# "Family Resemblance"



## Philip (Mar 16, 2012)

Here's the question: are there family resemblance concepts in theology?

The term "family resemblance concept" simply refers to a concept where there is not a strict set of necessary and sufficient conditions for its use, but nonetheless, we recognize that certain things belong in the category and certain ones do not because there are certain resemblances.

Let's take, for example, the concept of a game: chess, rugby, Calvinball, _Diplomacy_, _Civilization_, Bingo, and tiddly winks are all games, but apart from the fact that they are all rule-based, they have little in common (not all games are frivolous either: games are often used for training and education purposes and are therefore serious). "Game" turns out to be a family resemblance concept.

So my question is twofold: a) are there any theological terms that this could apply to? b) could this term help to clear up what we mean by Divine speech being an accomodation to our language?


----------



## PuritanCovenanter (Mar 16, 2012)

P. F. Pugh said:


> Here's the question: are there family resemblance concepts in theology?



My German Greatgrandma was Presbsy even though she was German. My English side which is small is Methodist. My Dutch and Swedish side is solid. I am a solidly Scottish theologically like my Great Grandma Jackson who was a son of John or Johnson. In other words.... Yes! You can't get away from heritage as those who knew God from heritage before. It is linear.


----------



## jwright82 (Mar 16, 2012)

P. F. Pugh said:


> b) could this term help to clear up what we mean by Divine speech being an accomodation to our language?



Well what human concepts God takes on accuratly describe Him as far as any human concept can, analogy. I would ask what the difference would be between analogy or family resemblance. In both the crucial concept seems to be analogical in nature. Chess is analogically like baseball, in that they are both games but there is both similarity and disimalarity. You know as I'm writing this I am wondering if you are on to something. 




P. F. Pugh said:


> a) are there any theological terms that this could apply to?



I don't know about this one. Wouldn't adopting this view destroy systematic theology?


----------



## PuritanCovenanter (Mar 16, 2012)

Can a Jew be other than what they are? A true Jew or a physical one? Is this what you are asking about?

What made Abraham or Ruth a Sojourner? 
They were both Pagan in familial estimation. 
Even so they knew things we don't. 
What is the point of this question?


----------



## Philip (Mar 16, 2012)

jwright82 said:


> Well what human concepts God takes on accuratly describe Him as far as any human concept can, analogy. I would ask what the difference would be between analogy or family resemblance. In both the crucial concept seems to be analogical in nature. Chess is analogically like baseball, in that they are both games but there is both similarity and disimalarity. You know as I'm writing this I am wondering if you are on to something.



Here's what I am getting at: family resemblance suggests that some concepts are inherently analogical such that the univocal use of the word is always analogical. When God reveals in Scripture that He is wise, when we also see that Solomon was wise, we can say that the wisdom of Solomon is analogous to that of God (ie: they differ qualitatively and quantitatively) while also affirming that the concept of "wisdom" is the same in both cases because it's a family resemblance: they can both be called "wisdom" because they bear a family resemblance to one another.


----------



## jwright82 (Mar 16, 2012)

P. F. Pugh said:


> Here's what I am getting at: family resemblance suggests that some concepts are inherently analogical such that the univocal use of the word is always analogical. When God reveals in Scripture that He is wise, when we also see that Solomon was wise, we can say that the wisdom of Solomon is analogous to that of God (ie: they differ qualitatively and quantitatively) while also affirming that the concept of "wisdom" is the same in both cases because it's a family resemblance: they can both be called "wisdom" because they bear a family resemblance to one another.



That is all that analogy means.

---------- Post added at 05:14 PM ---------- Previous post was at 04:56 PM ----------




PuritanCovenanter said:


> Can a Jew be other than what they are? A true Jew or a physical one? Is this what you are asking about?
> 
> What made Abraham or Ruth a Sojourner?
> They were both Pagan in familial estimation.
> ...



He is asking a strictly philosophical question related to the later Wittgenstein's thought. Wittgenstein thought that different words may be used in certian ways to mean certian things but there is no strict rule on what it can mean or what it can't mean. Take cool for instance. At one time it was used to indicate the tempeture. Than it was used to indicate someone who is calm (low tempature emotionally) "cool" and collective among teenagers as opposed to someone easilly excited (high tempature) and imature. And what mature "cool" people were into simply became "cool" things. So the word began being used it to mean different things but its use has certian very basic things in common.

Wittgenstein used the analogy of family resemblance because he pointed out that we are a family who sort of have certian things in common we are all completly different people. He adopted that analogy to describe how words have no set rules for what they can mean but very general things might determine how a word will be used to mean new things. If this were not true than lexocagraphers would be out of a job because definitions for words would never change.


----------



## J. Dean (Mar 16, 2012)

PuritanCovenanter said:


> Can a Jew be other than what they are? A true Jew or a physical one? Is this what you are asking about?
> 
> What made Abraham or Ruth a Sojourner?
> They were both Pagan in familial estimation.
> ...


I believe one can be a Hebrew and not be a Jew. If you ask an Orthodox Jew, they will tell you that an unbelieving Jew is not a true Jew.


----------



## Philip (Mar 16, 2012)

jwright82 said:


> P. F. Pugh said:
> 
> 
> > Here's what I am getting at: family resemblance suggests that some concepts are inherently analogical such that the univocal use of the word is always analogical. When God reveals in Scripture that He is wise, when we also see that Solomon was wise, we can say that the wisdom of Solomon is analogous to that of God (ie: they differ qualitatively and quantitatively) while also affirming that the concept of "wisdom" is the same in both cases because it's a family resemblance: they can both be called "wisdom" because they bear a family resemblance to one another.
> ...



Ok, but here's my point: much of the objection to analogical language has come because analogy is an ambiguous term that has a range of ordinary meanings. Analogy is usually used in a literary context or an illustrative context. We use analogies to make things clearer but it's always understood when we do so that they will break down at some point. Analogies can be stretched. This is the problem that an advocate of analogical language is faced with: there is the implication that human language is inherently inadequate, which undermines revelation. God has revealed Himself in language and therefore it is adequate to the extent that God has revealed. However, no analogy is perfect---yet God's word is.

I would therefore suggest that the term "family resemblance concept" might be a better one to describe the way that God uses language to reveal Himself. The term wisdom, when applied to God, means exactly the same thing as it does with regard to man, yet the two wisdoms have significant differences. You can have both qualitative difference and univocality of meaning with family resemblance---that's what I'm getting at. Again, Diplomacy and Calvinball are both games, but they are qualitatively different things in many respects and actually share very little in common, but they have enough resemblance that both are called games. Similarly, the wisdom of God and of Solomon are such that it's not an analogy to call them both the same thing, but at the same time there is a world of difference between them.


----------



## Loopie (Mar 16, 2012)

What are your thoughts concerning someone who is not a believer? What I mean is that it is easier to see a relationship between God's wisdom and Solomon's wisdom, but it might be more difficult to see a relationship between God's wisdom and Richard Dawkins' wisdom (Dawkins might not have any wisdom at all). Certainly it is by the grace of God that Dawkins has ANY wisdom whatsoever, but is it in any way 'the same thing' as God's? I would say that 'wisdom' in an unbelieving sense is generally used to refer to that quality that people gain through experience in their lives. Usually our elders are considered to be 'wise' because they have experienced life longer than we have. This is probably as close to 'God's wisdom' as unbelievers get. What are your thoughts on this?


----------



## Philip (Mar 16, 2012)

Loopie said:


> Usually our elders are considered to be 'wise' because they have experienced life longer than we have. This is probably as close to 'God's wisdom' as unbelievers get. What are your thoughts on this?



Not really a problem here, in my view. Remember that it's God who is using human language to communicate Himself. Language itself is a medium of general revelation, and if the word "wisdom" means anything at all when applied to God, then it bears some family resemblance to the sort of wisdom that one would find in ordinary humans, even unregenerate ones---enough resemblance that God Himself applies the term to Himself in this way. This is God accomodating Himself to our forms of speech. I think that family resemblance could be a useful term in speaking about God's anthropomorphic language about Himself because it further recognizes that humans are created in the _imago Dei_ and therefore bear some resemblance to their creator.


----------



## jwright82 (Mar 17, 2012)

P. F. Pugh said:


> Ok, but here's my point: much of the objection to analogical language has come because analogy is an ambiguous term that has a range of ordinary meanings. Analogy is usually used in a literary context or an illustrative context. We use analogies to make things clearer but it's always understood when we do so that they will break down at some point. Analogies can be stretched. This is the problem that an advocate of analogical language is faced with: there is the implication that human language is inherently inadequate, which undermines revelation. God has revealed Himself in language and therefore it is adequate to the extent that God has revealed. However, no analogy is perfect---yet God's word is.
> 
> I would therefore suggest that the term "family resemblance concept" might be a better one to describe the way that God uses language to reveal Himself. The term wisdom, when applied to God, means exactly the same thing as it does with regard to man, yet the two wisdoms have significant differences. You can have both qualitative difference and univocality of meaning with family resemblance---that's what I'm getting at. Again, Diplomacy and Calvinball are both games, but they are qualitatively different things in many respects and actually share very little in common, but they have enough resemblance that both are called games. Similarly, the wisdom of God and of Solomon are such that it's not an analogy to call them both the same thing, but at the same time there is a world of difference between them.



Sure but at thi spoint you are only arguing semantics. Bavink used impressionistic along side analogy. Oliphint suggested iconic knowledge. But they are all the same and basically with family resemblance.


----------



## Philip (Mar 17, 2012)

jwright82 said:


> Sure but at thi spoint you are only arguing semantics.



You're right, and yet I think it's important. Studying some philosophy of language has driven home to me the importance of choosing terms carefully because words come loaded with connotations.


----------



## jwright82 (Mar 18, 2012)

P. F. Pugh said:


> jwright82 said:
> 
> 
> > Sure but at thi spoint you are only arguing semantics.
> ...



Oh I agree. I mean how many theological debates revolve around the careful choice of words and there place in a doctrinal phrase? Like all of them.


----------



## CharlieJ (Mar 18, 2012)

In Wittgenstein, do family resemblance concepts apply only to nouns, or to other parts of speech as well?


----------



## Philip (Mar 18, 2012)

CharlieJ said:


> In Wittgenstein, do family resemblance concepts apply only to nouns, or to other parts of speech as well?



Sure they can apply to verbs and/or adjectives. For example, the concept of playing: we play music, play games, play with our kids, etc. Anything that is a concept could be a family resemblance.


----------



## Unoriginalname (Mar 18, 2012)

Would the multiple uses of the term salvation in scripture + justification+ santification be family resemblance? Or creator/sustainer?


----------



## jwright82 (Mar 18, 2012)

Unoriginalname said:


> Would the multiple uses of the term salvation in scripture + justification+ santification be family resemblance? Or creator/sustainer?



You raise a good point. Although there may be legal family resemblances between our doctrines of justification and sanctification we must be extremely careful not to over compare them to the point of heresy. Maybe an interesting line of thought would be to criticize Catholics and Arminians for over using family resemblances to the point of blurring doctrine. As much as I am influenced by the later Wittgenstein I will never adopt a view of things that forces me to give up clear and distinct doctrinal lines.


----------



## Philip (Mar 19, 2012)

Unoriginalname said:


> Would the multiple uses of the term salvation in scripture + justification+ santification be family resemblance?



I think that definitely justification is used in multiple ways in Scripture and so when we formulate our theology of justification, we have to be able to account for the ways that it is used in Scripture.


----------

