Faith in the History of the Church

I have recently finished reading a book about heresy throughout the history of the Church. It is aptly named Heresies: The Image of Christ in the Mirror of Heresy and Orthodoxy from the Apostles to the Present by Harold O. J. Brown. I am currently reading Evangelism in the Early Church by Michael Green. Both of these are excellent books about the Church in history. One thing they have in common is their assessment of the Church's view of faith during all of its varied phases: its birth in the Apostolic era, the subapostolic era of the great apologists, the ecumenical council era dealing with Christology, and so on. Their assessment is very pertinent to the state of the Church in America in our time.
The American Church tends to be split into distinct camps where one camp does not interact with the other. One camp is interested in the intellectual aspects of the faith: serious study of the Bible, seminary education is held in high esteem, apologetics are a mainstay of evangelistic efforts. Another camp is interested in the spiritual aspects of the faith: Holy Spirit led everything, emotion driven worship and devotion, experience is the hallmark of evangelistic efforts. The issue with these camps is that they are both right. They just ignore the opposite end of the spectrum to their detriment.
There needs to be a blending of these two aspects for the Church to be healthy and engaging in evangelism effectively. The intellectual church needs to open their heart to the influence of the Holy Spirit (in full measure, I am not saying they are not led by the Holy Spirit now) and remember that we are a new creation in Christ; including our emotions (2 Cor. 5:17). The spiritual church needs to open their mind to the influence of sound scholarship and Biblical interpretation principles and realize that virtually every New Testament epistle was written to correct false or misguided teaching and doctrine that had found its way into local congregations. I once heard a great quote from Ravi Zacharias: "Spirituality must always be objectively bounded by the limitations of truth." Ravi was addressing people who say they are spiritual, but not religious, but I think we could tweak this for the spiritual church. Emotions must always be objectively bounded by the limitations of truth. Of course, that objective truth is the Word of God.
I say all that to now return to the two books I referenced above. The assessment of faith that both of these authors offer is this: faith is a twofold action of belief. It is both intellectual assent and active personal trust. Its object is Jesus Christ. We must trust the person and work of Jesus Christ in order to be saved, not just pieces of information about him. While we all believed when we were saved, this is also an ongoing process that God uses to prepare us for the glory to come. Sanctification, among other things, is this process of communing in prayer with God, serving Him by serving others, and so on. This is the active personal trust in Jesus Christ as the Son of God and Savior that makes up part of the equation that equals faith. However, the other side of the equation has an equally important and logically primary role in this active trust. Intellectual assent to propositions about Jesus Christ serve to inform our active trust. An easy way to look at this is to ask the 5 W's and 1 H of journalism with regard to Jesus.

1. Who was Jesus Christ?
2. What is the significance of Jesus Christ?
3. When did Jesus Christ do his significant acts?
4. Why did Jesus Christ do his significant acts?
5. Where did Jesus Christ do his significant acts?
6. How did Jesus Christ do his significant acts?

If we answer these real quickly in the way the early church did, we can get an orthodox picture of Jesus Christ. This is the picture that we should be assenting to intellectually.

1. Jesus is Lord or He is the Son of God. (both of these mean Jesus is God; Acts 2:36; 9:20)
2. He died for your sins and was raised from the dead, so that you might be reconciled to God through his blood if you believe in faith. (Acts 3:26; 4:12)
3. 1st century AD after John the Baptist's ministry. (Acts 10:37)
4. So we could repent and be forgiven of our sins. (Acts 5:31; 10:43)
5. Judea, Galilee, and Jerusalem. (Acts 10:37)
6. He died on the cross as our passover lamb, thereby giving us a way to be cleansed from sin (1 Cor. 5:7). This transaction (our belief in his sacrifice) is called forensic justification. He took our sins and we took his righteousness. Typically called imputation. (2 Cor. 5:21)

You can see that by answering those simple questions we have a clear picture of Christ's person and work. This gives us a solid foundation on which to stand and place our trust. Without that foundation, something is wrong. If I believe Christ was a good moral teacher who was significant for bringing Indian guru teaching to Israel, is that OK? If I believe that Christ was a prophet that didn't really die on the cross is that OK? If I believe that Christ is not really God, but a spirit child of God, just like I am, is that OK? If I believe that Christ is not actually real, but a myth that I can lean on for moral guidance in my life, is that OK? If I believe that Christ did not literally and historically rise from the dead, but he rose "in my heart" (i.e. it's just a metaphor), is that OK?
I think you get the point. Active personal trust is what we do after intellectual assent to the appropriate, factually correct propositions about Jesus Christ. The knowledge must precede the worship, if you will. This doesn't mean you have to answer the 5 W's and an H the way I did. I did that off the top of my head. You may be able to answer them a lot more simply (or more complicated), but still be correct. The point is that you have to answer them correctly before you can have faith that moves you into the business of active personal trust that is part of the ongoing sanctification process that God is leading us through. Since the American Church seems to split down these intellectual and spiritual lines, each side is missing a key component of what makes for a robust faith. We must strive to walk the line between these two worlds so that our faith is not easily shaken. That means having a sound theological understanding of Christ's person and work as well as a thriving personal relationship with the creator and sustainer of the universe.