Does Evolution Lead To Racism?

YE creationist blogger Sirius Knotts has posted about a recent case of racism in my home state of Louisiana. I completely agree with him on the ugliness of this sin, but I find his concluding paragraph a bit confusing.

I think we need to toss the word “race” into the garbage can.  The idea of human races is an evolutionary by-product. The Bible teaches that there is only one human race, born of Adam and Eve.

In another post on interracial marriage, Sirius does an excellent job showing that there is no scriptural basis for racism, despite the many attempts by others to misuse various passages to justify this sin. However, he makes a similar comment about evolution in one of the comments, when he writes:

I’m not sure what we expect here. We teach evolution in our schools exclusively which teaches that there are human races and that we’re in competition with one another. All of the tolerance teaching on the planet cannot overcome what we teach them about people groups in the name of science. We lay the foundation for racism in our science classrooms.

Is this a fair criticism of evolution? Is there a necessary connection between evolution and racism? Absolutely not.

In the first place, evolution is an explanation of how the variety of life came to exist. It is not a code of morality. We do not determine what is right or wrong based on what we see in the natural world. For example, some animals kill their own young; others assert their dominance over other males by sexually forcing themselves upon them. This obviously does not have anything to say about how we ought to treat other people. To assert that these phenomena occur is to merely describe what happens in nature, not to condone the behavior. We should not treat evolution any differently.

Second, both evolutionists and young earth creationists alike believe that all human beings have a common ancestor. YECs believe in two original human beings, and evolutionists believe in an original group from which we all come. Therefore, both groups can argue against racism by asserting that all of humanity is of the same blood. It can even be asserted that there is hardly any difference in our DNA.

Though the differences among red, yellow, black and white are small, there are still differences. I would venture to say that both YECs and evolutionists explain these differences through the separation of various groups and the subsequent changes that took place over time. To say that we should throw the term “race” in the garbage can is, I think, too sweeping a statement to make. Racial distinctions are both apparent and, in the field of medicine, are helpful in understanding diseases that affect certain races but not others. If by “race,” we mean separate species, then yes, throw that understanding in the trash. But I don’t think anyone believes that.

Let’s remember that YECs (at least those who adhere to AIG) do in fact believe in survival of the fittest and in change over time, which they term microevolution. It puzzles me therefore to read Sirius’ comment faulting evolution for leading to racism because it teaches that we are ”in competition with one another.”

Finally, before anyone starts giving me examples of people who used evolution to justify this monstrocity or another, let me remind him or her that just because someone uses a belief to justify his own racism does not mean that racism logically follows from that belief per se. We have had racism long before Darwin, and just as many people have used Christianity to justify this and a host of other sins.

Happy All Saints Day!

Before this year, I have never really celebrated Halloween. In fact, I was brought up with ideas of it originating from pagan, even Satanic practices. The church I am currently a member of wastes no energy making a righteous fuss over the holiday, but they do put on a Fall  (not a Halloween) Festival for the neighborhood that includes costumes, games, and candy. A lot of churches in my denomination host Reformation Day Parties, complete with pinning the 99 Thesis on the doors of the church of Wittenburg.

After reading a few posts from the Internet Monk, however, I realized that Halloween, or more specifically, All Saints Day, is a Christian holiday that celebrates the victory of the saints through Jesus Christ. It is a day to remember the souls of believers and of those whom God used in a mighty way to further his kingdom. Why would we not want to celebrate this?

Today, the baby was a little under the weather, and my wife graciously sent me off to church while she stayed with him alone. I decided to go to St. Stephen’s Episcopal Church instead of my home church because I knew that they observed the church calendar. How encouraging it was to remember the destiny of all saints! I’ll leave you with this passage from Revelation 7, part of which we read during the service.

⁹After this I looked and there before me was a great multitude that no one could count, from every nation, tribe, people and language, standing before the throne and in front of the Lamb. They were wearing white robes and were holding palm branches in their hands. ¹⁰And they cried out in a loud voice:
   ”Salvation belongs to our God,
   who sits on the throne,
   and to the Lamb.” ¹¹All the angels were standing around the throne and around the elders and the four living creatures. They fell down on their faces before the throne and worshiped God, ¹²saying:
   ”Amen!
   Praise and glory
   and wisdom and thanks and honor
   and power and strength
   be to our God for ever and ever.
   Amen!”

 ¹³Then one of the elders asked me, “These in white robes—who are they, and where did they come from?”

 ¹⁴I answered, “Sir, you know.”

   And he said, “These are they who have come out of the great tribulation; they have washed their robes and made them white in the blood of the Lamb. ¹⁵Therefore,
   ”they are before the throne of God
      and serve him day and night in his temple;
   and he who sits on the throne will spread his tent over them.
 ¹⁶Never again will they hunger;
      never again will they thirst.
   The sun will not beat upon them,
      nor any scorching heat.
 ¹⁷For the Lamb at the center of the throne will be their shepherd;
      he will lead them to springs of living water.
   And God will wipe away every tear from their eyes.”

Regina Spektor: “No one’s laughing at God in a hospital…”

I’m a fan of Regina Spektor, ever since discovering one of her songs on the Prince Caspian movie. What do you think about this one?

Mark Driscoll’s Song of Solomon Series: A Review

[Warning:  The content of this post is sexually and verbally explicit in places. Please proceed with caution.]

For the past several weeks, my wife and I have been spending Sunday nights watching Seatle pastor Mark Driscoll’s sermon series on the Song of Solomon. My interest was piqued by all the controversy over Driscoll’s supposedly graphic commentary on this book, and I wanted to see for myself whether the hubbub was a big deal.

It wasn’t. Driscoll’s preaching seemed pretty uncontroversial, in fact. He did talk a lot about sex, but that was because the Song of Solomon talks a lot about sex. He did mention details about different sexual activities, but not in a grossly graphic way. He mentioned oral sex, a wife dancing for her husband’s enjoyment, and even referred to the vagina (gasp!) with some sort of phrase like “a woman’s most intimate part.” Here’s the thing, though:  Song of Solomon talks about all these things, and last I checked, the preacher’s job is to preach the Bible. Some have objected that Driscoll should not have explained the euphemisms that are sprinkled throughout the book, but to do so would be to leave everyone in the dark as to what the two lovers of Solomon’s Song are saying to each other. Three thousand years or so separate our culture from the Hebrews’, and unless someone explains what is meant, we probably won’t understand it. Again, this is what the preacher is supposed to do.

Perhaps the umbrage that many people have taken in response to Mark Driscoll’s sermon series has helped expose some of our own sins. We have taken our own morality and made it God’s. We have elevated our own cultural etiquette to the status of the Ten Commandments–Thou shalt not talk about sex openly with other Christians, thou shalt not ask questions about oral sex in marriage, and whatsoever thou doeth, thou shalt not utter the accursed four-letter words that start with d, h, s, and f.

Driscoll also exposes a common sin of the pulpit–the failure to preach the whole word of God. If the Bible talks about sex, then preachers should preach about it. Good grief, this country, with its non-Christians and its Christians, is saturated with a twisted view of sex. Preach the truth about sex. Set people free to have pure fun in their bedrooms with their spouses.

Last, I think Driscoll helps expose a sin among translators. If the Bible is the word of God, then should we censor it so that it won’t offend our sensibilities? If the Bible is explicit or offensive, what gives anyone the right to soften it. If a verse is meant to shock, why would we take away its shock value? Take a look at Philippians 3:8:

Yea doubtless, and I count all things but loss for the excellency of the knowledge of Christ Jesus my Lord: for whom I have suffered the loss of all things, and do count them but dung, that I may win Christ. (KJV)

What is more, I consider everything a loss compared to the surpassing greatness of knowing Christ Jesus my Lord, for whose sake I have lost all things. I consider them rubbish, that I may gain Christ. (NIV)

At least twice, I have heard a pastor (R. C. Sproul was one) explain that this word is actually an obscenity. In other words the verse should read:

What is more, I consider everything a loss compared to the surpassing greatness of knowing Christ Jesus my Lord, for whose sake I have lost all things. I consider them shit, that I may gain Christ. (NIV)

If these preachers are right, then that’s what Paul said, and that’s how it should be translated. Consider the shock value that has for us. The best that we have to offer isn’t just rubbish, it’s utter shit. Wow. Pretty shocking.

I do not think that Driscoll’s series of the Song was perfect by any means. I think he was way off on a comment he (reluctantly) made, in response to a question he kept getting, about how often a married couple should have sex. He said that the average couple does it twice a week, and the average married man masturbates five times a week on the sly. Therefore, the couple should probably have sex every day so that the man can have his sexual needs met. The reason why I strongly disagree with him is that I know that masturbation is not meeting a sexual need most of the time. When guys get lonely, feel sad, are bored, or feel a lot of different things, they often meet those emotional needs by masturbating. As far as actual sexual needs go, twice or three times a week is plenty for me, but that’s just speaking for myself.

Last, I was not convinced that the things Driscoll said about relationships (which were in and of themselves, right on) were in fact a good exposition of the actual text. I am not saying that he wasn’t right in how he interpreted this or that euphemism. I am just not sure that his interpretation of the flow of events or historocity of the Song’s relationship were correct. That’s just a suspicion, though. I have yet to do an actual study of the book.

In summary, Driscoll’s sermon on SoS was a helpful series and one that the church needs to hear. Driscoll is a gifted pastor who loves his wife, family, and church very much, but like the rest of us, he has his problems.

Feel free to leave your take on this series, but please, be civil.

Committment to tradition

I love my denomination, but I am beginning to suspect that this quote from Tim Stafford may apply to it:

The neo-Reformed are committed to a tradition of scriptural interpretation. They’re sure it’s right and they read the Bible by looking through those lenses.

A Protestant Makes the Sign of the Cross

I have a confession to make to all my fellow Protestants:  sometimes I make the sign of the cross at the end of my private prayers. No, I am not converting to Catholicism, but I am appreciating a Catholic tradition. In fact, I am appreciating an ancient Christian tradition.

Five or six years ago, a group of friends and I attended a Lutheran church so tiny that the eight of us made up half the congregation. Consequently, the pastor took a lot of time from the service to explain to us non-Lutherans some of the things he was doing, and one of these things was the practice of crossing oneself. He pointed out that though it is often used superstitiously (like at baseball games), the sign of the cross is an ancient practice in the church that serves to remind us of who we are. I liked the idea and began practicing it, trying consciously not to use it mindlessly. It is a reminder that the cross is for me, that its benefits mark me like a seal.

Apparently, the sign of the cross goes way back in church history. In the fourth century A.D., St. Cyril of Jerusalem made the following statement:

Let us not then be ashamed to confess the Crucified. Be the Cross our seal made with boldness by our fingers on our brow and in everything; over the bread we eat, and the cups we drink; in our comings in, and goings out; before our sleep, when we lie down and when we awake; when we are in the way and when we are still. Great is that preservative; it is without price, for the poor’s sake; without toil, for the sick, since also its grace is from God. It is the Sign of the faithful, and the dread of evils; for He has triumphed over them in it, having made a shew of them openly; for when they see the Cross, they are reminded of the Crucified; they are afraid of Him, Who hath bruised the heads of the dragon. Despise not the Seal, because of the freeness of the Gift; but for this rather honor thy Benefactor.”

St. Ephrem of Syria, also from the fourth century said:

Mark all your actions with the sign of the lifegiving Cross. Do not go out from the door of your house till you have signed yourself with the Cross. Do not neglect that sign whether in eating or drinking or going to sleep, or in the home or going on a journey. There is no habit to be compared with it. Let it be a protecting wall round all your conduct, and teach it to your children that they may earnestly learn the custom.

Even earlier, in the second century, Tertullian wrote:

 ”In all undertakings — when we enter a place or leave it; before we dress; before we bathe; when we take our meals; when we light the lamps in the evening; before we retire at night; when we sit down to read; before each task — we trace the sign of the cross on our foreheads.”

It might surprise my fellow Protestants to know that Martin Luther supported using the sign, too. Here’s a page of his writings concerning it, and here is one quote:

In the morning, when you rise, you shall make the sign of the holy cross, and you shall say: “In the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit. Amen.”

Can the sign of the cross be used superstitiously. Yes. The sign itself cannot ward off the devil, nor can it bring anyone good. But the physical sign can serve as a reminder of what our Lord has done for us and what he will do. It can be a real encouragement.

This site offers a lot of helpful information, some of which I have already used. It tells several ways in which the sign of the cross is done, which I have copied and pasted below.

The Sign of the Cross is made thus: First choose your style:

• Option A. With your right hand, touch the thumb and ring finger together, and hold your index finger and middle finger together to signify the two natures of Christ. This is the most typical Western Catholic practice.
   
• Option B. Hold your thumb and index finger of your right hand together to signify the two natures of Christ
   
• Option C. Hold your thumb, index finger, middle finger of your right hand together (signifying the Trinity) while tucking the ring finger and pinky finger (signifying the two natures of Christ) toward your palm. This is the typically Eastern Catholic practice.
   
• Option D: Hold your right hand open with all 5 fingers — representing the 5 Wounds of Christ — together and very slightly curved, and thumb slightly tucked into palm

Then:

• touch the forehead as you say (or pray mentally) “In nomine Patris” (“In the name of the Father”)
   
• touch the breastbone or top of the belly as you say “et Filii” (“and of the Son”)
   

• touch the left shoulder, then right shoulder, as you say “et Spiritus Sancti” (“and of the Holy Ghost”). Note that some people end the Sign by crossing the thumb over the index finger to make a cross, and then kissing the thumb as a way of “kissing the Cross.”

Any thoughts? Is this an idolatrous practice? Or a comforting reminder?

What, no sea?–Reading Revelation Less Literally

Walking on the beach one beautiful summer night years ago, I breathed in the scene of the crashing waves and circling stars and, with some disappointment, thought about the passage from Revelation 21:1, “And there was no more sea. ” Similarly, verse 25 reads, “there will be no night there.” Really, God? But I love the ocean, and the night sky is beautiful. If heaven doesn’t have these, then I can’t help but feel a little bit  of disappointment. And while we’re on the subject, what about the new Jerusalem? Living in a huge city always seemed a lot less attractive than relaxing in a garden. I don’t really care that much about streets made of gold either.

A lot of you will be smiling at how naively literal my reading of Revelation was, but I don’t think I was alone. In college, I was crazy enough to agree to teach Revelation to a group of teenagers, and whether they got anything out of it or not, I was exposed to a very valuable resource in Paul Spilsbury’s book, The Throne, the Lamb and the Dragon:  A Reader’s Guide To the Book of Revelation. Spilsbury thankfully draws his readers away from the contemporary obsession with just how the end times will unfold, pointing out that Revelation is apocalyptic literature, almost similar to a fantasy. The strange images of the book come from a long tradition of similar figures, symbols, and numbers running through the Old Testament.

The sea, for instance, is consistently a place of fear for the Israelites, who were not much of a seafaring people. It is constantly pictured as chaotic, and out of it come all sorts of evil creatures (often sybolizing various kingdoms) who are a threat to God’s people. When John describes heaven as being without the sea, he isn’t giving his readers a physical description of its geography, but is making a statement about the existence of evil there. There will be no more evil monsters from the sea; all of Israel’s/the church’s enemies will be gone. In fact, the place where they originated will be gone.

The same principle applies to the banishment of night, the creation of a city, and the composition of the streets. These are not intended to be literal details about heaven. Instead, the Lord is telling us that the dangers of night will be gone;  that God’s people will be together in perfect community; and that the perfection of heaven will so outshine this world that the most valuable material we have here, gold, will be used for the basest of functions there.

Reading Revelation in this way truly unlocks its secrets. It is not a clue book to the future. Instead, it is a fantastic story to encourage us in our present state of troubles. Happy reading to you all as you jump back in the book.

Christian Obsessions

I was flipping through the channels early Sunday morning, trying to let my wife sleep a few extra hours while I held our son. Let me tell ya, Sunday morning Christian shows/church services can be downright depressing. The television portrays a Christianity obsessed with a million things other than the one thing we ought to be obsessed with–the gospel. The good news of Jesus Christ has taken a back seat to more pressing or interesting issues, or maybe it is viewed as that event that gets us into Christianity and from which we move on to bigger and better things. The idea of obsessions in Christendom is an interesting one to me, and I have been thinking about a few that I wish Jesus would cleanse from his Temple. Here are a five:

1.  An obsession with the end times. I am sick of hearing preachers treat the Old and New Testament prophets as if they are a code book for the coming apocalypse (which is always, incidentally, imminent, depending on when Russia or Iran decides to attack Israel). Please, I beg you, study the original context and the type of literature that these books were written in, and be willing to hear a different view of the end times. May I suggest a little book on the Revelation called The Throne, The Lamb, and The Dragon by Paul Spilsbury? 

2.  An obsession with thickening our wallets. Please stop promising that those who are hearing you will be free of their house payment within a year. Please stop implying that those who are blessed will be driving high end cars. The Bible says nothing of the sort. In fact, there was a guy in the Bible who had a lot of faith and yet still lived in poverty–what was his name? Oh yeah, Jesus.

3.  An obsession with positive thinking and other self-help stratagies. There’s a wonderful aisle in your local bookstore that talks about the power of positive thinking. I’m pretty sure the Bible isn’t on that aisle.

4.  An obsession with being hip and sexy. Church services become concerts or stage performances. Cute video skits are played in the middle of the sermon, which the guy with the spiked hair and tatoos is preaching. What I find offensive is that these styles of worship are specifically contemporary, i.e., they are for people in their teens, twenties, and thirties. What about those who are forty, fifty, or older? Do they matter? Or do you have a separate, more traditional service for them, so that now you have a church devoid of the influence, wisdom, and leadership of the older crowd?

5.  An obsession with literal creationism. If you think that the Bible teaches that the earth was made 6000-10,000 years ago in six literal days, then that’s fine. However, if you think that anyone who believes in an old earth is a compromiser, an apostate, a heretic, or an ineffective Christian, then you’d better be careful. You have entered the realm of judging your neighbor, in my opinion. Does creation science dominate your religion? Maybe it’s become an obsession.

There you have it. What do you think about these obsessions? Do you have any to add?

Only We Can Go Through the Lifegate: Over-doing Predestination

This morning, as I was watching the worship service for First Presbyterian Church on television, I was irked by the Trinity Hymnal’s change in the first stanza of Fanny J. Crosby’s hymn “To God Be the Glory.”

To God be the glory, great things he hath done! 
So loved he the world that he gave us his Son,
who yielded his life an atonement for sin,
and opened the lifegate that we may go in.

The original* reads, “and opened the lifegate that all may go in.” What is so objectionable with the word “all” that necessitated such a change? My own theory is that this offends the Calvinistic sensibilities of us Presbyterians. No, no, we can’t say “all” because Jesus didn’t die for all, only for the elect. No, no, all may not go in because only those whom God has first enabled to believe can go in.

It is so typically Presbyterian that we have to qualify anything with a hint of free will or universal atonement and make sure that everyone knows that really, God chose to show mercy to only certain people and gave his Son to die for only those people. Now, before you try quoting Romans 9 to me, know first that I do in fact believe in predestination and limited atonement. I just don’t think that it needs to be the prism through which we view all of the Bible. When we come across passages that talk about God loving the world or wanting everyone to be saved, I don’t think it is necessary to interpret them by saying that Jesus or Paul is referring to the fact that the gospel is not just for the Jews, but for people of every nation.

I have been thinking about this a lot lately due to my reading of 1 Timothy 2:

¹I urge, then, first of all, that requests, prayers, intercession and thanksgiving be made for everyone— ²for kings and all those in authority, that we may live peaceful and quiet lives in all godliness and holiness. ³This is good, and pleases God our Savior, ⁴who wants all men to be saved and to come to a knowledge of the truth. ⁵For there is one God and one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus, ⁶who gave himself as a ransom for all men—the testimony given in its proper time. ⁷And for this purpose I was appointed a herald and an apostle—I am telling the truth, I am not lying—and a teacher of the true faith to the Gentiles.

As soon as we Presbyterians read this passage, we point out that Paul obviously didn’t want churches to pray for every single individual. Rather, he wanted us to intercede for all types of people, as the reference to those in authority might imply, and we apply this to verse 6 by saying that Jesus gave himself for all types of people. We make the distinction between the different types of God’s will, and we point out that if God willed all men to be saved, then all men would be saved. If you want a full discussion of this passage from a Reformed perspective, then click here.

I can see how the passage could be emphasizing the fact that God wants men and women from every nation, social position, and economic standing to be saved, but I am not convinced by this interpretation. I think that it is just as legitimate that what Paul is saying here is that God wants everyone to be saved and that he gave Jesus as a ransom for everyone. I think that when Jesus says, “For God so loved the world that he gave his one and only Son, that whoever believes in him shall not perish but have eternal life,” he is opening the door for everyone who believes. I don’t think the passage is meant to be read with the qualifier, “but keep in mind that only those whom God has chosen will believe in him,” as true as that qualifier might be.

Sure, there are many scriptures that emphasize the fixed choice of God and the limited atonement of Christ, but I believe there are other passages that emphasize the free will of man and the unlimited power of the cross. To ignore either aspect of these latter type of verses is to do injustice to them and to how we see God.

At this point in my Presbyterian evolution, I accept free will and find Calvinistic explanations of how it can exist in the presence of God’s sovereignty** to be unsatisfactory. I don’t say that Calvinism is incorrect, but I do say that I don’t spend my time trying to figure out how free will and predestination can coexist. From an eternal perspective, God has chosen a flock for his mercy and given Christ for them. From a human perspective, the cross is open to every individual and we are held responsible for believing or rejecting him. Maybe God is calling us to accept both as a mystery. Maybe he wants people to know that the door is open for them, and maybe he doesn’t want us to insert predestination immediately after that. 

What are your thoughts?

* As far as I can tell, this is the original. Wikipedia lists this version, and it is consistent with Crosby”s Methodist faith.

**Free will is man’s freedom to act according to his nature, but that nature will never choose God unless he changes it.

Should Christians Go Kosher?

Joel Osteen says God doesn’t want us to eat pork or shellfish. I disagree, but let’s hear him out first.

Dr. Don Colbert, author of What Would Jesus Eat? seems to agree with Osteen. The summary on the inside cover of his book reads, “In this comprehensive eating program, Dr. Colbert reveals that Jesus’ diet is the ideal choice for those struggling in America’s food-frenzied culture. Thousands of years ago, God laid out a sensible approach to eating, with predictable results: a healthy body and long life.”

I know and have heard of fellow Christians who have decided to follow the dietary laws and prohibitions of the Old Testiment because they think they lead to good health. They believe that when God prescribed these commandments to the Israelites, he had their health in mind (at least partly). I suspect that some Christians for similar reasons believe that circumcision is healthier than leaving the penis intact. When I decided not to circumcise my son, for instance, my mom challenged the decision by asking me why I thought God required it of the ancient Israelites.

It’s not that I disagree with Mr. Osteen and others that pigs and shellfish are scavengers and are probably not the healthiest of animals to eat, but to say that the Bible mandates that we not eat certain foods is contrary to what the new covenant teaches, at least as I have always understood it. The council of Jerusalem’s decision as communicated by James in Acts 15 was:

It is my judgment, therefore, that we should not make it difficult for the Gentiles who are turning to God. ²⁰Instead we should write to them, telling them to abstain from food polluted by idols, from sexual immorality, from the meat of strangled animals and from blood. ²¹For Moses has been preached in every city from the earliest times and is read in the synagogues on every Sabbath.

In 1 Timothy 4, Paul seems to have something to say about clean and unclean foods when he writes:

³They 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. ⁴For everything God created is good, and nothing is to be rejected if it is received with thanksgiving, ⁵because it is consecrated by the word of God and prayer.

Again, in Romans 14, Paul writes:

¹⁴As one who is in the Lord Jesus, I am fully convinced that no food is unclean in itself.

I understand that the specific instances Paul was addressing above were likely different from the present topic (especially the Romans passage, where Paul talks about food offered to idols), but the underlined phrases seem to set forth a general principle. No foods are unclean for Gentile Christians.

So what is meant by “unclean” anyway? Osteen seems to have in mind “unhealthy” or “unsanitary,” and he views the purpose of the prohibitions to be health-related. Exactly where in the Bible does it say that God had the Israelites’ health in mind, though? It doesn’t, as far as I know, and to view the commands in this way is thereforean an assumption. Even so, I’m a bit undecided on this. On the one hand, it is easy to see that most of the ceremonial laws maintained health and sanitation for Israel, but on the other hand, to assume that these are the primary or only reasons for the commandments may get us into sticky situations.

There is an excellent article by a guy named Ernest L. Martin on the subject, which you can read here. He astutely points out that any modern Christian trying to keep the dietary laws had best not eat in an American restaurant, since the oven, knives, and pots used in the preparation of his clean meat (beef, lamb, etc.) were undoubtedly used in the preparation of unclean meats (pork, shrimp, etc.) and are therefore unclean according to Leviticus 11:32-35. He quotes a scholar named Michael Friedlander from his book Jewish Religion:

We must take care that we do not consider these precepts exclusively as sanitary regulations, however important such regulations may be. We must not lose sight of the fact that Holiness is the only object of the Dietary Laws, mentioned in the Pentateuch.

Martin also points out that in Genesis 9, God blessed Noah and made no restrictions on what he could eat.

¹ Then God blessed Noah and his sons, saying to them, “Be fruitful and increase in number and fill the earth. ² The fear and dread of you will fall upon all the beasts of the earth and all the birds of the air, upon every creature that moves along the ground, and upon all the fish of the sea; they are given into your hands. ³ Everything that lives and moves will be food for you. Just as I gave you the green plants, I now give you everything. ⁴ “But you must not eat meat that has its lifeblood still in it.

To sum up, I do not argue with anyone about the fact that many or even all of the restrictions and proscriptions result in good health, and it even seems likely that God was preserving his people’s health. It is extra-biblical, however, to read the definitions of clean and unclean animals, things, and practices as a health book. A lot of wrong conclusions can be drawn. For instance, does anyone know for certain if rabbits, which are unclean, are in fact unhealthy to eat? I have no idea, but I would tend to think that like other game, their meat is healthy. Again, I don’t know the answer. What about insects, which are also unclean? Are they unhealthy to eat? I seem to remember that some are actually good sources of protein.

Furthermore, saying that God wants us to observe the dietary restrictions leads to inconsistancy and opens the door for a lot of other regulations that we ought to be keeping. If we start eating clean meats because we think the Bible mandates it, what prevents us from observing the requirements for keeping our cooking utensils and ovens ceremonially clean? What about the other commandments about being ceremonially clean?

I have always found interpreting the Old Testament laws to be a sticky and confusing issue. For instance, (way too much information coming), when I first got married, I had to work through the issue of whether or not it was permissable to have sex during my wife’s menstruation cycle. Leviticus 18:19 is tucked in a series of moral commandments that we would all agree still apply. Why should I throw out only this restriction? What do you guys think about dietary laws, circumcision, etc.?