Metaphor and Religious Language

by Janet Martin Soskice

Christian theology has suffered in modern times from an inability to explain its traditional reliance on metaphor to an audience intellectually formed by empiricism. The author argues that what is needed is not a more "literal" theology, but a better understanding of metaphor. Soskice offers here an account of metaphor and religious language that not only illuminates the way in which theists speak of God, but also contributes to our understanding of the workings of metaphor in scientific theory and other disciplines.

Genres: Philosophy, Linguistics, Theology, Language, Nonfiction

240 pages, Paperback

First published June 25, 1985

About the author

Janet Martin Soskice is a Canadian-born English Roman Catholic theologian and philosopher. Soskice was educated at Somerville College, Oxford. She is professor of philosophical theology and a fellow of Jesus College at the University of Cambridge. Her theological and philosophical work has dealt with the role of women in Christianity, religious language, and the relationship between science and religion.

Her book The Sisters of Sinai details the history of the discovery of the Syriac Sinaiticus by Agnes and Margaret Smith.

Author can be found in both of these locations:
Janet Martin Soskice
Janet Soskice

Reviews

[Judson Greene · Rating 5 out of 5]

Great. I think I differ on some of the presuppositions that make this work necessary (I'm more open to "naive realism" and the possibility of univocal language in our God-talk), but Soskice provides an excellent defense from those who think all God-talk is metaphorical. Also, just so helpful on understanding metaphor in general.

[Chris Little · Rating 5 out of 5]

This work argues that metaphor is not a simple 'pretty' way of saying something that could be communicated with straightforward words, but it its own legitimate and necessary way of explanation. Metaphoric statements, at their best, say things that cannot be said in other ways. They also create opportunities for new learning, reflection, and avenues of enquiry.

Extending this, Soskice argues that both science and theology are - fittingly and necessarily - fields in which metaphor plays a major part. Her argument concludes that a realist position is entirely consistent with use of metaphor, in both science and theology. It's fine, and actually productive, to speak of electrical 'current' or of the divine gift of 'living water.' This is not a naive realism, but critical realism (I don't think Soskice used this actual term, but I believe its current use agrees with her argument). In this, the users of metaphor - and use is always of within a community - are able to 'really refer' to something, even without knowing all there is about that topic. Even transcendent realities can be, in part and approximately, apprehended (be they electrons, or God).

One matter not possible to be raised in this work, but I think related, is the possibility of historical knowledge. Looking at the science-theology parallels is wonderfully important. Soskice frequently mentions matters of religious experience as a part-parallel to scientific experiment. In this line of thought, metaphor and theory is always open to revision, at least in theory. That's fair, to an extent, but opens up theology to too simple a comparison with science, and suggests to me that theological doctrines are as likely to change as scientific ones. Think, for example, of the disposal of the idea of phlogiston after Priestly's discovery of oxygen: the old theory was dumped.

I think a difference between science and (Christian) theology is the historical givenness of events, especially the ministry of Jesus Christ. Knowledge of this history has everything to add to the knowledge claims of Christianity.

This is not to say Soskise should have covered this topic! She has done an amazing job in her survey of metaphor theory, as well as philosophies of metaphor use in science and theology. And all in fewer than 200 pages! What I do mean to say is that philosophies of historical knowledge will affect some of Soskice's conclusions about the tentativeness and modifiability of religious statements. If Jesus is alive, then some religious models and metaphors are more solid and unchangeable than any scientific model.

[jayrt · Rating 5 out of 5]

soskice uses metaphor as a linguistic lemma to conjecture a post-lockean commandment, “thou shall not take religion so seriously.”

about the first 2/3rds of the book are dedicated to michael myers[1]. surgically, she dissects tropes and operates on the mother[2]. after a successful surgery, dr soskice becomes an ethnographer and studies how her patient operates in different contexts[3].

the main thrust of her book comes wrapped in the causal theory of references (ctr). she contrasts ctr with the classical theory of reference (clas), a common and colloquial way of understanding words and phrases.

for example, whereas family has a biological understanding (clas), there is also an associative and affective definition approximated as those whom one feels a fuzzy affection for (ctr).

(in a way, ctr reminds me of an open-ended operational definition)

more generally, take this passage from albert hastorf and hadley cantril’s rashomon-like, “they saw a game:”

it is inaccurate and misleading to say that different people have different "attitudes" concerning the same "thing." for the "thing" simply is not the same for different people whether the "thing" is a football game, a presidential candidate, communism, or spinach.

this highlights the ctr vs clas distinction quite well, imo. ask yourself, what is the quoted thing?

both ctr and clas have their pros and cons. one con for ctr is that it is hard to reconcile reference changes. take witch, it used to mean supernatural and wicked, now it’s more-or-less an unpleasant woman. one con for clas is it’s limiting and often devolves into unproductive word-thinking.

word-thinking is slow poison that has infected the west since enlightenment. today, it’s most visible in politics. without going down the rabbit hole: what is collusion? quid pro quo? impeachable? and so on.

(i understand some terms above are well-defined legal terms. my point being, if these strict definitions are being argued by bright lawyers, a fortiori, non-legal terms that are being shot around like their diamond bullets are really just rubber chickens.)

all politics is: is clas pundits playin marbles[4]; having singular orb-al definitions aimed at their opponent’s solid glass balls, tryna shoot them over an arbitrary line drawn in the sand.

i can go on, but i’ve already rambled on about the major themes, associated ideas, and how i’ve related to it in the world. all in all, if you’re interested in language at all, this is one of the best books i’ve read. enjoy ;)

[1] slice and dice
[2] metaphors, duhh
[3] specifically, how metaphors are used in science and religious
[4] up for metaphorical interpretation as illustrated and illuminated by soskice

[Caleb Burkhart · Rating 4 out of 5]

Soskice's work is extremely helpful for understanding how theologians can speak about God. Though that may seem like a simple task, it's actually pretty complex. Scripture is saturated with metaphors, and yet in our overtly positivistic and empirical world, many see metaphors as a distraction from the more clear and "literal" meanings. Though there is a time and place for explaining what a metaphor may mean behind the surface, this method derives from a flawed theory of metaphor that sees metaphors merely as being ornamental. Essentially, many, even evangelical Christians, read metaphors as not communicating anything ontologically, seeing it as a linguistic phenomenon that could potentially have a more literal meaning. But metaphors are actually irreplaceable, describing something that is real, though it may not correspond with how we often think of "truth." Soskice's definition of metaphor, that it is a "figure of speech whereby we speak about one thing in terms which are seen to be suggestive of another" (15), is broad yet helpful for her overall thesis, namely that "a defence of metaphor and of its use as a conceptual vehicle will support the Christian in his seemingly paradoxical conviction that, despite his utter inability to comprehend God, he is justified in speaking of God and that metaphor is the principal means by which he does so" (x). She gives a helpful account of how classical antiquity viewed metaphor, up through the early modernist period and following, tracing the developments and theories that have been postulated. She also wonderfully navigates the way language corresponds with truth and literalness, giving great examples from Scripture and theologians to explain her point. A great and essential read for anyone interested in metaphor, linguistics, biblical interpretation or understanding the task of theology, which is namely learning how to speak about God and his works.

[Sanjuro · Rating 4 out of 5]

Part one of this book, on metaphor, is essential to any in depth study of metaphor in general and religious metaphor in particular. Soskice brings nuance into the discussion, particularly regarding the types of figural language and dispelling the myths about the Aristotelian understanding of metaphor. Soskice wrote this just a few years after cognitive metaphor theory was established, so she does not interact with it much, but I would have been interested to see her engagement with it.

My only real issue with this book is similar to the issue I had with Lakoff's and Johnson's "Metaphors we live by." The first half, on metaphor, is brilliant and helpful. However, the second half of Lakoff and Johnson delves into unnecessary and unhelpful claims about the nature of truth, so that it felt like two different books. Something similar happens here, where the last 60 pages of this book move into discussions on realism and idealism, and to be honest, she left me behind. I went from underlining sentences on every page to feeling completely lost. The first 100 pages of this book are excellent, and I found them helpful. The last 60 pages were nonsensical to me, as I had no real frame of reference for much of the language and the issues, and Soskice spent no time laying groundwork for that portion of the discussion.

For me, this is a stellar book, and one that will be a seminal study in my own work on metaphor. The book is worth the effort for the first 100 pages alone. That I felt lost in the latter portions is likely my own inadequacy, but I'm happy to utilize the book for the portions that worked well for me.

[Nathan Smith · Rating 5 out of 5]

I'm currently reading this and am excited as they are discussing how we don't need a more literal theology in the line of thinking with empiricism but that we need a better understanding of metaphor.

[Kessia Reyne · Rating 5 out of 5]

I really liked this book. In my opinion it brought some necessary precision (even correction) into the conversation about metaphor in theology.

I'd like to be Janet Martin Soskice when I grow up.

[Brad East · Rating 5 out of 5]

Clear, substantive, accessible yet detailed, measured, charitable, extremely useful. Highly recommended.