Posted on 02/02/2015 5:08:56 AM PST by LeoMcNeil
Food is one issue that unites the far left and the Christian right in America. This hasn’t always been the case but in the last decade the Christian right has begun to embrace the radical food politics of the left. For Christians it has become a new form of asceticism. Paul tells us in 1 Tim 4:1-4:
Now the Spirit speaketh expressly, that in the latter times some shall depart from the faith, giving heed to seducing spirits, and doctrines of devils; Speaking lies in hypocrisy; having their conscience seared with a hot iron; Forbidding to marry, and commanding to abstain from meats, which God hath created to be received with thanksgiving of them which believe and know the truth. For every creature of God is good, and nothing to be refused, if it be received with thanksgiving
In other words when Christians start declaring what believers can and cannot eat, they’re basically doing Satan’s work for him. Unfortunately many Christians have adopted this attitude and are more than happy to share it on social media sites such as Facebook and Twitter. It’s often in the form of declaring what isn’t food, implying that people who eat what isn’t food are somehow sinning against God.
This unites Christians to the radical left, which has been pushing food politics for years. Just a casual search on the internet will reveal hundreds of blogs declaring what is and isn’t food. One blog suggests that boxed cereal isn’t food. Yes, that’s right Corn Flakes and Cheerios aren’t food in the world of food politics. Search GMO’s and you’ll find endless unsubstantiated declarations as to their danger in addition to declarations that GMO products aren’t food. Christians have created diets around food seen in the Bible. The left pulls the same stunts, trying to shame anyone who questions them and using buzz words to push their lunatic “healthy” lifestyle. Among the more ridiculous is the “farm to table” movement in the restaurant world. Where exactly do these people think food has come from for the last century until the left created this absurd movement?
It is a huge mistake for Christians to get caught up in leftist food politics. The issue isn’t whether or not it’s a good idea to eat healthy food, it also isn’t an issue of whether a diabetic should eat a hot fudge sundae. The people declaring what is and isn’t food are implicitly claiming two things. First, they’re implying that it would be sin to eat “not food.” Second, they’re implying greater spirituality by eating what they declare to be food. Paul is having none of that in 1 Tim 4, going so far as to suggest those who tell believers we may not eat and enjoy all things are speaking doctrines of devils. For believers to declare that there are foods out there that aren’t really food and that Christians shouldn’t eat them, that’s nothing but a doctrine of Satan. It splits believers apart and creates a Christianity dependent on the food we eat rather than on Jesus Christ.
You might say that those who subscribe to asceticism really want to deny the joy associated with food and that the Christian food police aren’t really doing that. However if you look at the foods they attack, they’re always the ones people enjoy the most. Anything with sugar is declared “not food.” Anything fast food is “not food.” Their offered alternatives are usually repulsive. Not across the board of course but let’s face it many of their alternatives are repulsive. They want to take away the joy that people have when they eat “not food” and in doing so the Christian food police imply positive spirituality. In fact, their arguments are of Satan. The denial of food and the enjoyment associated with food is a denial of the blessings God has given us. To declare certain things to be “not food” and thus not acceptable for Christians to eat is a slap in the face of God who has blessed us with these foods.
The left in this country has done a magnificent job of dividing Christians and separating us from historical Christianity. We can see it in the church when believers go to war over leftist food politics and other leftist inventions such as attachment parenting. Rather than being thankful for the blessings God has given us, those engaging in food politics complain about those blessings and claim a higher spirituality by not partaking in those blessings. These people aren’t simply trying to be healthy or lose weight, they’re proselytizing and shaming people who don’t agree with them. If they had a Biblical basis for shaming people, that would be one thing. After all, sin is shaming. However, there’s no basis whatsoever for anyone to declare what foods we may or may not eat. There is also no basis for believers to declare what is and isn’t food. Of course, it’s always the most enjoyable foods that are declared not food. It’s never the foods that no one particularly enjoys. These people are pushing a religious doctrine, a new form of asceticism. It’s something believers should resist at all costs because it’s of Satan.
I recently had to have brain surgery and my tastes completely changed. 54 years of not liking chocolate pudding are now gone and chocolate pudding is now on the shopping list (ingredients, more likely, for real pudding). I will try everything I can, and keep what I like.
Food faddism is really close to ingratitude.
/johnny
I’ve never been hungry a day in my life. But I am still grateful no matter the fair. We live in privileged times and a fantastic place.
fare, not fair.
I like the term food faddism. On some level a lot of this stuff is a fad. On another level though, especially with leftists, they want to inject politics into every single daily event. Food for them is a political statement. Unfortunately a lot of conservative Christians have gotten caught up in it because it begins with a little bit of truth before morphing into an ungrateful lie. It starts with desiring to eat healthy, which is a perfectly fine thing. It then morphs into lists of “food” and “not food.” We’re to the point where internet sages will tell us whether our morning corn flakes are food or not. (usually not)
Can you substantiate your claim that these "hundreds of blogs" are all part of the Christian Right, and that these "diets around food seen in the Bible" are the same as "declaring what is and isn't food"?
Me? I mainly ignore them and eat what I want. I will have real eggs, real bacon, home-roasted coffee, and home-made spicy salsa for breakfast.
And anyone that doesn't like it can pound sand. But that's just me. ;)
/johnny
I am with you!
Since I increased my intake of bacon and eggs and meat in general I have felt better; lowered my blood pressure; and have more energy.
Plus, all that stuff tastes good!
There is something wrong with avoiding fake frankenfoods and sticking to good, clean, fresh ingredients?
Your word choice reveals your bias.
/johnny
Yeh johnny I stopped using margarine and switched back to real butter. Soooo much better tasting and its real food from nature.
I still like to eat food from my garden that I grew myself. That’s the place I see the miracle of the world that the Lord has given us and the place I feel closest to God.
Amen!
Not much garden so far this year, but if I last through the spring, you can bet I'll have stuff out of the garden.
/johnny
The point is, the choice is up to the individual. I’m a skeptic on the GMO hysteria, myself.
Of course, this is really about controlling the food supply - a typical ploy of dictators. The right should never buy into it.
Well, I don’t think Cherrios and Corn Flakes are food, either. But it’s not for religious reasons. I just don’t waste precious calories on food I don’t like and don’t enjoy.
He said from around a mouthful of bacon.
A Christan friend shared a blog about the FDA allowing arsenic in chicken. We have a wonderful food supply but it may play into distrust of the government. Ironically, this woman seems to be sympathetic to democrats. So much confusion and superstition these days!
Alex, maybe I don’t get out much, but I haven’t heard any Christians telling anybody to eat or not eat anything. Maybe some do, but I don’t know of any.
Nonsense. GM corn is corn. GM soybeans are soybeans. Same for all other GM crops. There is no nutritional difference between GM corn and soybeans and non-GM varieties. The GM products have been modified for insect resistance, herbicide tolerance, and/or drought resistance, which allows signficant reductions in pesticide use, encourages no-till cultivation, reduces soil erosion, and reduces the need for irrigation. All of this improves yield. It also produces a healthier plant with less insect damage and weather related stress, so generally lower mycotoxins. I.e., if you are interested in healthy food, the GM variety is typically healthier, and better for the environment.
If none of this matters to you, that's fine. Buy non-GM products, or buy organic. Pay the premium and be happy. Your dollars, your choice. But don't invent hobgoblins to rationalize your food fetish.
The next frontier in GM will probably be varieties that offer tangible health benefits to consumers, as opposed to agronomic benefits to farmers. Golden rice is already there, and it is interesting to note that it is opposed anyhow by activist groups, who hate Golden Rice precisely because it is such a powerful advertisement for the technology. The opposition to GM technology is not driven by food safety or food quality concerns; it is rooted in opposition to modern agricultural technology, increasing economies of scale, and fear of competition.
Explore the Greenpeace website sometime. Their preferred future relies on peasant farmers in village communities producing for local markets; i.e., they are basically opposed to 20th century agriculture, not just GMOs. Feeding nine billion people by 2050 and producing an improved diet for the rapidly growing global middle class are not on their priority list.
/johnny
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.