:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
Fat Christians in an Age of Hunger?:
New research finds the Church typically heavier
than non-churched segments of society
"So, whether you eat or drink, or whatever you do,
do all to the glory of God." I Corinthians 10:31, RSV
In recent years, obesity has become an increasingly greater threat to the public health of the United States. Our average body weight continues to climb, and the National Center for Health Statistics has named "excess body weight" as a primary focus for public health intervention 1. Given the grim context of our public health, the results of new research by Purdue University's Kenneth Ferraro should serve as warning bells for the Church. These findings - entitled "Firm Believers? Religion, Body Weight and Well-Being" 2- showed a significant correlation between obesity and the practice of Christianity. Ferraro took pains to establish relevant criteria for defining "religious faith" and "obesity." "Religious faith," admittedly an elusive term, took shape in three dimensions. First, "Religious Practice" was indicated by patterns of attendance at religious services and habits regarding the intake of religious media. Secondly, the pertinence of one's beliefs in daily life comprised the dimension of "religious identity." Ferraro labeled the third and final dimension "religious comfort," meaning the role of an individual's religion in the face of difficulties. Accepting standard sociological definitions, the study identified an "obese" person as one who was more than one standard deviation above the average weight for his/her sex. According to these definitions, Ferraro found that Christian denominations occupied the five most overweight religious classifications: Southern Baptist, Penecostal/Fundamentalist (Church of Christ, Assembly of God, Church of God and Fundamentalist Baptist), Other denominational Protestants (Methodist, Christian Church, African Methodist-Episcopal and North American Baptist), Non-denominational Protestant and Catholic respectively. But what do these findings really tell us about the dietary health and practices of the Church?
One can draw two primary conclusions, one positive and one negative, from reading Ferraro's research. First, on the bright side, this research implies that the Church generally embraces the obese with the love of Christ. In so doing, we are indeed agents of God's grace to those prone to the stigmatization of society. However, the same research that lauds us for our love toward the obese, also paradoxically condemns us for our lack of love. First, we fail to maintain the charity of Christ toward ourselves, by neglecting our own health. In a society where obesity plagues the public health, one would surmise that Christians, in dutiful love for God's creation, would not be "conformed to this world" (Romans 12:2) in this regard. Instead, we find Christians more egregious in their obesity than the non-churched portions of our fat society. Secondly, our obesity indicates a lack of love for the millions of starving humans that share this planet with us.
Madeleine L'Engle, with the prophetic eloquence of the poet, waves these charges before us in A Stone for a Pillow:
"Can I separate my own health from the rest of the world? . . . In a universe where the lifting of the wings of a butterfly is felt across galaxies, I cannot isolate myself, because my separation may add to the starvation and the anger and the violence."
The Commendation
One implication of this study is that the Church has become a safe haven for those who struggle with their weight. In a society that glorifies the lean-and-trim - or in some instances, the grotesquely underweight - the obese tend to be marginalized quietly. As Christians, in our rhetoric as well as in our practice, we tend to extend the welcome arms of Christ to all regardless of body shape. Ferraro's research serves to confirm this tendency within the Church. Despite our welcoming stance toward the overweight, Ferraro's research also suggests that we have had all too much silence in our midst regarding matters of weight or gluttony. Thus, one can infer that we generally lack the appropriate discipline and accountability to help our brothers and sisters and ourselves deal with the physical and emotional struggles associated with eating issues. How many of our preachers, pastors and priests are willing to confront the gustatory excesses of our culture by speaking from the pulpit on passages like Proverbs 23:20-21? The unfortunate answer is that such sermons are sparse at best. Thankfully however, in recent decades, Christian dietary organizations such as Weigh-Down (www.wdworkshop.com) and Step-Forward have begun to raise their cry in the gluttonous wilderness of the American church. These groups, despite their varied theological foundations, stand unified not only in confronting the obesity of the American church, but also in their offering a means by which accountability can bud and bloom into healing. One must hope that trends set by groups such as these will continue, opening the doors for freer intra-church communication about food issues and ultimately impacting research such as that of Ferraro.
The Criticism
This study holds not only praise, but also indicts us for a lack of charity in our midst. This deficit manifests itself in two distinct fashions. First, in our individual obesity, we are found to lack charity toward ourselves, and particularly toward our bodies as the creation of God and the temple of the Holy Spirit (I Cor. 6:19). Abundant arguments exist along these lines for Christians to abstain from drunkenness or smoking or drug abuse, but it is rare for one to hear such a case built against gluttony. Perhaps we do not see ourselves as gluttons. In response to Ferraro's research, Jerry Falwell was quoted as saying: "I know . . . gluttony is a bad thing. But I don't know many gluttons." Yes, gluttony is indeed a particularly difficult term to define, and something about which we cannot - and should not - begin to point fingers. Gluttony does not necessarily equate to obesity; many gluttons, due to a fast metabolism or other factors, maintain a normal body weight.
Contrarily, obesity does not inherently imply gluttony. Perhaps, in many cases - as Rev. Falwell has surmised - we are not gluttons at all. Instead, the lifestyle choices we make cause us to gain weight without falling into a habit of over-eating. Although we ultimately are responsible for our own health, American culture certainly has been a stumbling block to many people. As our society has progressed from an agricultural economy, to an industrial economy, to the present information-based economy, we have gradually become a more sedentary people. Combine our lack of activity with notoriously poor eating habits - e.g., the ubiquitous lure of the "fast food" restaurant, for its convenience and its low prices - and it is little wonder that obesity poses a threat to the public health of our nation. In our society, it is feasible for a person to rapidly accumulate pounds by eating modest meals, if one is given to frequently "eating out," and if one takes no initiative to obtain exercise. Sadly, it seems that we, the followers of Christ in America, have fallen into this sort of lifestyle. Thus, we have ignored Paul's warning in Romans 12:2, which Eugene Peterson poetically interprets in The Message: "Don't become so well-adjusted to your culture that you fit into it without even thinking."
Although we acquiesce to the mindset of our society when we fail to exercise and moderate our diets, the church has apparently succeeded in eluding the popular mentality in other related matters. For instance, we have not succumbed to Madison Avenue's pleas that success belongs to the emaciated waif or the muscle-bound hunk. The church should be applauded for its recognition of the futility found in these extremes of "glamorous" mal-nutrition and the meat-market religion of the fitness club. Instead, it sadly seems that the church has taken a reactionary swing to the opposite pole and thus, caring very little about the physical health of the individual - at least in regard to nutrition and exercise.
Why is it that such a reactionary apathy has found such a fertile ground in the Church? There is no easy answer to this question, but one can build a good case that an important factor is the long-standing dualism in Christian thought between the soul and the body. However, the origins of this division extend back, past the time of Christ, to the teachings of Plato. This mentality heavily impacted the early church, and became the foundational tenet of Gnosticism, which the Church later would deem heretical. The renowned scholar, Harold Bloom notes in The American Religion that Gnosticism is slowly creeping back into American religion. It seems that Gnostic tendencies are more common among churches that adhere to literal biblical interpretation, which also - according to Ferraro's research - tend to have higher rates of obesity. Literalists, it seems, are prone to view biblical texts denouncing "the flesh" (e.g. Romans 8:1-13, Gal. 5:16-24, Eph. 6:12) as references to the physical body, instead of as symbolic of our human sin nature. Thus, they reason that since the body is evil and mortal, and the soul good and immortal, our priority is to nurture the soul, even if it means neglecting the body. Of course, active contempt for the body - e.g., drug abuse or alcoholism - is indubitably wrong, but passive contempt can be easily overlooked in light of weightier priorities.
Interestingly, when one returns to the Hebrew of the Old Testament, one does not find a body/soul dualism. Instead, the term "nephesh" is used interchangeably in reference to the physical body, as well as to the soul.
This dualistic perspective gradually sneaking into the American church tends to be a practical theology, and few would actually claim adherence to these tenets as part of a cognitive doctrine. Bloom agrees, noting that the contemporary American forms of Gnosticism tend to linger on the popular level, not that of church creeds or doctrines. The sad, but logical, end to such beliefs was exemplified in the "doctrine" of the "Heaven's Gate" cult, who viewed the body as a mere container for the soul. Thankfully, the Church's belief in the sanctity of life has kept us from reaching a similar end. But, is it any less immoral for one to "shed his/her shell" gradually through the heart disease and stress caused by obesity, than it would be to discard it instantaneously as the cultists did?
How then, should one view the body, if such Gnostic-like dualism is prone to lead to obesity? First, it is helpful to understand such passages about "the flesh" as symbolic. There is nothing extraordinarily evil about our bodies. Indeed, they are "fallen," but to no greater extent than anything else in this world. However, they are part of God's creation - of which we, as individuals, are stewards. I Corinthians 6:19 reminds us that the body is not a mere "container," but instead is "the temple of the Holy Spirit." When one considers the exquisite details of the Judaic temple in I Kings 6 and elsewhere in the historic books of the Old Testament, one finds little basis for justifying apathy towards our bodies. Similarly, passages like Romans 12:1 repeatedly implore us to offer our bodies as living sacrifices to the LORD. Again juxtaposing these passages with the mandates of Jewish law, which says that sacrificial animals were to be without blemish, one finds added reason to maintain a faithful stewardship of the body. The perfection demanded by such an interpretation is rightfully disturbing and could easily leave one with a sense of hopelessness and despair. However, thanks be to Christ, who presents us before the Father as holy and blameless! We are given the standard, for which each of us must strive, and God grace-fully will forgive our inevitable shortcomings. Granted, the maintenance of our bodies should be a medium through which we worship God, and not become an idolatrous end in itself.
Regardless of the cause - conforming to society, apathy, bad theology, or some combination thereof - Ferraro's research indicates that we, as Christians, are prone to lack charity toward our own bodies. This is troublesome because if we do not love ourselves well, then how are we, in the spirit of Christ's mandate (Matthew 19:19, etc.), to love our neighbors well? This difficulty takes two particularly distinct faces.
First, if we choose bad health for ourselves, we increase our own needs and thus, siphon off time and energy that could be spent in the service of others' needs. Secondly, our obesity, in a world where millions go without eating every day, is not only unloving, but also unjust.
The impact of the American Church's shortage of agape toward the remainder of the world has been superbly chronicled in Ron Sider's Rich Christians in an Age of Hunger. Sider decries the injustice of the economic practices prevalent in American churches. In the chapter entitled "Structural Evil and World Hunger," Sider says, "Our eating patterns - an . . . area where we are caught in institutionalized sin - may seem to us personal and private. But they are tightly interlocked with complex economic structures." Sider proceeds to expand upon this thesis, particularly noting North America's gross over-consumption, and how these eating patterns contribute to the poverty and hunger of less fortunate nations in the world. In this section of Rich Christians, we see a vivid depiction of our inter-connectedness with the rest of the world. If the vast majority of North Americans eat more than their fair share of food, this forces us to import more food from other nations, and in return export less. The money we spend on imports, especially from third-world nations, very rarely is returned into food resources to feed the hungry in the exporting nation. Thus, in this over-simplified scenario, we get a whiff of the injustice done to the world by our poor eating habits. Indeed, as Ms. L'Engle surmised, our excesses may be contributing to the hunger of others.
Although, economically speaking, North Americans - in general, and as Ferraro's research indicates, particularly the Christians - have not acted in love toward the rest of the world, the solution to this inequity does not lie solely in the reducing of our consumption. If we, by eating less, improve our own health and do nothing to help meet the needs of our neighbors, we have only laid a foundation for pride. This is precisely L'Engle's point, that we cannot separate our individual health from that of the world. The first step, as Sider notes, is - out of love for ourselves and love for our neighbors - to consume less. Once we, by the grace of God, begin to eat more healthfully, we need to commit ourselves to actively improving the health of the poor around the world.
But this is such a huge task, where does one begin? That is, if one can even do anything to help. Thankfully, there is no shortage of tools, for one who makes the commitment to love the world's needy people. One wellspring of such aids is Sider's organization, Evangelicals for Social Action (ESA - www.esa-online.org). Their "Generous Christians" campaign spurs Christians to a multi-faceted commitment to "share God's love for the poor." This program, intended for the average layperson, provides a simple framework - involving prayer, service, study, reflection and giving - through which one can begin to serve the world's most needy. One other particularly helpful resource is Doris Janzen Longacre's book (and related cookbook) entitled Living More With Less. The cookbook provides wonderful advice for eating healthfully and compassionately, and the book is a treasure trove of wisdom on how, by living simply and generously, we can genuinely and actively begin to love our neighbors as ourselves. Finally, there is a host of opportunities for us to give of our abundance, once we begin to consume less. Organizations like World Vision (www.worldvision.org) and Compassion International (www.ci.org) help to feed and educate children around the world. Another alternative is Opportunity International (www.opportunity.org), which provides small capital, low interest loans to third world families, in order that they might begin small business ventures and generate income for themselves. Many other local and global opportunities exist for American Christians to serve the needy, and thereby, to more actively express our love for all humankind.
What, then, should we do?
Indeed, the American Church has been found lax in its love for the rest of the world and in our individual love of ourselves. The numbers of Ferraro's research confront us with this sad reality. We must repent and we must seek to change. Thus, we need to begin keeping each other accountable and shatter the church's overwhelming silence on food issues. But what form will this change assume? One can only speculate.
However, a few words of caution are necessary lest we merely change from ill to ill. One of the most alluring temptations in such change is to become ascetic in our eating habits. This is a grave danger and one that some of the strongest voices in Christendom on matters of food (e.g., Sider and Longacre) have stood firmly against. The Psalmist, the teacher of Ecclesiastes and even the example of Jesus remind us that celebration is a necessary part of life in Christ. Historically, the church has done well at fulfilling this human need, and for this, we should be commended. However, in recent years, we perhaps have done too good of a job. Longacre chastises us in Living More with Less: "Practices that offend nutrition, ecology and thrift take place regularly at church and church conference meals." Sider repeatedly reminds us not to sacrifice our celebration as we begin to eat more lovingly, but instead - echoing Jesus's mandate in Luke 11:43 - urges us to include the poor in our celebrations. Secondly, we need to be patient - patient first with ourselves and patient also with our brothers and sisters. Like any addiction, over-consumption of food is very difficult to "kick," and as one is reminded in Al-Anon, the first step is to recognize that there is indeed a problem. Ferraro's study should serve well to remind us of our own neediness in this area. Frederick Buechner remarks, in his wonderfully truth-full Telling Secrets, that it seems to him that in many cases support groups like Al-Anon function in a church-like manner better than local churches do. Oh, that we might have the patience, accountability and compassion of an Al-Anon group as we begin to help each other deal with food issues.
Finally, we must hope - not in ourselves, for there we only find weakness and sin - but rather in the power of Christ to change us, as individuals and as a corporate body. Richard Foster says in his contemporary classic of the Faith, Celebration of Discipline, that "if worship does not change us, then it has not been worship." This principle is as true of worship through our dietary habits as it is of singing praises or any other means of worship. Jesus promised us that as we seek, so shall we find (Matt. 7:7), and thus if we listen for the quiet voice of the Spirit and choose to follow its leading, we will change, growing in our likeness of Christ. It is my prayer that, by the great Mercy of God, we will find the strength to listen and obey, in regard to our eating habits, as well as in every aspect of life! ---
Notes:
1. National Center for Health Statistics "Health United States 1992 and Healthy People 2000 Review." Hyattsville, MD: Public Health Service.
2. published in March 1998's _Review of Religious Research_
