Tag Archive for 'language'

Clarity and understanding

I am currently trying to learn how to use XSL for my website.  XSL stands for eXtensible Stylesheet Language, and allows an XML file to be displayed in a friendly format.

XML files look like HTML, and they are commonly used for holding data.  While slower than a database, they are much easier to read with the naked eye.  Because of this, they are very useful for sharing data across different systems.  For example, try opening a *.doc file in a text editor.  It is a load of gobbledegook.  Now find a *.docx file, change the extension to .zip, extract the files, and view them in a text editor.  You can read it with the naked eye.

However, all of that isn't my point.  A friend recently wrote a blog post complaining about overly complex language when explaining one's ideas.  It is of course not limited to academic circles, but all over the place.  I have been reading online guides to understanding XSL, and many of them are absolutely useless.  They use jargon.  They explain things using other concepts they haven't explained.  They use single sentences to describe complex things.  And so on.

I think that at the root of all this is a lack of understanding.  The path to clarity is nothing less than understanding.  If people do not understand fully what they are saying, then they will regurgitate complex language in an attempt to sound clever, to sound like they really understand what they are talking about.

After all, I should know: I did this at university.  When writing essays I 'copied' the language of the books I was reading, in order to sound clever, because I didn't really understand.  One of my first essays is a wonderfully dense description of 'nothingness', using language heavily derived from Moltmann's own dense analysis.  When you really do understand something, it is painfully obvious when people are doing this.

My plea is this: please don't write an instruction manual, or something explaining a concept, unless you understand at least most of it, if not all of it!

‘One single being’?

God is not just one single being. He is Father, Son and Holy Spirit: he is Trinity, he is community. And so therefore God is mutual love.

Graham Tomlin, The Praise of Creation, Holy Trinity Brompton, Sunday 29 October 2006

I have a couple of sermon podcasts on my iPod and I was listening to this one on the train home yesterday afternoon. This sentence hit me square between the eyes.

The question is, how far should we reduce and simplify doctrine in our preaching? I think quite a lot - but not so what we say is misleading (at best) or wrong (at worst). The example above is a case in point. 'God is not just one single being' is an extremely misleading statement. What I think he means is this: to say God is 'one' is not all we can say about God. Because, God actually is a 'single being'. We do not believe in three gods, Christians are not tritheists. It is language like the sentences above that makes people think we are.

In our language about the Trinity I think we need to make three things clear: 1) God is one, 2) God is one-in-three and three-in-one, 3) God's unity is primary. Point (3) is the traditional way of Christian theology, and of course it has its dangers - which Moltmann emphasises - but it safeguards the divinity of Father, Son and Spirit, and the unity of their work in Creation. Given the clear demarcation in the New Testament between Father and Son especially, theologically the unity needs to be our starting point, and needs to be stressed. 'Community' is simply too weak a concept for the unity of God. This is one of Moltmann's biggest problems - if you stress the threeness of God first, how can you explain the unity of God in strong enough terms?

Graham Tomlin's point is that God did not need to create us because he needed someone to love him, to glorify him. In Godself, God is perfect love, because the one God is Father, Son and Holy Spirit. To that, I say, absolutely. I have no problem with that. However, you do not need to say 'God is not just one single being' in order to be able to say 'God is mutual love'.

It is here that the question I raised initially is important: how far should we reduce and simplify doctrine in our preaching? How can we explain that God is mutual love in Godself, in a couple of sentences? Sometimes we may only be able to say what God is not, to define boundaries, beyond which language fails miserably. Here's my attempt.

The Bible tells us that God is one, that there is no other God besides him. But the Bible also tells us that God reveals himself as Father, Son and Spirit. The Father did not need to create the world to be loved, because from all eternity he loves and is loved by the Son, who shares that love with the Spirit. The one God is perfect, mutual love.

I know it isn't perfect, and it is perhaps more complicated, but it does seek to emphasise both the oneness and threeness of God together.