Does Christology obscure Jesus?

I was at a family dinner last week and a family member, a facebook friend of mine, told me he had trouble understanding what was going on in this blog. The family member who said this is a Baptist from the South, like me, and is in fact a very faithful church member. I think this is a theological problem, one I like to think about.

I looked over some recent posts and noticed that they were a bit technical, especially some of my Christology posts. When I say I write in a "technical" way I mean I use terms that would only be familiar to students who have taken a theology class or two, or to well-read self taught theologians. These are terms like "christology" or "eschatology." I write in a "technical" way also in that I presume basic knowledge of theologically significant figures like Thomas Aquinas or Dietrich Bonhoeffer.

I write in this way for two reasons. One reason is to keep my blog short: the benefit of technical terms is that you can say a lot more in a lot less space when you wager that your readers can understand shorter references. A second reason is that I planned this blog to be for "academic" theologians, and the pattern of "ecumenical" discussion here follows the train of academic theology (looking at the theological and philosophical presuppositions behind doctrine, rather than local churches working together on service or worship projects, both of which are very important aspects of "ecumenism").

This said, the idea that posts on Christology are hard to understand bothered me. Didn't Paul proclaim "Christ crucified" as a simple (but difficult in a different way) message? Christ is the center of our worship and piety. The Bible says that Jesus not only is the image of the invisible God, but that in a way the whole world hangs together through him (Colossians 1:17). How can our Christology get so complicated that regular folks who have given their lives to Jesus can't understand what we are saying about him?