The appetite for sex, thought C.S. Lewis, is in “ludicrous and preposterous excess of its function.” How else, he wondered, can we explain the fascination men have with watching a girl publicly undress on a stage? The “strip-tease” shows the absurdity of our propensity for sexual titillation:
Now suppose you come to a country where you could fill a theatre by simply bringing a covered plate on to the stage and then slowly lifting the cover so as to let every one see, just before the lights went out, that it contained a mutton chop or a bit of bacon, would you not think that in that country something had gone wrong with the appetite for food? And would not anyone who had grown up in a different world think there was something equally queer about the state of the sex instinct among us?
One critic said that if he found a country in which such striptease acts with food were popular, he would conclude that the people of that country were starving. I agree with him that if, in some strange land, we found that similar acts with mutton chops were popular, one of the possible explanations which would occur to me would be famine. But the next step would be to test our hypothesis by finding out whether, in fact, much or little food was being consumed in that country.
...Nor is the hypothesis of 'starvation' the only one we can imagine. Everyone knows that the sexual appetite, like our other appetites, grows by indulgence. Starving men may think much about food, but so do gluttons; the gorged, as well as the famished, like titillations.
In a country that spends more money on “adult entertainment” than pro-football, basketball and baseball combined, we shouldn’t be surprised that other appetites are also prone to overindulgence. While we may not have special theaters where food in seductively unveiled (at least not yet), there is certainly something “queer about the state” of the food instinct in America. Take, for example, the MONSTER THICKBURGER™ by the fast-food chain Hardee’s.
Described as a “monument to decadence”, the burger contains an artery-clogging 1,420 calories and 107 grams of fat. When combined in a “combo meal” with large fries and a medium drink, the total tips the scales at 2,285 calories. Such a meal would comprise 77% of the daily caloric intake for the average male (175 lbs., moderately active) and 99% for the average female (150 lb, moderately active). To work off those calories a person would need to jog for over 3 hours, walk briskly for 7.5 hours, or simply sit in front of the TV for 31 hours straight.
The MONSTER THICKBURGER™ is an iconic representation of America’s embrace of gluttony, a sin that has long been forgotten. While many churchgoers have heard sermons warning against the dangers of sexual sins such as adultery or fornication, they’re not likely to have heard their pastor speak out against gluttony. It’s doubtful that many Christians would even consider it a sin. An openly homosexual couple attempting to join the congregation would be looked down upon by the obese deacon showing them to the door; and no one in the pews would even recognize the irony. The stink of our hypocrisy is so overwhelming that it’s amazing we can hold down our order of Super Size fries.
Gluttony was once listed among the seven deadly sins. But now it's considered, when it's thought about at all, as a private health matter. We may realize that overeating has led to weight gain, a change in appearance, or diminished health. But we never recognize it as a spiritual problem.
Oddly enough, with the exception of those related to sex, American Christians tend to take an antinomian view of “physical sins.” We act as if corrupting our bodies will have no impact on our souls. Such an un-Biblical view, however, must be rejected by anyone who acknowledges that the body is the temple of the Holy Spirit.
Lest we start to feel superior to the obese neighbors, we should remember that not all gluttons are overweight. I’m 5’10”, 170 lbs and though I no longer have to endure the rigors of Marine Corps PT, I’m still in relatively decent shape. But while my waistline may not expose my shame, I’m prone to overindulging in food. I eat several snacks between meals. I eat when I’m in my car. I eat when I’m bored. I eat when I’m restless, when I’m frustrated, when I’m watching TV, when I’m on the computer…I eat constantly for no other reason than that I can.
In stuffing my face, I neglect my spiritual life. I turn to the refrigerator instead of turning to prayer. I pause at the vending machine instead of pausing in meditation. I seek out a piece of bread instead of seeking the Bread of Life. I fill my life with food in order to avoid filling it with God.
“Their end is destruction,” the Apostle Paul warned, for those for whom “their god is the belly.” We worship a false idol when we succumb to the sin of gluttony. We replace the focus on the Lord with a focus on our own indulgences. We make a god of our belly and allow our souls to turn softer than the crème filling in our Twinkies.
[Note: This is a modified version of a post that originally aired in November 2004. I’m reprinting it as a “sermon to myself.”]
1
Joe:
OUCH!!!!
Great point, and one we need to heed.
BTW, in his ever so famous Screwtape letters, Lewis also pointed out another form of Gluttony Lite: fussiness over food being just-so and/or femanding to consistently consume delicacies that take up an inconscionable quantum of effort, resources and time to prepare.
He once proposed a Christian cookbook that would focus on healthy, solid, simple meals. Eating to live rather than living to eat.
BTW, as a Caribbean man, I should note that a lot of spices are probably poisons in small doses, too.
Food for thought?
Grace
Gordon
posted on 03.23.2006 2:51 AM2
"Eating to live rather than living to eat."
Indeed that is food for thought.
posted on 03.23.2006 6:39 AM3
A good, if offbeat post. I don't think any particular food is wrong. Even this monster berger is pretty good if you're oding the Atkins diet (nix the bun of course).
I think in general it is not a good thing to eat your full. There's a value in exercising control and cutting yourself off before you are stuffed. This may or may not solve obesity problems but it's good for the character of the person. This would also apply to other things like video games, other habits and indulgences that we partake in. One other thing, note that the seven deadly sins are tradition, not Biblical. The ten commandments do not mention gluttony directly. Not to say it's not real.
The appetite for sex, thought C.S. Lewis, is in “ludicrous and preposterous excess of its function.” How else, he wondered, can we explain the fascination men have with watching a girl publicly undress on a stage?
We had a long discussion on the function of sex over on the Naomi thread. The idea that emerged there was that sex's function is obviously not primarily reproduction in human beigns. You could easily reduce our sex drive by a factor of ten or even a hundred and still accumulate enough sex acts in a lifetime to more than produce a good amount of children.
Sex's function in human beings, IMO, is primarily social. It drives humans together into small social units. This is an important advantage because humans are very weak animals alone. Unlike, say, squids who can live most of their life doing their own thing by themselves, a human alone in the wilderness doesn't have long to live. Sex, IMO, drives humans into closenit groups.
Over on that thread I proposed a thought experiment. Imagine if some virus suddenly caused human sex drive to decrease 99%. While I'm the first thought would be a huge decrease in rapes, sex crimes, STDs and other sexual problems I think the long run consquences would be social chaos.
posted on 03.23.2006 7:06 AM4
To quote Atrios, "Yeah, yeah, another stupid open thread."
It's hard to get that new material.
posted on 03.23.2006 7:47 AM5
That would acount for my 30 extra pounds. Hmmm...
Have you noticed at McDonalds the change over the years of sizes? Today there is no small. The regular was my childhoods large size. I remember as a kid a 32oz Big Gulp was outlandish, but is now considered just a large. Extra large is 44oz. It's a conspiracy I tell ya! A conspiracy to keep us fat and stupid!
And sadly...it's working :-(
6
Skipping the gluttony part, and getting back to the sex . . .
Now suppose you come to a country where you could fill a theatre by simply bringing a covered plate on to the stage and then slowly lifting the cover so as to let every one see, just before the lights went out, that it contained a mutton chop or a bit of bacon, would you not think that in that country something had gone wrong with the appetite for food? And would not anyone who had grown up in a different world think there was something equally queer about the state of the sex instinct among us?
To make it a reasonable analogy, you would first have to postulate that this occurred in a country in which it was illegal to openly display more than a little bit of food in public, or some foods at all; in which the broadcast of slang terms of reference to the eating of food - such as "chomp" or "chow down" - would result in government fines of $500,000 or more; in which the accurate depiction of people actually engaged in eating food could result in fines or imprisonment; and in which whole categories of citizens, including children, homosexuals, and teenagers were legally prohibited from ever eating any food under any circumstances. Furthermore, it would have to be a country in which one could only eat dinner with one's own family, and only out of metabolic necessity - the eating of dinner with someone else's family, the eating of dinner only for the purpose of enjoying food and not because one was actually starving, the eating of exotic foreign dishes, the use of unusual eating utensils or other paraphernalia, and, worst of all, taking steps to undue the effects of eating dinner such as by exercising or liposuction, would be regarded as the gravest crimes, punishable by imprisonment.
And then one would naturally conclude, not that there was something deranged in the national desperation for any normal indulgence of the appetite for food, but rather that those who had made all the proscriptive laws were themselves insane, perverse, and possessed by a deeply pathological revulsion by an otherwise perfectly normal bodily function. One would regard such persons with mockery and distaste, and ignore their ravings.
posted on 03.23.2006 11:03 AM7
I'm currently conducting research on obsesity and recently attended the AHA conference on obesity in DC. In addition I'm involved in publishing materials that deal with the medical aspects of obesity treatment. In short, I'm surrounded at the moment with data that show that our relationship with food goes far, far beyond our appetites.
In fact, appetite is only a single factor in a constellation of pressures and triggers that drive us to eat specific things and in particular quantities. Establishing control over our diets requires that we be aware of what we're up against when we do.
Psychology studies indicate that portion size, container shape, color and form have a substantial impact on food consumption. Food also exists in a social milieu and is intertwined in our personal relationships with others - whether positively or negatively. How much and what you eat are affected by your level of education, in general, and your knowledge of nutritional issues as well.
Economics plays a huge part in the equation, as does your social class, and also your physical location. You can get much better food at reasonable prices in a city with a strong cultural offerings. For instance, I've moved recently to a large cosmopolitan area with numerous markets selling relatively inexpensive organic and free-range offerings. The rural suburban town that I moved away from had relatively few such choices.
Then there's your genetics to consider, along with your socialization, i.e., your growth and experiential relationship with food. For instance, in your family as you were growing up, was dinnertime a pleasant experience? Did your family discuss matters of the day at the table and were mealtimes something you looked forward to? Were you taught to clean your plate? Were "seconds" mandatory?
Sheer intelligence itself plays a role, as does personal insight. Consider your average middleclass SUV-driving fast-food eating Red state Bush-loving football watching fat slob of an American. This individual probably does not engage in much self-reflection at all, about anything. People living in such extreme bad faith are, conversely, used to surpressing thoughts of their personal failings and averting their attention from issues of self development and overall mental, physical, and spiritual health. And this, of course, is the market for the Monster Thickburger.
Behavioral psychology cues us to examine the cost/reward triggers and stimulus/response relationships that food occupies in our lives. Some people eat for reward, for some, overeating is a self punishment, and for others like bulimics both paradigms are in strong play. Then there's the matter of exercise, which would require a complete and lengthy exegesis to explore in any detail.
Boonton is spot-on in his advice regarding portion control. The science is telling us that you can safely eat pretty much anything you want as long as you only eat to about 70 percent of satiety. When you are "full," so to speak, your body produces leptides to trigger your medulla to inform your frontal lobes that it's time to stop eating. The problem is that there is a substantial delay effect involved.
From an evolutionary standpoint, this makes sense. We are genetically programmed to eat as much as we can, quickly, when we find a good source of rich food. There is a survival benefit in stocking up on some extra, so in a sense we've evolved to recognize 120-140 percent full as "full." The extra we'll pack on as fat to get us through times of famine and want. So when you stop at what feels like 70 percent or so, you're really "full." Pardon the length of this post, but the topic is timely with respect to my professional activities and I wanted to share some of the current thinking on this subject with you.
Regards - R.
posted on 03.23.2006 11:08 AM8
Eating to live rather than living to eat.
Strangely enough, I find the need to eat a nuisance, an interruption. I look at cooking shows and food magazines, and the attraction simply baffles me. Sure, I have rather plain, meat-and-potatoes tastes, but if I could get through the day without ever feeling hungry and my body could somehow continue to function without food, I think I would probably never eat.
Anyone else feel this way?
posted on 03.23.2006 11:23 AM9
In all seriousness, I can't agree that eating a burger like this epitomizes gluttony. While for health reasons it may be nice to say a certain amount of calories or fat is too much, I don't think that we can say that "1300 calories = overindulgence". Is eating a sandwich gluttonous, I hope not, otherwise I’m in a world of trouble.
The sin of gluttony did not seem to historically relate to health or the "corruption of the body", but rather overindulgence. In our health conscious society, though, I think were quick to put the health context on it rather than the indulgence context. After all, everyone would like to be healthy, but few like to be told they shouldn’t enjoy something too much.
Just my $0.02
10
By the way, a humorous sidenote on the Seven Deadly Sins, as epitomized by Gilligan's Island
11
I'd venture a guess that most people are as unaware of their "regular" sins are they are unaware of their sin of gluttony.
posted on 03.23.2006 12:03 PM12
And don't forget the flip side of gluttony, as "Your Affectionate Uncle Screwtape" explained to "My Dear Wormwood".
How gluttony can also mean something on the order of a caloric-restricted vegan diet with every calorie, carb, Omega-whatever, fatty acid, and anti-oxidant calculated and balanced to the microgram. Said vegan dieter/ascetic is as under the control of what they eat (or in this case, don't eat) as Monty Python's "Mr Creosote"; just they're a lot less obvious about it. (And probably very, very Proud of their Moral Superiority (TM) in the process.)
posted on 03.23.2006 12:41 PM13
Tom:
"if I could get through the day without ever feeling hungry and my body could somehow continue to function without food, I think I would probably never eat.
Anyone else feel this way?"
I do. My wife gets mad at me because sometimes I get so wrapped up in what I'm doing that I forget to eat, or don't want to take the time to make something. Funny thing is, I very much enjoy (most) food, but it's just so much trouble. If there were a way to live healthy without having to eat (say a pill I could take once a day), I doubt I would eat any more often than I go to the movies now.
posted on 03.23.2006 2:21 PM14
Joe, you just have no appreciation for culinary artistry. And what did you give up for Lent young man?
posted on 03.23.2006 2:33 PM15
Actually, there is a good movie that deals a bit with Faith and Food. Babbette's Feast.
There can also be a gluttony of depravation as well I think.
I think the road to follow is one of gratitude to the Creator for the gift of fine food.
posted on 03.23.2006 2:36 PM16
Joe,
You're blog made me hungry. I'm going to have to respectfully disagree with your thesis though. I think gluttony applies to putting food interests over our relationship with God. That can be done just as easily with a side salad as with a Thickburger.
Keep up the good work.
17
I think the proper attitude towards food is to take a healthy disinterest towards it. Healthy, active children are good examples. They often almost have to be drug to the dinner table since other things interest them more. They eat till they are satisfied and then are in a rush to go back to enjoying other things.
Contrast that to the obsession adults have with food. Many worry about every pound, every calorie. Others highlight of their day is their meals, and both obesity and anorexia abound.
I think the situation has gotten far worse since Lewis penned those lines. The 'preposterous excess' of the sex drive is rivaled now by a preposterous obsession in eating and weight.
You know what would be even crazier? If people started taking an unnatural obsession towards water, such that they carried it everywhere, made sure they always kept 'hydrated', counted how many glasses they drank in the day, and...
Oh.
posted on 03.23.2006 4:22 PM18
Take two posts from people not generally sympathetic to Joe's point of view: Mummon and Raven. Raven, your post was thoughtful, informative, and for the most part lacking invective. (We'll pass over the Republican jibe as something you just couldn't help. :) ) Mummon, on the other hand displayed that he just can't help himself. Next time, Mummy, if you don't have anything to say, give your keyboard a rest!
posted on 03.23.2006 5:02 PM19
Raven, your post was thoughtful, informative, and for the most part lacking invective.
Bonus points to you, fromagester, for using an excellent word.
Really, I don't think anyone should find anything I write to be of unpleasant construction. Please bear in mind that I do not - nor have I ever - considered discussion or debate to be a "zero-sum game," i.e., one with winners and losers. I do not conceive that anything I can say about anything can change anyone's mind. I am not interesting in sparring, jousting, wrestling, fighting, or combatting anybody. I am only interested in the pure pursuit of the truth and I look for minds against which I can test the mettle and cohesiveness of my ideas.
Unlikely as it may be, this particular forum seems to draw a high caliber of participant. I suspect that is because Joe crafts intellectually challenging arguments that are not the "topic du jour" of the media at large. And at the same time, the typical EO commenter is someone who actually spends at least a few moments a day thinking about matters of general philosophy. For this, we must always acknowledge the exceptionally fine contributions of people like Boonton, Larry, Mumon, and so many others (hey, this ain't the Academy Awards - if I didn't mention you it is only because I'm rattling a few names off the cuff).
Most of all, though, I firmly believe that what we have here is essentially a cordial exchange between "Red State" and "Blue State" America and together we're learning that none of us are deserving of demonization or ridicule. We represent the general composition of humanity.
posted on 03.23.2006 7:13 PM20
This was a great post. I just got done eating way too much pizza and I am sick to my stomach. I do have binge habits and am very overweight because of it. I am printing this post out to inspire me as I continue to lose weight (50 pounds since November). Thank you for taking the time to write it.
posted on 03.23.2006 9:07 PM21
Raven:
Thanks for the interesting and helpful information.
Ken, Brian C:
Good points about the flip-side dangers of hyper-health consciousness to Christian relationships with God, and especially the self-righteousness.
posted on 03.24.2006 12:02 PM
22
Gluttony is bad?? I thought red-state Christians love their Wal-Mart? And SUVs? And houses with 3 garages? (all for the family, remember?)
I mean, golly gee, how did we ever survive 30 years ago without our 'things'?
posted on 03.24.2006 6:56 PM23
I like Kevin's take on it all. His thoughts...uh....bite!
I, too, find that eating is such a hassle sometimes. I don't eat much unless I have worked really hard that day. Most of the time, when I fix my own plate, it looks more like a child's portion than a meal for a 190-pound man.
I came up with the idea of the "monkey diet" about 20 years ago. Being so closely related to the apes, we would all probably be better off if we ate more like they do. Yes, we are programmed for gluttony due to our affinity for sugar and fat, and the need to stock up for leaner times. But we have far more sugar and fat available in this society than we ever would have had in the wild.
In a relative way, we are programmed for sex. I laugh at people who think we are too sexual. It's as natural as monkey business. Some people seem to think that because we are humans, we are not animals. Hey, go to the monkey house at the zoo, and look in the mirror.
posted on 03.24.2006 9:30 PM24
I have frequently thought about the original post since first reading it. My own church is quite evangelical and sin is discussed frequently although to my imperfect recollection the subject of gluttony has never been mentioned. Not even last week when the sermon had a fitness theme. All of the pastoral staff are notably fit and trim but the congregants come in all shapes and sizes no doubt due to a myriad of reasons.
Many of our sins can be concealed behind the veil of our privacy and we can all maintain a courteous disposition to most strangers with little effort. In the case of gluttony our sin is exposed (I myself over indulge and it shows).
What is at work here? Is it a fear of offending? Sexual sin can be condemned without pointing a specific finger but to condemn gluttony means some will suffer a whithering gaze. Are our spare tires and flabby jowls the modern day scarlet letter?
posted on 03.25.2006 6:52 AM25
Interestingly enough, I actually remember the first time this post cropped up, and remembered my reaction to it then... Much the same reaction I am having now:
"But Joe, without burgers like that, people like me would die"
Yay for excessive metabolisms... though, as I age, it is definitely slowing. Bah. I like my fatty, sugary, and generally obnoxious food ;).
Unfortunately, these days, gluttony (and the resulting obesity) is far more than just a "private health concern"... it has become a full-blown "disability", with all of the associated benefits and legal issues. One must wonder how long it is before strip-joint-customers achieve a similar rank...
posted on 03.25.2006 10:56 PM