The Problem of Symbolic Reference

THE PROBLEM OF SYMBOLIC REFERENCE IT IS PERMISSIBLE THESE DAYS for theologians to dwell on the existential meaning of religious symbols. It is not permissible, however, for a theologian to dwell on just what it is to which these symbols refer. To do so elicits responses such as " that language has no meaning " or " how can you verify that?" It seems to me that there has grown up a subtle yet unmistakable correlation between two different sets of distinctions. The distinction between symbols and signs common to theology is correlated with the distinction between meaning and reference reported by some philosophers. Religious symbols are accepted as having meaning, but the nature of their reference is either left to obscurity or denied entirely. I submit that this assumption in theology is in error on two counts. First, symbols are in fact a sub-class of signs; hence, they have reference just as do other signs. Second, the critical thrust within theology as an academic discipline demands that the reference character of symbols be explored. In doing so, I contend, the referent to theological statements becomes the same referent to which religious symbols point while they are giving meaning to our faith and our daily lives. SYMBOL AND SIGN It is part and parcel of contemporary theological discussion to distinguish between signs and symbols. Signs are understood as denotative, pointing to a specific object and available for univocal or literal interpretation. Symbols, in contrast, are said to be connotative, open-ended in reference, and not subject to univocal or literal interpretation. Signs are said to be arbitrary. They have no intrinsic or essential relationship to that which they signify. Signs are em- THE PROBL'.EM OF SYMBOLIC RlJJFERENCE 73 ployed in scientific, empirical, or objectivist thinking. A hexagonal shaped road sign means" stop." A triangular shaped road sign means " yield." We know this by convention. There is no intrinsic resemblance between these shapes and the phenomenon of stopping or yielding. Yet a hexagonal sign means "stop" and only " stop." It does not mean anything else. It has a univocal, not an equivocal or ambiguous, signification. Signs are objective and precise in their designation. Although common parlance relies upon the term " symbol " to include what we have just described as a sign, theologians and philosophers of religion are accustomed to reserving this term for more specific definition.1 Symbols, like signs, point beyond themselves to something else. They do not exist for their own sake but for the sake of their referent. Beyond this common factor, however, symbols are said to differ from signs. First, symbols are born out of real life situations. They are not the arbitrary creations of human subjectivity. They cannot be simply replaced by substitute signs at the whim of convention , because their meaning cuts too deeply to allow reformulation without some loss of meaning. Second, symbols have surplus meaning. They speak to us of many things. A sign may have a one-to-one relationship with its referent, but a symbol has a one-to-many relationship. A symbol is both constant and flexible, thereby making it ever ready for new applications and new insights. This leads us to a third important feature of a symbol, namely, its ability to open up new levels of reality which are otherwise closed to us. Symbolic language attempts to reach out and grasp that which is not directly known and which re1 The present discussion is intended to represent the views offered by Paul Tillich, Dynamics of Faith (New York: Harper and Row, 1957) Chap. III; Paul Ricoeur, The Symbolism of Evil (Boston: Beacon Press, 1967); Philip Wheelwright , Metaphor and Relility (Bloomington: Indiana University Press, 1968), noting that Wheelwright's vocabulary of " steno-symbol " and "tensive-symbol " correlate roughly with "sign " and " symbol " as we are using them; Thomas Fawcett, The Symbolic Language of Religion (Minneapolis: Augsburg 1971), Chaps. I and ~. 74 TED ..P~TEBS sists exhaustive linguistic description. It takes us beyond appearance to communicate a sense of primary reality. In so doing, fourthly, it opens up not only external reality but also new regions within one's own soul. Symbols not only designate objects, they also involve the subject...