Religious langugage: Noncognitivist, but meaningful

http://www.westarinstitute.org/Periodicals/4R_Articles/Strauss/strauss.html

"David Freidrich Strauss: Miracle and Myth" by Marcus Borg

In this article, Borg approves of Strauss' move to reject both the rationalist and supernaturalist reading of scripture, in favor of a non-cognitivist, subjective reading. It would seem that his position is very much like Hare's: religious language is non-cognitive (not a matter of statements and truth or falsity) but it is meaningful (true for me). Note that this "metaphorical" theory of religious language differs from THomas Aquinas analogy theory of religious language. Strauss and Borg are non-cognitivists; Thomas is a cognitivist.

Unfortuantely, due to copyright restrictions, I cannot reproduce the article here, but it is an extremely well-written, clear exposition of a non-cognitivist view.