Barlow Farms

12/01/2007

When do Words Become Terms?

The SJC report against Wilkins reads:

"In the examination, TE Wilkins redefined biblical and Confessional terms before giving his assent to the teachings of Scripture and The Westminster Standards. TE Wilkins maintains that the Bible and The Westminster Standards teach differing doctrines."

This claim raises several questions:

1. What is the difference between a "term" and a "word"?

Generally, I'd say that a "term" is a word or phrase that has been applied to a specific act of signification in a specific context either for so long that it takes on this technical meaning to all of those familiar with the context or as a result of stipulation.

2. Does the bible contain "terms"?

Probably so. We can, for instance, detect a technical use of vocabulary for the sacrificial system in Paul. He might pick up on the vocabulary of the Septuagint, for instance, and use a word that would connote certain Levitical sacrifices to a well-prepared reader aware of the context. John uses the word "logos" and this has caused all manner of disputes between those who view this term to be derived from Greek philosophy and those who see a reference to certain Hebrew ideas. (I'm not falling into the fallacy of a 'greek mind' vs. a 'hebrew mind' here or anything, I'm just pointing out that when using technical vocabulary in a certain way (using a term), that the context matters - especially the ethno-linguistic context.)

3. If so, does it define these "terms"?

This is a problematic notion. The Bible may "use" terms, but does it define them? The Bible consists of letters, explanations, stories, poems, etc. It does not go into the mode of "definition." Most of the "is" statements in the Bible are nothing like "A 'bachelor' is an unmarried male." They are more like - "Love is kind, it does not falter." And they certainly are nothing like "Justification is an act of God's free grace whereby he....". And they *certainly certainly* are not like those times when Klineans say things like "grace is a word only used in a context of human demerit." That's what we use the technical term "bullshit" for in the trade.

4. If it does not, how do we extract the "definition" of a term in order to have something to compare to Wilkins's "definition"?

And so this is the question. What biblical "terms" has Wilkins reinterpreted? "Justification" - well, is that a "term"? If so, then Paul and James need to get together on this one. Is it "baptism" - if so, then hand washing suddenly becomes a holy rite (or the sacrament of baptism becomes as common as handwashing). See the difficulty? In order for the SJC to allege, much less prove, that Wilkins "redefines biblical terms" they would have to list the terms in question, provide their summary of the bible's "definition" of these terms, and then provide an argument that the term in question a. is a 'term', and b. means what they have alleged. Finally, they have to tell when the word or phrase that constitutes their "term" is used in non-technical senses (i.e., as a word, not a term.)

Linguists will note that all words are terms in some sense - signification is a practical matter; when we hand a child a nerf basketball and say "BALL!" we've stipulated that B-A-L-L refers to the shape and not the color of the ball we've just handed the child, but it could just have easily been our word for orange. And yet the work of signification done by terms is different than the work of signification done by words in non-technical discourse. Because even if two thermal physicists were talking, they could still refer to a female co-worker as "hot" regardless of her temperature.

There are other curious things about this charge. Does the bible contain "doctrines" in the same sense we use the word "doctrine" to reply to the definitions contained in the Westminster standards? Can we blame a pastor for believing more than is comprehended in the standards if that pastoral extra is not in conflict with the standards or with the bible? How does the SJC conclude itself to be privy to the relationship between a doctrine in the standards and a particular passage of scripture? Careful there - you're thinking of the proof texts; the proof texts are just suggestive; we've never required a minister to believe *that* a particular proof text supports the doctrine that the authors of the confession believed it to support.

I'll try to make a future post clarifying what it is that the SJC needs to assert if even its claims, much less its conclusions, are to be understandable and not hopelessly ambiguous.

02:20:00 PM :: permalink :: discuss ::

barlow farms Home Browse Next Page