I ought to have blogged this earlier in the week, but got distracted.
On October 28, I was one of the leaders at the All Saints "Saturday Celebration", which offers a folky, relaxed, distinctly casual alternative to the more formal Sunday liturgies. It’s the sort of service in which children are invited to run around and shake tambourines; this past Saturday, many of the little ones came in costumes. We had princesses and witches and football players — and one boy of about eight dressed in the most extraordinary fat suit.
The suit, made of some synthetic material, covered him from throat to wrist to ankle. It had a little remote control motor; when the boy pressed a button, the motor would cause the suit to inflate, simulating mounds and mounds of fat. The exterior of the costume was painted to resemble the physique of an obese man, complete with a "butt crack" on the backside. Of all the costumes worn by the kids, his got the most attention, particularly during that key part of the Anglican Liturgy known as the "parading of the costumes." (This is, for the record, just after the prayers of the people and before the offertory.) When it came time to receive the Eucharist, the boy inflated his fat suit to maximum size, and carefully guided by his parents, went up to receive the bread and the wine made holy. Lots of indulgent smiles and chuckles all around.
I’ll admit it: one of the indulgent chuckles was mine. I just wasn’t in the mood on Saturday afternoon to pull the parents of the boy aside for a quick chat. In my head, I had the whole lecture ready: the cruelty of the stereotypes about fat people, the importance of sending a message of tolerance and inclusion rather than one of ridicule. At All Saints, we preach the radical message that we are all children of God, equally precious, equally deserving of protection from derision. Would a white child in black face have been okay? If the little boy had dressed up as, say, a "dyke on a bike", would that have been okay? I suspect not. But as a morbidly obese person, this rail-thin eight-year old delighted his parents and his peers. And it made me very uncomfortable.
As the boy paraded around, I noticed one of the younger mothers staring the other way, out the window. She’s a fairly regular parishioner, and she is very, very heavy. I think her very little son was dressed as a badger or a wolf — something far less offensive. I wondered if I ought to try and "check in" with this woman as well, and discover if she had been offended or hurt by the tyke in the fat suit. But I second-guessed myself, got distracted with supervising the offertory, and before I knew it, the service was over and the heavy-set mother had taken her son and left.
Bottom line: fat suits aren’t funny. They aren’t appropriate Halloween costumes. I may be on the slender side, but I am acutely weight-conscious; perhaps that’s why I found this outfit to be so hurtful and in such poor taste. Is putting a skinny kid in a fat suit the moral equivalent of putting a white child in blackface? Perhaps not, but it’s not far off. And I missed a big opportunity on Saturday, and so I offer a tardy mea culpa this morning
I don’t know that you missed a big opportunity on Saturday. It would probably be more effective to have that chat with the parents at some other time after the fact. If you’d had it during the service or right afterwards, while the kid is still sitting there in the fat suit, you’d be more likely to receive a defensive rather than a reflective reaction from the parents.
That’s a good point, HF; thanks.
As it is said: silence is the voice of complicity.
I hate that in this PC culture, one has to judge the moral wrongness of a situation only in comparison to those situations that could possibly be worse. You knew that you found it wrong. Others did too. That, in itself, should be enough for you to act.
The young, heavy mother didn’t have to ponder why she was offended; she didn’t need time to process whether it would be worse to see a child in blackface. She knew. And you left her hanging. She is a member of the congregation, a part of the body of the church, and as such she is a part of you through Christ.
What a rotten child. Boys lean that this kind of behavior is o.k. and are rewarded with the kind of attention and chuckles Hugo described. I am not heavy myself now but I struggled with my body image in my teens and like so many women I still feel shame. I can’t help but feel the hurt of the young mother.
Hmm, this is a tough one for me. As someone who studies and performs the Balinese topeng (masked dance-drama) tradition, I portray many characters who have overt physical differences, e.g. cleft-palates, stutterers, deaf-mutes, limp-ers, and so on. Of course, in their original setting (i.e. Bali), these characters are considered to be extremely humorous. They are also vehicles of social criticism, as these characters are often more observant of society’s ills and annoyances than their superiors.
What happens when we portray these characters in places like the US? We first have to somehow qualify their portrayal with a proviso, saying that the Balinese sense of humor is an “earthier” one. But there is still the risk of offending someone in the audience. How is one to validate this as a robust cultural expression of humor and commentary, while at the same time trying to avoid offending those who might take the messages the wrong way? It’s a really difficult balancing act.
Hugo said: “At All Saints, we preach the radical message that we are all children of God, equally precious, equally deserving of protection from derision.”
Which must be why you constantly deride heterosexual white males, especially Christian ones, eh?
Point and laugh - the Emperess has no clothes!
I think you were right to be offended, Hugo, and it is very hard to know the right time and place to bring that up when the person is not a close friend. The heavy mother might have been more offended if you’d gone up to her and said “isn’t that awful” - because anti-fat attitudes are so strong that she might be embarrassed to be singled out as officially a Fat Person. We had a similar controversy at a kids’ magazine for which I do some freelance work. One of the Halloween costumes they recommended was a nerdy-kid outfit (pocket protector, plaid pants, toilet paper on the shoe, big eyeglasses). They got a lot of good criticism from readers who said this kind of mockery encourages bullying. But the fat suit is worse, I think. You wouldn’t dress your kid as an alcoholic - like fatness, a condition where genetics and environment and economics and personal choice are all mixed up together in the chain of causation. But somehow we think only fat people are solely to blame for their ill health, and if we just shame them enough, they’ll stop being so gross.
And that’s leaving aside the whole issue of whether it’s disrespectful to take communion dressed like this….
I think HF is right — it’s appropriate to bring it up at a later time. But it is important to do so — in part because you are skinny, because it doesn’t look like you yourself are hurt and “just too sensitive”. And I think in the future, you should do whatever you’d do if a kid showed up in blackface. If that means ask them to change costumes immediately, then so be it.
The indulgent chuckle was dead wrong. Sure, you don’t go up to him and say “Bad, bad!”, which is counterproductive — but you did essentially say “It’s fine, I approve, and only silly oversensitive people won’t find it funny”.
Someone — perhaps not someone who laughed at the fat suit — should go up to the heavier mother and explain that you realise it was offensive, and that you will enforce a rule not allowing offensive costumes at church.
One of the mothers bringing her kids around my neighbourhood on Halloween was dressed as a stereotypical Chinese man. Canada (where I am) has a history of discriminating Chinese people, so it was very inappropriate.
Hugo, in your situation, you have the ability to talk to both parties, hopefully teaching the parents of the boy a lesson in what should not be considered funny.
Notwithstanding the model of, say, “Life Together,” churches probably see as much judgment of clothing as any high school on TV. The urge to surveil and correct is strong, and tends to grow when we believe that the duties of Christianity and progressiveness converge, but maybe the urge ought to be checked at just those moments when we feel surest of ourselves. It smacks of presumption to rebuke people in church, even if one can call it a teachable moment.
Suzi– I wouldn’t call the boy in question a “rotten kid”. Remember, he’s eight.
I’m not saying that eight year odls ar eincapable of being rotten, but I wonder if this costume idea occurred ot him all by himself or is someone suggested it. Also, you have to consider that an eight year odl doesn’t usually have the social awareness to realize how it might be offensive. For the rail-thin eight-year-old, I expect it was more a fun advanture in looking like something totally alien to him than a chance to mock fat people.
We don’t have all the data, but the kid is not necessarily anti-fat except in the vaguest of ways.
What a rotten child.
Yes, ’suzi’, he’s just rotten.
Boys lean that this kind of behavior is o.k. and are rewarded with the kind of attention and chuckles Hugo described.
And girls learn all sorts of vicious behaviors by which they can abuse other girls and boys. So what?
I am not heavy myself now but I struggled with my body image in my teens and like so many women I still feel shame.
People struggle with all sorts of things. That does not give you the right to label that boy a ‘rotten child’ after reading only Hugo’s recounting of the facts with a definite agenda in mind.
I can’t help but feel the hurt of the young mother.
Of course, she is female. The child is male, so he is ‘rotten’ according to you. Of course, I am confident you won’t get even the slightest rebuke from Hugo, our self-proclaimed youth leader. Notice how he did not complain about the little girls dressed up as princesses. Hmm.
Is this the same Hugo who feels that it is inappropriate for a Catholic Bishop to talk about modesty from the pulpit? Yeah, the fat suit probably upset some heavy parishoners. What we wear (and let kids wear) can impact others.
I wonder where the parents got the costume–especially since it was electric, and appeared to be a little more sophisticated than your typical cheap plastic suit. It might be more useful to contact stores that carry these items (if you find them so offensive) rather than personally confronting the parent of the child. If the stores didn’t carry these items, I hardly think the child would actively search for a costume like that.
Having been fat all my life, I’ve got enough emotional scar tissue that a kid in an inflatable fat suit barely registers.
Is it inappropriate? I don’t know… do pagans get offended by the stereotyped “witch” image? There’s such a thing as being too thin-skinned, but I wouldn’t be the one to say where that point is. I went the other direction, and traded skin for a shell.
The whole thing could have been avoided by simply not replacing a Church service with Halloween.
No, it wouldn’t, Bill. This kid could have worn fat suit at any one of a number of other occasions. The problem Hugo is addressing was the wearing of the fat suit, not the fact that it happened during church.
(Of course, I understand why someone might find the wearing of silly costumes during Communion to be inappropriate, but that seems to me like a separate issue.)
Hugo,
You are not going to church.
You are attending a circus.
You’re right, anon. To have children laughing and running about during the service contradicts the spirit of Our Lord, who famously insisted on decorum and propriety when he gathered his followers together. As I recall, he regularly bid the children to be quiet, to sit still, and to wear finery that reflected their socio-economic aspirations.
Halloween is just really materialistic. It’s a bad idea to incorporate it in service, specially because of that “finery that reflects socio-economic aspirations” argument. With costumes ranging from home-made to extravagant, motor powered fat-suits, the costume parade thing can become an excuse to be ostentatious. I don’t think preening in expensive costumes is in the spirit of Jesus.
Plus, kids have a hard enough time going to service, much more if all they can focus on is on other kid’s costumes and how theirs rank.
For the record, the oldest child in costume was nine. We gave them candies and treats; it’s a common tradition at many, many churches these days.
Hugo, I agree with anon.
There are several chapters of the New Testament which address the proper behavior at worship services. Including phrases like “decently and in order.” Not to mention the entire Old Testament which included a provision for the High Priest to wear a rope so that the sanctity of the Most Holy Place not be violated by a non-priest having to drag him out if he died.
While I am not suggesting taking the “head covering” or whatever passages literally, or suggesting that children wear business suits to church as I occasionally did as a child (many years ago) and recognize a place for “Davidic Worship,” but the service you described does seem very far beyond any reasonable line.
I have no problem with children laughing because of a humorous sermon illustration or engaging in joyful worship. But receiving eucarist or any other sacramnent in costume is blasphemy. God is pretty clear about how He feels when His name profaned or mocked. (”profane” can sometimes mean “to make common,” not just “to curse”).
And another issue is that our worship (and church services) are supposed to be GOD-focused, not a time for self-exhibitionism.
The appropriateness of fat “humor” is a separate and important topic. But I’m more concerned with the larger issue of what’s appropriate when worshipping the living and holy God.
K, whatever we wear to church is a “costume”. Wearing expensive Armani suits to church seems far more at odds with the Gospel than a tyke in a princess outfit. BTW, see this from a very conservative Catholic church: http://www.cnhins.com/allheadlines/cnhinsall_story_306091358.html
While I am not suggesting taking the “head covering” or whatever passages literally
Why not? I am puzzled by the notion that we should strictly adhere to Biblical principles only where it is vague and open to interpretation.
As for ancient Jewish worship, please remember that the priesthood was the only class of people who were in the inner sanctuary, and only the High Priest was even allowed to speak the name of God. There’s nothing in the Old Testament about how children should sit down and shut up.
I seem to remember something about “suffer the little children” in the Gospels.
Who could have known that this comment thread would have been such a lovely microcosm of all the various issues people bring to Hugo’s writing?
I doubt that I would ever have the… courage(?) to tell someone that their worship service was a circus rather than a church.
Hugo,
Your response was beneath you.
“whatever we wear to church is a “costume”"
I looked up “costume” and you are technically correct on semanitcs. Perhaps I could have used a more specific word, but I was expecting more of you. I expect even Bob Jones University to have enough judgement to to distinguish between _Berek & Novak’s Gynecology_ and Hustler, and I expect a reasonable person to distinguish between “normal clothing” and a Halloween costume. Yes, “normal clothing” is culturally dependent, but I know you’re smart enough to distinguish between a fat suit / astronaut suit / catwoman outfit and what constitutes “street clothes” in your neighborhood.
If you are saying that we should all give thought to whether what we wear to worship is appropriate attire which glorifies and reveres God and doesn’t unduly distract others, then I totally agree. And Halloween costumes (fat suits included) are clearly in the “inappropriate, distracting, and irreverent” category, along with jockstraps and dinner-plate size gold medallions.
“Wearing expensive Armani suits to church…”
Strawman. I never suggested Armani (I wear shorts and Birks to church in summer), and specifically called out my childhood experience in suit-wearing as extreme.
“http://www.cnhins.com/allheadlines/cnhinsall_story_306091358.html”
The article describes a reverent, reflective, educational service where costumes were restricted to cannonized saints. That sounds absolutely nothing like the spectacle you described. If you were sensitive rather than defensive about this issue, you might consider consider showing that article to your church leaders and proposing a more God-honoring tradition next year, which would also eliminate offensive costumes.
And mythago, I don’t want to address head covering here.
My reference to the Old Testament was not to bring up a literal, ISO-9001 certified, RFC-433 compliant, UL-listed Biblical precedent for children’s attire. It was a rhetorical device meant to illustrate that God takes himself quite seriously throughout all of his revealed Word, and we ought to also. Encouraging children to appear for worship dressed in deliberately distracting, irreverent, inappropriate, and possibly offensive manner is clearly (to me) against the spirit and the letter of the entirety of God’s word. It’s bad theology, bad parenting, and bad spiritual formation.
I agree with “Suffer the children,” and church should not be a frightening and depressing ordeal for them. We should try to help children participate in body life in age-appropriate ways rather than encouraging them commit blasphemy and profane a house of worship. The discussion wasn’t about kids doodling or giggling or fidgeting in service, it was about receiving Eucharist in a motorized fat suit, procured by the child’s parents at significant expense.
Gotta go…Monday is “Handgun and Heroin Night” at my church (that was sarcasm)