Yale University senior, Eve Binder, in an interesting article entitled “Fat Studies Goes to College” writes, “A handful of colleges now offer classes entirely devoted to the overweight and obese.” George Washington University, University of California, Oregon State, and Rutgers are among schools getting in on America’s obesity problem by offering students academic opportunities to study the world’s largest population of fatsos >>>
According to Binder, the "sociological study of obesity has been creeping into academia for over a decade, often as a subtopic of Women's Studies or Health Sciences.” I can see how a PhD in Fat Studies could lead to a prestigious career in academia in the near future, since the academy has been dumbing down for at least a half-century or more.
Unfortunately, I can also see something else. Southern Baptists are undoubtedly the fattest not only among evangelicals, but also in the top tier per capita poundage among religious adherents. Indeed we may rank as the number one demographic to study by future Fat Studies PhD students. What an honor! Or is it?
Please understand: personally, I probably would fit the criteria Fat Studies seeks to examine. Since grade school, I’ve been called “fatso,” “fatty,” fatty-two-by-four-can’t get-through-the-bathroom-door,” “lardbelly,” and many other, shall we say, unmentionables for public forum. Nonetheless, I remain very much aware of weight and attempt to keep checks on health, food intake, regular exercise, and maintaining a balanced approach to appetite. Hence, I am extremely sympathetic to those of my ilk who struggle with easy weight-gain, remain over-weight, and face the future with pants always too tight, buying white shirts too big just to get the collar to button, getting a headache every time shoes are tied, and experiencing a secretly crushed spirit when the first words spoken from someone you haven’t seen in a good while are “boy, you’ve gained weight, haven’t you?”
Nor do I peddle the wacky, extra-biblical idea that people who overeat are in the same moral category as people who imbibe intoxicating substances. Moderationists usually show up in busloads to sing their sappy song whenever or wherever abstinence from alcoholic beverages is maintained. “When Southern Baptists start condemning gluttony, then I will listen to them when they condemn alcohol!” they squeal to beating drums and strumming guitars. Please. Not only does one (imbibing intoxicating substances for recreational purposes) have absolutely nothing to do with the other (eating--albeit over-eating--food to sustain life), but as I have shown elsewhere, gluttony in Scripture morally equals neither overeating nor being overweight nor a combination of the two.
What is more, even if one could demonstrate over-eating is morally identical to imbibing intoxicating substances as moderationists like to sing, what does that prove except that both are morally unacceptable? But, if both are morally unacceptable, then the choir who sings their little ditty above is just as ethically duplicitous as the ones they accuse. One is reminded of the Apostle: “Therefore thou art inexcusable, O man, whosoever thou art that judgest: for wherein thou judgest another, thou condemnest thyself; for thou that judgest doest the same things” (Rom 2:1).
The fact remains, no matter how fat a person is, his or her fatness lends absolutely no credence to whether or not imbibing intoxicants is morally acceptable. Bringing up gluttony in the same sense as socially imbibing intoxicating substances for pleasurable purposes is little more than a thinly veiled excuse for avoiding the alcohol issue.
With that, I am...
Peter
* I shouldn't have to say this, but no, Lifeway nor NAMB has plans to offer Fat Study stats among Georgia Baptists nor any Baptists so far as I know
Eating food is not a sin. Alcoholic beverages are food. Erego it is not a sin to drink alcoholic beverages. However, excess in either case is considered a sin not due primarialy to the amount taken in, but because of the reason. If a person eats to comfort themselves then they are sinning by placing their trust in something other than Christ. Likewise, if a person drinks to be socially accepted (by being inebriated) they are sinning because they are, again, failing to trust in Christ.
Consumption for pleasure, however, is not a valid reason for calling an action sinful. I love the taste of cheese, sushi, and beer. Their tastes are pleasurable and there is nothing in Scripture that tells us that pleasurable tastes are, in themselves, sinful.
Posted by: Wes Widner | 2010.11.12 at 08:53 AM
Begging pardon
A) Alcoholic beverages are not food
B) you clearly contradict yourself, Wes
a) on the one hand you say, eating to comfort one’s self is a sin
b) on the other, consumption for pleasure is not a sin.
How is it you think comforting one’s self is not indicative of pleasing one’s self? Is not pleasing one’s self a pleasurable act?
Wes, you’d do well to deal with what people write. Your annoying habit lately of showing up and posting irrelevant snipes does the apologetics ministry you have no favors (not to mention the silly sound-alike nonsense--"Erego"--the pseudo-apologists of the "Reformed" community like to sport. By the way, the Latin is ergo not "Erego") .
Hence, if you do not agree with abstinence, then by all means, preach your moderation message. But at least be relevant to the arguments and/or assertions abstinence-adherents like myself make (and it would do you well to get your facts straight before logging on [see ‘A’ above])
Have a great weekend.
With that, I am…
Peter
Posted by: peter lumpkins | 2010.11.12 at 10:07 AM