A Nation of Orthorexics

Michael Pollan says there is a paradox in the American diet. We’re “a notably unhealthy population preoccupied with nutrition and diet and the idea of eating healthy.” He calls us a nation of orthorexics, meaning we have an unhealthy obsession with healthy eating. Pollan suspects that there is “an inverse correlation between the amount of time people spend worrying about nutrition and their overall health and happiness.”

His solution isn’t to eat twinkies and be merry. Humans have lived well on an astonishing variety of diets, from vegan to straight up carnivore. Following this, Pollan argues for a common-sense approach to eating: Eat food. Not too much. Mostly plants.

For everything created by God is good, and nothing is to be rejected if it is received with thanksgiving, for it is made holy by the word of God and prayer.

~ 1 Timothy 4:4 ESV

Time, the Golden Standard

So as we will see in a number of texts from Proverbs, work has consequences. Laziness also has consequences, because God gave us the ultimate “gold standard” called time, and everyone has exactly the same amount of it. It is a resource that the government cannot print. This means that work over time matters, and no work over time matters. When I say that it matters, I mean that it matters in morally significant ways. You can, and should, draw conclusions about people based on their work. Our ability to evaluate the labor of others is not absolute because we are limited and finite. Our judgments should be made in all humility. But this does not alter the fact that we still need to evaluate others, and an important part of that evaluation includes the quality of their work.

Wilson, Douglas. Ploductivity: A Practical Theology of Work & Wealth . Canon Press. Kindle Edition.

By their posts ye shall know them.

This is a guest post by my good friend Nathan Jones. Nathan is a husband and father of three. He teaches High School Bible and is a 1LT in the NCNG. His competing interests include”battling” his kids (swords, shields, masks, damsel etc.), drinking coffee with his beloved, reading, and DIY projects and chores. 

Your social media post is a road to nowhere. By broadcasting contextless queries, accusations, statements etc. you have only shouted blurbs that you intend to have meaning and impact. They do not. At least, not as you might intend. Fact is, we’re in an ever-polarizing environment plagued by identity politics. Therefore, when you say one thing, it is almost always seen as a piece to the puzzle that makes up a picture with which we’re already familiar.

What makes it worse, is that these social media “desk pops” ensure that the conversations become and remain between only two sides. Where there could be nuance, creativity, perspectives, there are only one-liners and contextless hard bargains (should, need, have-to). Social media desk pops ensure that there are only two sides. It is dodgeball.

Think for a moment, the type of influence your fast-flying-rubber-ball-to-the-face statements actually have. Your team winning or losing isn’t dependent on getting angrier and throwing harder. Like red-rover, you have to win people over.

Fortune cookie fortunes are meaningless, whoever decided those messages do not know me or my circumstances, nor is it likely we interpret reality the same way. Fortunately for fortune cookies, no one is expected to take them seriously. Unfortunately for your contextless soundbites, we are supposed to take them seriously.

 When I see posts, instinctually I have to provide the context to make sense of it, interpret it, and then form an opinion about it. That is not what you want! You must craft the context, not those whom you wish to influence.

Note. You may say the context is supplied, see the unrest/turmoil/division/goings on in society. That is not what I mean by context. I mean literally, the typographic content that lends specific meaning to one or a few sentences that comprise a typical post.

Photo by dole777 on Unsplash

I’m convinced that the significance of context in interpretation has been promoted the past several years, but it appears a new front has opened up -production. As much as context has become important and normal in the interpretation and application of texts, it appears is lacks any of the same influence in our typographical productions. How can our production be any more liberated from context then our pursuit to understanding? Nevertheless, we can produce textual meaning without context, thank you, social media! But that isn’t so, there will always be context. It will simply be created by those reading it.

So what? Stop posting. Want to have voice? Talk to people -in person! Perhaps your posts make you feel better, maybe it is cathartic or giving you a sense of purposeful changing influence, or maybe you feel good about aligning yourself with identities or causes… OK, go on then. But your feelings that lead to posting or the feelings you get afterward have a flailing impact if any and they arguably hurt human relations more than foster them.

You may object. I’m angry (about injustice and immorality) and our shared world view and/or beliefs require this outrage be expressed and joined. That’s correct, I’m with that. Social Media posts (at least the messaging as of late) is a flawed means for that end. Hammer’s don’t screw, spray-paint doesn’t write essays; fortune cookies are meaningless.

Context is omnipresent. It is either already there (identity politics) or it is created by the writer (rarely) or reader (often). We must be cognizant of the context into-which we situate and convey our message if the intended meaning and its influence is to be communicated.

I promise, I have had good and excellent conversations with folks of opposing ideologies and interpretations of society. Fueling those conversations is faith, books and ideas, narratives and stats. Progress happens: hearts are endeared to people, suffering is seen, justice is promoted, and humility realized. The progress of humble in-person-conversations is the Wrights brothers, whereas a contextless posts is Dunder Mifflin’s Jumping-photo Christmas Card, “is it worth it? Don’t answer that!”[1]


[1]NBC “The Office” https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eo0uu4oC3f0

Take Up and Read

There is a strange idea abroad that in every subject the ancient books should be read only by the professionals, and that the amateur should content himself with the modern books. Thus I have found as a tutor in English Literature that if the average student wants to find out something about Platonism, the very last thing he thinks of doing is to take a translation of Plato off the library shelf and read the Symposium. He would rather read some dreary modern book ten times as long, all about “isms” and influences and only once in twelve pages telling him what Plato actually said…

This mistaken preference for the modern books and this shyness of the old ones is nowhere more rampant than in theology. Wherever you find a little study circle of Christian laity you can be almost certain that they are studying not St. Luke or St. Paul or St. Augustine or Thomas Aquinas or Hooker or Butler, but M. Berdyaev or M. Maritain or M. Niebuhr or Miss Sayers or even myself.

~C.S. Lewis, Introduction to On the Incarnation by Saint Athanasius