There is an interesting discussion going on over at the PB on the question of how to preach, and what constitutes good scholarship. I have some fairly settled views on this.
First of all, scholarship is not evidenced by a huge vocabulary. Maybe, as one sign of scholarship, the scholar understands a huge vocabulary. However, the scholar should wear this kind of learning lightly. Anyone can spout off a whole ream of polysyllabic words and try to look impressive. True scholarship is shown in clarity of expression and clarity of thought. This is why Boice was completely correct in his article in this book. In this article, Boice laments the wrong-headed view we have of scholarship. Today, we think that the worst minds get a small church, the better minds get a larger church, and the best minds teach in seminary. Boice argues (quite convincingly) that our best minds need to be in the church. In my opinion, the reason for this is that the true mark of scholarship is the ability to take the most difficult subjects and explain them in such a way that anyone can understand them. It takes a true master of the material to be able to do that.
Please note here that I do not advocate a dumbing down of the message. By no means should we avoid biblical words like propitiation, imputation, justification, expiation, etc. These are biblical words. Rather, we should explain these words to our congregations in easier-to-understand words so that they are brought up to understand the non-dumbed-down message of the Bible. The Bible is written so that we can understand. Don’t get me wrong. However, there is a vocabulary that the Bible uses with which many people are not familiar. There are places difficult to understand. These are for our benefit every bit as much as the Scriptures that are easy to understand. The true scholar can make the child understand these things without confusion. That is the ideal of scholarship, and to that I aspire.
David Gadbois
greenbaggins
paigebritton
Reed Here
reformedmusings
rfwhite
Ron Henzel
Green Baggins 
Preaching in the Vernacular - The PuritanBoard said,
February 11, 2008 at 11:26 am
[…] Originally Posted by greenbaggins It is because people do not understand the true definition of scholarship. This is the true definition of scholarship: to be able to take the most difficult subjects and explain in such a way that anyone can understand. So, anyone who spouts off a mouthful of mumbo-jumbo is not a scholar: anyone can do that. All they would have to do is use a dictionary. The fact is that only a true master of the material can explain it without the jargon. This needs more attention in seminary preaching classes. Lane: this is perfect. You should print this comment somehwere for all to see just as you have it. The other reason is because the average layperson likes a pastor to sound ‘more educated”. SOme people like a Gospel they cannot understand as if it contains so many intricacies that faith by proxy is the norm in so many churches rc and protty alike. The holy Spirit will have none of this ‘scholarship’ The thermometer creates some algorithm that sounds so important that the plowman has no clue, but thinks this is what they should believe. Throw in a little greek , hebrew or latin, and you have them in the palm of your hand. Then one wonders why the Lord is not adding to the body. Repent and believe the Good News, that’s what the Holy Spirit says. Thanks for the suggestion. I have done so (stealing some good thoughts from others as well, most notably Fred Greco’s) here. […]
Steven Carr said,
February 11, 2008 at 12:15 pm
Good points, Rev. Baggins. The idea that the Church is for dummies and the Seminaries are for the intellectuals is totally unfounded. Paul in his epistles is constantly appealing to the mind. “Be transformed by the renewing of your mind, etc.” Seminaries that exist mainly for academic purposes are no seminaries at all. Call them universities but don’t call them seminaries. Seminaries are for making scholar-pastors who can bring the Word of God to the people of God in a biblical, cogent, and prophetic way.
Ruben said,
February 11, 2008 at 2:32 pm
I think it was John Brown who remarked, “It will take all our learning to make these things plain.” But unfortunately my scholarship is not such that I can give you a reference.
Jeff Waddington said,
February 11, 2008 at 9:29 pm
Amen Lane!
I find the greatest challenge in my teaching and preaching ministry in both the academy and in the church is making myself clear.
Daniel Patterson said,
February 12, 2008 at 12:14 pm
Lane,
I completely agree, brother. Thanks for posting this.
thomasgoodwin said,
February 12, 2008 at 5:21 pm
This is where I think Calvin has the upper-hand on guys like Owen and Goodwin. Things are, to use John Murray’s phrase, ‘not immediately perspicuous’ in some 17thC Works.
David R. said,
February 13, 2008 at 6:33 pm
In C.S. Lewis’s essay, “On the Reading of Old Books” (which I think was his introduction to Athanasius’s “On the Incarnation”), he made the observation that the classics are far more lucid than the many modern books that attempt to “explain” them. His essay inspired me to read Calvin’s Institutes, which quickly brought about my rapid “conversion” from broad evangelicalism to the Reformed faith. It was Calvin’s amazing clarity that did it. For the first time I actually understood what the gospel and the Christian life is all about (and I’d been a Christian for 15 years). Amazing that a 450 year old book translated from the Latin could be so clear! Perhaps this is along the lines of what you’re referring to.
greenbaggins said,
February 13, 2008 at 7:02 pm
Mark and David, your comments are right on. It gives me a greater appreciation of the scholastics. Some might think that they are difficult. However, as Muller notes, the whole point of a scholastic method was to teach the material in a school. This means that definitions are very careful, and distinctions are lined out very precisely. I find it refreshingly clear and stimulating. I agree that Owen and Goodwin are more difficult than Calvin (although I think Owen is easier than Goodwin).