Welcome back to our book club discussion. I trust everyone had a lovely Thanksgiving. I’m still digesting…Not only the holiday feast, but also our latest chapter in Gerald May’s The Wisdom of the Wilderness.
Chapter eight, The Name of the Eagle, presented some uncomfortable revelations from May. Not the least of these is his comments on the inerrancy of scripture. It wasn’t his position on this issue that felt insulting to me, so much as the abrupt nature in which he presented it.
May seems to go a bit further than disdain when discussing those Genesis writers. He seems to take personal offense at the Genesis account of man being charged with the role of namers of all creation. Did anyone else feel a definite hostility? I found his choice of arguing this angle interesting…I mean, we’ve had those who counter the Bible’s statements on women, on homosexuality, on multiple marriages…but, naming things?
I am no Biblical scholar (had you fooled, didn’t I?), and these types of discussions are usually lose-lose situations for everyone (have you ever argued anyone into changing his mind?)–so I’m not going to spend too much time here.
Deuteronomy 29:29 tells me the secret things belong to the Lord. Hermeneutics will always yield differing opinions, as long as we are human. The best I can say is that the Bible has never led me into error. The Words are living and active. They change me. They have never caused me to stumble. That’s one type of inerrancy that I can endorse.
There is more to be said on this issue, but I’m not the one to say it. Feel free to offer your thoughts.
Let’s talk more about this issue of naming. Though I understand May’s strong respect for nature, his take on this seems a bit exaggerated to me.
All too often, naming is truly a sign of subjugation. Masters name their slaves; owners name their pets; bigots name their enemies; angry children call each other names. To name in this way is to try to possess, conquer, or control…
May goes on to say:
There are, of course, many ways of naming that convey respect and even reverence, but these are also acts of power; they are always the choice of the namer…
I understand what May is saying here, but I tend to disagree. He seems to imply that domination is always the ulterior motive in the giving of a name. Once again I find myself wondering if this strong reaction isn’t related to his medical condition (he specifically mentions physicians).
Gerald May is dying. Identifying, or naming, his illness has not changed this. I detect a certain amount of anger, perhaps related to the impotence in the naming of his condition.
On the contrary, I have found that naming–even of inanimate objects–often invites intimacy and engenders tender emotion. Our children, for example, have the habit of naming our family cars. Our first minivan was called Big Blue (guess what color it was?) I remember the day we left Big Blue on the lot for trade-in on a new van. Our youngest insisted on circling around the car lot once so he could say a proper farewell to the van that served us so well. We even said a prayer that the next owners of Big Blue would be blessed.
May’s position on this naming issue makes me think of how we treat God’s name.
John Piper has this to say about the importance of God’s name:
…The Jews came to regard this word [Yahweh] with such reverence that they would never take it upon their lips, lest they inadvertently take the name in vain. So whenever they came to this name in their reading, they pronounced the word “adonai” which means “my lord.” The English versions have basically followed the same pattern. They translate the proper name Yahweh with the word LORD in all caps.
This is not a very satisfactory thing to do, because the English word LORD does not communicate to our ears a proper name like John or Michael or Noël. But Yahweh is God’s proper name in Hebrew. The importance of it can be seen in the sheer frequency of its use. It occurs 6,828 times in the Old Testament. That’s more than three times as often as the simple word for “God” (Elohim—2,600; El—238). What this shows is that God aims to be known not as a generic deity, but as a specific Person with a name that carries his unique character and mission.
The use of a name invites relationship.
Okay, I’ve meandered way off track here and haven’t even discussed May’s encounters with the eagles. There is a reason for that, I think. The mere thought of a giant bird using, um, defecation to intimidate is just a little too wild for me.
I guess this is May’s very point. His stories of his encounters with the eagles aim to caution against subjugation and strive to preserve the dignity of the wild animal.
Some of the ways of nature we may never understand. Whether we name them or not.
Food for Thought:
**In Biblical times, names held deep meaning and even determined the course of an individual’s life at times. Do you believe names, or the naming of something, hold special power in today’s world?
**Does May’s story about the bald eagles change anything about the way you view the wilderness?
Related posts:
Glynn’s Biking With An Eagle
post by Laura Boggess of The Wellspring
photo by Claire Burge
{ 1 trackback }
{ 23 comments… read them below or add one }
I think naming can go either way (positive or negative), and that he is right that it’s always an act of power. However, I’m thinking we needn’t assume that acts of power are always negative.
One of my favorite biblical instances of naming is when Hagar names God in the desert. It’s a vulnerable time for her and she’s even partly in the wrong, yet in this moment she names God “The God Who Sees” and God seems to accept her act of naming. Isn’t this so cool?
I think you’re right, L.L.–it can go either way. I think of Jabez, who appealed to God to change the direction his life took due to the meaning of his name…I don’t believe the names we give our children hold that same power that they did in old testament times, but perhaps the labels we give them do. How about kids labeled “gifted”? Or “slow”. Hard to get past some of those. I think May’s vehemence regarding Adam’s naming just surprised me. I have never thought of the story in Genesis as malevolent, though he seems to see it this way. I’ve read some experts opinions that say it may have taken Adam up to 100 years to do this naming–all this while he was lonely for a mate of his own. Perhaps that makes me sympathetic to his plight? I’m picturing him cuddling with a Koala bear I suppose. Poor guy.
I think names are very important. They give us a sense of who we are from the time we first understand that our parents are calling us by a name. They give us an individuality, something that sets us apart, something that makes us more than a number. I love names. I love choosing names for my children to fit the sweet glimpses of their souls that God has allowed me to see, choosing something that will be uniquely theirs. I have often wondered about my own name, how God put it together for me in my parents’ imaginations, knowing that one day I would grow to be a “warrior” (Kelly) desperately needing “grace” (Anne)… I could no more look at the naming of my children as a “power” thing than I could see loving them being manipulation to get them to be what I want.
Just a few rambly thoughts, anyway…
Rambly thoughts are always welcome here, Kelly
.
You make a good point. In fact, I thought about the process we went through in naming our children when reading this chapter. It made me wonder what kind of desire for dominance over these little parts of me I might have had. I wasn’t aware of anything like that during the process…that certainly came later with discipline, etc.
Just a few rambly thoughts from me now! Glad you stopped by.
laura,
i let all my book reading fall to the wayside for about two months now.
you are doing this so wonderfully, and i really appreciate being able to come here and see what you have written, as well as the others that are taking part.
thank you.
btw…that bit by john piper is a good addition to the post.
Thanks, Nancy! I understand how the reading can fall behind this time of year. I’m glad you are still checking in. You may get caught up yet!
I think John Piper is worth quoting on most topics. He’s a wise guy.
I agree with you regarding this chapter, Laura. But of course, you articulate it so wonderfully. The eagle bits were strange. I actually wondered what medications he might be on.
I ended up feeling sad for him , and very respectful of how he shared his vulnerability.
You tickled me…wondering what meds he was on
.
It was a strange chapter. I had trouble pulling it all together, conceptualizing what his main points were. Mostly I ended up concluding what Erin posts at the end of her comment…nature is independent of my agenda. If I think I can manipulate it totally, I’m just fooling myself.
Remember back in the first few chapters of this book, when May enthusiastically named facets of nature? “The Power of the Slowing”, “Divine Nature”, “The Great Mystery”……. “Wisdom” (whom he also emphatically decided was female)?
He really seemed to delight in assigning identity and definition to what he was experiencing.
So why is he is now opposed to the idea?
Naming is something we seem to be wired to do. God does it. Humans do it. Motivations aside, we just do it.
Poop-bombing eagles: I’ve been thinking about May’s previous chapter on violence at Smith’s Inlet. May included tales of man acting against nature, nature acting against nature, and man acting against man, but he never touched on nature against man. So I’m glad he chose to tell this story about the eagles dive bombing him.
Certainly the eagles were acting out of instinct and protecting something they felt was threatened by his presence. Perhaps nature is not as benign as we might wish. At times I certainly wish nature would lie quietly and wait for me to act upon it, but that wouldn’t make it wilderness then. Wilderness is living and active, wilderness is movement, wilderness is somewhat unpredictable and uncooperative- and sometimes wilderness doesn’t act in a way that makes us feel good.
Again, it’s a challenge to me about how I perceive and interact with nature. Nature is a living, active force that operates independent of my personal agenda. If I don’t respect that fact, I might end up with poop on my head or worse.
Such great points, Erin! It’s true, he did name just about everything coming and going in those earlier chapters, didn’t he? And funny thing was–that kind of bothered me! Now here I am saying naming isn’t always about dominating; it brings relationship.
I guess I’m as fickle as Gerald May is.
Laura, that is so insightful of you… I’m just brimming with admiration over your self reflection.
Rereading my comment I’m nervous that it might sound trite or insincere. It is very sincere. Very, very.
No worries! I know you…verry very.
Naming, I think, is a way of creating perception, and perception can invite conversation and thus community or be so at odds with how we think of ourselves or with what images we have of ourselves as to lead to isolation. I think God means for us humans to have connection, and connection can come through words or be disrupted by words, by naming.
So, for example, to suffer an illness without a name impedes description. How do you “own” what you cannot describe? How can others perceive what lacks a name?
I think, too, that naming is a way back to memory and experience. Without our ability to name and so to remember what we experience, we perhaps become, to quote a Czeslaw Milosz poem (“A New Province”) as “. . . someone in a window who draws aside a curtain/ To look at a feast he does not comprehend.”
To be rendered silent, unable to name, must be a kind of tyranny (I cannot imagine, for example, what it must be like to be robbed of words because of advanced dementia or Alzheimer’s).
Well said, Maureen. I don’t know how we would exist in community without some type of naming. As in all things, it can be taken to the extreme and yield some troublesome fallout. But May said he thought we should “not give a name, but discover it.” This is all fine and good, but some names must be given before discovery can take place.
A terrifyingly good analogy: dementia. Brilliant.
Laura, thank you for using my photographic work. Taken by my hands but all the glory belongs to Him. He is the inspiration.
Do names determine outcomes? I believe they do if God is part of the naming process. I believe He gifts parents with the name to label His design, His blueprint and so the course of a life begins.
Your photo was perfect! I was thinking about names chaining us to a certain destiny…
I love how you say this: “His design, His blueprint and so the course of a life begins.”
Lovely.
As these things sometimes go.. I stumbled upon a great piece of writing this morning which touches on this naming of life that parents do .
Just thought I’d share…
http://www.creativenonfiction.org/brevity/past%20issues/brev24/rough_arch.htm
Ahhh. That was lovely.
Archiochus Colubris…now that’s a mouthful! Beautiful piece, though. A name can mean a memory then.
I haven’t enjoyed this book, Laura, and the unfortunate result is that I’ve missed being fully present in your discussions. Like Erin mentioned above, I notice the inconsistencies in the book, but there’s something else.
I perceive a bitterness toward God in May (understandable and quite human, I should add), which elicits a mix of frustration and pity from me toward him. I didn’t check every instance, but most of his references to God are immediately followed by subtle excuses, vain uses or theological twists. It’s like he wants to “go there” but can’t and instead waters down his language to be generically spiritual.
Regardless of my issues, can I say something? What a winsome approach you’ve taken to this material! Every time I read your reflections, I regret being in the outer loop.
(I’m still reading along, albeit tardily.)
Sam,
I’m just now getting back to you on this one…
Just wanted to say that I have really enjoyed having you along on this journey. Winsome is a very nice word
. As I told Glynn, I have this amazing aptitude for unconditional positive regard and sometimes that keeps me from thinking critically. You are a very analytical thinker and you opened my eyes to many possibilities in this book.
Thanks for sharing your thoughts!
As long as you keep that unconditional positive regard going toward me, we’ll do just fine.