On Being Fit
Photo by Victor Freitas on Unsplash
Richard White, Railroaded: The Transcontinentals and the Making of Modern America (2011) has written a long, detailed history of the development and construction of railroads in the United States in the nineteenth century. In his report a central role is played in the construction of railroads by a half-dozen or so aggressive moguls who knew nothing about railroads, but who specialized in investment, the manipulation of labor, reliance on government funding, and the utilization of the money of other people. Among the most prominent of these was Jay Gould. In this telling, these several entrepreneurs were variously allied with each other, betrayed each other, and relied on public money to serve their private gain. The entire picture is one of corruption, featuring a “gigantic fraud,” “racial exclusiveness, and social destructiveness.” In his summation Wright judges that:
It was the triumph of the unfit, whose survival demanded the intervention of the state, which the corporations themselves corrupted (509).
I take Wright’s phrase, “the triumph of the unfit” to be a remarkably insightful and clever phrasing, especially when we remember that Darwin and Social Darwinism flourished in the same period. Thus Herbert Spencer coined the phrase “survival of the fittest” in order to translate Darwin’s science into social commentary. (Full disclosure: My well-beloved sociology teacher in college, Th. W. Mueller, spent three weeks on Spencer which is how I first learned of him. He concluded: “Spencer captured the imagination of the West for many years…He was wrong.”) Spencer concluded that in social contestation the fittest would always prevail. It is important to notice that the phrase is not from Darwin himself, who preferred to speak of “natural selection.” It was only in the belated fifth edition of The Origin of the Species that Darwin adopted Spencer’s phrasing, and understood it to refer to those “better designed for an immediate local environment.” I find it suggestive, as Wright surely intends, to juxtapose Spencer’s “survival of the fittest” and Wright’s own phrase, “the triumph of the unfit.” The two phrases together invite us to consider what it may mean to be “fit.” We may ask, “”Fit for what?” or “Fit for whom?” Or “Fit with whom?” Spencer referred to “fit to survive” as the rough-and-tumble of socio-economic competition and the capacity to come out ahead. Wright cites the “unfit,” by which he apparently means those ill-suited and ill-equipped for the real world of democratic society.
No doubt all of us have a stake in “being fit.” But we have great disagreement upon that for which we may be appropriately “fit.” Such a question permits me, yet again, to comment on my favorite scripture verse, Jeremiah 9:23-24:
Thus says the Lord: Do not let the wise boast in their wisdom, do not let the mighty boast in their might, do not let the wealthy boast in their wealth; but let those who boast boast in this, that they understand and know me, that I am the Lord: I act with steadfast love, justice, and righteousness in the earth, for in these things I delight, says the Lord.
In these verses the prophet articulates the great either/or of covenantal faith by setting out two clear triads of “fitness”:
wealth, might, and wisdom;
steadfast love, justice, righteousness.
On the one hand wealth, power, and wisdom (here understood as technical competence) that makes one equipped to “survive” and prevail in the rat-race of aggressive competition. Seen in this way, the railroad moguls of Wright’s study were exceedingly “fit. They specialized in money, in power, and in a technical capacity that made railroad transport possible clear to the West coast.
If, however, we have a different reference point for “fit,” namely, a democratic neighborly society, these aggressive embodiments of wealth, power, and wisdom are quite ill-fit, ill-suited, for the requirements of life. And of course the case is even more acute if we consider as a reference point the governance (kingdom) of the God of mercy and restorative justice. Such predatory operators had little or no interest in the matters of Jeremiah’s second triad: faithfulness, justice, and righteousness. They were surely misfits in such a context. Thus the proper measure of what is “fit” depends upon the reference point of fitness, whether fit for aggressive private domination, or fit for neighborly participation in a common life. Put this way, we can see how the prophetic either/or pertains precisely to definitions of “fit” and the hard sustained work of becoming “fit.” We may variously use our energy to become “fit” for life in a world of ruthless competition, or “fit” for generous neighborliness of covenantal community.
Of course “being fit” is not a concept that is alien to our faith. In Luke 9:57-62 Jesus summons those drawn to him to “follow me.” His way in the world, he says, is to be displaced, without a safe place. When would-be followers linger over their past by taking time to bury their dead or by taking time to say farewell at home, he concludes:
No one who puts a hand to the plow and looks back is fit for the kingdom of God (v. 62).
He uses the term “fit” (euthetos), to be equipped or qualified. He avers that those who have lingering connections to the old world that he displaces are not “fit” for his coming regime. We may conclude that his several demanding instructions to his disciples are guidelines for how to become “fit” for the coming kingdom; this how to survive as the “fittest” for the new world. The new world, as we know from his teaching, is a world of generosity, forgiveness, and hospitality. Those who are not equipped for those practices cannot be followers, and will not accompany him in the new regime. We may notice what an odd notion this is of being ”fit,” of surviving as the “fittest.” It is blatantly contradictory to the notion of being “fit” in Darwinism, or especially Social Darwinism. Spencer would not have imagined that practitioners of generosity, forgiveness, and hospitality were the fittest, or that they would be the ones who “survive” into the new age. Thus the conventional freight of “survival of the fittest” is greatly contradicted by the teaching of Jesus as we have it in the Beatitudes, the Sermon on the Mount, and his several parables.
We may notice, as a footnote, how the notion of being “fit” in the community of Jesus can be utilized in distorted ways. Thus in Colossians 3, “Paul” can write:
Wives, be subject to your husbands, as is fitting in the Lord (Colossians 3:18).
In this usage gospel “fitness” employed as a ground for the subjection of women. Such a mandate is a long sorry distance from the imperative of Luke 8.
As I pondered the notion of “gospel fitness,” I wondered if I could find clues in the church’s hymnody. I was surprised to discover that the notion of “being fit” occurs in English translation in a most unlikely place as the final stanza of “Away in a Manger.” This “innocent” carol ends with a hope and prayer to be “fit for heaven.”
Be near me, Lord Jesus; I ask thee to stay
close by me forever and love me, I pray.
Bless all the dear children in thy tender care,
and fit us for heaven to live with thee there.
(Glory to God 114).
It is likely that Luther meant the words quite literally, that the work of the Lord Jesus is to qualify us for the next world. There is no doubt, moreover, that in our common unreflective singing of the carol, such literalism is operative as we imagine being qualified by Christ for eternal life in God’s presence. But Luther’s words need not be taken in such a way. If we factor out “heaven…kingdom of heaven…kingdom of God,” then the hymn lines are a petition to be equipped and prepared for the new regime of generosity, forgiveness, and hospitality here and now as the rule of Christ pertains to our real socio-economic world. Thus “being fit” consists in the capacity to practice the life that Jesus embodied and exemplifies, that has real life consequences, even in a world of the economics of greed.
We have before us two quite different notions of being “fit,” that is, those who may expect to “survive.” On the one hand being “fit” means the capacity, not unlike the railroad moguls, to possess, control, and dominate. On the other hand, being “fit” for the kingdom consists in practices of neighborly restoration of a quite specific kind. These two kinds of “fitness” are exactly reflective echoes of the either/ or of Jeremiah:
Fit for possession, control, and domination:
Money, power, wisdom;
Fit for generosity, forgiveness, hospitality:
Steadfast love, justice, and righteousness.
The demanding reality is that in the summons of Jesus, there is no middle ground, no compromise, no accommodation. It is an either/or!
All around my town, as in every town of any size, there are numerous “fitness centers” with all sorts of exercise equipment. We can easily imagine that those who invest their time and energy there are intent on being be “fit,” in good shape, and perhaps even beautiful, aiming to survive in the demanding world where health and appearance count for the most. And in my town, as in every town, there are many churches alongside many fitness centers. But what if the church is a “fitness center” of a different ilk? The church, in its worship, education, nurture, and missional activity is place where we may become increasingly “fit” for “heaven,” that is, fit for the rule of Christ in the present world.
It is likely that the notion of the church as a “fitness center” would have struck Jay Gould and his company as odd, because it could do nothing for their capability for acquisitiveness. More simply, with the “American gospel” being so determinedly friendly and accepting, the notion of the church as a “fitness center” could strike many church people as odd, because the church in its welcome does not often suggest that our common communal work is to grow in fitness. The notion of “becoming fit” and growing in our readiness for the new rule is not primarily cognitive, though it does not depend upon our ignorance. It is rather about our elemental capacity to embrace in relational ways the neighbors among us who are most in need of restoration.
A quick glance at our society will indicate that we have much evidence of “the triumph of the unfit,” most especially if “fit” is understood as a capacity for generosity, forgiveness, and hospitality. It is evident, is it not, that the wellbeing of our society depends upon those who are fit for the coming regime of neighborliness? It is for that reason that Paul, after his breathtaking exposition of the gospel, can end his epistle with a compelling imperative:
Do not be conformed to this world, but be transformed by the renewing of your minds, so that you may discern what is the will or God—what is good and acceptable and perfect (Romans 12:2).
Paul goes on to explicate the transformation in terms of generosity and hospitality. That is the proper intent of the “fitness centers” that cluster around the name of Jesus.
