THE RELIGIOUS LANGUAGE NEWSLETTER
Volume 2, Issue 2 -- March/April 2001
==========================================================
The Religious Language Newsletter is written and published every other month by Suzette Haden Elgin, Ph.D. (linguistics), from the Ozark Center for Language Studies (OCLS), PO Box 1137, Huntsville, AR 72740-1137 USA; e-mail OCLS@madisoncounty.net. It's available by e-mail only, in plain text, and is free to members of the Lovingkindness Network. To join the network, send $5.00 (annual dues) to OCLS; please be sure to include your e-mail address with your check, money order, or credit card information. For more information, contact OCLS; thanks to a generous donation, all issues are posted at http://www.forlovingkindness.org.
==========================================================
IN THIS ISSUE: Editor's Note; Good and Evil; Booknotes; Quotes & Comments; Cyberstuff; Openness Theology Follow-Up

EDITOR'S NOTE

I want to thank all of you who've been sending material; my thanks also to all who've been sending suggestions (and following up on suggestions) for expanding our net work membership. I'm grateful. And I want to let you know ahead of time that the May/June issue of this newsletter might be a little late because I have so much travel scheduled for May; if it doesn't show up in your inbox right at the beginning of May, you'll know what has happened. It will be along as promptly as possible.

One more thing....I continue to look, without any success, for material about the nonverbal communication aspects of biblical language when spoken aloud in English, especially with regard to intonation. [Context example, for new members: There's a meaning difference between "If you love me, you'll keep my commandments" and "If you LOVE me, you'll KEEP my comMANDments!"] I'd be grateful for any information at all on this topic.

GOOD AND EVIL

1. Asked why his "landscape of violence, horror, and often unmitigated evil" should be so attractive to readers, Dean Koontz said: "There are a number of factors. I think the biggest one is that we are coming out of a century that was taught that one way of looking at the world, that one form of behavior, is as valid as another. If behavior becomes sociopathic or destroys other people, or if the person is a murderer or whatever, there's a sense of, 'Well, we can understand that.' The idea of true evil has been blown away. ... But people gravitate to fiction that says there is true evil, that there is a way to live that is good, and that there is a way to live that is bad. And that these are moral choices, and if you make the wrong moral choice often enough, you're evil. They gravitate to that because they see that's really the way the world works."

This is from "Contemplating Evil," an interview with horror novelist Dean Koontz by Nick Gillespie and Lisa Snell, on pp. 44-49 of the 11/96 issue of _Reason_ (sent to me by Pat Mathews); the quote is on page 46. It's an interesting position that Koontz takes here. He doesn't just say "reading about evil keeps people from going out and actually _doing_ evil," which is the claim heard most often (from Stephen King, for example); he says that people turn to horror fiction as a refuge from moral relativism and because they want to read about the moral choice between good and evil.

The problem with this position is that the primary lesson horror fiction teaches is that evil is glamorous and exciting and, often, splendid. Milton had that problem with _Paradise Lost_; the most glamorous and charismatic character in _Paradise Lost_ is unquestionably Satan. People don't read _The Silence of the Lambs_ because they find the law enforcement characters in the book irresistible, they read it because they can't get enough of serial killer and cannibal Hannibal Lector. The protagonists of goodness in current attempts at religious fiction and films, for both adults and children, are admirable -- and boring. We need fiction and films in which the representatives of _goodness_ are what's irresistible. The only horror narrative I know of in which good is more compelling and enthralling than evil is the crucifixion of Jesus. I'd be very glad to consider other examples, however, if you'll propose them; let's make a list.

BOOKNOTES

1. _Watchman Prayer: How to Stand Guard and Protect Your Family, Home and Community_, by Dutch Sheets; Regal Books 2000; ISBN 0-8307-2567-9. When I first saw this book mentioned, I thought how much better "watchman" was as a religious metaphor than "warrior," and was puzzled only that the author didn't try to avoid the male-only semantics of the word "watchman." But I've now read the book, and I'm sorry to have to report that what Sheets means by "watchman" is what George R.R. Martin means by it -- as in "we are the swords in the darkness, the watchers on the walls" and "sworn brothers of the night's watch." Sheets isn't talking about a friendly watchman with a flashlight and a cell phone, as I had hoped. His metaphor is still the Warrior, out on the walls standing watch, always ready with deadly weapons, always alert for the attacker and prepared to defend to the death. If you're interested in reading about the United States Spritual Warfare Network, this is a good source; if you want to know about "smart bomb praying," defined on page 162 as "prayers armed with warheads of specific information regarding issues of darkness within [a] community," it's a good source; if you want to know how to deal with witches that have infiltrated your church, you'll find that information here. This is a manual for the religious life as Combat, written in the language of combat -- and at the same time, written for devout members of a faith that commands us to return good for evil and tells us that it is the peacemakers who are blessed. The mental and spiritual gymnastics required must be extraordinary. [In passing, I feel obliged to mention that I also find the book disorganized and badly written; the editor must have been asleep at his or her post.]

2. I was recently sent a review copy of _Star Ancestors_, by Nancy Red Star (subtitle, _Indian Wisdomkeepers Share the Teachings of the Extraterrestrials_), Destiny Books 2000; the ISBN is 0-89281-819-0. This is a beautiful (and beautifully-produced) oversized paperback, 192 pages long, illustrated with many photographs of Native Americans and of Native American art. Nancy Red Star's thesis is that all Native American peoples have had stories of extraterrestrials, and of human contact with extraterrestrials, from many centuries before the current "UFO" flap began; in the book she offers interviews on this subject conducted with Native Americans from from a variety of tribes and traditions. (On page 30: "Almost every tribe has a legend that speaks about Sky People, about having come from the stars. The Hopi, specifically their Katsinas [Kachinas], are Star People. The Iroquois say that the first person was Woman-who-fell-from-the-Sky. My own adherence to tradition is Anishinabe....the name itself means 'man let down from the sky.' ... The Hopi are quite matter-of-fact about their connection with Star People existing here and now." On page 84: "A long time ago our ancestors of Maya did rituals to the planets, and our ancestors who traveled to Earth educated the Maya People." On page 109: "The Red man descended to Earth from the Pleiades; indigenous people have a long history of space exploration and extraterrestrial contact."

The interviews (written in a narrative format rather than as questions and answers) are uneven. Some are measured accounts; some are way out on the fringes. All have one important thing in common: The presentation of a belief that we are now in a long-prophesied time of critical importance for humankind, in which a return to an actively religious way of life is essential if we are to survive. Some interviewees specifically say that the Native Americans have been instructed to share this information now with other peoples. Navajo elder Harriet Goodluck's comment on page 4 that "the Navajo deities will not be able to help us unless we give them power with our prayers" reminds me of openness theology (and is of course consistent with the Navajo theological position in which humankind and the Holy interact to construct reality). If I've understood the interviews correctly, Native American peoples are being instructed to return to the ways of their own religious traditions, and Anglos are being advised to go and do likewise.

QUOTES & COMMENTS

1. "Since prayer is a form of conversation, and since we must attend carefully to the wisest person in any conversation, [Peter] Kreeft asserts that 'we ought to be listening most of the time' when speaking with God." [From a review of Kreeft's _Prayer For Beginners_ (Ignatius) on page 192 of the 2/14/00 _Publishers Weekly_; no byline.]

Notice the language difficulty the reviewer has here. Prayer is being defined as a conversation with God; so far, so good. But we're told that in prayer we should do more listening than speaking because we must pay close attention to "the wisest person" in any conversation. Calling God a person is a poor choice; on the other hand, there don't appear to be any acceptable alternatives. "The wisest entity in any conversation" turns the human being into an "entity"; items like "the wisest participant" and "the wisest interacter" (and so on) are psychobabble. Once the writer chooses the structure -- "the wisest X in any conversation" -- I see no elegant way out.

2. I'd like some input from you readers; I'd like to know what you think it is -- in terms of language -- that makes a familiar Irish blessing so beloved. (If you're someone who finds it smarmy and tacky instead of beloved, I'm interested in hearing what -- in terms of language -- you believe is responsible for that feeling as well.) It's easy to spoil this blessing, and I constantly see versions that have been badly mauled, usually on products in gift shops. It's excruciatingly easy to parody it, which should mean that its identifying characteristics -- its "specs" -- are obvious. I'm interested in the difference between the mauled versions and the other ones; I'm interested in the specs. Be sure, when you write, to tell me if it's okay to quote and credit you. Here's a version that I like:

May the road rise up to meet you.
May the wind be always at your back.
May the sun shine warm upon your face,
and the rain fall soft upon your fields.
And until we meet again,
may God hold you always in the palm of His hand.

[Note: If you want to see a batch of other examples, both excellent and dreadful, go to http://www.google.com and type "Irish blessings" in the search box.]

3. From page 72 of Kathleen Norris' _Dakota: A Spiritual Geography_ (Houghton Mifflin 1993):

"Candidates at one monastery told of a novice in the past who had such a hot temper that the others loved to bait him. Once when they were studying he closed a window and the other monks opened it; once, twice. When he got up to close the window for the third time, he yelled at them, 'Why are you making me sin with this window?' "

4. "This brief paper is intended to be a conceptual table-setting, a guide to sharpening our knives and forks, choosing appropriate plates and cups to contain the material to be consumed at the conference and giving everything a fair salting to bring out particular flavours. While utensils have been developed in different parts of the world, and would seem useful here, we must beware of preparing for an exotic, rather than a local cuisine. Let me begin then with some 'raw material', perhaps uncooked and indigestible at this stage, but reflecting local tastes."

That's Stephen W. Martin's introductory abstract for a fine conference paper titled "Public and religious discourse: sampling a local cuisine," for which he says his charge was to show the relationship between religious discourse and "public" discourse. He maintains the metaphor -- which I believe should be understood as a metaphor of hospitality, rather than of cooking and cuisine specifically -- throughout the entire paper. Section headings include "Appetising," "Preparing the (main) dis/course," "Leftovers," "Digesting (in)conclusions"; he asks "What of the 'take-away' use of religion, its enjoyment in other public places?"; he notes that "some people get nervous when they see religious dishes on the 'public' menu." It's very nicely done, and is especially interesting in the current context of George W. Bush's plan to extend government funding to "faith-based organizations" in the U.S., and the controversy about that plan's implications for the separation of church and state. Martin begins by saying, "Atempts to confine religion to a side table, away from the main 'public' meal, have never suceeded in South Africa."

Here's a quote from page 2, with my apologies for all the dots: "Religion is at the heart of the human enterprise -- we are, in the phrase of Langdon Gilkey, _homo religiosus_ -- and is inevitably present in 'the making and the unmaking of public policy' ... Particular religions, as David Chidester...says, are experiments in being human... Indeed all experiments in being human are religious, since they express in what Richard Rorty...calls 'final vocabularies' our deepest convictions... Such vocabularies articulate the worldview that we live out of, the horizon against which we project our acts, that place we stand when we reason... In that sense, all public discourse is religious discourse..." You can read the paper in full at http://www.ricsa.org.za/me99/docs/martin.htm; I recommend it.

5. From a letter to the editor written by Bernard Weitzman, titled "Nature vs. Nurture vs. Karma," pp. 9-10 of the 7/00 issue of _Shambhala Sun_; on page 10:

"The Jewish tradition says that when you are about to be born, God takes you to a field covered with bundles. Each bundle is a particular set of troubles. You can choose any bundle, but you have to take it to Earth with you. The Rabbis say that if, at the moment of death, God would take you back to that field and let you choose another bundle with which to relive your life, you would always pick the same one."

6. For your metaphor collection, this from a blurb by Larry Dossey for Sophy Burnham's _Ecstatic Journey, The Trade_: "Mystics, it is said, swim in the sea in which the unwise drown. Learn to swim: Read this book." Now that's a skillful blurb.

7. I bought a copy of the (very expensive) _The Salt Journal_ for Winter 2001; I bought it because it was new to me and it was labeled "The Feminist Issue." I wasn't impressed by the feminist content, but I'm glad I had a chance to read "Breaking Midrash with James Carse," by Richard Marranca, which appears on pp. 37-43. [Carse is the author of _Gospel of the Beloved Disciple_ (HarperSanFrancisco 1999), which is a gospel wrriten from the point of view of the Samaritan woman.] On page 38:

"In 325...Constantine established a canon that put a stop to the writing of gospels. Up to that time, there had been a lot of gospels. ... Gospel writing was an early Christian traditioin; there may have been as many as 200 gospels written in the first several Christian centuries. So I thought, good, I'll resume the tradition, the old practice of writing gospels." And on page 40: "It is important to note here that the gospel is a literary form unique to Christianity. It makes sense for many reasons to resume writing them."

I went to some of my reference books and can summarize their definition of "gospel" as "the message taught and preached by Jesus Christ," with various (mostly snide) comments laid on about the use of the word as a label for a literary genre. Your input on this question would be welcome.

8. From "Searching For the God Within," subtitled "The way our brains are wired may explain the origin and power of religious beliefs, by Sharon Begley; page 59, _Newsweek_ for 1/29/01:

"If brain wiring explains the feelings believers get from prayer and ritual, are spiritual experiences mere creations of our neurons? Neuro-theology at least suggests that spiritual experiences are no more meaningful than, say, the fear the brain is hard-wired to feel in response to a strange noise at night. Believers, of course, have a retort: the brain's wiring may explaing religious feelings -- but who do you think was the master electrician?" [You can read this online at http://www.msnbc.com/news/519130.asp?cp1=1#TOP; my thanks to Linda Eldredge for the URL. And for another brief article on the subject, go to http://www.salon.com/books/feature/2001/02/01/god_part/print.html and read "Hard-wired for God?", by Michael Joseph Gross. Gross is reviewing -- and arguing against -- Matthew Alper's book, _The "God" Part of the Brain_.]

9. From "Is God a Rams Fan?", by Randall Balmer, pp. 20-24. _Sojourners_ for 1-2/01, sent by Pat Mathews; on pp. 21-22:

"It would not be difficult to argue that the sports stadium has replaced the church sanctuary as the dominant arena of piety at the turn of the 21st century, especially for American men. At least as far back as the late 17th century, women have far outnumbered men in the churches. ... The appeals to men have generally drawn on one of two metaphors, both of them dating back to the New Testament: militarism and athleticism." Balmer tells us that the rubric uniting these two metaphors is the term "muscular Christianity"; he tells us that he doesn't think God really has much interest in who wins on the football field; and he says on page 23 that the appeal of sports is that "in the alternative universe of the stadium, unlike the larger world, the rules are unambiguous and everyone plays by the same rules. No exceptions. No special pleading."

10. "Humility is just as much the opposite of self-abasement as it is of self-exaltation. To be humble is _not to make comparisons_." [Dag Hammarskjold, from his book _Markings_, quoted on page 67 of _Parabola_ for Spring 1987; emphasis in the original.]

CYBERSTUFF

1. Versions of all the Psalms in both rhyme and traditional meter are available (and very printer-friendly) at http://www.ccel.org/w/watts/psalmshymns. All are by IsaacWatts, all are in public domain; often there are several versions of a single Psalm. I'm not sure I _like_ them much, but they're interesting. The site works beautifully and conveniently -- and quickly. [Note: Doing a search with the keyword "Psalms" at Google is, in my experience, always productive; lots of interesting things turn up.]

2. Try http://unbound.biola.edu. "Nearly every version of the Bible is available in many languages at this comprehensive site, including English, Biblical languages, and ancient translations." The site is searchable, and includes Greek and Hebrew dictionaries.

3. "Invisible Sermons: The Hidden Discourse of Students' Religious Writing" is a paper by Liz Nutting, with an essay/interview by one of her students as a springboard; you can read it at http://astro.ocis.temple.edu/~lizard/invisibleSermons.htm. Nutting claims that her student uses two different discourses, starting with "the standard discourse of the academy" (paper-for-the-prof style) and then shifting to "what I initially thought of as the discourse of the sermon, but which I've lately been thinking of as more a discourse of witness or testifying, in the Protestant evangelical sense of those terms." She discusses the linguistic differences between the sermon form -- which she considers very close to academic discourse -- and testifying, which she defines as "personal narrative about God's saving action in an individual's life, with the implicit intention of winning new converts or 'convicting' someone." [I'm not sure what "convicting" means in this context, by the way, but I follow her argument.] She discusses the "rhetorical and linguistic markers for testifying" in the student's paper. And she writes that "for the final two and a half pages of the paper, this specific religious discourse dances with the academic language, alternately leading and following." (The student's paper -- which got a B+ from Nutting -- is included, on a link.)

OPENNESS THEOLOGY FOLLOWUP

In previous discussions of openness theology, network members have written to suggest that that they recognized it as "process theology." Here's the position of Gregory A. Boyd (the best-known openness theologian):

"Some evangelicals have wrongly accused open theists of being close to process thought, but in truth the two views have little in common. Process thought holds that God _can't_ predetermine or foreknow with certainty _anything_ about the distant future. Open theists rather maintain that God can and does predetermine and foreknow _whatever he wants to_ about the future. Indeed, God is so confident in his sovereignty, we hold, he does not need to micromanage everything. ... So he chooses to leave some of the future open to possibilities, allowing them to be resolved by the decisions of free agents. It takes a greater God to steer a worldpopulated with free agents than it does to steer a world of pre-programmed automatons." (Page 31, _God of the Possible: A Biblical Introduction to the Open View of God_, by Gregory A. Boyd; Baker Books 2000; ISBN 0-8010-6290-X. All the emphases are in the original.)

I was a bit disappointed in this book. Boyd clearly was bending over backward to make the book clear to the nonspecialist reader. I understand and appreciate that. However, it seemed to me that he "dumbed down" a little too much, and left some obvious questions dangling because he saw no way to make the answers sufficiently simplistic. I suspect that that may be an unfair judgment on my part (especially since I'm always being accused by my colleagues in linguistics of doing precisely the same thing when I write about language, and I dislike that intensely). There is a very definite and recognizable "Bible Belt" register of English that's used in books written for the evangelical and fundamentalist audience; it always distracts me from the content, no matter how hard I try to read without being put off by it. I do recommend the book enthusiastically for anyone interested in a careful overview of this controversy. It's a very _important_ controversy.

Final note, while I'm here: The aspect of all this that relates most directly to religious language is the implications the doctrine has with regard to prayer. Suppose openness theology is wrong and every smallest detail of the future has been foreordained from the beginning of time. If that's the case, then what use is there for "petitionary prayer"? Prayers of thanks and prayers of praise would have their usual functions, yes, but what would be the point of _asking_ God for anything? Why say "give us this day our daily bread" if the decision has already been made, irrevocably, about every bite of food that will go into every human mouth? Perhaps some of you can clarify that for me....

Copyright © 2001 Suzette Haden Elgin
All rights reserved
===========================
E-mail newsletters by Suzette Haden Elgin for 2001 are: _The Linguistics & Science Fiction Newsletter_; _The Religious Language Newsletter_; and _The Verbal Self-Defense Newsletter_. Each $5.00 a year for six issues, by e-mail, advertising-free. Information and a free sample issue from OCLS@madisoncounty.net.