People often treat words as if their meanings dropped out of heaven. “THE” definition of a marriage, they say with an air of finality that trumps any possible counter-argument, is “a union between a man and a woman”. As if they had access to God’s own dictionary! If we counter with “whose definition” we might be seen to be subscribing to what might be called the Humpty Dumpty theory of language. (Remember Humpty Dumpty: “when I use a word it means what I choose it to mean”.) But definitions neither just drop out of heaven, nor are they subject to individual whim. They are proposed, contested, and revised in an ongoing communal effort to understand and act in the world. They are not “mere” words. We act in the world (and act with and on each other) by means of language. The boundaries we are attempting to define are real: social, political, geographical, racial, ideological. The outcome of debates about what constitutes a marriage or whether women are persons changes the world. (Yes, believe it or not, just a few short years ago we debated whether women are persons. And recently we decided that “person” properly includes a corporation. I suggest we should celebrate the outcome of the first debate and mourn the latter.) So you might say that debates about definitions are a form of political action.
Oddly, both the Humpty Dumpty view and the God’s dictionary view are forms of Absolutism that attempt to short-circuit the political process and end all discussion. Laying claim to God’s dictionary effectively makes you God. And Humpty Dumpty is clear: “its about who is going to be master,” he says, tellingly. But Humpty Dumpty in laying claim to be the Master of words, is effectively also making himself Master of Worlds. We can’t reach him, discuss with him, persuade him of anything. He walks among us as a sovereign god and decides for himself and by himself who and what things are. Is there any wonder about the great fall and the million little pieces?
Seems we have a choice: we can disown our own voice so we can have it back as Thunder (God’s dictionary) or like Humpty Dumpty we can declare ourselves masters of words and worlds (and all the little rival god-masters can either duke it out or retreat into private little hellholes). Or, we can embrace our humanity — say we’re in it together. We interact with and change each other. We achieve agreements and negotiate dis-agreements. You never know — we might even rediscover the joy of politics.
Rohr calls it “dualistic” thinking. Many Christians navigate the world from this kind of viewpoint. Arming themselves with “The Word of God”, they wield their judgement on everything and everyone. All is categorized: “right and wrong, either/or, black/white, good/bad, in/out ,”. In their view, the holding of “right thinking” and “right beliefs” is necessary for belonging. Anyone not holding the same viewpoints or the same definitions will not be counted among the “holy”.
Words, belief and action used to define/split/categorize/label and judge do much to contribute to arguments, exclusion, and pride.
Seems to fly in the face of Jesus’ modelling of humility, non-judgement, forgiveness and inclusion.
How about we all belong. Let’s work it out.