Why Don't Worship Leaders Ask, "What then is Man?"

The debate between dichotomists, trichotomists and those theologians who hold one of various kinds of 'unity' views of man is an old one and is not likely to be resolved any time soon. The most likely reasons for the difficulty of coming to agreement are (as far as I can tell):

1. Like many of our favourite topics to fight about, although man's nature is discussed throughout scripture, the exact nature of the composition of man is not described clearly anywhere in the Bible. This situation generally leads to a sort of theological cold war in which Christians in each camp hide behind high walls of systematised theology, minding their own business, but keeping a close eye on their neighbours, ready at any moment to drop their 'proof-text' bombs over the metaphorical wall. Like The Butter Battle Book by Seuss.
2. This theology seems to be very connected. By this I mean that, if you hold one view above another, you will be compelled (we are warned by finger-wagging self-styled experts) to commit yourself to all the theology that follows from it. For example, Dr Yates (in his essay for the journal Evangelical Quarterly, The Origin of the Soul: New Light on an Old Question, 1989) seems to argue that if you hold with a unity view of man, you are committing yourself to materialism and unwittingly denying the possibility of resurrection from the dead (ye gads!) 
3. Not Christians in general, but certainly more conservative evangelicals, have been wary of consulting evidence from science to fill in the gaps left by unclear scripture, especially regarding anthropology and psychology. This may be due to the way Ultra-Darwinists like Dennet or Dawkins (neither of whom seem to understand modern biology much, and religion at all) use arguments ostensibly 'from' anthropology to attack the faith. Of course it may not be their fault at all. It may be the fault of experiences with the Intelligent Design lobbyists, who love to threated Evangelicals with hell if they don't believe their 'science'. Or perhaps it's just because Christians have been lazy.

Regarding the first problem, I can only say that while we may have to concede with Augustine (On the Soul and its Origin) that no single doctrine of the soul or its origin can be proved by scripture, this does not mean that Scripture has nothing to say on the subject. We should at least take a gander.

Regarding the second problem, I can only say that it is specifically because this theology is so connected to other important doctrines (for my purposes, especially the theology and practice of worship and liturgy) that we should study it closely. It is my feeling that a lot of the reasons given for why we cannot hold a particular view are completely stupid (for want of a more charitable word).

Regarding the third problem, I can only say that we need to get over ourselves and grow up.

In conclusion, I can't find any good reason why worship leaders don't ask, "What then is man?" So I guess I'll have to do it.

So that's that.

PS: If you have no idea what I'm talking about, these diagrams should help: