In Relationship - "The Doctrine of Eating What you Want To," Part II

Hey all, here's an article that Wilson wrote, along the same vein of my previous blog. Tell me what you think:

"In Relationship"

"One of the most difficult things for us to do is the task of locating sin properly. One common mistake, one that we have addressed a number of times before, is the mistake of locating sin in stuff. This mistake thinks that sin must be resident in material things—in sex, in alcohol, in refined sugar, in tobacco, and so on.

Faithful Christians know better than this, knowing that sin is a function of the thoughts and intentions of the heart. But there is a subtlety here also. We sometimes forget that hearts do not exist in any solitary way. Think of this another way. All sin, every sin, is always a sin in relationship to others.

If you could be alone, truly alone, you could not sin. Moreover, you could not be you if you were genuinely, completely alone. In the world God made, relationship with others is as necessary as contending with height, breadth and depth. Even if you were to go off into the mountains to live alone, every moment of every day, you will still be living in relationship with the triune God in whom we all live, move and have our being.

So sin is not found in material stuff. Neither is sin found in a solitary human heart. Sin is always found in the human heart in relationship to other hearts. But notice what follows from this. When sin is in the stuff, sin is simple. That is why people are attracted to the legalistic systems that operate on this calculus. "Don’t drink beer" is the rule, and you are either obeying or you are not. When sin is in your own heart, and it is your solitary heart that you are thinking of, sin is simple. Sin is defined by how you think and feel about things. You descend into your own heart to look for sin, and as it turns out you always look in the same old places, and you don’t look in the nooks and crannies—the first places that others would look.

If sin is a function of relationship, then the complexities are such that only the grace of God can sort it all out. And sin is a direct function of relationship, isn’t it? What are the two great commandments, the two commandments that sum up all ethical responsibility that can be found in the Bible? What are those commandments? Love God and love your neighbor. All the law is encompassed in relationship. This means that sin cannot be understood, analyzed, confessed, or forsaken without reference to the thoughts, loves, intents, and desires of those others.

Therefore . . . love God. Love one another."

Now, sin is commonly understood as Wilson has defined it above: taking place in realtionships, and exlusively at that. Therefore, no physical thing is inherently sinful. This is extremely helpful in understanding things we consume: all food and drink (and yes, even smoking, if you enjoy that sort of thing) is permissible - God's Word affirms this, as my previous post explored and explained. However, "all things edible" leave the realm of permissibilty once they either A) inhibit our relationship with the Father, or B) inhibit our relationships with others. What say you?

The Doctrine of Eating What You Want To.

Food: everyone's favorite topic, especially for many Christians today. We've all heard people speak of "health" and "eating right," but where should Christians draw the line? What does the Bible have to say about this issue?

Douglas Wilson, one of my favorite authors, has written a great article entitled, "The Fat is the Lord's" in the latest issue of "Credenda Agenda." He claims that the modern dieting and health-pursuit craze can be classified as worldliness, of which Christians should take care to "not be conformed to" (Romans 12:2). As Christians, we should feel no need whatsoever to rule out certain food or drink! Matthew states that "John came neither eating nor drinking, and they say, he hath a devil. The Son of man came eating and drinking, and they say, behold a man gluttonous, and a winebibber, a friend of publicans and sinners. But wisdom is justified of her children" (Matt. 11:18-19). God spoke to Noah, and told him that "every moving thing that liveth shall be meat for you" (Gen. 9:3). In the Garden, God told Adam and Eve to eat freely (Gen. 2:16).

Now, what about modern foods? So much fat, grease, MSGs and the like; what of those? Obviously, the Bible speaks of none of these, so it is impossible for Christians to hold as law a charge to not consume them. Author James Jordon puts it this way: "it is not a serious matter for a physician to advise abstaining from foods for medical reasons, based on human wisdom. It is, however a very serious thing when men advocate abstaining from foods for religious reasons...valuable as exercise, good diet, and the like may be, they are not delineated in God's revealed law" (from his book, Pig Out?).

Now, this may prove offensive to many Christians, but there are many verses, some of which I have already quoted, that simply stand at odds with diet-crazed moderns. Isaiah, when speaking of the New Covenant, states that "on this mountain shall the LORD of hosts make unto all people a feast of fat things, a feast of wines on the lees, of fat things full of marrow, of wines on the lees well refined" (Is. 25:6). God's design for His people is for them to enjoy all things edible. I'll close with a final quote from Wilson:

at the root of all the problems, we should be able to detect a false doctrine of God. Ours is a lost generation, in the grip of a deep father hunger. Because we have not had healthy relationships with our human fathers, God, we naturally assume, is parsimonious. He is tight-fisted with His abundance. We slander Him in our hearts. If it tastes like gravel, it must be from God, so the thinking goes, and restaurants tout their 'death by chocolate' concoctions as 'decadent' or 'sinful.' Something is desperately wrong here. God - not the devil - was the inventor of pleasure, sex, goodness, fermentation, and satisfaction. He was the designer of all our nerve endings and our taste buds and over a million tastes, and He gave men the ingenuity to be able to figure out how to combine all those tastes in ways that would create a trillion more. Where could we have possibly gotten the idea that He was stingy? An enemy has done this.

The Chicken or the Egg?

I've recently heard arguments from a friend of mine who says that Scripture is itself subject the the authority of Tradition. This view is most identifiable from within the Roman Catholic camp of Christianity, and it presents itself quite convincingly, at face value. The argument goes something like this: Scripture is infallible inasmuch as those who canonized were themselves infallible; therefore, these men, operating from within the Holy Tradition, bear the weight and authority of Tradition onto the canonized Scripture. In conclusion, we have the Scripture, arranged and canonized by men, which is subject to the authority of the men operating from within the Holy Tradition.

As I have said, this can sound very convincing at first, but there are some big problems with this reasoning. The biggest error that I can see is the lack of objectivity given to God's Word, the Scriptures. The way I see it, if we can give math the benefit of objectivity, we should do likewise for God's Word. Going further in this example of mathematics, we find men in the past who have developed theorems and proofs that men before them had not developed, hence they “discovered” those theorems and proofs. But it would be silly to say that they invented the very principles of math that they sought to theorize and make useful in theorem form. Most certainly math exists outside of our knowledge of it. Two and two make four, quite regardless of whether I acknowledge that or not. This objective view of math can be very helpful when searching for the authority of Scripture. Just as the objective principles of math can be acknowledged by men, so those who helped to canonize Scripture recognized its authority outside of themselves, or objectively.

Here is a second problem. No Roman Catholic would argue with the fact that there have been false, or bad traditions that have disguised themselves as tradition in the past. Many have not even been disguised. Now, I acknowledge that many bad or false traditions have been purged from the Roman Catholic church over the years, and that is a good thing. What I find contestable are the words good and bad, when applied to Tradition. Now, if it is true that Roman Catholic's place the Holy Tradition as their highest degree of authority, then how in God's Name can subjective terms such as bad or good be applied to it? If the Holy Tradition is the yardstick by which we must measure everything else, then how is it even possible that it can be questioned or deemed bad? That would be like saying that there is such a thing as good math or bad math. Now, when I say bad math I do not mean one who is poor at math, nor when I say good math, one who excels at math. I mean math itself. Math itself has no subjective qualities about it; it simply is. We must conform our minds to the principles of math, not the other way around. Likewise, if Holy Tradition is the highest authority, how then would it begin to make sense to question it? If it is, in fact, the highest authority, then we should conform ourselves to it, no questions asked. But once we begin the nonsense of saying there is good absolute authority, worthy of our devotion, and bad absolute authority, then we have begun to hold Tradition up to a higher standard, a standard objective to it's subjectivity. Now what would be the candidate for Tradition to be subject to? Men, who are creatures prone to change? I shouldn't think so. Then what? Why, the Holy Scriptures of course.

The last argument that many Roman Catholics like to raise goes something like this: both Tradition and Scripture are subject to divine revelation, which comes from God and empowers both equally. Now, this is perhaps the best of their arguments so far, but it remains unconvincing. One must ask this crucial question: How do we receive divine revelation? Of course, this is the key point where Protestants and Roman Catholics answer differently, Roman Catholics answering that they receive divine revelation from the papacy, Tradition, and Scripture, while Protestants answer only the Scriptures. Personally, in reference to the Catholic argument, I can think of nothing more circularly problematic. Maybe I just need to ask the Lord to increase my faith...for when receiving divine revelation from the papacy, Tradition, and Scripture, which have all erred in the past, sans Scripture, then I'd consider myself in deep doodoo if I placed my foundation upon something that has failed, and is certainly prone to fail again.

The Christmas Child, by George MacDonald

"Little one, who straight hast come
Down the heavenly stair,
Tell us all about your home,
And the father there."

"He is such a one as I,
Like as like can be.
Do his will, and, by and by,
Home and him you'll see."

Through Pain without Stain

Why does God allow pain, people often ask. Do we think that it is God's primary concern is to maky us happy? How about making us perfect! Our perfected souls are what brings the most glory unto Himself. If us being happy brought God the most glory, than He would do all that He possibly could to make us the happiest beings possible; but that is not how it works. When and how are people most glorified? Why, it is when they are honored, when people pay tribute to them, when they are regarded as a more worthy being.

But why does God allow pain? C.S. Lewis once said that "God whispers to us in our pleasures, speaks to us in our conscience, but shouts in our pains: It is His megaphone to rouse a deaf world." Pain wakes us up; it allows us to see things differently; it helps us to ask life's more important questions. Most of all, it makes us more aware of the result of sin: death.


Another question may be asked at this point: why does God allow good? I came across this verse while reading Romans 2, and it brilliantly answers this question: "do you think lightly of the riches of His kindness and tolerance and patience, not knowing that the kindness of God leads you to repentance?" (emphasis mine). Pain awakens us to God; goodness is meant to lead to repentance. Both pain and pleasure are meant to lead us to God. Fancy that.

I will again quote C.S. Lewis (you can never have too much Lewis): "God, who foresaw your tribulation, has specially armed you to go through it, not without pain but without stain." Pain is a crucible, meant to present the inbiber a more complete person in Christ. Without stain, without blemish, a closer-to-perfect being on the other side. "For to you it has been granted for Christ's sake, not only to believe in Him, but also to suffer for His sake" (Phil. 1:29).


Praise be to God for being wiser than us, for suffering is His method of choice to achieve perfected followers. "Consider it all joy, my brethren, when you encounter various trials, knowing that the testing of your faith produces endurance. And let endurance have its perfect result, so that you may be perfect and complete, lacking in nothing" (James 1: 2-4). May we endure pain with joyful hearts, knowing that our suffering is meant to produce in us Christ-likeness.

God Fully-Clawed

"Fearing God? What are you talking about? God is love!" This is the rallying cry of the misinformed Christians of our day. Since "the fear of the LORD is the beginning of wisdom," it would follow that having no fear of God would leave a person with no wisdom.

But doesn't fearing God mean being afraid of Him? Certainly not! Moses addresses the Israelites, right after delivering the ten commandments, and says, "do not be afraid; for God has come in order to test you, and in order that the fear of Him may remain with you, so that you may not sin" (Ex. 20:20). Do not be afraid. Fear God. These two propositions do not contradict. To be afraid seems to give the connotation of being unaware of consequences or the future, but to fear something, in this case, means that you know well and good what the consequences are. God makes us fully aware what our consequences will be for our sin: death. This fear we are to have for God includes reverence, honor, and respect [Heb. "yir'ah" - awesome or terrifying thing (object causing fear), respect, reverence, piety]. Were it not for Christ, this consequence of eternal seperation from God would be a reality for us all.

All of this to say that modern pagans, and even many Christians, have spent their lives judiciously and fervently declawing God, and in turn His church. Shirking the sharps pains of persecution, ridding ourselves of church purity, emphasizing God's love much more than His other attributes, the list goes on and on. Christians have got to think iconoclastically! We must constantly be vigilant in destroying heretical (wrong-thinking) views of God, and in their place, inserting orthodox (right-thinking) views of God. The ever-present heresy of our day and age is that God is not to be feared. May we rid ourselves of this in order to see God in a more orthodox way, one that honors His omnipotence and wrath toward sin.

Remember, Aslan is not a tame Lion.

Ok, we should fear God, but isn't He "safe?" Don't we know everything there is to know about Him? Don't we have Him in our back pocket? I can say it no better than Mr. Beaver, so I'll let him make response:

"Safe?" said Mr. Beaver. "Don't you hear what Mrs. Beaver tells you? Who said anything about safe? 'Course he isn't safe. But he's good. He's the King, I tell you.

Thank you, Mr. Beaver. Love, in and of itself...is an oxymoron. True love does not exist without fear and trembling and honor, all of which are immortal things. Let's get back to a more robust and honorable view of our King. God is love, certainly, but He also commands fear and trembling from all creation (Phil. 2:12, Heb. 12:21).

The Scissors with Two Blades

We must never completely dismiss anything that has even a bit of truth to it. The answer to legalism is not anti-legalism, in the same way that the answer the intellectualism is not anti-intellectualism. We must dismiss the corruptions of legalism and intellectualism, but keep the truth found in them. Many evangelicals seem to toss out legalism completely, leaving only a hollow shell of a faith and refusing to learn and retain the truth it was founded on. Works and order and tradition are pivotal and necessary for the Christian. These elements do not save us, but neither does anything, or anyone I should say, besides for Christ. So is no creed but Christ the answer? May it never be! Without works and order and tradition, Christianity is free to become a religion of the times, and will sway like the tree in a fierce wind, giving way here and there, only to be uprooted in the end.

So, what is the answer to legalism? Why, it must be to place works as subject to God. Everything must be subject to God. If we do not choose this for ourselves, God will choose it for us in the end. But isn't faith more important than works? To quote C.S. Lewis, "Regarding the debate about faith and works: It’s like asking which blade in a pair of scissors is most important." Without works, faith is rendered impotent, and without faith, works are rendered impotent. So are works necessary? Are you telling me that I must do good works in order to be saved? These are the wrong sorts of questions. Asking these questions is like asking to be given ways on how to become a saint. To ask for a method of becoming a saint is asking for something that is less than sainthood as a means of attaining sanctity. There are no shortcuts. But back to the issue: works and order and tradition and history are crucial, and Christianity will soon hold no water without them. Naturally if they become idols, we are to cast them out and purify them with fire. But once they are purified, we must bring them back, we must cling to them once more, and we must continue to do so or our religion is doomed to collapse. Christ pours truth from Himself. To accept Christ is to accept His faith and His works, as well as His laws, His history, His traditions, His mind, His will, those whom He blesses, and those whom he curses. Christ ceases to be Christ when we prune Him of these things. So the answer to legalism is not anti-legalism; the answer is to carry your cross and follow your Lord.

I end with a quote from Martin Luther:

"O it is a living, busy active mighty thing, this faith. It is impossible for it not to be doing good things incessantly. It does not ask whether good works are to be done, but before the question is asked, it has already done this, and is constantly doing them. Whoever does not do such works, however, is an unbeliever. He gropes and looks around for faith and good works, but knows neither what faith is nor what good works are. Yet he talks and talks, with many good words, about faith and good works."