[...] # on 23 Apr 2009 Uncategorized Comments (0)Related Posts A Theology of Big Words [...]

As someone who is over educated and uses lots of big words – I agree, but sometimes …….

I am glad for your caveats – especially the “define” part – if you bring people into the conversation, big words work. Too often (in many professions, not just theolgians) that gets missed

One of the great things about homeschooling my children these past six years is that I can influence their love of words. Modern childrens novels and textbooks simplify the language to the peril of our vocabulary. When we read classics together I pause to explain an unknown word. But I do not replace the word automatically with a simple one. We are losing the beauty!

Interesting . . . two things come to mind – what Paul said about becoming like those who he was talking to so that he would “reach” them.

And second and more importantly, I think man has become much too dependent on man to teach them and that is the problem. If each were to abide in the Word as the Spirit as the teacher then each would learn what God desires and it would be truth not someone’s interpretation. People assume they can’t understand the Word so they rely on a preacher. However, it doesn’t matter your IQ when it comes to the Word of God. Without the Spirit you can’t know the Word, but with Him, you can understand great truths. God desires intimacy with each one of us and He wants each one of us to draw near to Him through His Word. He says He will write His truth on our hearts, but the sad fact is most don’t trust Him, but trust man and therefore issues like this, the words we use, become an issue when it should never be.

I believe teachers are to teach others to feed themselves, not feed them.

Rachel

Dr. G,
For once you and I agree with each other on a small point…lol.

You used the word academese…my spell check does not like it…

Lisa,
I saw that movie. It was very good. The only thing we must remember is that those kids were not stupid in math to begin with. They were just studying college level calculus. I cannot do simple math to save my life. I have severe dyscalculia (only mild dyslexia) so to understand math concepts are almost impossible. Dyscalcilics also have trouble with directions, music, and playing strategy games like chess. It does not mean we are less intelligent. So you can see that using math jargon in my case would be totally ineffective. So it would work with theology as well. If someone cannot get a basic understanding, the more difficult the concept or word will never be understood.

But I have a brother who worked at NASA, Space Camp and The National Laboratory at Oak Ridge. He helped design missile guidance systems in the Air Force. He is very intelligent in his way. But he is not a believer. He does not approach theology at all. So we can use big words instead of dumbing down…it depends on we are dumbing down for.

(my spell check does not like dumbing either…hmmm)

I love the defenses of unpopular techniques on this blog; thank you for articulating the benefits of such words. Regarding the first number 3, Felix Culpa (that the fall was a deliberate means to the glory of God through redemption) has been for me what Privatio Boni was for you. The idea is so foreign to so many people, so I can definitely relate that it’s great to be able to say that this is in fact a very old and well-weathered idea.

Not to disagree with the owner of the blog too much, of course! Who has been so kind as to give space, even to those who disagree with him.

But the way, I do actually like to play with big words; and they do have some use. But just to have a debate, and oppose the first position offered? I offer the other side of the story, here.

Expanding on Rayner’s point 2, it’s common to see technical jargon used as a way to compartmentalize. Even with the formidable array of theological jargon available to us, it’s rarely possible to capture all of the nuances of a person’s individual beliefs with a single descriptor. Arguing against me as “an Arminian” (for example) rather than letting me fully expound on exactly what my position on election is is almost certainly going to lead to burning a strawman, and in this way, jargon can actually hinder rather than promote exchange of ideas. Even worse is when a particular word holds a pejorative connotation for someone; then, when I call you an “OV’er”, or “emergent”, or “charismatic”, or whatever, I’m not just describing the position you hold, I’m telling you what I think about you. These two phenomena are all too common.

I think that jargon is helpful in that it helps us to locate ourselves in an ongoing conversation and to identify touchpoints of similarity between the positions we hold and the positions that others have held in the past. But it can also become a crutch that can lead discussions down unproductive rabbit trails whereby the jargon must be unpackaged and the point of disagreement in the way it is being used uncovered. This is actually a much more convoluted process than simply stating clearly what one means at the outset. So maybe, then, the issue in such situations isn’t so much the use of jargon as the assumption that everyone in the discussion has the same understanding of what a particular term means and implies.

Here is one common (mis-?)use of big words, specifically by theologians: they/we use big words, so we can talk over the heads of others. In this way, we can discuss controversial subjects … while avoiding people who aren’t prepared for such discussions, screaming at them. In effect, we are using ephemisms.

But such usage is a double-edged sword. While this has the 1) advantage, of avoiding having to slug everything out with everday folks, matters already well known to experts … still, the habitual use of big words by theologians and others, means that 2) they eventually lose the knack of speaking in way people can understand.

After all, it is in part, a deliberately exclusionary device. The advantage of engaging in that type of class warfare, is avoiding slug fests, and just hanging out with the elite; the disadvantage of such elitism, I’ve just stated.

Unfortunately, being such a theologian would mean that you could not really … follow, emulate, Jesus, some would say. Notice that people followed Jesus because he seemed to speak to, understand, the common man. Jesus was successful, caught on with the masses, because he used the common language or mind set; through parables about famers, fishermen, and so forth. (Though to be sure, after Jesus, the editors of our Bibles, put in plenty of ambiguity too).

To be sure, therefore, I see a case for both; “plain” talk, and academese. And will occasionally use both. Or try to form a bridge between the two. Still … it would be misleading to unequivocally endorse … the often deliberate obscurity of academic Theology. Much is gained, but much is lost, through such language.

I don’t know if I would call the technical language of theology “big words”. But I think the most significant aspect of theological language is that they convey development and history, as Rayner alluded to. And its the development and history that further defines a Biblical truth that I think is meant to be and should be conveyed.

I agree regarding not dumbing down. I recall this movie Stand to Deliver, based on a true story about a high school math teacher that wanted to teach kids from the barrio calculus. Everyone told him that he shouldn’t do that, they won’t understand it. Keep it simple. But his theory was that the kids would rise to the level of expectation. I think that theory is equally applicable to teaching and learning theology and what we’ve seen are very low expectations.