Do I Need a Strategy for Dining on Sweetbreads?

Published on by D. G. Hart

After having seen Inside Llewyn Davis for a second time — it is growing on the Harts — I am intrigued by the exchange between Trevin Wax and Alissa Wilkinson about Christians watching movies. Wilkinson advocates seeing movies, in part, as a way of knowing what our neighbors are talking about. This facility will allow us to love them better and perhaps even evangelize. Wax thinks the idea of watching The Wolf of Wall Street as either neighbor love or pre-evangelism is a stretch. In the narrow confines of this debate, Wax largely has a point, though his fears of “heading down a rocky terrain without any brake system working on our vehicle” is at odds with the no-brakes approach of the apostle Paul who said everything is lawful. (Paul’s brake was whether something was beneficial either for us or other believers — a pretty complicated question but not necessarily so if you’re not blogging about what movies you see.)

What is missing from this classic evangelical approach to culture — either it helps with evangelism or it needs to bolster our moral posture — is (all about) I. What if I watch a movie simply because I like it, that is, I enjoy certain actors (George Clooney) or directors (Joel Coen) or writers (Ethan Coen) and I go out of my way to follow what they do. It is like acquiring a taste for a kind of food that some people might find objectionable — like sweetbreads (the thymus and pancreas of calves or lambs). If it’s on the menu, I generally order it. And if the Coens come out with a movie I see it. Why? A theological explanation could be that this is how God has providentially overseen my life so that I am predisposed to sweetbreads and the Coens.

That is way more theology than I think is necessary to justify such mundane affairs as food and movies. I understand that simply “enjoying” something can be a route to escapism or obesity — that is, not critically reflecting on what we watch or eat. But I see no reason why we can’t have a fuller account of enjoyment as a sufficient reason for seeing a film. If all things are lawful, maybe they are also enjoyable.

614 thoughts on “Do I Need a Strategy for Dining on Sweetbreads?”

  2. My occasion for writing this in unimportant to this site right now, but I thought I’d stick this over here and what, if any response I’d get. i can’t link to my place here, so I copied it instead.
    ====================================================
    1st Corinthians 5 (NASB)
    1-It is actually reported that there is immorality among you, and immorality of such a kind as does not exist even among the Gentiles, that someone has his father’s wife. 2-You have become arrogant and have not mourned instead, so that the one who had done this deed would be removed from your midst.

    3-For I, on my part, though absent in body but present in spirit, have already judged him who has so committed this, as though I were present. 4-In the name of our Lord Jesus, when you are assembled, and I with you in spirit, with the power of our Lord Jesus, 5-I have decided to deliver such a one to Satan for the destruction of his flesh, so that his spirit may be saved in the day of the Lord Jesus.

    6-Your boasting is not good. Do you not know that a little leaven leavens the whole lump of dough? 7-Clean out the old leaven so that you may be a new lump, just as you are in fact unleavened. For Christ our Passover also has been sacrificed. 8-Therefore let us celebrate the feast, not with old leaven, nor with the leaven of malice and wickedness, but with the unleavened bread of sincerity and truth.

    9-I wrote you in my letter not to associate with immoral people; 10-I did not at all mean with the immoral people of this world, or with the covetous and swindlers, or with idolaters, for then you would have to go out of the world. 11-But actually, I wrote to you not to associate with any so-called brother if he is an immoral person, or covetous, or an idolater, or a reviler, or a drunkard, or a swindler—not even to eat with such a one. 12-For what have I to do with judging outsiders? Do you not judge those who are within the church? 13-But those who are outside, God judges. REMOVE THE WICKED MAN FROM AMONG YOURSELVES.
    ==============================================================
    There are several points that must be considered, grasped and accepted before a proper understanding of this difficult passage is possible. Not difficult in the sense of being particularly elusive in it’s meaning, but difficult in it’s subject matter. These are as follows:

    1) The purpose of excommunication is twofold and motivated by love for Christ and His church. To hopefully rescue the erring member and to preserve the safety and purity of the body.

    2) At no point in this passage is the man under consideration called by the apostle a brother in Christ. (we’ll get there)

    3) The “judgement” Paul is talking about is not the final judgement of eternal destiny, but a judgment of the man’s fruit and hence the present credibility of his claim on Christ.

    4) Excommunication is both the sentence of that Judgement and the judgment itself.

    5) While gross sexual immorality is the example at hand, excommunication is to be carried out upon all flagrant, stubbornly practiced, unrepentant sin.
    ============================================================

    There can be no disagreement on the nature and severity of the sin being here not only tolerated, but fallaciously held up as an object of liberty from law by the Corinthian church. (another story for another time) Leviticus 18:8 specifically forbids relations with one’s father’s wife. Paul makes clear that this perversion is of such a nature that it would raise the eyebrows of even the pagan residents of Corinth who were certainly no strangers to deviance and debauchery.

    Paul’s mind, as he sets forth in verse 5, is not to exact vengeance or to look down on this man in self righteous condemnation, but his hope is that through this, the severest of Church discipline he may be finally saved.
    ———————————————————–
    The offender is referred to directly 7 times in this passage and indirectly a few more. The first direct reference is in v.1 where Paul uses a simple pronoun (τινα – tina), rendered here by the NASB crew as “someone”. A person.

    The second is in v.2 where he is called “the one” in the NASB. “Him” in the ESV. This is a single letter article , the rough breathing omicron, pronounced “haw” which is most often translated as “the”. The English word “one” is added to make the thought flow in our language. “The one who has done this”.

    The third is in v.3. Here we have the article again except in the accusative case this time. (It is nominative in v.2) Translated “him” in the NASB and “the one” in the ESV.

    We have 2 references to this man in v.5. The first is the pronoun τοιοῦτος (toy oo toss), which indicates classification or kind. The NASB renders this as “such a one”. Meaning “a guy like this”. The ESV is a little bland here with “this man”. The KJV actually flavors this more fully with “such an one”. The second reference in v.5 is another article. Here in the neuter gender. “The” spirit is what it actually says. The KJV translates it that way. More modern translations change the gender in English to “his”. Masculine. A legitimate liberty as it is indisputable that that’s what it means. “his spirit may be saved”.

    The sixth time we find the “someone” from verse 1 being referred to directly (though as part of a category) is in v.11. This one is VERY important. Here we have a participle form of the verb ὀνομάζω (on omad zo). Paul’s use of this word and phraseology carries with it his intention that his readers understand the inconclusive nature of this man’s status as a “brother”. This word used this way brings the meaning of taking a name or designation. Technically, it could be understood either in the middle voice, which would mean that the man is calling himself a brother, or in the passive voice, which would mean that others are calling him that. Or both. The point is that his being CALLED a brother is not the same as his actually being one.

    While not incorrect, the ESV regrettably sort of obscures this with the rendering “bears the name of brother”. My beloved NASB nails it with “so called brother”. That is EXACTLY what is being conveyed. This man is being considered a Christian brother when the evidence does not necessarily support that conclusion. It’s not necessarily the case that he is NOT a brother either. We don’t know yet. We have to wait to see how he responds to excommunication. More on that a little later. If Paul wanted them and us to consider this man a brother, he would have simply said “any brother” and not included this phraseology at all. It would have been less work to do so.

    The last time in this chapter that our subject is referred to directly is the quotation of a principle found in several places in the book of Deuteronomy. (13:5, 17:7, 17:12, 21:21, and 22:21. Also Judges 20:13) This is in verse 13. “REMOVE THE WICKED MAN FROM AMONG YOURSELVES.” Caps as per the NASB translators indicating a quotation from the Old Testament. The word “man” does not occur in the text. It is presumed. A standard practice when translating Koine Greek into English. In every instance of this principle under this phrase in the above cited OT passages, it simply says “remove the evil” and the offender was to be put to death. The crimes ranged from disrespecting authority to falsely prophesying to immorality. Saints are never referred to as evil or wicked persons. They may lapse into evil or wicked acts sometimes, but they are never referred to in these terms as persons. Of course we don’t physically execute such folks in the new covenant age, but it does help us understand how seriously to view the man in our passage here.

    To sum up this section on that note, it is an illegitimate imposition upon the text to refer to this man or anyone else like him as a brother or sister in Christ. The apostle never does so and in fact uses specific language in v.11 to make that explicitly clear.
    ———————————————————————————–
    Satan is referred to in scripture as “the god of this world” (2 Corinthians 4:4), “the prince of the power of the air” (Ephesians 2:2) and he under whose power lies the whole world. (1 John 5:19)

    Being cut off from the comfort and strength of the fellowship of believers as well as being denied the means of grace in the administration of the word and the communion table IS being “delivered to Satan”. It is being sent into exile outside the camp to fend for oneself in enemy territory. The hope being that the pain and misery of this state of affairs might drive the subject to repentance and final salvation.
    ————————————————————————————
    Let’s now take a closer look at verse 5. After declaring his judgement upon the offender in v.4 (we’ll touch on judging a bit later too), Paul defines this judgement, like I went into above, as “delivering to Satan”. The purpose is for the “destruction of the flesh”. The short version for this phrase is that “flesh” is here being used to connote the whole of the sinful carnal man still dead in Adam and who will not be completely shed while we are still in this body.

    It should be noted that some tie this to Romans 1 where this same Paul refers to those involved in homosexuality as “receiving in their own persons the due penalty of their error.”

    In the Romans 1 passage though, the penalty is received in their “persons” (NASB) or “themselves” (ESV). This is a pronoun (reflexive) ἑαυτοῦ (heh ow too) and carries with it the idea of person hood itself. It is not the same as the flesh (σάρξ – sarx). Though the “dishonoring” of their bodies (ch. 1:24) may be part of the penalty, it is not intended to be redemptive in any way that can be gotten out of the text of the Romans passage. But the “destruction of the flesh” in 1st Corinthians 5 is overtly stated to hopefully be the instrument of that man’s rescue from the path to perdition. The people group described beginning with the 24th verse of the fist chapter of Romans are not comparable to the man in 1st Corinthians 5 whom Paul judges and commands the church to judge by putting him out into the Devil’s world in the hope of saving him. In Romans 1 these people are abandoned by God Himself under His direct unmediated judgement. Not Paul’s or the church.

    One major key to understanding the lesson of 1st Corinthians 5 is the aorist, subjunctive, passive form of σῴζω (sode zo) which pretty much every translation anybody should care about renders as “MAY be saved” in vs.5. The aorist, subjunctive, passive (3rd person singular, which person and number aren’t as important in this case) is very precise. I had to do a good bit of research on this. I’m just good enough with Koine Greek to stumble through and know that one can get into trouble quickly by oversimplifying the grammar.

    The aorist tense is already somewhat mystifying because we don’t have one in English. The subjunctive mood is the mood, generally speaking, of contingency. Combined with the aorist tense and passive voice as here, it can be used differently than if in the middle or active voices. The bottom line is, this form of this word translated as “may be saved” in this context, indicates that the credibility of his testimony as a Christian brother depends on how he ultimately responds to his excommunication. His spirit MAY be saved in the day of the Lord Jesus. But maybe not too. We don’t know yet until we see what he does.

    If he is a brother, he will repent and return. If he is not a brother and is to have any hope, it will come through the painful lash of excommunication. That is God’s definition of love in this circumstance. If he does not repent and shows himself not to be a brother after all, he needed to go anyway because Paul says that the leaven of his tolerated sin will pollute the whole church. Others will think they too can have what they see as the literal best of both worlds. Do what I want now and then an early retirement in Gods’ paradise. VERY dangerous and those who preach it will have the blood of those who believe it on their hands.

    All Paul had to do was use a future indicative (or maybe even the subjunctive mood, but not the passive voice) to say his spirit “WILL be saved” if he was making that guarantee. That’s not what he said though.
    ——————————————————————————
    That in mind, I have also heard it preached that this passage is a glorious exposition of the doctrine of the perseverance of the saints. That through all this, this man was kept safe in Christ and his salvation was never in question. This is simply untrue for all the reasons I have given. His salvation was the very thing that WAS in question until his repentance and restoration. Some solid expositors say he was unregenerate until his repentance and restoration. Some say his repentance and restoration demonstrated his regenerate state. I say it doesn’t really matter. What does matter is that Paul says to treat him as unregenerate, a wicked man (vs.13) and give him no comfort or assurance of salvation until his repentance and restoration is forthcoming.

    Maybe the toughest part of this passage of all is that it’s somewhat easier to excommunicate somebody for raw public immorality or some other very “serious” sin. This passage is even harder when we consider the following quick points.

    Paul makes it crystal clear that this applies only to those inside the visible church. “So called brethren” (v. 11) Those closest to us and hence most painful to deal with in this manner. Not those in the world (v.10) In fact we are everywhere commanded to portray Christ to those who don’t know him, by our gracious love for them. We should live amongst them and be in their lives except when it would be disobedience to other commands of God to do so.

    He also makes it crystal clear that he is speaking about ANY flagrant, open sin. We know this because he gives 2 representative lists in vss. 10 and 11 that include immoral people, the covetous and swindlers, idolaters, revilers and drunkards. His indisputable intent is to have them understand that everything he’s said in this chapter (though there were no chapters when he wrote it) about this man with his father’s wife, also applies to any open flagrant and unrepentant sin. A swindler is a thief. A reviler is essentially an abusive loud mouth and a gossip.

    He says not to associate or even eat with them. In that culture, taking a meal with somebody was a significant act of acceptance and fraternity. It was not the bare action of chewing and swallowing food that was being forbidden though. It was any and all friendly association or interaction whatsoever.

    I hasten to clarify that he is absolutely NOT referring to those who are fighting the Romans 7 war. A brother or sister who hates their sin, calls it sin and wars against it, is to be embraced, walked with and supported for as long as they fight. Excommunication and shunning are for obstinate, unrepentant, practitioners of sin who have exalted their own desires over the Word of God, the purity and safety of the flock or the reputation of Christ.

    It is noteworthy as well that in v.12 the apostle Paul, somewhat sarcastically, but very rhetorically, chides this church for… hang on… NOT judging. He tells them not to worry about the corruption in the world, but you dern well better git yourselves about the business of judging those who claim to be one of us. This flies squarely in the face of the loud chanting mantra of our day, which is … “JUDGE NOT!!” The most biblically illiterate scriptural simpletons on the face of God’s green earth can quote Matthew 7:1 even though 90% of them don’t even know where in the Bible it is. There certainly is such a thing as self righteous, legalistic judgment which the Lord hates at least as much as immorality. (Like 18:9-14, Proverbs 6:16-19) By far the greater problem we have today though is timid permissiveness.

    As always, I welcome thoughtful, constructive criticism and engagement. I will believe whatever I am convinced that Bible says, no matter what or who it makes me wrong about. Show me my error from the text and you will have my sincere and enthusiastic gratitude for having been used of the Lord to bring your brother into greater truth.

    Like

  3. From my Facebook Page:
    =================================
    Here is an email I sent to a friend after reading THIS article this morning. (Jennifer Lawrence drunkenness and guilt over sex scene with married much older man) He is the one and only man I’ve ever met who had his views on that filth factory in Hollywood turned around through God’s grace in using me for that purpose. I’ll say it again. Pornography is a horrific enslaving scourge, but Hollywood is a thousand times worse because it is welcomed with open arms inside a morally decomposing western church. We are financing the ruination and damnation of people like this with God’s money.

    Blasphemy, blood and debauchery in the name of “story”, “art” and “cultural engagement”. One day God is going to give me a debate with one of these big name “Christian” movie idolators like those reprobates at the very aptly named “Christianity Today”.

    I will lay utter waste in Jesus name to every inane, self exalting, world worshiping bit of anti biblical wisdom of men they bring. For most people, it won’t make a bit of difference because despite what the say with their lips, the word of almighty God only runs their life where they like it to.

    Not for Erik. He came kicking and screaming and those like Cherylu who have been along since the beginning, know that he was one of my most ferocious and thoughtful opponents ever. In a long period of silence between us early 2014, the Holy Spirit began breaking his heart and now he realizes what an abomination it would be to the Lord if it were himself or his wife or children being polluted and destroyed like this. So how can he pay others to do it for him?

    Erik I love you brother (he doesn’t have a Facebook page). It is wearying and exhausting to cry aloud and spare not the clearest possible principles of God’s word and have almost literally nobody care. Because they are enslaved to this godless culture. I knelt by my bed and wept grateful tears seeing the work that Jesus was doing in you. Right at a time when that encouragement was just the thing God knew I needed.

    The rest of you idolators repent. Do it today. Tomorrow is not promised to you.
    =========================================
    I sent Erik the following:

    “That girl cannot ever undo that violating immoral experience that even her common grace fueled pagan conscience not yet totally dead (but it will be) tells her was adulterous and wrong. This made me physically nauseous and brought tears to my eyes. Not just for her, though she is just the latest in a long line of sinful tragedies, but for the fact that my glorious Jesus watches those calling themselves by His name condone and CELEBRATE this clear wickedness. Again. Financing the damnation of those they are supposed to be loving as themselves.

    Be vigilant my friend and make no mistake. Entertainment is a drug. It will seduce even otherwise sound people into the grossest compromise and just like dope, it will not give up it’s marks easily. I know you “feel” that pull. It will have it’s fangs back in your jugular before you can blink 3 times if your heart is left unguarded.

    Billions and billions a year and the church leads the way. Nothing, not even Catholicism can compete with this for it’s triumph of evil. For the simple fact of it’s beguiling, stupor inducing power that shields itself from criticism. It is the ultimate unholy Trojan horse.

    Well. 🙂 You haven’t gotten one of my little sermonettes in a while. I hope I didn’t bore you to death.”

    Like

  5. I was asked to respond to Sean (who is a smart guy) and see what kind of dialog might ensue. This was my response (email)
    ===========================================
    Oh I know better than that. I’ll get more substantive conversation out of a pull string toy. Intelligence is not a substitute for Jesus. This is not a joke. These are real people whose eternal divine image bearing souls are at stake.

    Let me make you this promise my brother. You put some distance between yourself and all that media crap? I mean all of it. The violence and the language too. You stay away from it a while and you will be stunned at how God will resensitize you to what should be horrifying to a child of His. You’ll look back in shame at what you will then clearly see that it had done to you. I’m not attacking you. I’m making you a promise from somebody who KNOWS what they are talking about. I’m living it.

    It will cling to you like crazy glue though unless you stay in God’s word daily, seek Him in prayer and attend the means of grace and fellowship with faithful believers. (not so easy to find anymore), both for yourself and with your family. I’ll tell you what will happen. You’ll stop caring. Not out of holier than thou self righteousness, but just because it will fall off your radar as a natural consequence of walking close with Jesus.

    New Avengers movie, Jurassic park thing, latest all the rave TV show, this or that great director’s new project, STAR WARS!!!??? I just don’t care. Does that mean I’m declaring sin on every one of those and will never see any of them? Not necessarily, but I just don’t care. It’s important you understand that when I say that, I’m not talking about pretending I don’t care to protect an image. I REALLY do NOT care down inside. From the vantage point God is growing in me, what could be less important? Even if it’s not sinful.

    This is what Romans 12:1-2 is all about. Same with Hockey. I was the hugest Red Wings fan you ever heard of. I doubt I missed 5 games in 12 years. Watched 15-20 games a week during playoffs. Went to all 4 Cup parades. The Lord began calling me back and I realized one day that I just didn’t care anymore. Not on purpose or because hockey is an abomination. The Holy Spirit simply gave it it’s proper place on my list of priorities. Nowhere. That’s not the same as actual participation in healthy sporting activities though. I’m talking about spectator sports (long story).

    Oh well. There’s 2 in two days. Sometimes I can’t help myself.

    Like

  8. I’m going to ask you a favor Darryl. One which you are of course under no obligation to grant and your refusal of which would bring no disdain from me.

    I’m asking you to unban and un-sower Erik. If he gets outta hand, you can apply whatever actions you do him, to myself as well. I’ll take responsibility for him. Just because I haven’t been around all that much in a little while, doesn’t mean that doesn’t matter to me. I would very much like to be able to comment here.

    This was my idea btw. He knows I am, but he didn’t ask me or even hint for me to ask you this. Again, I know this isn’t my place and I presume to wield no authority here, but what harm could come from giving the ol boy another chance?

    Also, I have no idea what he might say. In case you suspect some sort of strategic collusion or something. Not so at all.

    I don’t know that I can say this without sounding paternalistic, but you will no doubt wonder what MY motivation is in this. Honestly I think it would do him some good to learn to interact here without getting himself tossed again. Yes sir, that is my honest to goodness motivation.

    Waddaya think? No hurry, but I hope you give it some thought.

    Like

  10. Dr. Hart says: “Greg, no. Sorry, but there it is.”

    Well, I’m disappointed, but that is your right and I do appreciate you even answering me. BTW, did you intentionally delete all the discussion that happened in this thread 2 years ago? That’s another question you are under no obligation to answer, but I’ll take silence as a yes.

    Also, this conversation we’re having right now would have happened offline if I could just get you to email me.

    tiribulus@yahoo.com

    I promised you before and I stand by that promise that I will not make you sorry.

    Like

  12. Actually the comments sections have been going a bit nuts. Like there’s only one page of all comments, but sometimes they have more than 50 comments on a page. Like if you look at Douthat channels Machen, there are 50+ comments on page 1, but it says there’s a second page. If you go to the second page, it’s empty. And then older posts with lots of comments only have about the most recent 50.

    Like

Leave a comment

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.