One of the great themes of the Reformation was that the scriptures - and worship - should be in a language understood by the people. In England, that meant that Cranmer's prayer book replaced the Latin Mass. [It's interesting to see how Roman Catholic opinion on this sways around somewhat, with something of a recent reinstatement of the Tridentine Mass, but I digress.] This was, clearly, a Good Thing (apologies to Sellar and Yateman).
But are our modern churches in danger of doing something similar?: not by using a foreign language, but by using a dialect entirely unfamiliar to the population at large. More importantly, too many sermons are couched in a language of theology which is entirely alien to many of the hearers: I know full well that it is possible to say one thing from the pulpit, and have people hear something different. They may even greet you afterwards and thank you for some point - a point which you actually, consciously, did not make. You could put this down to the wisdom of the Holy Spirit, but more often, I fear, it is just a failure to communicate.
Theology bothers me. If we cannot rightly divide the Word without recourse to several commentaries, why are people enjoined to daily devotional bibile reading? If people have the impression that only the preacher can interpret the scripture, then where is the priesthood of all believers? [I know that there are counter-arguments, too: we cannot just pick up a 2000-year-old text (still less a 3000-year-old one) and expect to know - in translation - what it meant to those who wrote it. And we can finesse that argument too, and ask whether that matters, and so on. And yes, some have a gift of teaching: but what will they teach, and how? Bear with me.]
In the pre-reformation days, the stories of scripture were brought to the people's attention through pictures and stained glass; freezes, and all manner of other art forms. Worship becomes highly theatrical, as liturgical colours and vestments carry particular meanins. The reformation swept most of that away, and worked on the assumption that vernacular worship and bible teaching would engage the population at large. Well, the people of Calvin's Geneva may have comprehended his Institutes, but I can't help feeling that we - in my country at least - don't necessarily have a general standard of education suitable for most people to engage with most of the literature, most of the time.
I know this isn't an original thought. I suspect that others have articulated it better than I. There is no point congratulating ourselves that our worship is not in Latin, if what we say and do is almost as excluding - to believers and others in our present generation.
I know that many fellowships have experimented with much greater creativity in worship. Some, too, I guess, are working on truly involving the people at large in the interpretation of the word: not to do away with the bible teacher, but to make the most of everything we know about teaching and learning in the 21st century. Above all, let's not over-intellectualize [ooh; I hate words with more than four syllables] faith.
4 comments:
I am enjoying reading the Bible in "The Contemporary English Version", written at a 4th-grade reading level (defined by one linguist as the level at which a person can stop 'learning to read' and instead begin to 'read to learn').
This translation was vilified for "dumbing down" theological concepts, but it follows some solid linguistic insights (as well as certain translation principles dating back to Luther), and succeeds in its goals of being a version of the Bible suitable for the previously unchurched, as well as for those who are not super-confident in reading aloud, and people who don't have a wide-ranging literary and literate English vocabulary. Our international congregation includes a lot of people in those two latter categories!
[A German friend here is using the New Century Version, which is similarly written at a low reading level. I read the Christmas story to his bible study using his version, in which the baby is laid in a "feeding box", a phrase that struck me as even better than the CEV's "bed of hay".]
I find it refreshing to read well-known passages in this defamiliarized version, which avoids words like justified, transgression, and even righteousness. My argument has tended to be that the sermon (or Sunday School, or whatever) can be introducing the supplemental terminology we still think necessary.
There's a lot to chew on in your post. Here's one more comment: Worshiping in a liturgical church I do get a bit fed up with certain priests assuming that processing from this direction or that, or the number of candles on the altar, are meaningingful in and of themselves without needing ever to be explained to the congregation, but I was struck when a priest once said to me that I was acting as though all people get out of church is what they hear spoken. I was, and it's not.
Thanks Ruth: there's a lot to chew on in your response too! Language that everyone can comprehend is so important, but yes, all the unspoken things matter too.
My church has a text painted on the wall, saying "Jesus is Lord". There is nothing wrong with that, but it is written in elaborate Gothic script. It seems, actually, to communicate "Jesus was probably Lord once upon a time, but that's history, really, a bit of a throw-back, probably as authentic as Ye Olde Tea Shoppe". I finally managed to persuade people to cover it up with a modern banner carrying the same text...
i spent many years in a fundamenal baptist church where, to this day, they read the king james version of the Bible. now there's nothing wrong with the KJV - i have great fondness and respect for it - but i really agonize over the language and think it's absurd to insist it be used in churches where a lot of people can't even understand a modern-day piece of literature, much less a 16th century translation that has more in common with shakespeare's tongue than our current language of choice.
you're right: if we're to reach people, we must learn to let go of traditions that are outdated and have little relevance today. i'm not saying we must abandon sound theology, heaven forbid. but as you said, how can we rightly divide the Word of truth if we can't last 10 seconds deciphering the archaic text?
Thanks Dan.
I have a footnote to my Gothic Script comment: it dawned on me as I looked around surf shops and the like, that there is a large part of a generation - and not just the black-clad gothic obsessed ones - using lots of Gothic Script. For all I know, the painted gothic "Jesus is Lord" looks very cool to their eyes ... hey ho.
Post a Comment