Not Your Grandfather's Snack Cakes

In case anyone is wondering if Woodstock Churchlady has been wimping out lately on presenting “the opinions you’re afraid to express", (See “Warning:  This Is an Opinion I Am Almost Afraid to Express", June 7, 2015), maybe this will restore her reputation as a loose cannon:

The Ashley Madison Scandal is not a big deal!

The worst offense was that of the hackers.  People are entitled to privacy when they are trying to hook up for extramarital affairs.

This is not to say that adultery isn’t wrong.  Anyone who has ever been the victim of a partner’s betrayal has suffered great, maybe unbearable, pain.  We are supposed to wait until we are married to have sex.  And with marriage equality, this means everybody.

Well, it would be nice if this is how things worked out.  (As long as we’re spinning fantasies, we might as well imagine that all marriages are deliriously happy. Good luck with that.)

But as someone’s wise old grandmother must have said, “People will be people.”  That people have affairs is, in Episcopalianspeak, “very unfortunate,” maybe even “terribly unfortunate.”  But it’s not unusual.  (Cue Tom Jones.)  How many of us have looked for love in all the wrong places?

And how many stories, novels, poems, songs, plays, and movies can you think of that are about adultery?  Some are dramatic and may have “redeeming social value” when the adulterers come to a bad end.  Some are just funny.  Marge Simpson got involved with a website “Sassy Madison” when she thought she was ordering snack cakes from Dolly Madison.  If you can decipher Middle English, The Canterbury Tales are supposed to be a hoot.

So why should the Ashley Madison scandal get so much attention?  Why are people taking such joyous interest in it?  Maybe because we are people, we need drama, even or maybe especially, if we are leading relatively virtuous lives.  Virtue can be boring.  And we might as well admit that for all our talk about minding our own business and not being judgmental, we enjoy thinking, “Well, at least I never did that.”  Or maybe I should speak for myself.  But feel free to join me.

If you’re wondering what the point of this is and what, if anything, you are supposed to do after reading it, I can only say, “It’s whatever you want it to be and you aren’t supposed to do anything, except write a glowing comment and make this go viral.”  I’m just kidding about the last part.  But maybe the point, which I seem to make a lot, is that this scandal, like most others we are not involved in personally comes down to being all about us.  How do we react to it and can we learn anything from it or from our reaction?  I am not going to condemn anyone, since I don’t know that facts, and even if I did, it’s not my job to do so.

But, lest you think Woodstock Churchlady is being too much of a churchlady, I will say that I will follow the scandal and maybe (OK, probably) even enjoy it.  And I’ll tell God that I know it’s wrong and trust that He or She has a sense of humor.

(I hope my referring to myself in the third person didn’t annoy you too much.  I get a charge out of it, but I’ll try to restrain myself in the future.)

Celtic Thunder 

The Latest American Pastime

People must really enjoy being offended; they do it so well and so often.  Not since the seventies when feminists carried around stickers saying “This degrades women,” to slap on Barbie dolls or issues of Playboy, have people been so vocal about their right to not be slighted.  They are playing the sex card, the gender card, the race card, the poverty card, the health card.  And, I have to admit, they are often right.  And one of most offensive phenomena is White [Male] Privilege.

The only hope a white male has to escape some of the charges of white privilege is to be non-heterosexual, non-cisgendered, or handicapped.  In retaliation, whites (or European Americans) are offended that they are being accused of having privileges.  In fact, they say, they are now victims, which may come as a relief.  (Of course, many white males never thought they were privileged in the first place.)  This, of course, offends everyone who decries White Privilege.

When a person is killed by a someone of another race, gender, religion, or national origin, rather than hating that crime or even hating just the perpetrator, people organize to blame society and basically hate everyone who is not joining in the hatred.  They also wag their fingers at anyone who is a part of society that allows such things to go on. (Sometimes they include themselves, as if feeling enough guilt for something one hasn’t done personally will help the situation,)

Then people are offended because they are having the evil of others attributed to them. 

Of course, if the victim is a rich, heterosexual, white male we may be spared the guilt tripping and remorse wallowing.  At least for now.

By now, I have probably offended liberals, members of minority groups, a lot of Christians, and a lot of people who would like to see everyone treated with justice and love.

I would too.  But let’s be honest; this is never going to happen, no matter how much or how well we organize.  (This is not to say that there is not a great need for organized efforts to stop discrimination and injustice.)

But maybe we could come a little closer to the ideal by recognizing that there are always going to be differences between people and that maybe the best thing to do would be accept each other and work together and not be so eager to take offense.  Or just sit have coffee together.  We may only be able to make progress on an individual level, but maybe that is the best place to start. 

Full (or almost full) disclosure:  I am offended by old people jokes and animal abuse jokes.   I have no problem with Christian, Episcopalian, WASP, or liberal jokes.

The first time I heard this (an older version.) was when a guy I was dating played it for me, since I had told him I was a liberal.  My response was "Liberals need love, too."

An earlier version.  There are more on YouTube.

OMG! TMI! Is a cola war next?

The past six months have been eventful to say the least.  Some of the events have been good, even joyous:  the Supreme Court’s Decision on marriage equality, Caitlyn Jenner’s gender transition being met with surprising acceptance.  (The main negative comments seem to be about Ms. Jenner’s association with the Kardashians and that fact that she is a Republican.)  Here in Philadelphia, people are buying Pope t-shirts and looking forward to the His Holiness’s visit, hoping to see him chowing down on a cheesesteak and getting a blue tongue from his first water ice.  And how about a Eucharist with soft pretzels?

Episcopalian church geeks followed the General Convention in Salt Lake City with live coverage of the services and the business sessions.  There is a new Presiding Bishop (the Big Boss of the denomination), Bishop Michael Curry, the first African American to hold the office.  Bishop Curry won in a landslide on the first ballot.  It doesn’t look like it’s going to be our grandmother’s Episcopal Church.

Of course, there are the usual Dylann Downers (Debby Downer’s gender neutral, trendy cousin) who whine that there are still problems and the Casey Crazies who wail that change is not only inconvenient but evil, and at the very least a lot of people will be going to Hell.

While Dylann and Casey are upsetting, they are nothing compared to the series of scandals that seem to turn up just when we think we’ve seen enough sad, you-can't-make-this-stuff-up weirdness to last at least until the end of the year.  The Bishop and the Bicyclist in Baltimore, Josh Dugger, the president of the NAACP coming out that she is white, white police officers shooting unarmed black citizens, white cops being shot in retaliation, church burnings, a Neo-Nazi shooting members of a Bible study group, fights over the flying of the Confederate flag, and finally the revelation of tapes in which Bill Cosby admits to giving women Quaaludes in order to have sex with them.

But this is post is not about these events.  I’m too tired.  Every happening opens up new questions.  We puzzle how those who disagree with us can hold their opinions, try to determine how much guilt we should assume, and indulge in the frustration of attempting to figure out why these things happen.  Then we want to run off to some cave or at least hide under the bed.

If you’re expecting thoughts on how a Christian should handle such things, I’m too tired to do anything but point them out.  And maybe all the thoughts and advice coming from the media and each other are a big part of what is wearing us out.  So you don’t need mine.

But I will do what I can.  Please enjoy these dogs and cats.

You’re welcome.

WARNING: This is an opinion I am almost afraid to express!

 

In Newport, Rhode Island, an Episcopal Church is the scene of the latest Jesus miracle, hoax, or mistake.  At St. John the Evangelist Church, a red stain keeps appearing on the wall under a picture of Jesus on the Cross, giving the appearance of blood coming from Jesus’s wounds.  It’s been removed and painted over numerous times, but it keeps coming back.  People are flocking to see it, and the church’s rector, the Reverend Nathan Humphrey, while not actively promoting this, is not discouraging it and even said in an interview that it is an opportunity to start someone on the road to finding Jesus and a chance for the church to obtain more members.  While admitting that this is “certainly not what they lead you to expect in seminary,” he calls it a “sign of the holy presence.”

Of course there have been reactions:   The stain may be caused by a leaking rusty pipe or maybe it is a prank (not as good as crop circles, but pranksters have to work with what is available).  Father Humphrey is not only theologically incorrect (which for a priest is even worse than being politically incorrect), but is exploiting the people who are coming to see it.  The Bishop of his diocese should stop being a wimp and straighten him and everyone else out.  That this could happen is a sign of what is wrong with the Church.  And from the Episcopalians: Where is the reason that is part of Episcopal doctrine?

Why is it reasonable to believe that God is always with us and knows every hair on our heads and not reasonable to believe that there might be a possibility that this is, if not a miracle, a sign?

My feelings about it are mixed.  It probably is a water stain, but wouldn’t it be neat if it weren’t?  God is too much for most people contemplate, but little miracles aren’t.  I know, I know.  Life is a miracle, Niagara Falls is a miracle.  Butterflies are miracles.  I am a miracle.  And so on.  Yes, but as grateful as we are for all these things, how could a little blood dripping from a picture hurt anything?  (I have to admit that it has caused some people to call those who come to see it “stupid” and probably worse.  Nice talk for Christians.)

People do not want The Church or Christianity to smack of superstition.  (Hasn’t that boat sailed?)  But why can’t we enjoy the fact that we still have enough open-mindedness and a remnant of wonder to think a sign or a miracle is possible?   Isn’t belief or the willingness to believe that something comes from God at least a step to believing more?  Faith is fragile.  Anything that can strengthen it is welcome. 

I’m not saying that this is a miracle or sign.  To me, that isn’t important.  What is important is that people have the desire to believe and the belief that they can.

 

 

 

A Modest Proposal - A Truly Tasteless Post

First of all, let me say that what Josh Duggar did was terrible – worse than terrible.  He severely damaged his victims' lives.  We can only hope and pray that they will be able to recover.

That being said, I must admit that I have a slightly (maybe more than slightly) warped attitude towards  . . . well . . . things.  One of my favorite television programs is South Park.  I used to own three volumes of Truly Tasteless Jokes.  So after the past months of you-can’t-make-this-up stuff, I couldn’t help myself.  And, since a little rationalizing always helps when you can’t help yourself, one of the purposes of this blog is to show readers that they aren’t the only people in the world who have held “the opinions [they are] afraid to express”.

The Media, social and otherwise, has been bristling with everyone’s opinions.  Some are about Josh himself, but what stood out for me was that what people were really interested in was the hypocrisy rampant in the situation.  Josh, of course, is a hypocrite for presenting himself as a fine young Christian man, who just said no until he got married.   His parents are hypocrites for hiding their son’s crimes in the first place, then presenting themselves as examples of Christian parenting and giving opinions on what they see as everyone else’s sins. (Michelle Duggar has been speaking out against a bill protecting the rights of LGBT people, saying its passage would lead to coed restrooms which would lead to predators lying in wait for innocent women and girls.)  Their church leaders who helped them cover up are also hypocrites for reasons too numerous and obvious to mention.

Then there are those who call these critics even bigger hypocrites, saying they are presenting themselves as loving, forgiving people who even called former bishop Heather Cook a beloved child of God after she killed a man when she was texting while driving drunk, but are not doing the same for Josh because he does not agree with their liberal views.

This gave the liberals a chance to express shock that they are being made victims.

Maybe we could settle this by bringing it to the experts.      

How about a reality show called The Biggest Sinner?

Start with a panel of experts, maybe a couple of bishops (Episcopal and Roman Catholic), a leader of the religious right, a prominent Jewish leader (Jon Stewart?), Mormon Mitt Romney, and for the atheists, Bill Maher.  Maybe we could include Phyllis Schafley and Gloria Steinem. 

For a moderator, I can’t decide between Regis Philbin and Nancy Grace.

In Round 1, the names of two sinners are given to the panel,  for instance, Jim Bob and Michelle Duggar. The experts decide who is the bigger sinner and give their reasons.  “It was a tough choice, Reeg, but I’m gonna have to go with Jim Bob rather than Michelle.  After all he’s the man and is the head of the house.”  Whoever gets the most votes goes on to Round 2 against another sinner involved in the scandal, and so on until we get to the Biggest Sinner of the Week.

The next week, the principal players in another scandal are voted on.  This could go on for several weeks until the Final Challenge of all the winning sinners.  By now, excitement has mounted and the audience, both in the studio and watching on television, also casts votes.  The finalist sinners have been brought in for the Challenge (If they’re in jail, they are on satellite.) and the winner gets to confess on national television and receive absolution from the panelist of his or her choice.

I think Don Draper and the gang at Cooper Sterling would love it.

Jesus loves the Kardashians. And you can, too!

For those who have been waiting to hear Woodstock Churchlady’s thoughts on Bruce Jenner’s interview with Diane Sawyer on his transition from male to female, here they are:

Bruce (right now he prefers to use that name and masculine pronouns) was honest, open, and even humorous.  He has been dealing with this since was a child, and it hasn’t been a Wheaties commercial to say the least.  He hopes that by being open about his situation, he will be able to help other transgender people.  He is optimistic that he will be OK.  He is also a Republican.

That’s really all that needs to be said.  Nothing is open for debate and nothing is anyone else’s business, except maybe the Republican part.  No one has the right to judge another person’s behavior, much less condemn it or clue us all in on God’s opinion.

Of course, much more is being said.  This is confusing stuff.  It may even be threatening.  If gender isn’t secure, what is? But what this all comes down to for those of us who are not directly involved and who don’t even know a transgender person as far as we know is that it’s all about us.  If we want to do something, we can try to learn from our observations and, it is hoped, be the better for it.

Most of the reactions I’ve read have been positive, applauding Bruce’s courage and wishing him well.  People will be praying for him and his family and maybe all transgender people and those who love them.  However, there is also the theme, “I was leery about watching because I really didn’t want to subject myself to anything having to do with the Kardashians.”  People don’t like the Kardashians.  They see them as publicity hungry parasites who have perfected the arts of being famous for being famous and flaunting their excessive lifestyle into a million (Or is it billion?) dollar empire.

I’ve written about the Kardashians in two posts already (“A Look at Popular Culture”, October 11, 2014 and “Reality Check:  The Redeeming Social Value of Keeping Up with the Kardashians and the Real Danger the Real Housewives”, January 11, 2014).  If it hadn’t been for the latest development, I would think I’d said enough.  But even as I try to get away, they keep pulling me back.  An enormous fairy tale wedding and a marriage that lasts 72 days?  Well, these things happen.  Then another marriage.  Well, no one wants to be alone for the rest of her or his life.  And another enormous fairy tale wedding!  I know it’s none of my business, but . . .  Anyway, I love weddings, and it was fun to watch.  And some of us who feel we know better than to go chasing after happiness in the form of stuff still enjoy looking at other people’s and being proud that we are not envious.

Thinking about the Kardashian lifestyle, I was reminded of The Great Gatsby, with its gigantic mansions, weekly parties with full orchestras, and stables of polo ponies.  And, of course, the emptiness of it all.  But there is a difference. Unlike Gatsby, who was a bootlegger, the Kardashians have earned their fortunes honestly.  And, in spite of the excess, The Great Gatsby is about the search for love.  So are the Kardashian sagas.  And, in spite of everything, the Kardashians value family.  They fight, but they make up.  They make sex tapes that go viral on the internet and get DUI’s, but the prodigals are not thrown out. 

The Kardashians do not need me to defend them.  And I am not going Churchlady on people who don’t like the show or saying that hating someone’s lifestyle or television show means that you hate them.  But if we are thinking about Bruce’s journey, we can also think about the journey his family is taking and how, since it comes down to being all about us, we can learn from it.  Maybe even become better people.

(By the way, in case you’re wondering why you would want to love the Kardashians, maybe if you do, you won’t find them so annoying.)

Oh, Honey!

 

We’ve all dealt with naysayers and parade rainer oners, those people who say you shouldn’t major in English, look for new job, fall in love, or even get a new television.  One of the best ways to bring them out is to become a Christian, or, if you come from a nominally religious family, to “really get into it.”  Your best friend becomes an expert on church history.  What about the Spanish Inquisition?  Indulgences? Henry VIII? Bloody Mary?  Jim and Tammy Faye Bakker?  Another tells you horror stories about Catholic school – never mind that you aren’t Catholic.  Still others will be refreshingly honest.  How can you believe that crap?   

While these people are annoying, you can deal with them.  You can tell yourself that they have issues and don’t have manners, and just because they are being judgmental, you don’t need to be.  You can save your religious side for your religious friends.  You can say, “Well, we’ll just have to agree to disagree” and change the subject.  That works sometimes.  Or you can suggest going out for pizza.  Maybe they won’t talk with their mouths full.

 

What is harder to deal with are the “Oh, honeys.”  The Oh honeys are genuinely concerned and don’t come right out and criticize:  “You’re going to marry that whack job?” or “Churches just want your money.”  Instead they look worried and say, “Are you sure you want to do that?”  Or “Well, if you’re happy, I’m happy.” Or “Call me if you ever need to talk.”  You really don’t want to be rude and you know you really should appreciate their concern.  But you can hear the “Oh, honey” in their voices.  “Oh, honey, you’re making a big mistake.” 

I never thought I would become an Oh, honey.  But I have.  When I hear young people talk about the power of prayer or how we are all children of God, I want to say, “Oh, honey, it doesn’t always work out.  Sometimes the answer to a prayer is ‘Not now’ or even ‘No.’   Sometimes disgusting, evil laws are passed no matter how hard we work against them.  Sometimes no matter how much compassion and love we give someone, he or she may keep doing the same self-destructive things and if we’re not careful, take us down with them.”   And one time I did.  The young woman I said this to (Fortunately, I did not say “Oh, honey.”) is much more spiritual and knowledgeable than I am and I am old enough to be her grandmother.  She replied that she knew that; she is young, not dumb, but she still chooses to hope because she would prefer a broken heart to a hard one

She’s right of course.  We must continue to hope, about our dreams, about the world.  Even about retaining our faith.  What can we do to keep hope? We can surround ourselves with people who feel the same way we do.  (We can do this without putting those who don’t out of our lives.  Anyway, they wouldn’t go quietly if we were to try.)  We can get closer to God through reading the Bible and talking about it.  We can remember when the answer to our prayers has been “Yes.”  Or when the answer has been “No” and six months later we are relieved and even happy about that.  We can think of all the progress that has been made on issues, even though it is not nearly enough.  And we can pray – for the naysayers, for the Oh honeys and for ourselves. And that may give them hope.  I may be old, but I hope I’m not dumb.