I met with a group of ministers this morning for our regular reading group session. Today we were discussing “Propositions in Christian Theology” by our friend Kim Fabricius. I’m glad to say that it was very warmly received, even by those who felt inclined to disagree with Kim on, for example, the question of pacifism.
Part of the conversation was around whether this was a book which could be used in church for a discussion group. Some felt that Kim’s use of technical language and latin phrases might make it rather inaccessible to the average person in the pew (whoever they might be). But this also led us to reflect upon what we perceived to be a decline in what the average person in the pew is expected to know and understand these days. After all, the sermons of John Wesley were peppered with Greek and Latin phrases, though many of his hearers were barely educated. We eschew words like sanctification on the grounds that they exclude and isolate. We’ve begun to confuse ’simple’ with ’simplistic’ and the child-like for the childish. And anything ‘difficult’ is treated as being dangerous and scary.
It really shouldn’t be that way. A living faith surely needs to engage the brain at least as much as the heart, the intellect as well as the emotions. And learning about the faith takes the same discipline as learning about anything else. That should be a task that Christians rejoice to engage in, to whatever level they are capable — if, that is, our faith is as precious to us as we so often claim.
{ 14 comments… read them below or add one }
Kim 05.13.09 at 6:30 am
Gratiae, Richard. Rem acu tetigisti: ad astra per ardua.
ee 05.13.09 at 8:28 am
Amen to all of that Richard. Christianity and education have always gone hand in hand through the ages - now we even shun learning about our own faith.
Beth 05.13.09 at 8:54 am
Well, Kim and Richard, you’re the ministers - so date et dabitur vobis.
Tony Buglass 05.13.09 at 9:24 am
Et vobiscum! (ie “Up yours!”)
Interestingly, I have been having some conversations with someone about issues she’s chewing over, and I tentatively suggested Leslie Weatherhead’s “Christian Agnostic.” I thought she’d find it boring or academically irrelevant, but in fact she’s finding it very stimulating and thought-provoking. We shouldn’t under-estimate the intelligence of our folk, indeed we should try to stimulate it as appropriate. If the eyes glaze, we got it wrong, but if they sparkle we got it right!
Kim 05.13.09 at 12:26 pm
Btw, guys, most of the Latin/Greek in my book has a translation in parentheses, with exceptions (e.g. theologia crucis).
DH 05.13.09 at 1:31 pm
Your around a group of “Christians” who don’t like the term Sanctification? What excluding and isolation goes on with the term Sanctification? To me as Believers we do need to strive to be like Christ and that includes adhering to God’s Word that includes not sinning, being obedient, etc. If people feel excluded or isolated by that then I would say that that feeling is actually conviction. At the feeling of conviction we need to not run away from it but embrace it and deal with it. Once we have broken through the conviction to real change can we truly be closer to God.
Micky 05.13.09 at 2:21 pm
Always nice to have a little sermon from DH! Personally I’m grateful to Tony for translating his use of a Latin phrase, as most others in the comments remain closed to this modern day scholar. My comprehensive did not teach latin - so I’m pleased Kim usually puts in a translation of the latin he uses.
But don’t take Latin into the pulpit - or Greek - or Hebrew - unless you use it very sparingly and explain it well. Always ask yourself the reason for not just using a straightforward English word or phrase (if there is the remotest chance it is just to show off - then don’t use it!) and spare a thought for those of us preaching to congregations where our own language is not the first language of most of those listening. I can’t get to the English meaning of most of these ancient languages - trying to get to the Urdu or Hindi equivalent really is a challenge too far for me.
DH 05.13.09 at 8:27 pm
Well Micky like Jesus says “How can they hear in whon they have not heard and how can they hear without a preacher?” I’m glad you enjoyed it. I want you to know that if ever I sound “too harsh” to let me know. My heart is to try to encourage. Notice I said try.
Look forward to discussing with you in the future. 
Tony Buglass 05.13.09 at 10:22 pm
Er … ’twasn’t Jesus who said that, it was Paul - Rom.10:14f. And not liking words like ’sanctification’ may have nothing at all to do with conviction, and everything to do with incomprehension. It really does depend on who you’re talking to - and I’ve known many good and Godly working-class Christians who don’t know more than a handful of polysyllabic words (like that one!) but who definitely knew their Lord and known him well - and followed him closely.
Richard 05.14.09 at 11:48 am
‘Sanctification’ was just an example of a the sort of ‘technical’ language that is falling into disuse in the ‘ordinary theology’ of the church. I worry that fear of being obscure is robbing us of the language we need to relate the content of our faith. Every discipline has it’s essential words that are inevitably difficult for those outside, but that doesn’t mean getting rid of them. There’s a need to explain the faith simply, of course. But there’s also the need to help people grow in their understanding. I hate to use the term ‘dumbing down’, but that’s what seems to be happening in the church.
DH 05.14.09 at 2:13 pm
Tony and Richard, I see what you are saying. I guess then that begs two questions: Why do people not like sanctification? and Why do people feel excluded or isolated by the term? Maybe you already answered it but I thought maybe you could go a little deeper in the answer for I’m really trying to understand how people feel this way. will say that Tony and Richard I appreciated your latest responses. Thanks
Tony Buglass 05.14.09 at 4:12 pm
Folk can be put off the idea by the way it has been preached. If the preacher sounds as if he’s haranguing you ‘cos you ain’t holy enough (and one of your problems is that you KNOW you’re not holy enough) it doesn’t help. If, however, the subject is opened up in a loving way, by a preacher who loves his people, and they KNOW he cares for them, it becomes winsome and attractive. People feel inspired to go deeper into the things of faith if they are led by a pastor, who they know is walking with them.
To touch upon your comment about conviction, I do get the feel that for many of our congregations they are happy to be in at the Ordinary level, and don’t really want the Advanced level. Perhaps they’ve been made to feel inadequate or unworthy by the aforementioned preacher. Perhaps he’s used too many terms like “entire sanctification” which they just don’t get.
In brief, there’s a right way to challenge folk, and a wrong way.
Micky 05.14.09 at 5:35 pm
I’m not sure that people don’t like ’sanctification’ (i.e. the abstract reality that the word represents) but that preachers and others use words such as it as a short hand which assumes everyone knows what it means (even the preacher) when many will not but will pretend they do (again even the preacher) cos asking ’silly’ questions just is not what we do in Church - even though it should be the safest place to do so!
DH 05.14.09 at 5:45 pm
Tony, thanks for the interjection. I know there are pastors who present it in a way that may not help. Like I have said on this site before “a person can be correct and wrong at the same time.” if you get my drift. Your response seems similar to that.
I’m the type of person who looks more at the “correctness of the message” as opposed to the “style of the message”. I understand that many people are not like me on that and that is okay due to personal tastes. However, we are still called to “present the message in love”. Maybe it is more the setting on particular way to present the message aka a hospital vs. family vs. ont the street vs. etc. Each of these “environments” require a different “delivery” of the message.
With regard to “entire sanctification” I also don’t get it and maybe even don’t believe it except after we get to heaven. If Sanctification is more of a “be all that we can be” in Christ as members of the “Army of God” then yes. However, I just don’t agree with the concept that we can be “perfect in every way” while on this physical earth that is for when we are in heaven. However, that is a “side discussion” and should not be looked at as a disctration from the main discussion we are having.
One of my favorite Scriptures that kind of indirectly pertains to Sanctification that I really like is this: “I press toward the goal to win the prize for which God has called us heavenward by Christ Jesus.”
Tony, thanks for the additional “clarification”. The last couple of times have been really a “breath of fresh air” in our discussions lately. Hopefully as we interact more this can continue. We may disagree from time to time but that doesn’t take away from my respect for you. Richard, Kim, Beth, Pam and others the same goes for you all as well.