Theology within the Bounds of Language: A Methodological Tour

21. Metaphor

Chapter 21 ‫ﱾﱻ‬ Metaphor Once accepted as a norm, the Principle of Relative Similarity enjoins that, on most occasions, a statement’s use of terms should resemble the established use of terms more closely than would the substitution of any rival, incompatible expression. The resemblance may be distant—indeed, the points of dissimilarity may outnumber those of similarity; but if the dissimilarities would be still greater for any rival expression, the principle may be satisfied. Such analogy may therefore appear comparable to that in a good metaphor. For example: Christians speak of God as “Father.” That’s simple enough, but it’s not clear or unambiguous. Christians use it of God as creator of the universe; they use it of his relation to the whole human race made in his image, of his particular relation to Christian believers made his sons and daughters by adoption and grace, and more specifically still of his special relation to Jesus.1 Here, multiple similarities validate the term “Father,” as multiple, perhaps fewer, similarities validate many a PRS extension of a term. So metaphor and PRS analogy may seem to merge, and in that case metaphor may pose no challenge to PRS and its norm. It may not be an exception to their requirements. However, since in fact even the best metaphors typically do not satisfy the Principle of Relative Similarity, the challenge cannot be so easily finessed. To take a simple example, it is not evident how the Psalmist’s declaration “You are indeed my rock and my fortress” (Ps. 31:3) can pass the PRS test. “Rock” and “fortress” are rival expressions, for different sorts of things; and if tested for closer similarity with established 197 198 Theology within the Bounds of Language word-uses, neither term appears preferable to the other as a description of God. God is rock-like and God is fortress-like. Furthermore, “god” competes with both “rock” and “fortress” and clearly does better by the same test of established word-use: “god” is used for gods, whereas “rock” and “fortress” typically are not. So, has the Psalmist said something false or unacceptable, as PRS and its norm would seem to suggest? We here confront the issue postponed earlier, as we passed from truth and its norm to other, related questions. As a necessary condition of truth, I acknowledged, PRS may appear too restrictive. Though the principle may rightly resist a statement such as “Atoms love one another,” does it rightly exclude “The Lord is my rock”? Is such a declaration false? May it not be true? Whatever the answer to this question, the legitimacy of such utterances can hardly be contested, at least in some contexts for some purposes. However, if admissible in poetry, psalms, preaching, and the like, are they equally acceptable in theological discourse? Are they perhaps, as some have claimed, not only suitable there, but necessary? In the light of the answers to these queries, we may need to ask, in addition, whether preceding discussions, citing PRS and its norm but ignoring metaphor, should be reconsidered. For reasons apparent from chapter 13, on defining and saying what things are, we need not first address the further question, “What is metaphor?” Clearly, “The Lord is my rock” qualifies as a metaphor. And clearly, as just noted, it differs importantly from PRS extensions such as those considered earlier (“God is good,” “God is wise,” etc.). But no sharp criterion discriminates metaphor from non-metaphor. As Max Black observed, “ ‘Metaphor’ is a loose word, at best, and we must beware of attributing to it stricter rules of usage than are actually found in practice.”2 Some theorists apply the term narrowly, whereas others apply it broadly, to any verbal extension by similarity, so that metaphor appears an all-pervasive, unavoidable aspect of discourse. I need not here debate the felicity of thus stretching the term metaphor to cover both “The Lord is my rock” and “God is good.” I need only indicate that the present discussion of metaphor will focus on the former type of utterance (“The Lord is my rock”) rather than the latter (“God is good”), and will use the words metaphor and metaphorical accordingly. True? Chapter 4 defended the claim to truth of statements that satisfy the Principle of Relative Similarity. What, now, of metaphorical utterances that do not satisfy that principle? What of “The Lord is my rock” or 199 Metaphor “The...