Religions are spiritual languages. If I were to say, "English is the only language capable of effective communication. Everyone who speaks any other language is led astray and only imagines that they're communicating," my foolishness would be apparent to everyone. Yet some people say, "Christianity is the only true path to God. All who practice other religions are deceived and only think they are in communion with God," and many people will suppose their words contain, or may contain, some sense. Really, there is no difference between the two.

Religions are languages, comprised, like all languages, of symbols, intended to convey objects, states, processes, themes, and impressions not otherwise apparent. Because religious language is highly poetical, the speaker must be granted some amount, great or small, of poetic license. In Paul's First Epistle to the Corinthians, he says "I speak with tongues," and though many believe that speaking in tongues means uttering words inspired by God yet unintelligible to mortals, I myself believe that speaking in tongues means speaking in religious language; with symbols provided by a specific religious tradition. So, when Paul says, "With men of other tongues and other lips will I speak unto this people; and yet for all that will they not hear me, saith the Lord," (14:21) I believe he means that he will speak in the language -- that is, with the symbols -- of a religion which is not the religion of the people to whom he is speaking. And since these people are not bi-religious, -- which is to say, spiritually bi-lingual -- they will not "hear", will not understand, him, "except he interpret, that the church may receive edifying" (14:5). He says that the ability to interpret is essential, otherwise the language will not be understood by those outside the Church.

"If therefore the whole church be come together into one place, and all speak with tongues, and there come in those that are unlearned, or unbelievers, will they not say that ye are mad?" (14:23) This is our present state of affairs. When we haven't the ability to interpret, and to make clear the meaning of religious terminology, then those outside the Church will think that we speak nonsense. Indeed, the confusion aroused by such a misunderstanding has reached the point where many within the Church do not even understand their own symbols. They speak in tongues, but have no one to interpret. So, while they may imagine that they understand, really, the meanings have been lost, and the religion has ceased to be a true language of the spirit for them. While the words may still make sense, to one who can interpret, they nonetheless remain nonsense for the majority of people who speak them.

What is needed now are people who can understand and speak of spiritual matters without recourse to religious language. But, perhaps even more than these, we need people who are capable of speaking and interpreting religious language. The Christian philosopher, Soren Kierkegaard, understood that there is nothing more difficult than teaching something (in this case, Christianity) to one who mistakenly believes that he already understands it. Interpreting religious symbols for one who has no concept of their meaning, or whose "cup is empty", can be difficult enough; but the task of reinterpreting symbols which a person has misunderstood is like walking on a slippery slope, or trying to fill a cup with wine which is already full of water. That your words will be buried in projected preconceptions, and taken in a context not intended by you, at least, in the beginning, is almost inevitable. Nevertheless, it is a task which all who understand the teaching feel called to perform. Moreover, elucidating the proper interpretations of religious language, though difficult, may be the easiest, and perhaps the only, way to reach many of the people who use -- or, rather, misuse -- that language, and remain deaf to all others.