caffeine induced ideas that I start from when preaching. Part of the challenge is that people often make better sense of something when it is done literally, and really the two sermon formats that I was taught were inductive and deductive, so either working from a conclusion and following its progression or working towards a conclusion. The image I have in my mind is something I recall from learning about Jewish Biblical studies, where a text of scripture is placed at the heart and then written around it are the various interpretations of different Rabbis through the years. I like the idea of simply saturating someone with ideas and letting them sort out all of the connections.

I guess my question in all of this is whether it is possible, in the context of a sermon, to have an effective, non-linear conversation. Can one use the swirling nature of language, imagery, and ideas and simply spin out ideas for the congregation allowing them to make the connections. Rather than being a process of moving from or towards a conclusion it becomes the art of creating multiple conclusions, or at least introducing the possibility to go many different ways from the same ideas. I think I am stuck on the question of if there is something to aspire towards, in a sermon that would be a better understanding of God, can you lead people towards a universal end while allowing for multiple paths? I want to hold in tension the desire for some sort of universal aim while respecting the need for different paths to move towards that end. What worries me is whether it is possible to allow people to engage in their own journey, their own quest towards understanding while at the same time actively moving them forward on that journey. I think the hard part is that even the concept of moving forward assumes the understanding of a some sort of goal, which would assume that in order for a pastor to help people forward a pastor must have some sense of what that direction looks like. How do we allow for different paths of truth while still assuming an ultimate sort of truth, even something as simple as a God who is knowable in some form. I feel like there is a compromise out there. I feel like there is a way to have a sermon/message/experience with the Word, that allows for people to access God and learn about God without requiring forgone conclusions or a linear projection towards or from sort of absolute.

I feel that I am largely left with no great conclusions on this, but I hope the swirl of my thought has been interesting to follow and gives you a sense of what is going on in my brain at present.