Of course, being a seminary student, I must always find some aspect of any book with which I disagree—it is simply a burden I must carry. Sweet, who is a seminary professor, ironically downplays the role of the intellect in the life of a believer. Christianity, he says, is not to be lived out solely in the mind; it is to be experienced. He even goes so far as to say that theological and philosophical debates might do some good in the ivory towers, but they do nothing for the average person. (Never mind that everyone has a theology and a philosophy, no matter how common.) Sweet goes on to format his idea of the Christian life like this:
It seems as if Sweet is saying that the mind and experience are completely distinct from one another. For too long, he argues, the intellectuals in the church have controlled and subdued Jesus. No, he says, to know Jesus you must experience him, and to know the Truth you must experience it. He does briefly acknowledge the role of the mind, but the reader gets the sense that Truth is 95% experiential and 5% intellectual in nature.
I, on the other hand, would describe the life of a believer more like this:
Truth through Jesus serves as the foundation of the faith. The mind and experience, however, cannot be completely separate. Each interacts with and affects the other, and each serves as a corrective to the other. Truth is not found solely through experience or intellectual pursuit. Rather, it is a bedrock upon which both sides are built.
All in all, this is not an attempt to knock Leonard Sweet. There are some good tidbits of knowledge in the book (perhaps I will blog of these later). And I agree with his overall premise. I think he is offering a needed corrective--i.e. let's make church a place where people want to come--but he over-steers the ship. The church needs sharp minds as much as it needs authentic lives. After all, as a wise author once wrote, we are a body.
5 comments:
good critique jon, he may be so hesitant of the mind's impact in one's walk since he is viewing it through the prisim of a philosophical assumption which says the mind possess all power. the philosphical community is wrought with the conclusion of man's brain power equates him to being a God. with which i would agree with his critscisims . just a thought!
Jon
As I read this I kept thinking that Srarbucks was a place where intelectuals cogregated. To be consistent in patronage, perhaps it would be better to take a look at the bar seen. If you think this far fetched, check out this video. Be sure to watch the end.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nVP_qJf6_ow&eurl=http%3A%2F%2Fwww%2Ealittleleaven%2Ecom%2F
Interesting song for a church service. Thank God my church has not yet done an "American Idol" theme.
scene not seen, :( I'm so imbarased.
Interesting thoughts about Starbucks and the bar scene. Good stuff to think about.
Also interesting about the interaction between mind and emotions and body, etc. Those who talk about the church being dominated by intellectuals will start to sound very cliche after not too long. For one thing this simply hasn't been the dominant theme of the past. There have been many churches and denominations that have operated purely on experience devoid of logic and knowledge years before it became stylistic to denounce intellectuals. I would argue that the growing trend is anti-intellectualism. The key, from my perspective is to follow your suggestion and begin asking how we can engage the whole person and not isolate the mind to the detriment of experience or isolate experience to the detriment of the mind.
Post a Comment