God's Knowledge, Who Can Know it? - part 16

While there are a great many interesting views to consider as one ponders eternity, the time-space continuum and the like, in the end a Star Trek epistemology makes for a very poor filter through which to sift one’s theology. On the whole we Americans anyway are so inclined to reject the science for the fiction, the substance for the shadow, ignore the archetype for the type, and praise the ad rather than the product. Just look at the way most television commercials are presented. The reason we come away saying, “That was a great ad but I don’t remember what they were advertising” is because we associate more with the vehicle than its occupants. In an environment where short attention spans are expected, we can see why no one wants to invest the time it takes to really appreciate the product when they can simply enjoy the 30-second advertisement, which often has nothing to do with it. Think of the modernistic movement in painting and other fine arts where the whole philosophy backing it was to display the media at the expense of the composition and content; it was an exercise in communicating nothing through something; even though it did actually communicate something by the absence of content. One example would be Lichtenstein’s “brush stroke”. The idea that was regarded as important was not the thoughts communicated but the tools that were used in communication. Maybe this is one reason why churchgoers are happy to sacrifice good theological lyrics just for a musical style they enjoy better, a variation on the idea of form over content. It happens with preaching as well, often the thing regarded as more important is the homiletically palatable approach rather than the theology communicated in the process. It was architect Mies Van der Rohe who popularized the phrase: form follows function. The function of an object is what must ultimately determine its form. In applying this format to preaching the Word of God we can see that the homiletics of the presentation should be determined by the theology that needs to be communicated from the Word. If there is a dispute between the two then the function of The Word must win out over the form of homiletic style. I admit that I am guilty of all these errors as well. Even in the senior thesis I did for my bachelor’s degree in furniture design I emphasized the process more than the product rendered. Look also at the “Emergent Church” movement wherein the journey is what is emphasized, not the place you might end up. If you set a goal…you may not reach it, and who wants to be considered a failure for not having reached their goals? You may object by saying that this is strictly utilitarian, but I’m not suggesting that we forego aesthetics for use, or emotional pleading for accurate reading, or journey for destination—no, we must have both. Yes, we must have the object but we must also have the reflection, we must have the end but we must also employ means to get there. We must have both content and form. They must work in concert, but the thing depicting must not jealously usurp the authority if the thing which it depicts.