04-2 Hermeneutics.pdf

34 LOGIAaltogether, they are found making meager attempts to lighten theundesirable elements of it: for instance, by providing a variety ofdifferent “liturgies,” in an attempt to satisfy the populist’s continualitching to hold a channel-changer in his hand. Attempts tomake the liturgy user friendly include also the interjection ofinterruptions into the flow of the liturgy to make occasional referencesto the page number in the hymnal, or to explain themeaning of certain liturgical actions, or to explain portions of thereadings (such interruptions are reportedly even happening inthe midst of a single reading!).The overall concern, clearly, is one of being sensitive to theperceived needs of certain people, and this concern arises out of apopulist mindset whose chief resource is the common sense ofthose people, the sensus communis.THE LANGUAGE OF THE FAITH:A RESPONSE TO THE CHALLENGEWhy the Language of Faith Is RequisiteTo be sure, the catholic and apostolic faith has always beenbeset with challenges concerning language, for language has everbeen faith’s way of manifesting itself in the world. Yet this challengetends to have to do not merely with the words communicatedbut with the kind of communication employed, the manneror method of communication of the words.But here another false dichotomy has been erected, namely, adistinction between words and communication; for in the simplestanalysis, words are communication. The commission ofwords to the printed page is not prior but posterior to the expressionof words orally; thus it is false to suppose that words inthemselves require something additional in order for them to beeffective. Words are communication; they do not require communication.Their very existence depends on their having beencommunicated.The language used in the communicationof the gospel must be a languageof faith.nbNot only is this so, but more importantly, language itself isfirst of all a divine and not a human attribute, for it was God whospoke first, before man was even created. God said, “Let there belight,” before any man was even created to hear the sound of hisvoice. Speech is divine, then. Language is of God, not of man.From this perspective it is less proper to refer to man’s ability tospeak as a human attribute than to refer to it as a remnant of hiscreation in the image of God, though it is true that since the Fallall men are liars, as the psalmist declares (Ps 116).Therefore, when considering the word of God, how muchmore must we affirm the self-sufficiency of it. If all words are bytheir very nature self-sufficient, clearly it would be improper tosuppose that the word of God requires the methods of men for itscommunication. Rather, all men need the word of God, in orderproperly to talk about God at all, or even, for that matter, to talkabout talking about God. For the gospel is already words, speech,the word of God. “In the beginning was the Word,” not the methodsof men.St. Paul is even bold to declare his own methodologicalweakness, saying, “I, brethren, when I came to you, came notwith excellency of speech or of wisdom, declaring unto you thetestimony of God” (1 Cor 2). Evidently he had not been giventraining in the “how” of communication, yet this was of noconcern to him, for, as he continues, “my speech and mypreaching was not with enticing words of man’s wisdom, but indemonstration of the Spirit and of power; that your faithshould not stand in the wisdom of men, but in the power ofGod.” Yet he at once goes on to declare that “we,” that is, theholy apostles, “speak not in the words which man’s wisdomteacheth, but which the Holy Ghost teacheth, comparing spiritualthings with spiritual.”I believe that an acceptable gloss at this point would be toadd “teachings,” and to suggest “words” for “things,” thus allowingthe text to read, “comparing spiritual words with spiritualteachings.” The phrase pneumatikoi'" pneumatika; sungkrivnonte"contains two substantive adjectives, both of which demandthe supplying of a noun in translation. The nouns to be suppliedneed not be guessed, however, for they are given in the immediatecontext, namely, first “words,” lovgoi", and second, “which theHoly Ghost teacheth,” which actually is a translation of ejn didaktoi'"pneuvmato", more literally, “in the teachings spiritual.” Thuswe have a text that reads more accurately, “we speak not in theteachings, the words of men’s wisdom, but in the teachings of theSpirit, combining spiritual words with spiritual teachings.”That is to say, the words that we must use in talking aboutGod are themselves spiritual words, words that have a characterof their own, which bear no direct correspondence to the wordsof the wisdom of men. That is, they are divine words, words issuingdirectly out of the mouth of God, as it was in the beginning.Yet, says the Apostle, we speak these words, we who are men,when we speak about God, and therein lies the mystery not onlyat the heart of the word of God, but of the incarnation of God theWord. That men can speak words of God is a mystery, even as theincarnation of God as man is a mystery.What the Language of Faith IsSo it is that the language used in the communication of thegospel must be a language of faith, a language delivered from Godhimself. Simply put, the language of faith is the word of God. Theterm “language of faith” is apropos not only because it refers tothe word of God on the sacred page, but as it springs from ourown lips. That is, it becomes our language as we learn how to talkabout God; yet it derives from the word of God. This is the languagethe faithful must learn to speak, specifically as they employthe mental capacity to construct sentences, to communicate bymeans of their own sanctified volition what they know aboutGod and the holy gospel. The language of faith now becomes notmerely the word of God, but particularly the word of God on thelips of the faithful.