Doctrine as Nutrients

I recently finished reading Michael Pollan's book, In Defense of Food: An Eater's Manifesto.  I had already read his previous book, The Omnivore's Dilemma, and agreed, in large part, with what he had to say: that our food is far more processed than we probably realize, that there are political, environmental, health and relational problems with the great eating experiment taking place in America, and that changing the way we grow and eat our food could very well improve our land, our health and even our relationships. In Defense of Food, rather than building upon the themes in the Omnivore's Dilemma, explores instead the ideological and market forces underlying the problems that he described in the previous book. Why are we so nonchalantly galloping further and further down this experimental food path? Pollan's answer? Nutrients. Well, more precisely, Nutritionism.

nutritionism: thinking about food strictly in terms of its chemical constituents

-- In Defense of Food, p. 102

Pollan walks the reader all the way back to the early 1800s when a man by the name of William Prout "identified the three principal constituents of food -- protein, fat, and carbohydrates--that would come to be known as macronutrients."  A German scientist, Justus von Liebig (the same guy that identified nitrogen, phosphorus, and potassium as the macronutrients needed in the soil), grabbed Prout's insight into food nutrition and developed a meat extract, which we now call bouillon, and the first baby food formula, which he modeled upon his understanding of the three nutrients that he thought fully embodied the functionality of food. Unfortunately, many of the babies raised on Liebig's formula failed to thrive. By the early 1900s, biochemists started to realize that there was more to food than just the big 3 nutrients. There were vitamins... and minerals... and lipids....  And within each of those groups, scientists have been discovering a greater variety of nutrients and a greater importance within the human diet. In other words, Pollan points out that as much as we want to, and think we have, locked down all that is required for health and happiness, history shows us that we tend to keep missing stuff. 

It's an ironic situation in which the western world finds itself.  We are learning more and more about food and nutrients all the time.  We are more interested in the component bits and pieces that make up our food than at any other point in history. Much of what we eat is labeled so that we can be informed and eat more of what scientists have found to be good for us and less of what they've declared to be bad. And despite all of this acquired knowledge, nutrition training in school, labeling on packages, etc. we continue to have rising rates of obesity, hypertension, heart disease, type 2 diabetes, and certain cancers -- a panoply of health issues that are known to have a direct relationship with a Western diet. 

Pollan goes into the politics and market forces that keep nutritionism a reigning ideology in the American psyche. The book is well worth the read, and the last half of the book gives many specific ways to avoid the traps of nutritionism and instead eat healthier by maintaining a diet that is summed up in his opening statement:

Eat food. Not too much. Mostly plants.

But what intrigues me about this book is not only its description of nutritionism and its ruinous affects upon our diet, but a parallel that jumped quickly to mind as I read Pollan's description. Nutritionism is a matter of taking something good--food--and reducing it to the sum of its parts--nutrients (which are also good). But, as Pollan points out (and he lists studies on this), simply consuming those parts separately, rather in the form of the whole food, is not equivalent and doesn't bear the same health affects. There is something about the relationship of those nutrients (and perhaps the inclusion of nutrients that we haven't discovered yet) that is beneficial when eating an apple that we don't get when we consume vitamins that have an equivalent nutritional value. Could it not be the same with Christian doctrine? (phew! Now there's a leap. But hear me out.)

Doctrine is essentially a reduction of Biblical teachings into succinct bits (just as a vitamin or an amino acid is a part of a piece of food). That doctrine might be incredibly important as a teaching within the church (just as protein is important for the regular functioning of our body). But when our spirituality becomes founded upon the sum of the parts (or at least the parts that we've identified and called out as a specific doctrine), are we still getting the "nutritional value" of the greater whole? As much as it might be important to identify vitamins, minerals and lipids, there is still greater value in eating those identified bits within the context of the whole food. As much as it might be important to identify God's sovereignty, his omniscience, his great justice and mercy, it's still interesting to note that God did not give us those identified bits in a list or a confessional format. He gave them to us in the greater context of the story of a people. He gave us a whole--the Bible.  The whole contains the bits and pieces that Christians have teased out in various confessions and creeds over the years.  And those confessions and creeds certainly have value.  But they are parts.  They are identified bits. They are pieces of a greater whole. 

As members of a church that is, in turn, a member of a larger nation-wide denomination, we (my husband and I) are continually struck by the way in which the denomination and many of its members turn first to a confession, catechism or book of church order before turning to the Bible to resolve an issue or to state a case. The bread and butter of the denomination seems not to be the Bible, the basic text upon which Christians base their faith, but a confession written over 1600 years after the time of Christ. Of course, if you were to say as much to those that do this, they'd deny it in a heartbeat. They'd point out that whichever text they're using to support their point was derived from the Bible and that, therefore, their argument also relies squarely upon Biblical statements. But in so doing, I venture to point out that they're making a common nutritionist mistake. They're depending upon a belief that vitamins out of context are just as valuable as vitamins in context. (I should add that certainly not everyone in the denomination does this. But it is quite prevalent.)

Nutrition is important.  Doctrine, in my opinion, is also important.  It's a succinct way of outlining what a particular group believes and holds to be dear.  But nutrition or doctrine alone is an insufficient foundation upon which to base your health or spirituality. God created vitamins, proteins, minerals, etc. in a context of whole food. And while God did give us some summary statements that guide who we are and how we should live as Christians -- 

He has showed you, O man, what is good.
And what does the LORD require of you?
To act justly and to love mercy
and to walk humbly with your God.
-- Micah 6:8

or

Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind and with all your strength.' The second is this: 'Love your neighbor as yourself.' There is no commandment greater than these.
-- Mark 12:30-31

He gave those statements in the context of a greater whole -- a whole text, a whole story, a whole history of a people that spans time and place.

Doctrine is like nutrients.  They both have value.  But both are more valuable in the context of their greater whole. When we focus on the nutrients, it's sometimes easy to lose site of the context.  If we're only checking the nutrition label on the bread package for iron and folic acid, then we might miss the ethoxylated mono- and diglycerides or the azodicarbonamide listed in the ingredients section.  If all we're focused on is T.U.L.I.P. and the "proper" form of baptism, then we might not notice the other ingredients such as arrogance, anger and self-righteousness. Just because we want to consume vitamin C doesn't mean that we have to go about it by also consuming a bunch of processed carbs, highly refined sweeteners, and preservatives.  

When Christians focus on nutritional/doctrinal bits and pieces and ignore the larger context of the food/Bible story, I believe they open the way for non-food/non-doctrine to slip into their spiritual diet in much the same way that prepackaged, highly-processed, sugar-filled, preservative-laden "food" has been added to supermarket shelves with labels that make them look healthy, while the reality is that the overall processed nature of the food will cause disease in the end. 

God has provided a whole food for us.  Shame on us for reducing it to the sum of its parts (and missing out on bits and pieces while we're at it). Doctrine certainly isn't bad. But overly focusing on it can lead otherwise healthy Christians toward diseases of pride, arrogance, self-righteousness and anger.  When you find yourself tempted to jump on a doctrinal band-wagon, remind yourself that Jesus said, "By this all men will know that you are my disciples, if your doctrine is spot on if you love one another."