LONG WHINE - PART 1

Wednesday was not one of my better days.  I almost never go shopping because I do most of my purchasing online now, but, on Wednesday, it was time for Grandpère and me to make a trip to the nearby larger town.  First we went to cancel the internet service for our laptop at the phone store, because I was not successful either by phone or online in cancelling the service.  We learned to our dismay that our contract did not run out till September, so we'll be charged $90 to cancel. Still, even with the cost of cancellation and the cost of a router at $100, we'll save money in the long run, plus we'll have better service through our cable provider.

Our next stop was the electronics store to buy a flat screen TV for me.  Grandpère recently purchased a new flat screen, and, after several months of comparing the quality of the displays, I decided to ditch the old clunky set for a flat screen.  (No, we mostly do not watch TV together.)  The prices of flat screens are surprisingly low, so why not?  The purchase went without a hitch. Thank goodness.

On to lunch at a restaurant that offers an Italian buffet, with a discount for seniors, which Grandpère welcomed after all the money we had already spent that day  After lunch, we went to the large chain bookstore nearby. I have a discount card for the chain, and I stayed in Grandpère's truck to look for the card. He locked the truck, and went on into the store. When I tried to get out, I could not. The doors were locked and I couldn't open them.  I tried and tried with no luck, so there I was trapped in the truck.  I thought to myself "This is not possible.  Suppose the truck catches on fire."  I thought Grandpère would miss me and come to look for me, but he didn't.  He thought I was somewhere in the big store.

We both have cell phones, but Grandpère doesn't carry his with him, and, even when he does, he only turns it on when he wants to call someone.  If he'd carry his phone and turn it on, life would be so much less stressful for both of us in so many ways.

What to do?  I looked up the phone number of the bookstore and called and told the person who answered of my plight and gave her Grandpère's description and asked her to look for him and tell him to come let me out.  I waited and waited, and Grandpère never came, so I called back.  The woman said she had called for him, but no one came, and she was the only person working in that very large bookstore, and she could not leave the checkout counter to look for him. I sat for maybe half an hour, and finally a man parked nearby, and I waved to him and began to shout through the locked windows to ask if he was going into the store. He said yes, so I shouted Grandpère's description and asked him if he saw him to tell him to come unlock the truck. He found him, and I was rescued.  I wasn't in any mood to look at books, so we checked out Grandpère's book with my discount card, which caused all the trouble, and left.

The next stop (If we're going to shop, we try to do it all in one day.) was a home decorating store to buy curly maple branches to put in two vases in the living room.  Another easy success, and the branches have a nice minimalist look about them that I think is quite attractive, though I doubt everyone will agree.

When Grandpère told my son about my getting locked in the truck, he said it was impossible to be locked in a vehicle.  He came to our house later to check out the situation, and he was right.  There is a lock inside the truck that works without the key.  The problem was that neither Grandpère nor I knew where the lock was.  Now we know.

End of shopping but not end of bad day and whine.  More whine to come!

LIGHT OF THE WORLD

Light of the World
(Phos hilaron)

Light of the world in grace and beauty,
Mirror of God’s eternal face,
Transparent flame of love’s free duty,
You bring salvation to our race.
Now, as we see the lights of evening,
We raise our voice in hymns of praise;
Worthy are you of endless blessing,
Sun of our night, lamp of our days.

ARCHBISHOP ÓSCAR ROMERO - A SAINT FOR TODAY AND ANY DAY

A wonderful icon of Archbishop Óscar Romero of San Salvador, written by Tobias Haller, along with San Romero's wise words:

A Future Not Our Own

It helps now and then to step back and take a long view.
The Kingdom is not only beyond our efforts,
it is beyond our vision.

We accomplish in our lifetime only a fraction
of the magnificent enterprise that is God's work.
Nothing we do is complete, which is another way of
saying that the kingdom always lies beyond us.
No statement says all that could be said.
No prayer fully expresses our faith. No confession
brings perfection, no pastoral visit brings wholeness.
No program accomplishes the Church's mission.
No set of goals and objectives include everything.

This is what we are about. We plant the seeds that one
day will grow. We water the seeds already planted
knowing that they hold future promise.
We lay foundations that will need further development.
We provide yeast that produces effects
far beyond our capabilities.

We cannot do everything, and there is a sense of
liberation in realizing this.
This enables us to do something, and to do it very well.
It may be incomplete, but it is a beginning,
a step along the way, an opportunity for the Lord's grace to enter and do the rest.
We may never see the end results, but that is the
difference between the master builder and the worker.

We are workers, not master builders, ministers, not
messiahs. We are prophets of a future not our own.

From Journey with Jesus.

ASH WEDNESDAY

Collect of the Day: Ash Wednesday

Almighty and everlasting God, you hate nothing you have made and forgive the sins of all who are penitent: Create and make in us new and contrite hearts, that we, worthily lamenting our sins and acknowledging our wretchedness, may obtain of you, the God of all mercy, perfect remission and forgiveness; through Jesus Christ our Lord, who lives and reigns with you and the Holy Spirit, one God, for ever and ever. Amen. (Book of Common Prayer)

If the lost word is lost, if the spent word is spent
If the unheard, unspoken
Word is unspoken, unheard;
Still is the unspoken word, the Word unheard,
The Word without a word, the Word within
The world and for the world;
And the light shone in darkness and
Against the Word the unstilled world still whirled
About the centre of the silent Word.

O my people, what have I done unto thee.

Where shall the word be found, where will the word
Resound? Not here, there is not enough silence
Not on the sea or on the islands, not
On the mainland, in the desert or the rain land,
For those who walk in darkness
Both in the day time and in the night time
The right time and the right place are not here
No place of grace for those who avoid the face
No time to rejoice for those who walk among noise and deny the voice
...

Blessed sister, holy mother, spirit of the fountain, spirit of the garden,
Suffer us not to mock ourselves with falsehood
Teach us to care and not to care
Teach us to sit still
Even among these rocks,
Our peace in His will
And even among these rocks
Sister, mother
And spirit of the river, spirit of the sea,
Suffer me not to be separated

And let my cry come unto Thee.

(Excerpt from T S Eliot's "Ash Wednesday")

Go on.  Read it all.

Perhaps belaboring the obvious, but there it is. 

WHAT ABOUT MY CHRISTIANITY?

In his post titled "More Songs About Buildings and Food", Rmj, who blogs at Adventus, asks a question at the very end.

What is, or should be, the core concern of Christians?

Is it all right if I quote the Scriptures? :-) Below is my answer:

He has told you, O mortal, what is good;
and what does the Lord require of you
but to do justice, and to love kindness,
and to walk humbly with your God? (Micah 6:8)

He [Jesus] said to him, “’You shall love the Lord your God with all your heart, and with all your soul, and with all your mind.’ This is the greatest and first commandment. And a second is like it: ‘You shall love your neighbor as yourself.’ On these two commandments hang all the law and the prophets.” (Matthew 22: 37-40)

In everything do to others as you would have them do to you; for this is the law and the prophets. (Matthew 7:12)

For me, the only way to begin to live the teachings I quoted is "in Christ". Some days, the only way I get out of bed in the morning is "in Christ" - Christ working in me. For me, that is salvation, which I need every single day. Thanks, Rmj, for making me think about my faith.  To my surprise, answering the question was not difficult, because my response came easily.  It was almost as though I was waiting for the question.

The passages I quoted are touchstones that work for me, day by day, to keep me focused on being not only a speaker of the words, but also a doer of the words I quoted.  Also, I like to keep things simple, for I am a simple person with a simple mind.  "In Christ" is where I find strength and courage (salvation), especially in difficult times (literally, on occasion), to put one foot in front of the other to keep going.

Rmj quoted my response at the beginning of another post, along with very kind words.  Whoa!  And then he asked another question.  After thanking him, I left the following comment:

You ask: ...what if, instead of coming into the presence of God for a spiritual recharge or refill, we came into the presence of the living God with fear and trembling? ...the existential awe that creates an awfulness (in the old sense of the world, being filled with awe) at the nature of God, an awe that would put the world in perspective.

What if? Might it be with an attitude of the heart like the imagery of the twenty-four elders in the passage from the Book of Revelation (one of my favorites)?

...the twenty-four elders fall before the one who is seated on the throne and worship the one who lives for ever and ever; they cast their crowns before the throne, singing,
‘You are worthy, our Lord and God,
to receive glory and honour and power,
for you created all things,
and by your will they existed and were created.' (Rev. 4:10-11)

Then you ask: Would that be a religionless Christianity?

I don't know, but I believe such an attitude of the heart has little to do with a person's membership in a particular Christian denomination.
Those of you who read what I've written may wonder how well I live up to the fine words and ideals and how often I worship God with all my heart.  My answer is easy: Not very well, and not as often as I should.  Still, I believe I do better living my life "in Christ" - not better than anyone else - but better than I would otherwise.

Rmj, thanks again for the nudge to ponder and write a bit about the present state of my faith.

Image from Mouse Runner.

TOP HAT

The other afternoon, I watched the marvelous Top Hat (1935), a musical comedy starring Fred Astaire and Ginger Rogers, filmed in splendid black and white, with Irving Berlin songs, stylish Art Deco settings, and wonderful costumes. What a joy to watch the two dance and listen to them sing. Below is the video clip of "Cheek to Cheek" from the movie. Listen to Astaire hit the high notes, which Berlin worried he might not be able to do. I've long thought Fred Astaire was not given his due for his singing talent. He didn't have a large voice, but his style and grace do full justice to the songs.

The film includes a group dance scene shot from above in Busby Berkeley style, though not nearly as complex as Berkeley's production numbers.

Astaire hated Ginger Rogers' dress with ostrich feathers in the "Cheek to Cheek" scene, because feathers came loose from the dress and flew all over, but Rogers wanted the dress and held her ground. Astaire called her "Feathers" thereafter. Before I send the DVD back, I will watch the film again.
....

Later: The second time around, I noted the ostrich feathers flying around and lying on the floor.

Years ago, I purchased a set of cassettes produced by the Smithsonian titled "American Popular Song", with a cover by Al Hirschfeld.  The set includes several songs brilliantly performed by Fred Astaire - "Cheek to Cheek", "Puttin'on the Ritz", and even "Night and Day", a difficult song to sing to sing well.

Here's the video clip of "Cheek to Cheek", with Astaire singing and Astaire and Rogers dancing and the ostrich feathers flying, which detract not at all from the brilliance of their performance.

LOUISE PENNY'S INSPECTOR GAMACHE MYSTERIES

Many thanks to Ann Fontaine for recommending Louise Penny's mysteries. I'm about three quarters through reading "Still Life", the first book in the series with Chief Inspector Gamache of the Sûreté du Québec in Canada. I'm enjoying the story immensely, and I still don't know whodunnit, so no spoilers.

An excerpt:

Gamache waited.

The village stirred and by seven-thirty most homes had come to life. Lucy [the deceased's golden retriever] had been let out of the Morrow home and was wandering around, sniffing. She put her nose in the air, then slowly turned and walked then trotted and finally ran to the trail through the woods that would take her home. Back to her mother. Gamache watched the golden-feathered tail disappear into the maple and cherry forest, and felt his heart break. A few minutes later Clara came out and called Lucy. A single forlorn bark was heard and Gamache watched as Clara went into the woods and returned a moment later, followed slowly by Lucy, her head down and her tail still.

That's fine writing.

Gamache suffers from vertigo, and the author describes quite well his panic when he climbs up a tree to a rickety deer stand in the woods.

Gamache dug his hands into the bark, feeling the wood pinch his palm, glad for the pain to concentrate on. His horrible fear, and the terrible betrayal, wasn't that he'd trip and fall, or even that the wooden blind would tumble to the ground. It was that he'd throw himself over the edge. That was the horror of vertigo. He felt pulled to the edge and over as if an anchor was attached to his leg. Unaided, unthreatened, he would essentially kill himself. He could see it all happen and the horror of it took his breath away and for a moment he gripped the tree, closed his eyes, and fought to breathe deeply, regularly, from his solar plexus. It worked. Slowly the terror ebbed, the certainty of flinging himself to his own death diminished.

Vertigo or acrophobia plagues me, too, and it's not simply loss of balance or dizziness in high places.  Panic sometimes takes hold when I'm at the top of a stairway or any height and, like Gamache, I fear flinging myself down from the height.  The terror dissipates only if I quickly grab a railing or something solid, or if I back away from the edge.

Though I've strayed well away from the subject of the post with my diversion to the description of Gamache's vertigo and reference to my own, the quote is another vivid example of Penny's excellent writing.  I highly recommend the Gamache mysteries.

SAME SEX COUPLES IN LOUISIANA SUE TO HAVE THEIR MARRIAGES RECOGNIZED

From Houma Today:

The Blanchards are a gay couple, married in Iowa last year, who live in Lafourche. They, along with two other gay couples, have sued the state claiming Louisiana’s refusal to recognize their marriage violates their constitutional freedoms.  
....

Driving through their Raceland subdivision past the single story, cookie cutter red brick homes, the Blanchards’ home would be difficult to distinguish from those of most bayou families. 
....

Courtney argued that those still resisting will be remembered in the same light as those who resisted civil rights for blacks. She added the couple feel nothing but love from their neighbors and others.

“We are accepted around here,” Courtney said. “My grandma knows, and she understands it. I would never imagine that kind of stuff.”

I wish the Blanchards and the other couples in Louisiana success in their litigation to have their marriages recognized.  In other states which do not allow same sex marriages, courts have ruled in favor of recognition.  If the litigation is successful, you'll hear hootin' and hollerin' from folks who disagree with the ruling, but recognition of the marriages is inevitable, and, if not now, then it will come, probably sooner, rather than later.  Seventeen states allow same sex marriages, and the number will surely grow.

The reporter paints a sympathetic picture of the Blanchard family, portraying them as "normal" and unthreatening, which I do appreciate, but I was amused at the description of their house as just like any other house in the neighborhood.  You'd never know from passing by that a family with a young child with two mommies lived there.  What are the expectations about the homes of lesbian and gay couples?   I have no idea.  Norman Bates' house in Psycho? 

A SPEECH, A LETTER, AND A LETTER

From Archbishop of Canterbury Justin Welby's address to General Synod:

We all know that perfect love casts out fear. We know it although we don’t often apply it. We mostly know that perfect fear casts out love. In any institution or organisation, the moment that suspicion reigns and the assumption that everything is zero sum becomes dominant (that is to say that some else’s gain must be my loss, we can’t both flourish) that institution will be increasingly dominated by fear. It is an old problem in game theory. The moment at which something is zero sum, players stop looking so much at their objectives and increasingly look at each other. The more they look at each other, the more they are dominated by fear and the less they are able to focus on their objectives.

The Church of England is not a closed system, nor is the Anglican Communion and most certainly nor is the Church catholic and universal. It is not a closed system because God is involved and where he is involved there is no limit to what can happen, and no limit to human flourishing. His abundant love overwhelms us when we make space to flood into our own lives, into institutions and systems.

From the Church of England House of Bishops Pastoral Guidance on Same Sex Marriage:

20. The 2005 pastoral statement said that it would not be right to produce an authorized public liturgy in connection with the registering of civil partnerships and that clergy should not provide services of blessing for those who registered civil partnerships. The House did not wish, however,  to interfere with the clergy's pastoral discretion about when more informal kind of prayer, at the request of the couple, might be appropriate in the light of the circumstances.   The College made clear on 27 January that, just as the Church of England's doctrine of marriage remains the same, so its pastoral and liturgical practice also remains unchanged.

21. The same approach as commended in the 2005 statement should therefore apply to couples who enter same-sex marriage, on the assumption that any prayer will be accompanied by pastoral discussion of the church's teaching and their reasons for departing from it. Services of blessing should not be provided. Clergy should respond pastorally and sensitively in other ways.

The letter from the House of Bishops is the kind of doublespeak that is soul-destroying to LGBT church members and to those who support their full inclusion in the life of the church. As a fellow Anglican, I read the letter with shock and dismay.  I can only imagine the scope of the fear within the House of Bishops that would lead them to approve sending out such a letter. 

Not only will same sex marriages services be banned in the Church of England, but clergy will not be allowed to "provide services of blessing" to same sex couples who marry but will rather be restricted to "an informal kind of prayer", preceded by a pastoral discussion about why they must follow the church's teaching and settle for something less.  Like Tina Turner, I ask, "What's love got to do with it?"  How will the rules allow for flourishing of LGBT persons in the church?

But, as Archbishop Welby says in his address, "... because God is involved and where he is involved there is no limit to what can happen...", who knows but that when the prayers are said, God will do as God chooses and - Gasp! - provide a blessing, despite the ban by the church.  The phrase itself, "an informal kind of prayer", is a shriveled manner of speaking about invoking the God of abundant and overflowing love. It seems to me idolatrous to attempt to limit the blessings of God for those the House of Bishops deems not quite worthy to receive the full blessing.
 
Episcopal priest, Tobias Haller, wonders why the English bishops did not include a reference to Article XXXII of the Articles of Religion of the Church of England, rather than The Lambeth Conference of 1998.

Bishops, Priests, and Deacons, are not commanded by God's Law, either to vow the estate of single life, or to abstain from marriage: therefore it is lawful for them, as for all other Christian men, to marry at their own discretion, as they shall judge the same to serve better to godliness.

In 2005, The Guardian published an article titled "Stop the Denial"  by Richard Haggis, a priest serving in a London parish:

Many of us long for the sort of union that could be marked by a public ceremony and decent and proper civil rights (from which the bishops have sought to exempt us for too long through their powerful position in the House of Lords). I very much hope to use the new law. I shall not ask permission and I shall not promise to be celibate. If they want to sack me they can, but they must own up to the kind of people they are.
....

To grow up as a church we need to stop pretending and stop lying. There are hundreds of gay priests, archdeacons and bishops. This is a fact. Those who can't accept it need to leave. Those gay clergy do far more for the Good News of God than the ranting nutters who would reject them. But we need help and support. We need to be looked after. And that has not been happening for a very long time. Until we learn to do so, we have no right to be taken seriously by thoughtful people.

And sacked he was, and Richard has not served as a priest in the church in the eight years since he wrote the article.  What has changed since 2005?  Same sex marriage will be legal in England, but the church will not ordain persons in same sex marriages, and clergy in same sex relationships are forbidden, in bold text, to contract a civil marriage. 

27.  The House is not, therefore, willing for those who are in a same sex marriage to be ordained to any of the three orders of ministry. In addition it considers that it would not be appropriate conduct for someone in holy orders to enter into a same sex marriage, given the need for clergy to model the Church's teaching in their lives.

How long will the blatant hypocrisy continue? Whom do the bishop's believe they are fooling?

IS IT THE ART OR THE ARTIST?

The other night, I watched the movie, Blue Jasmine, which was highly recommended to me by several people. If I ever knew, I'd forgotten the movie was written and directed by Woody Allen. Though the film was very good, I can't say I enjoyed watching, because the story was emotionally wrenching. Cate Blanchett was outstanding, and the movie included very fine acting by others in the cast.  The choice of music in the soundtrack is excellent, as is usual for Woody Allen's movies, which, for me, adds a great deal to my enjoyment.

Even if I'd known the movie, an homage to Tennessee Williams's Streetcar Named Desire, was written and directed by Allen, I'd forgotten the lurid details of the custody trial after Mia Farrow and Allen separated.  After I finished watching, I went online and happened to see the link to Dylan Farrow's open letter in the NYT. After reading it, I felt sick. Later, I read the transcript of the custody ruling.

The world of celebrity so often seems in a different universe. The family of Mia Farrow and Allen, unusual though it may have been, was a family, and Allen seemed to have little knowledge or skill in parenting and no concept of proper boundaries within a family. His view that adopted children are not "real" children is seriously out of whack. 

A few months earlier, I watched  Midnight in Paris and enjoyed it very much. Allen is immensely talented, but he's also creepy, at best, and a pedophile, at worst, but I confess that I'd rather have seen the two films than not.  The only firm conclusion I've reached is that I do not believe Dylan Farrow is lying.

Is it possible to separate the art from the artist?  I ask because I struggle with the question.  What do we make of other gifted artists such as Lewis Carroll and his relationship to Alice Liddell? His photographs of Alice would quite likely be considered child pornography today.  I suppose I will know when the next Allen movie comes out whether I'll choose to watch or not. I'm not crazy about all of his films. Some I just don't get, plus, in others, I sense a misogynistic undercurrent that makes me uneasy.

Then there's Alfred Hitchcock, who apparently had a conventional private life, but who displayed a propensity for putting beautiful women, especially blonds, in dangerous and frightening situations.  Even as I enjoyed the chills and thrills, Hitchcock's treatment of the women seemed rather creepily sadistic to me.

After I'd written the words above, I read Zoe Zolbrod's excellent piece in Salon, which sheds more light on child abuse and memories and leads me to consider Dylan Farrow's account even more credible. Zoe was abused by a family member when she was a very young girl.  She's writing a book about her experience and has done quite a bit of research on the subject.

People who do like, or love, Allen’s work often argue that we should separate the art from the artist. I don’t disagree; especially if we are able to do the reverse, and separate the artist from the art, not grant him any greater benefit of the doubt than we would another human. But we have to acknowledge that this is difficult, just as it’s difficult for us to recognize warning signs or baldly stated declarations of inappropriate behavior when they concern someone we know, trust, love, admire, or depend on to pay the bills and keep things running smoothly. If we like the art, if we like the love or the family unit or the school community or just generally the way things are, we can feel guilty if the person at the center of it has committed a heinous crime.

Further:

Research also shows that children are not nearly so suggestible on the topic of sex abuse as previously believed, especially school-aged children. In the past 40 years, children’s testimony has gone from being inadmissible in a court of law to being not only allowed as evidence but sometimes used as the sole evidence in cases involving sex abuse, which is notoriously difficult to prove (physical proof is rarely present even in cases of vaginal penetration).