CMP,

Big word of the day: cosmogony.

How does that relate to Christians?

John from Down Under…
LOL a t-shirt.

Decisional regeneration? That’s a good one, I must remember that. And in that message he called them superstitious. That was a good sermon. It is Mar’s Hill you are referring to? He also said the Galatians were bewitched.

I think Paul called them as he saw them.

After reading this post I can appreciate the problem of schizophrenia (or is it better to call it cognitive dissonance?) as I find myself agreeing and disagreeing at the same time!

The things I agree with From next week I will be teaching fundamentals of the Christian faith to our mid-week Bible study, a small group made up of (99%) people who live in an inner city Salvation Army hospice for the homeless. Two weeks ago as I was pondering on this I had decided NOT to assume that they are incapable of understanding words like ‘justification’ or ‘sanctification’ and not to treat them like idiots. I thought I’ll take the time to explain the terms but teach them anyway. You don’t learn unless you are challenged with new things. I have decided to use some big words as a compliment to them, providing I explain them.

Personally I find tremendous delight in exploring the depths of linguistic expression, but I am very mindful of adjusting my language to my audience. I had to give a few presentations at work about work topics, and I was always mindful of who I was talking to. However, ‘language-to-audience-adjustment’ to me is less about vocabulary limitations and more about relevant analogies. If I am talking to a room full of nurses I would not use examples that would be more relevant to financial advisors.

The things I DISagree with I don’t see how one or the other is ‘better’. Is it better to label it ‘irresistible grace’ rather than ‘you can’t say no to God’? Is it better to say ‘we don’t believe in ‘decisional regeneration’ in this church’ as opposed to ‘we don’t believe in calling people up the front to make decisions for Jesus’ (Warrenite reductionism?). If you explain the concept, does it matter that much if the terminology is not emphasized?

CMP, since you’re an academic it must be very hard for you to ‘resist’ using big words. All your life your brain is building up a word reservoir. If you don’t use them much it would be like a guy who is all dressed up and nowhere to go. My challenge is that neither Jesus nor the apostles gave academic discourses (although the definition of an ‘academic’ back then was much more limited to ours). Paul’s preaching to the Athenian intelligentsia was still in simple language.

Is it better to say ‘I will endeavour to assist you’ as opposed to ‘I will try and help you’? I’m sure you’re not talking about eloquence though. I remember reading Oswald Chambers’ ‘My Utmost For His Highness’ where he remarked that ‘some preachers need to repent of their eloquence as they obscure the message of the cross’. I think he was making a case of 1 Cor 2:4 “my speech and my message were not in plausible words of wisdom, but in demonstration of the Spirit and of power, that your faith might not rest in the wisdom of men but in the power of God.”

The pastor of the church we attended a few years ago was a wordsmith and truly eloquent. So eloquent in fact that it often sounded like he was reading from an academic textbook. Many in the pews who were not very educated often missed his main thrust because of his eloquence. It literally used to go over their heads. He obviously enjoyed rich and eloquent language but at the end it proved a disservice to the congregation.

OK can I give you my address now to send me the t-shirt since I breached your third blog rule???

CMP,
I thought it was Calvinists and Catholics and more formal churches who use these big words. I am Arminian I suppose and never heard these words.

From all the debates from people who are Reform, calling themselves Calvinist, I just made me think all Calivinists were Reform, if not all Reform is Calivinist. I am on the outside looking in. All these terms you just said to me is nothing I have heard before, but if you explained them, I probably have another phrase to call them.

Should it really make a difference in my relationship with Jesus? When I pray, I pray in an intimate manner. But do these terms fulfill a creedist thought? Because it seems to me they do. for instance, Unconditional Election is a term…but it is a term accepted within certain churches. That is what I would like to know, are the phrases designed to meet a creed more than explain Christian orthodoxy? If it does then it has narrow meaning.

I think you are a very smart guy so by nature will use big words. Some teachers think in a different way, but are as effective.

Kara, if you are talking about “Calvinistic” thought, absolutely not. In fact, I attend and teach at an Arminian church and they all are starved for this.

Contrary to what you may think, Calvinists are not the only smart people who use big words! Think prevenient grace. Think remonstrance. Think Governmental theory of the atonement.

But there are many more shared words and concepts in the Great Tradition (Christianity of the essentials) than their are that are particular to the various divisions.

As well, each tradition should get to know the other on their own terms, not what they think they believe.

I am of the view that we maintin the “big words” but when we must not fail in explaining and teaching to our listiners their meaning and relevance.

This type of illustration not only summarizes expression but also leaves a deeper imprinting of a message on the listiners mind.

CMP,
In using the big words to describe Christian thought, does that not really mean Reform Theology thought? Many people in church have a deep understanding of God without using those words. So it isn’t so much for all people, but people who ascribe to certain doctrines.

Not all Christians have that same thought, and most phrases are indeed from certain theologians. So it would merely reinforce doctrinal beliefs. Like I said in the other post, Blaise Pascal talked about “proximate power”, a catchphrase in that day. But is has found itself in modern churches. He talked about efficacious grace also.

While those are very good phrases, they don’t actually address all Christians because not all Christians fall under the same umbrella. So the very ideas in the phrases will not make a difference, and no it does not represent the history of all Christian thought. It only supports doctrines.

We tend to use
“born again” (which was called antiquated by some in here)
“sanctification”
“fire baptized”
“present power”
“the way of holiness”
“Spirit led”"
“to the uttermost”
“ever present grace”

now those might not sound as fancy or intellectual as the latin ones, but they are as effective because they are descriptive of what our church teaches. I think when it comes to theology, we should try to teach beyond our own personal doctrine and teach just what the Bible says. TULIP is a doctrine, which not all Christians share. We need to find words and phrases that explains the orthodoxy of Christianity.

As a practical matter?

1) Teach theology students technical terms;

2) Speak to most of the people in parables, simple language.

Those in-between? A little of both.

Hi Michael

I agree that it is important to be able to understand discourse about theology. So we have to understand the words and grammar used in this discourse.

However, it has often been conducted in unnecessarily abstruse and often poorly written language.

I think Wayne Grudem’s Systematic Theology is a model of how to write simply and well. I also like most of what he says.

I think Hans Frei’s stuff is a model of how not to write. In a theology course I undertook at Moore College about ten years ago, I had to sign a form to say I had read all the required texts.

This was a new experience! I am happy to buy the books and pick at them, but don’t usually read the whole shebang.

So I read through a little book by Frei three times before I felt I could say I had read and understood it. I concluded that it was not me who was dense, but Frei who didn’t know how to express himself.

In introducing long big words to people, I hope we are not leading them to feel they must use these words in normal discourse and particularly in preaching.

But I agree it is important to understand them.

Actually, this is not talking about translating the Bible. I agree that we should use as simple and accurate a language as possible. Words that accurately describe what was being taught.

This is talking about theological discourse that represents the history of Christian thought. We don’t want people to exist in a theological vacum. Believe me, they can learn one or two new words a week. Contrary to popular opinion, they love it!