02.23.08
iMonk on Peterson and language
Michael writes,
“Eugene Peterson was back leading our seminar this morning, and a night’s rest put him back on his game.
“He spoke from some of the material in his upcoming book Tell It Slant, which is about the language of Jesus in Luke’s parables. He divided all pastoral-ministry language into the kerygmatic, the didactic and the pericletic. It was this third kind of language he was most interested in today.
“Pericletic language is hard to define. It is not the announcement and pronouncement of the preacher and it is not the systematic teaching of the teacher. It is the language of the “between.†It is the place that words are formed and we meet God in the empty place between the angels at the ark. It is the language of coming alongside. It is the language of conversation, not the delivery of content. It is primal language, the domain of children and the old. Peterson is fascinated by the connection between breath, Spirit and words in scripture..”
This reminds me of something he wrote ten years ago, arguing that there are two kinds of language. The language of problem solving, and the language of intimacy. We learn the latter as small children, and then we begin learning the former. Eventually we forget the earlier language, though some poets and some women retain it. Yet the language of intimacy is absolutely necessary for growth as a loving creature, and in particular in relation to God.
Lila said,
February 24, 2008 at 6:38 am
Oops, Len!
I suspect you meant to say that the language of intimacy is learned as small children.
After thinking about it a moment, I was reminded of Edward T Hall’s distinction between “informal” learning which is unconscious learning by imitation and “technical” learning which is completely mediated by word [The Silent Language]. “Formal” learning is taught by precepts and admonitions fraught with emotion (sounds pretty intimate to me) and not valued in Western society.