New Year’s resolutions are overrated. Why should we pick that arbitrary time to revaluate ourselves and our behavior? I think it would be far more American to dispense with New Year’s and put all our efforts into Spring Training.
Look what Reggie Jackson, Tommy John, and other baseball luminaries do. They work hard all summer, what with a gruelling schedule of some 100-plus games, traveling across the country, baseball chapel services, and so forth. Then, they slough off in the winter. Gravity pulls them and their stomachs lower than is good for them. (Some truly committed players, of course, play winter ball.)
Then comes Spring Training. It begins sometime in February in a warm, lush climate—Florida or Arizona, for example—a kind of retreat atmosphere. (Coincidentally, Lent comes during Spring Training). The Dodgers and the Twins, the Yankees and the Cubs and the Red Sox push and punish their bodies. They’ve only got a short couple of months to get in shape for those hot summer games.
It’s too late once you step onto the field, take your positions, and hear the umpire shout “play ball” (by the time this is printed, Opening Day will be over). Sensational defensive plays and rigorous base running only happen if Spring Training has been adhered to.
What’s Spring Training like? Well, you want to avoid certain foods. There is an old tradition in the church that sleek souls go with slim bodies. And gluttony is, after all, one of the seven deadly sins. Right. Baseball managers agree. They want their players (but not necessarily themselves) in trim form.
Then hours. When in training, you’ve got to get enough sleep. No late, late shows or the I-just-want-to-finish-one-more-chapter excuse. It’s hard to hit the long ball or go the extra mile if you’ retired.
And exercise. Extra inning ball games and the good word in season require well-tuned muscles. If you have slacked off over the winter, start slowly and build your strength daily. It’s not easy to spend hours on the field or on your knees. Pray a little, then do some sit-ups. Read a verse or two and think about it while you do some leg lifts. A little ingenuity would go a long way.
It’s too bad Paul didn’t know about baseball. I can just hear him telling those Corinthians, “You keep your eye on the ball and level off your swing. Dip your shoulder into the ball as it comes over the plate. Don’t you know that a home run hitter gets the prize?”
EUTYCHUS IX
To Whom Much Is Given
Philip Yancey has done an excellent job in profiling Francis Schaeffer (March 23, issue). While I agree with your Editor’s Note, I believe that in addition to possibly wanting to “argue a point or two” with Schaeffer, his message is far over the head of the great mass of true believers. Thank goodness that God provided a simple gospel to be understood by “simple-minded people” as well as the “profound thinkers.” To those people who are given the capacity to reason and expound the Scriptures, such as Schaeffer, much intellectual activity will be expected. To those who have received from God different gifts, there are different expectations. There are many people who fall between the simple-minded and the profound thinker, and who fortunately can accept and stand firm on their “basic Christianity” even though unable to defend it with the logic and reasoning of Francis Schaeffer. I personally praise God for both ends of the spectrum and truly believe that although Francis Schaeffer would expect the man who is capable of profound thinking to engage in that activity, he would rejoice over the man who is not so naturally inclined to stand on his Christian principles on the basis of faith alone.
TERRILL A. PARKER
Atlanta, Ga.
I have a couple of qualms about Francis Schaeffer. He sometimes seems (to me) to generalize and simplify to a point where he is fighting mock-up dragons he has constructed himself and not actual beasties. When I saw the title, “Francis Schaeffer: A Prophet for Our Time?” I feared your answer would be a syrupy, adoring yes. Instead I found an article which was wonderfully honest and positive about a man who is a significant voice in Christian theology (even if I’m still not sure what decade he lives in).
L. M. STEWART III
New Providence Baptist Church
Confidence, Iowa
Prominent Position
I appreciate the prominent position CHRISTIANITY TODAY accorded my article, “Singleness: His Share for Me” (Feb. 16, 1979). I am unhappy, however, about the way in which it was presented. Changing the title and placing it within the framework created for it makes my article appear out of focus and robs it of much of its impact. I was writing about homosexuality, not singleness per se. I touched on singleness only at the one point where the two matters are congruent—a point which is seldom considered and on which it is time that someone spoke out. Your focus made me appear to be presenting the negative side in a “pro and con” discussion on singleness, which was far from my intention. It also baffles the reader for the first several paragraphs, for he can see no relationship between my picture and your frame—enough to make him stop reading and so miss my whole thrust. I am well able to write an article affirming singleness, as anyone who knows me or has read my book on singleness will know. My balanced judgment on the matter is that his yoke is easy and his burden is light. Here I was speaking to a totally different but increasingly pertinent point, which your treatment of my article has dulled.
MARGARET CLARKSON
Willowdale, Ont.
It seems that everywhere one turns lately, the subject of “singleness” crops up. So, it was not surprising to find that CHRISTIANITY TODAY had picked up the topic (Feb. 16, issue). Not surprising, but somewhat disturbing. The more I read, the more strongly I feel that to constantly verbalize our disappointments and our weaknesses is to encourage a negative outlook on life. “This is not to say that it is easy to be a Christian single: It is not,” says Margaret Clarkson. I do not venture to disagree. But neither is it easy to be a Christian wife. Or a Christian teen-ager. Or a Christian businessman. It is not easy for any of us to be a Christian in this fallen world. So why try to outdo each other in drawing attention to our own particular difficulty? The church needs to get back to the attitude of Philippians 2:4—“Each of you should look not only to your own interests, but also to the interests of others.” If the eye and the ear spent less time in fruitless discussion over who was functioning under the greater difficulty, there would be a lot more seeing and hearing done.
HEATHER L. SHANTZ
Toronto, Ont.
Margaret Clarkson’s “Singleness: His Share for Me” truly reflects the wisdom which only age allows. Having seen her picture on the bottom corner of the page before I read the article, I must admit that I was expecting old-fashioned, spinstery advice on being single. As I read, however, I was awestruck by the richness and originality reflected in her thought. Her devotion to God has brought clarity to her situation which, fortunately, she has been allowed to share with us all. Praise God for his preparation of her to enlighten us.
WILLIAM R. BAKER
Schaumburg, Ill.
Economics And Justice
All of Ronald H. Nash’s admittedly valid arguments about the dangerous willingness of liberalism to allow the state too much power (“The Economics of Justice,” March 23) are also true of the equally dangerous willingness of conservatism to allow large private corporations too much power. All power tends to corrupt; both the state and large business can threaten freedom and justice. The arguments of both liberals and conservatives are one-sided often, and apply to themselves as well as to their opponents. The vision is still struggling to be born.
THE REV. FREDERICK BARKER
Madison, N.J.
As a long-time conservative and a Christian I wish to express to you my deep appreciation for your publishing Dr. Ronald Nash’s article, “The Economics of Justice.” This is the first article I’ve seen in CHRISTIANITY TODAY by a knowledgable conservative. Your willingness to present both sides demonstrates the superiority of CHRISTIANITY TODAY over some other evangelical magazines. Dr. Nash would be the first to admit that the whole conservative world view cannot be encompassed in one article. After hearing the conservatives falsely stereotyped for so long, this article was like a breath of fresh air. Here’s hoping you will give us more.
FRANK VOSLER
New Albany, Ohio
Sensitivity Expected
William Conard’s report of Pope John Paul II’s visit to Mexico in the March 2 issue, “A Magnetic Pope Tugs at Opposing Latin Forces” attempted, and largely succeeded, to capsulate the complex significance of this papal journey. I, as one of the few Roman Catholics at Fuller (a graduate student in systematics), can begin to appreciate evangelical sensitivities about some Roman Catholic beliefs and practices. In turn, I should think that Conard could have been more sensitive to the great strides Roman Catholics have made to understand their beliefs and practices in more biblical and ecumenical terms, especially since the Vatican Council II. Thus, I winced at Conard’s phrase, “the Pope’s adoration of Mary.” Though everyone admits there have been grave abuses at the popular level (and the Vatican Council and subsequent encyclicals of Pope Paul VI have called for reform here), few evangelicals seem prepared to admit that official Catholic teaching permits only veneration of Mary (dulia, veneration, for saints; hyperdulia, special veneration for Mary; but latria, worship or adoration, for the Trinity only). Several other times in his report, Conard misses opportunities to be truly fair to official Catholic teaching; but I pass these instances over, to go on to a point of agreement and a few clarifying remarks.… I pray that CHRISTIANITY TODAY will continue its already significant efforts to report Catholic news more and more fairly. The Lord bless your ministry of Christian journalism.
PAUL F. FORD
Pasadena, Calif.
Too Evangelical
Since Bruce Springsteen is a favorite artist of mine, I was pleased to see a review of his music, “Singer Bruce Springsteen: No Respite from Rebellion,” in the March 2 issue. However, I believe Mr. Evearitt is far too simplistic and, unfortunately, too decidedly evangelical in his estimation of Springsteen. Springsteen does far more than “adopt a James Dean persona” to perpetuate rebellion in its third decade. He asks, in light of his own experience, serious questions about the nature of human existence. It is lamentable that Mr. Evearitt in particular and, I believe, evangelicalism in general, fails to appreciate the accuracy with which artists like Bruce Springsteen portray the pathos of the human dilemma.
MICHAEL MALONE
Washington, D.C.
