# I would be interested in how you define "educated laity."



## jwithnell (Nov 30, 2010)

I've moved this over to a new thread because it's getting far afield from the original thread. And I'll make a disclaimer: I am a lay person and generally try to avoid telling pastors how to do their jobs. I'm saying what I would want to see and hear as a pew dweller.

Perhaps it is best to split the discussion between preaching and Sunday School/Bible study settings.

In the pulpit, I believe a man should speak with every confidence that Jesus' sheep will hear His voice and follow Him and that they will have the law of God written on their hearts. What a person learns is totally the work of the illumination of the Holy Spirit. This supports an exegetical style because no one should shy away from the "difficult" or even potentially embarrassing passages. We need to be able to feed upon the whole counsel of God's word.

I'm afraid that what happens is that a preacher will be concerned about the understanding of some (the young, the new comers, etc.) and preach to that level. This can appear quite condescending to those with more capability and prevent the people in the church from moving from milk to meat. Instead, a downward spiral can develop when folks aren't challenged and continue to demand watered-down preaching.

As far as the scriptures are concerned, go for it, no matter how complicated it might seem, keep on interpreting scripture with other scripture. Bring up points from the original languages if it adds clarity or if you have strong reason to disagree with popular translation. (Imagine the poor new guy sitting there who's reading one thing in the Bible while you are saying another.)

When it comes to the terms of the art of theology, or the history of theology, these are likely best taught in a study situation. Start slowly, if need be, but do so -- as far as what church members know about God is out of line with the Bible, they are practicing idolatry. And remember that these are adults who, in many cases, need to be able to teach their children. They're not dumb folks just because much in church is new to them. (And we are going to face this more and more as our society is less and less churched.)

If you have a congregation that's been around for a while, always receiving milk, consider classes along the lines of, what does it mean when we say we are Presbyterian? or some such way of introducing greater depth without raising resentment.

This question originally came up in the context of citing quotations. I've been listening a little more carefully for this, and here's what folks I respect tend to do. In a sermon, a reference might be vague (one of my professors in seminary said ...) which gives both the background to the information and proper credit without sending people through a labyrinth of names or concepts. The exception seems to be references to folks that the congregation has known (someone who's died, moved, or has gone off to seminary) or has been introduced to by means of missionary dinners etc.

In classes and studies, the original author or speaker is given, especially if he had a viewpoint closely associated to him (say Mr. Van Til and his approach to apologetics.) I think the expectation is that those of us who read more extensively will appreciate the reference while others might benefit by getting to know the reference. These are not given, however, like full academic citations -- it's generally simple like: "John Murry in his commentary on Romans said ...."

I recognize that a pastor or missionary has to start with what is before him. But I do encourage boldness when handling God's word and using other venues to encourage people to grow in their knowledge and love of Christ.

May you be greatly blessed in your endeavors! I would not want to face your responsibilities and am so grateful that God has put among us men who can preach and teach.


----------



## seajayrice (Nov 30, 2010)

I'd encourage Sunday school teachers to pursue more catechetical instruction. This methodology provides a sound foundation for Christian growth and can be scaled to meet the audiences understanding.


----------



## Notthemama1984 (Nov 30, 2010)

Thank you for the post. I would never encourage someone to skip the hard passages. I would encourage to throw out terminology like "Supralapsarianism" and other words that are Biblical concepts, but are not Biblical words. 

When I think of getting on someone's level, I think of their education level in terms of what vocabulary they can understand, and make references and illustrations that are on their level. 

Here is a perfect example, when my Greek prof introduced his TA he said, "this is my δουλος" and the joke was completely lost because none of us knew what the term meant. 

Paul preached a certain way on Mars Hill because he noticed their polytheistic views. If they were monotheistic, his sermon would not have made much sense to the audience. 

Just my thoughts.


----------



## jwithnell (Nov 30, 2010)

That's reasonable enough : ) Indeed, many may be plenty smart, but may have no interest in theology as a science. My daughter and son-in-law are somewhat like that. They are very bright, well taught, and show great maturity for their age, but likely would have no interest in a discussion on any form of lapsarianism. I just react when there's any chance that the person in the pew is being viewed condescendingly.


----------



## Pergamum (Nov 30, 2010)

The point of the OP is that the pastor ought not to dumb down the sermon for new folks it seems.

However, not all sermons are about going deeper into doctrine, but about applying what we already know. I've met several churches where the people pride themselves on their doctrine, but they are very inactive in works of mercy, and some use their doctrine to quibble over doctrine all the time.

But I do understand and sympathize with the OP, that we should be giving meat and not milk.


----------



## coramdeo (Nov 30, 2010)

*agree*

I like to have my mind stretched. I get much more from a message that I have to go home and research than from one I completely understand.


----------



## Notthemama1984 (Nov 30, 2010)

I would say that there is a difference between stretching the mind and speaking over their heads. As pastors we need to make sure we do the first and not the second.


----------



## jwithnell (Nov 30, 2010)

That's why I originally emphasized Biblical preaching. If your exegesis is correct, plenty of doctrine will be taught without necessarily hauling out a lot of doctrine by name. But some doctrinal words are used in scripture -- justification, sanctification and so forth -- which people should be encouraged to understand. I agree that a church that brags on its "doctrinal preaching" is likely to do a lot of puffing up.


----------

