Geoff

 Commenting upon the phrase, “Praise the Lord, oh my Soul,” Calvin observed:

Although his heart was truly and seriously in the work, he would not rest in this, until he had acquired still greater ardour. And if it was necessary for David to stir himself up to the praises of God, how powerful a stimulant must we require for a more difficult matter when we aim at the divine life with self-denial. As to the religious exercise here mentioned, let us feel that we will never be sufficiently active in it, unless we strenuously exact it from ourselves. As God supports and maintains his people in the world with this view, that they may employ their whole life in praising him, David very properly declares, that he will do this to the end of his course.
John Calvin and James Anderson, Commentary on the Book of Psalms, vol. 5 (Bellingham, WA: Logos Bible Software, 2010), 285.

Calvin is pretty clear that the Christian life is a strenuous life. It’s certainly no easier than Stoicism, but it is certainly more rewarding.

I really do believe that the best opportunity any human being has is this:

28 Δεῦτε πρός με πάντες οἱ κοπιῶντες καὶ πεφορτισμένοι, κἀγὼ ἀναπαύσω ὑμᾶς. 29 ἄρατε τὸν ζυγόν μου ἐφʼ ὑμᾶς καὶ μάθετε ἀπʼ ἐμοῦ, ὅτι πραΰς εἰμι καὶ ταπεινὸς τῇ καρδίᾳ, καὶ εὑρήσετε ἀνάπαυσιν ταῖς ψυχαῖς ὑμῶν· 30 ὁ γὰρ ζυγός μου χρηστὸς καὶ τὸ φορτίον μου ἐλαφρόν ἐστιν.

Come to me all who are weary and weighed down and I will grant it that you should rest. Take my yoke upon yourselves and learn from me , because I am meek and humble hearted, then you will find rest in your souls. For my yoke is good and my burden is bearable. (Matthew 11:28-30)

Following Jesus, in the sense outlined here is much easier, in the long run, than ascribing to various isms, ologies, and ians. This is the same Jesus who says to do very hard things, but the rest offered in the kingdom is worth it.

But I’m not talking about the difficulties of following Jesus. I am talking about another set of difficulties. Following Jesus in a day to day, mystical, communal sense has intellectual difficulties but, by and large, is simple. Pray daily, stay away from evil, treat others with dignity, take the Supper with God’s people often, hear the Scripture read and explained often, turn your thoughts hourly toward Jesus, his Spirit, and his Father, don’t correct people lightly, forgive those who ask you to, don’t buy frivolous stuff, and most of all remember that God is gracious and good and that all of your salvation is a free gift. This seems to summarize the simplest aspects of the Christian life that are contained in the New Testament.

But, the brain work of determining which of our beliefs are from Jesus and his apostles, how metaphysics interacts with revelation, how ancient anthropology gives us a clearer insight into Scripture, etc are all, in my mind, very important. But, those habits of thought are also not necessarily helpful for the average Christian who does not work with people hostile to the gospel or who does not have to apply the gospel to the lives of several dozen people on a weekly basis like a pastor or Sunday school teacher.

I do think that studying the Scripture in an academic fashion is important for everybody who can. It certainly is not necessary in the way that knowing the basics of the gospel of Jesus is necessary. Similarly, studying theology is something important for everybody who can do it. I suppose the rule in all things is this:”…we know that everybody has knowledge. Knowledge arrogates, but love builds up. If any supposed that he knows something, he does not yet know as he ought to know, but if anybody loves God, this one is known by him (1 Corinthians 8:1b-3 Geoff Translation).” If your studying gives you A) knowledge that can improve your lot and that of your neighbor B) greater love for God C) greater love for others then stick with it. If it creates arrogance, frustration with people who don’t study the same stuff, or a mean spirit then you should probably stop studying at the academic level altogether for a while and simply memorize important passages of the New Testament and put them into practice.

Anyway the academic study of Scripture and theology bears great fruits for those who are called to the task by pious curiosity (to add a deeper dimension to discipleship), position (pastor/teacher), or need (evangelist, apologist). But going beyond certain basics when you cannot yet, by practice, determine the difference between good and evil (Hebrews 5:14) is dangerous.

But, as I say all of this, I still think about several evangelical myths that, though they may not be ultimately deadly to faith are nevertheless false and perhaps laughable to many who give the issue a modicum of thought.

Is it possible that we have a tendency to unnecessarily complicate certain things and an equally silly tendency to over simplify certain other things?

 

The Four D’s of the Christian Life:

1. Get your finances in order in three easy steps.
2. Have an extra sexy super duper sex life in three easy steps (with Bible verses).
3. Go to small group Bible study every week.

If you do these four things (Just remember: the four Ds!) you’ll be a mega member of a mega church mega family.

Schreiner’s criticism involves a claim to speak authoritatively for Paul and God, and thus for historical truth. Following such a remarkable methodological claim, one might expect his dismissal to be closely based on what Paul wrote—but it is not. To put this bluntly: Paul may well have been inspired to speak for God (which is not historically verifiable), but unless Schreiner claims the same inspiration for himself, he should accept that he is, like everyone else, limited to engaging in the interpretation of Paul’s texts. Consider briefly each of the details of his summary description. – Four Views of Paul the Apostle, 58

Bruce Charlton is one of the brightest bloggers I’ve ever come across. He’s also brilliant off the internet. He posts interesting, though not always totally convincing essays on a variety of topics: evolution, Mormonism, Christian spirituality, etc. He recently posted about exercise and fitness. This is important for him, I wager, due to his interest in evolution and civilization.

He ends his posting, characterizing people who lift weights thus:

Nowadays, the local equivalent are the vastly bulky androgen-using power-weight-trainers, maybe working as ‘bouncers’ (door security) – who are fit for lifting weights, and strong at lifting weights (and presumably also at shoving and hitting people).

Or perhaps they are sportsmen – who are fit for their sport – strong at whatever the sport requires.

Or perhaps they are the narcissistic weight trainers/ body builders who use drugs (and dietary supplements etc) – but only as a means to the end of enhancing and sculpting their muscles, and making themselves feel more… well, if not exactly ‘masculine’, then at least macho.
They are fit to look at themselves in the mirror; to parade up-and-down in cut-away vests, shorts and flip-flops. They are strong at using exercise machines. 
Fit for what, strong at what?
And what is the point of it?

I do believe that his answers to the closing questions are meant to be inferred to be “Nothing.” and “There isn’t one.” But I would wager that there is ample evidence, scientific (which he notes might be poorly done in the comments) and anecdotal that strength training improves several domains in the life of the practitioner who also aims to practice certain Christian virtues like humility and modesty. Thoughts:

1. The average western male has a job that precise atrophies the body rather than toughens it. Part of Charlton’s point is that in older times men had bodies that could be useful for battle if need be because their jobs demanded it. Weight training fills precisely this gap.
2. Weight training, according to many who do it thoughtfully, can improve pain tolerance as well as patience for long term goal seeking.
3. Being physically stronger, as a Christian, allows one to serve others in more fruitful ways. Moving things, catching people who fall, being less tired after physical exertion are all useful skills that are strongly lacking in our era.
4. Physical strength can decrease the likelihood of several types of injuries because weight training strengthens bones, connective tissue, and muscle.
5. Caring about physical beauty is not, in itself, vain. Weight training is a way to maintain physical appearance without resorting to methods that do not arrange for personal discipline or physical improvement (like various make-ups, piercings, and personal enhancements)
6. Most people I know who lift weights also note an increase in mental acuity and focus when they are disciplined about the process and their diet.
7. Very few weightlifters that I know actually dress the way he mentions except in the gym (where I lift, it is incredibly hot, I simply wear basketball shorts and a single pocket shirt I bought when I was 18).
8. He is right that in some sense improvement is task specific, but there is such a thing as general strength. Learning to use exercise machines does not necessarily translate well into other tasks, but lifting heavy objects, doing chin-ups, running sprints, etc all translate well into other tasks.
9. Weight training can lead to helpful results when only a brief time is used per week over the course of a year. Somebody who walks for an hour every day need only utilize an hour maximum one to three times a week to see excellent results over the course of a year.

I’m citing anecdotal evidence here precisely because all of these claims could be attested to by asking a large number of people who, precisely because they take their exercise seriously do not have the moral maladies Dr. Charlton associates with that particular use of leisure time. I’ve had very useful improvements in my health from strength training, some of which involved utilizing self-experiments very similar to those Dr. Charlton himself laments the loss of in modern science.

The issues related to Calvinism, libertarian free will, open theism, and other such concepts have long since become less interesting to me as controversies. The concepts of human responsibility, God’s grace, God’s foreknowledge, etc are still important as matters of logic and divine revelation. My problem with the topics as issues is more an emotional or temperamental issue. Nevertheless, I made an observation several years ago that I’ve always kept in the back of my mind. I’m sharing it because of a strange association of several ideas that is not logically necessary:

1. Thesis 1: The doctrine of grace, summarized as TULIP are not necessarily connected to God’s predestination in all matters. In other words, soteriology is not connected to providence in a necessary fashion,
   1. For instance, Charles Spurgeon, a Calvinist if there ever was one, could say:
      “I see, in one place, God in providence presiding over all, and yet I see, and I cannot help seeing, that man acts as he pleases, and that God has left his actions, in a great measure, to his own free-will. Now, if I were to declare that man was so free to act that there was no control of God over his actions, I should be driven very near to atheism; and if, on the other hand, I should declare that God so over-rules all things that man is not free enough to be responsible, I should be driven at once into Antinomianism or fatalism.” In other words, Calvinist soteriology does not necessarily entail that God controls all events meticulously.
      
   2. Similarly, one could believe in a mechanisitc universe wherein all things were precisely predestined by God and set into motion where in God saves only those whom he predestined to earn their salvation.
   3. Or, one could be an open theist, as regards God’s creation (future events don’t exist, therefore they cannot be known with certainty, unless God explicitly causes them happen), but as regards soteriology, believe that God regenerates totally depraved people whom he chose unconditionally and then cause them to persevere. Greg Boyd nearly takes this view. In fact, one could find open theist exegesis of the Old Testament (when God has to find things by examination and ask questions of people for instance) but find Calvinist exegesis of Romans 8-11 very convincing on textual grounds and not find a contradiction in the perspective.
   4. I am not claiming that anybody believes these combinations of propositions. I am claiming that the connection between various views of predestination, salvation, and human history is not as clear cut as it is often claimed to be.
2. Thesis 2: If the logical connections between these aspects of theology are not necessary, then there may be psychological or sociological reasons that people connect the ideas.
   1. Some take it as axiomatic that, “One random atom or “maverick molecule,”…could throw everything back into chaos.” This point of view is not uncommon.
   2. Those who hold to the idea that Calvinism and comprehensive meticulous control of all things are necessarily connected are, by John Piper’s admission, of a certain cast of mind: “But I think there is an attractiveness about them [the doctrines of TULIP] to some people, in large matter, because of their intellectual rigor. They are powerfully coherent doctrines, and certain kinds of minds are drawn to that. And those kinds of minds tend to be argumentative. So the intellectual appeal of the system of Calvinism draws a certain kind of intellectual person, and that type of person doesn’t tend to be the most warm, fuzzy, and tender. Therefore this type of person has a greater danger of being hostile, gruff, abrupt, insensitive or intellectualistic.” And Piper is known for his connection of the five points of Calvinism with two more points: a Leibniz-esque view that the world is the best of all possible worlds and a stark double-predestinarian supra-lapsarianism (the idea that God ordained to send people to hell logically prior to his creation of those people or rather, that he created them for the purpose of hell). There are probably several other ideological concomitants that could be teased out here, but I’m not sure that they are as often as this. For instance many Calvinists belief in an Old Earth, some have very plastic beliefs about how ancient culture can be used to interpret Scripture, some are libertarians, some are reflexively republican neo-cons, some think non-Calvinists aren’t Christians, some love missions, some don’t, some focus on the law/gospel distinction, some focus on discipleship, etc. It’s just too difficult to go in that direction, though it would be interesting.
   3. Similarly, Open Theists are often, though not always, committed to denying anything like Tulip. But many Arminian thinkers, who certainly deny Tulip, fully accept God’s exhaustive foreknowledge and similarly deny God’s exhaustive planning of all events. Weirdly enough though, Arminian thinkers only overlap on concomitant beliefs sometimes (Arminians like Norman Geisler want to remove other Arminians from ETS for thinking that Genre is important in Biblical studies). But Open Theists like Greg Boyd do seem to overlap in beliefs with fellows like Scot McKnight (though Scot has a much clearer grasp of the New Testament than Boyd), Peter Enns, and Roger Olson.

Conclusions:

I don’t have enough data to make some hard and fast conclusion, but methinks there is more afoot here than simple systematic consideration of the issues. The likelihood that with all of the intelligent Calvinists and all of the intelligent Arminians/Open Theist types that one side was utterly logically coherent and the other side entirely refused to see the problem seems really unlikely. So it’s probably not a matter of one side getting it and the other side missing it. It seems that it is more a matter of value-level commitments affecting how the Christian worldview is expressed. Now these judgments, on both sides, are obviously informed by Scripture, but that does not mean that they aren’t informed by other things too: temperament, upbringing, culture, etc.