The Role of Religious Language Games Within the Ethiopian Orthodox Tewhado Church: A Search for Hermeneutic Principles in the Future Reconstruction of Interpretative Approaches

Abstract

This article is framed on the assumption that tracing the historical roots of the Ethiopian Orthodox Tewhado Church will lead the church to recover its true spiritual identity with healthy and united nature. This will be possible through a refined process of unearthing terminologies of spirituality within the language games of this church, which definitely leads towards a healing hermeneutic. Proposing a new hermeneutic will hopefully play a uniting role that can be useful in dealing with the existing historical fraction, in a way reforming the loose interpretative process. A sub assumption here is that religious language game has significant impact in the formation of organizational spirituality. The past spiritual form a religious group had, contributes to its system, either as a cohesive force or as a disuniting force. Such hypothesis led this article to examine theories of language games, searching for the best players on the field of religious language games, so as to find traces of frames which may be identified within the religious language games of the Ethiopian Orthodox Tewhado Church.

Methods

In order to achieve such a goal this article dealt with questions such as: the “what of all the research”; “also the “how/methods, dealing first with the religious history in Ethiopia; second, a review of language theories; third, final outcomes, with suggested hermeneutic principles” at the end. The “what of this article” are the basic assumptions laid above.

Problem Statement

The research has devised a problem statement like: “What kind of language game can be salvific to the conflicts within the Ethiopian Orthodox Tewhado Church?”

Key Questions

• What does the religious history in Ethiopia tell in forming the EOTC spiritual identity?
• How can the best plays of language games be compared with the EOTC language games?
• What do the expressed and unexpressed religious language practices in the Ethiopian Orthodox Tewhado Church tell, concerning the felt meanings about God, angels, immortality, sin, grace, salvation etc…?
• How are the diverse kinds of utterances as praying, praising, exhorting, blessing, cursing, etc… utilized interpretation wise, in the spiritual formation of the Ethiopian Orthodox Tewhado Church then and now?
• What kind of hermeneutic will become salvific enhancing the unity and spirituality of the Ethiopian Orthodox Tewhado Church?

In order to answer such questions, a historical review of the Ethiopian Orthodox Tewhado Church with parallel semi-structured qualitative interview is done, which supposedly led to fixing a common reconnecting ‘center’. The search for a connective uniting ‘center’ in the religious language games of the EOTC is taken as a measuring principle in the development of the research.

Part I: Introduction

This article is an offshoot of a ThD dissertation done at Asia Baptist Graduate Theological Seminary (ABGTS), presented to the Faculty of the Philippine branch of Asia Baptist Graduate Theological Seminary (2018), in Partial Fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Doctor of Theology. The dissertation has analyzed a brief survey of religious history of Ethiopia, comprising sub topics like: descriptions about Ethiopia and Ethiopians; Biblical texts about Ethiopia; boundary analysis; composition of the people; religion; Frumentius (Abuna Selama); the nine monks; the Ethiopian Orthodox Tewhado Church (EOTC); Ethiopian Evangelical Churches; Ethiopian cultures and values. This article will not go deep into such contents but the reader may refer to the pages referred here under the footnotes. This article will hereafter replace the word EOTC, for the Ethiopian Orthodox Tewhado Church.

Part II: Best Players of Religious Language Games and Its Comparison to the Language Plays of the EOTC

In order to make this process foundational, the research, so also this article has made a review of the best authorities in the area of religious language games. The reader may refer to books entitled “God Talk: An examination of the Language and Logic of Theology” for a start up survey, leading to the next crucial witnesses on such discipline. Such a call is to find a sensible possibility of intelligibility between God and humanity. In such an order; Wittgenstein comes next. Wittgenstein in his argument tried to bring down ideas sublime in concepts, into clarity, physicality or tangibility. He said, it is not what one may have in mind but what one does with language. He implied that, what matters is not what we believe but how we live. For him language is an act.

Belief → God Talk → Act (Praying, Praising, Symbol, Exhorting, Love, Crucifixes, Blessing, Ritual acts, Cursing)

Inexpressible → Expressible

If one stands on Ludwig Wittgenstein’s shoe, he/she is saying, God must be reduced into manipulable entity.

Another witness in this line is Dan Stiver who emphasized on hermeneutical philosophy, philosophy of metaphor, etc etc.. Dan Stiver said, religion is always with full of disputes about words because of the fast growth of language on one side and humanity being homoloquains (speaking animals) on another. He pointed out the natural connectedness between seeing and speaking, speaking and writing also direct speech over figurative speech. Such a thought is in line with what Rene Descartes claims about clarity and distinctness, despite religious “shrouded” nature. This leads us to do more into examining lists of authorities on language games then and now.

Searching into history; Origen proposed a triadic approach to languages of religious texts which later led to the rules of Faith (Regula fieda). Aquinas (1224/5-74), though within the frame of the rules of faith, proposed analogical language as a moderate realist. Against Aquinas was Dan Scotes (1264-1308), who expressed language as either equivocal or univocal. William of Okham (1280-1347), said things become after they are named. For example, we name the Trinity and it became implying that we know nothing about the Trinity before, than the Trinity after.

Other three 13th C., language philosophers were Moses Maimondes (1135-1204), the German mystic Eckhart (1260-1327), also the Zen Buddhist Koan thought stories, stating religious language as non-cognitive. Such a thought asserted that, if language is non-cognitive, when one may ascend up to the level of God, there is a possibility of a complete absence of discourse/ intelligibility.

Then comes the literal interpretation by Luther, Zwingli and Calvin. The literal here is not necessarily literalism but a sort of being faithful to the scriptures only. John Lock was able to unlock the mystery saying, words are conventional signs for concepts and concepts as mental images for things. So words use as mental images also as tools to express images.

Another witness in this line is Gadamer. Gadamer said; understanding cannot be reducible into any scientific method because it has culture, tradition, aesthetic, play, being, becoming within itself. Therefore said Gadamer, 'understanding is beyond methods'.

Paul RiCoeur said: interpretation must not be an isolated discourse but a dialogue with hundred others, which is also an interconnection between the being of man and the being of all beings. RiCoeur said, philosophical investigations, Myth, rituals, beliefs, figures, metaphors, symbols, vision, language all rest in a unified field system. This makes language as the joker-liaison in between.

Contemporary witnesses like Bultmann, Tillich and Barth cannot be escaped. Still the question of theories of language is; how can language be stretched from man to God and the vice-versa?

Bultmann said the New Testament language, to some extent, has come down into us clothed in metaphorical garments. He said, mythology in a scientific age has became a dead language. Bultmann therefore recommends the way of demythologization or existential interpretation.

Another witness may be is, Karl Barth who is known for a theology of the 'Word'. He said, the 'Word' comes to us in threefold manners. 1-as a revealed form (Jesus Christ). 2- as a written form (Text).3-as a proclamation. Barth’s main intent was destroying the incurring “liberal” thoughts of his time by protecting the conservative neo-orthodoxy camp.

Paul Tillich on this line, proposed a frame known as “method of correlation”. God for Tillich is a non-symbolic statement. It/ ‘God’/being/ according to Tillich, cannot point beyond itself. He said, any asserted statement about God is not about God. So, we need symbolic talk which attempts to bridge between the non-symbolic and the symbolic or material talks. That is what Tillich meant by correlation. This thought may be compared with the analogical method of Aquinas.

Heideggar, who is behind both Tillich and Bultmann, who also a stern critique of substantiality of God, went for a substantiality of the “self” in us.

Vincent Brummer raised critical questions in language games. He categorized such questions like: factual questions, questions of meaning and conceptual questions. Factual questions are framed within question and answers. Philosophical questions are more of questions of meaning/significance. Brummer however emphasized on the basic elements of religious language games like ‘saying and doing’. This makes him line with Wittgenstien and Stiver as he said, when one utters a call he is initiating an act, like a ball, net and goal. This has models like tools and names in it. From this, we need to move into another important witness Sallie McFague who recently passed away few years ago but was a strong voice in metaphorical theology area.

McFague is so much known for metaphorical theology. It seems that she lent RiCouer’s importance of broadening the field of language games against isolationism. McFague picked metaphor as one important tool among many. A metaphor is something which asserts similarity but denying identity. This is in correspondence with Aquinas’s analogical method, so also Tillich’s method of correlation. She said; in using a metaphor, one avoids both isolation and literalism. McFague then considers a model to be systematic and relatively permanent metaphor. A model she said, is more emotionally rich and less abstract than a concept. Her proposal is relevant to the EOTC way of models and symbols except the too much overdoing in the EOTC.

So she advanced the names and concepts model into a model metaphor. As a model is more precise than even a metaphor, it helps bring the divine on the level of the feeling of the believer; as a friend, lover etc, being an excellent bridge in the divine-human intelligibility. Such a process of thinking a model metaphor in McFague’s leads to the search of the root metaphor of Christianity, “Jesus Christ”. She said, once a religion loses its root metaphor, it loses everything.

McFague brought the incarnate Lord Jesus, within the contextual paradigm of Jewish religion and its basic assumptions, which were partially affirmed and partially revolutionized by an introduction of the incarnate Lord as a new metaphor (Jesus Christ). The root metaphor (Jesus Christ), instead of Jewish literalistic rituals and traditions, has come with new qualitative relationship of sacrificial love he offered.

The flow of our survey into the best players of language games makes us to categorize them in either ‘realism line’ or ‘moderate realism model’ or in ‘nominalism model’. The reader may see who is who with areas of affinity to the EOTC in a rough category, within the table below.

S/N	Key Figures	Realism	Moderate Realism	Nominalism	Areas of Affinity to EOTC	Special Remarks
1	Origen	√			EOTC need not follow an isolated model	Origen said Interpretation should be triadic focusing on the spiritual, moral and Literal
2	Augustine	√			EOTC need not follow an isolated model	Augustine said a separate world of ideas to the existence of these ideas in the mind of God
3	School of Antioch			√	Similar to literalism of the EOTC	School of Antioch Interpretation should be Literal
4	School of Alexandria	√			EOTC Handemta Interpretation is lenient to this model	School of Alexandria Interpretation should be Allegorical
5	Aquinas		√		EOTC Pictures, arts and symbols are similar to Aquinas analogy	Aquinas said reason precedes faith and revelation itself is reason. Interpretation should be analogical.
6	13th C theologians like the Zen Buddhist Koan; Moses Maimondes; Meister Ekhart	√			Antidote to the Literalistic emenentia in the interpretation of the EOTC language games	Expressive Vs Inexpressive possibility of the Divine; Via negativa contrasted with via emenentia
	Luther, Calvin, Zwingli			√	Similarity with the high view of literalism in the interpretative Practice of the EOTC	Literal Interpretation mainly based on the given literature
7	Rene Descartes			√	Some similarity with EOTC literalistic approach to language	Descartes said the sign of knowing is its clear and distinctiveness
8	Kant			√		Transcendental critique as Reason should be empirical
9	Hegel		√		Mystic practices within EOTC	Hegel said, an absolute 'spirit' is decisive of any meaning
10	Bultmann		√		The need to demythologize extra garments covering the root metaphor-Christ in the Interpretive practice of the EOTC	Bultmann said New Testament Texts came down to our age closed with mythologies so the need for demythologization
11	Karl Barth	√			Lending options to the interpretive practice of the EOTC	Karl Barth's three fold manner (Revelation; text; proclamation) in which the word of God is mediated to humanity
12	Paul Tillich		√		Against the literal isolated interpretation of the EOTC here is a call of admitting the limitedness of Human language to express the divine	Paul Tillich's Language as non-cognitive for the divine cannot talk beyond itself or –a divine as non symbolic talk
13	Gadamer	√			Still an isolated approach to literalism or handemta should be avoided	Gadamer said Religious language is beyond method; liquidity of language nature
14	Wittgenstien			√	The EOTC literal language practice and the need to clarity may have a bit commonness here	Wittgenstien said, what can be said at all can be said clearly in acts and doings
15	Paul Ricoeur		√		EOTC language game is with much symbolism that Ricouerian method is relevant here. Religious language as a field; an interaction on the field	Paul Ricoeur, Harshly criticized the modern age for loss of sensitivity to symbolic language, against Cartesian dichotomy; said religious language calls for a dialogue with hundred others
16	Martin Heideggar			√		Martin Heideggar's Language and being: a talk to language as a ground of total existence
17	Mcfague		√		Christ as the root-metaphor to the shaken religious language games of the EOTC	Mcfague: The importance of Metaphor in religious language
18	Brummer		√		The role of metaphor helping ordering our conceptions of religion	Brummer's the role of metaphor helping ordering our conceptions of religion

We will now move into how this would apply within the EOTC world of language games.

Part III: The Search for the Root Metaphor within the EOTC World of Language Games

Where is the locus and exact position of the ‘root metaphor’ in the EOTC world of language games? Is it at the center? Is it protected as it should be? Or it is somewhat left at the appendix side? If the root metaphor is lost, everything in the EOTC is utterly lost.

This endeavor with the search into the center to be (the root-metaphor of Christianity-Jesus Christ, in the suggestions of McFague), attempted to propose a new hermeneutic system to be injected into the EOTC, bringing back Jesus Christ (Medhani-Alem/Holy Savior) at the center. Otherwise; the root metaphor is lost and the EOTC is gone.

As far as the religious language game is concerned, this article sees such a matter from an angle that the locus of meaning may lie in cultural settings, in characteristics of new paradigms, rather than in clear distinct plain words.

If this is sensible, language is not only noises of words but with many sheets underneath, which always demand unpacking (exegesis/hermeneutics), for a foundational common sense. If such bargains should lead to foundational option within the EOTC, the search is all in all a search of intelligibility through identification of the root metaphor at the center of EOTC.

Part IV: Where Does the EOTC Stand?

1. An isolated literal and abstract allegorical or Handemta, model within the language game of the EOTC hints both 'realism' and 'nominalism', but playing a cover garment to the root metaphor.
2. Literal and Handemta methods are a mixture of both realist and nominalist model which may need to be restructured again, so as to see the root metaphor very distinct.
3. Pictures, arts, and symbols are similar to Aquinas propositions which lead to a moderate realist position of language games within the EOTC; which may also have some affinity to the model metaphor theology of Sallie Mcfague, but needing to go further the journey to the root metaphor that McFague has introduced.
4. EOTC language game is unfamiliar to the ‘via-negativa’ methods of the 13th C. theologians but a little close to the mystic Myster Eckhart, who lowered the non-cognitive nature of religious language games into a sort of cognitive, through Emenetia.
5. As EOTC may be compared to what Luther, Zwingly and Calvin have proposed, we might see some selective affinities, through that of literalism but the EOTC way is more of letterism. This may lead to a miss of the root metaphor.

Part V: Conclusive Suggestions

Following this flow, the dissertation also this article has analyzed that the deficiency of all language plays narrated above is a problem of isolation. Each scholarly proposal strives to suggest only one system as absolutely and isolation-ally indispensable. This is a problem of polarization ending up no where in such a world confiscated by finiteness.this article has identified that an all encompassing or total existence approach hinted by RiCoeur is much descriptive signifying the enigma of language than any other.

Therefore; this research/article has finally came out with a perspective that, meaning and language is all about an exchange over the field within the extreme ends of non-cognitive nature and cognitive natures; an exchange between via-negativa and via emenetia; an exchange between clarity and obscurity; an exchange between the finite and the infinite.

Therefore, this article strongly believes that such a frame is a bridge way between realism and anti-realism; precision and imprecision through a managed empathy communication, sensing the coming down of the divine to the human, so also the spiritual transportation of the human into the divine, through all tools within the dimension of language tools, like praying, praising, groaning, tongues, preaching, exposing, saying or even silence; be it shrouded or distinct. So Language should be made to rest upon a ‘dimension’ which is unlimited on all sides, because the nature of language is utterly unlimited. It stretches to mental dimensions which is truly a bottomless pit. It also stretches to destinations of time, culture, physical spheres, destinations of beings, symbols, revelations, mystic dimensions, mythology, text, syntax, signification and meanings.

Having said this, the research/article identified that the EOTC is more or less within the 'moderate realism' category. The role of re-centering the root metaphor back to the core place of the whole EOTC system should be an epicenter of all dogmatic and practical plays, also a healing factor to the unity fractures within the EOTC.

The research/article has spellings or typographical errors in the original document (e.g., “RiCoeur” instead of “Ricoeur,” “Mcfague” instead of “McFague,” “Handemta” vs. “Andəmta,” “emenetia” vs. “eminentia”). These have been corrected in this article for clarity.

Hermeneutic Principles

The research/article has also suggested healing hermeneutic tools outlined from pages 160-198. Below is a concise description of the proposed hermeneutic principles:

Hermeneutical Principles	Concise Description	Relevance to Religious Language Games
1-Christ the Root Metaphor	Fixing one common center/Root Metaphor/ Christ	Every Religion has to identify also stick to its root metaphor
2-Christ: Mediator or Only Judge	Christ a mediator once for all	Fixing the God-Judge-mediator language confusion
3-Asserting EOTC is with Miaphysite Christology	Unity of the two natures of Christ is termed as “tewhado/perfect unity” not to confuse the identities	Miaphysite-Diaphysite-monophysite language controversy
4-God is ‘a spirit’ in no limited space	Worshipers need to take care of confining Him to some selected holy places only	The need to Eminentia Negativa balance
5-66 books as common ground	Re-affirming the final textual authority than an open ended flat	Fixing the epic-center of religious language foundation
6-Manage multiple meanings of the “Andəmta exegesis”	Closing the door of the possibility of multiple explanation and meaning of a given text	Where is the meaning?
7-Superiority of the Uni-vocal language	Not dismantling other aids like symbols, Andəmta etc etc	Univocal must come at the authoritative center in between the analogical, or triadic, or the literal etc etc…
8-Diversifying helpful hermeneutic principles	An isolated literal principle is dangerous	Religious language 'dimension field' representing the total existence matter not an isolated method
9-Sacraments and the likes on the secondary role level	Affirming the primary role of the root-metaphor	Resisting a replacing effect to the root metaphor
10-Orientations Vs Autonomy	Imported orientations need not suppress the basic autonomy	Universal religious language frame works need to respect the contextual wisdom
11-Arts; architectural images, models need to magnify the root metaphor	Such items should never cover the center	Who, or what determines the meaning?
12-Creeds from the past	Appreciating the positive impacts of the past towards effective communication	The time factor of sprache to create effective communication between the mythological and scientific generation
13-A fallback to orthodoxy	Monotheism-trinitarianism and Christ centrist roots	Knowing and reverting to your root/foundation
14-Christ as just God-Man	Avoid the useless also indefinite dialogues on details of his very nature	The higher and deep we go into language plays, the more we be swallowed in absentia of physical words
15-Realistic anthropology	Man is an actual sinner, in need of salvation only through faith and grace on Jesus, be him lay, professional, priest, Arch Bishop, Patriarch, Saint etc etc…	A religious language seeking an introspective existential recognition
16-Revelation the boss	Making tradition, culture, experience etc etc… subservient to Revelation	Aquinas analogical method and his placement of revelation on top; also Barth’s revelation as God’s speech
17-Who is Mary? How about Angels and saints?	Excesses about Mary civile, angels and saints	Excesses about them must be managed, also be replaced by facts in the Bible and real history
18-Names and labels	Excesses about Kidane mehret Or Bezawite Alem Etc Etc….	Re-defining the language engagements of names with ‘universally’ accepted Christian truth
19-Uniting Paradigms Vs emerging generation	Manipulating the virtue of paradigm shifts with the Reasonable Centrality of Rule of Faith	Language paradigms may be resistant in an attempt of bridging the mythological texts and cultures with the scientific cultures and languages
20-Miracles to effective magnification of the root metaphor	Persons, places of miracles must have a magnifying effect than a covering effect	The need to uncover the cover (Demythology)
21-Limitation of the human physical language	Admit the limitation of human language in an attempt of describing the divine	Infinity-finiteness language plays

Reflection

The EOTC’s rich linguistic tradition, rooted in symbols, rituals, and a blend of literal and allegorical interpretations, reflects a profound spiritual heritage. However, the risk of fragmentation arises when these elements overshadow the centrality of Jesus Christ as the root metaphor. The proposed hermeneutic, which emphasizes Christ’s mediatory role and Miaphysite Christology, aligns with the EOTC’s theological identity while fostering unity. This approach bridges historical practices with contemporary needs, ensuring the church’s relevance and cohesion in a rapidly changing world.

Critique

The article’s innovative focus on language games provides a fresh perspective on EOTC’s interpretive challenges. However, it could further explore how these language practices interact with Ethiopia’s diverse cultural and social dynamics, particularly in urban versus rural contexts. The emphasis on Christ as the root metaphor, while theologically sound, may undervalue the significance of traditional elements like Marian devotion, which are central to EOTC spirituality. Additionally, the study lacks a detailed roadmap for practically implementing these hermeneutic principles across the EOTC’s varied congregations, especially in the global diaspora. More attention to contemporary issues like secularism and interfaith dialogue would enhance its applicability.

Discussion Questions

• How can the EOTC balance its literal (Andəmta) and allegorical (Handemta) interpretive traditions to highlight Jesus Christ as the root metaphor?
• What role do Ethiopia’s cultural and historical contexts play in shaping the EOTC’s religious language games?
• How can the proposed hermeneutic principles address modern challenges such as secularism, globalization, and interfaith dialogue?
• Are the EOTC’s symbolic practices, such as Marian devotion and veneration of saints, compatible with a Christ-centered hermeneutic?
• How can the EOTC’s language games foster unity across its global diaspora, particularly in reconciling theological disputes?

Citations

• Wittgenstein, Ludwig. Philosophical Investigations. Translated by G.E.M. Anscombe, Wiley-Blackwell, 2009. Link
• Stiver, Dan R. The Philosophy of Religious Language: Sign, Symbol, and Story. Blackwell, 1996. Link
• Ricoeur, Paul. The Symbolism of Evil. Beacon Press, 1967. Link
• Bultmann, Rudolf. Jesus Christ and Mythology. SCM Press, 1960. Link
• Barth, Karl. Church Dogmatics, Volume I: The Doctrine of the Word of God. T&T Clark, 2004. Link
• Tillich, Paul. Systematic Theology, Volume 1. University of Chicago Press, 1951. Link
• McFague, Sallie. Metaphorical Theology: Models of God in Religious Language. Fortress Press, 1982. Link
• Brümmer, Vincent. The Model of Love: A Study in Philosophical Theology. Cambridge University Press, 1993. Link
• Gadamer, Hans-Georg. Truth and Method. Continuum, 2004. Link
• Macquarrie, John. God-Talk: An Examination of the Language and Logic of Theology. SCM Press, 1967. Link