A Balancing: Christ as the cure to Western Intellectual Biases in Church Experience.

 

Bored With Church

When I was in high school, I still attended church regularly. This was more because of the residual expectation of obedience to my parent's lifestyle of regular church attendance than any interest I held personally. I went because I had to. I went out of obligation.

I recall very little from those middle and high school years now, but what I am confident of is that at that age I was thoroughly bored of "church". Not even the lackadaisical social atmosphere of the “youth group” in all it’s cliche’ trappings — pizza parties, “shut in’s”, games and the ever hopeful promise of seeing that cute girl— made church attendance nothing more than one more thing I had to attend each week. While my younger siblings still attended AWANA’s downstairs, I had graduated to this… “Oh Goodie.”

At some point near my junior year, I remember my parents giving me the choice as to whether I wanted to attend Church anymore, the main service on Sunday mornings with the adults (as if it were some type of privilege) and the Wednesday “youth group”. Needless to say, I stopped going. There was no moment of wrestling with the decision, just immediate decisiveness— and relief! Finally, I could do what I really wanted to do: just hang out with the friends I already had and ignore any excess information that might have been coming at me on top of my regular school work. Eventually, I walked away from any faith I might have had— though I'm pretty that my “faith” had dried up with my last AWANA bucks spent in 5th grade.

Why? Because "church" was just one more thing to do. Why? Because I was already satiated and fulfilled in every other area of my life before adding church to the mix. I had a roof over my head, food to eat, trivial information (in the literal sense) to consume, games to play, abundant love from a wonderful family, and friends to hang out with. Nothing the church had I needed. 

Fast forward through entirely walking away from a religion that I hadn't been interested in since the last Bible verse I memorized (because someone was paying me to do it),  and the college and young adult years of trying out lifestyles and worldviews variant to my upbringing. Most of those years are summarized in that I felt more alive drinking in my friend's basement, smoking weed, listening to music, or making out with my girlfriend than I ever did at church. The Bible quotes Jesus as saying, “The thief comes only to steal and kill and destroy; I came that they may have life, and have it abundantly” (Jn. 10:10). Where was this abundant life that He was talking about?

The reason I walked away from my faith is the similar reason I don't want to go now: It's boring;  It feels like an obligation. It’s just one more thing to check off the list of things to do to validate my “good Christian membership card”. (That gets some excess information, free pizza when I feel like showing up  — oh and more guilt and shame from others on top of what I already deal with from myself.)

As a child, I heard the same big Bible character stories (David and Goliath; Noah; Moses parting the Red sea; Ruth— can't forget about Ruth, our token woman thrown in just so we don't come off as too sexist) over and over and over... As an adult, the same characters are mentioned. Often.  Except now — because I have been conditioned by school systems to be culturally appropriate, to sit still and listen to whoever is speaking at the front of the room— there are interesting pieces of information that I catch!... And then forget a few hours later because I already read two books that week and have a paper due the following Monday. The church to my perspective sure hasn't changed much in 14 years.

But I have.

Recent epiphany: I have experienced, the presence of “God” intimately in the solitude of a high mountain meadow filled with wildflowers. I have known compassion of my Father through desperate prayers alone in my room and wept at the wisdom of my God found on the page of a Bible. I have been moved deeply by the Holy Spirit much more often than I ever have inside the walls of a “church”. 

Why?

Though I have listened to thousands of hours of sermons in various forms— both in a church with the presence of a preacher or through some downloadable audio format --  very few have elicited more than a nod in agreement, a polite return of applause, and consideration while driving home. Those sermons which I have listened to in podcast format, however— ones that have been sent to me by friends or the ones that the Holy Spirit has led me to—  many of those have moved me to repentance, days worth of wrestling, and tears either for joy or sorrow.

Why the contrast?

Whether with the “body of Christ” or apart, the vast majority of those more intimate experiences of the presence of God, for me, have been in solitude, amidst creation, in small communities, and through liturgy— not in or through a sermon while in attendance of a typical, modern church service. 

Why?

My recent conclusion: Systems of tradition, dogma and religion in evangelical church settings have inhibited me from more fully experiencing the presence of God. I have to dig for Him— amidst the order and technique of our services— rather than just meet Him as the Holy Spirit leads my spirit to do so.

There are exceptions to this experiential majority: Both during two separate moments this past spring, one, while during a liturgical Easter service at an Anglican church (not typical of my regular church attendance)  and the other while taking communion.  

The Problem 

Thesis: “Modern Evangelical theology has been stripped of much of its sensuality— the encouragement of consideration and relation to God through the creative Arts and our senses! Part of this is the result of the Iconoclast movements and reactionary Protestant theology, which was incubated in a Western worldview's, historical- cultural emphasis on intellectualism; then exacerbated by a de-emphasis on the holistic experientialism of God attainable through the body.

The question became, “How did we get Here”? Well, it started in Rome. 

Forms over Matter

The Greco-Roman culture was built on the premises and philosophies of men who, even today, are still considered some of the greatest minds that have ever lived. Their ability to promote and defend their views between the various schools of philosophy in competition with each other, required the rhetorical skills necessary to clearly articulate their arguments and sway crowds to side with their philosophies; their worldviews. (Sound familiar?) Que men like Ravi Zacharias, Christopher Hitchens etc…

These same rhetorical skills were perpetuated throughout the entirety of that western culture, in a number of ways— only three of which will be mentioned here: 1) Illiteracy 2) Influential leaders and 3) Government procedures and policy.

Illiteracy was not just commonplace in this era of history, it was the majority. Being that as it was, this culture was oratory. Information was disseminated and refined primarily through conversation. In public squares, markets, schools of thought everywhere. Those who had the ability to memorize and recite parables of wisdom were highly valued and revered. (King Solomon anyone?). This was the intellectual atmosphere of the ancient western worldview.

A quick example of an influential leader responsible for the spread of Greco-Roman culture was Alexander the great. The man was convinced of all this by his personal tutor — ironically by one of the greatest orators and philosophers in history, Aristotle— that these greek philosophies were what the world needed, presumably to maintain order and honor. He was so convinced of the value of these ideas that he went on a conquering spree of the then known world.

Then came the government. With the development of the Republic of Rome social policy was decided through debate. “In order to debate, one had to know the persuasive art of rhetoric. Sometime after Aristotle, writers refined and identified the subject of rhetoric into five parts—Invention, Arrangement, Style, Memory, and Delivery. These five canons are still a part of public speaking in education today.”

This is a very simplistic foundation of our Western Worldview. Don’t believe me? Well, let me just prove my point through scripture. The majority of the Apostle Paul's life was spent in synagogues and forums. We know full well the story of Paul and his conversion but it is important to remember that his mission was, as first to the Jewish people. Even during these synagogue services though, greeks were present. “Meanwhile, Gentiles who were beginning to take interest in the biblical God already had begun crossing the bridge from the other side as they looked to the synagogues as sources of truth. These had already abandoned their searching through the pagan marketplaces for spiritual life.” Turn to Acts 17:16-34 to read a great example of this in Paul's Sermon on Mars Hill. “And also some of the Epicurean and Stoic philosophers were conversing with him.  And they took him and brought him to the Areopagus, saying, “May we know what this new teaching is which you are proclaiming?...so we want to know what these things mean.” Eventually, as we know, when the Jews became to hard-hearted for him to share the gospel, he turned to the Greeks, the gentiles.

Here is the important thing to remember as a really brief summary of the foundations of a western worldview: Though there were many overlapping values to ancient Western and Near Eastern culture, there were most certainly distinguishments which could be made about the particular worldviews that persons held to. Those cultural predispositions, as dictated and influenced by shifts in thought and policy, are hinted at in scripture. Consider 1 Cor. 1 :20-23:

“Where is the debater of this age?... For since in the wisdom of God the world through its wisdom did not come to know God, God was well-pleased through the foolishness of the message preached to save those who believe. For indeed Jews ask for signs and Greeks search for wisdom; but we preach Christ crucified, to Jews a stumbling block and to Gentiles foolishness, but to those who are the called, both Jews and Greeks, Christ the power of God and the wisdom of God.

Our culture, our communities, families, systems of influence etc., predispose all of us to engage with and process reality— and thus the truth of God— through our preconceptions and inbred worldviews. No one is immune to this. The trick is recognizing where, how and why you think about things the way you do. Why did I feel an immediate impulse to defend my point previously?, and why did it come so naturally to do so?, because I was raised in a culture built on the foundations of ancient cultural values or rhetoric, and debate, taught to me in an educational system that reinforced these values that are still alive in our American culture today. Do you think the church is immune to this?

---

Greco-Roman influences Through the Reformation and the Consequences

Greco-Roman culture was one built on the premises and philosophies of men who, even today, are still considered some of the greatest minds that have ever lived. There ability to promote and defend their views between the various schools of thought that arose in competition with each other, required the rhetorical skills necessary to clearly articulate their arguments and sway crowds to side with their philosophies; their worldviews. (Sound familiar?) Que men like Ravi Zacharias, Christopher Hitchens etc…

These same rhetorical skills were perpetuated throughout the entirety of that western culture, in a couple ways— only three of which will be mentioned here: 1) Illiteracy 2) Influential leaders and 3) Government procedures and policy.

Illiteracy was not just commonplace in this era of history, it was the majority. Being that as it was, this culture was oratory. Information was disseminated and refined through conversation! In public squares, markets, schools of thought everywhere. Those who had the ability to memorize and recite parables of wisdom were highly valued and revered. (King Solomon anyone?). This was the intellectual atmosphere of the ancient western worldview.

A quick example of an influential leader responsible for the spread of Greco-Roman culture was Alexander the great. The man was convinced of all this by his personal tutor — ironically by one of the greatest orators and debaters in history, Aristotle— that these greek philosophies were what the world needed. Presumably to maintain order and honor. He was so convinced that he went on a conquering spree of the known world at the time (all that they understood to be on a map).

Then came the government. With the development of the republic of Rome social policy was decided through debate. “In order to debate, one had to know the persuasive art of rhetoric and oratory, or public speaking… Sometime after Aristotle, writers refined and identified the subject of rhetoric into five parts—Invention, Arrangement, Style, Memory, and Delivery. These five canons are still a part of public speaking in education today.”

This is the (basic) foundation of our Western Worldview. Don’t believe me? Well let me just prove my point through scripture. The majority of the Apostle Paul's life was spent in synagogues and forums. We know full well the story of Paul and his conversion but it is important to remember that his mission was, as first to the Jewish people. Even during these synagogue services though, greeks were present. “Meanwhile, Gentiles who were beginning to take interest in the biblical God already had begun crossing the bridge from the other side as they looked to the synagogues as sources of truth. These had already abandoned their searching through the pagan marketplaces for spiritual life.” Turn to Acts 17:16-34 to read a great example of this in Paul's Sermon on Mars Hill. “And also some of the Epicurean and Stoic philosophers were conversing with him.  And they took him and brought him to the Areopagus, saying, “May we know what this new teaching is which you are proclaiming?...so we want to know what these things mean.” Eventually, as we know, when the Jews became to to hard-hearted for him to share the gospel, he turned to the Greeks, the gentiles.

Here is the important thing to remember as a really brief summary. Though there were many overlapping values to ancient Western and Near eastern culture, there were most certainly distinguishments which could be made about the particular worldviews that persons held to. Those cultural predispositions, as dictated and influenced by shifts in thought and policy, are hinted at in scripture. Consider 1 Cor. 1 :20-23:

“Where is the debater of this age?... For since in the wisdom of God the world through its wisdom did not come to know God, God was well-pleased through the foolishness of the message preached to save those who believe. For indeed Jews ask for signs and Greeks search for wisdom; but we preach Christ crucified, to Jews a stumbling block and to Gentiles foolishness, but to those who are the called, both Jews and Greeks, Christ the power of God and the wisdom of God.

Our culture, our communities, families, systems of influence, predispose all of us to engage with and process reality— and thus the truth of God— through our preconceptions and inbred worldviews. No one is immune to this. The trick is recognizing where, how and why you think about things the way you do. Why did I feel an immediate impulse to defend my point previously?, and why did it come so naturally to do so?, because I was raised in a culture built on the foundations of ancient cultural values or rhetoric, and debate, taught to me in an educational system that reinforced these values that are still alive in our American culture today. Do you think the church is immune to these?

Roman and all the other cultures of the Near Eastern world were Idolatrous. The values of entire economies and governments were wrapped up in the religious systems of the day. The Israelites and their sacrificial system to a monotheistic God stood apart from these — when they followed the commands of the Most High God. Romans tolerated the Jews. Into this jumbled culture of philosophies and religions was birthed Jesus Christ, the Son of God. Jesus was God’s plan to reconcile man and all creation back to Himself (Col. 1:20). Jesus Christ is the cure to the maladies of the world. His coming, teaching, death, resurrection and ascension instituted a new order by which the world's philosophies and religions would never again be the same. He brought the initial “revival” of the vitality and actuality of holistic human experience. The things He taught, and His disciples carried on teaching after His ascension into heaven, created a rebalancing of values by which mankind can relate to and experience God and each other. Sadly, within this early church of “Christians”, the holisticness of Jesus teaching— being that it was directly opposed to other idolatrous worldviews at the time— would slowly lose its original purity. The struggle of the early church to pass on a balanced view of God and man carries all the way through to the present. The following is an overview of how Christ's original message of a holistic (intellectualist and experientialist experience of God and self) morphed over the centuries into what we as 21st century American, Protestant Evangelicals now maintain within our doctrines and liturgies as “normal”.

Rough Beginnings

Being that the majority cultures of the near eastern and western worldviews already had a bias towards idolatry, the monotheistic practices of the Jewish sacrificial systems caused this group of people to stand out. By the time Jesus was born and began His ministry, the reach of the Roman empire saw that His teachings post mortem were birthed in a highly volatile and multicultural mixing pot. When the practices of this new sect of Christ followers began the spreading of their gospel, those who heard the message and believed were immediately brought into a whole new worldview— an already conflicted church culture that was struggling to make sense of the new commands that Christ had left the Apostles to propagate. Since Christs coming fulfilled the Mosaic law (Mt. 5:17) and initiated a new system, the Jews who professed Christ had to make sense of what traditions to let go of and what to institute. Debates were commonplace as can be read about in the Bible in such places as 1 Corinthians where food laws and circumcision were a hot topic. Another of these was the gnostic Heresy. Worst of all were the remnant leanings of certain persons towards Idolatry.

Breaking the Most Sacred Commandment: From Idolatry to Iconoclasm

The Ten commandments lays out, as its first two positions that, 1) Human beings shall not acknowledge any gods before Him (Yahweh) 2) That man shall not make any idols to worship aside from Him. “You shall have no other gods before Me. You shall not make for yourself an idol, or any likeness of what is in heaven above or on the earth beneath or in the water under the earth.“You shall not worship them or serve them...” (Ex 20:3–6.). To break this was sin.

Being that the majority cultures of the near eastern and western worlds had religious roots in paganism and idolatry, these remnant cultish rites among recent converts led to a synchronization of pagan and Christian values that developed into veneration. Veneration was, at its basic level,  a synchronistic practice of the reverence of Christ and (primarily) early saints. The practice became an issue in the early church when those images utilized began to hint of Idolatry— a hard dissociation to make when an entire culture has predisposed someone to meeting, or rather approaching a god, through the assistance of an image.  “The Worship of Saints, handed down from the Nicene age, was a Christian substitute for heathen idolatry and hero-worship, and well suited to the taste and antecedents of the barbarian races, but was equally popular among the cultivated Greeks”. The enactment of limitations by the Catholic church against which persons could be sainted.  This was a conservative position to inhibit the rise of possible idolatry.

 The worshipping of saints, veneration, there a clear connection to the worship of the images and relics associated to those saints. Philip Schaff in his multi-volume work history of the Christian Church states that, “The latter is the legitimate application of the former. But while the mediæval churches of the East and West...were agreed on the worship of saints... a violent controversy about the images which kept the Eastern church in commotion for more than a century” Thus the question surrounding the use of images, icons (art) in worship — and thus the postures of contemplation associated to their engagement —  was born out of this controversy and is inextricably tied to our modern understanding of the relationship of art to worship. Again Schaff makes the connection. “The abstract question of the use of images is connected with the general subject of the relation of art to worship”. On this same plane, conservatives who argue against the use of art in churches. Philip Ryken, a scholar of Oxford and Wheaton colleges write is his book Art for God’s Sake says, “those who feel art is forbidden by the scripture points first of the Ten Commandments…”(Ryken). In this way there is a direct link to the sins of the past and the modern church postures toward the use of art in Churches. Protestants, however, have maintained this distancing more so than the Orthodox and Catholic churches. Much of this is the result of reactionary doctrines in response to the Schism of the Catholic and Protestant church in the reformation.

The solidification of Western Education and Western Intellectualism

What began as a result of differing opinions about the veneration of Saints and its relation to iconography led to, first, the Byzantine iconoclast movement then, second, spilled over into the Protestant Reformation.  “In Christian history, there were two major outbreaks of iconoclasm in the eighth and ninth century Byzantine Empire. Later, important episodes of Christian iconoclasm took place during the Protestant Reformation”(New World Encyclopedia).

The role of the church during these early and middle centuries of church history were found predominantly in the isolated communities of monks which dedicated themselves to the study and copying of ancient greek text and the  Scriptures. These monks kept the word of God alive during the Dark Ages long enough for the printing press to be invented and then take the place of Scribes. “It was the century when ancient Greek and Latin manuscripts preserved in monasteries… paving the way for the Renaissance, the rebirth of antiquity which, in synthesis with Christianity, produce[d] a unique new civilization”(Paparella). The establishment of the the oldest universities in the world were built as necessity and in partnership to the practice of Law and Theology. What the reader must not overlook is the residual continuation of Roman rhetorical culture and value of wisdom (1 Cor. 1 :20-23) continuing into the formation of western universities. Dr. Read Schuchardt say this of that era: “By the time the Italian paper industry was going full swing, the need for a manufacturing system became so great that Gutenberg's printing press arrive just in time to save the backs, next, and risk of thousands of scribes. In fact, you might even say that the printing press produced the modern University as we know it”

On the backs of the printing press and the philosophical revolutions that gradually shifted over the centuries, the teaching and preaching of the word usurped the previously dominant methodology of teaching and preaching the Gospel to the laity in the form of church art and iconography such as stained glass, sculpture and paintings. Again, Dr. Schuchardt speaks to this point.

By the end of the Reformation, another victim of the printing press was auricular confession as more books intervened between sinner and priest, complicating the once simple confessional into a legalistic and Byzantine and contradictory list of sins, punishments and exceptions. And yet it did not kill listening, because of the relative scarcity of literacy in the early period, the primary result for the mass audience, by which I mean the actual parishioner attending mass, was that the focus of the church service changed from looking to listening. In a Gothic Cathedral the stained glass windows, the statuary, and the paintings, and the side chapels were all places where parishioners walked to, had devotions in groups or clusters, and the church service” [my italics].

With the layity of the era almost entirely illiterate the priest was the intermediary between God and man. While the formations of such church structure were most certainly ill intended, what eventually developed was a limitation of access to God except with by the way of the priest. The reading of the Bible as well, it was maintained by the Catholic church, that the church alone held the powers of correct interpretation of the scriptures. Thus there was a door between God and man (the priest) bolted so that no one could approach God without the Catholic meditation.

“In the 4th century Saint Augustine wrote that the Bible was the supreme guide...he added that the Church taught the exact meaning of the Scripture and it’s correct interpretation. In the 16th century... the Pope’s representative who opposed Luther declared that any interpretation had to take into account former commentaries and reflect Church doctrine”. This was what Luther disagreed with and what brought about the doctrines of Sola Gratia and Sola Scriptura. Luther maintained  “scripture should only be interpreted according to ‘the conscience, bound by the Word of God” Thus Luther's thoughts lead to the break  from the Catholic church saying that the Bible should not be entirely linked to traditional interpretations

Luther contested its traditional inextricable association with its interpretation by the Church: this is one of the meanings of “Sola scriptura”, that the Bible should not be interpreted by the clergy. In the 16th century, the interpretation of the Bible had become controversial, critical of the church institution. The way in which Protestants read the Bible led to the reforming of the Church.

Reformation Reactions: Catholic Traditions = “Ick..”

However good and right these doctrines were in freeing up the way for all humanity to come to God through the Word, the unfortunate and long-standing repercussions of the split between the Catholic Church into a secondary “Protestant” church in the 1600s is that whatever beauty in the form of architecture, art, icons and liturgy which could be associated with the Catholic church was thrown out. From this point forward, the Protestants had to build their own traditions. What was placed at the pinnacle of this new order was scripture. In combination to the thriving culture of rhetoric, being reinforced in academia, the structure of church services were constructed to highlight the Word of God both spoken and read.  The elevation or oratory culture created shifts even into the architectural organization of churches. “After the Reformation, almost all Protestant churches could be distinguished by the presence of pews or rows of chairs. The printing press also put an end to Gregorian chants, and to the construction of their acoustic places, the Gothic cathedrals”. From here the Protestant church has remained in these transnational postures throughout the 19th and 20th centuries.

The development of a Liberalist movement— with their inclusion of experiential theology, such as those found in the Pentecostal circles of the Azusa street revival —  created a further reactionary posture from religious conservatives. “At the heart of  liberalism was an innovative relocation of the locus of theological authority away from traditional sources such as the Bible and Church, toward a supposedly universal human reality— a religious experience.” This greatly frightened the conservative alternative who began to counter this movement of experientialism by claiming“as its pedigree the Reformation heritage of fidelity of scripture” These persons, out of caution and fear, thinking that they had a strong handle on what the truth of the entirety of the Christian tradition should be, overreacted and elevated scripture far above any other form by which man my know and experience God. This has left our churches and communities in a deficit of the sensuousness of bodily experience with and in God's creation and the arts. 

Thus, the emotionally reactive ideas of Reformation theology became seeds propagated into the growing church,  solidifying an intellectualist bias of presentation and approach to God, overshadowing any traditions of experientialism. The Protestant abandonment of Catholic doctrine and traditions, destroyed and perpetuates a phobia of sense experience while maintaining its oratory and intellectualist bais. The way to God is now, first and foremost through the mind.

Just like the notorious kudzu vine, these underlying influences have lived on into our modern church in the form of doctrine and plausibility structures. These were created and maintained by fundamentalist, intellectually biast denominations, choking out what would otherwise be a holistic, balanced approach to God in doctrine and liturgy. Art and sensory experience has its place in culture, but not in the church.

Part II: The Yearnings of the Soul

The Yearnings of the Soul

The phrase “New Age” movement is one that Christians are all to familiar with, but in a very wary sense.  The rightly cautious nature of believers to any philosophies, religions and ideologies which would distract an individual from the knowledge of the Truth, Jesus Christ (Jn. 14:6), should be maintained in light of any new information scientific or otherwise. But my place here is not to make a case for or against participation in the “new age” movement. Instead it is to posit that the origins of this movement are 1) cry of a person's soul for holistic healing rather than just through information 2) not original to history and 3) the manifestation of a deeper, universal longing that human beings in this life struggle to overcome: the sense of eternity; the sense of something beyond themselves and an average of 70 years of life and then... death.

Is it merely coincidence that the “new age” movement occurred so close to the “hippie” movement of America in the ’60s? Encyclopedia Britannica offers this: “[The New Age] movement...spread through the occult and metaphysical religious communities in the 1970s and ʾ80s.” At the same time this generation was throwing off the limited worldviews of their parents ideologies through drugs, sex, and Rock & Roll, there was also another spiritual revival taking place called the Jesus movement. For those who never heard the gospel proclaimed or, more likely, just didn't want any part of it, the new age movement is the attempt to discover healing in ways other than Jesus Christ. “The [new age] movement also spoke to the sick and psychologically wounded, especially those who had been unable to find help through traditional medicine and psychotherapy.

I will not remove myself from this group of seekers. In fact, I know that it is because of an intensely deep longing to make sense of my life, existence, that I found myself in my mid-twenties searching for answers to the big questions of life: “What’s the purpose of Life?”; “What happens after I die?” etc. First, it was through a “hippie” lifestyle, when that didn't satisfy,  For me — and I'm quite sure for millions of other people throughout the millennia— that answer was found in a deity. I say a deity because it is clear that as we look back over the course of world history there have been many proposed answers to these questions about life, but, interestingly, each question can be reduced to a common subject: deities. Which brings me to the first point: That the new age movement is not original to history, it just has a new “label”.

There are… well, a lot of gods which have been worshipped throughout history. (Because I was curious I googled the question “How many gods have been worshipped throughout history?”. What came back from a quick search was a book with the title Encyclopedia of Gods: Over 2,500 of the World ). As with most complex issues, my mind goes again to the most obvious question: “Why?”. The answer to that question just brings us back to the previous point: that people are seeking to explain their existence. When we look to the bible though, we find statements that speak more concisely to the “why”.

This is from Ecclesiastes 3:10-11, a book written by, supposedly, one of the wisest men that has ever lived. Perhaps he has a perspective worth considering:

I have seen the task which God has given the sons of men with which to occupy themselves. He has made everything appropriate in its time. He has also set eternity in their heart, yet so that man will not find out the work which God has done from the beginning even to the end. (Ec 3:10–11)

The word “eternity”, (עֹולָם [ʿowlam] for you bible nerds) is, according to the Strong’s Lexicon, means “for ever, always. 1b2 continuous existence, perpetual. 1b3 everlasting, indefinite or unending future, eternity”. I take this to mean that there is a sense, a deep knowledge that there is more to our brief lives and that “the one true God” (John 17:3), Jesus Christ has created each person with a yearning to know Him. That sense of eternity is tied into that knowledge. “This is eternal life, that they may know You, the only true God, and Jesus Christ whom You have sent” (Jn 17:3). The apostle John is not the only writer in the bible that offers an overlapping perspective answer to this sense. The Apostle Paul also shares his thoughts on this matter of eternity— though he’s more blunt:

For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men who suppress the truth in unrighteousness, because that which is known about God is evident within them; for God made it evident to them… For even though they knew God, they did not honour Him as God or give thanks, but they became futile in their speculations, and their foolish heart was darkened” (Ro 1:18–21; my italics and bold)

For any of you familiar with that passage and were paying attention, you will notice that I committed a line—  it will be brought back around to serve another point in a moment. For now, though we will reflect that there are at least two places in the bible which offer partial answers to this universal longing and sense of eternity. What happens though when this sense of eternity is sought in the religions and philosophies of a culture that has already come up with various possible answers to this question? You get 2,500 deities to choose from. You also get the exploration of creation and self. I guess we could just sum up that pursuit of knowledge and call it the “new age” movement.

Now the question becomes, “How do we come to know God?”. The answers most certainly comes through the reading of the word, but I’d like to offer a brief word study on the specific uses of the Greek word utilized in the passages such as John 17:3. The word in the greek is γινώσκω (ginōskō).  James Swanson, in the Dictionary of Biblical Languages, offers the following definitions for how we should understand the various meanings carried by the word. “1. Know recognize, be aware (Ro 1:21) 2. learn, acquire information, implying personal means (Mk 6:38); 3. be familiar with, learn to know, through personal experience (Jn 17:3; 1Jn 2:3); 4. understand, come to know, perceive (Ro 7:7)”.

Notice, that of the four uses of the word, that two of them imply a process which is intellectually based, involving more in the action of the mind (as in Romans 1:21), the other two imply— as the definitions show— a “personal” exchange, as in relational. But, the use of the word in John 17:3, of which Jesus himself is speaking, is that we “learn to know, through personal experience”.

Personal experience then, knowing God, involves more than the mind. It involves more than just the reading and oration of the word of God. It involves more than just sitting in pews and listening. If this is the case, then why is the predominance of our church services week after week for hundreds of years constructed to present God in this way?

At least part of the answer has been presented previously in the case that our western culture has first, predisposed and perpetuated a culture of intellectualism, of seeking “wisdom” like the Greeks who preceded us (1 Cor. 1:22) ; second, of rejecting the use of icons, liturgy and art for fear of idolatry and any semblance of Catholic tradition;  and third, of avoiding sense experience because we are Protestants, fundamentalists who, greatly frightened by the liberalism movement of experientialism,  “began to counter this movement… by claiming“as its pedigree the Reformation heritage of fidelity of scripture”. The above reactions have led us to a dichotomization of our experience of God as human beings, primarily in church.

Where do we go from here?

A misunderstanding of humanities need for a holistic experience of God has left us fractured as beings— though we may not be conscious of this, in many ways we have been living as if the body and the soul are somehow separate. Ironically such behaviour has brought us full circle back to Greco- Roman Philosophy:  Aristotle's philosophies of hylomorphism, forms and matter. Note even Stanford university lends claim to what I have already positioned above:

Aristotle famously contends that every physical object is a compound of matter and form. This doctrine has been dubbed “hylomorphism”, a portmanteau of the Greek words for matter (hulê) and form (eidos or morphê). Highly influential in the development of Medieval philosophy, Aristotle’s hylomorphism has also enjoyed something of a renaissance in contemporary metaphysics. [my bold text]

The tragic part is that we do not recognize the lapse because the majority opinion of what is “normal”, common, in how to know God is that which is currently acted out in the church. Francis Schaeffer, however, had something to say about this in 1973— ironically near the close of the Hippie movement and the beginnings of the “new age” movement. He speaks to all this in his seminal work Art and the Bible:

The lordship of Christ over the whole of life means that there are no platonic areas in Christianity,  No dichotomy or hierarchy between the body and soul. God made the body as well as a soul and redemption is for the whole man. Evangelicals have been legitimately criticized for often being so tremendously interested in seeing Souls gets saved and go to heaven that they have not cared much about the whole man.

This, of course, is what I have argued has been lived out in the church for centuries. How are we to overcome this?

There is a lesson I have listened to many times—  on its first discovery, I listened to it on repeat as if it were a new album. The lesson is entitled Comprehensive Spirituality, and it is the condensation of years worth of a man's single focused lesson into one talk. The man's names Ellis Potter. For sake of copyright issues, I cannot include the direct link to the episode here, but I can include the database where you may download it yourself for free. Go to the L’Abri Ideas Library, then, in the search bar type in the above title and speaker name. His basic premise is the presentation that we have dichotomized, divided, our experience of God and self into “spiritual” and un-spiritual behaviours. Instead, he argues, with scripture that all of life is “spiritual”. Working, eating, sleeping, learning, mourning etc, no action of our lives is separated from God.

This message is a key to this entire thesis.

Now that we have (as much as possible in this limited format) laid out a basic case for the history, and development of our church cultures bias towards intellectualism, we must turn to the offering of solutions.

I will begin here by saying two things: 1) To renew the church’s knowledge of God, the experience of God, we must collectively seek a new understanding of the fullness of God and ourselves. 2) Being that the church is comprised of individuals, action must be initiated individually, at a personal level.

The “church” and its services are determined by its people. People are defined by their thoughts. Culture (Western; American; Protestant etc.) influences our thoughts. We need to rethink our culture— the information from outside and within.  The Church should be informing Western culture; western culture should not advise the church.

I am arguing for reform. I am not ignorant to the massiveness of the undertakings that these reforms would entail. It will take decades of slow, gradual rejection and introduction of new practices. This will involve the enactment of our generation, and the development of traditions which can be handed down. The following are three components which should be considered:

First, a reconsideration and reinclusion of traditions which the worldwide church has maintained both historically and cross-culturally. Yes, even Catholic and Orthodox traditions of iconography, liturgy and Art. The Reformation was successful in its building upon the doctrines of sola gratia and sola scriptura to form an alternative church. Now that Protestantism has long since been established, we need to reconcile with our brothers and sisters cross-denominational and cross-culturally. Not a new idea I know, but here’s one: attend other churches— especially those outside of your comfort zone denominationally. Listen, observe, and allow the Lord to enact compassion and understanding towards your neighbor; your family. Our allegiance should be to Christ, not to a denomination.

Second, being that the totality of life was called good in the garden of Eden,  that Jesus is the word that became flesh and dwelt among us (Jn. 1:14), and, through his suffering with us (Heb. 2:10),  validates every experience of our beings, we need to consider how to attend to the experience of God in all things. This takes place in the church yes, but especially on an individual level in the remainder of life. Another solution, is the meditations on Natural Revelation. “For since the creation of the world His invisible attributes, His eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly seen, being understood through what has been made, so that they are without excuse” (Rm 1:20). Go outside.  Spend time in the unadulterated beauty of a forest or mountain range and allow creation to reveal God to you as you observe Him through what’s been made. Maybe, as you sit in a meadow full of wildflowers that you have discovered, you too will experience the presence of God.

Third, the long term prescription is a renewing of our minds; the cultural ideologies by which we have operated. I am  also advocating that we must seriously reconsider our understanding and definition of “church”; our ecclesiology. This must be enacted by both attendees and, especially, church leadership. This is much longer of a discussion to be had, one that we do not have the space to go into now. For the moment I will pose a single question, and then offer scripture to consider. Where in the New Testament does it say that a church resides in a building? As far as I’ve seen, it doesn't. I think the structures we have utilized for our gatherings, our “worship” services, were adopted from a previous model of Jewish temple worship. But even the “temple” with its sacrificial systems were fulfilled in Christ (Mt. 5:17-20). With that, and the curtain of the temple being torn (Mt. 27:51), all access to God was made available to anyone who comes through Christ. Since we have this great high priest who has made a way, we should “draw near with confidence to the throne of grace”(Heb. 4:16).

If the use of a building has been necessitated by our ideas of worship, then we must also consider how and where worship is to be enacted. The Bible speaks to this as well. Jesus, when questioned by a Samaritan woman as to where she and her contemporaries where to worship (Jn. 4:20), was answered with a how statement:  “But an hour is coming, and now is, when the true worshipers will worship the Father in spirit and truth; for such people the Father seeks to be His worshipers. God is spirit, and those who worship Him must worship in spirit and truth” (Jn 4:23–24). Our service traditions, and thus our church buildings,  have been constructed in response to the highlighting of musical performances and rhetoric. The church must untangle itself from Western culture so as to live out the directives of the  kingdom of God as taught by Jesus Christ.

With all of life— mind, body, spirit, and creation—  called “good” in Genesis, how will you now begin to seek to know the presence of God?

Bibliography:

Ainsworth, Thomas. “Form vs. Matter.” Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, Stanford University, 8 Feb.

2016, plato.stanford.edu/entries/form-matter/

Grenz, Stanley J., and John R. Franke. Beyond Foundationalism: Shaping Theology in a Postmodern Context. Westminster John Knox Press, 2001. 59

James Strong, Enhanced Strong’s Lexicon (Woodside Bible Fellowship, 1995)

James Swanson, Dictionary of Biblical Languages with Semantic Domains: Greek (New estament) (Oak Harbor: Logos Research Systems, Inc., 1997).

“Iconoclasm.” Ohio River - New World Encyclopedia, New World Encyclopedia, www.newworldencyclopedia.org

“L'Abri Ideas Library.” L'Abri Ideas Library: Search the Library, www.labri-ideas-library.org/search-the-library.asp

Learning, Lumen. “Principles of Public Speaking.” Lumen Learning, Lumen, courses.lumenlearning.com/publicspeakingprinciples/chapter/the-roman-republics-adoption-of-rhetoric/

Melton, J. Gordon. “New Age Movement.” Encyclopædia Britannica, Encyclopædia Britannica, Inc., 7 Apr. 2016, www.britannica.com/topic/New-Age-movement.

New American Standard Bible: 1995 Update (La Habra, CA: The Lockman Foundation, 1995).

Paul and the Synagogue.” Netivyah, 9 Jan. 2018, netivyah.org/paul-and-the-synagogue

Philip Schaff and David Schley Schaff, History of the Christian Church, vol. 4 (New York: Charles Scribner’s Sons, 1910), 448.

“Read Schuchardt | The Reformation As Media Event (4/7/2016).” YouTube, YouTube, 8 Apr. 2016, youtu.be/Y4y6p93PJyY.

Schaeffer, Francis A. Art and the Bible. InterVarsity Press, 2009.

Schuchardt, Read Mercer. Media, Journalism, and Communication: a Student's Guide. Crossway, 2018. 47

Solomon - The Wise and Foolish.” Biblical Training.org,www.biblicaltraining.org/library/solomon/52-major-stories-of-the-bible/william-mounce