Symbolism

[Hans Deventer]

The other day I read an article in a newspaper on symbols that I liked. Don't know the author, so I have no clue if he's a Christian or not, but I think he has a point. Here's my translation:

People need symbols to express the unspeakable, as it says in the Prisma encyclopaedia. The unspeakable is expressed by the dominant symbols of the cross, a black stone or a crescent moon. It is a sign of recognition, generally agreed upon, that has the whole world behind it that the symbol expresses. Where worlds collide, symbols collide.

In Hamburg is a black cube, almost 50 feet high. Is a piece of art that looks like the Ka’aba, the central Islamic sanctuary. It has been refused as a precaution twice, first in Venice, then by a museum in Berlin. People fear Islamic rage. But it still found a place now, protected by a small fence of language: reconciliation, respect, tolerance.

The other day in Paris there was a trial because Islamic organisations filed suit against the saterical magazine Charlie Hebdo. The magazine had published the Danish cartoons, the organisations argued that they provoked hatred. The judge disagreed.

In New York a gallery finally didn't include a crucified Jesus made of 200 pound pure chocolate called My Sweet Lord in their exposition. It was art. But an important Catholic organisation threatened to boycott and protest so the chocolate Jesus remained in store.

The vehemence with which man protects his symbols against defilement is amazing. The believer defends his symbols as if they are the holy object itself, the separation between the symbol and that what it expresses is fluid, the identification of the believer with his holy objects seems to have no limits. The image becomes The Unspeakable. A dangerous kind of alchemy. A black stone, a wooden cross, they are defended in dead earnest against mockery or imitation. The blind worship of images, symbolizing the unspeakable, has always given me the impression of idolatry, of paganism. This is very clearly shown in Exodus, when Moses is on the mount Sinai with his God, and the people at the foot of the mount were grumbling. "Come", they told Aaron, Moses' deputy, "make us gods who will go before us". And Aaron made the golden calf, the tangible god.

[Mark Metcalfe]

Hi Hans,

What symbols have we lost, and which ones should we defend?

http://www.naznet.com/community/showthread.php?t=2333

(Happy Easter!)

[Hans Deventer]

Hi Hans,

What symbols have we lost, and which ones should we defend?


Mark, I wonder if we should defend symbols at all.

[Mark Metcalfe]

Mark, I wonder if we should defend symbols at all.

My answer is yes.

These letters are symbols that have meaning. A phrase like "weh hjre ammke
rjje aauiruk" has no meaning. The question is what meaning should be attached to symbols.

The Crucifix reminds us of the sacrifice Jesus made.
The empty cross reminds us that he is Risen.
The Swastika used to have a benign or positive meaning. It is now a symbol of hatred. Symbols can have their meaning changed, if the meaning of symbols are not defended.

My point is that humanity will always have symbols because they convey deeper meanings. "There comes a time when prose must give way to poetry, and a time when poetry must give way to the dance." This means that when words fail to convey meaning, all we have left are symbols. Take away the symbols and we remove meaning from life and church.

Mark

[Hans Deventer]

My answer is yes.

These letters are symbols that have meaning. A phrase like "weh hjre ammke
rjje aauiruk" has no meaning. The question is what meaning should be attached to symbols.

The Crucifix reminds us of the sacrifice Jesus made.
The empty cross reminds us that he is Risen.

Sure, symbols have meaning. I'm not denying that.

My point is that humanity will always have symbols because they convey deeper meanings. "There comes a time when prose must give way to poetry, and a time when poetry must give way to the dance." This means that when words fail to convey meaning, all we have left are symbols. Take away the symbols and we remove meaning from life and church.

I would like to hear your opinion on the commandment:

"No carved gods of any size, shape, or form of anything whatever, whether of things that fly or walk or swim. Don't bow down to them and don't serve them because I am God, your God, and I'm a most jealous God" (Ex 20:4-6, The Message)

Because the issue is not that symbols don't have meaning or value (they do!), but the author argued that people defend them like they are the object they symbolize itself. This he links to this commandment, and I think he has a point there.

[Mark Metcalfe]

I would like to hear your opinion on the commandment:

"No carved gods of any size, shape, or form of anything whatever, whether of things that fly or walk or swim. Don't bow down to them and don't serve them because I am God, your God, and I'm a most jealous God" (Ex 20:4-6, The Message)


Anything good can be idolized and supplant God's rightful place.
Remember, God commanded Moses to fashion a bronze snake for the
people to look to to be healed. Did God contradict Himself? No. But
when that bronze snake became an object of worship, it was destroyed.

Symbols need to be kept in their proper place.

Mark

[Hans Deventer]

Symbols need to be kept in their proper place.

Yes. I think that was the author's main point, but I may have misunderstood him.

[Wilson L. Deaton]

Mark, I wonder if we should defend symbols at all.

The article you started this thread with goes along rather well with an essay I alluded to in another thread. An essay I said I might write someday on what I call, "flagolotry."

I say, fine, use symbols to communicate and express but let's not confuse them with reality.

I know this is not a popular stance but defacing a flag isn't really attacking our country or dishonoring "soldiers who died for it." I'm sorry, but if they died for a flag, they died for nothing.

In short, I'll be upset and hurt if you stab me but feel free to throw darts at my photo.

Wilson

[Gina Stevenson]

My answer is yes.

These letters are symbols that have meaning. A phrase like "weh hjre ammke
rjje aauiruk" has no meaning. The question is what meaning should be attached to symbols.

The Crucifix reminds us of the sacrifice Jesus made.
The empty cross reminds us that he is Risen.
The Swastika used to have a benign or positive meaning. It is now a symbol of hatred. Symbols can have their meaning changed, if the meaning of symbols are not defended.

My point is that humanity will always have symbols because they convey deeper meanings. "There comes a time when prose must give way to poetry, and a time when poetry must give way to the dance." This means that when words fail to convey meaning, all we have left are symbols. Take away the symbols and we remove meaning from life and church.

Mark

This reminded me how some are particular about the symbols they will accept, too. For instance, a couple of people were not so sure I should borrow a friend's crucifix (she was catholic) to use in an Easter display for which I was responsible ... but we also had an empty cross. Some feel that even acknowledging there's such a thing as a crucifix, rather than all crosses being empty, makes it appear that Jesus is still dead, showing Him dead on the cross like that. However, after the display was all put together, it was deemed acceptable. ;)

[Brad Mercer]

Because the issue is not that symbols don't have meaning or value (they do!), but the author argued that people defend them like they are the object they symbolize itself. This he links to this commandment, and I think he has a point there.

It's obviously pretty easy to make a case against defending symbols. Certainly defense of symbols has been destructive and hateful. We're obviously against hatred, but maybe not entirely against defending symbols.

If we have something to say, we must have some way to say it. One of the primary themes of the book "1984" was the idea of NewSpeak, by which the totalitarian government sought to make it impossible to think or act on seditious ideas by eliminating any words through which such ideas might be formulated or acted upon.

If we have something to say we are engaged in a constant effort to find ways to effectively say it. Oftentimes the first, easiest, most instinctive way to do that is to try to retain the power of existing words and symbols to say what they have said. Maybe that does need to be a part of the mix, but perhaps not a very large part. The alternative is to constantly find new forms that will now effectively express our message whether the old forms have been deliberately co-opted or have just evolved over time to carry different meanings.

The former approach just takes so much more work, thought and creativity that it tends not to get the same resources.

Brad

[Charles W Christian]

Hi -
I know a philosopher who said that since we are in a "post-literate" culture, we are bored with mere words and are rediscovering the importance of symbols, especially in Christian worship (I think it's cool how philosophers can make up words like that :) )

Anyway, he's probably right, since he IS a philosopher and all....:basic05

Blessings,
Charles

[Cindi Hammons]

.

[Hans Deventer]

.

So much for symbols, I don't understand what you are saying! What is your point, Cindi?

[Mark Metcalfe]

This reminded me how some are particular about the symbols they will accept, too. For instance, a couple of people were not so sure I should borrow a friend's crucifix (she was catholic) to use in an Easter display for which I was responsible ... but we also had an empty cross. Some feel that even acknowledging there's such a thing as a crucifix, rather than all crosses being empty, makes it appear that Jesus is still dead, showing Him dead on the cross like that. However, after the display was all put together, it was deemed acceptable. ;)

It was acceptable when they understood the meaning that was intended, instead of the meaning that they previously understood or imagined. Our church should inculcate its symbology so that meaning is passed on, and that when symbols are used meaning is derived.

Mark