Understanding the Limitations of Conversational Boundaries
The concept of conversational boundaries in Christian thought encompasses the limitations on speech, the appropriate audience for certain topics, and the recognition of what can and cannot be articulated. These boundaries are rooted in both practical considerations for effective communication and theological principles concerning divine revelation and human understanding.
One fundamental boundary relates to the sheer volume and nature of words. The book of Job questions the utility of "windy words," asking what provokes such extensive, yet perhaps empty, discourse [1]. This sentiment is echoed in patristic writings, where Augustine notes that if human minds were not so resistant to truth, those with "just ideas" would not need "long discourse to refute the errors of empty conjecture" [2]. He also observes that a speaker might continue discoursing even when the hearer shows no engagement, whether due to reverence, modesty, lack of understanding, or disinterest [3]. This suggests a boundary in the effectiveness of speech when the audience is unreceptive or unable to grasp the message.
The content of speech also has boundaries. Paul, in 2 Corinthians, refers to "unspeakable" words heard in a heavenly vision, which were "not lawful... to utter" [6]. These words were intended for Paul's own consolation and not for public communication, implying that some divine revelations are not meant for general dissemination, either because they cannot be adequately expressed or because earthly minds cannot comprehend them [6]. Similarly, Augustine advises that some difficult passages of scripture, which are hard to understand even with clear exposition, "should never be brought before the people at all, or only on rare occasions when there is some urgent reason" [5]. This highlights a pastoral boundary, where certain truths, though valid, may not be suitable for all audiences at all times.
The manner of communication also falls under these boundaries. Gregory Thaumaturgus criticizes those who rely on "tricks of words" to beguile an audience into forced assent, suggesting that true knowledge does not require such rhetorical manipulation [4]. Augustine, in discussing catechesis for the educated, commends the "salutary modesty (of language) displayed alongside their wonderful loftiness (of subject)" in canonical Scriptures, contrasting it with a more "sonorous and... rounded eloquence" found in other writings [7]. This implies a boundary between persuasive rhetoric and the humble presentation of truth. He also notes that words can "outrun the thing itself that is indicated," where a speaker might diminish or magnify a subject beyond its true limit without intending to deceive, simply to convey a point [8].
Theological boundaries also dictate the scope of human understanding and speech. Charles Hodge emphasizes the necessity of remaining "within the limits which God has assigned us," advocating reliance on senses within their sphere, reason within rational truths, and "God, and God alone, in all that relates to the things of God" [9]. This perspective underscores a fundamental boundary between human capacity and divine mystery, suggesting that true knowledge comes from a childlike docility to God's teaching [9]. Even angelic speech, according to Aquinas, operates intellectually, abstracting from the "here and now," indicating a mode of communication distinct from human, spatio-temporal discourse [11].
In practical church settings, boundaries are established for order and edification. For instance, in the context of speaking in tongues, Paul sets limits: "no more than two or three, . . . one at a time, and only if there is someone present who can interpret the message" [10]. These regulations ensure that spiritual gifts contribute constructively to the community rather than causing confusion.
Sources
- Job “Job 16:3 (LEB) — Is there a limit to windy words? What provokes you that you answer?”
- Schaff ANF/NPNF (Patristic) “NPNF1 Vol 2: Augustine — City of God, Christian Doctrine — CHAP. I.--OF THE LIMITS WHICH MUST BE PUT TO THE NECESSITY OF REPLYING TO AN ADVERSARY. (part 1): IF the feeble mind of man did not presume to resist the clear evidence of truth, but yielded its infirmity to wholesome doctrines, as to a health-giving medicine, until it obtained from God, by its faith and piety, the grace needed to heal it, they who have just ideas, and express them in suitable language, would need to use no long discourse to refute the errors of empty conjecture. But this mental infirmity is now more prevalent and hurt”
- Schaff ANF/NPNF (Patristic) “NPNF1 Vol 3: Augustine — On the Holy Trinity — CHAP. 13.--OF THE REMEDY FOR THE FOURTH (part 1): SOURCE OF WEARINESS. 18. But in good truth it is a serious demand to make upon us, to continue discoursing on to the set limit when we fall to see our hearer in any degree moved; whether it be that, under the restraints of the awe of religion, he has not the boldness to signify his approval by voice or by any movement of his body, or that he is kept back by the modesty proper to man,(1) or that he does not understand our sayings, or that he counts them of no value. Since, then, this must be a matte”
- Schaff ANF/NPNF (Patristic) “ANF Vol 6: Gregory Thaumaturgus, Dionysius, Julius Africanus, Methodius, Arnobius — BOOK I. (part 37): but do not clearly mark its great features. But he who really knows the subject under discussion, neither defines, nor deduces, nor seeks the other tricks of words by which an audience is wont to be taken in, and to be beguiled into a forced assent to a proposition. 59. Your narratives, my opponent says, are overrun with barbarisms and solecisms, and disfigured by monstrous blunders. A censure, truly, which shows a childish and petty spirit; for if we allow that it is reasonable, let us cease”
- Schaff ANF/NPNF (Patristic) “NPNF1 Vol 2: Augustine — City of God, Christian Doctrine — CHAP. 9.--HOW, AND WITH WHOM, DIFFICULT PASSAGES ARE TO BE DISCUSSED.: 23. For there are some passages which are not understood in their proper force, or are understood with great difficulty, at whatever length, however clearly, or with whatever eloquence the speaker may expound them; and these should never be brought before the people at all, or only on rare occasions when there is some urgent reason. In books, however, which are written in such a style that, if understood, they, so to speak, draw their own readers, and if not underst”
- 2 Corinthians (Presbyterian) “Jamieson, Fausset & Brown on 2 Corinthians 12:4: unspeakable--not in themselves, otherwise Paul could not have heard them; but as the explanation states, "which it is not lawful . . . to utter" [ALFORD]. They were designed for Paul's own consolation, and not for communication to others. Some heavenly words are communicable (Exo 34:6; Isa 6:3). These were not so. Paul had not the power adequately to utter; nor if he had, would he have been permitted; nor would earthly men comprehend them (Joh 3:12; Co1 2:9). A man may hear and know more than he can speak.”
- Schaff ANF/NPNF (Patristic) “NPNF1 Vol 3: Augustine — On the Holy Trinity — CHAP. 8.--OF THE METHOD TO BE PURSUED IN CATECHISING THOSE WHO HAVE HAD A LIBERAL EDUCATION. (part 2): and of skillfully applied diligence on the part of these expounders;(3) and, in the case of the canonical Scriptures, commending above all the most salutary modesty (of language) displayed alongside their wonderful loftiness (of subject); while, in those other productions you notice, in accordance with the 291 characteristic faculty of each several writer, a style of a more sonorous and, as it were more rounded eloquence adapted to minds that are”
- Schaff ANF/NPNF (Patristic) “NPNF1 Vol 7: Augustine — Homilies on John — CHAPTER XXI. 19-25. (part 13): is in course of exposition by the setting forth of its ground and reason, but only when that which is clear of itself is either magnified or extenuated, Without any real departure from the pathway of the truth to be intimated; for the words may outrun the thing itself that is indicated only in such a way, that the will of him that speaketh, but without any intention to deceive, may be apparent, so that, knowing how far he will be believed, he, orally, either diminishes or magnifies his subject beyond the limit to which ”
- CCEL (Reformed (Old Princeton)) “Charles Hodge, Systematic Theology, Vol. 1, section 19: And this state of mind, as it is incompatible with faith, is the parent of unbelief and of all its consequences. There is no safety for us, therefore, but to remain within the limits which God has assigned us. Let us rely on our senses, within the sphere of our sense perceptions; on our reason within the sphere of rational truths; and on God, and God alone, in all that relates to the things of God. He only truly knows, who consents with the docility of a child to be taught of God. 11 Limits of Religious Thought, p. 47. 12 Ibid. p. 50.”
- 1 Corinthians (Protestant academic) “Tyndale House on 1 Corinthians 14:27: 14:27-28 For a church overly eager for the gift of tongues (see 12:10), Paul places limits on its public expression so it would be most helpful to the church: no more than two or three, . . . one at a time, and only if there is someone present who can interpret the message.”
- theology (Catholic (Scholastic)) “Aquinas, Summa Theologica, First Part (Prima Pars), The Speech of the Angels, Art. 4: Article: Whether local distance influences the angelic speech? I answer that, The angelic speech consists in an intellectual operation, as explained above (Articles [1],2,3). And the intellectual operation of an angel abstracts from the "here and now." For even our own intellectual operation takes place by abstraction from the "here and now," except accidentally on the part of the phantasms, which do not exist at all in an angel. But as regards whatever is abstracted from "here and now," neither difference o”