I appreciate and read various theological publications – books and scholarly essays from journals. There are variant opinions about any genre of literature. Decades ago, I was introduced to biblical/theological materials assigned by my professors. I found that authors tended from ordinary or fair to excellent. Some did proper research. Almost all cast borrowings from their own readings. Styles often leaned toward density. Some writers did not regard literary style for interesting context in their work. There were language stylists, of course, and it is little wonder that they often received the greater attention, partly through style. For years I served as a college administrator so turned my reading to large degree, to educational materials, including journals in the field of my major university studies, and for speaking invitations – and my writings. There also I found ranges of styles, mixing excitement and boredom. There is much writing that should never have seen the light of day by the way it was packaged, and much that deserved larger readership than it received. This favor/disfavor is our experience in all language endeavors.
With renewed theological foray, following seventeen years as an administrator, I was surprised in that the literature had become more interesting than it used to be, more interesting than when authors used more words in a sentence when fewer would be better. Still some got lost in a jargon that may have passed years ago, or they made up wordings because they must do something new to be catchy. They must know this because they repeat memorable words and phrases they encounter. Scholarship is improving, the issues are clearer, but I rather believe my own interest is stronger so to find more substance. Some disappointment is partly related to the belief that much of current preaching does not reflect some of the excellent deep insights that emerge from the best secular and theological materials I have read. This does not mean that one agrees with everything that is worth reading. Idea differences are challenging in the discovery of truth and depth. We hone our orthodoxy on the inventions of others. Further, if the laity took more interest in deep concepts of Scripture and theology, there would be greater advance in the spiritual growth of truth seekers. Sources are better than ever, but speech content has been partly dumbed down in much of current preaching and speaking. Paradoxical! Congregations and the public deserve better.
The eminent William Byrd family (remembered from colonial Virginia), was interested in the spiritual development of believers. Byrds were in regular attendance at church on Sundays. They would have been surprised not to have heard a well prepared sermon of at least an hour or so. At dinner that afternoon there was a discussion about the meaning of the sermon of the morning. On many Sundays one or more of the family would resort to the Greek/Hebrew text so to check the meaning of the original languages. They wanted to be sure of their understanding, perhaps to adjust their views of the minister’s emphasis. There was prayer following, and if they were so inclined, the discussion would continue later into the evening. So it was that Scripture gave some colonial Americans their life and style. Scripture took note of such people, as referenced in the noble Bereans. (Acts 17:11) When did we, in our modern schedules, spend a portion of the Sunday afternoon in discussion of the lessons of the morning sermon or homily? It appears obvious to most persons that the important matter of challenging one another in objective exchange and prayer has been lost currency. Even the meaning of our faith has become somewhat secularized and pedestrian. It should be elevating. It may not complete itself until we have verbalized the word of God in fellowship with others. *Mark W. Lee, Sr. — 2016, 2020