“You are what you eat.” Evidently this saying was coined by the German philosopher Ludwig Feuerbach, who was intending to make the point that humans are material beings and no more. We are composed of the equivalent stuff with which we stuff ourselves.
Then there is the “foodie” spin on this phrase, “You are what you eat.” What you eat (and also where and how) proves one’s sophistication and refined tastes. One food critic quips, “The unexamined meal is not worth eating.” The preparation and eating of meals have transformative potential, both psychologically and socially. According to an article in New York Magazine, “Food is now viewed as a legitimate option for a hobby, a topic of endless discussion, a playground for one-upmanship, and a measuring stick of cool. ‘It’s a badge of honor,’ says one young person: ‘Bragging rights’ ” (March 25, 2012).
Christians may enjoy food of all sorts as God’s gift (Gen. 9:3; 1 Tim. 4:4). Such is the commendation of the sage preacher: “There is nothing better for a man, than that he should eat and drink and find enjoyment in his toil. This also, I saw, that it was from the hand of God” (Eccl. 2:24). Yet at the same time, believers are reminded that “the kingdom of God is not a matter of eating and drinking but of righteousness and peace and joy in the Holy Spirit” (Rom. 14:17).
What is the difference between the godly appreciation of food and “foodie-ism,” or gluttony? As a form of idolatry, gluttony assigns a transformative value to good that it inherently lacks. Do you expect what’s on the table in front of you to change and renew your inner nature? In connection with this, what is consumed can end up being one’s all-consuming focus. Are you serving your tastebuds and seeking to satisfy your stomach at all costs? Peter writes, “Whatever overcomes a person, to that he is enslaved” (2 Peter 2:19). Augustine observes, “It is possible that a wise man may use the daintiest food without any sin of epicurism or gluttony, while a fool will crave for the vilest food with a most disgusting eagerness of appetite.”
As we read the Gospel accounts, we find rather uncanny resemblances between foodie-ism and Pharisaism. The Pharisees were consistently critical of Jesus and His disciples regarding food and related matters—suspiciously observing what the Lord and His followers ate, how they ate it, and with whom they ate. The shared supposition of foodies and Pharisees is that “filling ourselves with ‘clean’ food will translate into making us ‘clean’ people.” If we take into ourselves what is good and pure, then we will produce what is good and pure. It’s that easy and simple.
Read More

In the end, any personal vengeance we could pursue or desire is pitiful and useless in comparison to the wrath of God that awaits anyone who remains unrepentant.  If that desire is against our fellow saints, it is a great affront to Christ who has born that wrath already.  Still, it is appropriate to cry out to God asking how long until His wrath rights all wrongs (Revelation 6:10-11).  But when we ask that, we must remember that the answer is “one more saint”.  God’s ultimate wrath will come when all of the saints are brought in—and not a nanosecond before (Matthew 13:24-30,36-43). 

Beloved, never avenge yourselves, but leave it to the wrath of God, for it is written, “Vengeance is mine, I will repay, says the Lord.” To the contrary, “if your enemy is hungry, feed him; if he is thirsty, give him something to drink; for by so doing you will heap burning coals on his head.” Do not be overcome by evil, but overcome evil with good.
-Romans 12:19-21
When we are wronged, our natural tendency is to seek vengeance.  Since Scripture forbids that, our faith in God’s wrath helps us expel any thoughts of vengeance, giving us comfort amidst affliction.  When we consider God’s wrath, comfort is probably the last thing that comes to mind, so my aim is to show how God’s wrath is a place of hope for the saints that can satisfy our desire for justice infinitely better than vengeance ever could.
The Problem of Human Vengeance
The sinful desire for vengeance comes from the natural and good desire for justice.  When we perceive injustice, the response is anger which can manifest in appropriate or sinful ways.[1]  When we or those close to us are wronged, we want to right that wrong, so vengeance is to return the wrong by responding in kind.  If we were able to return that wrong in a perfectly just manner, vengeance would be appropriate, but since only God has perfect knowledge of and power over everything, only God’s vengeance is infallible.  We finite humans are incapable of dispensing vengeance in a perfectly just manner, so it is forbidden: “You shall not take vengeance or bear a grudge against the sons of your own people, but you shall love your neighbor as yourself: I am the LORD” (Leviticus 19:18).  The first time we see vengeance in Scripture is when self-righteous Lamech, the epitome of the evil line of Cain, brags about killing a man who merely wounded him (Genesis 4:23-24).  Had it not been for Abigail’s skillful intercept, David would have wiped out Nabal’s household for his insult (1 Samuel 25:32-35).  Even when God raised up nations to judge other nations, they either failed to fully carry out that judgment or went too far.  The latter has often triggered endless cycles of violence. In short, our propensity to self-righteousness and unrighteous anger means that we cannot be trusted to seek vengeance appropriately, so we must avoid it.  Vengeance enacted by fallen humans can never balance the scales of justice, so it will never accomplish its intended goal.
The Christian must reject vengeance, and since sin begins with our thoughts and motives, we must reject even the desire for vengeance.  A common form of this in our day is critical theory, which advocates an oppressed group oppressing their former oppressors as a way to get even for past wrongs.  We have previously examined how this is unjust because it mistakes shared responsibility for individual responsibility.  Plus, it does nothing but foster self-righteousness and division when Scripture calls us to humility and unity.  Like all desires for vengeance, it directly violates the command of Jesus:
You have heard that it was said, ‘An eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth.’ But I say to you, Do not resist the one who is evil. But if anyone slaps you on the right cheek, turn to him the other also. And if anyone would sue you and take your tunic, let him have your cloak as well. And if anyone forces you to go one mile, go with him two miles. Give to the one who begs from you, and do not refuse the one who would borrow from you.  You have heard that it was said, ‘You shall love your neighbor and hate your enemy.’ But I say to you, Love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you, so that you may be sons of your Father who is in heaven. For he makes his sun rise on the evil and on the good, and sends rain on the just and on the unjust.
-Matthew 5:38-45, ESV
This command from the Sermon on the Mount clearly excludes any possibility of seeking vengeance, so we cannot obey Jesus and support critical theory.  Instead, Jesus is saying that when we are wronged we should lean into the wrong and do good instead.  It is important to note that this passage does not require us to overlook evil, tolerate injustice, or refrain from all forms of defending ourselves or others.  Scripture is full of commands not to overlook evil, as we saw when discussing abortion.  None of the examples Jesus gives are life-threatening—a slap not a murder, a small lawsuit not an attempt to ruin, and a compulsion to walk a reasonable distance not a kidnapping.  Instead, Jesus is exhorting us to a new strategy that reflects the nature of God, who graciously withholds His vengeance from all of us who incessantly sin against Him.  It is also not being a pushover but is in fact being strategic.  We are called to do all we can to live in peace, but even that command comes with caveats (Romans 12:18).  So to obey Jesus’s command here is to wisely look at the situation.  If there is a reasonable chance that “turning the other cheek” will result in peace or turn a life around as in Les Misérables, we should pursue it: “If your enemy is hungry, give him bread to eat, and if he is thirsty, give him water to drink, for you will heap burning coals on his head, and the LORD will reward you” (Proverbs 25:21-22, cf. Romans 12:20).  Such unexpected generosity stands a very real chance of disarming an enemy.
When the Syrians discovered that their plans against Israel were being thwarted by Elisha’s prophecies, they sent an army against him.  After God struck them with blindness, he led them into Samaria—right into the hands of Israel’s king who excitedly asked if he should kill them.  Elisha responded: “You shall not strike them down. Would you strike down those whom you have taken captive with your sword and with your bow? Set bread and water before them, that they may eat and drink and go to their master” (2 Kings 6:22).  Arguably, the greatest show of power is restraint.  Power restrained is meekness, and Jesus said the meek will inherit the earth (Matthew 5:5).  One of the greatest power plays then is to do good when you have the power to do harm.  When faced with a threat, the weak have no choice but to fight or flee while the strong have the ability to calmly respond with kindness while still maintain the ability to fight if necessary.
Read More
Related Posts:

Since blacks who are married are much less likely to be in poverty, then why, he asks, aren’t activists promoting black marriage? It’s a good question. According to the Family Research Council, “Married-couple families generate the most income, on average” compared to single-parent families, cohabiting families, or divorced families. Other studies have shown that marriage provides health benefits and the ability to deal with stress.  

In all the talk about racial injustices, the racial disparities for abortion are ignored. And that’s because we would need to talk about marriage. I’m John Stonestreet, and this is Breakpoint. 
Recently in The Wall Street Journal, Jason Riley asked a provocative question, “Why Won’t the Left Talk About Racial Disparities in Abortion?” In it, he describes how the “black abortion rate is nearly four times higher than the white rate,” how more black babies in New York City are aborted than born, and how “[n]ationally, the number of babies aborted by black women each year far exceeds the combined number of blacks who drop out of school, are sent to prison and are murdered.” 
Even books on racism by Christian publishers, for example, Jemar Tisby’s How to Fight Racism, never mention the significant racial disparities that exist when it comes to abortion, even while spending significant time on other disparities, such as student achievement, incarceration, wealth, and healthcare in general. The new book Faithful Anti-Racism by Christian Barland Edmondson and Chad Brennan shares similar disparity stats to Tisby’s, but the only mentions of abortion are embedded in quotations regarding conservative interests. 
According to Riley, one issue is that talking about the racial disparity when it comes to abortion would necessitate discussing how to “increase black marriage rates,” since so many women having abortions are single. Riley states:  
One problem is that such a conversation requires frank talk about counterproductive attitudes toward marriage and solo parenting in low-income black communities. It requires discussing antisocial behavior and personal responsibility. 
Now, to be clear, disparities do not always point to injustice or racism. As Thaddeus Williams writes In Confronting Justice Without Compromising Truth, those who call themselves antiracists assume that disparities reveal widespread discrimination or institutional injustice. 
Read More
Related Posts: