Word & Image

Brian Godawa, in a fascinating book, Word Pictures: Knowing God Through Story & Imagination, articulates two extremes among Christians in their approaches to Scripture: on one side is a focus on Reason & Rationality; on the other, Imagination & Experience. The “reason” or “word” side (as Godawa describes it) emphasizes propositional truth; “facts” and rules. It sees Scripture almost exclusively as a set of facts or data that need only be compiled and syllogized to determine rules from God. The “image” side sees Scripture not so much as a set of propositional truths, but as filled with story, drama, visual images, music, and other forms of creativity appealing to more than just intellect. Godawa provides a table (reproduced below) of how this divide plays out in various ways. This divide stems in part, as Godawa notes in the chart, from two (modern) culturally driven perspectives: modernist and postmodernist – both of which have some merit; neither of which has an exclusive claim to “truth”; and both of which, in and of themselves, yield fatal flaws:

 

BIASES		WORD		IMAGE
Locale:		Traditional Church		Contemporary Church
Era:		Modernity		Postmodernity
Emphasis:		Doctrine		Relationship
Basis:		Reason		Experience
Mandate:		Preach the Gospel		Live the Gospel
Priority:		Content of Message		Style and Form
Communication:		Proposition		Story
Pursuit:		Truth		Spirit
Values:		Rules		Freedom
Temperament:		Rationality		Creativity
Reference:		Books, speech		Film, TV, Pop Culture
Vulnerability:		Dead Orthodoxy		Anti-Intellectualism
Risks:		Legalism		License

Which side reflects the Scriptures? Both have their merit. Both, in their extreme, are flawed. An important insight is offered, however, by the Dictionary of Biblical Imagery, “The Bible is much more a book of images and motifs than of abstractions and propositions.” This is supported by Godawa’s research, which reveals that at most 30% of Scripture relates to revelation of propositional truth (that’s a generous number; Godawa’s actual number was 20% – but wanted to avoid bias); and 70% of Scripture relates to story or image – which appeals more to the imagination and emotion.

This chart also serves as an insightful aid to recognizing differences that often emerge (erupt?) on the local church level. From the “Word” (Rationality) side bias, one hears of “fear” about a de-emphasis on content or “doctrine.” Or too much concern over “style.”  From the “Imagination” side bias, one will hear “complaints” about “deadness” and “coldness” in assemblies, or a lack of “relationship” emphasis within the body. These differing perspectives are partly the result of different culturally influenced perspectives. That’s not to say there may not be, at any given moment, validity to such discussions. As Godawa notes, there are vulnerabilities and risks on each side. However, two phenomena are apparent. First, there are those who camp on one side or the other and all their thinking (and actions) are driven by that side. Their “identity” is grounded, in some cases exclusively, in that they are not like those in the other column. Any movement from one side toward the other (even if it is to bring balance to one extreme) is typically scene as threat, or even a “departure from faith.” It is commonplace to hear this in churches of Christ, for example, where historically an inordinate emphasis has been given to treating Scripture as simply a set of facts or propositional truths (see Richard Hughes’ unparalleled history: Reviving The Ancient Faith: The Story of Churches of Christ in America) – with little emphasis on narrative theology; the image side.  Second, there are those who will feel stifled, frustrated and even oppressed under extremes from either side. Returning to examples in churches of Christ, or in any traditional/conservative heritage, there are many who sense a “dead orthodoxy” and legalistic frame of mind that is unhealthy. This is not just a product of being influenced by the times (in reality, the propositional focus is itself influenced by modern science going back to the Enlightenment days – particularly to Scottish Common Sense Realism). The problems are real. The danger here is, of course, swinging too far toward the “image” side emphasis – where we find ourselves continually seeking the next new religious experience like a drug addiction. Neither perspective or “side,” in and of itself, is wholly correct. A balance should be maintained. Coming to a proper balance is a great challenge. But, those on either side, it seems to me, should recognize their own cultural influences, scrutinize these with as much integrity as they can muster, and, at the same time, recognize the proper biblical emphases (Godawa’s 70/30 ratio above).

I hope, Lord willing, to write more on this – especially as it relates to the usefulness of seeing the Bible through a literary / story lens (what scholars refer to as ‘narrative theology’) – which has been downplayed in many conservative circles. Nevertheless, I found this chart both useful and insightful.

Advertisement