Scot McKnight on the role of a seminary
hey guys,
I'm not exactly sure how I came across this article by Scot McKnight (it's from a while back), but I thought that he did a really good job of speaking to why we have seminaries. Being that all of us here are current or former seminarians, and that I personally would love to be involved in teaching at the seminary level one day, I think that it would be profitable to keep McKnight's words in mind.
http://www.jesuscreed.org/?p=1619
I'm not exactly sure how I came across this article by Scot McKnight (it's from a while back), but I thought that he did a really good job of speaking to why we have seminaries. Being that all of us here are current or former seminarians, and that I personally would love to be involved in teaching at the seminary level one day, I think that it would be profitable to keep McKnight's words in mind.
http://www.jesuscreed.org/?p=1619
posted by Ross at 5:42 PM
6 Comments:
That's interesting. I still think it would be okay to use the term "eschatological presence"...but then explain exactly what that means. If people don't care, they won't care. But there are those people in the church who do care and want to learn.
Hmmm....I'm not sure I totally agree with McKnight. I understand he is going with this, but I'm worried about its possible consequences. My question is, how far do you go with this? How much do you sacrifice? Are we really helping the church by giving up some very important theological terms or concepts in order to restate them in a more colloquial way. Personally, it makes me nervous. Aren't we supposed to be helping our congregations by educating them? Isn't part of that education the grasping of complex theological ideas? Can complex theological be re-expressed in simplistic ways? Obviously, some can, but not all.
Like Charlie, I agree that we should educate our congregations. Our society is overwhelming interested in the mediocre. The relationship with God through Christ as manifested in the church should be anything but mediocre. Therefore, part of that rising above is pushing the people and leading them into new discoveries about themselves and their capabilities. It almost seems like McKnight is saying that since some, if not most, people are turned off by "big" words, then we shouldn't try to teach them these big words. And since we can't teach them the big words, we have to change the language of theology and in so doing run the risk of sacrificing vital information.
Maybe I'm just flat out wrong, but it is my opinion.
Fellas,
Good critical evaluations! You both are on to something I think. I agree that the church must be in the business of bringing our congregations to the point of a better understanding of Theology. We have to do a better job of establishing the truths of the Christian worldview before challenging our congregants to grow in their love and devotion for the Lord. I complain more than just about anyone I know about the dumbing down of the American mind...
But I read McKnight to be warning us to guard against a sense of pride in our increased knowledge, and that's a message that I need to hear again and again.
I took his post as more of practical communication advice. I think about the importance of CS Lewis in my own life. The enduring value of Mere Christianity for me is Lewis' ability to take deep theological concepts and communicate them in terms that everyone can understand.
BTW - Lewis is something of an egnima, because at the same time he could write stuff that has so many cultural and literary allusions that I have a tough time keeping up, like his autobiography "Surprised by Joy".
I think about conversations I have with Katie. Often I'll throw in a term that she doesn't understand. When she asks me to repeat what I said in English, I have to think about how to explain further the concept, and when I reword what I said the first time she usually catches right on.
Perhaps it has a lot to do with knowing our audience. I am saddened by the lack of vocabulary in our congregations and in culture in general, but there is a difference in using terms to rub in their faces how little they know, and peppering your sermon/ class lectures with words that they may have to look up.
So if we can challenge our congregations to step up to the plate and take on some difficult bit of Theology, then I'm all for it. But to use a 4 syllable technical term when a one syllable term will do just as well, then perhaps ostentation is our goal, and not communication.
Ross,
I won't disagree with what you've said. I, too, have found much comfort from the brilliant analogies of Lewis. The more I read of him, the better I find myself understanding dep theological ideas. And, there is little doubt that he was an enigma. I only wish I could communicate in the same way that he could. With that said, I was more worried (after reading McKnight) that we could sacrifice too much. But, maybe that is pride in my own life. It really is something important to think about. Without a doubt, our audience is essential in how we present the message of Scripture. My biggest concern is presenting an idea in a simple way, and never exploring the depths of a truly complex concept.
It just troubles me that our congregations, in general, are engaged in learning so little doctrine already. Now, since they lack the fundamental building blocks (not knowing what terms like justification, sanctification, propitiation, expiation, etc. mean), we are forced to "dumb" down the message. Hmmm....
This question really interests me. I think I'm going to do a little research and find out how the pastors of old presented theological information to the people of their day. I'll report back later.
Ok, that didn't take as long as I thought it would. I decided to go and look at several sermons based on texts from the Roman epistle. This is what I found (in a very quick reading):
1. Jonathan Edwards - He was not overly technical in his language. For example, he used this phrase in the place of omniscience: "He is infinitely wise, and sees and knows all things."
2. J.C. Ryle - He was the fairly technical. He used terms like "sons of Adam," "righteous," and "holiness." All three of which would have to be explained to some extent, simply because righteous and holiness have become somewhat convoluted terms.
3. Charles Spurgeon - He was by far the most technical speaker. However, we all know that he is reknown for being an eloquent speaker and the word "justification" coming from his mouth could make anyone shiver with excitement. However, I would like to note that he used a fair amount of theological language in making his point, and the point was still made...but, of course, I am reading this within the frame of my theological education.
Here are the web addresses for the sermons I glanced at:
http://www.biblebb.com/files/edwards/portion2.htm (Edwards)
http://www.biblebb.com/files/ryle/where_are_your_sins.htm (Ryle)
http://www.biblebb.com/files/spurgeon/justgrac.txt (Spurgeon)
Spurgeon is tough...no doubt. But, he was brilliant and it's my estimation that after years of hearing him preach, his congregation probably knew exactly what he was saying, even if they didn't fully comprehend the gravity of the words he used.
Post a Comment
<< Home