Since I’ve received some comments (Transforming Sermons & Jolly Blogger) on my question as to whether Theology shouold require translation? (that, at least, is a much clearer form of the question I was trying to address), I’ve been thinking about it some more.

It strikes me that one piece of fallout from the use a Reformed terminology is felt in the succeeding generation. I don’t mean only Reformed academic theology; but virtually any attempt to distill information in concise and precise works of literature. The example I have in mind is one of my favorites (i.e. I made a point of owning it, and not for the purpose of perpetual refutation but to learn from), William Ames’ Marrow of Theology.

The Marrow is obviously written to be a brief survey of theology that transmits theological knowledge to the reader. It shows every sign of being written to any literate Christian rather than pastors or academics. Yet it is quite difficult in places for me to understand.

Is that simply because the book is so old and language has changed? Consider a book(s) of much older age: Calvin’s Institutes of the Christian Religion. While some may have trouble working through this much bigger book because they simply don’t have the time, I submit that it is much easier for the contemporary reader to understand. Why? Because John Calvin did not try to express himself in clear, precise terminology.

I’m not for a moment claiming that there is no technical terminology in Calvin’s work, or that it is unnecessary for his communicating. What I am saying is that all his terminology is much more understandable because he puts it in a much broader context: dealing with errorists, giving pastoral exhortations, and otherwise communicating in much more diverse ways. My theology prof at seminary told me that the seminary’s founder, J. Oliver Buswell, told him that Calvin’s Institutes were not really “systematic theology,” but rather “devotional literature.” Right, and Calvin will teach Reformed theology to readers long after much more recent theology works have been forgotten.

My point is that any attempt to communicate in concise and precise language only remains clear and readable for a very short period of time. Language changes. On the other hand, if one writes in a variety of styles and approaches subjects in various ways, one will in fact reach a great many more people for a longer period of time.

The Bible itself is an example of this. If all we had was one person’s summation of “the truth,” it would be riddled with confusion for us. It is precisely because we have a document that is actually a mutually interpreting collection of documents spanning millennia that we have any chance at all of understanding either Paul or Moses.

All this may explain why theology so often needs to be translated. It needs to be translated because we are working with an earlier translation. To some extent that may be a sign of health, but it also may indicate that a pursuit of concise precision is actually not helping us as much as we thought.