Sean C. Capparuccia
originally published Feb 4, 2020
When is a Reuben NOT a Reuben?
“…holding to a form of godliness, although they have denied its power” II Tim 3:5
While visiting out here in the western part of the state (NC), Lara and I took lunch at a local restaurant that piqued our interest. With a fairly diverse menu, it seemed as though we’d both be happy. I got the BBQ; she got the Reuben. Well, she ordered a Reuben.
It looked like a Reuben; it fairly smelled like a Reuben; and – according to her – it almost tasted like a Reuben. Then after some philosophical discussion on the matter we concluded that it was not a Reuben but rather Reuben-esque, or Reuben-ish. In fact, we had gone through several other potential names for it – it could have been called an Ephraim or a Judah; maybe even a Benjamin or a Joseph or a Manasseh. But it wasn’t a Reuben. And here’s why. According to common culinary knowledge (and Wikipedia for research support), we see that
“the Reuben sandwich is an American grilled sandwich composed of corned beef, Swiss cheese, sauerkraut, and Russian dressing, grilled between slices of rye bread.”
Yet this particular sandwich did not have the Russian dressing, or Thousand Island which is sometimes substituted; but rather it had mustard. Mustard?
So, what’s the problem with mustard, you may ask? Nothing’s wrong with mustard! We love mustard! The problem is substituting Russian dressing (or Thousand Island) with mustard. Which brings me to the point. Within Christian orthodoxy we have the Creed. In fact, we have many creeds which are, to varying degrees, more or less comprehensive. But they all say the same thing – This is what I, as a Christian, believe. And I emphasize the word “Christian” there, not “I.” It doesn’t particularly matter what I believe if it’s not part of Christian belief. In other words, if it isn’t a belief recognized as “Christian” according to Scripture and the historical ecumenical creeds (which are according to Scripture on every point), then that belief is irrelevant if not wrong.
Let’s take an example from the Apostle’s Creed. Speaking of Jesus, it says, “He was conceived by the power of the Holy Spirit and born of the Virgin Mary.” Now, there are some who do not believe Mary was a virgin. And I’m not talking about being ever-virgin – that’s not in the creed (or in Scripture explicitly) – but only about the fact that Mary was a virgin when Jesus was conceived in her womb and at least until after He was born. Jesus was born of a virgin. And furthermore, He was conceived by the Holy Spirit – no earthly father was a part of this because if there was, well, Mary wouldn’t have been a virgin, would she? On this point it is interesting to note that everywhere else in Scripture the father of a person, the progenitor, is always mentioned, not necessarily the mother. Yet in the case of Jesus there is no father; only the Father.
Jesus was born of a virgin. Scripture is plain and quite explicit on the matter and yet some refuse to believe it. Now here’s my contention – do you have to believe it to be a Christian? Drum roll please…………. No. You do not have to believe in the virgin birth to be a Christian. But, once you become – by God’s marvelous grace – a Christian, you will believe it because it is true! Antithesis: can a Christian not believe in the virgin birth? Drum roll please………. No. A Christian can not not believe in the virgin birth of Jesus Christ because it refutes the entire Christology of the Scriptures. It’s not even rational to disbelieve the virgin birth. And why would a “Christian” not believe it anyway? Is being born of a virgin too difficult for God? I mean, resurrecting from the dead is one thing, but a virgin birth? Whew, no way could God do that! Really? It is clear from the Scriptures that Jesus had to be born of a virgin in order to accomplish the Atonement, so it rather makes no sense for a “Christian” to disbelieve it UNLESS that “Christian” is not really a Christian. And I would say that that “Christian” is not a Christian on the simple grounds that when one is chosen by God to receive faith, and they do, the truths which accompany that faith are inherent. Maybe they aren’t readily explained, but they are believed. And this is true for every point in the historic orthodox creeds which we possess and profess. They are, in a sense, fundamental (another concept some despise) to our faith.
So, if we substitute mustard for dressing is it still a Reuben? Nope. It’s only Reuben-esque. Or Reuben-ish. And there’s a Scripture for this:
II Timothy 3:1-9, “But realize this, that in the last days difficult times will come. 2 For men will be lovers of self, lovers of money, boastful, arrogant, revilers, disobedient to parents, ungrateful, unholy, 3 unloving, irreconcilable, malicious gossips, without self-control, brutal, haters of good, 4 treacherous, reckless, conceited, lovers of pleasure rather than lovers of God, 5 holding to a form of godliness, although they have denied its power; Avoid such men as these. 6 For among them are those who enter into households and captivate weak women weighed down with sins, led on by various impulses, 7 always learning and never able to come to the knowledge of the truth. 8 Just as Jannes and Jambres opposed Moses, so these men also oppose the truth, men of depraved mind, rejected in regard to the faith. 9 But they will not make further progress; for their folly will be obvious to all, just as Jannes’s and Jambres’s folly was also.”
The mustard-laden “Reuben” has the form of a Reuben, but it’s just not truly a Reuben. So, too, a “Christian” who can not profess belief in the most basic points of Christian belief have only the form of a Christian, but they are really depraved people full of folly. If thou wouldst call thyself a Christian, dump the mustard and put on the dressing.
posts 