One subcategory within Mosaic Law that would have some of the greatest potential to change the daily habits of Christians is that of the dietary laws. This subcategory is also one that, more than some others, is the easiest for evangelicals to sidestep for the sake of convenience. Whether these specific laws have binding validity is actually beside my point here. When it comes to the dietary laws, even if they do not resort to red herrings and non sequitur fallacies, evangelicals might vaguely refer to a handful of passages from the gospel accounts or Acts that they have never thoroughly reflected on, at least not rationalistically (of course, if they were rationalistic, they would not be evangelicals!). Part of the reason why they might remain so evasive is the broad, perhaps inconvenient set of ramifications for their lives if their position is contrary to the book they claim to base their moral priorities on.
Moreso than the far more important laws dealing with matters of justice and specifying which sins are so severe that they deserve specific legal penalties, the dietary laws would directly shape much of everyday life for anyone who follows them. This is ironic given that it is a far greater sin to execute someone for a Biblically non-capital offense or torture them than it is to eat a certain kind of meat! Because of how much of life the dietary laws would impact, desire for mere convenience seems to drive many Christians to almost never even think about or discuss the dietary laws at all except to emphasize the supposed non-applicability of Mosaic Law in modern cultures, something that at least is not true of the laws pertaining to more serious sins like rape and the strict prescriptions of justice attached to them because God's moral nature is said to never change (Malachi 3:6).
Again, this is not to say that the theological conclusion is therefore valid or invalid; the point is that the church would likely not accept the dietary restrictions of Mosaic Law even if they were clearly commanded at all times simply because it would be inconvenient to change such a vast part of its members' lifestyle. Many Christians offer nothing more than appeals to the nonexistent philosophical authority of a pastor or theologian they subjectively respect without basis, and if they do mention an actual passage of the Bible at all, they have likely done little more than blindly regurgitate what random figures have stated without truly thinking about whether the conclusion was assumed.
Even apart from the Biblical evidence relevant to whether the dietary laws remain obligatory, as all criminal justice laws in Mosaic Law do [1], each Christian can know if they truly would have the desire to adapt their eating habits to their moral obligations if the Bible called for it. The shallow analysis of the issue from most Christians who mention it suggests that they would be hesitant to change even if it was demonstrated that eating certain animals was sinful. For the people to whom this would apply, ease and preference is what shapes their moral priorities--at least in this particular area.
Convenience is a practical benefit of some truths, but it is not an inherent quality of truth or something that epistemologically reveals the truth of a matter. It would very obviously be quite convenient if there is no obligation to adhere to the multiple dietary restrictions in Mosaic Law, as many Christians would not have moral reason to change their lifestyles in this area that would probably strike them as "petty" or "unimportant." Indeed, it is true that the dietary laws are of minimal importance by comparison to moral categories like justice, sexuality, and violence, but even the least important moral obligation is still an obligation. This means that violating an obligation is not made permissible if doing the opposite imposes major restrictions on one's life.
No comments:
Post a Comment