1.03.2008

Conviction for Clarity

In his autobiography, Grace Abounding, which I just finished recently, John Bunyan says this:

I could also have stepped into a style much higher than this in which I have here discoursed and could have adorned all things more than here I have seemed to do, but I dare not. God did not play in convicting of me, the devil did not play in tempting of me, neither did I play when I sunk as into a bottomless pit, when the pangs of hell caught hold upon me, wherefore I may not play in my relating of them, but be plain and simple and lay down the thing as it was.

Bunyan's words make an incredibly important point: when relating truth, using overly flowery language that hinders the clarity of the facts is a serious error. In short, we need to communicate directly and plainly. Figurative language is very helpful if it makes a truth more concrete or vivid--and it often does serve that purpose. But it is completely unhelpful, and ultimately purpose-defeating, if it bogs down or confuses an otherwise clear presentation of the facts.

John Bunyan was an extremely gifted communicator, and I love reading his books. His language is so alive...the word pictures he paints seem to come to life. (You can see that just from this one excerpt above, even.) And there's a reason for this: Bunyan's word pictures and figurative language are clear because they aren't forced or superimposed on what he's saying. He never mucked around in language; he employed it. He spoke figuratively, but he did it in such a way that the literal seemed even more literal. He spoke of things as he experienced them, not mysteriously or ambiguously, but colorfully, in words that expressed real experiences of sight, sound, smell, taste, and touch...not just jumbled and half-formed notions.

I think maybe a reason for Bunyan's clarity was his immersion in Scripture. He breathed in the Bible like air and viewed all life through it. So he had an incredibly good foundation of clear truth. He saw all his own feelings and experiences as exactly what Scripture portrays. The heights, the depths, the fear of hell, and the joy of grace...all of his life played out exactly what the Word says. Bunyan didn't wallow through Scripture as though it were some hazy philosophical mishmash. He was convinced of its piercing clarity. He read it as clear. And so he could view and speak of life in Scripture's words...clearly.

Scripture is clear. God is not a mumbler. And so, if we're seeking to be like Him, then our speech ought to reflect His. We should, to the best of our abilities, communicate as God does...clearly and straightforwardly. Language is a tool to be employed, and it has many facets. Figures and pictures are a wonderful aspect, and Scripture is full of poetry, pun, metaphor, euphemism, parallelism, anthropomorphism, simile, metonymy, and so on. From a literary perspective, it's a masterpiece that includes numerous genres and devices. But we have to remember that every word is God-breathed truth and is meant to communicate, not to confuse. When a figure is used, it makes truth more vivid, not less so.

I guess what I'm being reminded of is simply that I should always seek to speak and write for the sake of "lay[ing] down the thing as it was," not for the mere sake of using language. Language is beautiful only so far as it accomplishes its purpose. This is challenging to me, a lover of language. I'm challenged to speak and write clearly. And that challenges me, then, to think clearly so I can speak and write clearly. And that challenges me to keep continually searching God's truths in Scripture so I can think clearly. I'm also encouraged to continue to love and explore language because it is so wonderful. Studying language--including grammar and vocabulary--helps us to better know and explain truth...more specifically, more precisely, more fully, with more nuance of meaning and more expression of reality.

I love that.

Anyway, just some thoughts...

3 comments:

Anonymous said...

Nice. I concur that certain, fine, epistemological points ought to be conveyed in such a way that even language concerning the haziest of complex doctrines (e.g. supralapsarianism) might become somewhat more translucent to most common among homo-sapiens.

--Your Brother

(The link to see what books I'm reading is on my blog, although I'm not blogging anymore... at least not for now. I just read "God is the Gospel" by Piper.) Way to go on finally updating your blog.

:)

Anonymous said...

What a delightful topic! It was by His divine grace and mercy when I finally understood proverbs 1:7. As straightforward as it is to me now, there was a time when I could not utter a single word to reflect any kind of understanding of that verse...(I was a super extra most dead corpse then). Sadly to say that the divine clarity that is built-in within scripture is made benign as it is taught in roman catholic doctrines. As Christ continually reminds me that He is the one who saves, I am graced b.c. my heart relented to the fact that it is "Christ's ministry through my life" and not at all "my ministry"...by simply showing me that the second part of conveying 'clarity' (the receiver's understanding of what is being conveyed) is up to the Holy Spirit. After inspection of some sections of a copy of "the catechism of the catholic church", there are clearly many sections that are thrice removed from scripture's clear statements. many sections are: 1.not supportive of scripture, 2.not similar to scripture and 3.contradictory to scripture - there it is - thrice removed. Why would the perfect God of the universe contradict Himself? As the Lord brought opportunities for me to share this concern with catholics, I greatly hoped that at the very least, they would agree with this logic. I had hoped that even an unregenerate person would agree with the bible, reject catholicism and just be a deceived christian (right doctrine, unrepentant heart) rather than a deceived catholic (wrong doctrine, unrepentant heart)... for the latter (most deceived catholics) revile the bible, proclaim with their words that 'Jesus is Savior'-all the while in their hearts they mean themselves to be their own savior (original sin from adam wiped off b/c of water baptism, and regular venial sins worked off by works-hence no need of a savior). by God's grace, when I say that I'm a sinner, I don't mean that I do have sins but can work them into righteousness to tip the scales... I mean that I'm a sinner with no hope in myself, nor through works and traditions of an organization...but hope only in Christ Jesus. Section 1446 of the catechism states: christ instituted the sacrament of penance for all sinful members of his church:above all for those who, since baptism, have fallen into grave sin, and have thus lost their baptismal grace and wounded ecclesial communion. It is to them that the sacrament of penance offers a new possibility to convert and to recover the grace of justification. The fathers of the church present this sacrament as the 'second plank (of salvation) after the shipwreck which is the loss of grace (end of section). My comments continued: To the credit of unregenerate hearts, this speaks against Christ's promises... what about John 17-the grips of our God the Father and of our Savior?-to begin with as scripture's rebuttal. I had deemed unsaved people to at least see the contradictions of the catechism book relative to the Word of God, but it seems that the veiled ones hold no vision of such crystal clear clarity. The wisdom of God is foolishness to those who are perishing. I think this is turning out to be more of a core group blog.. pardon me please. Thank you for your thoughts Amber! MG

Anonymous said...

...not sure if this was appropriate to post...feel free to take it down if you like 8-)