Jesus Was Not a Fighter and Love is Not a “Feminine” Action

Melissa at Shakesville has a great post up called Prince of Peace? My Ass! about a church near Nashville that combines worship with mixed martial arts. Here’s the NYT article:

Flock Is Now a Fight Team in Some Ministries

A quote from the article:

The goal, these pastors say, is to inject some machismo into their ministries — and into the image of Jesus — in the hope of making Christianity more appealing. “Compassion and love — we agree with all that stuff, too,” said Brandon Beals, 37, the lead pastor at Canyon Creek Church outside of Seattle. “But what led me to find Christ was that Jesus was a fighter.”

But the problem is, Jesus wasn’t a fighter. Jesus was firm and demonstrated anger on occasion, but he saved those for rare instances (and firmness and demonstrations of anger do not equal violence, or being “a fighter”). Most of the time he was compassionate, respectful, encouraging, and loving.

This is part of a larger movement of churches who are trying to become more “macho” because they are afraid the church has been “feminized.” I have a couple things to say about that.

One—it is useless to talk about the feminine/masculine dichotomy here. What did Jesus stand for? What did he live for? What did he teach us with his words and his actions? What qualities did he have? If we name some of these things as goodness, truth, compassion, mercy, unconditional love, gentleness, faithfulness, humility… then who cares if these traits are “feminine” or “masculine”? Gendering these things is problematic in the first place. Jesus never once made a distinction between how men and women should act. He said to love one another. He didn’t say “women, you’re free to love one another completely, but men, as you love others, just make sure that you don’t do it in the same way the women do.” Assigning gender to behaviors that boil down to basic human decency is a useless and disgusting waste of time.

Two—There are problems with the church, yes (can I get an amen on that folks?) but being “too feminine” is NOT one of those problems. The kinds of problems our churches face are not that we are being too kind, too compassionate, too loving. Our problems are things like our leadership being obsessed with power, being unable to keep clergy from engaging in sexual misconduct, excluding those who are seen as different, and exploiting resources. Every hour a church wastes on worrying whether it’s “macho enough” is a precious moment lost in which we could have done some justice, righted some wrong, lived into what it means to truly love.

So what’s all this really about? All this panic about churches not being macho enough boils down to misogyny, that strange combination of fear and hatred for women and any qualities or actions that the culture decides to describe as “feminine.” And that is not the gospel. In fact, given that Jesus was pretty radical for his time in his relationships with women—counting them among his closest friends and disciples—this is an anti-gospel. It is not good news, it is bad news. It is not liberating news, it is oppressive news. These folks are worshiping an idolatrous image of a violent, “macho” god that doesn’t much resemble the God of love and unconditional acceptance that Jesus embodied.

As Melissa points out at the end of her post:

This version of Christianity is not merely one of the most aesthetically objectionable I can imagine from a social justice standpoint, it’s also incredibly dangerous. The toxic mix of a religion inextricably linked with physical aggression, war rhetoric, white male supremacy, a masculinity defined in contradistinction to anything viewed as feminine, and everything summarily dismissed as feminine that is remotely associated with compromise and tolerance—that is the stuff of fascism; that is the stuff of crusades.

As for me, I will continue to follow the Jesus attested to in the Christian Scriptures—the Emmanuel (God With Us), the Wonderful Counselor, the Prince of Peace.

Facebooking from the Altar

A Facebook friend of mine recently passed this on:

The person who posted this was of the opinion that it is evidence of how people are putting too much into Facebook (and Twitter, etc.). I’m not so sure, for two reasons.

First, the description on YouTube includes the following: “This was just done to be funny – we really don’t Facebook THAT often :).” I’m inclined to believe that is truthful, especially because I do personally find it really cute and funny, and the laughter of the congregation and the pastor are evidence that this was a joyful moment for everyone.

Second, I think a lot of time the criticism of Facebook and Twitter is that we don’t need to know EVERY detail of your life. We don’t need a play-by-play of everywhere you go, everything you eat, everyone you see, and every time you use the toilet. But this isn’t an “every little detail” thing. This is their wedding. It’s a pretty big day, a pretty big moment!

I know, I know a lot of people will still think this is probably inappropriate, but I personally happen to think that we need to go with the flow a bit and accept where technology takes us. Is the “relationship status” feature of Facebook the new wedding rings? Well I doubt that rings will be replaced any time soon, but relationship status is an important feature to many people, and even if this specific thing was done just to be funny, perhaps the couple actually does take some delight in knowing that their relationship status was updated at exactly the moment their marriage was official. And if so, more power to them!

Clearly I am not one to be reticent about all technology (some types of technology, yes, but not all). So I just think this is a cute video. What do you think?

Goodbye Rob

Rob McKnight was a tall, round-faced, mostly-bald man with a lilting Southern accent, a deep sensitivity, and an admirable assertiveness. I only had the privilege of having a couple of classes with him, but he was an incredible encouragement to me.

On the last day of my Liberation Theology class last spring, I was one of the last to speak about the topic of my final paper, which was Fat Liberation. I was reluctant to “come out” to my classmates as a fat activist. Hell, I was even reluctant to say the phrase “I am fat” out loud in a room full of 30 people. But I mustered up the courage to do it, in no small part to the fact that Rob was sitting next to me, looking at me encouragingly. As I spoke, he affirmed my words, even looking at me once with tears in his eyes as I spoke about my pain. Afterwards he hugged me tightly and encouraged me to “start that blog!” in his matter-of-fact and yet gentle way. And that would be this blog. Which exists partially because of Rob’s support.

I lived just blocks away from Rob’s apartment, and saw him occasionally at my husband’s church. He’d been sick, and was recently diagnosed with Addison’s Disease. But even so, I still felt like I had “plenty of time” to get to know Rob. Unfortunately, I didn’t have plenty of time, because he died unexpectedly. The Medical Examiner’s office still doesn’t know exactly what he died of, but he has passed on from this life into the Arms of Love.

Come now, you who say, “Today or tomorrow we will go to such and such a town and spend a year there, doing business and making money.” Yet you do not even know what tomorrow will bring. What is your life? For you are a mist that appears for a little while and then vanishes. Instead you ought to say, “If the Lord wishes, we will live and do this or that.” As it is, you boast in your arrogance; all such boasting is evil. –James 4:13-16, NRSV

We never know how life might change, and we must not take our future plans for granted. I missed the opportunity to get to know Rob in this life because I forgot the above passage from my favorite book in the Christian Scriptures. Lord, help me to remember it today.

For those in the Seattle area who knew Rob, there will be a chance to share memories and celebrate his life at the Recovery Café’s new location, 2022 Boren Ave at 5:30pm on Sunday, February 7th.

Prayers for Rob’s friends and families would be appreciated.

Obesity is the epidemic that never was

That is, according to this fabulous article from Cato.

Some quotes:

Both studies are based on information from the National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey from 2007-08, which is a representative sample of the American population. The survey measured the heights and weights of 3,281 children and adolescents and 219 infants and toddlers, as well as 5,555 adult women and men. The study of children and adolescents looked at the body mass index (BMI) of children and adolescents over five time periods between 1999 and 2008, the decade during which child obesity was widely described as America’s preeminent public health problem.

Comparing the results of the survey for 2007 with those of 2004, there have been either declines or no significant changes in male prevalence of overweight and obesity in all age groups from 16-54. As for children, the survey finds: “There was no significant change in mean BMI overweight/obesity prevalence between 2006 and 2007, and there are indications that the trend in obesity prevalence may have begun to flatten out over the last two to three years.”

That obesity rates are not “skyrocketing” is something that many of us in the FA movement were already aware of, or at least strongly suspected, but these studies provide a very strong chink in the wall of misinformation about obesity that alienates and estranges us from society.

Forbiddenness and Overindulgence

At church yesterday there was an insert in the bulletin called “Faith & Facts: Alcohol, Tobacco and Other Drugs.” It is a publication of the General Board of Church and Society of the United Methodist Church. I want to talk with you a little bit about what was included, and perhaps more importantly what was left out, of the handout.

The very first section was entitled, “What Does the Bible Say?” and the scriptures included were (emphasis in original)”

Genesis 1:27: “So God created humankind in his image, in the image of God he created them“

Proverbs 23:20-21 and 29-32*: “Do not be among winebibbers or among gluttonous eaters of meat; for the drunkard and the glutton will come to poverty, and drowsiness will clothe them in rags … Who has woe? Who has sorrow? Who has strife? Who has complaining? Who has wounds without cause? Who has redness of eyes? Those who linger late over wine, those who keep trying mixed wines. Do not look at wine when it is red, when it sparkles in the cup and goes down smoothly. At the last it bites like a serpent, and stings like an adder.”

John 10:10: “I came that you might have life and have it abundantly.

I wholeheartedly agree with the verses that bookend this triad; that we are created in the image of God and that God wants us to live abundant lives. The juxtaposition of these two verses with the proverbs verse seems to imply, however, that using alcohol is necessarily a detriment to these things; that it defiles the sacred body and prohibits living life abundantly. But I noticed something here—they left out some verse of that Proverbs passage. Whenever I notice this, I am pretty much compelled to go find out what they actually say. They say this:

Listen to your father who begot you, and do not despise your mother when she is old. Buy truth, and do not sell it; buy wisdom, instruction, and understanding. The father of the righteous will greatly rejoice; he who begets a wise son will be glad in him. Let your father and mother be glad; let her who bore you rejoice. My child, give me your heart, and let your eyes observe my ways. For a prostitute is a deep pit; an adulteress is a narrow well. She lies in wait like a robber and increases the number of the faithless.

Rather than addressing the contextual issues around adultery (for that would be an entirely different post) let me point out how the first half of that—the focus on wisdom—sheds new light on the verses that were quoted, as is usually the case when some have been omitted. The focus on wisdom here implies that this passage is not simply about how bad drinking is, but rather it is an illustration of making unwise choices, an example of the consequences of using alcohol unwisely.

Not only do I ask why they left out part of that passage, I also ask why did they choose this one at all? There are others in the Bible that discuss the use of alcohol. Here’s a really interesting one, again from the book of Proverbs, Chapter 31:4-9:

It is not for kings, O Lemuel, it is not for kings to drink wine, or for rulers to desire strong drink; or else they will drink and forget what has been decreed, and will pervert the rights of all the afflicted. Give strong drink to one who is perishing, and wine to those in bitter distress; let them drink and forget their poverty, and remember their misery no more. Speak out for those who cannot speak, for the rights of all the destitute. Speak out, judge righteously, defend the rights of the poor and needy.

In this passage we consider the different functions that alcohol serves in different folks’ lives. For rulers and kings, drinking wine can be a problem because it can lead to them acting unjustly. Not just because “it’s bad” but because it’s bad for the people over whom they rule. On the other hand, those who are ill or experiencing oppression, and want to use alcohol every once in a while to “drown their sorrows”? The writer of this psalm says, “more power to ya!”

Again we have a more nuanced message; it is not the alcohol itself that is bad, but rather its misuse or overuse and the negative consequences that can have on others.

The last one I want to point out here (though we could go on all day) is the one that always comes to my mind, and I’m surprised it was left out. That is, Jesus’ first miracle, as recorded by John, was to turn water into wine at a wedding. And not only did he turn water into wine, he turned it into good wine. It was common at these weddings for the best wine to be brought out first, when everyone was sober and could enjoy it, and then the poorer quality wine would be brought out after everyone was good and sloshed. Jesus, to everyone’s surprise, turned water into good wine when they had run out. So basically, Jesus’ first miracle involved giving drunk people more wine. Doubt my interpretation? Read it for yourself.

Does this make Jesus unwise; a fool? Does it make him a drunkard? No. Because, again, we consider the context. It’s a wedding. It’s a party. So, Jesus and this scripture tell us, alcohol is great for use in celebrations. Add that to the list of times when drinking—even quite a bit—of alcohol is a-okay.

But the crux of this publication from the General Board of Church and Society doesn’t look at nuance, and I suppose in a double-sided half sheet of paper you don’t have much room to do so, especially if you’re looking at tobacco and other drugs as well. But I am nevertheless concerned by the stridency with which the GBCS approaches this issue. Not only is a strident “no alcohol” approach extra- (arguably anti-) Biblical, it’s just not psychologically healthful.

Here’s where this ties into issues of Fat Acceptance: forbiddenness, whatever is being forbidden, leads to overindulgence. We all know that forbidding children from something is the one way to guarantee they’ll want it. This is true for adults too. Hell, most of you have probably heard the phrase, “what do you think of when I tell you not to think of an elephant?”

And the statistics also show that just because the US has the most restricted laws when it comes to underage drinking doesn’t mean we don’t have our problems with alcohol. Americans drink 8.51 liters of alcohol per person per year, and we have a rate of 40.9 deaths from alcoholic liver disease per 1 million people.

Compare this with Canada, which has a very similar rate of alcohol consumption (8.26 liters per person, compared to our 8.51). But their rate of death from alcoholic liver disease is notably lower—33.4. If we head east to the UK, we get an even bigger discrepancy. While they drink more alcohol than we do (10.39 liters per person) they have a mortality rate from alcoholic liver disease—14.328 deaths per million—that is less than half our own!

Now of course there are other countries, like Germany, where they do drink more (12.89 liters per person) and have more deaths (a whopping 126.9 per million!) but my point is that this isn’t simple. Restriction based on laws and social mores just doesn’t work, and in our case it seems to be hurting. While we have the highest legal drinking age in the world, and our per capita alcohol consumption rate is pretty average, we obviously have a major problem with alcoholism as evidenced by the amount of deaths we have from alcoholic liver disease.

Restriction isn’t working for us. In fact, it looks an awful lot like it’s leading to bingeing.

Sound familiar?

This is also what we do with food. When we try to restrict something completely, whether it’s cookies, white bread, you name it, all we often do is exacerbate cravings for it. We think we are so “good” because we haven’t eaten that thing we love for a whole month and then… boom. We’ve just eaten a whole box of Thin Mints, or a whole loaf of Wonderbread, or whatever.

This is because there is nothing healthy about complete restriction, when you’re an otherwise healthy person. The caveat, here, of course, is for folks who have allergies, intolerances, or other medical conditions (such as diabetes) that require certain diets; or folks with chemical dependency on alcohol who are choosing to remain sober. But these decisions need to be made by fully informed people, with the help and guidance of friends, family members, and health care professionals. Outside of that, there’s just no good reason to restrict ourselves so much that we end up over-indulging.

So let’s go back to those great words in Proverbs about wisdom. How can we eat and drink wisely, in ways that honor our bodies, our souls, and our relationships with others? Rather than making rules, let’s make decisions based on respect for ourselves and love for our neighbors.

Help Haiti by donating to UMCOR

Haiti, a nation already dealing with great poverty, experienced a massive earthquake yesterday. Many different aid organizations are asking for your donations, and I just want to plug the relief agency of my denomination, UMCOR.

UMCOR already has a field office in Haiti, and all overhead costs are covered by the United Methodist Church’s operations budget (this money comes mainly from apportionments from churches–yearly donations from churches to support the operations of the denomination).

If you donate to UMCOR, 100% of your donation will go directly toward aid where it is most needed.

Click here to donate.

Love

One of the scribes came near and heard [the Sadducees and Jesus] disputing with one another, and seeing that [Jesus] answered them well, he asked him, “Which commandment is the first of all?” Jesus answered, “The first is, ‘Hear, O Israel: the Lord our God, the Lord is one; you shall love the Lord your God with all your heart, and with all your soul, and with all your mind, and with all your strength.’ The second is this, ‘You shall love your neighbor as yourself.’ There is no other commandment greater than these.” (Mark 12:28-31, NRSV)

Jesus here is referencing the Shema, an extremely important passage in the Jewish faith, found in Deuteronomy 4:6-9. This theme runs throughout the Hebrew and Christian scriptures: love is the key. It is the most important focus. It is out of love that all the rules and laws spring, and following the rules without love is to miss the mark. 1 Corinthians 13, sometimes referred to as “the love chapter” talks about what love is, and it begins with: If I speak in the tongues of mortals and of angels, but do not have love, I am a noisy gong or a clanging cymbal.

I think it’s important to notice that in the Shema, and in Jesus’ words, the message is to Love your neighbor as yourself. Sometimes we get so focused on the big words—love, neighbor, yourself—that we forget to look at the little words. But the little words, here, make a big difference. This verse doesn’t say to love your neighbor and yourself. It doesn’t say to love yourself as your neighbor. It says to love your neighbor as yourself. “As” is a very important word. What does it mean to love our neighbor as ourselves?

First, we must define what love means in this context. I join the chorus of those who are frustrated with the limitations of the word “love” in the English language. Unlike some other languages, we have one word to describe a vast array of meanings. Love here, though, is talking about the unconditional, healing and challenging love that comes from God. It is not talking about the obsession, infatuation, or hubris that sometimes come to mind when we think about what it might mean to love oneself. Rather it is to hold one’s body, mind, and soul in unconditional acceptance, respect, and trust. It is to regard oneself as sacred and of great worth.

Second, we must consider the order implied here. There is an implied order that one must love oneself before loving one’s neighbor. But this doesn’t mean that we have to learn how to love ourselves perfectly before we can even think about loving others. In fact, often it is through loving others that we find out how love-able we ourselves also are. I believe the order here implied refers to something we are born with; a natural regard for that which is best for ourselves. Traumas, such as abuse or neglect, experience of social oppression, etc. can warp this sense, pushing us either toward self-denigration or self-obsession. The healing and challenging work of the real love that comes from God gently helps us move back to the pure love for self, the healthy regard and respect for what is best for us. So the point is, we don’t have to heal from every trauma we’ve ever experienced; we don’t have to know how to love ourselves in that perfect balance between self-denigration and self-obsession before we must start thinking about what it means to love our neighbors. We must start that now. The implied order actually assumes that, despite ways we’ve been harmed, we do know deep down how to love ourselves. We’re not starting the to-do list from a blank slate (1. learn to love myself, 2. learn to love others). We already know how to do number one, no matter how much we struggle with actually doing it, and so as we strive toward more holy and healthy self-love, we also must strive toward number two, more respectful and unconditional love for our neighbors.

Third, we have to ask who the neighbor is. We’re lucky, because unlike many other questions we might like to ask Jesus, this one was actually posed to him and his answer was recorded:

Just then a lawyer stood up to test Jesus. “Teacher,” he said, “what must I do to inherit eternal life?” He said to him, “What is written in the law? What do you read there?” He answered, “You shall love the Lord your God with all your heart, and with all your soul, and with all your strength, and with all your mind; and your neighbour as yourself.” And he said to him, “You have given the right answer; do this, and you will live.”

But wanting to justify himself, he asked Jesus, “And who is my neighbour?” Jesus replied, “A man was going down from Jerusalem to Jericho, and fell into the hands of robbers, who stripped him, beat him, and went away, leaving him half dead. Now by chance a priest was going down that road; and when he saw him, he passed by on the other side. So likewise a Levite, when he came to the place and saw him, passed by on the other side. But a Samaritan while travelling came near him; and when he saw him, he was moved with pity. He went to him and bandaged his wounds, having poured oil and wine on them. Then he put him on his own animal, brought him to an inn, and took care of him. The next day he took out two denarii, gave them to the innkeeper, and said, ‘Take care of him; and when I come back, I will repay you whatever more you spend.’ Which of these three, do you think, was a neighbor to the man who fell into the hands of the robbers?” He said, “The one who showed him mercy.” Jesus said to him, “Go and do likewise.”

To fully understand Jesus’ answer here we must understand the political climate of the time. Samaritans were feared, loathed, despised, even in some cases hated, by the Jews. This wasn’t the relationship between Americans and Canadians. This was sort of comparable to the relationship between Iraqis and Americans who fear that everyone from the Middle East is a terrorist just waiting to fly a plane into another skyscraper. This would be like Ann Coulter being helped out by an Afghani immigrant who is on the no fly list. This would be like a 5′4″ 350lb deathfat helping Meme Roth.

The point is, think of the person you fear or hate the most. That person is your neighbor. We already know that our family and friends and literal neighbors (those who live in the same neighborhood as us) are our neighbor. But Jesus says everyone is your neighbor. No ifs, ands, or buts. We must love ourselves, and we must love every other human being, with the kind of love that comes from God.

The last thing I will say here is that loving the person doesn’t necessarily mean loving their message or their actions. I want to explore in future posts what it means to love everyone even when we don’t love their message or what they do. “Love the sinner, hate the sin” has been used in despicable ways to justify hatred toward minority groups, but what does it mean to love the oppressors, but hate the oppression? I’ll explore this soon, but in the mean time, please share your thoughts!

On Internalized Sexism: Trying to Buy Nails at Home Depot

My husband and I were discussing hanging up some framed photos on Sunday night, and we had this (approximate) conversation:

him: I’ll have to check and make sure I have the right hardware. I have a few different kinds of hooks, but these frames need nails, and I don’t know if I have the right kind.

me: well that’s fine, you can check the storage unit tomorrow, and if we don’t have what we need, I can stop by Home Depot on Tuesday. I need to be down in that neighborhood anyway, and I can pick up a box of the right size nails.

him: oh you don’t have to get a whole box; they have them in little bins and they’ll just be cents each. We only need five.

me: oh really? I didn’t realize they had them separate.

him: yep, they do.

me: huh… I really thought last time I bought nails was at Home Depot, and they didn’t have those types of nails for sale individually… but I guess maybe I was buying them at Fred Meyer (general home/grocery store)

him: oh yeah, probably. They wouldn’t have them for sale separately at Fred Meyer.

So that was that. Last night he checked, found that we didn’t have what we need, and today I headed over to Home Depot.

And? They didn’t have nails you could buy individually. They had boxes. Gigantic boxes, with thousands of nails. Medium boxes with 500 nails. The smallest boxes had about 200 nails. So I didn’t buy any. On the way home, I stopped at Fred Meyer for a few last minute Thanksgiving things, and bought a box of 50 nails.

On the way home I reflected on this little story, and my own internalized sexism it betrayed. When we had our conversation on Sunday night, I just assumed that I was wrong about Home Depot carrying individual nails. Logically speaking, I shouldn’t have assumed I was wrong. We’d both had experience buying nails and hanging frames on walls. We disagreed about the likelihood that Home Depot would have nails for sale individually, and we should have remained agnostic about who was right and who was wrong about that fact.

What I am NOT saying: I’m not saying “oooh look! I’m a girl who knows boy stuff! That makes me cool!” I am not saying that, because that perpetuates the sexism that claims there is “boy stuff” in the first place.

What I AM saying: I am saying that I assumed that he was right about a topic involving hardware and pounding things into walls for no other reason than because he was a he and because society has labeled hardware and pounding things into walls as “he things.” That, folks, was my internalized sexism. And even if he had been right, it still would have been a sexist assumption for me to make initially.

It seems like a “small thing,” but I am not really convinced that that means it’s unimportant. After all, it’s in the small ways that we show our love for one another (e.g. do we argue over the remote or find things on TV we both like? Do we call each other if plans change or we’re running late or do we leave someone waiting or worried? Do we try to be quiet while the other is asleep or make as much noise as we feel like?). The “small things” are our daily reality. They make up the glue that binds us together. This is true in marriage and in any other human relationship. It is relatively easy to feel loving and generous at the big times; holidays, weddings, births of children. But it is in those day-in-and-day-out interactions that we truly live out our love (or, sadly, lack of love in some cases).

So where to go from here? Obviously I can’t just promise myself that my internalized sexism will never rear her head again, but I think being able to notice it, and be aware of it, is a gigantic first step. Because maybe next time, even if I make the assumption, I’ll notice it a little earlier than I did this time.

Gratitude

It’s that time of year; the (American) Thanksgiving Holiday is approaching in just a few days. And as I’m looking forward to sharing dinner with my family on Thursday, I’ve also been reflecting about what I’m grateful for.

It started a few weeks ago, at the gym, sitting in the sauna after a jaunt on the elliptical machine and a few laps in the pool. My whole body felt the perfect combination of relaxed and energized, and I felt so immensely grateful for the body that allows me to experience these things that feel so good. I love the sort of “floaty jogging” feel of the elliptical (at least that’s what being on the machine feels like to me!). I love the way the water feels on my body, providing both resistance and support, and so soft. I love the instant relaxation of the heat from the steam in the sauna.

In that moment I was awash with the realization of just how much I’m grateful for my body.

In my body I can dance, playfully shaking my hips or intimately swaying with a partner. In my body I can kiss, caress, and make love to my husband. In my body I can hug my sisters, touch the arm of a troubled friend, take the hand of a small child. In my body I can squeal or laugh when I’m happy and cry precious tears when I’m sad. In my body I can savor the delicious taste of just-barely-undercooked fresh-out-of-the-oven chocolate chip cookies and savor the juicy goodness of crisp, cold, fresh cucumbers. In my body I can close my eyes and listen to music or open my eyes to gaze at art, both of which inspire and transform me. In my body I get to feel the world around me—the wind on my face, the temperature of the air, the feeling and texture of my steering wheel or the crosswalk button or the straps of my purse. In this wonderful body I get to move throughout the world in a sensual way, experiencing both pure delight and transformative pain that challenges, teaches, and matures me.

And the cool thing? That my body size has no bearing whatsoever on my ability to delight in my body’s ability to do these amazing things.

So this Thanksgiving, I am grateful for my body, exactly as it is.

What are you grateful for?

Are you really going to eat that?

Despite multiple studies that show that there is no difference between how fat people eat and how thin people eat, society still continues to vastly overestimate what fat people eat, and underestimate what thin people eat. Fat people are assumed to all be over-eaters, and thin people are assumed to be “healthy eaters.” (Unless they’re considered too thin, in which they’re assumed to be anorexic). And of course, this scrutiny is far more pronounced for women, but men experience it too.

When I was meeting a boyfriend’s parents for the first time, they took us out for Chinese food and we chose several dishes that we all shared family style. Later this boyfriend told me that his mother had asked him about my weight, saying that she was surprised to see that I hadn’t eaten “too much” at dinner, and wondered if I had another health problem causing me to be fat. It felt like quite a violation to me, because the relationship was still relatively new, and it was the first time I had met his parents. Why were my habits being scrutinized? Why was my body being discussed without me present? What business of hers was my medical history, only months after meeting him and hours after meeting her?

I’m used to people noticing what I eat. In some cases, it’s because I have some strange eating habits. I spent three years in a graduate theological program and eating during class or breaks was very common with the three-hour classes. Once I was in a classroom with 3 or 4 other students waiting for class to start, finishing up my lunch. I took out half a cucumber and began eating it, and almost like an SNL skit, everyone stopped talking and looked right at me, transfixed on me chomping into a cucumber like an apple. I admitted to having some quirky eating habits, and we all laughed about it. Another time, the Methodist students were having an advising session with our liturgical coordinator, and I bit into a whole kiwi in the same way, and the professor was so surprised to see me do it that she sputtered a bit and lost her train of thought. And it’s not just the food I eat (and the way I eat it) that people notice—I have a set of these cool wrap-n-mat sandwich wraps that people often notice for how convenient (as soon as you open it it turns into a lunch mat!) and environmentally friendly they are.

It’s these kind of instances of people noticing what I eat that don’t bother me. I realize my penchant for eating kiwi and cucumber this way is strange. And I like it when people say, “hey where did you get those things?” because if they decide to buy a couple wrap-n-mats, that’s less zip-lock bags in the landfill.

But there were other times I didn’t appreciate being noticed for what I was eating. The example of my boyfriend’s mother making judgments about my food intake just because of my body size was by no means an isolated instance, though often it’s not so blatant. I took an evening class one quarter that went from 5:45-8:35, and my normal dinner time is between 6:30-7. So I would usually bring some substantial food—a cold cut or peanut butter and jelly sandwich, some yogurt, some carrots or celery, maybe an apple or a baggie of whole wheat goldfish crackers (why do the whole wheat ones taste SO much better??). On the last day of class, I had been rushing to finish my final paper, so on the way to class I stopped and bought a bean and rice wrap and a chocolate muffin at the bookstore. I was eating the food in the hallway outside the classroom when the professor walked by. I had finished the wrap so all I was eating was the muffin, and he gave it—and me—a “look.” He didn’t say anything, but trust me, I’ve lived 28 years, and in 22 of which I realized I was fat, and I know that look.

Another professor, who would list “overweight” as a “symptom” when we were practicing diagnosis of mental illnesses in case studies (it was a counseling course) would always notice when I bought a brownie from the cafe as a mid-morning snack. There were times I bought yogurt and granola, or tea and banana bread, but whenever I bought a brownie, he would give it a “look.” The same one the other professor gave me when I was eating a chocolate muffin.

This irritates the hell out of me. Not only does it irritate the hell out of me to have my food choices scrutinized and judged simply because I’m fat, I also hate being treated as the “stereotypical fat person” rather than as “Katie.” It is dehumanizing and extremely frustrating, because it feels like a wall that has to be torn down for people to get to know the real me. This doesn’t matter so much with strangers, but it does matter with professors responsible for grading my assignments and potential in-laws who may be family someday.

This morning I’ve been wondering: When we judge food choices of others, what are the theological implications of that? Usually when thinking about food and theology, the first thing that comes to my mind is how Jesus referred to himself as the bread of life; he used bread to symbolize his body in the last supper. Food here is used as an example of something that is nourishing, life-sustaining. Jesus compares himself to food, making himself the spiritual equivalent—while we eat actual food to nourish and sustain our bodies, God becomes our spiritually nourishing and life-sustaining “food.”

Additionally, throughout the Bible we see folks eating in community with each other, with the focus on relationship with one another. It’s the same thing when we get together for church potlucks or family dinners or make a lunch date with a friend—the act of eating together is a vehicle for the strengthening of relationships, not to police the details of what and how much our meal companions are eating.

There is something so fundamental, so primal, about the act of eating. When it is violated on a regular basis, sometimes daily or even hourly, by people with whom we are trying to build relationships, it really tears at the fabric of those relationships themselves. How can I have any trust in a person who can’t get over the fact that I’m a fat woman eating a brownie in public (oh the horror!)? How can I have any trust in a person who passive-aggressively whispers about my eating habits to others? This may seem like it’s not a big deal, because eating is such a mundane, everyday occurrence. But I think it’s the opposite; it’s an even bigger deal because eating is such a fundamental part of our life. It serves so many functions, not least of which is survival, and in a close second, nurturing and sustaining relationships with one another.

There’s no easy answer here, especially because it is so hard to respond to passive-aggressive behavior (the “looks” or when people talk about us rather than to us). But while we may not be able to confront the passive-aggressive behavior, we can confront more blatant food-based shaming, and we can also take refuge in the fact that we have the truth on our side. Nothing about being fat itself should limit our food choices, and all of us as sentient persons ultimately do have the right to make choices about something as fundamental and necessary as eating without being judged and violated by those we should be able to trust.