In a recent conversation with the [principal] of Tabor College, we that we should include a chocolate cookbook in the College library in order to offer an all rounded education. Someone suggested writing a theology of chocolate. As may be obvious, the above conversation was not intended to be anything but frivolous. However, this conversation set me thinking about seriously writing a theology of chocolate. The need for a theological statement about chocolate does not appear to be urgent in itself, but thinking through how this might be done has raised a number of issues for me.
Chocolate is made from the cacao bean, which is native to Central America. It was not made known to the rest of the world until the Spanish conquered Central America in the 15th century. The way in which we enjoy chocolate was not made possible until the late 18th century. So the chocolate we now are familiar with is a far cry from the chocolate first drunk by the Mayans and Aztecs. All this means that the Bible makes no mention of chocolate in any form, let alone the form with which we are familiar. The theological method which Wayne Grudem (Systematic Theology 1994:36) proposes involves using a concordance to find the relevant Bible verses to see what the Bible says about a matter. But this method would yield no result at all and we would be left without anything theological to say about chocolate.
I hear you saying, “Well, so what? Why does it matter that the Bible says nothing about chocolate?” Perhaps we could all live without a theology of chocolate (or perhaps not) but there are a large number of issues which the church is confronted with in the world which are not directly addressed by the Bible. The Bible makes no mention of the internet, electronic media, IVF, hung parliaments etc. Yet if Jesus is to fill all things (Eph 4:10) then it is appropriate that the church should have something authoritative to say about these matters and other matters which we have not yet encountered. Such matters should not be ignored, but how can these things be addressed theologically if we cannot use the simple method of looking in the concordance for relevant verses?
There are various ways in which people address theological questions where the Bible does not speak directly. The first, and perhaps most common, is the ad hoc method. According to this method, statements are randomly plucked from the Bible and applied to the subject matter. These may or may not be valid but this method certainly does not provide a careful, comprehensive understanding about what God is saying to the church and through the church to the world. Another method which has been used on numerous occasions in church history involves using philosophy as a basis for developing theology. This method can introduce subtle worldly errors into theology. A third method is to adopt one of the many recent theological viewpoints such as feminist theology or liberation theology as a basis for your theological exploration. While these new theological viewpoints have some important things to say, they can be a little ‘fast and loose’ with some of Christian tradition and the scripture.
Given that these methods can have some negative outcomes, and given that the church needs to have something authoritative to say – if not about chocolate then about many other things – then what can be done to guide the writing of theology on matters which the Bible does not directly address? There are some general principles which must apply to writing good theology. Good theology should be Christ-centred, biblical, done in the context of church, done prayerfully and be consistent with Christian tradition. I offer here a proposal which is able to include these factors and which can provide some guidelines for thinking through theology which addresses matters which the Bible does not address directly.
Something which I believe will keep such theology from being neither trivial nor heretical is to use traditional categories of Christian theology – creation, sin, incarnation, ecclesiology, eschatology etc – as a framework for theological consideration of a not-yet-addressed matter. It may not be necessary to use absolutely every category but the greater the number of categories the greater the depth which can be achieved in any theological consideration. Over the centuries, the church has carefully discussed important matters of doctrine and thus there is a wealth of theological thinking to draw on for such an enterprise. This should provide the depth required to keep any theological discussion from being trivial or trite. There is no doubt that these categories can be considered in a Christ-centred way, thought through prayerfully, and done within the context of church. The fact that the church has considered these matters over time means that it is easier to keep from heretical statements if you are reading these discussions with care.
With this is view, I humbly suggest the following as an outline for a theology of chocolate. This is not because a theology of chocolate is so important in itself, but because it will serve as an example of the proposed method, and because the nature of this short paper demands an actual theology of chocolate.
Creation: God created all things good including all kinds of plants (Gen 1:12). These he gave to Adam and Eve to freely eat of (Gen 2:16). So chocolate is something good which God has made for our enjoyment.
Sin: When Adam and Eve ate of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil their relationship to the created world changed. Instead of the world giving forth good things for humans to enjoy, it gives forth thorns and thistles in amongst the good things which God has made (Gen 3:17). Instead of human beings having a correct relationship with created things they turn these into idols (Rom 1:21-23). Food became one of many such idols (Phil 3:19). The result is that human beings so often use chocolate for purposes which were not intended by God. Our relationship to chocolate is dominated by sin. Chocolate can become an addiction (a form of idolatry) and thus a substitute for true relationship with God and other people.
Incarnation: In the incarnation Jesus lived a life which was fully obedient to the Father (Heb 10:5-7). He fasted forty days in the wilderness and refused to turn the stones into bread when tempted by the devil (Matt 4:1-4). This demonstrates that Jesus did not use food as an idol and was willing to die rather than allow food to take the place which God rightfully holds. It is also evident that Jesus was had a correct relationship to food in that he ate and drank with sinners (Luke 5:30) without sinning. Jesus enjoyed food as something given by God for his enjoyment.
Jesus has lived a human life in right relationship with God, other people, and also with creation. He has done this on our behalf. So it is true to say that Jesus has vicariously renewed humanity’s true relationship with food as something good which God has given for our enjoyment. For him, food was never an idol, an addiction, or a substitute for a right relationship with God and other people. Although Jesus never ate chocolate because he never had access to chocolate, we could confidently say that his relationship with chocolate would be righteous.
As Calvin said, when we are joined to Christ, “all parts of our salvation are already complete in Christ” and “in union with Christ” we become what we already are in Christ, the head. So, since Jesus has a right relationship with chocolate, we, as people in Christ, can be said to have, legally speaking (on a par with justification), a right relationship with chocolate. At the same time we are growing towards an actual right relationship with chocolate, as we become conformed to the image of Christ (Rom 8:29).
Eschatology: When the consummation of the age is accomplished, that is, when Christ returns, we shall be in all ways like him. Then it will be true that in every way our relationship with chocolate will be right. There will be no more chocolate addiction, no abuse of the good things which God has given for our enjoyment. All our relationships – with God and with other people – will be holy and pure. We will be able to enjoy chocolate without guilt.
This outline demonstrates one way of approaching the writing of a theology of chocolate. Of course, there are many other angles from which this might be approached. For example these categories could be used to discuss matters of economic justice for those who make a living growing cacao beans. The same method can be applied but this approach would need to begin with a discussion of right human relationships in Genesis 1 and 2.
I hope that this short discussion has provided some food for thought (pun intended) in regard to the way in which the church can make authoritative statements about the society in which we live. A theology of chocolate may not be the most pressing matter for the church to address but there are many other matters which should not be ignored simply because the Bible does not address them directly. Every aspect of life and society is a matter about which God speaks to humanity through his Word to the church. Let us, as Christ’s ambassadors in the world, take up the challenge.