The Ecumenical Language Barrier

test

nate–

Sorry about the loss of your post. If it makes you feel any better, your misfortune allowed me to fix the problem…

Anyway, even though the post didn’t appear here, I was able to retrieve what you wrote from an automatic email that was generated. Below, in italics, is the content of your lost comment. I thank you for the criticisms, and I will respond later today.

Ahhh…you have learned well from whatever reading you have done. i hope it has been much Derrida. That would strangely warm my heart. Anyway, I like what you say about language (I’ve got a few quibbles – you don’t seem to take into account the semiotic relationship of language/writing and what happens in speaking/talking/oral communication; I think the rules may change). And I’m also wondering if Larry and Chuck were representative of a couple old professors us graduates of Asbury Seminary used to have? On the ecumenism, I think you are very right. There are some deep seeded ideological differences between the three. And all align differently on different issues. Also, the way that each practices their faith is very different. But, all in all, I think that you are on a good track. I like it. peace, nate

Ahhh…you have learned well from whatever reading you have done. i hope it has been much Derrida. That would strangely warm my heart.

LoL, I wish that I could say that I have read alot about this subject, but I haven’t. Most of thoughts above are in reflection of 1.) various conversations that you and I have had in the past and 2.) deductions from the frustrations I have described in attempting to linguistically bridge the gap between Catholic and Protestant views on history, hermeneutics, etc.

Take heart, however; Derrida is on my list (as well as numerous volumes I currently possess from Heidegger). Also, I might give a shout out to Tim and delve into some Wittgenstein (I’m about halfway through a biography of his)…lol.

Anyway, I like what you say about language (I’ve got a few quibbles – you don’t seem to take into account the semiotic relationship of language/writing and what happens in speaking/talking/oral communication; I think the rules may change).

I completely agree that there are fundamental, as well as monumental differences between written and oral communication. On the phenomenological level, oral communication is deployed with concurrent aspects of “body language,” voice tone, even personal presence—all of which obviously determines meaning deployed and meaning received. Written communication, also, utilizes different “rules,” for one is able to more precisely determine word choice, grammatical structure, etc. However, at the same time, I wonder if they are that different. For example, could it be that the attendant peculiarities of oral communication (inflection, tone, etc.) is a form of “oral translation” of the nuance and thoughtfulness of written language, and visa versa?

We all know people who are masters at oral communication; however, when they write, often that mastery is lost. At the same time, we’ve all read literature that is impossible to imagine translated to oral communication. So perhaps the question is this: Is voice inflection, body language, etc. somehow functionally equivalent to the accoutrements of written language? In other words, does the nuance and thoughtfulness of written communication parallel the accessories of oral communication? Just thinking out loud here.

And I’m also wondering if Larry and Chuck were representative of a couple old professors us graduates of Asbury Seminary used to have?

LoL! Actually, the names were completely random (or were they?), but that is pretty hilarious. Some things you just can’t plan!

On the ecumenism, I think you are very right. There are some deep seeded ideological differences between the three. And all align differently on different issues. Also, the way that each practices their faith is very different. But, all in all, I think that you are on a good track. I like it. peace,

I think the point you have made about the difference in practice is extremely important. After all, the praxis of worship cannot be separated out from the deeper understandings that drive such. Both must be taken into serious consideration when approaching an understanding of the necessary things that must happen for ecumenism to be realized.

However, as I’m sure you’ll agree, it also cannot be reduced to practice. That is, simply getting Catholics, Orthodox and Protestants to occupy the same space and engage in the same motions will not change anything (this is reflected in the nauseating, “can’t we all just get along” mantra). Rather, the underlying theological allegiances must be uncovered, examined and reconciled so that the ensuing praxis might reflect an inward change, rather than simply an outward compulsion.