Some true worldview influences for a Christian

If you're a Reformed Christian, or even if you're not: you have to untie yourself from the influence of shallow pastors and the modern seminary educated (and their books). 

Why? Because other than being overall shallow they've wandered far afield from the real, deep Christian worldview. One thing is they are all surfacy with their knowledge, like academics and philosophers. They don't understand or even know of the deep language of the faith. Another thing is they've fallen into the bad habit of the scholastics in posing a thousand silly questions that eventually change how they see the very basics of the faith. 

Another thing they do is lose valuation for the basics of the faith because they want to impress their academic peers with originality which causes them to inevitably veer leftward into liberal theology. For instance, they see cutting edge knowledge in the writings of Cornelius van Til, then the mutation appears and they start sounding like Unitarians. Which is the typical, historical glide path of Reformed types who don't really value the basics. 

A true Christian knows that once you learn the basics the next stage is to become experiential with the basics. But that requires valuation of the basics. (It also requires regeneration by the word and the Spirit, something ritual water baptism, in infants or adults, doesn't accomplish.)

Now here's an interesting list of influences to be immersed in the Christian worldview:

Holy Bible, AV1611 

Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire - Gibbon 

Decades - Bullinger

Iliad & Odyssey - Homer

Fourth Way - Ouspensky

Why is this list interesting? Let me make a few notes about each...

Holy Bible, AV1611 

In our day scholars want to look down at the Bible either to deconstruct it or to determine themselves what is should consist of. To have a Bible you're forced to look up to is anathema to their pride and vanity. Even more, to have a Bible shepherded into time and physical existence by the Holy Spirit is something that makes their heads explode. They want to be the authority. So if you ask, which Bible is the true Bible, it's the one the scholars and anyone under the control of their pride and vanity most don't want to read. It's the one they mock. It's the one that angers them by its very presence. It's the King James  Version. Remember: you need the Bible more than the Bible needs you. This first influence on the list puts you in the right orientation towards the authority of the very word of God.

Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire - Gibbon

This is going to confuse many, mostly because Gibbon comes across as a straight up atheist. He does, but a preliminary note:

***My take is Gibbon is closer to an atheist than he's thought to be generally. So, he doesn't factor in God's providence or the work of the Holy Spirit. To him everything is merely political and social. To him everybody is credulous and naive, including the pagans. And everything's a power play by worldly manipulators. 

Having said that he articulates his approach as an historian which is to relate what is actually happening on the ground. Facts, events, self-interest, human nature in all its weakness and so forth. I actually find this approach interesting because it is helpful to see the church history from the angle of real politik. There is politics and power moves involved, and it gives understanding to see it all from that angle. 

Obviously you don't want to learn biblical doctrine from Gibbon. His long narration of the Trinitarian battles doesn't include understanding of the Trinity or why such doctrinal debate was important. He writes it off as splitting hairs over mere words. He also overplays things like Plato's anticipating of the Trinity. He doesn't see the heresy of Arianism nor does he think heresy is really a thing. 

But, again, the history he relates is real nevertheless. It's just seeing the events at a secular level. I have to say he's also honest in relating things that are supernatural in nature, like what happened when Julian the Apostate attempted to rebuild the Temple in Jerusalem. Earthquakes, strange fire balls, the workers having to give up the attempt. Because in God's plan of redemption that Temple was never going to be rebuilt. Also, when he notes that famine seemed to follow in Julian's footsteps. Gibbon doesn't think these things are supernatural, yet he relates them nevertheless. 

I don't recall him going much into how Christianity grew so quickly within Greek and Roman civilization. Other than all the parts about Constantine and his conversion and so on.*** 

That was from an email. Now here's why Gibbon is unique.

Gibbon gives the needed context for seeing the power of Christianity in history. Gibbon's Decline and Fall is also a deep language. In this case a language of history. The people, events, and ideas are universal. You see universal patterns and types and categories. It's also narrated from a high perspective, almost like a God-like perspective. The typical activities of fallen man in the fallen world. Yet it's the context for seeing the Christian faith that makes it unique for understanding overall. Gibbon also gives you human nature, the nature of power, the ways of the world, it has many points of value, yet it's unique for a Christian. It imparts power in understanding the faith. Things that seem confusing or strange, then they get clear, then you get on top of them in understanding, this happens with Gibbon. The monumental length and breadth of the work enables high influence and potential great understanding to develop in the reader who is dedicated to reading it. It, though, undergirds the true Christian worldview in terms of historical impressions and language. I'm trying to give small impressions that carry the big picture, but here's another: if you read about Athanasius in some article or whatever you'll get the basic facts, but if you read Gibbon you'll really know who Athanasius was, and he'll be part of your Christian worldview. Because you'll have the great sweep of the context. And not Church history, but real historical context. There's a difference. 

Decades - Bullinger

I was listening to a Reformed podcast, and the host was talking about how people used to see great, deep mystery in the sacraments and how it was wacky and nutty and so on. These people are so shallow I tend to lose it when talking about it. When you go back to the century of the Reformation and read a popular work of theology from that day like Bullinger's Decades you can really see how far into the inane and shallow modern Reformed theologians have progressed. You start to see their smug, giggling faces and sub-adult nature for what it is. 

I'm going to leave it there. Monergism Books has a very good free eBook of the Decades available. Read it to see what I'm getting at. Read the sermon on the Trinity. Or the sermon on Angels and Devils. You don't get the shallow concern trolling of pastors and scholars who don't have a connection to the depth of the faith to begin with. 

Iliad & Odyssey - Homer

These works are foundational higher, visual language depicting inner, spiritual development. As Christian influence they are through a glass, darkly. Obviously they are pagan, yet at the same time they are not crudely pagan influences. For one thing they are epic poems. Where's the epic poem for Molech? 

What the Homeric epics are is something that is off the radar of academia. Most deep things are off the radar of academia. 

The Reformers often made Homer an exception in their condemnation of false religious beliefs, but we don't need that; we just need to read them and see for ourselves. 

Remember: deep language as an influence is how real understanding develops. Scholars, academics, philosophers - Christian or not - are all about surface knowledge and reason (rationalism) not knowing there are more ways to take in and develop knowledge, understanding and wisdom. To develop being. Understanding is seeing parts in relation to the whole. Surface thinkers major on the parts and never see the whole. 

The Homeric epics give us visual language to be able to see new things in ourselves and in the world around us. Subtle things. Things that often can't be spelled out in a proposition. Ultimate universal things thus worthy of the attention and engagement of a Christian. (Also, works of great literature that have mysterious authorship and seem to appear organically from a larger collective consciousness than what can come from a single author tend to be of great worth. Grail legend, especially a work like Wolfram von Eschenbach's Parzival is like that. Some see Shakespeare like that. Even Grimm's Folk Tales can be like that. They're usually imparting deep language of inner development and the unseen world. Often visually. 

Fourth Way - Ouspensky

This is just simply ancient psychology, or, New Testament psychology. It's used by cults but so is the Bible. Call it a base language that other languages draw from, for better or worse (usually worse, because partial and in a shallow way). It's not for everybody. If you're a worldly knight (or lady) of the Round Table realm you don't need it and won't value it. If you're on the other hand a Grail knight (or lady of the Grail realm) you'll not only want it, but you'll need it and value it like it's a language of the Holy Spirit. 

It's dangerous, though, in that it puts you on the spiritual battlefield. You need the armor of God. Without it you're naked on the battlefield and vulnerable, and God protects you in the beginning, but not forever. It's also difficult to learn. You have to see the parts in relation to the whole. For progressive sanctification there is no more sophisticated language available. If you mock that statement, stay far away. Mockers get hammered on the battlefield. 

So there it is. A list of influences for a true Christian worldview. I could make it longer, but so could anybody who truly knows those five or so. I'm an idiot, and I caught on. By idiot I mean not perhaps the fastest climber, but I make it to the summit one way or another, in my time. Most never get off the valley floor.