Printer-Friendly Version  

Argile Smith, Th.D.

Professor of Preaching, occupying the

J. D. Grey Chair of Preaching

New Orleans Baptist Theological Seminary

Eddie Campbell, Ph.D.

Assistant Professor of English

Leavell College

New Orleans Baptist Theological Seminary 

Abstract

Social science research in metaphor theory has reflected a development in the perception of the potent influence of the use of the trope in religious language. Recent evangelical homiletics, however, tends to retain a perspective that may not account for its potential. A metaphor analysis of Robert G. Lee's sermons extends the homiletical appraisal of metaphors in listener-sensitive preaching.

Introduction

Discourse in a religious setting like Christianity incorporates figurative as well as literal language. Figurative language includes tropes, one of which is metaphor. The research in metaphor has been extensive and vast in disciplines like communication, psychology, philosophy, linguistics, education, and theology. Because metaphor is a critical component in religious discourse and since the sermon is a vital component in the discourse about the relationship between God and the people in the pew, metaphor can be a beneficial study for preaching theorists.

The purpose of this paper is to explore the use of metaphors in listener-sensitive homiletics. A survey of metaphor theory research from the various social science perspectives and a description of the role of the trope in religious language will provide the context for a consideration of pertinent developments and an appraisal of recent research in the homiletical use of metaphor.

Research in Metaphor Theory

Originally perceived as rhetorical ornaments, metaphors have come to be viewed by social science researchers as integral components involved in the process of cognition. In other words, metaphors are being viewed as figures of thought, not figures of speech.

The formal study of metaphor dates back to Aristotle, who situated it in what came to be referred to as the rhetorical canon of style. Aristotle described metaphor as a borrowed term, a word  substituted for another word, or a form of analogy that could be used to intensify the persuasive effect of an argument (Aristotle 1952 trans., 342).

Aristotle's theory predominated until the early twentieth century when I. A. Richards introduced the notion that metaphor is not simply a stylistic device but a critical component in generating meaning in human interaction. According to Richards, metaphor includes primary and secondary terms that interact in a coherent cognitive framework that involves tension and resolution. Tension is the product of the interaction between tenor and vehicle. The greater the remoteness of the realities framed into tenor and vehicle, the greater the tension (Richards 1936, 89-112).

Max Black reflected Richards' influence in his theory that metaphors involve two different realities that coalesce to form a new meaning. The metaphor is the frame that connects a variety of associated meanings to a focus, which is the principal term. Because of the somewhat dynamic interaction between frame and focus, some metaphors used by the speaker cannot be fully and completely comprehended by the listener (Black 1962, 25-47).

John Searle went further with his association of metaphor with the speech act theory, postulating that the meaning of a metaphor is always the utterance meaning of the speaker. Relating the literal sentence meaning to the metaphorical utterance meaning is challenging since meaning is conveyed by another semantic context. The listener, therefore, has to make the cognitive semantic adjustment (Searle 1975, 111).

Similarly, C. Perelman and L. Olbrechts-Ytyeca dealt with the challenge meaning transferral with their appraisal of metaphoric proportionality. They suggested that the most important metaphors do not arise necessarily from expressions of analogy. Rather they are presented intentionally to fuse superior terms with inferior terms through a kind of frame and focus relationship. The result is an expression of reality that is complete in itself (Perelman and Olbrechts-Ytyeca 1969, 400-1). On the other hand, speakers who lose sight of frame and focus in metaphoric formulations can make the realities they share with the listener sound more like  fantasies or even fairy tales (Perelman and Olbrechts-Ytyeca 1969, 404).

Opinions about the value of metaphor continued to change with George Lakoff and Mark Johnson's theory of metaphor, in which one kind of reality is not just understood, but is actually experienced in terms of another (Lakoff and Johnson 1980, 5). Their theory maintains that the fundamental concepts of a group of people can be organized around conceptual metaphors that relate to one another according to a system of coherence. Within this system, metaphors operate through a process involving tenor and vehicle to highlight certain features of a reality that, in turn, have the potential for creating new social realities that guide the actions of the members of the group. As a result, people live by the conceptual metaphors that operate in the interactions within their relationships.

Of course, Lakoff and Johnson proposed an experimental perspective on truth that embraces the potential of metaphor to unite reason and imagination into a kind of imaginative form of rationality that can account for knowing partially what cannot be comprehended completely. This experimental perspective appreciates interaction as a means of understanding, even though it assumes constant negotiation. Within the context of aesthetic experiences, conceptual metaphors generate new realities by involving all the available dimensions of experience, not just by incorporating only conventional ways of cognition (Lakoff and Johnson 1980, 230-6).

Social science researchers continue to extend and refine Lakoff and Johnson's theory. In most of the leading theories, a common assumption seems to be evident. Andrew Ortony explained that contemporary metaphor theories assume that cognition is the result of mental construction, not the product of logical positivism. Knowledge of reality, therefore, stems from the interaction with information shared within a particular context by people who have a specific frame of reference (Ortony 1993, 1). In such an environment, metaphors are considered to be much more than simple figures of speech. Rather, they are dynamic figures of thought that have performative potential for the people involved in the interaction in which they are used. Rhetorically speaking, metaphors belong in the canon of invention instead of the canon of style.

Metaphor in Religious Language

Theory-based research has registered a significant shift in the appraisal of the value of metaphor in communication. Metaphor studies in faith-based settings have reflected a transition as well. These studies seem to share a common awareness that worshiping, thinking about, and talking about God require the use of human language. In order to mediate the distance between God's thoughts and the limitations of human language to convey them, speakers incorporate metaphors in the discourse. How metaphors are incorporated in religious language has been the focus of extensive analysis.

In the thirteenth century, Thomas Aquinas dealt with the mediating role of metaphor in his instruction about proportionality. For him, using metaphoric expressions to describe the realities pertaining to God is beneficial, even though the descriptions are partial at best. Metaphors must be allowed, he contended, in order for uneducated parishioners to begin to understand the thought of God. More complete understanding about God would come as they become more capable of grasping more abstract spiritual realities (Aquinas 1268, trans. 1963, 4).

In the nineteenth century, metaphors in religious language were still thought to play a mediating role. By the twentieth century, however, the perception began to change. For example, Virgil Aldrich argued that metaphoric language invokes a particular kind of activity that can be perceived as quite literal for the people engaged in worship. Metaphoric language serves as the basis for higher-order religious formulations that identify people with the concepts, perceptions, or realities associated with God. The metaphoric utterances do not simply generate grammatically ordered formulations. They become liturgically patterned acts of the congregation. Some of them may be acted out through singing and speaking, but they may be expressed in other ways as well (Aldrich 1954, 147-8).

F. W. Dillistone also attempted to relate the effect of metaphoric tension and energy in religious discourse. Borrowing from philosophies of language, he argued that metaphors 'shatter in order to widen' the experiences people have with God, disturbing the intellectual equilibrium with words in order to create a new sense of reality (Dillistone 1955, 28). What begins with a metaphor transcends and transforms symbolic activity so a person can worship God in an environment in which distance and togetherness as well as tension and communion can coexist. (Dillistone 1955, 29-33).

Claiming that religious language suffered from literalism and irrelevance, Sallie McFague stressed the value of metaphor in the use of models as organizing principles. A metaphor consists of two active thoughts that exist in permanent tension with each other. The tensive nature of the two thoughts changes them once they come in contact with each other in the metaphoric expression. As a result, the metaphor produces a matrix of thought that allows reality to be extended beyond the immediate connection, redescribing it in an open-ended but structured way (McFague 1982, 39-42). Mary Gerhart and Allan Russell referred to the cognitive production as an ontological flash, which is a sense of tension before and after new meaning is created by the metaphor (Gerhart and Russell, 1984, 119-20).

Aware that the formulation of meaning resides in the relational space between words and that metaphors prompt a change in the field of meaning, researchers have explored metaphors in various types of religious discourse. For example, Carmen Russell examined the rhetorical constructs of Jn. 4:1-42 and noted that the persuasive effect of the narrative resides largely in the use of food and water as metaphors that give shape to a social reality within the minds of the people who hear the story (Russell 1995, 17-8).

The influence of a war metaphor to prompt action was also the focus of Michael Hostetler's research in Christian discourse. Opponents of a war metaphor based their argument on the problem of reconciling its use with other biblical metaphors like peace and love that are equally important. Proponents of the metaphor maintain that the war metaphor permeates biblical literature and reveals truths about God and his relationships with people that transcend time and culture to convey ideas of victory for Christians.

Drawing largely from Black's metaphor theory, Hostetler asserted that a number of subordinate metaphors will be associated with a metaphoric expression. These metaphors give the primary metaphor depth and texture and allow it to be interpreted in a variety of ways. A war metaphor, then, can carry a number of connotations, one of which is to love the enemies of Christianity. In the literal world, war ideally ends in the death of the enemy. In the world of Christian discourse, however, the people who die in war are not the enemies, but Christians themselves (Hostetler 1997, 49-57).

In his analysis of interpersonal praxis in Christian relationships, Ronald Arnett connected narrative and historicality by way of metaphor. Defining praxis as action informed by theory instead of meaningless, repetitive action, he challenged Christians to know their biases as they engage in religious conversation. In his opinion, interpersonal dialogue is the exchange of biases. A particular Christian's narrative of his or her faith is biased by the particular historical moment in which he or she lives. Metaphors link faith and historical moment.

The linking role of metaphor can be diminished when it becomes time-bound. Once outdated, such metaphors cease to function as links and begin to serve only as tools for religious legalism. By necessity, therefore, metaphors must be changed to associate the constant faith narratives with the ever-changing historical moment (Arnett 1998, 61).       

Metaphor in Homiletical Literature

Generally speaking, homileticians have not kept pace with social science researchers in the study of metaphor. This lack of attention was evident in homiletical works concerning sermon illustration, which would have seemed to be logical sources for information about metaphor. James D. Robertson identified three books by Dawson Bryan, W. E. Sangster, and Ian Macpherson as key works on illustration (Robertson  1967, 66). A reading of these books, however, revealed little insight on metaphor. Although Bryan recognized that metaphors are powerful, he cautioned preachers not to overuse them (Bryan 1938, 175). Sangster claimed that figures of speech, including metaphors, are minor forms of illustration (Sangster 1973, 26). Like Bryan, Macpherson believed the metaphor to be dynamic, more forceful than simile. He referred to both tropes as 'condensed parables' and cautioned against using mixed metaphors (Macpherson 1964, 48).

Although the premise for Design for Preaching is the metaphor depicting a sermon as a tree, H. Grady Davis wrote little about metaphor. Concerning the power of metaphor, Davis claimed 'the best words are metaphors, that is that they contain sensory images'though we are so callous to life that we commonly ignore them' (Davis 1958, 272). Although Davis referred to metaphors as 'words,' he seemed to possess a homiletical appreciation for the contemporary theory that metaphor is a matter of thought and not language. Davis wrote that good metaphors 'are not images added, extrinsic; they are the fabric of the thought itself' (Davis 1958, 254-5).

David Buttrick adopted Lakoff's theory of metaphor. Emphasizing the importance of metaphor in preaching, he explained that people live their lives in metaphor systems, which he termed as 'models made from congruent metaphors' (Buttrick 1987, 122). Buttrick's metaphor systems correspond to Lakoff's conceptual metaphors. Buttrick concluded: 'The rather frightening fact is that social metaphor systems are not mere rhetorical ornamentation, [sic] they disclose the models that shape our minds, and set our behavioral patterns with terrifying power. . . . Preachers who wish to transform human lives will have to grasp the sheer power of metaphorical language. With metaphors, we can rename the world for faith' (Buttrick 1987, 123). Much of Buttrick's discussion of sermonic metaphors, however, concerned types and models rather than actual metaphors.

In Imaginative Shock (1990), Eduard Riegert attempted to show that preaching is a metaphoric process. His work reflected the modern linguistic and interpretational theories that metaphor is a process involving not only words but also sentences and discourse. He believed that metaphor 'redescribes reality, and in doing so discloses a world of new possibilities. Its effect is imaginative shock' (Riegert 1990, 10). Rather than encouraging the use of metaphor as a literary device in preaching, Riegert emphasized that preachers should become seers and understand the root metaphors of Christianity in order to reclaim the imaginative potential of those metaphors. The preacher is to lay the Scripture text alongside the world of the congregation. Riegert explained: 'Our preaching must concentrate on interpreting life theologically, rather than, as our traditional practice has been, drawing on life to illustrate theology' (Riegert 1990, 128).

Warren Wiersbe was not interested in preachers' developing their own metaphors. He was concerned with a preacher's understanding and communicating the metaphors of the Bible. Wiersbe advised that preachers should use their imagination in discerning what the biblical metaphors meant to the original audience and what they mean to congregations today. He claimed that metaphors build bridges between the listener and the Bible, the listener's past and present, and the listener's mind and heart (Wiersbe 1994, 77-80).

Paul Scott Wilson also emphasized the importance of biblical metaphors, encouraging preachers to use biblical models of metaphor to create their own metaphors to communicate biblical themes. Wilson pointed out four main functions of metaphor in preaching: (1) a point of contact between the biblical world and the listener's world, (2) the dominate image of the central idea, (3) stories as extended metaphor, and (4) theological categories of experience (Wilson 1995, 246-52). He discussed metaphor within the context of linear and polar thought. Linear thought reflects progression and focuses upon a proposition. In contrast, polar thought reflects digression through comparison, contradiction, or metaphor, with metaphor being the principal form of digression. Wilson advocated a blend of polar and linear thought (Wilson 1995, 220, 238-43).

Claiming that metaphor is more than illustration, Richard Lischer encouraged homileticians to interact with contemporary metaphor theory. He believed that many metaphors in sermons today are dead metaphors, metaphors that have become so familiar that they no longer are considered metaphors. Lischer described a master's metaphor as being substitutionary and illustrative. A pupil's metaphor, however, is the only way to express certain theological themes such as forgiveness. Lischer emphasized the need to create new metaphors to create biblical truth, writing that 'images drawn from the center of human life however, . . . not only illustrate the divine story but are capable of receiving light from the text' (Lischer 1987, 287).

Research in the Use of Metaphors in Preaching

In order to extend the theory of metaphor in homiletics, the intentional metaphors in the judgment and encouragement sermons of R. G. Lee were analyzed. The methodology consisted of a grammatical, conceptual and communicative analysis of each intentional metaphor. The methods of analysis in these categories were adapted from three areas that Gerard Steen proposed for metaphor analysis: linguistic, conceptual, and communicative (Steen 1999, 91). 

Analyses 

The grammatical analysis was conducted according to traditional grammatical terminology. The analysis yielded a verbal diagram of each intentional metaphor. One objective of the grammatical analysis was to discover how different parts of speech function metaphorically. A second objective was to learn how metaphor sources, targets, and qualifiers work together grammatically in the text. A third objective was to identify common grammatical patterns of metaphorical expressions. Achieving these objectives also provided data for the conceptual and communicative analyses. 

The conceptual analysis pertained to the basis of linguistic metaphors in domains of thought. Lakoff and Mark Turner claimed that conventional conceptual metaphors, the basis for everyday language and thought, provide the structure for novel metaphorical expressions. They asserted that novel expressions also could derive from unconventional conceptual metaphors, metaphors whose domains are not paired in everyday language (Lakoff and Turner 1989, 50). The analysis had three purposes: (1) to apply Lakoff's basic theory to homiletics, (2) to identify the conceptual metaphors in Lee's sermons, and (3) to provide data for the communicative analysis. 

The communicative analysis was based upon findings from the grammatical and conceptual analyses and answers to the relevant questions from Steen's metaphor analysis checklist (Steen 1999, 94-5). These questions regarded the point or tone of the metaphor, including its role as motif. The purpose of the analysis was to identify the communicative functions of metaphor in preaching. 

Conclusions 

The grammatical, conceptual, and communicative analyses revealed Lee's tendencies in his use of metaphors. Taken together, the analyses extended the theory of metaphor in preaching in two significant ways. 

First, the content analysis showed that a study of metaphors in sermons can contribute to linguistic metaphor theory. For instance, the conceptual analysis led to the recognition of a conceptual metaphor conventionalized by the Christian community: EVENTS ARE TRANSACTIONS. This particular metaphor called to mind numerous correspondences between thought domains: God as controller of the funds, people as the recipients of the funds, death as wages, eternal life as a reward, and people's lives as financial books. 

The study also contributed to linguistic metaphor theory with the analysis of a different genre of metaphors than linguists usually analyze. Everyday language and novel expressions in poetry usually are the focus of linguistic studies. In contrast, the loci of Lee's metaphors are sermons. They are rhetorical artifacts unlike transcripts of dialogue or selections from literature. Sermons reflect an interchange between a preacher and a particular congregation. The preacher invites the interchange for persuasive effect. In persuading his audience to make life-changing decisions, Lee included in his sermons a variety of novel mappings his listeners would understand. For instance, the path in the LIFE AS A JOURNEY metaphor would correspond to a lifestyle of sin or righteousness, and the destination would be heaven or hell. 

Second, the content analysis extended metaphor theory in preaching by showing that the application of Lakoff's linguistic theory of metaphor to the analysis of sermons can put the traditional homiletical perspectives of metaphor in a different light. For instance, the analysis revealed that Lee developed no new metaphors for theological concepts. Also, the analysis yielded a better understanding of the ornamental use of metaphor in relation to conceptual metaphors. Lee tended to base his ornamental metaphors upon unconventional conceptual metaphors. When Lee used these unconventional metaphors that incorporate correspondences uncharacteristic in everyday language, the result was excessive poetic effect. His quest for novelty rarely gave evidence of persuasive effect. 

The analysis also showed that Lee used conventional conceptual metaphors for communicative functions more significant than embellishment. The study, therefore, extended homiletics in the consideration of metaphor as more than ornament. Homileticians previously had identified aspects of these communicative functions. The analysis, however, revealed the manner in which the conceptual nature of metaphors achieved these functions. For example, the analysis of Lee's metaphors not only confirmed the function of energizing thought but also demonstrated how the conceptual structuring of metaphors achieves this function. The mapping of correspondences inherent in conceptual metaphor prompts the audience to map the appropriate correspondences, in effect prompting or stirring the imagination. The analysis also demonstrated how conceptual metaphor contributes to the creation of new meaning. Conventional conceptual metaphors inspire the audience to interpret a term or situation of one domain by mapping onto it the appropriated correspondences of another domain of thought. 

In addition to extending metaphor theory in homiletics, the analysis revealed the need for future studies in metaphor and its relation to preaching. First, the methodology needs to be refined at the point of identifying dead and conceptual metaphors. The procedure for identifying dead metaphors should allow a metaphor's context in a sermon to be considered in determining the metaphor's status. Likewise, further investigation should lead to a clear method of identifying the domains of metaphor targets and sources in order to name the conceptual metaphor. 

The content analysis also suggested some ideas for future research. For example, investigation into the interaction of metaphors from different levels of the Great Chain of Being might shed more light upon how metaphor functions in preaching. Likewise, the extended Great Chain of Being could serve as a valuable resource for the discovery of metaphors that communicate significant theological truth.  

Finally, the content analysis revealed the need for future study regarding audience analysis and metaphor. Homiletics has been concerned with the effect of linguistic metaphor in rhetoric, not with the interaction of the person and metaphor as in contemporary metaphor theory. One objective of future research, therefore, would be to develop a method of identifying the conceptual metaphors of an audience. Another objective would be to determine how metaphor mappings influence movement in sermons. 

Reference List 

Aldrich, Virgil C. 1954. The sense of dogmatic religious expression. In Symposium: Are cognitive religious dogmas cognitive and meaningful? The Journal of Philosophy 61, no. 5: 145-72. 

Aquinas, Thomas. 1268. Summa theologica. Translated by T. Gilby. Vol. 1 of Christian Theology. London: McGraw-Hill, 1963. 

Aristotle. 1952 trans. Rhetoric. Translated by R. Roberts. In vol. 8 of Great books of the western world, edited by Robert M. Hutchins. New York: Cambridge University Press. 

Arnett, Ronald C. 1998. Interpersonal praxis: The interplay of religious narrative, historicality, and metaphor. The Journal of Communication and Religion 21, no. 2 (September 1998): 141-63. 

Black, Max. 1962. Models and metaphors: Studies in language and philosophy. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press. 

Bryan, Dawson C. 1938. The art of illustrating sermons. New York: Abingdon-Cokesbury Press. 

Buttrick, David. 1987. Homiletic: moves and structures. Philadelphia: Fortress Press. 

Davis, H. Grady. 1958. Design for preaching. Philadelphia: Fortress Press. 

Dillistone, F. W. 1955. Christianity and symbolism. Philadelphia: Princeton University Press. 

Gerhart, Mary, and Allan M. Russell. 1984. Metaphoric process: The creation of scientific and religious understanding. Fort Worth: Texas Christian University Press. 

Hostetler, Michael J. 1997. Rethinking the war metaphor in religious rhetoric: Burke, Blake, and Berrigan's 'glimmer of light.' The Journal of Communication and Religion 20, no. 1 (March 1999): 49-60. 

Lakoff, George, and Mark Johnson. 1980. Metaphors we live by. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. 

Lakoff, George, and Mark Turner. 1989. More than cool reason: A field guide to poetic metaphor. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. 

Lischer, Richard. 1987. What language shall I borrow? The role of metaphor in proclamation. Dialog 26 (fall 1987): 281-6. 

Macpherson, Ian. 1964. The art of illustrating sermons. New York: Abingdon Press, 1964. 

McFague, Sallie. 1982. Metaphorical theology: Models of God in religious language. Philadelphia: Fortress Press. 

Ortony, Andrew. 1993. Metaphor, language, and thought. In Metaphor and thought. 2d ed. New York: Cambridge University Press. 

Perelman, C., and Olbrechts-Tyteca. 1958. The new rhetoric: A treatise on argumentation. Translated in 1969 by John Wilkinson and Purcell Weaver. Notre Dame: University of Notre Dame Press.  

Richards, I. A. 1936. The philosophy of rhetoric. New York: Oxford University Press. 

Riegert, Eduard. 1990. Imaginative shock: Preaching and metaphor. Burlington, Ontario: Trinity Press. 

Robertson, James D. 1967. Sermon illustrations and use of resources. Baker's dictionary of practical theology, edited by Ralph G. Turnbull. Grand Rapids: Baker Book House. 

Russell, Carmen H. 1995. Symbolic form and the rhetoric of belief: An epistemological account of John 4:1-42. The Journal of Communication and Religion 18, no. 1 (March 1995): 11-20. 

Sangster, William E. 1973. The craft of sermon illustration. Grand Rapids: Baker Book House.  

Searle, John. 1969. Speech acts. New York: Cambridge University Press. 

Steen, Gerard. 1999. Metaphor and discourse: Towards a linguistic checklist for metaphor analysis. In Researching and applying metaphor, ed. Lynne Cameron and Graham Low, 81-104. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press. 

Wiersbe, Warren W. 1994. Preaching & teaching with imagination: The quest for biblical ministry. Wheaton, IL: Victor Books. 

Wilson, Paul Scott. 1995. The practice of preaching. Nashville: Abingdon Press.