We don’t lose theological vocabulary, but take the time to explain to the people in terms they understand. (SOURCE)
But if we can explain theological vocabulary to people in terms they understand, then what is the purpose of the theological vocabulary in the first place? Why can’t the “terms they understand” actually be our theological vocabulary?
I don’t think that there are no answers to these questions. For one things, theologians need compact language to make their interaction with each other more efficient. My concern is that these questions are never really asked. And for this reason we have the everlasting problem of contextualization. We use theological terminology for a great many more uses than it is adapted to. It is not just there to help theologians, but it is the true language to express the truth of the Gospel.
The unspoken assumption seems to be that everyone everywhere ought to be a specializing theologian but for those too stupid, lazy, or just not given sufficient grace, God is mercifully willing that we should on occasion translate our important terms into vulgar languages.
But, teaching theology always means emphasizing the vocabulary of heaven that the outsiders simply haven’t learned yet. Teaching theology is, to a great extent, much like an introductory language course.
Teaching theology is, to a great extent, much like an introductory language course.
This is such a good point! But what is the “language of heaven”? Does that mean biblical language? If so, why aren’t we translating theological words into the vulgar tongue like we do with the rest of Scripture?
Well, if the Bible has technical terms (and I think it does) sometimes; “the flesh” for example) I think we need to try to learn to use them too.
But I question whether the technical terms common to theology are always necessary. Especially when we import Latin!
Or maybe, more to the point, I wonder if theologians aren’t tempted to develop a strange way of speech in order to develop group identity, differentiating themselves from others.
Having thought about it a little more, however, I also think some of the vocabulary terms are simply place markers for blocks of teaching. The reason they need to be explained is simply because they aren’t normal words but more like chapter headings. So maybe I’m over-reacting.
Every specialized field develops its own lingo peculiar to its own practices and ways of reflection – technical terms, terms of art, etc. There are all sorts of reasons for this: past history of particular discussion points, various kind of shorthand, attempts at precision, maintaining distinctions, the need for a common agreed-upon vocabulary, specialization in specific problem areas, on so on.
I guess part of the question here is how one is thinking of “theology.”
There’s a broad sense of the term that means something like “the talk about God” that all Christians engage in and is rooted in certain kinds of reading practices with regard to Scripture, the patterns of liturgy and Christian prayer, spiritual exhortation, Gospel witness, and so on.
There’s also a more narrow sense of the term that refers to something like a critical reflection upon what is called “theology” in the broad sense, thematizing particular topics along historic trajectories, and developing a theoretical apparatus for handling the kinds of questions those topics raise.
I don’t see a problem with this except when the more narrow sense of theology begins to eclipse and displace the broader sense of theology, so that it begins to replace the kind of talk, experiences, and practices upon which it is supposed to be reflecting critically. When that happens, theology can become self-enclosed and self-referential in a way that begins to have a life of its own and in which our limited theoretical structures come to be seen as primary.
As someone studying pastoral theology, my answer to the question in the title is: “Yes! Yes! Yes! Absolutely yes!”
joel makes an excellent point: I don’t see a problem with this except when the more narrow sense of theology begins to eclipse and displace the broader sense of theology, so that it begins to replace the kind of talk, experiences, and practices upon which it is supposed to be reflecting critically. When that happens, theology can become self-enclosed and self-referential in a way that begins to have a life of its own and in which our limited theoretical structures come to be seen as primary
The Western church has a concept called “Spiritual theology”. Under this category might come questions such as: “How can a person come to know God more faithfully in their prayer life?”. This would be distinct from our scholastic approach of: “What is prayer in an ontological and epistemological sense?” The Eastern Church only has one category of “theology” and it’s “spiritual theology”.
I think that the “scholastic” approach is useful for professional theologians, or for pastors wearing a “professional theologian hat”. But the pastor must take the academic theology and be able to translate it for the people in the pews. It must have meaning for the every-day lives of congregations.
When you speak of, for example, the concept of “the flesh”, I think that “understanding” that is a matter of conversion, not a matter of translation. And those Christians who think that this term only or mostly applies to sexual temptation also need a conversion experience to understand that the concept includes such things as gluttony, consumer culture and justifying our personal anger. Preachers have no “control” over when, how or if conversion happens. They are simply called to repeat the truth over and over.
Using community language with outsiders always involves the danger of failing to communicate. Theologians constitute a community with its own technical language, and the church in general is a community with a language of its own. There is some overlap between the languages of the two communities. We do need to take special care when communicating with non-Christians that our meaning isn’t lost or liable to be misinterpreted.
In my view, the bigger problem related to technical theological language is one that Vern Poythress discusses in his book Symphonic Theology. It is that we equate technical terms in theology, and the theological concepts that they represent, with particular words in the Bible. So, for example, our whole concept of sanctification is read back into any Bible passage that talks about hagiasmos (or “sanctification” in English translation). How much misinterpretation, misunderstanding, and rancor that error has caused in the church!