Movement 111

poetry
poetry: a lanSuaSe
for relision
ls religious language metaphorical?
How does religious language work?
Religious conseruatives often say that
we should take religious statements
literally, but there are obvious problems
with this. When we say that Jesus is the
Son of God, few theologians would say
that we're making a statement about
Jesus' biological parentage anymore.
God doesn't appear to have any
chromosomes so, whatever we believe
about the Virgin Birth, we can't take it
that Jesus is God's son because he
shares fifty per cent of his chromosomes
with the Father. Theologians
have come to invoke the phrase 'poetic
language' to talk about religious
language. But, at least among some
popular theologians, this looks a bit
like they're ducking the issue. The
since the nineteenth century it has been popular
to say that poetic Ianguage expresses emotion
but doesn't actually mean anything
claim is usually explained by saying
religious statements are metaphorical.
But that can appear to mean that
religious statements are roundabout
and misleading ways of saying
something that could be said in nonreligious
language - and that doesn't
seem to do. ln addition, since the
nineteenth century it has been popular
to say that poetic language expresses
emotion but doesn't actually mean
anything, but that doesn't seem to be a
E|ood account of poetry, let alone
religious language.
The emotional expression theory of poetry
eventually developed from seventeenth and
eighteenth century theories of language,
which are still those that we find natural. The
theories take it that words are labels that
attach to things in the world. Thus we say of
Hurrahing in Harvest
Summer ends now; now, barbarous in beauty the stooks rise
Around; up above, what wind-walks! What lovely behaviour
Of silk-sack clouds! has wilder, wllful-wavier
Meal-drift moulded ever and melted across skies?
I walk, I lift up, I lift up heart, eyes,
Down all that glory in the heavens to glean our Saviour;
And, eyes, heart, what looks, what lips yet gave you a
Rapturous love's greeting of realer, of rounder replies?
And the azurous hung hills are his world-wielding shoulder
Majestic - as a stallion stalwart, very-violet-sweet! -
These things, these things were here and but the beholder
Wanting; which two when they once meet,
The heart rears wings bold and bolder
And hurls for him, O half hurls earth for him off under his
feet.
Gerard Manley Hopkins
are on
('the cat is on the mat') or that they are
various colours ('the bottle is green'). All
deviations from this kind of language are
metaphorical and liable to be nonsense.
Hence the idea that poetry was the expression
of emotion. Conseruative theories of
religious language take it that religious
phrases must be literal claims about objects
of this order. But we don't go around saying
that cats are on mats - at least not unless
that is somehow significant. Much of the time
we do things like comfort each other, express
emotions, telljokes, and complain about the
conseruative theories of religious language
take it that religious phrases must
be literal claims about obiects
weather. These uses of language rely upon an
assumption of significance. Even on those
occasions where we tell each other what
things are or where things are, we do so with
some tacit assumption that these things
matter to us. We say that the glasses are on
the table when we are looking for the
glasses, or that the cat is on the mat when
we are looking for the cat, or perhaps
I
movementl9