Getting it wrong on the White Horse Inn

The Amateur ought not really dare to argue with the professionals, but sometimes it's hard to avoid questioning certain perspectives.
You can hear the White Horse Inn by visiting their website. Even over here in Europe I feel it makes sense, as Europe is battered by every wave of doctrine that sweeps over the Atlantic. WHI acts as an early warning system. But at its best, it is truly an education in the doctrines of the faith.
So what got to me today?
Firstly, I didn't see the fundamental difference between the two sets of ministers interviewed: why did the second lot get so much stick, even from Revd Jones, normally the voice of reason, aware of the other side of the story (including in this broadcast.)
Secondly, why are they so critical of the Willow Creek idea of people being "self-feeders"? Maybe I'm missing something here, but I only go to church on Sunday, and on Tuesday I attend a midweek, lay-led Bible group. What am I to do the other five days? Starve? Perhaps Willow Creek wants to convert people and then pack them off to survive without church, but I can't believe that. They'll need to explain their critique of "self-feeding" a bit here. I need breakfast every day, and I need to know how to prepare it, even if I only get a full-on, chef-prepared hot dinner on Sunday.
Finally, I thought the second question was wrong. That question should have been third. First, the ministers interviewed were asked how important doctrine was in their ministry, and the answers were high: 8 or 10 out of 10. Then they were asked to estimate the knowledge of doctrinal terminology in their congregations. Many spoke of their wanting to communicate the content without the "seminary language".
Now I agree with the WHI guys that we need to teach people the language of the Scripture - although part of that agreement must surely be to help people be self-feeders, able to read Scripture on their own. But I also see that we must make those terms fully accessible, with good analogy and using Scripture to explain Scriptures - both methods - as they also said. I understood all the interviewed ministers as making that point, but also making a third: that conceptual content is more important than the label.
We're about to do Romans at church. If I get the high privilege of doing Romans 3:21-26, then of course I will be explaining terms like justification, propitiation, redemption and righteousness. How I would do that in the short slot we get on Sundays I don't know. But although I'd be delighted if everyone left knowing those words and their meanings, I'd rather they left remembering the meanings than the words, if it were one or the other.
So the second question should have been when those guys last worked through Romans or Galatians or the start of Ephesians. If all of them genuinely meant what they said, then had they worked through one of these books, they would have been involved in defining the terms Paul uses clearly and simply. And if they love their people, they will have been worried first to communicate Paul's ideas, and worrying only secondarily if the appropriate syllable collection sticks.
Which means that whatever we think about theological language, if we preach all of Scripture, we'll end up teaching the ideas and at least presenting all the key words. The answer to being interesting, dramatic, doctrinal and relevant is simple: preach the Word, book by book, chapter by chapter, week in, week out, year after year. Reminding us of that would have helped us all.