Banner
Covered in Hot Gravy PDF Print E-mail
Thinking Straight - Creation and Food
Written by Douglas Wilson   
Wednesday, 30 March 2011 06:48

The faithful Christian looks around the table, sees who is sitting with him, and he loves them. The fellowship and thanksgiving sanctify whatever is on the table -- and pretty much anything can be on the table. If we can get it down, there is not much that gratitude can't sanctify (1 Tim. 4:4).

The mentality of unbelief approaches the problem in quite a different fashion. This mentality wants to focus on the nature of the food, and provided that is copacetic, then the people around the table are thereby approved.

Which sanctifies which? The gold the altar or the altar the gold? Having established the principle, i.e. that the altar does the sanctifying, we have to ask, in matters of table fellowship, whether the altar is on the platters or in the chairs.

The criteria for approved food can cover a vast range. There are denominational differences within this broad outlook -- there are factions that support "like mom used to make," high end restaurant food, food eaten by manners snobs, food applauded by organic foodies, social justice food, my ethnic food as over against your ethnic food, food that doesn't provoke my phantom allergies, food that has not been contaminated by microwave cooties, and more. You name it, we can supply the necessary food coloring that will help us divide the body of Christ. We draw divisions on the table, and the necessary result is divisions between those in the chairs. But Jesus hates the latter a whole lot worse than He might hate the former.

Now here is your test -- and this is one of the first lessons the New Testament church was required to master, long before Nicea or Chalcedon. When the Gentiles showed up in the church, some of them continued to eat their bacon. What is more important to you? The presence or absence of bacon, or the presence or absence of Demetrius?

Imagine you have been invited to dinner somewhere, and suppose you just can't get past the fact that your hosts are, apparently without malice, serving up carcinogens covered in gravy. Well, Jesus said that we had to take up our cross in order to follow Him. Your obligation is to die for your brother. At least in this case your obligation is covered in hot gravy.

Uptight food scruples, as they commonly operate in the church today, are an insult to justification by faith alone, the principal glory of which is table fellowship (Gal. 2:14-16). Pastors should be far more jealous on the point than they are. But confronting food divisions within a congregation takes courage, and we think the apostle Paul used all of that kind of courage up.

 

 



Add this page to your favorite Social Networking websites
Digg! Reddit! Del.icio.us! Mixx! Google! Live! Facebook! StumbleUpon! MySpace! Yahoo! BlogRolling! Twitter! LinkedIn! TwitThis
 
Comments
Search
Only registered users can write comments!
Randy Compton  Wednesday, March 30, 2011 8:16 am
Love this post both for the humor and the real (and growing) problem it addresses.

My family has invited people over for dinner; they then provide my wife a long list of things they can't or won't eat. In fact we once had one couple insist on bringing all their own food, including a dessert my kids still remember with a shudder. This sin-and-flavor-free cake found its way into our family lexicon; we now refer to bad desserts of all types as "(last name withheld) cake."

What should believers do when we want to have table fellowship with people who insist on only having on the table what they want there? I understand the legitimacy of wanting not to get sick from real food allergies, but often the allergies seem "trendy." "Gluten free" seems like the big current trend.

What my family has done thus far is go along with people's food demands in a weak-brother/ strong-brother sort of way, but this seems unsatisfactory. Is there a wise, loving approach that does not just ignore the issue in the interest of fellowship? (Or from fear of starting a food fight? :D ).
RachelB  - Amen  Wednesday, March 30, 2011 9:13 am
Would love to hear an answer to Randy Compton's question!
Valerie (Kyriosity)  Wednesday, March 30, 2011 10:17 am
Randy and Rachel, this video from Nancy Wilson addresses the issue, too: http://www.canonwired.com/ask-nancy/guests-allergies/

And a general question in response to the post and Randy's story: How do things work in reverse? What is more important to us? The presence or absence of (last name withheld) cake, or the presence or absence of the (last name withheld) family? Do we decide just to never have the food neurotics over for dinner again, or do we bear with them, or are there other factors we need to take into account?
Douglas Wilson  Wednesday, March 30, 2011 11:20 am
Valerie, it is the difference between the response of 1 Cor. 8:13 and the response of Col. 2:16. You bend for the weaker brother, you are rigid with the imperialist. But I need to write more on this.
RachelB  Wednesday, March 30, 2011 5:31 pm
Thanks, Valerie. I definitely remember Mrs. Wilson's response because I was the one who asked the question :) -just curious if there were any additional thoughts since then. Thank you for reposting the link anyway.

Looking forward to you fleshing out the verses below, Pastor Wilson.
Randy Compton  Wednesday, March 30, 2011 11:21 am
Thanks for the link--good stuff. I think that the advice in the video is pretty much what we are doing because we believe generally (in answer to your question Valerie) that the fellowship is more important. I guess what I am loking for is a way to talk with people about their allergies and food phobias that does not cause a break in fellowship.

I have tried asking folks questions like "When did you find out you were allergic?" How sort of tests did the doctor run?" Things of that sort. Generally if the allergy is real people have good answers that are based in objective fact. For example, we have good friends with children who have genuine, send-you-to-the-hospital peanut allergies. It's a pleasure to help them avoid the trip in the ambulance.


Other aquintences are self-diagnosing, though, with the help of countless internet sites, and they seem unwilling to entertain the possibility that they may be mistaken;they tend to resent my questions as a form of doubt.

I find that the practical outworkings of the problem, to be honest, is that we tend (selfishly) not to want to invite people we think are over-sensitive. There are obvious differences between having folks over to whom you can say "Hey we're throwing part of a dead cow on the grill to see what happens--wanna join us and find out?" and those to whom you want to say "OK, let's get together and eat broiled veggies (check, no frying; check no breading, check, no salt, and no, by all means, no gluten, no pork, no beef,)washed down with purified water, followed by a sugarless, soggy dessert. Looking forward to spending time together, brother."

I want fellowship to be enjoyable, but I concede, as the original post says, that at times it may be cross bearing. But wow--eating and drinking good stuff is such a great fellowship grease (so to speak)--and spending time trying to smile and show yourself not put out by eating bad stuff is so difficult--especially difficult not to feel resentful that you have to do it, or not to feel proud if you succeeed!
Valerie (Kyriosity)  Wednesday, March 30, 2011 12:32 pm
Doug -- Thanks. That was a good summary of the "other factors" I had in mind. When you write more, could you address the difference between how the church leaders should respond and how Polly Pewwarmer should respond?

Randy -- Cow carcass sounds great to me. What time's dinner? Somebody asked me today if I'd be interested in an editing job with a company that publishes vegetarian cookbooks. I responded that it would be rather hypocritical, as I am the sort of person who would get a craving for venison while watching Bambi. :wink:
TBush  - Depends  Thursday, March 31, 2011 4:15 am
It depends a lot on the attitude of the 'foodie'. When I'm attempting to lose the winter "extra" I usually go no-carb for a temporary period of time- it works for me, and is in conjunction with regular hard work and running. So when the invitation to a meal occurs, I won't make a fuss about anything- no way- I simply eat what I can, cheat a little, and 'just say no' to the gooey fudge.

It's those folks who go out of their way to announce what they're about- whatever the food issue is- who become irritating and seem very self-absorbed. It's as if their identity is wrapped up in what they don't consume. Maybe we can modify the old saying from "you are what you eat" into "you're not what you don't eat"?

Bonus- going low carb means LOTS of delicious carcinogens...
Natalie  - re:  Thursday, March 31, 2011 11:20 am
Randy Compton wrote:


I find that the practical outworkings of the problem, to be honest, is that we tend (selfishly) not to want to invite people we think are over-sensitive. There are obvious differences between having folks over to whom you can say "Hey we're throwing part of a dead cow on the grill to see what happens--wanna join us and find out?" and those to whom you want to say "OK, let's get together and eat broiled veggies (check, no frying; check no breading, check, no salt, and no, by all means, no gluten, no pork, no beef,)washed down with purified water, followed by a sugarless, soggy dessert. Looking forward to spending time together, brother."

I want fellowship to be enjoyable, but I concede, as the original post says, that at times it may be cross bearing. But wow--eating and drinking good stuff is such a great fellowship grease (so to speak)--and spending time trying to smile and show yourself not put out by eating bad stuff is so difficult--especially difficult not to feel resentful that you have to do it, or not to feel proud if you succeeed!


Perhaps for some people it's better to simply change the way your interact with them? For the omnivores you can have your bbq, and for the picky eaters perhaps you invite them over for an evening of boardgames. Depending on the pickiness of the eaters you could offer snacks (popcorn, fresh berries, sliced fruit and cheeses, nuts, etc) as feasible. These people must eat something other than brown rice and lentils.

Personally I'm more concerned about people who eat bad tasting food than people who don't eat certain things. My in-laws eat low carb, but my MIL makes some of the best grilled chicken I've ever eaten. It's not hard to throw a pot roast together knowing they won't eat the potatoes, and I know they'll appreciate it because they appreciate good food. It's the people who bring gluten free carob brownies you have to be careful with! Carob /= Chocolate!
DHammer  - Fads / Facts  Thursday, March 31, 2011 8:00 pm
Gluten sensitivity takes a regular beating at this blog and of course there are plenty of folks who jump on this bandwagon as a fad. On the other hand, blood serum taken and stored from the 1950s when compared to current serum has shown about a doubling in the frequency of antigluten antibodies. Celiac disease which was only talked about on rare occasions in the classroom when I was in med school in the '80s is now a diagnosis that I find on a frequent basis. These diagnoses are made with small bowel biopsies and antibody markers and not just trips to the internet.

Bottom line, this disease has plenty of faddish hangers-on, but is also appears to be the real thing.
Valerie (Kyriosity)  Friday, April 01, 2011 4:18 am
I don't think anybody's beating real gluten sensitivity around here, just the preponderance of self-diagnosed cases.
Jane Dunsworth  Friday, April 01, 2011 7:56 am
With my first pregnancy, before I decided that a little (and I do mean a little) caffeine wouldn't kill a baby I tried carob covered raisins instead of chocolate covered in an attempt to quell a chocolate craving.

I stuffed practically the whole bag down in one sitting before I realized I couldn't stop eating them simply because I kept unconsciously hoping the next one actually would taste like chocolate. As Douglas Adams might say, carob is almost, but not quite, entirely unlike chocolate.