A Theology of Big Words (2)

OF course, we all have the “imago Dei.” Which is to say – for those who do not know Latin – the “image of God” in our minds. (I think?)

But though they understand the concept already … the problem is, will English speakers understand your words? Would they know when you are referring to it .. when you use Latin? They would already know the concept … but would still not undertand … you.

The problem is, the image, the sense itself, is already there for them … but your reference, your words, will not connect to it. They won’t understand your words. They won’t know what you are talking about. Unless you … translate.

Speak English please. I know tiny bits and pieces of a dozen languages; and probably could hypothetically reconstruct a dozen or two more from what I know. Should I begin now to speak what would be gibberish, even to you? What purpose would that serve?

Thanks to be sure, for the Theological words of the day (/dei? Projected hypothetical – Sanscrit? – root, by metaphorical analogy; God as en”light”enment; as probably confirmable by Robert’s Dictionnaire Analogique, the multivolume set?. Parlez vous Francais im Deutch?).

Jesus’ word was spread in part, because he used common images, common language. And/or his disciples spoke one or two additional languages – “tongues.” And were able to translate the word of God to all the nations of the world. In their own tongue.

CMP,
As intelligent as you are, are others able to process abstract ideas like you? Jesus used many parables in simple language, for those people who learned by visuals.

Respectfully, using large words is good perhaps if you are talking with someone who does understand, but the greater translation is saying it so someone else can understand.

I got Rosetta Stone from my brother. I already knew German from 4 years in high school, but I can read some French and what surprised me is that I could do well at Russian. But even Rosetta Stone begins at the most basic level. And that is where most Christians reside. It is ok to gradually move them up in language but if it is technical then it removes from some intrinsic meaning.

I can’t build a house. But I understand the concepts of how it is built. CMP, please don’t get frustrated, eventually people will get there. But it helps immensely when you teach people it is better to study the Bible for one’s self than do it for them. I don’t know many Latin phrases and I don’t think it’s germane to the relationship I have with Jesus.

I am not learning to be a doctor. But I do read WebMD if I have questions. And it becomes easy to grasp than going 8 years to University.

Kara, the point is that people can understand. You seem to be underestimating people’s intelligence. Don’t you think that people can and should learn? In learning are teachers limited to lead from the known to the known, or can they lead from the known to the unknown? Words are the basic building blocks of communication. When do we assume that we have dumbed down to the least common denominator?

No doubt, we can all see reasons for deliberate obscurity sometimes to be sure; (obscurantism; euphemisms); which I mentioned in earler posts. But what if instead of learning words that allow us to hide from those who find it hard to “face” things, we learned ways to diplomatically tell the simple truth, to the ordinary man? In ways that did not frighten or incense everyone?

Rather than developing a language that people do not understand; what if we developed a way of making things “plain,” that would not upset people?

God, when he shows up the second time, speaks “plainly.”

Can we learn to say complicated things, in simple words? If we try, I think we can. Personally, I know about as many big words as anybody; but over the years, I have found simple equivalents.

Normally I don’t support K; who I think is often very arrogant and proud about knowing nothing. But here I do support her point.

To a point. Sometimes to be sure, it is hard to translate an academic vocabulary which is in effect, literally, often, Latin and Greek. And we don’t have time. Still?

Dr. G,

The image of God refers to the mind, will, and attributes that reflect the characteristics of God. It is not too hard a word. But I left it untranslated hoping that someone would bring this up.

How does one mark the least common denominator. This is a “theology blog.” Is it not possible (even likely) that we are going to have theological concepts and words that communicate such?

If people are offended by the word imago dei, don’t you think that this illustrates that they are not interested in learning?

BTW: What does obscure, obscurantism, euphemisms, and gibberish mean? Please speak English!

You know I am kidding, but I hope you get my point. There is no such thing as learning without articulation. The church does not get a free pass toward a gnostic spirituality that can irresponsibly neglect the mind.

Of course.

But regarding “imago dei”; literally it probably means “image.” And images are a useful way to think. Good poetry workshops constantly say that a good poem, generates a picture in the reader’s mind; an “image” that however, is not just a picture, but a symbol for many ideas in our “mind, will, attributes.” For that reason I like to translate it somewhat literally; the word “image” does well enough. “Visualize” things.

To be sure, by the way, I’ve had enough problems myself, with those who feel that raw gnostic spirituality is a free pass. But then too, what is the remedy for Gnosticism proper … if it isn’t, making our language come down to earth?

Actually, gnosticism would be just the opposite of what I am saying here since it communicate a secret understanding that only few have the ability to understand. When you don’t articulate truth (often with big words), you are left with a simplistic understanding that often leads to a form of spiritualism that does not find an objective place in reality. But what I am promoting is a public understanding that is available to all because all have the ability to learn so long as things are explained!

[…] # on 23 Apr 2009 Christian Education & Christian Life & Prolegomena & Teaching Comments (16)Related Posts A Theology of Big Words (2) […]

Yes, but … let’s not be spooked by Gnosticism. For me, the error of Gnosticism was not just 1) over-secrecy and elitism. I think it was also … 2) a deliberate vagueness. And 3) over-ethereality. And 4) Vanity.

As follows: the firm meaning of its many spirits – ghosts/”gnosts”? – was always in part deliberately (I think) vague and hard to pin down. And indeed, probably, had no really fixed meaning. In effect, they were … the Emperor’s New Robe. A mere Rorschach Blot – into which anyone could read their own vanities; and pronounce them “God.”

So let’s not be spooked by these “ghosts”; I think there was often less there, than meets the eye.

Good for you for looking for something clearer, and firmer. And beginning to “pull back the veil.” But who is prepared, who can stand, if we really pull it back, very, very far? If we make things very, very clear? In a way acceptable, understandable, both to academics, and the comman man?

What if we could do that?

Currently I’m looking at poetry. Which doesn’t get that far into academic language – and yet still has some prestige in all circles, high and low; heaven and earth. Jesus taught in parables. And in our English departments, such stories are thought to convey as much as – or even more than – academic language.

I don’t want to be hypocritical here though; to be sure, I used to have a huge, critical vocabulary. And some of my posts borrowed some of your “theological words of the day.” Which (curiously) seemed appropriate to our blogs.

Thanks for your help; your blog seems to be a useful place for many different types of people to meet … and learn some theology in fact.

By the way, could we say we support “theology” over “religion”? Using Religion in the negative sense, say? Personally, I’d like to do that.

On your house paint?

Tan vs. darker brown, I like that.

Be careful though; colors, darkness, changes radically, according to light and shadow in your house.

You might want a stronger contrast than you would expect.

Ask your paint expert.

I think one of the most important things about words, which you touched on briefly in part 1 in points 3 and 4 with your mention of defining the words and not assuming understanding, is that people often have very different understandings of words (and not always necessarily that any one’s understanding is wrong; words evolve over time).

This applies to small words and big words alike. It also doesn’t always matter how commonplace a word may seem, people encounter words through their very differing life experiences. A neutral word to you or me may be very loaded with negativity for someone else, in addition to misunderstandings about definitions.

And… if only it were as simple as mere misunderstood definitions. Some words have multiple valid meanings which may all be relevant in a particular context while carrying very different implications depending on whatever definition a person is working with.

CMP,
It’s not that people can’t learn but of the people I have met there are some who just are that dumb. Let me give you an example…

one particular woman I know told me that she did not know there were any Jews today. She said to me “aren’t the Jews those people who lived back in the Bible days?” This woman grew up in church. She did not know the disciples were Jewish. And she did not know Jesus was Jewish. But this woman went to church and is faithful to go three times a week. So how would I explain transubstantiation to her using that word?

It’s not that people can’t learn, it is that some do not learn. Yes, we can communicate, you and I, because we have read books and meet a lot of people so our worldviews are broadened. But people who are lacking, we need to understand what is the most appropriate words to use to convey meanings.

Is it possible all three year-olds in the entire world know Batman? No, but because yours does means he was exposed to it. His worldview includes it, and I would imagine he is intelligent because you engage him in conversation.

Another example is this, my niece is 9 now. But a year ago I was driving her and her little friend to McDonald’s. They were in the back seat singing different songs, my niece suddenly spoke “did you know Jesus is the lighthouse?” To which her friend replied she did not know that. The Lighthouse is my husband’s favorite song. My niece understood an intrinsic meaning to an abstract idea. But it is because we talk to her in such a manner that we include her in grown up conversation. And she knows who Jewish people are, she has partaken in several things, like seder meals.

There is an importance in words, but also in the meanings of the words. Effective communication is causing the other person to understand the meaning. And that communication is verbal as well as non-verbal. The woman I was talking about is as old as I am. She has gone to church all her life. But something was lacking in her teaching.

And it is people like her that I was referring to. No matter how deep you get theologically, there are those who are not. I wish it were not so, but it is a sad fact of life. That is what I would like to know, how do you teach someone like this woman?

Thanks kara

But this is exacly my point. You exlain things. You don’t dumb it down.

Dr. G,
Thank you for the support. That was refreshing. But as you liked that convenient jab..I have to ask…am I arrogant and proud because I disagree with you on things? If I did agree humbly would I be more acceptable?

I asked my husband if I were arrogant and proud. He disagrees with you on that point. My husband is one that does not understand big words, but he does understand concepts. He approaches the Bible with fear because he is afraid. My husband is 6 foot tall and 300 pounds, this man is not afraid of any person. We discuss the Bible all the time. And I find that I have to explain things to him.

Do you want to know why I came to Parchment and Pen? I did take an elective course through TTP and thinking about taking the full course. I came to it because there are people in my life who believe I do possess intelligence. And one is my pastor who I believe is the smartest man in the world. He was a self-made millionaire. But chose rather to walk as pastor of a small country church and take a small salary, so much is his faith of the calling in his life.

His philosophy is that we cannot be expected to be babied all our lives, we should grow up as Christians, and part of that growing is education. His wife has a master’s degree in engineering. So I think it is funny to hear people think I am against education.

Dr. G, I think the problem lies in the way I present my ideas to you. I don’t refine my arguments because it is not part of my personality.

You may not realize this but I am a playwright, I stated this early on in my posts. I tend to post blogs as though I am thinking dialogue. And I have written screenplays. And one of the people who helped me become a better playwright is an English professor who has a PhD in English Education. I belonged to the Greensboro Playwrights Forum, in this forum there were very professional people. So I laugh when I hear that I am anti-education.

Well, I dunno. I’m 18 with only a public school education (contrary to public belief, it ain’t so bad LOL) and from a Pentecostal background where we didn’t do much, if any, theology. So you can imagine a retired Presbyterian minister attempting to explain penal substitution and me going wide-eyed LOL.

That said, I did what any person who hears something ought to do – I went and did the homework. I Googled, looked up and bought books, downloaded MP3s and put in the work and I was better for it.

Think of it this way: When I go to the optician (I suffer from astigmatism in my left eye), I naturally expect her to use “big words” – they come with the profession. When I go into my A-Level Sociology class, I expect my teacher to use “big words” – comes with the field. I also expect an explanation in layman’s terms – which I get anyway.

If we’re trying to communicate theology to fellow believers and there are certain terms which matter (e.g. kenosis, imago dei, ordo salutis, etc.), why should we shy away because they “might know understand”? Now I’m not advocating throwing in terms for “throwing them in”‘s sake, but surely we can take a couple of extra seconds to explain a term once we’ve used it.

Part of me thinks that those who think we ought to “dumb it down” and remove “big words” from the equation tend to be part of the problem why folks don’t understand. If we never use and explain them, but almost shield people from them, course they will never understand.

All interesting. The bottom line would always be what I learnt from Dr. Bruce Wilkinson – that the original concept of ‘to teach’ was ‘to cause to learn’. Therefore, if the learner has not learnt, the teacher has not taught! Simple as that. Big or small words, it doesn’t matter.

Just a thought in passing: preachers preach and teachers ‘teach’ in church and in so doing week by week throw around ‘common’ or ‘everyday concepts’. Yet, I find that the people at large have a 1001 differing views of what each of these mean. I am referring to concepts such as:
*believe
*faith
*saved
*spirit
*spiritual (ooh! Now that’s one for you!)
*etc!

Dear CMP,

Thanks for penning your thoughts on this topic, I see you have received numerous differing opinions from others on the blog.

I would have to say that I agree with you, and I would also add this: a strong grasp of language is essential to developing a deeper understanding of Christianity simply because to a certain extent, language equals understanding. Inasmuch as language allows us to express a thought, it also constrains our thinking. When we think, especially in abstract terms, we have to do so through language, and our grasp of language would determine to a certain degree our ability to construct our thoughts.

For instance, when I try to express an original thought, I find myself falling back on familiar vocabulary that has been used to express similar perspectives in the past. So, the drawback is that I end up thinking in very similar ways – one reason a completely original concept/thought is so difficult to express because it lacks the means through which it can be expressed. I can feel that something wasn’t what I intended to say but I have difficulty saying exactly what is wrong with it.

To be sure, the basic tenets of Christianity can be put forward and understood without being an expert in the language. However, if we want to attain a greater understanding, using specific words that express different shades of meaning would allow us to articulate concepts with more nuance. And when language allows us to grasp concepts in all their subtleties, this would, in my opinion, result in a deeper understanding.

It is the concept that is important; not the words themselves.

Can’t help noticing that our Lord did not use technical terms. He spoke in the common language of the people.

Also can’t help noticing that some of those who insist on using the big words frequently use them incorrectly, and often can’t even spell them correctly.

I attended a local church camp [which interestingly was called a conference] in which the speaker told us that we need to know some big words to grow spiritually.

One of these words was propitiation. At the end of the conference I asked people what the word meant and couldn’t find anyone who could explain it who didn’t already know before.

It was amusing that the speaker told us that we should thank God that we have been propitiated, revealing that he also did not know how to use the word, because it is not us who have been propitiated, but God.

Is the concept behind the word propitiation important? Very much so. Does it matter if this concept is expressed by this particular word of Latin origin? Of course not.

When I was younger, there were still many scholars around, who felt that every educated person, had to know Greek and Latin. And I would read 19th century texts, that were so full of Greek and Latin, that they were unintellibible to me, at the time.

Was that standard right? Should all good people know Greek and Latin? Keep in mind, a) academe itself dropped that standard, in the 20th century.

And b) so did the Church; dropping the Latin mass. (The Tridentine? For the Novus Ordum? SP?).

Just c) as the whole Protestant revolution in fact, was in part due to the translation of the Latin Bibles, into local languages like German and English. Which made it possible for the ordinary person to have more direct access to God. And thus founded Protestantism.

By insisting on the Latin, Imago Dei, … could you, say, be accused of betraying the very foundation of Protestantism?

Can you give some examples (i.e.: book, chapter, verse) for some of the words “Paul made up”? I assume they have become so enculturated that they are not apparent to us today, so it would be interesting to see which ones they are, and how it is you know they were “made up” by Paul.

I have so enjoyed reading the newsletter and then this spirited discussion. In plain language, however, it seems to get off point and nitpick a bit. Is that common man enough for you?
Michael, in his newsletter and blog, appeared to me to be saying that teaching theology proper is indeed important in this current day, and that there are both effective and ineffective ways to do so. You seem to give example to the ineffective and disqualify the possibility of the effective. I saw no evidence that Michael supports extremes: speaking predominantly in Latin, Greek, Hebrew, or some unknown tongue for that matter. I see every evidence to support the belief that we do our congregations and students disservice when we make the assumption that either they cannot intellectually handle discreet truth, or possibly be bored by it and turn off. I think that the latter assumption is more likely the reason that many pastors these days refrain from introducing theological terms or even their concepts in favor of a simplistic and emotionally driven presentation, (which I believe to be largely limited in its efficacy once the feet have hit the church parking lot.) Or, maybe our pastors just don’t have the knowledge themselves. You know, seminary is unnecessary these days…..
On the contrary, the gospel message is both simple and rich in complexity. As a testimony, by studying the concepts and interdependency of justification, redemption, propitiation and imputation in the book of Romans this year, my appreciation of “Jesus dying on the cross for my sins” has so deepened and become more precious to me. I marvel at it!
Even in our churches our little ones learn such abbreviated (if at all) forms of Scripture that often they lose meaning and power. At the age of four, along with her older teenage siblings, my daughter memorized all of Psalm 139 and Romans 5 (in NASB, of course– KJV would’ve been too difficult 😉 whereas in Sunday School she learns four word paraphrases. In 7th grade I had to memorize all of Phillipians. I howled about it at the time, but the knowing of it has time and time again helped me communicate truth to my own heart as well as others’.
I say raise the bar and they will come. Just raise it with coherance and the desire to assist the Body to learn, not just make yourself look smart. Do we misunderestimate (Gee, I miss Dubya) both our people’s minds and the power of Holy Spirit illumination?

I studied Old English script through Oxford University free online service to teach people how to read old documents. I do genealogy as a hobby, therefore I am of course seeking to become certified (as much as that sounds ridiculous, genealogy research has come a long way). So most genealogist have to learn how to transcribe documents written in ancient hand.

The way the words are spelled is the most interesting. But we forget in this century that we can’t read those documents using today’s standards. Old English evolved in a very short time. English it’s self is not a very old language. American English is even younger. We can read the Latin or Greek or Hebrew, but if we don’t fully grasp our own language it will be difficult to grasp meanings, both subtext and context.

The Wycliff Bible was written long before English was fully evolved into the king’s English of the KJV and the letter style should not be viewed with today’s standards. That is where confusion comes in.

This is how we got Jesus…from Iosis…the way the letters were shaped, that is it.

Thanks for an interesting post, Kara.

In light of that, we certainly must hand it to those biblical scholars who had to deal with the often uneducated writing of folks like the apostles, melded with some of the more learned scribes and scholars who recorded the Old Testament. Add to that the attempts to translate all of it into English and we can see what a monumental task it has been over the centuries to preserve the the truth of God.

I understand, for instance that the Hebrew language had no vowels in it. That must have presented a particularly thorny task to translaters to whom Hebrew theological terms must have literally seemed impossible to understand.

mbaker,
That is true. It has no vowels. My brother spent three years learning Hebrew from a local rabbi. He can read Hebrew. The KJV was fortunately translated by scholars from Oxford and Cambridge. People who were actual Hebrew and Greek speakers were used in the translation. The OT is word for word from the Tanakh.

Wycliff used an interesting word that I had to look up, he said “make your clepping sure”. I had no idea until I looked it up, it means calling.But a lot of theological terms are not found in the Bible, such as Blaise Pascal spoke in The Letters. In his day the phrase of debate was “proximate power”. He asked where is was in the Bible and the answer was that it was not, it was a phrase that someone was merely using to describe a concept. But interestingly enough he says after interviewing the different people involved, the phrase was forced to be accepted as true whether the person saying it believed it or not.

I think that if we are scholars of course we need to do what we can to learn it as well as possible to always do our best. But when we use phrases to define an abstract idea, we invariably do so with our own viewpoint and that can lead to trouble.

CMP,

I think you you were wise to end this post with this line:

“Have more confidence in your audience.”

I definitely agree. I am a former newspaper reporter. We had to learn to present something in as concise a manner as possible, because of the limited space newspaper columns contain. Therefore, it was imperative to get as many facts as possible in, without making an article sound like a police report. We had to shorten words without taking away from their original meaning. As you can imagine, this also presented quite a challenge.

One thing, I learned, and I’m sure being a blog moderator you have too, is that folks out in the hinterlands have a much greater capacity for educating us sometimes than we do them. One of the first places I read in any publication, such as a magazine or newspaper, is the letters to the editor. They are usually pretty balanced in their opinions one way or another. So, I know if I haven’t gotten a balanced picture from the original article there is always going to be someone out there who has the words to articulate that.

I think that is one of the great beauties of the proper usage of words.
They tell us something we didn’t know by broadening our perspectives in a way that informs and enlightens. So, I believe whether short or long, our words should always have the goal to add wisdom and bring balance, as well as knowledge.

I agree with you whole heartedly on this one. I pastor a cowboy church, mostly lower socio-economic, lower levels of education who were terrified of big words. Over time, with careful use and being certain to define my terminology these same “frightening” words are increasingly creeping into the vocabulary of our little flock. They no longer run when I say “theology” and in fact look forward to the two theology corners in our monthly newsletter “Some Five Dollar Words You Ought to Know” – specifically aimed at theological vocabulary and “WORTH PONDERING –words from some non-cowboys” – selections from theologians and preachers from the past. Get them past their fear and they are eager to learn.

mbaker,
That reminds me of woman I worked with. She was Hispanic, born in Corpus Christie Texas. She was in her late 40s when I worked with her 12 years ago. This woman never learned English until she was 15. The place we worked at she had been there already 25 years doing the same job.

One day the foreman tells her if anything goes wrong with the machine to hit the panic button and let him know right away. She asked me to show her where the panic button is…on the machine she has been working on for 25 years. Imagine my look when I assume she would know this…but I had to explain to her that is merely a phrase that indicates if there is an emergency. And then I felt sad that she would not know this after all the time she had been there at that company.

So I asked her how did she learn English and she said from watching television. But it is a common phrase that she took a literal meaning.

To Chuck,

As I understand it, Paul coined the term “theopneustos,” which we translate as “God-breathed,” in 2 Tim 3:16. From what I have seen, there is no record of anyone using the term prior to Paul.

CMP, How about, for each course that you teach, writing a post specifically relating to class content and then requiring that each student post at least once?

That’s really funny, Kara.

We had Japanese exchange students for several summers, who spoke very broken English. We spoke no Japanese at all, so sometimes the conversation in English could get quite convoluted, as you might imagine. Their particular language, which varies from the area of Japan they are from, seemed to end with the verb in the sentence. So we would say, for instance, “What are you planning to do today?” This being so different from the way they would phrase it, which would be something like this:

“My day today is to do this planning” We all would wind up laughing at each other in a good way, knowing we understood that each other wanted to know what the priorities of other’s day was, even if it was expressed so differently.

They thought our language was as funny as we did theirs.

Good grief. I can’t believe the tenor and rancor of some of the comments here. Never once did your articles offend me or confuse me. My generation of Christians has been dumbed down to the point that we prefer not to think at all. Your words here are not confusing. Nor do I believe most congregations would find this level of teaching confusing.

Keep raising the bar, my brother. And keep directing folks to look upward with concepts and words that bring us ever greater and deeper understanding of the magnificence of our Lord. Besides… for the ones who truly “hunger and thirst”, a little justification, sanctification, glorification talk is exactly what they need.

Kevin H,

You are right about Christians being dumbed down. I appreciate folks who rightfully encourage us to learn the reason for certain theological terms such justification, sanctification, atonement, and incarnation, as well the the common and different applications of their meanings.

For instance, I learned what the word omnipresence fully meant from a blog. In all my years in church, I had never hear anything but generalities regarding that. Same with the term ‘justification through faith’.

So both the words and the explanation are good to include. I’m thankful I have a pastor now, who teaches us by fully explaining what some of these terms mean, as well as their life applications. A double blessing to me.

Thanks for these posts on theological terminology. I would love to hear more specific doctrinal terms used in sermons. Not only is this rare but finding someone to discuss theology with is also rare. Seems when I find someone there is an instant connection and we both are so delighted and just struggle to get in the next few words! Oh, if folks would delight in the discussion along the way of our God and His word! I love searching out the meaning of words in scripture and doctrine and feel it really enhances my understanding.
Thanks again! Many blessings!

All this reminds me of a story once told by the late columnist William F. Buckley, who was famous for sprinkling his columns with $50 words. He was approached on the street one day by a reader who had just discovered the column, recognized him by his photo, and wanted to compliment him on it. The only fault he found with it, he told Buckley, was the use of words so big and obscure that he had to read it with a dictionary at hand. He advised Buckley to replace those words with more common ones, and his column would improve. Buckley thanked him, and went on his way.

Several months passed, and Buckley chanced to meet the man again. Once more, the man complimented him, then noted that since Buckley had taken his advice and quit using so many big words, the column was now really improved.

What Buckley never told him was that the column hadn’t changed. He was still writing it the same way. The reader had looked up so many big words that he didn’t trip over them anymore. Buckley hadn’t improved his column. The reader had improved his vocabularly.

In my opinion, most Christians who sincerely seek the mind of God will, if they stumble over words or terminology, go to the trouble to seek out the meanings. If not, it is crucial that they learn to do this. There are many wolves in sheep’s clothing within the kingdom today, even as they have been from the beginning. Many of those cloak their deceptions in $50 theological terms. Christians would be well-served to improve their theological “vocabularies,” if for no other reason than that.

Were Wyclif, Tyndale and Wesley wrong?

David McKay,
I would not say they are wrong. Even though Wesley sees thing differently than others does not necessarily make him wrong. But Wycliff and Tyndale were translators. Wesley was a preacher primarily.

The ideas formulated are like this…
someone reads some verses
understands verses by own understanding of words in verse.
draws conclusion from understanding words.
makes a theological base from such conclusions.

Therefore can we say they are wrong for understanding as they do? No we should not do that. If they lived the best to their understanding they won’t be accountable for more than that.

But if they with an agenda purposely pervert meanings of words and teach the perverted meanings, then they would be wrong.

so I think if someone says a “phrase” or a word based from an abstract idea and can explain it, then they are teaching. So we have to ask, what is literacy? Is it knowing how to read words? It means also to know what those words mean. And more often Americans use subtext when speaking and thinking.

“Subtext is content of a book, play, musical work, film, video game or television series which is not announced explicitly by the characters (or author) but is implicit or becomes something understood by the observer of the work as the production unfolds. Subtext can also refer to the thoughts and motives of the characters which are only covered in an aside. Subtext can also be used to imply controversial subjects without specifically alienating people from the fiction, often through use of metaphor.

Subtext is content underneath the spoken dialogue. Under dialogue, there can be conflict, anger, competition, pride, showing off, or other implicit ideas and emotions. Subtext is the unspoken thoughts and motives of characters — what they really think and believe. Subtext just beneath the surface of dialogue makes life interesting, but it can also cause people to be misunderstood.”

Subtext is also used to makes jokes of sexual nature because the speaker and listener both understand…it’s what we would say “an inside joke”

If we read these authors, we should look for the subtext because that is the true meaning of what the person is saying.

About the theology

I just read extra-Calvinisticum…The belief among Calvinists that Christ’s humanity is not infinite or omnipresent and therefore can only be at one place at one time, even after the ascension.

Is this what most Calvinists believe or some Calvinists? I don’t think I would be extra-Calvinistic. I’m not even Calvinist to begin with.

That must be why someone told me that when Jesus was being led to the crucifixtion that his blood was all gathered up from the earth and is in heaven right now…I had commented that not all his blood was on the cross because he was beaten twice, in two different places, and was whipped while still at Herod’s jail before going to Pilate’s last trial. He was there twice. So His blood was shed from the first moment until the last moment. I made the comment that the blood in still in the earth and was crying out…referring back to Abel. And surmising that the blood cries out because the blood is the life of the body. That is a greater mystery than we can understand.

But is this extra-Calvinisticum shared by many or a few?

Hi Kara
My point was that Wyclif, Tyndale and Wesley all argued for using simple language. One of them said he wanted to give people God’s word translated so that a ploughboy could understand it.

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!

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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???

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.