DashHouse.com

I agree that theology needs to be discussed perspiscuously(!!?). No point in discussing anything if the participants can't understand it. But we need to be careful not to have a lowest common denominator mentality. It is not always the fault of pastors that theology is not found interesting. People should be encouraged to learn $2.00 words! A missionary once told me "the average farmer of 200 years ago understood more theology than the average seminarian today." So we need a meeting in the middle. Theologians should agree to speak language that people understand and the average Christian should agree to increase his/her ability to take part in an intelligent conversation without making intelligent conversation sound like a bad thing.

Don't understand something? Find out what is being said. It is never a waste of time to learn.

Ken:

You're right on.

There's a bit of an anti-intellectual swing that's happened and I'm not sure all the reasons why.

Your comment about farmers and seminarians rings true, especially when you discover what's on the reading list of most pastors (not seminarians):
http://www.challies.com/archives/001047.php

Maybe pastors will have to model what it's like to think a bit deeper and do theology in the context of life.

"Perspicuity" is only a fifty cent word. :)

I am not against raising the level of one's vocabulary or being exposed to new ideas. How else is one supposed to learn anything? There was a time when I didn't understand how 2 X 2 equaled 4, for example. When I was little, that was a new idea that raised my level of knowledge.

What I object to is precisely what Darryl alluded to: Making the discussion of theology such an intellectual pursuit that the average person on the street has no chance of "getting it."

Jesus discussed theology, but He did so in such a way that even the illiterate masses got a glimpse of the Kingdom. Paul discussed theology and, Pharisee that he was, made it a little more difficult to understand.... which is why we need pastors and teachers to explain it to us.

(An aside: I wonder if that is one of the reasons why the guy fell out the window and died while listening to Paul preach? Not only did Paul preach for too long, but maybe he used words that bored the life out of the guy in the first place?)

I do not advocate "dumbing it down" to the lowest common denominator. But please don't make me climb your ivory tower, either.

Oh, and underline the word "relevant." A discussion of theology merely for the sake of the discussion and argument (to show the rest of us how brilliant your ideas are) is a waste of time too. I am not impressed by that at all.

We're talking pedegogy: If the words of both Jesus and Paul are equally authoritative for faith and practice then why choose to think that the greater difficulty in understanding the message of Paul over Jesus makes Jesus the only model to follow?

Trish:

I think my brother just fell out of his window.

Some pastors get so smitten with their own theological heights that they cease to communicate the deep truths of the faith in an understandable manner. That is just the same as the issue of speaking in an unknown tongue that Paul addresses in I Corinthians 14. Illiterate peole can understand very deep truth, so let's give it to them. And let us never fail to understand that all of God's revealed truth is relevant.

A lady in our church a few years ago stood up in a testimony service and said "I thanks God that He choses me". (OK, fault me for my theology, but don't miss the point here.) The grammar is bad and it probably reflects a poor education. But those limitations do not hinder her from being awestruck with God's love for her. She didn't have to be told that this doctrine was relevant. It simply riveted her heart to the God whose love for her amazed her. She understands truth and has never heard the $2.00 words that are quite often used to transmit it. May her tribe increase.

Trish: Never suggested that the words of Paul are any less relevant or that Jesus is the only model to follow. All I am pointing out is the difference in the two approaches.

I haven't taken the time to check out the Wesminster Confessions, but it is interesting to me that in the portion quoted by Darryl it says: "those things which are necessary to be known, believed, and observed FOR SALVATION, are so clearly propounded..."

If all one had were the Gospels, one could be led to Salvation. It is my opinion that the Epistles are necessary for growth and to keep us doctrinally sound. They, however, sometimes need some explanation. I don't have a problem with that.

My objections are strictly directed at the High Sounding Arguments, the Philosophical discussions, that serve no purpose in expounding The Gospel, but are merely an excuse for the participants to show off their education.

I once had a Sunday School teacher who, much like the lady in Ken's comment, could barely speak English. I learned more about the Lord from him than I have from some of the more "educated" and well-spoken teachers and pastors since then.

Martin Luther brought theology out from among the priesthood so that it was... is.... available to the masses. Let's not make it so difficult to understand that we need another Reformation to get it back.

Now, where was I? Oh, yes.... here on my windowsill.

Just had another thought....

The people I come into contact with most often do not understand "pedagogy" or "exegesis" or "perspicuity." Would you use those words or ones similar to them in explaining the Gospel to these people?

The whole point of communication is actually making yourself understood.

Arthur:

I think you'd use them if they were the best words to make yourself understood. Sometimes they are, and you have to use them but also explain them.

This is a topic worth thinking about. The New Testament was written in the type of Greek used by the everyday person, rather than the exalted language of the scholar.

Thanks for pointing that out, Bro. I hadn't considered that.... But it goes to prove my point.

Just consider me both contumacious AND pertinacious.

Does anyone know of a good word that is a suitable replacement for "propitiation"? The NIV uses "atoning sacrifice" but that doesn't work. I can't think of another word that can be used as a substitute. It is a word that is just packed full of meaning and to only use words that define it would be very cumbersome so we should use it and make sure others know what is being said.

What is that I hear? It wouldn't be the sounds of somebody yanking my chain, would it? :)

Ken, you make some very valid points.....

Thanks Arthur - truth is, I just talk too much.

Propitiation is a central doctrine that touches the heart of the gospel. I just discovered it last year. It is more than atoning sacrifice, more than expiation. Leon Morris says people used to hear the word from evangelical pulpits regularly some 50 years ago. I think this is a worthy example of the need to reclaim ground regardless of biblical illiteracy. The bar should above the people in the pew sometimes.