Such teachings
come through hypocritical liars, whose consciences have been seared as with a
hot iron. They forbid people to marry and order them to abstain from certain
foods, which God created to be received with thanksgiving by those who believe
and who know the truth. For everything God created is good, and nothing is to
be rejected if it is received with thanksgiving, because it is consecrated by
the word of God and prayer. If you point these things out to the brothers, you
will be a good minister of Christ Jesus, brought up in the truths of the faith
and of the good teaching that you have followed. (I Timothy 4:2-6)
They
forbid people to marry and order them to abstain from certain foods. Curiously,
those are charges being leveled against Christianity today. We forbid certain
people from marrying, and we require that people abstain from certain foods.
When we eat some of the same food we from which we supposedly tell everyone
else to abstain, we’re called hypocrites and accused of disobeying our own law.
Let’s take a step back from the specific laws to the general description. The hypocritical liars in question forbid and order. The people Paul wrote about would have been comfortable with the Pharisaic philosophy, even if they disagreed with the specifics. They would claim to mean well. It was for the good of the people that they forbade or commanded. In other words, they were the progressives of their day. In addition to their assumption of lordship over the people, consider the areas specified. The first human institution God mandated was marriage. His first test of man had to do with not eating.
As I said, there are those who level charges about these against Christians today. The first is the refusal on the part of evangelical or conservative Christians to “let” homosexuals get “married.” First off, my issue is not with homosexuals considering themselves married. They can consider themselves whatever they choose. My issue is with their will to power. They are assuming the right to dictate to others what marriage is. They are assuming the right to dictate to others what response is permitted. They are assuming the right to punish and destroy anyone who doesn’t bow to their demands. In short, they are assuming the right to curtail the rights of others.
Yesterday, I read a very nice response to this: “I understand that you have a set of beliefs and principles leading you to make that request of me. I hope you understand that I have beliefs and principles, too. For me to go along with your request would violate my personal convictions and my personal identity. I don’t want to violate your convictions or your identity, I don’t want to force my beliefs on you, and I don’t believe you want to do that to me, either." Nice, kind answer – except I suspect that quite a few people do want to force their beliefs on Christians.
The second issue – eating – is being used in a different way. People read the Mosaic Law, including the restrictions of food. They read Jesus’ statement that He didn’t come to destroy the law, and so they accuse Christians of cherry-picking which commands to obey and which to ignore because Christians eat pork, ham, the wrong cuts of beef, shrimp, etc. Their thinking seems to be that if we can choose to ignore the Law about food, why can’t we choose to ignore it about (name the Law they advocate breaking.)
The first problem with this thinking is that it doesn’t take into account the whole teaching of the Bible with regard to food. Matthew 15, Acts 10, Acts 15, Romans 4, and Galatians 3 are among the passages to consider. Gentile Christians were simply not required to become Jews to be Christians. Perhaps more importantly, this thinking approaches the problem from the wrong direction. They appear to think that if we fail to obey rules A, B, and C, that there is no reason why we can’t simply fail to obey rules L, G, B, T and Q. Perhaps we should ask them, in all honesty, “You think that for me to be a good Christian, I ought to give up pork, ham, certain cuts of beef and shrimp? Would that lead you to embrace Christianity?” If they say yes, revise your shopping list accordingly and let them know when you’re picking them up for church. I suspect they’ll admit that they really don’t have an issue with your diet.
Let’s take a step back from the specific laws to the general description. The hypocritical liars in question forbid and order. The people Paul wrote about would have been comfortable with the Pharisaic philosophy, even if they disagreed with the specifics. They would claim to mean well. It was for the good of the people that they forbade or commanded. In other words, they were the progressives of their day. In addition to their assumption of lordship over the people, consider the areas specified. The first human institution God mandated was marriage. His first test of man had to do with not eating.
As I said, there are those who level charges about these against Christians today. The first is the refusal on the part of evangelical or conservative Christians to “let” homosexuals get “married.” First off, my issue is not with homosexuals considering themselves married. They can consider themselves whatever they choose. My issue is with their will to power. They are assuming the right to dictate to others what marriage is. They are assuming the right to dictate to others what response is permitted. They are assuming the right to punish and destroy anyone who doesn’t bow to their demands. In short, they are assuming the right to curtail the rights of others.
Yesterday, I read a very nice response to this: “I understand that you have a set of beliefs and principles leading you to make that request of me. I hope you understand that I have beliefs and principles, too. For me to go along with your request would violate my personal convictions and my personal identity. I don’t want to violate your convictions or your identity, I don’t want to force my beliefs on you, and I don’t believe you want to do that to me, either." Nice, kind answer – except I suspect that quite a few people do want to force their beliefs on Christians.
The second issue – eating – is being used in a different way. People read the Mosaic Law, including the restrictions of food. They read Jesus’ statement that He didn’t come to destroy the law, and so they accuse Christians of cherry-picking which commands to obey and which to ignore because Christians eat pork, ham, the wrong cuts of beef, shrimp, etc. Their thinking seems to be that if we can choose to ignore the Law about food, why can’t we choose to ignore it about (name the Law they advocate breaking.)
The first problem with this thinking is that it doesn’t take into account the whole teaching of the Bible with regard to food. Matthew 15, Acts 10, Acts 15, Romans 4, and Galatians 3 are among the passages to consider. Gentile Christians were simply not required to become Jews to be Christians. Perhaps more importantly, this thinking approaches the problem from the wrong direction. They appear to think that if we fail to obey rules A, B, and C, that there is no reason why we can’t simply fail to obey rules L, G, B, T and Q. Perhaps we should ask them, in all honesty, “You think that for me to be a good Christian, I ought to give up pork, ham, certain cuts of beef and shrimp? Would that lead you to embrace Christianity?” If they say yes, revise your shopping list accordingly and let them know when you’re picking them up for church. I suspect they’ll admit that they really don’t have an issue with your diet.
Comments
Post a Comment