In Defense of Rendered Righteousness: Concerning the Holy Inquiry into Beef Tallow

 

In Defense of Rendered Righteousness: 

Concerning the Holy Inquiry into Beef Tallow

By Elder Rev. Dr. Percival Thaddeus Grone

Brethren, Saints, and Those Who Sauté Without Understanding,

It has come to my attention, with no small measure of grief, that the recent doctrinal clarity offered by the United Church of God concerning beef tallow has been met not with reverence, but with ridicule. A certain blog, frequented by the spiritually unrefined and the casually blasphemous, has seen fit to mock the sacred labor of the Doctrine Committee (DC), reducing a matter of considerable theological weight to the level of fast food and pop health fads.

I write not to rebuke the DC – for their forthcoming work will certainly speak for itself, glistening with unction – but rather to issue a gentle but firm reminder to those who dare to question the legitimacy of this fat-based inquiry, who dismiss as trivial what may yet prove to be a hinge upon which great eschatological truths swing.

Let the mockers take note: it is no light matter to despise the day of purified truth.

Of Tallow and Torah

The Levitical code – often skimmed, rarely digested – makes frequent and solemn mention of the handling, burning, and prohibition of certain fats. (Leviticus 3:16-17, 7:23-25). It does not distinguish, as modern man does, between “culinary” and “ceremonial” uses, nor does it shrink from specificity.

If the Law devotes multiple verses to the fat upon the inwards, is it so far-fetched that a Church born of Scripture would pause to consider whether piping hot tallow may cross the invisible boundary from cooking aid to covenantal compromise?

This is not pedantry. This is Adipotheology – the study of sacred fats and their role in the moral metabolism of the faithful.

The Problem of Unfiltered Commentary

I have read the remarks. “Who has even heard of beef tallow?” one anonymous scoffer asked, perhaps while microwaving seed-oil-drenched remnants of Babylonian Cuisine. “Do we really need doctrinal statements on these things?” cries another, forgetting thatdoctrinal papers are the very medium by which councils preserve the faith once delivered.

Even more troubling is the implication that such inquiries are mere busywork for Church administrators – something to “justify their existence.” I ask you: Did Moses not receive detailed instructions for tabernacle measurements, curtain colors, and priestly undergarments? Shall we now accuse him of time-wasting?

This same nameless critic – whose credentials remain as elusive as their courage – likened this holy inquiry to “studying the sex lives of gnats.” I would caution such individuals to reflect more deeply on the plagues of Egypt, in which the Lord made abundant use of small insects to reveal the hardness of men’s hearts.

Clarification, Not Control

It has also been suggested that such discussions are meant to cow the brethren into submissive dependence. This, too, is a theological offal – malnourished thinking dressed up as discernment. The aim is not control, but clarity. A member who inquires whether their use of tallow aligns with divine expectation is not a slave, but a seeker.

And if a minister lacks the discernment to answer such a question, then yes – a study paper is needed.

One does not dismiss the map simply because the road is narrow.

What the Scoffers Miss

Amidst the scoffing, a pattern emerges: a refusal to believe that small things matter. That fats, genealogies, shadows of the Law – while perhaps minor in caloric content – may carry theological weight. These are not the concerns of fluffy-minded milquetoasts. These are the concerns of covenant-keepers, watchmen on the dietary walls.

The idea that “we eat fat every time we eat meat” is presented as a trump card. But this is like saying “we sin every day,” as though frequency excuses gravity. Even if true, it calls not for mockery but for mindfulness.

A Final Word to the Theologically Lean

To the bloggers and commenters who see tallow as a distraction from greater suffering in the world: it is possible – indeed, necessary – to care about both. The Church is called to live in a state of faithful fatfulness – not gluttonous, not ascetic, but watchful. Whether in the pulpit or the pantry, righteousness requires attention to detail.

The Doctrine Committee, in its deliberations, has dignified the question. The bloggers, in their derision, have revealed something altogether more concerning: a tendency to laugh where trembling would be more appropriate.

May the saints consider carefully what is offered, what is received, and what is scorned.

Elder Rev. Dr. Percival Thaddeus Grone

Percival Thaddeus Grone

Senior Fellow of Sacrificial Nutrition and Theological Lipidology at the First Antioch Institute of Levitical Wellness
Certified Liturgical Edibility Analyst (C.L.E.A.N.)

Still Watching Since 1844