The interpretation of the many
symbols and metaphors in the Bible results in considerable theological
confusion, or perhaps division is more apt. Many are the items interpreted
literally by some and symbolically by others.
One of the more enduring
differences revolves around the Lord's Supper, initiated and commanded by
Christ at the Last Supper. Generally Protestants view the bread and wine (or
grape juice) as symbols of the body and blood of Christ, a reminder to remember
the sacrifice of Christ upon the cross and by faith show it until He comes
again. Catholics take the statements of Christ to be that the elements become
the very body and blood of Christ through transubstantiation, citing Jesus'
words that His body is true meat and His blood is true drink. By faith,
Catholics hold that the spiritual reality is not detectable by material changes
in the elements, but is a greater mystery of the church.
Other theological stumbling blocks
include the use of buildings as a metaphor for the church, and the relationship
of human lovers, including romantic dynamics, to symbolize the depth and
intensity of the love God has for His people.
We cannot resolve centuries-long
theological disputes easily and do not plan to try. The more immediate and
practical issue is the use of metaphors in politics. In particular, one of the
presidential candidates routinely and frequently speaks metaphorically,
generally with hyperbole for additional spice, and seems incredulous that
pundits and commentators do not understand him. One example: the statement that
President Obama and Secretary of State Clinton founded ISIS. A literal
interpretation is absurd. But the substance of the claim merits discussion. Did
the withdrawal of all US troops from Iraq in 2011, combined with the support of
Syrian rebel groups, create the conditions that were the incubator for the
growth of the so-called Islamic State? Can this strategic error be ignored
because no one takes the claim seriously except certain narrow-minded
strategists? How can we improve our strategy if we refuse to examine failures?
The usual Santayana quote* applies here.
Metaphor and hyperbole are not
new. I was forced to learn about them in junior high school English class. To
focus on the literal statement is to evade the need to seriously examine the
substance of the issue. I do not expect the use of metaphor to diminish. Its
purpose is clearly to impel an emotional, visceral response to the issue at
hand. Whether talking about national security or economic policy, metaphors
capture the attention of potential voters on a level that intellectual
discussion does not. Perhaps metaphors are best understood as a test of our
willingness and ability to see beyond purely logical argumentation to engage a wholistic
view of life. But, like satire, metaphors can cut two ways.
Satire is a technique employed by
writers to expose and criticize foolishness and corruption of an individual or
a society by using humor, irony, exaggeration or ridicule. The challenge of
interpretation is that if the satirical work includes enough of its object's
substance, and there is merit to the substance, the listener may think the
satirist is advocating that position by repeating it; or alternatively the
listener may dismiss the satirist entirely as mocking something which is
praiseworthy or sound. But if the satirist does not include the substance of
his target's position, his work will be dismissed as being superficial, mocking
only the nonessential attributes such as mannerisms, without making any real
case about the real issue.
Satire and metaphor are different
sides of a coin. That is they both are artistic or verbal tools used to make a
point by invoking a seemingly irrelevant but broader context for a logical
argument. But they both carry risks, and their users would do well to consider
Jesus' words: suum omnes enim
qui acceperint gladium gladio peribunt
*
"Progress, far from consisting in change, depends on retentiveness.
When change is absolute there remains no being to improve and no direction is
set for possible improvement: and when experience is not retained, as among
savages, infancy is perpetual. Those who cannot remember the past are condemned
to repeat it."
Jorge Agustín Nicolás Ruiz de Santayana y Borrás, The Life of Reason,
VOL 1.
