I know of a dear brother in Christ who has difficulty with the whole idea of doing theology. Apparently, his struggle was the result of his interactions with some theologians in a class room setting. Their use of “big words” had left him hateful of theology. I, being someone who stresses the importance of theology, obviously found this somewhat jarring. I want to set out a short response to this brother—but not so much to him as it is to his idea which I am sure a good many people would feel.
I will begin by affirming his concern. And I feel that his concern is that by using big words, theology is kept away from the lay man. Furthermore, he is concerned that the use of such big words is a mark of arrogance. These are all valid. Furthermore, he also points out that the Bible is enough and we need not add to these words. While I do not agree with this latter issue, I do see his point.
Yet, I want to point out several things in response to him.
(1) The fact that Jesus spoke in simple language may mean that we must strive to make the message intelligible to hearers in the preaching of the Gospel. However, this does not mean that scholars cannot use higher levels of language for communication amongst themselves. It does mean that scholars must simplify when they ought to. (Let us also not forget the highly stylized language used by authors in the Bible such as Isaiah and Hebrews!)
(2) It is dangerous to jump to the conclusion that people are arrogant because they use specialized language. To put things in perspective, we ought to remember that, as Donald Macleod points out, “all human activities require their own precise terminology” (A Faith to Live By, p.55). We certainly do not deny medical doctors, soldiers, artists, and football players the right to use their specialized language do we?
(3) Use of other words to interpret the Bible is not the same as adding to the Bible in the sense condemned in Deuteronomy 4:2 or 12:32. Otherwise, why even teach or preach? Don’t these God-ordained activities all require the use of our own language to explain the Scriptures? Why not just have long Bible-reading sessions only? Adding to the Bible in the sense condemned by Scripture means adding new teachings, new laws, new customs and taboos—not using our own language to simplify its message or highly-technical language to compound its varied themes.
(4) My brother’s concern, though valid, can itself be a reversed version of arrogance in that it denies the specialist his own area of growth. As far as I know, the Bible can be studied at many levels. To say that it must only be studied at a “lay” level is itself arrogant. Further, this will lead to many problems: Who defines what the “lay” level is? How “lay” is “lay”? How much should the “lay” factor determine what is taught—and learnt? How do we guard against the worship of simplicity?
(5) My brother should also take note of the context he is in: It is an academic setting, not a church. I do wonder if those same people who would use the specialized language would do so from the pulpit in the context of public worship.
(6) Finally, my brother’s concern may even be evidence of a deeper sentiment: Anti-intellectualism—the distaste of anything that reeks of intellectual complexity and the exercise of the intellect for more intellectual ends (such as new ideas and theoretical constructs). Anti-intellectualism may be a response against the knowledgeable puffed-up. But it is not the right response. The opposite of intellectualism gone arrogant is not anti-intellectualism but covenanted intellectualism—reason accountable to God.
All this is to say that specialized language—“big words”—have their place in the study of the Scriptures. They must be used in its proper place and never in arrogance but nonetheless, they can be used.
I will begin by affirming his concern. And I feel that his concern is that by using big words, theology is kept away from the lay man. Furthermore, he is concerned that the use of such big words is a mark of arrogance. These are all valid. Furthermore, he also points out that the Bible is enough and we need not add to these words. While I do not agree with this latter issue, I do see his point.
Yet, I want to point out several things in response to him.
(1) The fact that Jesus spoke in simple language may mean that we must strive to make the message intelligible to hearers in the preaching of the Gospel. However, this does not mean that scholars cannot use higher levels of language for communication amongst themselves. It does mean that scholars must simplify when they ought to. (Let us also not forget the highly stylized language used by authors in the Bible such as Isaiah and Hebrews!)
(2) It is dangerous to jump to the conclusion that people are arrogant because they use specialized language. To put things in perspective, we ought to remember that, as Donald Macleod points out, “all human activities require their own precise terminology” (A Faith to Live By, p.55). We certainly do not deny medical doctors, soldiers, artists, and football players the right to use their specialized language do we?
(3) Use of other words to interpret the Bible is not the same as adding to the Bible in the sense condemned in Deuteronomy 4:2 or 12:32. Otherwise, why even teach or preach? Don’t these God-ordained activities all require the use of our own language to explain the Scriptures? Why not just have long Bible-reading sessions only? Adding to the Bible in the sense condemned by Scripture means adding new teachings, new laws, new customs and taboos—not using our own language to simplify its message or highly-technical language to compound its varied themes.
(4) My brother’s concern, though valid, can itself be a reversed version of arrogance in that it denies the specialist his own area of growth. As far as I know, the Bible can be studied at many levels. To say that it must only be studied at a “lay” level is itself arrogant. Further, this will lead to many problems: Who defines what the “lay” level is? How “lay” is “lay”? How much should the “lay” factor determine what is taught—and learnt? How do we guard against the worship of simplicity?
(5) My brother should also take note of the context he is in: It is an academic setting, not a church. I do wonder if those same people who would use the specialized language would do so from the pulpit in the context of public worship.
(6) Finally, my brother’s concern may even be evidence of a deeper sentiment: Anti-intellectualism—the distaste of anything that reeks of intellectual complexity and the exercise of the intellect for more intellectual ends (such as new ideas and theoretical constructs). Anti-intellectualism may be a response against the knowledgeable puffed-up. But it is not the right response. The opposite of intellectualism gone arrogant is not anti-intellectualism but covenanted intellectualism—reason accountable to God.
All this is to say that specialized language—“big words”—have their place in the study of the Scriptures. They must be used in its proper place and never in arrogance but nonetheless, they can be used.
No comments:
Post a Comment