All text on this website is licenced under a Creative Commons Licence.
At the risk of sounding like Tony Blair, I have to say: Education, education, education! The churches' irresponsible attitude to teaching the laity infuriates me. I'm lucky - I was able to study Christianity academically for four years, and use the skills I learnt then to continue studying on my own. Most people are not so fortunate. There are some Christians who are able to study on their own, who have the time and resources to seek out good books, and learn. Those people are few - the rate of biblical and doctrinal ignorance is simply staggering.
a. Fewer than half of all adults can name the four gospels
b. Many professing Christians cannot identify more than two or three of the disciples.
Source
As we can see, this problem is not just in the secular world, but within the churches as well. David Wells makes a telling comment: “I have watched with growing disbelief as the evangelical church has cheerfully plunged into astounding theological illiteracy.” (No Place for Truth).
There are several reasons for this - the first is jargon. By that I don't mean the shared use of Christian jargon like "grace", "saved", "born again", etc, but academic Christian jargon like hermeneutics, exegesis, eschatology, parousia, and other uncommon - and generally Latin and Greek derived words. Most academic texts use those sort of terms frequently, on the assumption that their readers understand them and thus don't need them to be defined. Add to this the often unnecessary use of quotations in Latin, Greek and Hebrew - often untransliterated and it is easy to see why condescending books for the laity are more popular than serious academic texts.
It does make you wonder what exactly academics think theology is for? Is it simply an academic discipline for scholars and some clergy? Or is it the exploration of a living faith for all who are interested? Even liberation theology excludes those it purports to speak for by its use of language. It claims to speak for and to the poor - and yet relies on the use of words and foreign languages which those who are poor and not academically-trained cannot hope to understand.
What makes me angry is that so very often it is unnecessary. There are times when it is appropriate to use, say, Greek words - for example in a discussion on the logos ('word', see John 1:1) where the Greek word expresses more than its English counterpart. That is no excuse to avoid explaining its meanings, however. The same goes for other jargon - the term transubstantiation is actually an easier way of describing, for the sake of speed, the doctrine of the miraculous change of wine and bread into literal blood and flesh which is held by the Catholics. But the plain English meaning of the term both could and should be explained.
When I was at university, we were taught to use jargon and quotations in different languages as a matter of course, and got more marks for doing so. Eventually, I suppose, many people become unable to write normally any more. As we discovered, this misuse of language can also give the impression that you are an authority, someone who knows a great deal and whose statements must be accepted. It can cover up deficiences in argument if your opponent is less familiar with the terms than you are. It is far from how the original message of Jesus was expressed. The internet theology journal, QuodLibet, has a very funny quote on this:
"And Jesus said unto them, "And whom do you say that I am?"
They replied, "You are the eschatological manifestation of the ground of our being, the ontological foundation of the context of our very selfhood revealed."
And Jesus replied, "What?"
I was taught that the model for good writing is this: if it can't be understood by an intelligent 12 year old, then its a bad piece of writing. Your concepts may be difficult to understand, but the language you choose to express them should not.
Even mroe than this use of language however, I have a problem with the way churches teach their congregations. It is simply not true that people are not interested in religion anymore - one glance at the proliferation of books in the "Mind, Body, Spirit" section of bookstores, or the success of the Alpha course gives the lie to that. People are interested - but Christianity is simply unwilling to teach them. I found this out when, as a student, I told people I was studying theology - everyone had views and questions about it. They had never had the opportunity of asking them before. Go into a church as someone with little knowledge of Christianity and you will find a ritual that will make absolutely no sense to you, a sermon which generally says nothing in particular, and then everyone leaves. There is no opportunity to ask questions, no opportunity to hear what that church believes and why they believe it. Even if you did get hold of a church member and ask them questions, very likely they would not know the answers! They had never been taught more than general principles and the basic message of salvation themselves. I once asked a group of trainee ministers, all destined for ordination, why it was that churches do not teach what I learned at university - the principles of biblical study, doctrines, understanding of God, history etc. Their response was to say that most laity are too stupid to understand it! What an horrific statement to make. It makes me fume, even now. No wonder the church is dying if it cannot and will not respect its congregations enough to help them learn.
I believe that the church should teach, whether from the pulpit or in special classes, everything about Christianity. Its history, doctrines (and doctrinal disagreements), heresies, the principles of biblical study, a basic knowledge of the terms academics use and the most important Greek, Hebrew and Latin words. Lay Christians ought to be able to use academic texts to help their understanding - rather than relying on often very condescending, sugared-water books intended for their use.
Christianity needs education and the church is doing its members a great injury by denying them it.
© Dubhóc MacEògainn, 2005.