Saying our beliefs are intellectually provable would be an overstatement, but they are intellectually supportable. In fact, I'm convinced that if you put forth intellectual arguments for every world view, the Christian defense would be the MOST compelling argument. This is a tremendously important point for me (could be my Engineer's brain and training showing through).
If I went as far as to say that the only defense of our faith required is intellectual though, I'd be neglecting all the other important and accurate points you are making.

Personally, increasing intellectual understanding of the faith has been critical to my overall spiritual growth.

3 years ago I would have called anyone who believed in predestination a wack job. 2 years ago I would have thought of anyone who believed in a rapture as a nutter. Simply because these views didn't agree with mine.
Now, after study (naturally coupled with action and prayer), I can appreciate their contribution to the Kingdom and view them first and formost as fellow soldiers for God. Even if I still vehemently disagree with them.

Of course I don't really know what your experience has been, but I think what you are describing, in terms of the over-correction is actually just the other end of the same modern spectrum. Anything that's truly Christianly post-modern will be marked by a third way, a truly alternative paradigm that is unintelligible to those locked in a modern one.

This is the classic mistake that many people make when it comes to trying to understand the Emerging Church. Since they see the Christian world in terms of conservative-liberal poles, it has to be one or the other, but the best expressions of emerging churches transcend that dichotomy because their starting point and assumptions are of a different sort altogether.

So, to try and encapsulate all that, the battle for me isn't about a balancing act between intellectual knowledge and emotional/fellowship dimensions of faith, it's a fundamental transfiguration of how we understand the very nature of discipleship such that these categories just don't work any more.

It's probably fair to say that there is a direct correlation between the benefit of knowledge and spiritual maturity. As I said, I'm no anti-intellectual. I just want to get them in the right order. Let's give our time and attention to overall spiritual growth and development so that higher learning finds its rightful place in subjugation to relational faith in a risen Savior, embodied in a community bent on embodying the good news.

To think that head knowledge is and of itself is efficacious for vibrant Christian faith is kind of like hooking a jet engine up to a prop plane. There just isn't the right kind of structure to support it and use it beneficially. Bound to do more harm than good.

Bart lost his faith (if that's a fair way to say it) not because he got too smart, but because he didn't have the right spiritual framework to deal with what was getting thrown at him.

Yes, head knowledge by itself does not lead to a deeper or more vibrant faith. Conversely though, without head knowledge that deeper, more vibrant faith cannot be achieved either. It's one of multiple critical components required to gain spiritual maturity.

Does every Christian need to know who Tertullian was or the difference between apaphatic and cataphatic theology? Nope.
Does every Christian need to be able to offer up a basic apologetic of their core beliefs? Yes.

My personal experience has been that western (post-modern?) Christianity has over-corrected the modern/rationalistic mindset. The emphasis has come to rest so far into the emotional and fellowship aspects (which are also important) that intellectual understanding of the faith has regressed to a remedial for the average Christian.

I'm willing to stipulate that intellectual knowledge poses dangers for some people. Any time on leg of your footing gets too big the whole thing tends toward instability. Right now though, I think that leg is most often almost missing entirely, which guarantees the footing is unstable.

I disagree. Or, at least, I think that's the exception rather than the rule. I think for every Bert Ehrman who is disillusioned by study, there are 10 average Joes who are disillusioned when they can't reconsile their incomplete understanding of the faith with their suffering, or lose it when a pastor or similar authority figure stumbles, or just plain can't contridict arguments from apologists of other faiths or world views.

Just a thought about where I'm coming from with this… I have two convictions that seem to fly in the face of each other, but I think theological education has to take both seriously if it's going to remain vital.

1) Church leadership should be rapidly reproducible so churches can be planted quickly and often.

2) Theological education is EXTREMELY important for church leaders.

I look forward to the discussion!

1) Yes, this is true, but it necessitates a deep shift in how we understand church leadership. As it is currently/popularly understood it's impossible and when we try to make it more rapid w/o shifting our understanding of what it is, it has disastrous consequences.

2) Theological education is EXTREMELY important for every follower of Jesus. We have to get beyond the two-tiered system of super-Christians who get all the education and regular Christians who can turn their attention to other matters.

More to come.

I'm looking forward to your comments here. I don't know how you know JR, but I've found some of your stuff (via the Boars Head Tavern) and have enjoyed what I've read.