Eternal Perspectives

Sadly, Dan at Cerulean Sanctum has concluded his series on The Church’s Brave New Brain after only three posts. I say sadly because (a) he makes some wonderful points, (b) he is pointing in the right direction (pun intended), but (c) he stops short of what could and would make a difference in the church’s efforts in evangelism and – especially – discipleship.

In developing his argument, Dan says,

Having increasingly been disenfranchised by Evangelicalism in America, right-brained thinkers fled to other non-Evangelical Christian sects or abandoned the Church altogether. The irony of this flight is that conservative Christians have lamented the death spiral of our culture, fighting tooth and nail against the threat of degraded culture, a culture largely derived from the vacuum created by the same conservatives’ inability to keep the right-brainers in the pews.”

In other words, the predominant and unbalanced emphasis on “left-brain” functions in the majority of evangelical churches has created the problem. Unable to think outside the box, the “left-brain church” (L-BC) has no hope of solving the problem: it can only vilify, castigate, excoriate and further insulate itself from the very part of the Body of Christ – the “right-brain church” (R-BC) – that it so desperately needs in order to be whole.

[I must impose an intercalation - a fine dispensational term if ever there was one - to say that I find it somewhat peculiar to be talking about the church's brain. I had always assumed that Christ was the Head of the church, locally and universally, and as such He was the brains of the organism. Perhaps many churches are unhealthy because they have no brain, i.e., they have been cut off from the Head (Col 1.18, 2.18-19). But I understand Dan's metaphor, so I will endeavor not to get too distracted by my left-brained dissonance.]

Dan continues:

The problem facing the Church in this dramatic shift is that the whole of Christendom can’t seem to find a balance point from which to address this change. We’ve been so long in the left-brained aspect of Christianity that incorporating right-brained thinking in our message smacks of compromise to some. But right-brained people, long marginalized both inadvertantly and calculatingly, want to know Christ, too. And in many cases, our heavily left-brained presentation of the Gospel hasn’t gotten through to them.”

Dan then contrasts Mt 22.15-22 with Mt 13.3-9 as representative of Christ utilizing both left- and right-brain teaching, respectively. While I would stop short of referring to this as “teaching,” it is certainly illustrative of left- and right-brain appeals. The former is a logical debate while the latter is a parable, i.e., an extended metaphor.

[Now, although I am about to disagree with Dan momentarily, I am not disagreeing with the point he has vividly and poignantly made, i.e., that the church is wrong-headed in its practice and needs correction. As I said above, he is headed in the right direction but stops short of a more complete solution. This may be due to lack of information only or because he firmly believes that his approach is sufficient. Either way, Dan and I are singing from the same hymnal on this - that is, if we can agree on which one to use!]

In my view, Dan misconstrues the implications of this, a precursor of his (again, in my view) underdeveloped solution to the problem:

Here we have narrative, the backbone of right-brained teaching. The images, in stark contrast to the teaching above, are metaphorical. Jesus ends by saying that those who can understand should understand–not a left-brained summation at all. In most cases we do not see Jesus teaching the intelligentsia using parables–those are usually shared with the common people.

Narrative is not the backbone of right-brained “teaching,” although it may be considered vital in engaging the right hemisphere of the brain in the learning process. Nor is Dan correct in saying that Jesus’ summation is “not a left-brained” appeal: whether refering to “hear” in Mt 13.9, “know” in 13.11, or “understand” in 13.13, all involve left-brain processes.

I am not seeking to beat a dead horse, but it is important to understand what is happening in the second passage Dan has adduced. It bears greatly on how the church can avoid being either L-BC or R-BC.

The first word, “hear” in v. 9, is the Greek akouo, which simply means to pay attention and consider what has just been said. It also implies that there is understanding and that the hearer is able to make sense of what has been said. The second term, “know,” is a word likely familiar to most readers: it is the Greek ginosko. According to one lexicon, it means “to know, understand, perceive, and have knowledge of” something, which in this case would be the parable that Jesus just taught. The final word is suniemi, “understand,” which means “to set or join together in the mind.”

Contrary to Dan’s statement, the left hemisphere of the brain is very much involved in Jesus’ use of parables in general and Mt 13.3-9 specifically. Although the parable itself engages the right hemisphere with its imagery and metaphorical narrative, it is critical that the other hemisphere consider, understand, and interpret what the parable means. It is for this reason that Jesus often has to explain parables to His disciples: they did not understand cognitively. The problem with those who did not comprehend was not that they were too left-brained but that they were not left-brained enough.

The problem is not either-or; the solution is both-and, as Dan explains later:

The corpus callosum is a band of nerves that connects the left and right hemispheres of the brain. If ever we needed someone to be that part of the Body of Christ, it’s now. We need people who can bridge that gap and bring doctrine and beauty, facts and mystery, and community and individuality together. Those might sound completely incompatible, but to a bridge person, they’re not.

As I explained in my leviathan-like post “Christ on the Brain” (or, for the conclusion only, go here), there are three components to brain-based learning; not surprisingly, Christ employed all three in His training of the twelve. The components are:

1. Relaxed alertness
2. Orchestrated immersion
3. Active processing.

“Relaxed alertness” means being in an environment that is safe, loving, supportive, but also challenging. “Orchestrated immersion” means that the student/disciple is deliberately and actively involved in learning process, not merely sitting and absorbing like a passive sponge. “Active processing” means that, following the experience, there is an opportunity to discuss and assimilate what has just transpired, i.e., to reflect and consider it.

This is precisely what Jesus did with the Twelve. He loved them but challenged some of their most cherished beliefs; He actively sent them out or called upon them to solve an immediate problem (knowing that they could not), and He frequently sat and explained teachings and events to them afterwards (e.g., some parables or why they were unable to cast out a demon).

Brain-based or Christ-like teaching involves these three components; these three aspects engage and involve both hemispheres of the brain as well as both cognitive and affective dimensions of the learning experience. All are necessary but the church generally speaking has failed to utilize such an approach.

Dan has accurately diagnosed the problem and pointed in the proper direction for fixing it. But a little more is required than just developing the spiritual corpus callosum in the church: it means developing brain-based learning in each member of the Body of Christ so we can all participate and benefit from the various gifts He has bestowed upon His people.