Signs and Symbols

One Man's Web > Studies > Signs and Symbols


An Essay on Sacraments, and the Lima Text

This  essay was written for Dr John Gaden, a mentor and friend.  Ironically, at his funeral  two years of so later, the power of symbols was made clear to me again when I received the Eucharist at the high alter of the Cathedral.  I have rarely felt so loved and healed.

There are differences and similarities between signs and symbols. Both signs and symbols point to something other than themselves. In this respect a symbol is a sign. However, signs are not symbols. Symbols participate in that to which they point.
... the sign bears no necessary relation to that to which it points, the symbol participates in the reality of that for which it stands. ¹

Thus when we talk of the relationship of energy and matter we say E=MC² . This is sign language. There is no reason why we should not say X=YZ^2. This is because we are talking the language of maths and physics where (to a large degree anyway) the sign is identified with that to which it points; x=7. However, when we talk of God we are dealing with an "area of human awareness and communication where what we think and what we say can never be perfectly clear. "²  We are in the area of symbol. The symbol can participate in the reality of God to whom it points. But to identify the symbol with God is to try and limit God to a section of the finite. Here the symbol becomes idolatrous.

This ambiguity of symbols,- their inability to precisely identify something- is a frustration to our culture which is still strongly infected with the excessive rationalism of the logical positivists. But the ambiguity and imprecision of symbols is their strength- "They open up levels of reality which otherwise are hidden and cannot be grasped in any other way." ³ To do this they also open us up- 'levels of our souls' which correspond to exterior reality. ⁴

Tillich says somewhere that all concrete things can be symbols that are sacramental; that is, reveal God to us. God is, after all, the ground of all being. And it is obvious with a little reflection that most of life is not concerned with maths and the hard sciences, where signs excel. Most of life, particularly the area of human relationships, deals in symbols. This being the case, the low frequency of the word 'symbol', and the high frequency of the term 'sign' in the Lima text is surprising.

In most cases where the word 'sign(s)' is used it seems to me to be somewhat inadequate. Baptism, for example, "is the sign of new life through Jesus Christ." It is a "participation in Christ's death and resurrection...a re-clothing in Christ .... an exodus from bondage.." and so on. [Para. 2 pp2, BEM] The 'sign', which technically points to something is continually stated to be something participatory; that is, to be symbolic.

In paragraph 15 (Eucharist) the bread and wine are called 'sacramental signs'. It is obvious that 'sacramental' refers to the fact that these elements point to God. Why are they only called signs, rather than symbols? It struck me here that the use of 'sign' is not some kind of technical linguistic sloppiness (hard to credit in a document of this nature), but might have a very definite purpose. It might be designed ⁵ to allow the 'convergences the document seeks to encourage.

The commentary on paragraph 15 briefly alludes to the controversies which have raged over the nature of Christ's presence in the Eucharist. There have been here what one might call 'maximalist' and 'minimalist' positions. The same is true with respect to baptism; ranging from it being seen purely as a ritual of response to Christ with no sacramental value, through to a sacrament which effects considerable change in the believer. In all of these cases, to speak of baptism or Eucharist in terms of signs is to some degree true, if inadequate. Symbols are signs. But to speak of baptism in terms of symbols becomes a stumbling block for those of 'minimalist position.' It is also hard to see how one could speak of eucharistic symbols in a technically correct use of 'symbol' whilst holding a position of 'real absence', for example.

I find, however, that "The Spirit makes the crucified and risen Christ really present to us in the eucharistic meal..." is written in paragraph 14. It seems to me that if one has been helped by the use of 'sign' as opposed to 'symbol', then statements such as the one above would not be encouraging. The use of 'signs' instead of 'symbols' really does not remove much offence to those of minimalist position at all. Rather it empties the symbolic and participatory nature of the language about the two sacraments which is present in the document to a kind of empty pious symbolism which does not really mean what it says.

To summarise this brief analysis I would say the use of 'sign(s)' in the Lima text is not very helpful. It is inadequate in that it usually speaks of signs in a way that implies 'symbol'. Yet is correct at least to the degree that symbols do point to things like signs.

This essay question asks me to explain how my understanding of symbols relates to the usage of the Lima text. My short answer is that symbols, in my experience of the two sacraments at issue, act with much more diversity, richness, unpredictability and power than the use of the word 'sign' would suggest. That is, in the event that someone understood the distinction between sign and symbol and read the text prior to sacramental experience, they would wonder what all the fuss was about. Experientially, the sacraments are more than pointers; they involve us.

There is a sense of ambiguity and the indefinable about symbols. Water demonstrates this. When you mentioned water in a lecture, John, I lost you for the next few minutes. You spoke of the 'dark waters of death', or words to that effect. I saw them- from swimmer's eye view. For a few moments I was 'there', not in the class room. Although the symbol 'water' may point to one reality in the end if it is sacramental, we all perceive it differently at different times. I suppose as I struggled with the vision for the next few minutes most of the class 'remained' in the lecture. A symbol is like the white cue ball sent down for the break in snooker. When it hits the cluster of balls in the break who knows what the effect will be? Symbols are 'live' for some people in some situations. In others they will seem to have little effect.

Symbols seem also to be 'productive' as well as unpredictable and hard to define. As I thought of the water vision I remembered my love of swimming. How I used to swim up and down the length of the Mary Ellen Dam at Tennant Creek. How one day I swam unknowingly into shallow water, and touching the ground, nearly drowned in three feet of water! I must have deep water. The bottom is full of fear- sharp rocks, snags to be caught on, dangerous unspecifiable shadows which will attack me. But the really deep water, the sea, is not safe either. There are sharks there. And so I take my sailboard out on West Lakes where there are no sharks. Yet the true ecstasy comes out in the sun on the ocean, where one can go down the coast for hours without the ceaseless tacking the lake requires. Where there is not the noise of the cars that encircle the lake, and there are no wind shadows from the surrounding houses and coastal dunes. On the sea, the wind blows free.

All of this came as a 'stream of consciousness' much more quickly than I have written it, and in much richer detail. I know that in my life I want to be out windsurfing on the deep water of the sea, somehow free of the picture of sharks snapping at the board. This is an aim, a desire that pulls at me deeply. In less picturesque language, language that is not full of symbol, I am not sure I can explain what it is I am talking about. It is something I know only symbolically. Yet out of our deep cultural consciousness- with memories of the Styx, and my own memories, God has spoken to me. 

For others the symbol of water will be different. I heard surfer Nat Young speaking to Caroline Jones on the ABC. He knows the fear of the sea, too. But water speaks differently to him.

All of these memories come to the sacrament of baptism. The water of baptism will always speak to me with overtones of what I have written above each time I see someone baptised. It is not just a signifying mark or act. The water of someone else's baptism speaks to me.

My daughter Debbie has longed for a kitten. We collected it one evening and very early next morning she solemnly baptised it. She put three drops of water on its head and a 'wet cross' on its nose. The water of baptism was no sign of which she had to be in some 'Piagetian stage' to be cognisant. She knows (symbolically) whilst hardly knowing, that the kitten belongs to our family and to God.

Symbols act very much as signs as they signify things. I note that you and Janet see different things in bread, John. 6 1 see/feel the tearing of a body. What is there that puts bounds on our seeings and feelings? Here the bread is perhaps first of all a 'sign'. It points to Christ's body. It may be a 'sacramental sign' of Christ's body (para.15) but it is first of all a sign. As it points us to the Christ so the Christ crucified and raised is a critique of us. "When you meet together it is not the Lord's supper that you eat. For in eating each one goes ahead with his own meal." (ICor.11:20,21b)

This is not, however just a case of the 'sign' critiquing what we see/feel in it. The whole act critiques us. "This is my body," my one body, questions us. If there is one body, one bread which is broken, then the question is asked of us, "Why does some one go hungry?" It was broken for us all, not just a few. So far this is a question of logic. We can say, crudely, "One loaf equals twenty slices. We have ten people. that's two each. He shouldn't have four while those two have only got one each."

But although the bread/act is pointing to Christ and critiquing us, it is not merely pointing as a sign, but as a symbol. It signifies, yet more than signifies. It goes to a deeper level so that one may feel through a series of images, or just 'feel', that something is wrong in the church even if unable to name it in concise terms; even if unable to do the sums of the example above.

Thus what we see/feel/hear in a symbol is controlled by what it points to and participates in. Because of its participation it is able to then speak to us more richly than a sign. On the other hand, as is evident in the section of water, the symbols do not just control, or critique us. They guide and minister to us as a positive sacrament.

Signs are arbitrary and interchangeable. We can stamp "member" on a person any time. Or we can change it to "belongs" or "paid". But the bread in the Eucharist is not interchangeable. It is one symbol in a complex of symbols. The richness of the Eucharist depends of it being bread. Technically, if there were just signs involved it wouldn't matter: Visiting St Barnabas once, our 4 year old attended the high mass. She was there for all the prayers. She was part of the gathered community. But, although blessed by the laying of hands, she was given no bread. She was even given a little card by the deacon. Leaving the rail she gave it to me with a puzzled and derisive, "What's this?!!" She was given a sign, but it was not bread. Bread is bread. Symbols are not interchangeable.

In another sense, when the bread is just small white cubes, and the Eucharist is believed to be purely a memorial, perhaps the bread is reduced to a sign. "...all agree that to discern the body and blood of Christ, faith is required." (para 13)

It could seem that the power of symbols arises from us working with them. We do the reflecting and really perhaps we just imagine it all. There is certainly an element of ourselves in a sacramental experience, Yet there is more than this. My first live! experience of the Eucharist came in first year when I was suffering severe culture shock in the city after six years of living with desert aborigines. Our first baby was straining our relationship badly and I used to arrive at chapel so exhausted and miserable could hardly bear to be in the presence of other people. I brought no preparation to those symbols, and didn't reflect upon them. Yet time and again I was strengthened in almost tactile experiences of God.

I do not think that symbols are necessarily a private experience, either. (I mean no more private than any other experience we would call public.) The community is a good example here. The community gathered at Eucharist is highly visible to all. The people are there. The community is shown its inconsistency by the Eucharist (para.20) . Yet it remains a symbol which points to God and participates in the first fruits of the kingdom. BEM speaks neither in terms of sign nor symbol. But it says the community "demonstrates and effects" the oneness of the sharers with Christ. It sees the community in symbolic terms.

Whilst the symbol of the community- indeed the sacrament- must be apprehended in faith, as it were, to be sacramental, it is a very public and open symbol. Anyone can join. Love can be experienced by all in this setting. There is no suspicion that only certain psychological 'types' might experience the symbol. 

It is for the reasons outlined above that I would say my understanding of symbols is that they operate with much more diversity, richness, unpredictability and power than signs. The usage age of signs by BEM seems to me to contradict much of what experience tells us of baptism and Eucharist, and much of what BEM seem to want to say about them.
----------------------
1. Paul Tillich Systematic Theology Vol 1 pp239 
2. Bernard Cooke Sacraments and Sacramentality pp43 
3. Paul Tillich Theology of Culture pp56 
4. Ibid pp57 
5. BEM ppix 
6. Janet and John Gaden "Eucharistic Community" Coming Together 1986 pp1

Bibliography
Cooke, B. Sacraments and Sacramentality (Twenty Third 1983) 
Dillistone, F. The Power of Symbols (SCM 1986) 
Gaden, J&J. "Eucharistic Community" in Janet Gaden (Ed) Coming Together (MOW 1986) ppl-17
Guzie, Tad. The Book of Sacramental Basics (Paulist Press 1981) 
Tillich, P. Systematic Theology Vols. I and 1I (SCM1978) 
Tillich, P. Theology of Culture (OUP 1959) 
Worgul, G. From Magic to Metaphor (Paulist Press 1980)

Men's Business Mud Map Theology Studies Conversations Thinking Where I Live Sermons Mark Politics Words Computing Jan's Links Fundamentalism Sexuality in the Uniting Church  Replies, Responses, Debate Latest Pages     © Jan Thomas