Arthur Cohen writes, The only instrument of creation, dephysicalized - the breath of being - is speech. The divine being speaks and creates. So much for the creation.... The divine speech-grille, or rules of divine language, is not be taken as only a metaphor for the anthropomorphism of divine speech.... Logos and speech are signs that direct us to aspects of God that may offer a way out of the dlemma of the absolute and necessary existent who is God and the miraculous fiat of creatio ex nihilo, by using the image of speech to desribe a movement within God that occurs in his eternal instant and in our time for everlasting.
I think there is merit it reflectiong upon how we speak to each other, as essential to what we can say about God. Much of the misrepresentation and miscommunication in our current conversation happens because we want to say, with certainty, God says "x" or God says "y." But can we say "certain" things about God without resorting to our own pride? How fundamental is certainty to holiness, and what sorts of certainty, subjective or objective, are credible?
But we can, perhaps, talk about how God speaks to us and how we are to speak to each other. We speak using words - and words that include the self-giving of God in the community of the trinity. We speak using the words of the Nicene Creed. In some sense, our theology is one that is based on the rubrics.
There are rules, but a theology of communication would we consider how we refer to rules, and what the rules are for. They give shape to conflict; they permit agreement; they allow for separation and unity. To some exent, who makes the rules of conduct, who sets the tone of speech, is as important as the speech itself. The urge to finish a conversation, to establish something eternal is commendable, but impossible. It merely propels us forward.
The bishop in this case does something very simple: he makes sure that the rules of communication are followed. he allows for priests and congregations to live out doctrine. He encourages unity and invites participation. This is best exemplified by his participation in the liturgy, where he represents the conversation that individual churches have with the church at large.
He cannot say, for example, "Jesus is not the Word" because such a statement is incomprehensible to a Christian. Jesus is how God's speech lives in the world. Lives that follow him, in obedience to the Lord of All, are Godly lives. And if he were to say this in the liturgy he would be miscommunicating, he would utter gibberish, and undermine his own power to proclaim God in speech.
"God brings people into fullness and joy." This is a true statement that we can communicate with credibility. But equally important is who is saying these things: who determines language? To whom must our language be directed? And how?
Language like, "God hates gay sex" seems incomprehensible as it says little about how God speaks, and what God speaks about. Does God speak to us about souls, and spirit? Or does he talk about genital activity? "God loves orgies" would be equally strange. Such speech might as well be Cantonese to me. I cannot tell, because it makes no sense.
Until we examine the rules of our own speech, we will not understand each other.