Suppertime Sin?

Have you ever sat at the dinner table in front of steamed veggies, a lean and seasoned pork chop, mashed potatoes, and a cold glass of milk, wondering whether consuming this meal is sinful -- opposed to Christian teaching?

Some Christians, for religious reasons, object to that lean and seasoned pork chop being on the dinner table. Citing Leviticus 11 and Deuteronomy 14, they insist that it is "unclean meat," which God forbade the ancient Israelites to eat. That much is true -- God DID command them to avoid certain meats. But do these laws pertain to Christians -- now?

I thought they did. I was raised in a church that taught it was a sin for a Christian to eat pork, lobster, shrimp, catfish, and a host of other foods. I believed that to do so was to disobey God's instructions, and that it was the cause for numerous health problems in society. Listing various "clean" and "unclean" meats, the Bible presented us with a divine diet. I believed it was the Maker's menu for the health of humankind.

When I was older, however, I reached another conclusion. Based on a more fair and critical examination of Scripture, I came to understand the historic Christian understanding of these and certain other laws -- that they were given to a particular audience and were not intended to apply universally to all societies throughout the ages.

Very simply, in the interest of time (and your attention span), here is my belief regarding clean and unclean meats:

While it is possible that unrecorded health issues of the time were included, God gave Israel their dietary laws as a sign or reminder that He separated them from among the other sinful nations to be His people. Since God is no longer dealing primarily with the nation of Israel, but calling all nations to repent and to be His people, the laws that distinguished Israel from her neighbors have served their purpose. They do not directly pertain to our circumstances, and therefore serve no practical purpose now.

Wherever these clean and unclean meats are discussed in Scripture, the reason for them is either implied or explicitly stated. It is most clearly stated in the following passage:

Leviticus 20:24-26:
I am the LORD your God, who has set you apart from the nations. You must therefore make a distinction between clean and unclean animals and between unclean and clean birds. Do not defile yourselves by any animal or bird or anything that moves along the ground—those which I have set apart as unclean for you. You are to be holy to me because I, the LORD, am holy, and I have set you apart from the nations to be my own.

As Christians, we are free to choose to avoid certain meats (or even all meats) based on conscience and nutritional views. It is a mistake, however, to claim biblical authority for demanding that catfish dinners be banished from the Christian's menu.

A Hare Out of Place

Rabbits are known for their rate of multiplying, but this little guy almost divided himself into 1000 when he barely escaped the whirring blades of my Snapper riding mower this weekend.

He had been hiding in some tall grass, and I saw the little fur ball leap from out of the mowing deck, it seemed. I thought I had "processed" a squirrel, but the bunny ears gave it away. I hopped off the mower to more carefully examine him. Seeing that he was fully intact, I took him home to show the wife, and, because of her natural ability with animals, he seemed at ease and was willing to pose for some photographs.

After the photo shoot, I released him near the place where I almost prematurely ended his math career.

I am reminded of how some people think I over analyze things because I'm always asking questions and trying to solve every "what if." But I'm hoping this puts it to rest: Although sometimes I come close, I'm not a hare-splitter.

Passover and Easter

The Bible does not stand alone as a victim of sloppy interpretation. Most any text -- some more easily than others -- can be misread and misunderstood.

I recently received a comment on one of my older posts. The commenter undoubtedly believes that Easter is a pagan holiday to be avoided, and that Christians instead should observe the "Lord's Supper" only on the night of the Jewish Passover.

Because I find it valuable to examine the beliefs of the Early Church, the commenter posted a quotation from ancient historian Eusebius (pictured above), who cited a letter from Polycrates to the Roman bishop Victor. Polycrates, based on a tradition he says comes from the apostle John, insisted on observing the date of the Jewish Passover, while Victor insisted on maintaining the Sunday observance for Easter. Earlier that century, Polycarp had the same argument with Anicetus.

The anonymous commenter concludes, "So now, who left the teachings of the first generations of Christians?"

I am sure the commenter overlooks certain points when reading this account from Eusebius' History of the Church:

1. It's evident that there was a certain kind of authority or primacy associated with the bishop of Rome -- both Victor and Anicetus. Why did Polycrates and Polycarp insist on talking to the Roman bishop unless he had some sort of widely recognized authority in church matters? It also appears the Roman bishop had the authority to excommunicate whole parishes and regions from the faithful. (Note: This is long before Constantine and the Council of Nicea of A.D. 325.)
   
2. The whole controversy was over specific dates, not specific celebrations. The truth is that they debated when to celebrate a special annual observance of the the death, burial, and resurrection of Jesus. Both sides of the controversy were speaking of the same event, but argued over when it was to be observed. It was not "Should we keep 'God's Passover' or 'pagan Easter'?" There is no evidence that the pope was trying to force a new celebration upon Christians. Thus there was no outcry against colored eggs, Cadbury bunnies, or pagan accoutrements (secular, modern "Easter" symbols didn't arrive till much later).
3. Polycrates and the others Asiatics on his side also observed a form of Lent. The length of "the fast" leading up to Easter (or Passover, whichever you wish to call it) also varied according to different traditions. But, unlike the anonymous commenter, they still observed this already ancient tradition.
4. Despite their differences, after their visit, "Anicetus conceded the administration of the eucharist in the church to Polycarp, manifestly as a mark of respect." If Polycarp thought Anicetus was falling headlong into paganism, why did he agree to administer the Eucharist? By the way, because of their strong views, surely this particular Eucharistic celebration was held neither on the Jewish Passover date nor on Easter Sunday. It would have been an ordinary weekly Sunday, which was a customary practice for both of them.

There are other things I would like to point out, but not knowing for sure who the anonymous commenter is, I don't know which points to address.

To read about this in fuller context, read all of chapter 24 in Eusebius' work here.