This is an open letter to anyone and everyone who has ever tried to debunk Christianity, the reliability of Scripture, or any Christian doctrine by plaguing us with remarks about the Levitical food laws. I don't mean to be rude, but if you don't know why Christians eat pork and assume we are ignoring certain passages for our own convenience, you are not doing us justice, and you are uninformed. Please stop! If you honestly want to know why Christians eat pork, please ask sincerely. We will gladly tell you. It's an exciting story!
Christians, at least Reformed Christians, trace our faith back to the beginning of the world, but more specifically to the ancient Israelites. The Old Testament of our Scripture is something we share with the Jews of today. Before Jesus came, most believers were Jews. A few Gentiles came to know about God, and some joined the Jewish faith, especially later on in the Inter-Testimental period. But, by and large, being part of God's people meant being a Jew, whether ethnically or by joining the Jewish people.
All that changed after Jesus came. His ministry was to the Jews of His day. It was after His ascension to heaven (this happened after the Resurrection), and after persecution against Christians had broken out, that the Apostle Peter (one of Jesus' close friends, one of a group of twelve who became leaders in the early church) had a vision of various animals. God told him to kill and eat, but he refused. God told him not to call anything unclean that He has made clean. God sent the vision three times. It was right after this that a delegation came from a Roman centurion asking Peter to come to his house. God told Peter to go with the delegation, which he did. He preached to the centurion and his family, who became Christians. This was the beginning of Gentile conversion on a mass scale.
The change in demographic brought about new questions and problems. Was conversion to Christianity the same as conversion to Judaism? Up until this time, full conversion to Judaism required circumcision for men and law-keeping (i.e. being Kosher) for everyone. Did conversion to Christianity entail these changes? The Apostles met in Jerusalem for a council. They decided that the Gentile converts did not have to keep the ceremonial law. What the Apostles did say was that Gentile converts should avoid sexual immorality, meat from animals that had been strangled, and that they should not consume blood. Later letters of the Apostle Paul explain that the food laws of the Old Testament, like many other part of the Old Testament, pictures of a greater reality which had now come with the coming of Jesus.
As for the moral law, things like not stealing, etc. pretty much all the Ten Commandments are affirmed somewhere in the New Testament (there is some controversy about the fourth commandment). Reformed Christians generally consider the Seventh Commandment to cover sexual ethics in general, not just adultery. Note that the Jerusalem Council did not define what "sexual immorality" meant. It appears they assumed people knew. For this reason, many believe that the sexual prohibitions in the Old Testament Levitical law still apply today. In actual fact, in our society, many of these prohibitions are still in force culturally. Christians have allowed these prohibitions to carry over from Leviticus.
For those who do know, I would like to explain why traditional Christians don't just stop following other laws, (today the pet one seems to be sexuality). I will first try to outline what I think your reasoning is. The church of the New Testament determined that certain laws were no longer to be followed. You perhaps wonder why we don't accept having the church today make a similar call on issues like sexuality and gender. You should understand that such a thing actually wouldn't occur to most traditional Christians of the more Reformed tendency.
1. The closing of the canon: The term canon refers to a list of Scriptural books. Note that even those who like and read books like Jesus Calling haven't even talked about trying to put them into the Bible. We don't add books to the Bible. For many in the Reformed camp, and for many outside it, this principle of the closing of the canon also means that significant, church-wide revelation is, for the time being, over. God has spoken in His Word, and people should not expect further revelation, especially not revelation that contradicts the teachings of Scripture. In other words, we today are not in the same position the Apostles were in. They had authority we do not have. They had authority the church presently does not have. God has spoken. At the time of the Jerusalem Council, God was speaking through these men in a way He now only speaks through His Word. It's not that we think there's anything God can't do.
2. The reliability of Scripture: Traditional Christians believe that the Bible accurately reflects God's message to us. It does not tell us what people thought God was trying to say or what they thought He wanted. It is successful communication from God. It accurately tells us what God wants and Who He is. While there may be textual variants or spelling mistakes in some manuscripts, the Bible is free from errors as to the message. Thus, when the Apostles made their decision, they were not correcting an error in the Old Testament. They were, instead, recognizing, not without Divine aid, a profound change in the times. Remember how much guidance God gave Peter!
3. The monumental nature of the change from Old Testament to New Testament: The coming of Jesus, the Crucifixion, and the calling of the Nations into God's people- these are all the marks of a fundamental change. Jesus is the fulfillment of prophecies made from almost the dawn of human history! What newer, cataclysmic fulfillment can people today point to? What reason do we have to expect that, under our noses, an Even Newer Testament is in the process of being written? Christ has not yet returned. What other event could possibly compare to what has already happened?
I understand fully that these points I have made are points of disagreement between more conservative Christians like me and more progressive Christians. My point here is that any discussion of changing our ethics must start with these and similar points, not with the issue of pork. Again, I would never dream of arrogating to myself or even to my pastor, the authority the Apostles wielded in the Jerusalem council. When you bring up pork we just don't know what you're talking about. Please, quit it with the pork!