One of reasons a confused approach to food is increasingly common is because of a failure to apply the doctrine of the Fall to life around us. This can be seen in the very common use of the word natural as an unqualified term of praise.
First, the doctrine. God created the world and all that it contains, and behold, it was all very good. When our first parents rebelled against Him, the created order fell along with the lords of that created order. That which was previously good was now a damaged good. The creation was subjected to futility and bondage to decay. But God promised a Savior who would, in the fullness of time, restore everything in such a way that the world would be made new. The gospel is the message in which we proclaim this good news, and Christians are those who look forward to this coming restoration. So the basic Christian message is one of creation, fall, and redemption. That redemption is ongoing in an already/not yet fashion, but will not be complete until the day of resurrection.
Now this means that we cannot point to anything in the created order and justify its use in a particular way simply on the basis of its being “natural.” Nor can we reject anything on the basis of it having been “processed.” The creation around us is a damaged good, and this means that when we point to a particular aspect of it, we are not yet clear whether we are pointing to an aboriginal good, or to one of the defects introduced by the Fall. When we approach a particular food for the first time, knowing nothing about it other than that it is “natural,” we still don’t know if it is good or bad, healthy or unhealthy. A worm-ridden apple is natural. And the same thing goes for processed foods. It could be good or bad, healthy or unhealthy, depending. Because God has commanded us to exercise dominion in a world where those who are to exercise dominion are participants in the Fall, this means that we can screw it up. So then, natural is not automatically good or bad. Processed is not automatically good or bad.
I used the word apply earlier. I am not saying that Christians who blithely assume that “natural is good” are denying the doctrine of the Fall. I am saying that they are not applying it. It does not factor into their thinking the way it ought to. Rousseau gave us the idea that returning to a state of innocence was possible and desirable. But since then, whenever we have tried it, the results have been particularly problematic. False doctrine does not lead the way to true living. It is not possible to ignore the fact that we are a fallen race in a fallen creation, and to have that ignorance be without consequence.
Here is an example that is not about food directly, but it still illustrates the point well. “Natural childbirth” is a very common way of refusing to apply the doctrine of the Fall, ignoring the curse that God placed upon childbearing. To say that pregnancy is not a disease is quite true. To say that giving birth is a natural process is quite true also. But this overlooks the fact that it is a cursed natural process. Eve was given turmoil in the bearing of children, just as Adam was given weeds in the garden.
The weeds in my garden grow naturally. The cold virus multiplies naturally. Cancer cells develop naturally, and occupy their place in the ecosystem of the human body.
Now the response to all this might be to say that if we have a robust doctrine of the Fall, then should we not be suspicious of sweeping claims (from fallen humans) to be able to “improve,” or “enrich,” or “develop”? Certainly, we should. Not every claimed improvement really is. The doctrine of the Fall should apply there as well, and in fact, it must apply there. But we are not measuring this faulty exercise of dominion over against “the natural state.” As we look at nature, we are looking at something which needs to be cultivated and improved in some ways, and left alone in others. We cannot find out which is which from nature herself. In the cultural mandate (which the Fall did not abrogate) mankind was given the responsibility to exercise dominion, which is to say, man is the one who is responsible to dig, cultivate, prune, spray, let alone, etc. as appropriate. Because we are sinners, and because we have not yet reached the maturity in Christ we ought to have, there will be times when we leave the tree alone when we ought to have sprayed, and there will be times when we spray when we ought not to have. Sure. But our task is to learn from our mistakes, and to grow up in Christ.
But Christ and His Word are the standard, not nature. Nature is the canvas — not the painting manual. Nature is not and cannot be the standard.
And everything I have said about nature goes double for organic. These words that we see on labels throughout the supermarket these days betray our Rousseauian debts. Anybody here ever buy “natural honey”? This was put on the label in order to distinguish their product from that phoney factory product made by little robot bees buzzing among the aluminum flowers. You know . . . unnatural honey.
So those Christians who use “natural” and “organic” as terms of praise, and who eschew the use of “chemicals” in food preparation are failing at two places. First, as I have noted, they are not applying the doctrine of the Fall. They are not capable of finding any food in this world that has an unfallen nature, for which natural would work as a term of unqualified praise. And second, they are not able to find a food anywhere that is not made out of chemicals. Chemical-free food would a sight to behold, and a miracle in its own right. In the first instance, they are not really thinking in Christ. In the second, they are just following along with popular jargon and not really thinking at all.